fracking
Op-ed: “I’m sorry, I can’t hear you” — disabling environments in Cancer Alley and the Ohio River Valley
For communities plagued by energy extraction and petrochemical buildout, struggles of environmental justice often fall on deaf ears.
The low hum of a tour bus engine underpins the constant buzzing of insects. Air conditioning on full blast circulates the bus interior, shielding us from the muggy Louisiana summer.
Sharon Lavigne stands at its center, microphone in hand. She crouches slightly, one hand gripping the headrest of a black leather seat, and peeks out the tinted windows. White petroleum storage tanks stand in stark contrast to the green grass and red bricked homes. A man mows his lawn, his toddler rolling down the sidewalk in a Cozy Coupe.
To read a version of this story in Spanish click here. Haz clic aquí para leer este reportaje en español.
Ms. Lavigne shares tidbits of the health-related ailments of the residents of St. James Parish, a fragmented conglomerate of homes, elongated fields and petrochemical infrastructure. She points to a house, “he died of a rare cancer last year.” She points to another, “her daughter decided to leave after she became gravely ill.”
Whispers fill the cabin, muffled by disposable masks. I struggle not only to hear, but to truly comprehend the myriad ways in which the predominantly African-American community has been disabled, robbed of its full potential by the petrochemical industry.
Hearing, seeing and being in the world has always been different for me. At a young age, it was found that I had Single Sided Deafness (SSD) – or unilateral hearing loss – meaning that I could not hear out of my right ear at all. Living with SSD has brought me a heightened spatial awareness, allowing for a more introspective understanding into the complexities of the environment. My experience has led me to believe that analyzing environmental injustices through a disability lens can help us to better understand communities – how humans and the environment are inextricably linked and how my own feelings of isolation in contexts that ignore my disability mirror how the struggles of environmental justice often fall on deaf ears. Understanding disabilities forces us to look at who is excluded, what barriers perpetuate that exclusion and what assumptions are made about the interactions between people and the places they live in. I believe the same questions can be asked to better capture the lives of environmental justice communities burdened by the oil and gas industry.
While geographically distant, Cancer Alley, where St. James Parish is located, and the Ohio River Valley, where I’ve spent most of my time as a geographer, share common challenges. Both have been utilized as sacrifice zones for energy extraction, and, in many ways, have been disabled. They have also been socially barred by the broader U.S., cast off as rural, backwards and seemingly unoccupied spaces that are not worth “saving.” This reality reminds me of the many ways in which meeting the needs of people with disabilities is considered a "burden" that is not worth attending to as a society.
And yet, both people with disabilities and these two regions have continued to exist, to persevere and to fight back against injustice. Like my hearing disability, just because someone – or an entire community or region – is disabled (or assumed to be), does not mean that they are not able.
A disabling context
Growing up with a physical disability was no small feat. I had trouble locating sounds, constantly felt a dull, ringing sensation and was unable to wear traditional hearing aids. I received ridicule from classmates, poking fun at my inability to hear adequately on my right-side. At times I felt defeated, unable to cope with the mentally debilitating prospect of being labeled “different.” And yet, over time and into adulthood, I have grown to accept and understand my hearing disability, as it has shaped me into the person that I am today.
Living with Single Sided Deafness, I occupy an in-between space. In some contexts, I am considered disabled, while in others I might appear able to the naked eye. This perception of disability – both my own and others’ – shifts over time and in different contexts. The environments we occupy can also be an in-between space where factors outside of our immediate control can shift the way we act and exist in the world. I often think about communities in Cancer Alley as also occupying an in-between space, as they’ve been cast away as a “sacrifice zone” but at the same time they’re creating real progress. People like Ms. Lavigne embody the community’s struggle between the harm inflicted and the progress being made toward justice. In March, her organization Rise St. James, among other environmental advocacy groups, filed an application to ask the Louisiana Supreme Court to grant review and overturn the issuance of Formosa Plastics’ air permits. Further, Rise St. James has urgently called on President Biden to stop Formosa from building their a mega petrochemical facility in St. James Parish, which has gained traction toward the White House.
