Following Monday's rally and the presentation of the sign-on letter to his staff, Mr. Fitzgerald gave a quick reaction in media interviews (notably the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Pittsburgh Business Times). I wrote him again on Wednesday, asking him to be sure to read the letter thoroughly, adding some new science and other developments to the dialogue, and reiterating my request to hear back substantively by the end of the week. On Thursday evening, I received the following email from the Allegheny County Communications Director:
Your email and the letter that you delivered to the office were forwarded to me. The County Executive asked that I provide the following statement in response.
Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns with fossil fuel and the need to focus on health and the environment in Allegheny County.
Let me be clear: I believe in climate change and am very much in favor of moving away from reliance on fossil fuels, provided that it is done in a strategic way. I am in favor of President Biden’s plan. This isn’t an either/or discussion. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
You state that I have done little to address the climate crisis, but nothing could be further from the truth. In my 10 years as County Executive, I have done more to improve the environment and deal with climate change than has been done by any other county administration.
We are an active participant and leader in the Pittsburgh 2030 District, joining even before governments were part of the organization’s metrics.
Earlier this year, I announced that the county has entered into a power purchase agreement for 7.4MW of renewable electricity from a new hydroelectric facility to be located on the Ohio. Our financial investment makes possible the development and financing of new renewable energy capacity right in the county.
That’s not all that’s been done to show our commitment to sustainability. For the first time ever, we are in compliance with all of the EPA standards for air quality at every single one of the county’s monitors.
The BRT is a major project that is going to be using electrification, again shifting reliance on fossil fuels like diesel, for our buses.
We have committed to moving two of our nine parks to net zero and have spent significant county resources investing in solar and other renewable energies to meet energy needs in our other parks.
Even our authorities like CCAC and the Airport have embraced solar, microgrids, and other opportunities that reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. The airport has the largest solar plant in the county.
These projects are just the tip of the iceberg. If you’d like more examples of what’s been done, take a look at the Citizens Guide to Sustainability that was created by our Sustainability Manager and updated earlier this year. We have even more on the horizon.
The growth that has happened in Pittsburgh began in 2007 and 2008 when technology made it possible to extract the gas in the Marcellus Shale formation. We have seen a tremendous amount of wealth flow into this region because of that. You reference the potential impacts of the petrochemical plant but ignore the $7 billion in wealth that has come to this region from Shell investments. We have seen the impact of this development on Beaver County’s economic growth.
Beyond Shell, billions of dollars of infrastructure and other development is happening right here, putting a lot of people to work. We are seeing a resurgence in manufacturing.
It also has provided a tremendous return for those in our community who most need it as heating costs have decreased by 70% over the last 12 years. I can’t think of any basic need in our community that has seen a 70% reduction in cost in that time – not healthcare, housing, food, education, or transportation.
We have also seen CO2 levels come down because of the shift to natural gas.
Energy production and natural gas production must be done safely. It must meet EPA and DEP requirements. I also believe there should be an extraction tax in PA, one of the few elected officials to continuously call for that action by our General Assembly. We should also invest in technologies that can help us address the known challenges – such as methane leaks – with natural gas extraction.
Companies who are doing bad things should be punished and we should be looking to strengthen enforcement powers for the agencies that regulate this industry. But we cannot paint everyone with the same brush – one company that does something wrong doesn’t mean that everyone in the industry is bad.
The county’s involvement in this industry can improve our community health and environment. I would point you to Deer Lakes Park and the project there for justification of that position. When the county was approached about a contract, the company already had contracts with all of the parcels surrounding the park, and with the vast majority of properties in the area. The extraction was going to occur around the park, regardless of what the county did or did not do.
In negotiating with the company, we were able to secure enhanced environmental protections for the community and the park itself. These included extra water testing, reduced noise and light pollution for the community, provided job fairs specifically targeted at connecting residents to available jobs, enhanced safety for school children, and mandates that the company meet local municipalities’ bonding requirements for road use and repair. The provisions were some of the most aggressive and proactive at the time and have been extremely beneficial to the community. They would not have happened if the county had not been involved. That’s why I am not in favor of a blanket ban and, instead, believe decisions on county lands, including county parks, should be considered on a case by case basis.
We do need to move away from single use plastics. It’s something that I have talked about for a while and why the county has implemented small measures in our parks to remove plastic straws and other types of single use plastics used by vendors with whom we do business. Quite frankly, there should be significant disincentives for single use plastics.
Not all plastics are the same. Permanent plastics are used to create fuel-efficient cars and medical devices. A more fuel-efficient car helps to reduce carbon emissions by creating lighter and more efficient cars and airplanes. Plastic is used in wind turbines and solar panels. To do renewable things actually relies on plastics to some extent.
Similarly, not all energy companies or fossil fuels are the same. To suggest that or think that would be the same as making a judgment about a person based on their race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. That being said, moving away from fossil fuels has to be done in a measured, strategic way. To shut it off cold turkey would cause such economic disruption to this community and country that I cannot agree with it. Economic hardships would impact those who are most vulnerable in our community. And such action doesn’t deal in reality. We can’t just flip a switch tomorrow to move to renewable energy. We need to build capacity and we need to ensure that it’s available to all.
I appreciate the dialogue and your interest, advocacy, and passion for this issue, but I will not be withdrawing my support for the petrochemical industry or its development in the region for all of the reasons that I have just noted.
