By Tom Schuster, Interim Chapter Director, Sierra Club Pennsylvania Chapter
Every day we get more news of the horrific conditions suffered by civilians in Ukraine, and the atrocities being committed by Putin’s military. We applaud the folks who are doing everything they can to help, and support all possible sanctions by the international community intended to hold accountable and ultimately undermine the brutal Russian regime. One of the most important steps is weaning ourselves off Russian oil and gas, the proceeds of which make up the biggest financial support for the Russian war machine.
Unfortunately, many pro-fossil politicians, especially in Pennsylvania, are exploiting the crisis and twisting the narrative to justify deregulation and subsidies for the oil and gas industry that would undo nearly all of our climate progress to date. Recently, Sierra Club leader Jeff Smith published an op-ed in the Scranton Times Tribune calling this out, and you can read a version of this with links to other pieces below. Since then, some additional details of the proposals have come out, and they are not pretty.
One example is House Bill 2444, introduced by Rep. Seth Grove. The bill:
- Forces DCNR to lease property under state parks and forests for fracking;
- Provides grants for the expansion of infrastructure to deliver fracked gas to Pennsylvania homes and businesses;
- Forces expedited permit review for fracking wells by an under-resourced DEP;
- Preempts any local government from regulating the location of fracking wells or infrastructure;
- Prevents the DEP from ever regulating carbon dioxide emissions.
Although this bill is titled the “End Russian Aggression Act,” it is immediately obvious that none of its provisions will have any impact on the conflict, or on European countries’ access to American gas. Rather, it is simply a laundry list of desires that the Marcellus Shale Coalition and American Petroleum Institute have been pushing for some time.
I think we stand a pretty good chance of beating back such bald-faced war profiteering, at least as long as we have a gubernatorial veto as a backstop. However, I am very concerned that more targeted measures have a better chance of passing, such as HB 2458 (Rep. Martina White, R-Philadelphia), which would create a task force to figure out what it would take to build an Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) export terminal at the Port of Philadelphia. At least this measure attempts to address the problem of European dependence on Russian gas directly.
Unfortunately, it would also greatly incentivize additional fracking in Pennsylvania, with associated climate impacts that would further destabilize many regions of the world. It would also not help European energy supplies in the short run, as such facilities take many years and billions of dollars in investment to permit and construct. Meanwhile, the EU has a plan to reduce its gas consumption from all sources by installing tens of millions of heat pumps in about the same time it would take to develop an LNG export facility in Philly. So if this facility is built ostensibly to reduce European reliance on Russian gas, it will very likely end up exporting our fracked gas someplace else.
Two things are very clear. First, we cannot afford to increase our methane and carbon dioxide emissions for any reason and still have a chance at stabilizing our climate. Second, in order to transition to a clean energy economy quickly, we need to develop a robust domestic supply chain for things like solar panels and battery components, so that we are protected from disruptions whether they are related to a pandemic, natural or man-made climate disaster, or hostile foreign government. These are likely to be issues that dominate the energy policy discussion for the foreseeable future.
Learn more about this issue in our op-ed published on April 4th, 2022.
This blog was included as part of the May 2022 Sylvanian newsletter. Please click here to check out more articles from this edition!