In southwest Philadelphia, the lingering shadow of a massive industrial accident has ignited a complex debate about environmental justice, economic viability, and the very fabric of community well-being. The closure of the Philadelphia Energy Solutions (PES) refinery, once the largest oil refinery on the Eastern Seaboard, in the wake of a catastrophic explosion and fire in June 2019, presented a critical juncture. It offered a potential moment for "moral repair," as described by Gwen Ottinger in her book The Science of Repair, a chance for the city to acknowledge the profound and often damaging legacy of industrial activity on surrounding neighborhoods, particularly the predominantly Black community of Gray’s Ferry.
The Cataclysm and its Aftermath
The events that led to this pivotal moment began in the early hours of June 21, 2019. Three explosions rocked Philadelphia, followed by a fire that raged for over 24 hours at the PES refinery. This dramatic incident, visible and audible for miles, served as a stark reminder of the industrial risks present in densely populated urban areas. Just a week later, PES announced the refinery’s permanent shutdown. The subsequent month saw the company declare bankruptcy, initiating a period of intense speculation about the future of the sprawling 1,300-acre site. Would it be redeveloped for new industrial uses, or would a new owner seek to restart operations, potentially reigniting environmental and health concerns?
In response to this uncertainty, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney established a Refinery Advisory Group. The stated purpose of this body was to convene a diverse range of individuals—community members, industry representatives, environmental experts, and city officials—to gather perspectives and inform the city’s long-term planning for the vast industrial footprint. This initiative, while aiming for inclusivity, quickly became a crucible for deeply entrenched societal divisions.
Voices from the Community: A Story Station
Within the framework of the Refinery Advisory Group, a "Story Station" was established at one of its public meetings, providing a platform for residents to share their lived experiences. Among those who spoke was Ricky, a young Black man from the Gray’s Ferry community, wearing a bright yellow "Philly Thrive" t-shirt. His message was unequivocal: "I’m hoping and praying the refinery gets shutdown." He articulated the decades of suffering, describing the refinery’s legacy as "a hundred years of overwhelming pain and agony for people." Ricky spoke of the pervasive air pollution and what he termed an "asthma epidemic," highlighting the severe health issues plaguing his neighborhood.
His sentiments were echoed by Carly, a white resident 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." Her words underscored a perceived direct link between the refinery’s operations and the health crises within the community.
The Counterpoint: Industry and Livelihoods
However, not all voices at the Story Station aligned with this perspective. Patrick, a white man with a strong South Philadelphia accent, who identified himself as having worked at the refinery for seventeen years, offered a starkly different viewpoint. He questioned the accusations of health impacts, asking, "All of a sudden, the people who work inside these walls, why don’t we have cancer? Where is the proof?" Patrick framed the residents’ concerns as a pursuit of financial gain, asking, "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." His plea was for the refinery to resume operations, emphasizing the threat to his livelihood: "I go to work every day. And I work hard. And I’d like to go back to work tomorrow, but I can’t because people are crying about air quality."
This stark contrast in testimonies immediately highlighted a racial and socioeconomic divide. While refinery workers, predominantly white, spoke of job security and economic stability, residents like Ricky and Carly, many of whom were Black, spoke of life-threatening health consequences and a desire for a healthier environment. This dynamic, as Ottinger notes, is a "wearyingly familiar trope" in environmental debates, often framed as a binary choice between "jobs" and "the environment."
Analyzing the Moral Landscape
The author’s analysis suggests that the conflict extended beyond mere policy disagreements; it was a battle over fundamental moral standards and who constituted the "moral community"—the group of people who share moral standards and hold each other accountable to them. Two primary frameworks emerge from this conflict:
-
Environmental Racism and State-Sanctioned Violence: One perspective, drawing on the work of sociologist David Naguib Pellow, views the situation as an instance of state-sanctioned violence against people of color. The city’s apparent reluctance to take a more explicitly anti-racist stance, by creating what is perceived as a false equivalency between workers’ job concerns and residents’ fears for their lives, is seen as complicity in this violence.
