Tag: development

Proposed Southeastern Natural Gas Pipeline Raises Concerns

An expansion to a natural gas pipeline is slated to begin construction in the fourth quarter of 2026, a project that the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) has called a “fossil fuel superhighway.” The proposed South System Expansion 4 project is a $3.5 billion pipeline expansion that would span 291 miles across Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. It has been proposed to upgrade the Southeastern United States’ energy grid, providing an additional 1.3 billion cubic feet of natural gas capacity per day. Kinder Morgan, the company presiding over the project, touts the market-driven demand for natural gas and the sustainable growth that the expansion will bring to the region. The SELC cites environmental and economic concerns, urging the federal government to take careful consideration of the adverse impacts that this pipeline expansion could have on the communities through which it passes.

Aerial view of pipeline.

Image One: Aerial view of pipeline. By: MelissaMN. Source: Adobe Stock. Asset ID#: 221316621

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Process

The project is currently under review by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which must issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct any interstate natural gas pipeline. FERC accepted public comments that address potential hazards, externalities, alternatives, and relevant information regarding the project until October 6th. In a joint statement of protest, several organizations, including Alabama Rivers Alliance, Blackbelt Women Rising, and Energy Alabama, pointed out potential issues with the pipeline for FERC’s consideration. NYU Policy Integrity also urged FERC to consider environmental concerns in its decision.

ƒmodiSSE4 Environmental Impact Statement

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) outlining the potential externalities of any project under FERC’s jurisdiction is required. The joint protest issued by Alabama Rivers Alliance, Blackbelt Women Rising, Energy Alabama, and others urges FERC to fully consider the effects of 14 new natural gas pipeline loops on water quality, endangered species, air quality, and marginalized communities in its EIS. In an outline of the project, Kinder Morgan addressed environmental concerns; they claim that the project is “committed to protecting significant cultural sites and environmentally sensitive areas.” The overview explains the environmental considerations they will make before, during, and after the project’s conclusion. It states that the field surveys will be conducted to avoid sensitive areas, environmental inspectors will monitor the project as it progresses, and land will be re-seeded and restored after completion.

The joint protest raises additional concerns. Crossing rivers and streams using open-cut methods can increase the water’s total suspended solids and damage local ecosystems. Horizontal directional drilling causes erosion. The project would require 130 million gallons of water, which would require extraction that can cause “water-shed wide ecological stress.” It also mentions that “[o]ut of the 14 compressor stations being modified as part of this Project, only one compressor unit is slated to be electric.” These non-electric compressor stations produce harmful pollutants like nitrogen dioxide and volatile organic compounds. The pipeline will also run across Alabama’s Blackbelt region, which already deals with toxic coal ash, industrial wastewater, and other environmental injustices.

Aerial shot of Alabama's Coosa River.
Image Two: Aerial shot of Alabama’s Coosa River. By: Donny Bozeman. Source: Adobe Stock. Asset ID#: 494086723

Environmental Justice and Public Health

As NYU Policy Integrity mentions, under a recent memorandum released by the Council on Environmental Quality, FERC is not required to examine environmental justice issues when considering a project’s potential harm and impact. This memorandum is in accordance with the January 2025 executive order Unleashing American Energy, signed by President Trump, which directs federal agencies to “expedite permitting approvals.” The memorandum adds that agencies “must prioritize efficiency and certainty over any other policy objectives.” However, FERC is still required to examine potential harms to the public, and the effects of the pipeline construction cannot be divorced from the local situation of the pipeline’s immediate impact area. The pipeline will cross through areas with higher concentrations of particulate matter than the national average. According to data collected from County Health Rankings and Roadmaps, the eleven Alabama counties that the project is projected to cross have an average of 8.9 micrograms per cubic meter of fine particulate matter in the air; the US average is 7.3. The prevalence of asthma among adults was also higher than the national average in each of the Alabama counties, according to 2022 CDC PLACES data. NYU Policy Integrity also lists elevated economic indicators of social vulnerability, including higher rates of poverty, near planned compressor stations. Given that the local populations already face health challenges linked to the environment, FERC’s consideration of the potential harms from the pipeline expansion should include the compounding effects of the pipeline’s construction in an area already impacted by environmental degradation.

FERC and Procedural Rights

FERC’s upcoming Environmental Impact Statement on the effects of the pipeline expansion represents environmental rights in action. Procedural rights, or the rights of people to participate in processes, are a cornerstone of environmental rights. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) defines procedural rights as “access to information, public participation, and access to justice.” These rights are important for protecting the environment and upholding the rule of law. The UN’s 2019 Environmental Rule of Law report found that civic participation in environmental decisions in the US led to innovative, cost-effective solutions by adding information to analyses and reframing issues.  The basis for these rights in international law comes from the 1992 Rio Declaration and the 1998 Aarhus Convention. The US is not a signatory to the Aarhus Convention, but the National Environmental Policy Act enshrines some of the same ideals in US law. The Environmental Impact Statement promotes public access to information, while the Joint Protest statement and NYU Policy Integrity’s report are examples of public participation. Access to justice is upheld when agencies like FERC take into consideration environmental injustices and hold companies to account.

