Protecting Your Turf pt. 2: Your Voice
- shawnmariehogan
- Mar 16, 2016
- 5 min read
After you've found a local environmental issue of your interest, get fired up. Really. I like to get myself in some kind of impassioned state before I write an email urging a politician or official to do something. Environmental harm can be incredibly emotional, and there is no harm in expressing those emotions as long as you have sound facts and arguments to justify them.
I try to abide by three main principles while writing these emails.
1) Make it personal. This is an opinion coming from one of their constituents so don't be afraid to talk about what this would mean to your home, where you grew up, and where you have fond memories of a clean environment. It's much easier to site a waste facility on statistics than it is on people with names and stories. If you're a college student, use your .edu email address and be sure to mention where you go to school and what you study for credibility points.
2) Keep economic, social, and political arguments fairly brief, yet try to toss in a potentially new perspective. Most decision-makers already have reports from which they can get the facts. Displaying that you have also read about the situation and know what you're talking about is essential, but does not need to read like an academic essay. If you can expand on an argument due to your particular specialty (college major), do that as well. Even better, cite a class or research you're doing in college that is relevant to this particular situation.
3) Thank the official for what they do. Officials and politicians are constantly bombarded with angry tweets, emails, phone calls, etc. Make sure to be polite and cognizant that this person has a tough job and has to make tough decisions. This adds a lot of maturity to your argument.
Below, are two emails I've written to local officials concerning potential policies and permits. The first one is not about an environmental issue, but is still a good example of how to write one of these emails. Full disclosure: the Elcon siting is going to happen, the musician amendment in Philly was dismissed due to the public outcry (see, this can really work!).
Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Team Leader,
I am writing to emphasize to the PA Department of Environmental Protection that siting the Elcon hazardous chemical and pharmaceutical waste treatment facility in Falls Township would be a mistake. Not only would the siting of this plant dramatically increase, if not guarantee, the threat of contaminating the Delaware River Basin, the air, and the soil, but the potential benefits for the surrounding community are negligible. As an administrative body of the government of Pennsylvania, it is your job to make decisions which increase the welfare of the people, economy, and environment of this state. Allowing Elcon to site their waste facility in Falls Township would most certainly do the opposite.
There is no question that this site would further damage the air, water, and general environmental quality of the surrounding community, however I am sure many a public comment have touched upon these concerns. I would like to bring up another issue about the specific siting of the waste facility. According to this article, (http://levittownnow.com/2015/07/17/hazardous-waste-treatment-facility-proposal-could-come-back-to-falls-twp/) the most recently proposed site is in the Keystone Industrial Port Complex. Hoping to learn more about this specific spot, I googled the name which brought me to these webpages:
Besides the Keystone Industrial Port Complex's dangerous proximity to the Delaware River, I also learned that this complex has actually been a bit of an environmental success story. The Brownfields Conference website has dubbed it one of the most successful brownfield sites in the country. It has shifted significantly away from hosting dirty industries to hosting "renewable energy manufacturing, metals and coal recycling, soil reuse, and electrical power production from landfill gas." The complex has impressive access to railways and huge potential for supporting even more socially beneficial industries.
If the depressing irony has not been apparent, here is a more specific example: Allowing Elcon to site their facility here would expose employees of Gamesa, a wind turbine manufacturer located in the complex, to carcinogenic toxins. People working to benefit society and the environment by manufacturing renewable energy resources would be disproportionately bearing the cost of an environmentally harmful facility. Allowing Elcon to site their waste facility here would be a slap in the face to socially beneficial firms, a hazard for anyone who benefits from the Delaware River Basin, and a painful step backwards for the state of Pennsylvania. Why would you reverse the progress of this complex and the state that contains it?
While deciding whether or not to accept Elcon's proposal, keep in mind that more environmentally friendly opportunities for jobs will come to Pennsylvania. The Keystone Industrial Port Complex is a testament to that fact. Lets be the state that builds our economy by encouraging clean industry and saying "no" to exploitative dirty industry.
Thank you for your consideration,
Shawn Hogan
Resident of Newtown, Bucks County, Pennsylvania
Student at Lafayette College, Easton, Pennsylvania
Councilman Squilla, I'm writing to express my extreme disagreement with your proposed Special Assembly Occupancies amendment. As one who was once a member of the Philadelphia music community as a performer and now as a patron of entertainment events, I am incredibly disappointed and surprised that this bill was proposed. It perplexes me that, as a policymaker, you think that requiring personal information from all entertainers who want to bring their economic and cultural value to Philadelphia would solve the problem of traffic, violence, etc. To me, there is a missing link between the problem at hand and the identification of who is at fault which needs to be rectified in order to craft effective policy that has the best interest of the city of Philadelphia in mind. Besides the fact that this is poorly crafted policy for addressing the problem you're trying to address, its side-effects would be devastating to the economic and cultural wellbeing of the city. It would prevent national and international artists from including Philadelphia in their tour plans. I grew up in the suburbs of Philadelphia and the main reason my peers and I would spend money on SEPTA tickets, at the concert venues, and at other Philadelphia businesses was to go to concerts. Even now, as a student at Lafayette College in Easton, PA, I travel to Philadelphia anywhere from 2 to 5 times a semester to see concerts. I bring people who aren't from this area with me. We get dinner at Philadelphia establishments. People have gone back to spend time and money in Philadelphia because they first attended a concert at one of Philadelphia's many incredible music venues. There are countless peers of mine who grew up in the Philadelphia suburbs and have the same story. Don't you want more people to visit this amazing city and spend their hard earned dollars on Philly businesses? If this amendment is passed, it will severely inhibit that goal. Philadelphia is becoming a more fun, interesting, and thriving city by the minute. Enacting this amendment would inhibit that trajectory and put a damper on the innovative and exciting music culture that this city is known for. I advise you to think on the potential effects of this amendment before moving forward with this measure. I know that my network of Philadelphia musicians and concert-goers were outraged upon learning of this proposed amendment. Know that I will do all in my power to have them reach out to you as I have done and express their opinions. Regards, -- Shawn Hogan Economics and Environmental Studies, 2017
Comentários