From Imagine: 100 Ban Fracking Now! Protesters Inside the Inauguration of Governor Gas Wolf: Or Why Food and Water Watch, Pennsylvanians Against Fracking, The Delaware River Keepers, and Clean Water Action speak for no one but those who benefit from a system of government, law enforcement, surveillance, and monied donors--and why they do not speak for YOU: Imagine what could have been accomplished had 100 people been inside that venue demanding a ban at the top of their lungs. Imagine that news story. Why dont we make national news headlines? Because not enough of us do anything to make national news headlines. This is not to say that everyone should have been inside. There are good reasons for avoiding that risk--for some folks. I get that. But then there are lame-ass excuses. And for pretty much anyone who wants to be in front of a microphone decrying the evils of fracking, avoiding that risk is nothing but excuse. Truth is, these would-be leaders simply cannot bring themselves to forfeit the benefits of playing a game that derives its own legitimacy from party politics, the legal system, the economic system. Moreover, theyre positively advantaged by the fractivist game getting to appear like the rational folks compared to the radicals. This advances their status, allows them to take credit for the pretense of a movement as if sign-ons were members, as if halt meant ban, and as if anything short of a siege of every site relevant to the ongoing destruction of this industry will really make a difference to a governor whose spending agenda depends on gas revenues. I am sick to death of this charade. This is wrong, and it must be called out as wrong. Its misleading when folks living in the shale fields dont have this kind of time. It exhausts vital energy we manifestly cannot afford to waste. Its dishonest--especially to those folks who made the trip to Harrisburg to stand in the cold, hold signs, and make a din just behind the inaugural speeches. Its wrong because while we among the radicals are doing the real work of what could be a movement but isnt, these fractivist leaders effectively reinforce a system that advantages the gas-government-law enforcement-private security firm network that criminalizes the radicals. How do they do that? Through the careful crafting of actions that insulate themselves at press conferences and protests, through the use of all the impotent avenues of petitions, comment periods, and speeches at hearings--and through draping themselves in well-meaning folks who are suckered into believing that the system will work. The new governor then gets to maintain the illusion that hes dealing with real grassroots environmental organizations, and is thereby legitimated in not only ignoring the radicals, but consigning us to justifiable arrests for disruption. By orchestrated contrast, in other words, PAF and company make sure the authorities know theyre not us. And the gas industry laughs at how fractured the movement is, and carries on. All of this was driven home for me by a Op-Ed written for Governor Wolfs inauguration by FWWs Senior Political Organizer, Sam Bernhardt deceptively titled Governor Wolf, ban fracking. Bernhardt decisively ends any speculation about whether FWW stands for a ban in the very first sentence: If Gov-elect Tom Wolf is serious about giving our state a fresh start, he needs to make a moratorium on fracking a top priority for his new administration. A moratorium is not a ban. Its not another name for a ban. Its not like a ban. Its not on its way to a ban. First, a moratorium exists for the sake of studying the effects of something--and then deciding whether to continue it. New York had a moratorium. They surveyed all the extant health studies. They determined that these were sufficient to make their moratorium permanent. Unless Pennsylvanians are a different species of animal from New Yorkers, the health studies that applied to them apply to us. A moratorium is thus redundant. Second, the only reason, therefore, to cling to moratorium language is because somehow the word ban is just too hot. If Bernhardt meant ban, hed have said ban. Moratorium is a weasel word the intention of which is to soften the message for a recalcitrant governor and thereby retain political access. Notably, none of the speakers I heard at the press conference prior to the inauguration--Karen Feridun (PAF), Maya van Rossum (DRK), and Sam Bernhardt (FWW)--used the word ban. It was as if they all had exchanged reassurances before the event that they were going to use the word halt or moratorium--and they stuck to their script. Bernhardt actually weasels even more a few lines later when he claims that Wolf is stepping into a landscape where he would be hard-pressed to justify not placing a moratorium on new fracking (my emphasis). So--FWWs position is apparently not to do anything about the fracking already going on--its infrastructure--the pipelines, the compressors, etc. All the moratorium aims at are new permits--leaving the industry in tact--and in your yard. Combine this with--as Bernhardt mentions in passing--Wolfs 5% extraction tax, and what you get is an industry more determined than ever to make those wells produce--at the cost of your health. Fourth, Bernhardt insists that [o]ne of the biggest challenges [Wolf] faces is maintaining the support of an emboldened Progressive movement in Pennsylvania, and that nothing short of a moratorium will keep that base together for four years. We have no reason to believe that. After all, even those strongly opposed to fracking voted for Governor Gas Wolf--and even after they knew hed taken money from the gas industry. Many issues may keep or break the Progressive movement, but the fact is that folks voted for Wolf because he wasnt the other Tom, and being a progressive had little to do with it. The crazy thing is that Bernhardt acknowledges precisely this point earlier in the Op-Ed: being the guy whose last name was not Corbett turned out to be a big help [to Wolfs election]. So--which is it Mr. Bernhardt? That Progressives actually care about getting a moratorium--or that Wolf can look forward to being re-elected so long as hes not more disastrous than Corbett? Given the modest protest turnout at this inaugural event, we have no reason to think fracking really matters to progressives. Fifth, turning to propaganda, Bernhardt claims that the statewide anti-fracking movement is growing, and that last year, dozens of Pennsylvania environmental, health, faith, and community groups came together to form Pennsylvanians Against Fracking. So, where were they Mr. Bernhardt? Signing a Wanna be a member? sign-on page is not coming together any more than moratorium means ban. If coming together means nothing more than more protests with all the same people, more petitions, more OP-Eds like Mr. Bernhardts, then what we can expect is that well see more fracking--as soon as the price of gas goes back up. Lastly, Bernhardt claims--rightly--that the real game changer was Cuomos decision to ban fracking in New York. Bernhardt asks: Are New Yorkers health and safety more valuable than our own? If you didnt effectively think so, Mr. Bernhardt, youd have been inside Wolfs inaugural festivities calling out at the top of your lungs for a ban. Fact is, Governor Gas Wolf has about a zero chance of getting anything even connected to fracking passed through a solid Republican State House. So while were dithering about asking for moratoriums, the state will continue to be raped, our kids futures despoiled by Republicans who drink LNG for breakfast. We have, in other words, nothing to lose by going whole-hog, damn the torpedoes, all out, hell bent for leather for a ban. So why arent we? Is the menu at the governors luncheon for environmentalists really that good? thewrenchphilosleft.blogspot/2015/01/imagine-100-ban-fracking-now-protesters.html
Posted on: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:10:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015