Living with Single Sided Deafness, I occupy an in-between space.
On that bus ride, I positioned myself close to Ms. Lavigne to fully understand her words. Ms. Lavigne is the leader of Rise St. James, a faith-based community organization that works to stop the proliferation of petrochemical industries in St. James Parish, Louisiana. Adorned in her Rise St. James tee, Ms. Lavigne spoke at-length of the Parish’s history. Starting in the 1980s, fossil fuel, oil-refining and plastic-production operations have proliferated along an 85-mile stretch on the Mississippi River between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, running directly through the Parish. Such facilities emit high levels of harmful air pollutants and other environmental toxics, which have caused a high incidence of rare cancers, respiratory diseases, asthma and other severe health conditions. Today, the area is known as Cancer Alley.
Shell Norco Manufacturing Complex outside of New Orleans, Louisiana.
Credit: Brandon Rothrock
A man mowing the lawn outside his house in St. James Parish, Louisiana.
Credit: Brandon Rothrock
Despite the obvious injustices these communities already face, Louisiana state officials continue to downplay environmental and health concerns raised by Rise St. James. The most recent example is their support for a proposed $9.4 billion petrochemical complex called the Sunshine Project, heralded by Formosa Petrochemical Corporation. The proposed complex would include 14 facilities that will process ethane from fracked natural gas to produce various chemicals used in everyday materials such as single-use plastics and antifreeze. In the “name of progress,” the majority African American community is forced to exist in a disabling environment: a context that makes them incapable of breathing clean air and living long and healthy lives. This situation in Louisiana reflects a broader national issue.
Despite the obvious injustices these communities already face, Louisiana state officials continue to downplay environmental and health concerns raised by Rise St. James.
Fracked natural gas – the kind of gas the Sunshine Project would process– is in itself another example of how this industry disables communities, and there’s no better example than the Ohio River Valley. For centuries, communities in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia, first through coal and now through natural gas, have been dominated by fossil fuels production. In the last two decades, the region, which sits on top of the largest shale gas formation in the U.S., has become the epicenter of the country’s fracking industry. Injecting chemicals deep underground to fracture shale deposits and release the gas stored within them releases climate warming gasses like methane, and airborne toxics like particulate matter, which are linked to respiratory problems and other health conditions like skin issues and cancer. It also pollutes underground water supplies with cancer-causing chemicals like PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals.”
Fracking continuously fractures communities. The physical landscape is altered forever while people grapple with a shattered sense of community, damaged property and high rates of depression. Here again, we see communities being robbed of their ability and barred from their agency. Such extractive acts can be considered disabling, in the sense that once communities lose their ability to exist and make decisions freely, the industry will be able to extract further. In a similar vein to Rise St. James, Appalachian-based groups such as the Ohio River Valley Institute work directly with community partners to fight back against injustice.Fighting back against injustice
I often find myself struggling in large lecture halls where the acoustics are poor, and the professor’s voice is drowned out. I also miss critical pieces of the lectures due to a lack of closed captions or visual aids, such as lecture slide printouts. Similarly, friends who may be visually impaired frequently encounter poorly designed websites that can make accessing course materials impossible. All of this creates a hostile environment for people with disabilities to thrive – just like communities are faced with a harsh environment that disables them from reaching their full potential.
I fear this disabling context will only become more entrenched in both regions. As fracking continues to balloon across the Appalachian region, so do petrochemical facilities: at least 61 are in construction or in operation across the Ohio River Valley. The outlook for Cancer Alley communities is no better: in 2015, the Environmental Integrity Project documented 44 petrochemical construction and expansion projects proposed or permitted, with a majority cited for Louisiana. On top of this, the U.S. Department of Energy selected the Ohio River Valley and the Gulf Coast as two of the seven proposed Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs, which are a national network of “clean” hydrogen producers. Touted by politicians as an advancement toward energy independence, these regional hydrogen hubs will fill the landscape with pipelines, fueling stations and carbon storage facilities, locking-in the regions to further plastic production and energy infrastructure buildout for decades to come.
