The Screams of the Small

I never thought I would find myself on the side of environmentalists on anything. And yet, here we are. Recently, my hometown of Bethune, SC, became the proposed site for a natural gas production plant. In particular, the construction site of this plant is planned for less than a quarter mile from the homestead I have long been proud to refer to as, “where I grew up.” The land involved in the sale for this plant includes several hundred acres in excess of what is needed for the project; the suspicion is that a data center will also be erected. All this on land where I once helped farm, camped, trapped, hunted, and spent many hours playing various games. And yet, voices against the abuses, pollutions, contaminants, and bad-stewardship of God’s earth are nearly exclusive to more progressive thinkers. Where are conservatives who, well, want to conserve?! Why is conservative near synonymous with industrial now?! So here we are.

The following is an article aimed at persuasion to bolster local opposition to this project. It is far from exhaustive in its presentation of the data, nor does it pretend to be impartial in its position. It first appeared on my Substack, here: https://rememberingtomorrow.substack.com

When it comes to energy, the US government, along with state and local governments, usually see dollar signs over the dangers to their citizens. In the face of growing evidence concerning the health and wellbeing of residents, they typically adopt one of three attitudes: the I don’t know copout, the it’s not too bad excuse, or the I don’t care shoulder. And whichever of these attitudes they choose to go with typically prevails because, when it comes down to it, these plants get erected in remote areas of the country. Out of sight, out of mind, so to speak. The sparce populace residing in these areas are too few and too happy to take a pittance payout to make any sort of effective protest; and as long as the cities are comfortable and don’t have to live with a plant on their door, no amount of health issues suffered by country residents is too steep a price to pay. Especially when there are the three attitudes available to cover their liability. 

Is it too much to suppose that the present proposed project is no different? Indeed, the evidence suggests that this project is no different at all. Let us look at the data to see for ourselves.

To begin: no one actually denies that plants such as the one in question pose dangerous health, environment, and community risks. It is a pretty well known fact that these plants emit greenhouse gases, carcinogens, and other air pollutants. The EPA, RMI, Global Energy Monitor, and others do not shy away from the dangerous pollutants projects like the one proposed for our town emit. Oil and Gas watch.org links us to very specific reports and data which show not only the type, but the amount of such pollutants. “According to data available for the first time this year through the Environmental Protection Agency’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI),” it states, “258 gas processing plants reported releasing a combined total of 3.2 million pounds of toxic air pollutants in 2022. These emissions include 633,600 pounds of formaldehyde and 247,300 pounds of benzene, both well-known carcinogens. [And, though not every chemical is present at every site,] the industry’s TRI reports identify emissions of 21 different chemicals, including benzene, formaldehyde, hydrogen sulfide, n-hexane, toluene, xylene, and methanol (news.oilandgaswatch.org).”

Nor do they shy away from what these pollutants do: increase the risk of hospitalization from heart attack, pneumonia, cardiovascular issues, stroke, cancer, and premature death. One source puts any doubt of the risks (and which communities bear these risks) to rest:

“One of the primary pollutants resulting from natural gas combustion is a class of pollutants known as NOx. Exposure to NOx can cause numerous health issues. NOx is a particularly dangerous pollutant because it is a precursor pollutant, meaning that NOx chemically reacts with other substances to produce additional pollutants… [including those that are] linked to cardiovascular illnesses, respiratory problems, and premature death, both in the short term and over a longer exposure period. 

Exposure to ozone and particulate matter is particularly harmful for vulnerable groups, like children, who take more breaths per minute than adults and inhale proportionately higher doses of pollution. [Studies] show that exposure to soot and smog is associated with increased risk of preterm birth and low birth weight. Highly vulnerable groups also include people with respiratory diseases or asthma, older adults, and outdoor workers. A study of air pollution’s impacts to the Medicare population shows a significant association between ozone exposure and mortality, with the strongest effects in communities of color and lower socioeconomic areas (turbinemap.edf.org.)”

All this at even low, short levels of exposure - and that’s only dealing with the pollutants we breath in; it hasn’t even begun to touch the damage done to surrounding lands, waterways, and wildlife. 

If we needed more data, it is readily available. The Union of Concerned Scientists reports to us that natural gas is not only dangerous; it’s hard to keep it safe. “Its primary component is methane,” it states. “Responsible for 12 percent of all US global warming emissions from human activities, methane traps significantly more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide, making it 86 times more harmful for the first 20 years after it is released into the atmosphere. And, as it turns out, the infrastructure used to produce, store, distribute, transmit, and burn gas leaks like a sieve, making gas as bad as coal for the climate (blog.ucs.org)…” So the danger is there, and no one denies it. Where the rhetoric and fancy footwork come in, then, isn’t to answer whether there is danger, but rather have we addressed the danger sufficiently so that you personally are safe. And it is here that we find ourselves dealing with the three attitudes.

