In southwest Philadelphia, a community grappled with the aftermath of a catastrophic industrial accident, revealing deep societal divisions and complex challenges in achieving environmental justice. The story of the Philadelphia Energy Solutions (PES) refinery closure in 2019 serves as a potent case study, illustrating how scientific evidence, while crucial, often falls short of addressing the fundamental moral and ethical debates surrounding industrial pollution and its impact on vulnerable communities.
A Community’s Reckoning: The PES Refinery Disaster
The crisis unfolded in the early hours of June 21, 2019, when the Philadelphia Energy Solutions (PES) refinery, once the largest oil refinery on the Eastern Seaboard, was rocked by a series of explosions. These blasts, followed by a fire that raged for over 24 hours, sent shockwaves through the city, particularly impacting the adjacent Gray’s Ferry neighborhood. Within a week of the explosions, PES announced its permanent closure. The subsequent declaration of bankruptcy and the search for a buyer for the sprawling 1,300-acre site ignited a fierce debate about its future. Would it be redeveloped for new industrial purposes, or reimagined for community benefit?
In response to this uncertainty, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney established a Refinery Advisory Group. This body was tasked with bringing together individuals with diverse experiences, knowledge, and perspectives to inform the city’s planning for the site’s future. The group’s mandate was to navigate the complex landscape of economic, environmental, and social considerations stemming from the refinery’s 150-year legacy.
Voices from the Community: A Story Station Unveiled
As part of its outreach, the Refinery Advisory Group hosted public meetings, creating a "Story Station" to capture the lived experiences of residents. It was here, in August 2019, that Ricky, a young Black man wearing a bright yellow "Philly Thrive" t-shirt, articulated the deep-seated hopes and fears of his community. "I’m hoping and praying the refinery gets shutdown," he stated, his voice resonating with the collective sentiment of many Gray’s Ferry residents. He described "a hundred years of overwhelming pain and agony for people," directly linking the refinery’s operations to "air pollution, the asthma epidemic, just like the health issues, man, is very bad."
His sentiments were echoed by Carly, a white woman who had lived in Gray’s Ferry for five years. She testified to a tangible improvement in her quality of life since the refinery’s closure: "I have actually been able to take deep breaths outside my house comfortably for the first time since I moved there." Carly painted a grim picture of the refinery’s impact, stating, "We’ve lost hundreds of people to cancer, there are hundreds of people with asthma, and learning disabilities, that are a direct result of the chemicals that have been emitted from this facility. The science is very clear."
The Counterpoint: Jobs vs. Environment
However, the narrative of environmental harm and the call for permanent closure were met with a starkly different perspective. Patrick, a white man with a pronounced South Philadelphia accent, who had worked at the refinery for seventeen years, challenged the residents’ claims. "All of a sudden, the people who work inside these walls, why don’t we have cancer? Where is the proof?" he demanded, his tone escalating. He framed the residents’ concerns as attempts to secure financial compensation. "These people come out with accusations, they wanna get paid, they want money, how about the cigarettes you smoke? Is that causing emphysema? I guess it is." Patrick’s plea was clear: he wanted to return to work, and he blamed "people crying about air quality" for his inability to do so.
This stark contrast in testimonies highlighted a deeply ingrained societal trope: the "jobs versus environment" debate. It also illuminated a racial divide, with refinery workers predominantly identified as white and those speaking out against the refinery largely being Black, with the exception of Carly.
Analyzing the Divide: Moral Community and State-Sanctioned Violence
The situation in Gray’s Ferry resonated with established sociological frameworks. Sociologist David Naguib Pellow’s work on state-sanctioned violence could be applied here, suggesting that the operation of the refinery, with its apparent disregard for the health and safety of surrounding low-income, predominantly Black neighborhoods, exemplifies a pattern of systemic neglect. The city’s response, by establishing a seemingly balanced advisory group that could be perceived as creating a "false equivalency" between workers’ job security and residents’ fears for their lives, might indicate a reluctance to fully confront this violence.
Conversely, the "just transitions" approach, championed by scholars like Julian Agyeman and organizations such as the Sunrise Movement and the Climate Justice Alliance, offers an alternative perspective. This framework argues that phasing out extractive, polluting industries is essential for achieving both economic and racial justice, paving the way for good jobs in sustainable sectors. Mark Clincy, a representative of Philly Thrive, articulated this vision: "We can get sustainable energy, renewable energy, clean energy that not only provides jobs for our employees, but also make it better for everyone to live."
The Core of the Conflict: Moral Standards and Identity
At its heart, the debate transcended mere policy recommendations. It was a fundamental argument over prevailing moral standards and who constituted the "moral community"—the group of people who share moral values and expect each other to uphold them. Residents like Ricky and Carly sought to establish a shared norm that prioritizing human health and quality of life over industrial pollution was a moral imperative. They aimed to expand the definition of the moral community to include those disproportionately burdened by environmental hazards.