I worry that this build out will further entrench disadvantaged communities in a cycle of destruction. Rhetoric such as “sacrifice zone,” “backwards” and other related terms used to describe Appalachia and Cancer Alley are deeply entrenched in the national psyche, further perpetuating assumptions about the people who live there. But having been there, I think reframing communities facing environmental injustices is needed.
My visit to St. James Parish revealed something profound: the beauty, uniqueness and resilience of these communities. On that bus ride with Sharon Lavigne, I saw children playing joyfully against the backdrop of towering industrial complexes. As we stopped and ate lunch at a community center, I saw community members laughing and chatting about their days, organizing for a better future. Ms. Lavigne’s words – and those of the community – resonated deeply as they spoke of their battle against injustice and the determination to fight for what is right. Her dedication and the community’s solidarity in the face of adversity illustrated remarkable strength.
Environmental justice communities deserve a future where their resilience is not tested by pollution but celebrated and supported by just and equitable practices. As future leaders and educators, it is our responsibility to better understand how extractive practices can disable and to work towards fostering environments that enable and uplift.
This essay was produced through the Agents of Change in Environmental Justice fellowship, a partnership between Environmental Health News and Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. Agents of Change empowers emerging leaders from historically excluded backgrounds in science and academia to reimagine solutions for a just and healthy planet.
Harris revises stance on fracking, raising energy policy concerns
Vice President Kamala Harris has softened her position on banning fracking, but oil, gas, and environmental advocates remain uncertain about her broader energy policies.
In short:
- Harris reversed her previous support for a fracking ban, citing economic growth through clean energy.
- Oil and gas industry leaders welcome the shift but seek more clarity on her overall energy vision.
- Environmental groups express disappointment, emphasizing the need for stronger climate leadership.
Key quote:
“There are so many other critical energy policies where the vice president’s perspective remains an open question.”
— Dustin Meyer, head of policy at the American Petroleum Institute
Why this matters:
KamalaHarris’ revised stance reflects a balancing act between economic and environmental concerns. As the election nears, her position could influence key swing states where fracking is economically significant.
Related EHN coverage:
“Lo siento, no puedo escucharte”: los entornos incapacitantes del Corredor del Cáncer y el valle del río Ohio
Las reivindicaciones de justicia medioambiental de las comunidades asoladas por la extracción de petróleo y la industria petroquímica suelen caer en oídos sordos.
El suave murmullo del motor de un autobús turístico acompaña el constante zumbido de los insectos.
El aire acondicionado, encendido en su máxima potencia, circula al interior del vehículo, protegiéndonos del verano fangoso de Luisiana. Sharon Lavigne está parada en el centro, micrófono en mano. Se agacha un poco y se agarra del reposacabezas de un asiento de cuero negro, mientras se asoma por las ventanas tintadas. Los tanques blancos de almacenamiento de petróleo contrastan con el césped verde y las casas de ladrillos rojos. Un hombre poda su jardín, su bebé rueda por la acera en uno de esos carritos para niños llamados Cozy Coupe.
Haz clic aquí para leer este reportaje en inglés. To read and watch a version of this story in English click here.
Doña Lavigne comparte fragmentos de las dolencias que padecen los habitantes de la parroquia de St. James, un cúmulo fragmentado de hogares, campos alargados e infraestructura petroquímica. Señala a una casa, “él murió por culpa de un cáncer rarísimo el año pasado”; señala otra, “su hija decidió irse después de enfermar gravemente”.
Los susurros llenan la cabina del bus, amortiguados por máscaras desechables. No sólo me cuesta oír, sino comprender las innumerables formas en que esta comunidad predominantemente afroamericana ha quedado discapacitada, despojada de todo su potencial por la industria petroquímica.