First, when pressed with the data showing danger to humans and our land alike, we get an “I don’t know.” The disclaimers come out that many of the factors are so complex, or so all-encompassing, or even so new that data isn’t ready for analysis yet. Or, in many cases more likely, the data simply doesn’t exist. This last is, in part, due to the reporting practices of many of these plants. Again turning to OilandGaswatch.org, we find that 

“The new numbers released by EPA underestimate the scale of air pollution from these plants, because less than 42 percent of the 620 gas processing plants currently operating in the U.S. today actually reported their toxic emissions to EPA last year. Some plants may not have reported yet, or may not be required to report because their pollution levels are too low or because they have fewer than 10 employees. Preliminary research also suggests that some gas processors may have under-reported to the TRI. For example, in Colorado, only 19 gas plants reported a total of 113,040 pounds of emissions of eight different pollutants to the TRI. However, state records show that 47 gas plants in Colorado reported 642,242 pounds of emissions of the same pollutants to the state emission inventory. State emissions inventory data for earlier years (2020 or 2021) from other states suggests a similar discrepancy between state and federal data.  While some states require gas processors to disclose emissions of certain toxic chemicals to an emissions inventory, that data is sometimes difficult for the public to obtain and may not be available for several years after the emissions inventory, that data is sometimes difficult for the public to obtain and may not be available for several years after the emissions are reported and may not require reporting of all toxic pollutants (news.oilandgaswatch.org).”

Note two things in particular: some plants simply don’t report, and some aren’t required to report because they have less than 10 employees (NOT that they do not emit significant amount of pollutants). Turns out, danger is much easier to account for and address if you are able to hide some of the data and pretend it doesn’t exist.

So, the EPA’s “3 mile uniform buffer,” that is, the guideline that requires analysis of the area and residents affected within a 3 mile radius of the proposed plant, can in many cases be adhered to without addressing the dangers at all. Again, remember: there is no established requirements concerning the surrounding area, only the requirement to study the surrounding area. Often, the dangers of the emissions even exceed that area. And, at any rate, these systems are so new and the studies are evolving, any community in which one of these is placed is nothing more than Guinea pigs for the wheels of industry. So much for the first attitude: I don’t know what the dangers are, therefore I can proceed as if there are no dangers.

The second attitude is the “it’s not that bad” position - often bleeding into a stance of “the evils to the few outweigh the good to the many.” Now, this position is generally tied to some of the practices that make the first one possible. Remember: the data can and is often either underreported or omitted altogether. This enables the appearance of good-faith or data-driven policies similar to some of the ones we see unfolding before us on the national scale. 

Energy and its availability is a growing cause for concern among the developed world. As the US continues to grow, as data centers (which require as much energy as some major cities) keep popping up, and as the US continues to export Natural Gas as part of its income, the motivation to capitalize on the fraudulent data already shown begins to increase as well. And this much isn’t even disguised. According to congress.gov, in spite of “the natural gas industry [being] one of the highest-emitting industrial secrets in the United States,” the need and motivation to increase it’s production is strong - and the measures taken to address this need sometimes mean lessening restrictions. It states:

“Congressional interest in U.S. energy policy has often focused on ways through which the United Stated could secure more economical, reliable, and cleaner fossil fuel resources both domestically and internationally. Recent expansion in natural gas production, primarily as a result of new or improved technologies used on unconventional resources has made natural gas an increasingly significant component in the U.S. energy supply... In a direct response to the Obama-era standards [promulgating air standards, new regulations of emissions not previously covered, and setting standards to natural gas processing and transmission sources]… President Trump signed Executive Order 13783 on March 28, 2017. The order - entitled ‘ Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth’ - requires agencies to review existing regulations and ‘appropriately suspend, revise, or rescind those that unduly burden’. Domestic energy production and use. (epa.gov).”
 

To justify these changes, a standard of “significant (epa.gov)” pollution is applied: if there is not data to prove “significant” pollution (the definition of significant, by the way, is not clear - and ignoring the fact that reporting is incomplete), then the EPA is free to rescind or modify rules which go to protect communities. 

