Skip to content

Category: Environmental Policy

Antagonistic political partisanship must be overcome if critically important changes in public policy are to be achieved.

Published on Leave a comment on Financial Institutions Warned About Risks of the Fossil-Fuel Sector

As destructive record-breaking storms impose ever greater harm on Georgians and other Americans, it is imperative that the cause of these threats significantly worsening – massive use of fossil fuels – is decisively, quickly curbed. Rapidly growing acknowledgement of the escalating hazards of extreme weather and other costly environmental impacts attributable to burning and processing fossil-fuels is motivating well-informed financial advisors to restructure their guidance provided to clients. 

The Center for International Environmental Law [CIEL] just announced the findings of its thorough research, advising financial institutions to stop funding oil and gas industry projects due to the high and escalating risks – both financial and environmental – related to the petrochemical industry.

The effort is an outcome of CIEL’s collaboration with 70 other organizations, which released a policy guide outlining why financial institutions must take into account rapidly increasing social, environmental, climate, and health hazards caused by the extraction, processing, distribution, and use of fossil-fuel related products, including plastics. Also hazardous are air emissions released in burning these fuels, which are cancer-causing and heat-trapping, intensifying climate change damages to human health, property, and the environment.

 “In fact, a [recent] report ... reveals that Louisiana’s dependence on the petrochemical industry has taken it from a state of economic growth to one of long-term decline. This should serve as a stark warning for any economies banking on petrochemicals and plastics,” the CIEL notice states.

Highlights of their policy guide include:

 • Petrochemical production releases carcinogenic and other highly toxic substances into the air, exposing nearby communities to higher risks of cancer, leukemia, reproductive and developmental problems, nervous system impairment, and genetic impacts.

• Petrochemical production also pollutes waterways with contaminated wastewater. In fact, Formosa Plastics was fined $50M in 2019 for illegally discharging plastic pollution into Texas waterways and another $19.2M as of June 2024 for continuing violations.

 • Transporting petrochemicals is dangerous. The East Palestine, Ohio train derailment released toxic chemicals, polluted waterways, displaced residents, and exposed them to severe long-term health risks. Pipeline spills, fires, and leaks also put communities at risk.

• There are over 16,000 chemicals used or present in plastics, and 73 percent of chemicals with available information were considered hazardous to human and ecosystem health. Microplastics containing these chemicals now universally contaminate our air, water, food, soil, and bodies. Exiting Petrochemicals: A Policy Guide for Financial Institutions, Executive Summary Citations are available in the full Exiting Petrochemicals guide www.breakfreefromplastic.org/exiting-petrochemicals .

• The overuse of fossil fertilizers and pesticides exposes farmworkers and communities to toxic pollution and serious chronic diseases, causes algal blooms and dead zones in waterways, leeches into underground drinking water, and degrades and pollutes soil.

They warn that investing in and insuring these industries is both socially irresponsible and risky business.

 “Continuing to fund the expansion of the petrochemicals industry will not only lock in pollution and emissions but could result in hundreds of billions of stranded assets.” [Stranded assets are those projects that must be abandoned before generating enough revenue to cover their costs, which can result in catastrophic financial losses for investors.]

“This policy guide has special significance in Georgia, where the Public Service Commission has approved expanded use of fossil fuels to generate electricity, despite our national priority for reducing the emissions released in burning them,” said Alan Bailey, president of the board of the Center for a Sustainable Coast, a non-profit organization protecting Georga’s coast. He added that another reason for Georgians to take these warnings seriously is because climate scientists have attributed at least half of the state’s estimated $6.5 billion dollars in damages unleashed by Hurricane Helene to fossil-fuel-based climate disruption.

Other climate-change damages to property, crops, wildlife, and human health are cumulatively in the hundreds of billions, and rapidly getting worse.

Safeguards protecting the public against extreme weather would greatly improve if officials honored science instead of profits.
Published on Leave a comment on When Science is Ignored, the Public Suffers

Despite decades of well-founded, science-based warnings, Georgia’s policies have defiantly continued to worsen climate-change impacts.