Oír, ver y estar en el mundo siempre ha sido algo diferente para mí. Muy pequeño, los médicos me diagnosticaron con hipoacusia unilateral (SSD por su sigla en inglés), o pérdida auditiva unilateral, lo que significa que no puedo escuchar nada con mi oído derecho. Vivir con una discapacidad auditiva me ha dotado de una mayor conciencia espacial, lo que me permite una comprensión más introspectiva de las complejidades del entorno.
Creo que analizar las injusticias medioambientales a través del lente de la discapacidad puede ayudarnos a comprender mejor a las comunidades que las sufren– a entender cómo los seres humanos somos inseparables de nuestro entorno, y cómo la sensación de aislamiento en contextos que ignoran mi discapacidad reflejan la forma en la que los reclamos de estas comunidades caen en oídos sordos. Entender las discapacidades nos fuerzan a volcar la mirada sobre quienes son excluidos, las barreras que perpetúan esa exclusión y las ideas preconcebidas que tenemos sobre las interacciones entre la gente y los lugares que habitan. Creo que las mismas preguntas pueden hacerse para entender mejor las vidas de las comunidades afectadas por la injusticia medioambiental creada por la industria del gas y el petróleo.
Si bien son distantes geográficamente, el Corredor del Cáncer, donde está ubicada la parroquia de St. James, y el valle del río Ohio, donde he pasado la mayor parte de mi carrera como geógrafo, comparten retos. Ambos han sido vistos como “zonas de sacrificio” para la extracción de petróleo, y, en muchos sentidos, han terminado incapacitados. También han sido marginados socialmente por el conjunto de Estados Unidos, tachados de espacios rurales, atrasados y aparentemente desocupados que no vale la pena “salvar”. Esta realidad me recuerda las formas en las que atender las necesidades de las personas con discapacidades es considerado una “carga” que no vale la pena atender como sociedad.
Y, aun así, tanto las personas con discapacidades como estas dos regiones siguen existiendo, perseverando y luchando en contra de la injusticia. Al igual que sucede con mi deficiencia auditiva, el hecho de que alguien – o toda una comunidad o región – tenga una discapacidad (o se suponga que la tiene) no significa que no tenga capacidades.
Harris faces skepticism from Pennsylvania voters over fracking stance
Kamala Harris’s history of opposing fracking is a sticking point for many Pennsylvania voters whose livelihoods depend on natural gas.
In short:
- Harris’s previous support for a fracking ban may alienate voters in Pennsylvania, a state where natural gas is economically vital.
- Despite the Biden-Harris administration’s record on energy production, swing voters remain skeptical of Harris’s commitment to the industry.
- The selection of Tim Walz as her running mate, a strong advocate for green energy, further complicates her appeal to these voters.
Key quote:
“There’s already uncertainty with just what does she believe, what she would do.”
— Jeff Nobers, excecutive director of the coalition of union and business leaders Pittsburgh Works Together.
Why this matters:
Winning Pennsylvania is crucial for Democrats, and Harris’s past anti-fracking stance could impact the 2024 election outcome. Balancing green energy goals with economic realities in fossil fuel-dependent states remains a significant challenge for future administrations.
Fracking emerges as pivotal issue in Pennsylvania Senate race
In Pennsylvania's Senate race, fracking has become a focal point as Republican Dave McCormick challenges Democratic incumbent Bob Casey.
In short:
- Dave McCormick is leveraging fracking as a key issue in his Senate campaign against Bob Casey, aiming to appeal to conservative voters while portraying Casey as anti-industry.
- Both McCormick and Casey have similar energy policies supporting natural gas, nuclear power, and clean energy, despite McCormick's focus on Casey's alleged opposition to fracking.
- The Senate race underscores broader electoral concerns about the environment and energy, especially in Pennsylvania, where fracking is a significant economic driver.
Key quote:
“McCormick has been pretty clear that he’s not particularly interested in taking the climate crisis very seriously.”
