Conversations from the Region: Check the slope of the curve

A couple of major media sources have tried their best to show the worst of the Marcellus. For what my view is worth, it’s been done on purpose. Most notable is the recent work by the New York Times (2/27/11) and an item carried by the Associated Press.

I’m an employee of Larson Design Group, and you would be correct to gauge my objectivity. But when it comes to the work by Ian Urbina of the New York Times, PA DEP Acting Secretary Krancer, and former PA DEP Secretary John Hanger offered up some major corrections. I know a bit about John and trust his rebuttal.

I have affection and respect for the media and I’ve worked with these folks for years, but I question the media’s action when they focus on historical practices, downplay increased compliance, use quotes that are out of context, and can’t get the facts correct or in the proper order. The diplomat in me would say the truth lies somewhere in middle. But in this situation, I think it’s closer to Krancer and Hanger than the New York Times. For a quick summary, see this letter to the Editor of the New York Times. Even Tim Gough’s graphic that accompanies this letter is misleading. Nice.

So who cares? I do and so do people in the region. Think of safety and compliance of Marcellus activity as a curve trending up. What happened in the first year was not good and that is the low end and early part of the curve. We all know the objective is a very high level of safety, compliance, and sustainability, and that is the high end of the curve that is in our future. What you should care about, and so should the media, is that we are traveling this curve quickly and the slope is steep.

Why should you care? Because the industry is improving safety, compliance, and sustainability at a faster rate than ever. That is good for all of us. We can’t and don’t mask the mistakes and damage that occurs. But how is it fair that we ignore the progress?

Many people in the region see the consistent effort to reduce traffic impacts, improve occupational safety, monitor air quality, and safely manage water resources. Citizens and regulators are requiring this, and in order to make Marcellus sustainable the industry is responding. I know, because Larson Design Group helps make this progress possible.

So while I would like to write an editorial on the environmental, air quality, and quality of life issues in New York City, I won’t. For the most part that is up to those citizens to manage. When environmental improvements happen in urban areas, I really do think about what part is applicable to our area. It just seems way too easy for a reporter in New York City to create an image of what we are trying to do without having boots on the ground and no way to measure the experiences of the last several years. Our region is working to make Marcellus sustainable. We’re coming up the curve, the slope is steep, the effort is great, and that is what progress takes.

If you feel the same or different about this, leave a comment to let me know. Then I’ll know you do care.

Comments (3) | Permalink | Tags: DEP, Ian Urbino, John Hanger, Krancer, Natural Gas, New York Times, PA, PADEP, Pennsylvania, Rebuttal

Comments

The Graphic showing “sustainability” increasing and then leveling off is fundamentally wrong, not because of the trend it shows, but because it implies that sustainability is a quality that can vary over time. An activity is sustainable only if it can continue indefinitely. The extraction of natural resources, no matter how abundant, is by definition unsustainable. This has nothing to do with the level of care to reduce impacts and maintain safety and environmental quality. While these practices are good, and are to be encouraged, proponents of natural gas should not allow themselves to use imprecise language which can be construed as “spin.”

Comment by Ed Brown on May 3, 2011 at 8:21 pm
Ed makes a strong and valid point. Perhaps I’m alone with this problem, but I do struggle with the indefinite nature of the term sustainability. He is correct that Marcellus is a limited resource that will be exhausted at some point. My thought on sustainability related to our communities and region. I never thought to make that clear. My framework for sustainability was this; in 30 years how will our region view Marcellus development? Not only was it done as well as it could for the time it took place, but what lasting, positive impacts can we show. Did our work play a role in changing the energy profile of our country and state? Did we improve our libraries and hospitals? Do we enjoy our towns, streams, and trails more? Did we manage our “found” wealth to make our communities better by helping many?

I welcome Ed’s correction. However, if something must be permanent to be sustainable, then what is permanent other than our environment? If we succeed and protect the environment, if only during a definable period or task, then isn’t that an action for sustainability?

Also, sorry if my first item came off as spin. That is not the intention.

Comment by Marty Muggleton on May 5, 2011 at 4:34 pm
The diplomat in me would agree that the answer is somewhere in between. I suppose that sustainability is the ideal that we measure our efforts against. A 1987 UN conference, defined it as “something that meets present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” That certainly is open ended, and creates a high standard.

Unfortunately, the word “sustainable” has become jargon, with a fuzzy meaning that sounds good, but doesn’t really describe anything. The publication Advertising Age has chimed in on this, as have others.

We all agree that we should do our activities with care, respect for the earth, respect for others, while avoiding negative impacts, and producing positive impacts. Such well conceived and well executed activities is something that we can feel good about and be proud of.

Comment by Ed Brown on May 9, 2011 at 12:59 pm

Authors