From the car window, drivers on Pennsylvania route 18 can see smoke billow from the stacks of the Shell Polymers Monaca plant in Beaver County.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1445404
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1445404
Then-Governor Tom Corbett (R), who pushed through the tax credit for Shell, gave the company the greenlight to build the plant without telling local officials, who learned of the news along with other residents.
Of course he did. He’s not a member of the Guardians Of Polluters for nothin’.
Missing from this chart — a photo of Tom Corbett (R).
11 Likes
Are we supposed to be opposed to this plant because we don’t like petrochemical companies or because the State of Pennsylvania seems to have been rolled by Shell? Plants like this have to exist somewhere and Pennsylvania is as good a place as any. From what I read in the article the state was rolled in the usual way. Tax breaks and easy regulation in exchange for permanent jobs in an economically depressed area. The company told the state that without the tax breaks and easy regulation they would locate the plant somewhere else. Where have we heard that before? How about every time a large company proposes building a plant. What Shell did was follow the standard playbook to squeeze as much out of state and local government as possible.
2 Likes
These companies should be required to:
- ONLY create new plastic that can be recycled
- Establish and maintain recycling centers (including marketing to educate the public)
- Clearing mark ALL plastic with an simple code that indicates how it can be recycled.
Period. They should NOT be allowed to expand until they have implemented these steps.
17 Likes
These fossil fuel companies are a cancer upon the world.
11 Likes
Literally and figuratively
7 Likes
Hilary Mercer, senior vice president of Shell Polymers
Wouldn’t it be horrible if Hilary had to live in a community impacted by the choking of plastics she/he/them helped cause? Thank god for gated communities. Perhaps their children will get the chance?
Or how about every plastics executive should be required to donate their annual 6-7 figure bonuses to environmental remediation?
3 Likes
9 Likes
This is where I am from. Every industry in the area closed down and people were desperate. This plant was not built on pristine riverside as there was something industrial and polluting for as long as I can remember at that site. My uncle worked there when it was a Koppers aluminum plant and I remember the huge piles of coal and ore. The air from the steel mills and particularly when they were pouring slag down the riverbank was awful. Personally, I was sad to see the fracking plant go up but I don’t live there anymore. On visits, I could definitely notice the uptick in the local economy and so the locals will fight to keep it going and probably ignore the environmental effects if they can.
6 Likes
This is bad news all around.
6 Likes
Two quick points here:
- “Shell has assured residents that the plant will be safe.”
So have all the other oil and petrochemical giants. Their assurances all eventually prove to be worthless - toxic leaks, oil spills, pipeline disasters, unsafe waste disposal, cancer hot spots. Their words are worthless. The press needs to educate the public on that.
- The petrochemical industry is huge and varied - Drilling companies. Transporters. Refiners. Sellers. Plastics. Fertilizers. And much more. Most of the giants whose names first come to mind (Shell, Exxon, etc) at least dabble in most or all of the areas, but they’re all largely populated by independent operators whose companies do only one of those things. That’s an issue that’s going to be incredibly difficult to deal with. But limiting discussion just to those name-brand giants, it boggles the mind that they continue to see themselves as fossil fuel companies rather than as energy companies. The future’s trajectory is clear - fossil fuels will and must go by the wayside. The giants like Exxon have more than enough financial and technical resources to not only get into the alternate energy sources field, but to absolutely dominate it. Yet instead they continue to behave like the buggy whip manufacturers of the early 20th century. There’s a difference, though - buggy whips weren’t toxic; petrochemicals and their processing define toxicity.
At some point, the petrochemical industry must be held responsible for all of the damage it does. And it is critical for the planet that it be done soon.
12 Likes
The only solace, and it is not much, is that plastics are really great at sequestering fossil carbon for decades (and probably hundreds of years). Which makes them a different sort of environmental problem than burning those fossil fuels.
We’ll see more and more diversification efforts from fossil fuel companies as power and transportation applications level out or even decrease, from emphasizing plastic manufacturing to producing hydrogen. Even Rick Perry got into the act as DoE Secretary when he promoted the use of coal as a source of rare earth elements.
3 Likes
The issue is that recycling plastics mostly cannot be done for profit. It is too expensive, so mostly plastics are not recycled.
Therefore, I would suggest that petrochemical companies be required to complete the loop, to do the recycling into new products, or decompose the plastic to harmless materials, themselves, or if third parties do it, the petrocompanies that created the plastic pay for the costs of doing so. Also, they would need to pay for inefficiencies in recycling, any of their plastic lost to the environment would be properly cost back to them.
Only if they are required to bare the full costs of their product will the correct price on any products be seen by consumers. Then the public can decide with their wallets.
This would help prevent petrochemical companies from off-loading the cost of their business onto the public commons.
13 Likes
The effect of single use plastics on ocean life is catastrophic. The effect of byproduct and pollutants from the plastics plant are catastrophic to humans, the air they breathe, the water they drink, and the land they inhabit.
But, say the proponents, the plants make money and provide jobs in a depressed economic area.
That’s a lousy bargain for PA. The costs of the plant operations likely will easily exceed its immediate economic benefits. But I guess we’re only talking about poor people and fish versus big business profits. /s/
11 Likes
There’s an argument to be made that petro companies should pay an extra tax (a hefty one) to cover the cost of their multiple externalities – from oils spills to acid death of the oceans. I do like your idea of plastics companies having the option to decompose their products (rather than pay to recycle them) because it encourages innovation, including in the manufacturing of degradable products. Maybe a hefty externalities tax could be accompanied by tax credits for lessening their products’ impacts. That would have to be designed carefully though because big companies easily game such things. We saw that happen as big ag lobbied down the bar for “organic” so low that it’s no longer a meaningful label
8 Likes
I was at a virtual neighborhood meeting this past Monday for a new fracking operation seeking permits about 1/2 mile from my building. The town folk who attended did not seem at all swayed by the company’s promises of constant safety monitoring, etc. The town government has not yet received the company’s applications; I hope they listened to our fears and concerns.
7 Likes
Except for the locals who now have jobs.
2 Likes
I would add, Shell has not assured the residents that the plant will never be sold.
New owners, new rules. Saw that down near Houston when overseas investment came into the petrochemical industry.
3 Likes
Except for when said locals are coughing up a lung from the various cancers and lung diseases they will receive as added benefits from Shell.
2 Likes