Deregulation

Procedural and environmental rights at large may be in danger, as recent developments in US policy are clearing the path for the oil and gas industry at any cost. President Trump has championed a deregulatory agenda, notably withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and attempting to overturn the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding. The Paris Agreement, adopted by 195 countries in 2015, set goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Methane, a greenhouse gas, has a much higher global warming potential than carbon dioxide, and a recent review of scientific literature suggests that natural gas pipelines’ emission impacts have been underestimated. The EPA’s endangerment finding, released in response to the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts v. EPA ruling, found that under the Clean Air Act, the agency is required to place limits on greenhouse gas emissions. The endangerment finding treats greenhouse gases like other harmful chemical pollutants because they also endanger public health, though on a broader scale than localized pollutants.

Natural gas compressor station.
Image Three: Natural gas compressor statement. By: Olga. Source: Adobe Stock. Asset ID#: 452024190

Conclusion

The Southern Environmental Law Center opposes the South System Expansion 4 project in part because of the immediate effects on the communities located in its path, but also because it expands the reliance on natural gas while increasing energy bills for regular people. Executive director of Energy Alabama Daniel Tait claims, “Alabamians will be stuck with the bill for decades while utilities invest in fossil fuels instead of cheaper, cleaner alternatives.” However, Kinder Morgan’s vice president of public affairs, Allen Fore, argues that Alabama Power and the Southeast will benefit from the additional natural gas capacity.

As with any project on this scale, the South System Expansion 4 pipeline is controversial. It raises questions about sustainable development, corporate responsibility, and the federal regulatory process. Central to all energy developments should be the right of impacted communities to their health and well-being. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights outlines the right to an adequate standard of living, which the SSE4 puts at risk by polluting the surrounding area. FERC should listen to public comments and ensure that the project proceeds with the best interests–and the human rights–of the communities and the environment in mind.

Artificial Intelligence and Its Impact on Human Rights

Mathais Risse and Sushma Raman introducing themselves to the audience. Source: UAB Institute for Human Rights

On October 25, 2019, the Institute for Human Rights hosted Mathias Risse, Lucius N. Littauer Professor of Philosophy and Public Administration and director of the Carr Center for Human Rights at Harvard University, and Sushma Raman, the executive director of the Carr Center.  During the lecture and discussion, Risse asked the audience to consider the present and future moral and philosophical implications of ever-growing developments in artificial intelligence (AI) technology.   

One of the most well-known ethical dilemmas that Risse addressed is the Trolley Problem thought experiment which, seemed to be irrelevant in real life at the time of its conception, has massive implications in today’s world.  Imagine that you are standing by as a runaway trolley is headed toward five people who are tied to the tracks.  You can either refuse to intervene and allow those five people to die, or you can divert the trolley onto a sidetrack where a single person is tied. Which option is more ethical?  As AI technology is developed and products such as self-driving cars become more common, we cannot ignore the ethical concerns that will emerge and their attendant consequences. 

Risse also discussed rising concerns about the relationship between social inequalities and AI technology.  One concern is that, as technology develops, “unskilled” labor will be outsourced to AI, leaving low-income communities that typically work those jobs behind.  Not only does that leave people struggling to find work to support themselves and their families, but it also takes away their voice and political power because it pushes them out of the job market and economic system.  There is also a concern that technology will become less accessible to low-income communities as it develops, and that under-privileged groups will be left behind.  This has led many to worry that AI will “drive a widening technological wedge into society.” 

After the lecture, Risse and Raman answered some of the audience’s questions.  One person asked which of the problems regarding AI and human rights is the most concerning.  In response, Risse pointed out that it depends on who you ask.  From policymakers to tech developers to “unskilled” laborers, each group would have a different perspective on which part of the issue is the most urgent because each party has a unique relationship with technology.  

In closing his lecture, Risse noted that he wished he could end on a more cheerful note, but he found it to be nearly impossible due to the long list of concerns that the philosophical community has regarding the future of humanity and artificial intelligence.  Throughout his lecture and the Q & A session, Risse emphasized the point that there needs to be a serious increase in the interaction that occurs between the AI community and the human rights community.  While technological advancements can be wonderful and even lifesaving, it is vital that we evaluate the potential risks that come with them.  Just because something is possible does not mean it should be done, and multiple perspectives are necessary to effectively evaluate any given possibility.