In defending their reckless decisions, undoubtedly Georgia leaders will claim that Helene’s massive destruction was unrelated to rising temperatures caused by the release of carbon dioxide and methane, epitomized by Georgia Power’s profitable, Public-Service-Commission-sanctioned combustion of fossil-fuels.

Yet, scientific evaluation underscores the tragedy of Georgia’s negligence:

Michael Wehner, a senior scientist … said he and his colleagues conducted a “climate change attribution” analysis of [Helene’s] rainfall, seeking to determine how global warming contributed to the event. Their findings show that rainfall totals observed in parts of Georgia and the Carolinas were … about 20 times more likely because of human-caused global warming. The authors estimate climate change “may have caused as much as 50% more rainfall….” [Drew Kann in Atlanta-Journal-Constitution.]

These findings are especially relevant because a study committee of Georgia’s General Assembly is gathering information needed to prepare legislation addressing disaster mitigation and resilience. As stated in a resolution creating the committee, “[Georgia] will benefit from a coordinated and collaborative effort to develop comprehensive … solutions to protect this state and its citizens, businesses, and natural resources [from the impacts of extreme weather] by accounting for current risks as well as projected future conditions.”

Unquestionably, this legislative study is timely and important. However, it would be foolhardy to limit its focus to devising methods for protecting Georgians from the very events that state energy policies are making more disastrous. 

Safeguards protecting the public against extreme weather would greatly improve if officials honored science instead of profits.

Published on Leave a comment on Major Projects Must be Responsibly Controlled: Industrialization is degrading our quality of life, damaging vital ecosystems & bilking taxpayers.

[Pubilshed in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, July 5, 2024]

Coastal Georgia is undergoing rapid, unprecedented urbanization, closely tied to the state’s industrial growth and international trade. Just west of Savannah in Bryan County, these trends are being dramatically demonstrated by an enormous Hyundai EV plant, among the world’s largest such facilities, under construction on a ‘mega-site of nearly 3,000 acres near the rural town of Ellabell. A related battery-making facility is also part of the $7.6 billion deal, announced in 2022.

Although those involved in the negotiations to secure the Hyundai project claim they have met ‘due diligence’ requirements, many critical questions remain unanswered, and residents are raising well-founded objections. Similar clashes surround the proliferation of big-box warehousing along the I-16 corridor that is directly linked to the colossal volume of international trade flowing through the Port of Savannah. Georgia Ports Authority documents an increase of nearly 15% over the past year, which gives Savannah its highest ranking ever among U.S. container ports, now comprising 11.2% of the nation’s total.

The Ports Authority describes the Savannah facility as “the fastest-growing container terminal in the nation.” And, unsurprisingly, the Savannah Economic Development Authority portrays their domain as “one of the hottest industrial real-estate markets in the country.” In keeping with these ambitions, the Port of Brunswick registered a whopping increase of 44% in April’s cargo, some 80,600 units of vehicles and heavy equipment, setting a new record.

This frenzy of development activity is celebrated by many, but Georgia’s proudly-promoted yet scantly examined ranking as the nation’s “most business-friendly state” is causing unprecedented, turbulent transformation of Georgia’s coast. It has become a transformation that many residents regret and feel woefully unable to prevent making their lives worse. The region’s conversion for industrial exploitation also blatantly conflicts with long-established coastal tourism interests, based on the allure of natural and historic resources that sustain a rejuvenating escape from urban stresses that are now mounting on the coast.

According to Latrice Williams writing in Savannah Morning News, through a combination of expenditures in acquiring, reviewing and preparing the site, highway expansions and infrastructure, and workforce education, as well as tax breaks, the ‘incentive package’ supporting the Hyundai operation, paid for by public agencies, is reported to be some $1.8 billion. That means that Georgia taxpayers – including many adversely affected – are subsidizing the project without participating in pivotal decisions that result in these projects being implemented, often without adequate planning, assessment, or regulatory enforcement.