— Ilyas Khan, hub coordinator for Sunrise Pittsburgh
Why this matters:
Fracking is a contentious issue in Pennsylvania, a key swing state, impacting both the environment and the economy. This race could influence national energy policies and climate strategies amid rising concerns about fossil fuels.
Related EHN coverage:
Harris and Trump battle over fracking stance in Pennsylvania
Vice President Kamala Harris has distanced herself from her past anti-fracking stance, while Donald Trump continues to use it to sway voters in Pennsylvania, a key battleground state.
In short:
- Kamala Harris previously supported banning fracking, a stance she has since reversed, while Trump continues to highlight her former position to appeal to voters in Pennsylvania.
- Trump accused Harris of supporting the Green New Deal and warned she would destroy the oil and gas industry, despite her current support for Biden's energy policies.
- Fracking is a divisive topic in Pennsylvania, with the gas industry boosting local economies and inspiring backlash, especially in Philadelphia suburbs.
Key quote:
“It’s safe to say that we and a lot of other folks are eager to hear from the vice president.”
— Dustin Meyer, senior vice president at the American Petroleum Institute
Why this matters:
The energy policies in Pennsylvania could impact the 2024 election outcomes. With both candidates focusing on energy strategies, voters' opinions on fracking may influence the state's political landscape.
Appalachian groups express frustration over first $30 million in federal hydrogen hub funding
“This award represents a continued commitment to invest in a natural gas industry that has added to the pollution and health burdens in the region.”
PITTSBURGH — On July 31, the federal government announced $30 million of funding for the Appalachian Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub, or ARCH2, which plans to create hydrogen from natural gas and other sources.
ARCH2 is one of seven planned, federally funded hydrogen hubs across the country, and one of two (along with the Gulf Coast hub) that will rely primarily on fossil fuel sources rather than renewables to create hydrogen.
The $30 million award represents the first round of funding for ARCH2, with a total of $925 million available for this project over the next seven to twelve years. In total, the seven planned hydrogen hub projects are slated to receive $7 billion in federal funding.
The $30 million will be used to “solidify planning, development, and design activities around site selection, technology deployment, community benefits and engagement, labor partnerships, and workforce training,” according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
The announcement comes just weeks after Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro signed into law a controversial bill allowing carbon capture and storage in the state, which will be required for the development of the hydrogen hub.
The award announcement frustrated local environmental and community advocates, who say the DOE has not been transparent about the details of the project, its climate and economic benefits, or its potential to add pollution and cause health harms in environmental justice communities that are already overburdened with existing pollution sources.
“This award represents a continued commitment to invest in a natural gas industry that has added to the pollution and health burdens in the region while failing to deliver any measurable growth in jobs, income and population,” Sean O’Leary, senior researcher with the Ohio River Valley Institute, a progressive think tank, said in a statement.
Earlier this year, the Ohio River Valley Institute delivered a letter to the DOE on behalf of 54 Appalachian organizations and community groups calling for the suspension of ARCH2. The letter called on the DOE to release additional information about the projects and offer impacted communities more meaningful opportunities for engagement prior to awarding additional funds — neither of which has happened, according to the organizations that signed the letter.
“Affected communities know little about the proposed projects and their impacts,” the No False Solutions PA Coalition said in a separate statement about the award. “Nevertheless, millions of dollars are being awarded to projects that will surely impact our health and environment BEFORE affected communities have had a chance to weigh in.”
Critics of the ARCH2 project say that carbon capture and storage technology hasn’t yet proven effective as a climate solution and it remains unclear whether hydrogen energy will abate or worsen climate change.
“There’s been a lot of talk about how hydrogen will be a cleaner energy source, but that overlooks the entire picture which includes reliance on the natural gas industry, which we know pollutes and harms communities and drives climate change with methane leaks,” Talor Musil, a field manager with the Environmental Health Project, a public health nonprofit, told EHN.