“Mental Health & Climate Change” is a monthly column by Elizabeth Bechard, Moms Clean Air Force Senior Policy Analyst, in which she explores how families are coping with our warming world.
There’s no shortage of research detailing the impact of oil and gas development on the physical health of surrounding communities, and other studies link living near oil and gas pipelines to mental health harms. But research published in March brings forth a significant new finding: that participating in public engagement processes related to pipeline development can take a profound toll on well-being as well, leading to psychological distress, stress-related physical health impacts, and erosion of trust in government institutions.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is the government agency responsible for regulating interstate natural gas pipelines. Over the past two decades, there has been an enormous surge in natural gas production and a corresponding rise in proposals for new natural gas pipelines, many of which have been fiercely opposed by the communities through which these pipelines have been built. In spite of this widespread opposition, FERC granted pipeline companies the right to seize private property for pipeline construction through “eminent domain” in more than 99% of cases between 1999 and 2020.
The personal toll of opposing pipeline development
Three different survey methods were used in the new study: (1) a mail survey with residents living in counties in Virginia and West Virginia through which the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) has been under construction since 2018; (2) an online survey of individuals across the U.S. living in areas affected by FERC-approved natural gas pipelines; and (3) interviews conducted with landowners near the MVP route who had formally participated in public commenting processes about the pipeline’s development.
The study’s findings underline the high cost for individuals of participating in public commenting processes related to pipeline development. Individuals who engaged in multiple forms of public participation had significantly higher levels of psychological distress than those who didn’t engage with these processes at all—and those who engaged the most had the highest levels of distress. The majority of individuals who had attended FERC meetings (72%) reported feeling that FERC staff were dismissive of their concerns about pipeline development, and more than 98% reported that they didn’t feel FERC had adequately addressed the concerns they raised in their public comments.
One interviewed participant stated: “For six years, I was daily consumed with interventions and actions related to stopping the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. This caused stress for me and for my family. We did not know what our future would be like, and it put everything in our lives on hold.”
Performative public participation processes and environmental justice
Importantly, the study authors note that performative public participation processes, in which there is no formal mechanism through which public comments can actually influence decision-making, violate key aspects of environmental justice. “There is a tendency among policymakers,” the authors state, “to equate environmental justice with distributive justice, which can be understood in the energy development realm as ensuring equity in the allocation of burdens and benefits of energy infrastructure or policies.” But true environmental justice also requires valuing the perspectives of groups that have been historically and institutionally marginalized (recognition justice) and ensuring all parties that would be affected by an environmental decision—such as building a pipeline—have equitable access and opportunities to influence decision making (procedural justice). The researchers assert: “It can be concluded that public participation opportunities that are performative, rather than substantive, operate against environmental justice.”
Environmental harm and moral injury
The study’s findings echo an emerging trend toward thinking about environmental harm through the lens of moral injury. Moral injury can be described as a form of psychological harm that results from witnessing or perpetrating actions that violate our morals or deeply held values, or from a sense of betrayal by those in positions of power or authority. A study published in The Lancet in 2021 reported findings of a survey of 10,000 young people around the world who had been asked about the impact of climate change on their mental health. One of the findings was that young people may experience moral injury due to the failure of governments to respond appropriately to the climate crisis, and a failure to protect them from environmental harm.
This new research about pipelines and mental health also underlines the psychological wounding of institutional betrayal. Quotes from interviewed participants reflect deep pain and disillusionment: “It’s hard to describe the despair you feel after working your whole life to own land and a home and provide for your family when the government sanctions and makes legal a condemnation and forced seizure of your property [in order to build a pipeline].”
What can be done?
The study’s authors call for fixing broken, performative public engagement processes, and for the federal government to “establish consistent and transparent mechanisms for public input to exert influence on final decisions across agencies.” Truly achieving environmental justice, the authors say, requires involving the voices of pipeline-affected communities at every stage of decision making around whether pipelines will be allowed to move forward. Notably, under the Biden administration, the White House has solicited public input on how to enhance meaningful involvement from the public in regulatory decision making, in effort to better incorporate environmental justice into rulemaking processes.
While it can be immensely frustrating (and even harmful, as this study demonstrates) for activists to wonder whether their voices are being heard by those in power, the takeaway shouldn’t be that it’s useless to try to fight the fossil fuel industry. The record climate progress made over the past year is evidence that collective action is moving the needle in the direction of powerful change. And research shows that the process of engaging in some forms of collective climate action may have powerful mental health benefits, such as helping to foster emotions of hope, solidarity, and connection.
Using our voices to push for changes in broken public engagement processes may be one of the most important ways we can harness the power of collective action and advocate for environmental justice.
Learn more about Moms’ work on mental health.
TELL THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: PLUG DANGEROUS PIPELINE LEAKS ASAP