The Right to Stay: Gentrification-Induced Displacement

a sign that reads "Gentrification Zone, Poor people please leave quietly"
Gentrification Zone. Source: Matt Brown, Creative Commons

The Merriam-Webster definition of gentrification is – the process of renovating deteriorated urban neighborhoods through the influx of more middle class residents into that area. The process of gentrification is now a global phenomenon and is no longer confined to cities. Communities all over the world are experiencing mass societal development, often accompanied by restored housing, business investments, the formation of new infrastructure and public services such as coffee shops and park. “In most countries, evictions and expropriations are justified on the basis of some form of general interest of society – the so-called “public interest”  and this concept has often been abused to justify illegal or badly planned mass expulsions of people. The purpose of business investment in neighborhood revitalization is the production of social capital. Social capital is defined as “the interpersonal relationships, institutions, and other social assets of a society or group that can be used to gain advantage.”  Successful social capital and economic opportunities strongly attract and dictate where families choose to reside. In terms of gentrification, social capital is an advertising tool to attract white and more affluent families into revitalized areas.

Various positive aspects of gentrification, such as community development and increased job opportunities, certainly exist. However, negative implications to gentrification, most notably displacement, complicate and in many cases outweigh the benefits. Gentrification-induced displacement (GID) describes how residents may be forced to leave their homes as a result of increased housing costs, housing demolition, evictions, and ownership conversion of rental units. During the progression of GID, increased housing opportunities in gentrifying neighborhoods are more likely to be rented by middle income households, thus gradually decreasing the quantity of low-income renters. Eventually, these neighborhoods become unaffordable to low income residents, and force these lower-income residents to secure living in a less expensive neighborhood; these neighbors likely suffer from issues such as underdevelopment and poverty.

Displacement impedes on the human rights of those forced from their home neighborhoods. The right to adequate housing is addressed in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, specifically stating: “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, [and] housing…” GID is both a human rights violation and an environmental justice issue. From a global context, the process of gentrification discriminates and targets minorities and low-income populations society. Marginalized populations do not have the political and economic influence to defend their families and communities from displacement. GID compounds these issues of marginalization, thereby multiplying the effects of structural violence on these vulnerable populations. This post will explore the policy prompting GID in two locations: Harlem in New York City, USA and Prabhadevi in Mumbai, India.

NY Night. Source: Travis Leech, Creative Commons

Harlem, New York

Harlem has been at the forefront of American black culture. After World War I, factors such as poor economic opportunities and harsh Jim Crow segregations laws in the American South, and the rise of industrial work opportunities in the North promoted the – the relocation of more than 6 million African-Americans from the rural South to the cities of the North, Midwest, and West from 1916 through 1970. In the 1900’s, African-Americans constantly battled the oppression of discriminatory housing policies due to blatant racism. In 1937, under the Housing Act, the US federal government developed the Home Owners Loan Corporation; this and other similar agencies were determined unfit and presented a ‘financial risk’ for investment by insurance companies, loan associations, banks, and other financial services companies. In reality, these agencies were deliberately racialized and designed to benefit more white and affluent populations. As a result, neighborhoods were ranked and color-coded based off race, with the color red representing African American communities. This process, known as redlining, is a method utilized by banks, insurance companies, and other financial companies to deny loans to homeowners who lived in these neighborhoods. As a consequence, neighborhoods deemed unfit for loans were left undeveloped compared to ‘white’ neighborhoods.

After the great migration, racial tension and rising rents in segregated areas in the North, resulted in African-Americans forming their own communities within big cities, thereby fostering the progression of African-American culture. Harlem in New York City, a formerly all-white neighborhood that by the 1920s housed some 200,000 African Americans, is the perfect example of the great migration. The relocation of low income African Americans into Harlem is known as the Harlem Renaissance, and during this period African American writers, musicians, and artists expressed their civil and human rights through their respective artistic media. However, towards the early 1980s, African-American culture and identity in Harlem began to and continues to face the threat of gentrification and subsequent displacement. In 1979, the areas in Harlem lying between 110th and 112th street and Fifth Avenue and Manhattan Avenue, located on the edge of Central Park, were designated for redevelopment by the Harlem Urban Development Corporation.  By 1982, 450 housing units displaced by the infrastructural development in that area were relocated into five different units of Section 8 federal housing for low income families. This is just one example of the displacement of low-income minority groups in Harlem.  Since the 1900’s, New York City as a whole continues to experience the effects of GID. The effects of gentrification in Harlem are highlighted by  the demographic shift happening in the city since the beginning of the 1900’s. In the 1950’s, African-Americans accounted for 98% of Harlem’s population; however in 2015 (just 67 years later), this percentage decreased to 65%. The effect of white “return” to Harlem expedites the process of the displacement of low-income African Americans.