Refinery workers, on the other hand, sought to defend their livelihoods by framing themselves as responsible providers for their families. They invoked shared norms around hard work and the right to earn a living, while simultaneously attacking the integrity of their detractors. Patrick’s accusations of greed and Jimmy McGee’s assertion that residents were "scared and worrying about stuff like that" and could only blame themselves, served to push residents out of the moral community, rendering their concerns less worthy of attention or defense.
The "Jobs" Camp’s Moral High Ground
The testimonies revealed an asymmetry in the discourse. Gray’s Ferry residents felt compelled to defend their moral standing, assuring critics they weren’t seeking undeserved financial gain. Sonya Sanders powerfully stated, "Jobs shouldn’t be based on people’s lives. I don’t want any money, I just want to live." She directly refuted the accusation of greed, emphasizing, "It’s not about a dollar with me. I’m getting paid with my life."
Refinery workers, however, largely operated from a perceived moral high ground. Their primary concern, providing for their families, was presented as an unquestionable good. Jimmy McGee, a union safety representative, articulated this: "We’re not bad people, we’re good people, the only thing we want to do is provide for our families." He framed the closure of the refinery as a catastrophic event that would devastate hundreds of families, accusing Philly Thrive of celebrating their misfortune.
This dynamic highlighted how prevailing norms around economic activity often grant an inherent moral advantage to industry. The economic well-being of companies and workers is frequently presented as a non-negotiable priority, making it difficult to question without appearing to dismiss the legitimate needs of working families.
The Role of Science: Facts Without Rebuttal
The scientific community, represented by figures like Dr. Marilyn Howarth, a physician and researcher at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Excellence in Environmental Toxicology (CEET), played a crucial role in presenting factual data. Dr. Howarth testified to the Refinery Advisory Group, detailing higher rates of cancer, asthma, heart attacks, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Philadelphia compared to state and national averages. She linked these health outcomes to refinery emissions, citing benzene exposure and the release of volatile organic compounds that contribute to ozone formation and exacerbate respiratory conditions. She noted that PES had exceeded its pollution permits in recent years.
Dr. Howarth concluded that permits for such an industry in that location would likely not be granted today, based on existing environmental law standards. This testimony, grounded in scientific evidence, aimed to bolster the community’s claims. However, the article argues that this scientific evidence, while accurate and responsibly presented, failed to effectively counter the deeply embedded moral arguments used by industry proponents.
The core problem, the author posits, is that scientific facts alone are insufficient to rebut the personal attacks leveled against community activists. Refinery workers accused residents of greed, irresponsibility, and lacking moral character, effectively attempting to disqualify them from the moral community. Dr. Howarth’s testimony, while demonstrating a correlation between refinery emissions and adverse health effects, did not directly address these character attacks. She couldn’t scientifically prove that every case of cancer or asthma was solely attributable to the refinery, thus leaving room for counter-arguments that blamed individual lifestyle choices, such as smoking.
The City’s Report: A Cost-Benefit Framework
The City of Philadelphia’s official report, A Close Call and an Uncertain Future, released in November 2019, further illustrated this disconnect. While incorporating Dr. Howarth’s data, the report framed the issue within a cost-benefit analysis. Health impacts, though acknowledged as a "dominant theme" in public comments, were weighed against the economic benefits of the refinery. The report concluded that while refinery emissions might contribute to air quality issues, it was difficult to tie reductions directly to specific community improvements due to other risk factors.
This approach, the author argues, subordinates moral considerations to economic calculations. It implicitly positions economic activity as the "benefit" and environmental and health impacts as "costs" to be managed or tolerated. This framework, the article suggests, inherently favors industry, as economic growth is often granted a higher moral standing than the protection of community health.
The Path Forward: Repairing Moral Relations
The analysis presented in the article suggests that achieving genuine environmental justice requires more than presenting scientific evidence. It necessitates a broader effort to repair "dysfunctional moral relations." This involves challenging the prevailing moral logic that often excuses industrial harms and actively working to expand the definition of the moral community.
Researchers and advocates must not only present facts but also become "part of a bulwark against attacks on community activists’ moral standing." This means actively defending the integrity and legitimacy of those on the front lines of pollution, ensuring their voices are heard and their claims of injustice are taken seriously. It requires challenging the narrative that frames pollution as a mere inconvenience or a necessary trade-off for economic prosperity, and instead recognizing it as a profound injustice that demands reparative action.
The case of the PES refinery closure underscores the critical need for a societal shift in how we value human health, environmental integrity, and community well-being relative to industrial economic interests. The fight for environmental justice is, at its core, a fight for a more inclusive and equitable moral community, where the well-being of all, especially the most vulnerable, is paramount.