So, it is true: over the years, more and more regulations have been imposed on natural gas harvesting efforts; recently, however, that has begun to change. It is not that the dangers, the reality of pollution, or the affect on communities is being denied; communities are, rather, by using a series of cascading bureaucratic licenses to interpret and present data, being told by companies and governments alike that the danger simply isn’t that bad. So much for the second attitude.

The third attitude is perhaps the worst - and underlies both of the previously discussed attitudes. Note throughout these testimonies (which are widely available on the internet) a prevailing theme: the motivation for all of these changes, underreporting, and licenses is undue burden on gas production - not the safety or burden on the communities in which these plants are built. And so we come to the final attitude we are going to talk about: the attitude that simply states, “I don’t care.” And this attitude is especially nefarious for small and lower-income communities like Bethune’s.

We already know the motivation for the rule changes: reliability of procuring energy. This motivation, as we’ve said, has caused numerous recent changes to rescind regulations which make communities safer. These are not far-distant memories; these are changes in the last year. Take this example, from the EPA’s own website: “On June 11, 2025,” it reports, “EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin proposed to repeal all “greenhouse gas” emissions standards for the power sector under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. This proposal would ensure affordable and reliable energy supplies and drive down the costs of transportation, heating, utilities, farming, and manufacturing while boosting our national security(EPA.gov).” So reliability of procuring energy trumps any safety of the community - to include lessening of standards.

But it should not surprise us that these regulations are so quickly dispensed with. After all, who are these people who will have to bear the personal and financial burden of the dangers from these emissions? They are people and communities very similar to our own. The Union of Concerned scientists makes this fact very well known. “Gas power plants and related infrastructure threaten the health and well-being of the residents of the communities where they are located,” it reports; and those communities are, among others, made up of “residents of low-income neighborhoods (blog.ucs.org).”

This has been a standing practice for governmental regulations and corporate industries over the years. The Union of Concerned Scientists continues:

“US infrastructure planning has a long history of discrimination. Federal highway plans routed freeways through low-income neighborhoods, cutting them off and hemming them in. Municipal zoning laws, meanwhile, allowed companies to build power plants and other industrial facilities in those same neighborhoods. You have pointed out just how prevalent these inequities are and that “industrial-based discrimination” is alive and well today. Disadvantaged folks are still stuck in fenceline communities… For example, Dominion Energy, an electric and gas utility in Virginia, is planning to build a mammoth 1,000-megawatt gas plant in an area with a high percentage of residents who are people of color and low-income. It’s a community that is already burdened by significant industrial pollution…. [Gas plants and their infrastructure are extremely harmful, and] we know this infrastructure is disproportionately located in communities of color and low-income communities, which means they bear the brunt of these harmful air, water, and land impacts.”

There is, it turns out, a long history of corporations and government cooperating to pollute small communities. The changes to policy we’ve discussed, the underreporting, the “I don’t know/it’s not that bad” attitudes are only possible when there is either no one to scream out, or when our screams are so soft they cannot be heard. And they are almost always communities just like ours.

The dangers are undisputed. The damage is undeniable - both to humans and to the land in which we plant crops, drink water, and live our lives. Small communities like Bethune are the ones who bear the personal burden of the infrastructure that is being proposed; and they get no support or protection from any of this. What is more, small communities are also left holding the bag if anything goes horribly wrong, too. Not only do energy companies make millions and billions at the expense of these communities; they are exempt from the costs of maintenance, too. “The oil and gas industry,” we are told, “has not only been receiving billions of dollars in annual federal tax breaks and subsidies in today’s dollars for more than 100 years, but gas developers also are exempt from key provisions of seven major environmental laws that protect air and water from toxic chemicals. Permitting them to violate these critical regulations means taxpayers have to shoulder the cost of monitoring, remediation, and cleanup (blog.ucs.org).” It is no wonder that places like Bethune are the target for such projects.

There is a movie called Dark Waters that came out not 10 years ago. It features a small farmer who lost his cattle, his land, and ultimately his life to the pollutants of a major company exempt from regulations. First the data was denied, then it was changed, then it was ignored. And all of this was possible simply because he was in a small community; no one thought the world would hear his screams. Let that not be the fate of any more small communities. The data is clear, the regulations are suspect - and not binding. None of this is worth risking life, health, or holding.

Have you read Remembering Freedom yet? It is a book for the modern defender of truth. Designed to be both engaging and practical, this book articulates abstract concepts while providing real-life stories from married life, military deployments, and more to illustrate how “abstract” things look in the real world. If you are looking to enter into discussions, or if you find yourself wondering how on earth we got to the point we are at now, Remembering Freedom is the book for you.

Read Remembering Freedom Now!