A brief 15-day regional review of the Hyundai project was conducted by the Coastal Regional Commission – in compliance with proforma procedures of the Georgia Planning Act – but comments were advisory, lacking mandatory requirements, and the review evidently occurred after the lengthy incentive negotiations had been well underway and were already deeply vested. While local-government master plans are required by the same state legislation, they may be marginalized or expediently amended to accommodate opportunistic projects that can appear appealing when not insightfully scrutinized.

Aside from often pro-development influences or entrenched unfounded assumptions, due in part to a lack of local expertise or the funds available to hire it, local officials may simply not fully understand the consequences of their decisions. This often results in ambitious projects generating:  (1) more costs than benefits, (2) unfair – and unexamined – tally and distribution of those C/Bs and/or (3) deeply conflicting views on the true worth of the alleged benefits. While many development projects are promoted on the basis of job creation, some view that as a thinly-veiled cover for profit-making agendas that are far more financially rewarding for developers than workers. Moreover, many such jobs are taken by new residents, whose arrival drives still more speculative development activities that further degrade quality of life.

These experiences strongly suggest the need for fundamentally revising procedures used in making such decisions. Economic development must be judiciously evaluated, and when impacts are deemed unacceptable through informed, deliberative, and broad participatory review, projects must be accountably restricted or rejected altogether. As thousands of acres of tree-covered land are cleared and paved-over, and intensified commerce generates thousands of trips on local roads and highways, rural residents express despair about the decline in their quality of life, while also voicing concerns about stormwater contamination, river and aquifer protection, public safety, and air quality.

It is clear that decisions made by various local development authorities, the Georgia Ports Authority, and Georgia’s Department of Economic Development, whose only measure of success seems to be rapid and profitable growth, give little credence to different values held by citizens living within the expansive impact areas of these massive mega-projects.

Aggressive state and local development practices must be tempered by deliberative, mandatory review of both environmental factors and quality-of-life issues through a transparent process of participatory decision-making that justly empowers all Georgians. Our citizens must not be forced to endure the offensive consequences of dubious ventures that are unilaterally rationalized as progress, largely driven by the objectives of politically influential absentee investors.

But to help improve these decisions, the public cannot afford to be complacent. Instead of assuming a passive role that is often rationalized by cynical assertions about the impossibility of defending local interests, Georgia citizens and voters must organize and speak out at every opportunity. In particular, unless coastal Georgians insist on actively participating in these decisions, the unique character of the region will be forfeited to profit-obsessed interests, becoming just another “sacrifice zone” exploited through predatory industrialization.

...continue reading "Major Projects Must be Responsibly Controlled: Industrialization is degrading our quality of life, damaging vital ecosystems & bilking taxpayers."

Published on

Understanding limitations and how to deal with them responsibly is at the heart of achieving an enlightened, judicious, and sustainable society that adapts well to ever-changing circumstances.

Those of us who promote sustainability in public policy are continually reminded of limits – regulatory funding, environmental health and capacity, political support for clean energy, etc.  But due to widely reported constraints for recovering from our brutal economic slump, it is only recently that the general public has recognized the need to confront the reality of limitations.

America’s history has been marked by pride in our optimism and self-sufficiency, often verging on reckless bravado, largely based on promoting boundless economic growth.  Rising expectations have been cultivated among the young, who were assured that better-paying jobs, improved technology, and the competitive entrepreneurial spirit of capitalism would generate evermore wealth and economic opportunities – despite the biological and physical limitations of “spaceship earth.”

These themes became the rhetorical dogma of political speeches for so long that many Americans came to believe our nation was invincible, able to defy all constraints that hamstrung progress in other countries.  Any U.S. candidate openly daring to question such beliefs was unelectable.  Legislation intended to correct problems caused by implicit vulnerabilities was often defeated, weakly implemented, or veiled in the guise of more acceptable purposes.

Now we face the ominous plausibility of irreversible national decline brought by prolonged wars and tax-cuts that we could not afford, global trade agreements and tax policies that placed corporate profits above the welfare of our citizens, and willful negligence of under-regulated financial institutions that viewed rampant speculation as a legitimate means of wealth creation.  As a result, the U.S. presently staggers under the burden of a reality we are forced to reckon with, made even worse by our belated recognition of it.