Policies Contributing to GID in Harlem

In Harlem, the disproportionate escalation of housing rental prices, influenced by state housing policies, contributes to displacement. In 1969, New York City established and designated a Rent Stabilization Law (RSL), a form of rent control, to all six or more unit buildings built before 1947. Rent stabilization sets maximum rates for annual rent increases during lease renewal. Every year, the NYC rent guideline board meets to determine the annual rent increase landlords can charge tenants. Currently almost half of the rental apartments in NYC, about 1 million units with 2.6 million people living in them, are stabilized. Still, “rent-stabilized apartments are disappearing at an alarming rate: since 2007, at least 172,000 apartments have been deregulated. To give an example of how quickly affordable housing can vanish, between 2007 and 2014, 25% of the rent-stabilized apartments on the Upper West Side of Manhattan were deregulated.” The intention of this law is to protect tenants from unreasonable rent spikes, however, amendments to the RSL legislation in 2003 created a loophole allowing renters to subvert stabilization. The amendment to RSL legalized preferential rate – “a rent which an owner agrees to charge that is lower than the legal regulated rent that the owner could lawfully collect.” In theory, this amendment is supposed relieve the pressure of rent on tenants, but on the contrary, it provides landlords an opportunity to exploit lower income tenants. Under preferential rent, Owners have the choice to terminate preferential rent and charge the tenant higher legal regulated rent upon renewal of the lease, forcing tenants to either pay more rent or relocate to cheaper housing.

Evening in the Slums, Mumbai. Source: Adam Cohn, Creative Commons.

Prabhadevi, Mumbai

In Prabhadevi, Mumbai, gentrification gained prominence after the decline of textile mills. Post-industrial / neoliberal policies resulted in the sale of mill lands for large amounts of money to private developers. Gradually, huge mill landmass in the main part of the city became a central region for gentrification as land transformed from mills, to malls, and eventually towers. From 2000 to 2001, the area around standard mills was surrounded by 4 slums in which thousands of families resided. After the mills closed, some of the population left the area in search of employment in the suburbs while other families stayed in the area. From 2004 to 2005, the mill lands in Prabhadevi, Mumbai were sold to private corporate builders and remaining agricultural land was redeveloped into high end commercial or residential buildings. Land value and infrastructure continue to develop in this area, and consequently by the end of year 2015, 3 out of 4 slums were converted into Slum rehabilitation (SRA) buildings. The revitalization of these slums into high-rise towers attracted more affluent populations. In 20 years, Prabhadevi underwent a revolution from a rural slum to the down-town and cosmopolitan landmark of the city. The rapid development of the city also contributed to the rent gap between residents. The high-rise towers developing in this area are leased exclusively to the upper-class and elite.

In terms of both Harlem and Prabhadevi, “when rental units become vacant in gentrifying neighborhoods, they are more likely to be leased by middle-income households. Only indirectly, by gradually shrinking the pool of low-rent housing, does the re-urbanization of the middle class appear to harm the interests of the poor.”

Policies Contributing to GID in Mumbai

India’s federal policies play an important role in GID through three mechanisms:

  • The process of gentrification in India, which began in 1998, was greatly expedited by federal housing policies. “India’s 1998 housing and habitat policy emphasized the role of the private sector, as the other partner to be encouraged for housing construction and investment in infrastructure facilities. This resulted into rapid growth in private investment in housing with the emergence of real estate developers mainly in metropolitan cities.”
  • India’s 2002-2007 Five-Year Plan initiated the ambitious urban renewal program, renamed in 2015, “Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation” (AMRUT). The AMRUT program administered the rejuvenation of slums, pollution, and urban poverty in over 65 cities.
  • India’s federal governments 2012-2017 five-year plan’s main goal is to create a ‘slum free India’ by enshrining public-private partnerships in slum rehousing. “This five-year model gives developers access to valuable slum land in exchange for an obligation to rehouse the displaced slum dwellers in a portion of the multistory flats built on the site- a process known as transfer of development rights (TDR).”

Conclusion

Harlem and Prabhadevi are just two examples of what’s happening every day, all over the globe. As countries and communities continue to develop, land is inevitably going to be utilized and transformed for the sake of public interest. Unfortunately, land is a finite resource, which is the reason why gentrification-induced displacement is a prominent concern and reality for millions of people. As countries and communities continue to progress, we need to start asking ourselves a very important question: is displacement inevitable?  If so, what policies are in place to protect displaced people from further marginalization? What policies are currently effective in stopping the GID and how can we implement those policies in different regions around the world? Future research and policies regarding displacement need to address these issues in order to find a feasible and sustainable solution for future displacement. As a global community, we can continue to educate and empower each other to protect our rights, homes, and families.