The central question in confronting this harsh reality is whether we as a people are capable of determining our true self-interest and taking timely, strategic steps to act upon it effectively. Recent political trends suggest a contrary shift to even more reckless delusion, creating disruptive barriers to consensus at a time when we can least afford them.  

As part of this delusion, blame is too often placed where it doesn’t belong. Immigration policy is attacked while unprecedented corporate profits are taxed at record-low rates (if at all), and bailed-out banks are flush with tax-payer enhanced capital, as small businesses and homeowners plummet into bankruptcy at rates not seen since the Great Depression.

Major industries that are among the largest profit-makers include irresponsible polluters and market manipulators, such as pharmaceuticals, chemicals, coal and oil, which are doggedly defended against justifiable regulation and elimination of government subsidies, while worthy competitors are dismissed as impractical and starved for funding.

Above all, government is often treated with contempt, especially in areas of activity where public programs are most vitally needed.  Evidently, many Americans would rather suffer inferior infrastructure, healthcare, and education programs than see government provide needed improvements.

A false and deeply misguiding pride in a perverse sense of “liberty” motivates many of our citizens to oppose the imperative to divert a small share of private wealth, gained at public expense of one kind or another, toward repairing our threadbare social fabric.

Evidence contradicting foolhardy devotion to American “self-reliance” is quite clear: Concentration of wealth among the very rich does not create equitable opportunities for all, just as surely as public expenditures are indispensable to economic stability and quality of life as the private sector fails to serve the common good.  Likewise, deregulation doesn’t improve society, because irresponsible business practices invariably result, imposing hardships on the public – whether through unhealthy air and water, fraudulent pension programs and mortgages, or substandard, sometimes dangerous, products and working conditions.

National recovery depends on achieving mature recognition of our mutual inter-dependence as fellow Americans.  We must overcome the dismissive rejection of government’s pivotal role in shaping our shared future – ironically, a dogmatic position often taken by those who have benefitted from public programs but deviously deny their advantages to others. 

Under conditions of greater limitations – whether environmental, social, or economic – the need for well-managed governmental programs in taxing, subsidizing, regulating, and providing social services is more vital than ever. 

Ongoing efforts to defeat a robust and accountable federal role in resolving our nation’s most profound challenges will only make the future more precarious.

David Kyler, Co-Founder & Director

Center for a Sustainable Coast, Saint Simons Island, Georgia

Published on

Forum Addressed Climate-Change, Clean Energy and Federal Support for Needed Improvements

Congressional candidate Wade Herring attended and commented. Representative Buddy Carter was invited but did not attend.

On October 13th the Center for a Sustainable Coast [CSC] hosted a public forum focusing on the climate crisis and new federal funding support for expanding the use of clean energy to help curb heat-trapping fossil-fuel emissions.  The event, featuring both live and virtual speakers, was held at the Savannah Cultural Arts Center.

Welcoming participants and providing background on the climate issue, CSC’s co-founder and director, David Kyler told the audience, “It is revealing that a recent survey by the Yale Climate Communications Center reported that although well over two-thirds of Americans believe climate change is either important or urgent, more than 60% of those who prioritize the issue say they seldom if ever talk about it. That is a major reason why we are here this evening—to ensure that the public talks about the climate crisis and, equally important, supports political actions required to make a rapid transition to the clean-energy economy.”

Headlining the forum program was Kate Cell, Senior Climate Campaign Manager at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Referencing a number of statistics and graphs, Cell provided an eye-opening view of alarming climate impacts predicted for the next 30 years, based on the latest scientific research.

According to Cell, “The impacts of climate change are already being felt across the Southeast and in particular in its coastal communities. But there is time to decarbonize our economy and avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Based on modeling done by the Union of Concerned Scientists, flooding and temperature increases will cause billions of dollars in damage along Georgia’s coast by mid-century.  Tens of thousands of homes will be uninhabitable due to frequent flooding, and unbearable heat will occur as much as six weeks a year—seven times more often than now—which could be cut by a third or more if quick actions are taken to curb heat-trapping emissions. Unless these emissions are reduced, by 2100 temperatures will be life-threatening for about three months a year in coastal Georgia.”

When Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act in August and President Biden signed it into law, some $370 billion in federal funds became available to speed the urgently needed conversion to clean power sources and energy-efficiency upgrades.

The Center’s Savannah event was scheduled in view of the mid-term election approaching, as this unprecedented injection of funding provides urgently needed opportunities for taking climate action. Timely efforts to reduce fossil fuel emissions will help restrict the destructive effects of flooding, drought, and extreme heat that threaten humanity here on the coast and elsewhere.

Also speaking was Brionte McCorkle, director of Georgia Conservation Voters, who is working to secure a more just and sustainable future by electing pro-environment candidates and holding elected officials accountable for their actions and voting record. McCorkle’s comments focused on the diverse array of federal supports offered under the Inflation Reduction Act. She elaborated on funding and tax-credits available for individuals, small business, and communities interested in improving energy efficiency, the production and storage of clean energy, and other upgrades and clean-energy technologies that will employ thousands of people in the years ahead. 

“For Georgians to secure the greatest benefits from the Inflation Reduction Act, state legislators and local elected officials will need to take notice and take action to revise policies that impede the used of these federal supports,” McCorkle emphasized. 

Continuing, she added, “The Inflation Reduction Act is the most significant legislation in U.S. history to tackle the climate crisis. Georgia communities and households that want to address climate change often lack the resources and support to do so. The IRA is a significant catalyst for action that will provide Georgians jobs, savings, and other benefits. The funding provided by this act will help lower energy costs for households and businesses all across Georgia and create manufacturing jobs for American workers. The old way of doing business in Georgia doesn't have to be the only way. The IRA is a catalyst for the clean, secure, and healthy future we all want for our children and grandchildren.”

Panelist Dr. Jim Reichard, a full faculty member at Georgia Southern University’s Department of Geology, gave a quick but comprehensive overview of the science behind climate change, including what is causing it and why commonly heard denials about theses causes are unfounded. 

Afterwards Dr. Reichard said, “Science has shown that modern global warming and climate change are being driven by human activity, principally the burning of fossil fuels. This has led to more intense droughts and heat waves and extreme weather events. For coastal Georgia, we will also have to face accelerated sea level rise and the risk of more powerful hurricanes, all of which will have serious economic impacts. At this point our best course of action to avoid the worst impacts of global warming and climate change is to reduce global carbon emissions by quickly transitioning to low-carbon economies.

Center board president Steve Willis provided the audience with a broad perspective on the historical significance of our predicament and decisions that must be made to prevent the worst impacts of climate change. After the event, Willis said:

“Although the self-inflicted global warming crisis is probably the greatest threat humanity has ever encountered (including nuclear weapons), the harnessing of the inexhaustible power sources of wind, sun, and tides--which is the necessary solution to global warming--may be the greatest and most desirable opportunity we have ever had.  Let’s do the smart thing before it’s too late.”

During the question-and-answer period, Democratic candidate for Congress, Wade Herring made some comments, and later he shared this statement: “I was grateful to attend the forum hosted by the Center for a Sustainable Coast on the evening of October 13, 2022, to learn more about the imminent threat posed to coastal Georgia by climate change, but also to discuss the positive actions that we can take to prevent damage to this beautiful place where we live. When I am elected to Congress, I will work hard to make sure that the First District gets its fair share of infrastructure funds, as well as the sustainable energy investments from the Inflation Reduction Act. These investments mean jobs for Georgians, a thriving economy, and protection for coastal Georgia that we are grateful to call home. I do not understand why Buddy Carter voted against both of these important bills which are so important to the First District. Carter continues to demonstrate that he is out of step with what matters to the people of this District.

From 2018 through mid-October 2022, a listing of Center letters and opinion columns published in Georgia media outlets features over 150 items explaining timely CSC positions on issues related to climate and clean energy. A complete, updated list of these items is available by contacting the Center at susdev@gate.net.

The October 13th forum was the fifth Savannah event Sustainable Coast has organized in the past decade to build support for effective action on these issues by cultivating well-informed, open public discussion.

A video recording of the event will be available. Please contact the Center at susdev@gte.net .