-
Just Transition: An alternative approach, championed by scholars like Julian Agyeman and organizations such as the Sunrise Movement and Philly Thrive, advocates for a "just transition." This framework posits that phasing out extractive, polluting industries is essential for both economic and racial justice, ultimately leading to the creation of sustainable jobs and healthier communities. Mark Clincy, a member of Philly Thrive, articulated this by stating, "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 Undercurrents of Accusation and Defense
The testimonies revealed a deeper struggle for moral legitimacy. Refinery workers, like Patrick and Jimmy McGee (a union safety representative), employed accusations of greed and irresponsibility against community activists. McGee, for instance, expressed indignation over a celebratory barbecue held by Philly Thrive after the refinery’s closure, calling it a "disgrace" that demonstrated a lack of empathy for the workers’ impending job losses. He argued that their livelihoods—supporting homes, cars, and education—were at stake, and that focusing solely on environmental concerns disregarded the human cost of such decisions. McGee also suggested that residents’ fears were unfounded and a result of their own anxieties, implying a need for greater trust in refinery safety protocols.
These accusations were designed to undermine the moral standing of the activists. By portraying them as financially motivated, irresponsible, or even callous towards the plight of workers, refinery employees sought to disqualify them from the moral conversation. This tactic, Ottinger observes, is a way of deflecting responsibility by questioning the integrity of those raising concerns. The implication was that individuals lacking such integrity—those who were perceived as greedy or self-serving—did not deserve to be listened to or defended, effectively pushing them out of the moral community.
The Role of Science: A Double-Edged Sword
In this charged environment, scientific evidence emerged as a crucial, yet often insufficient, tool. Dr. Marilyn Howarth, a physician and researcher from the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Excellence in Environmental Toxicology (CEET), presented testimony to the Refinery Advisory Group. Her research highlighted elevated rates of certain cancers, asthma, heart attacks, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Philadelphia, correlating many of these conditions with environmental exposures, including benzene, a chemical released by refineries. She concluded that the refinery’s emissions were significant and that, by current standards, permits for such an industry in that location would likely not be granted today.
While Dr. Howarth’s findings provided factual backing for the community’s concerns, they did not definitively sway the debate. As Ottinger points out, "The facts they have to offer are no defense against the most biting criticisms that residents face." Refinery workers could still argue, as John Wharton did, that individual lifestyle choices, such as smoking, also contributed to illnesses, thus diluting the direct causal link to the refinery. Science, in this context, could demonstrate correlations and potential harms, but it struggled to counter the deeply personal accusations of moral failing leveled against the activists.
The City of Philadelphia’s official report, A Close Call and an Uncertain Future, while incorporating scientific data, ultimately framed the issue within a cost-benefit analysis. This approach, according to Ottinger, relegated health impacts and environmental concerns to "costs" to be weighed against the "benefits" of economic activity. Even when acknowledging scientific findings, the report’s authors concluded that it was "difficult to tie that reduction in refinery emissions directly to a reduction in the air pollution that impacts any specific community or population because there are other relevant risk factors and pollution sources involved." This effectively neutralized the moral weight of the scientific evidence, reasserting the primacy of economic considerations.
The Asymmetry of Moral Authority
A significant imbalance became apparent in how different groups were expected to justify their positions. Gray’s Ferry residents, even those articulating profound health impacts, felt compelled to defend their motivations, assuring critics that they were not seeking undeserved financial gain but rather prioritizing life and health. Sylvia Bennett, for instance, tearfully explained her daughters’ struggles with cancer, emphasizing, "It’s a sad day when we pit each other against each other for something like this, life. Life. Life is important. We’re not against you guys for your jobs." She appealed for unity and responsibility from the company, while simultaneously affirming her community’s commitment to shared values.
In contrast, refinery workers and their representatives did not feel the need to justify their desire for continued employment or their commitment to providing for their families. Their economic well-being was framed as an unquestionable good, a prevailing norm that deserved protection. This "moral high ground" allowed them to assert their authority, even to the point of judging the integrity of their opponents, without having to directly address the health impacts raised by residents.
Broader Implications: Abandonment and the Path Forward
The events surrounding the PES refinery illustrate what Ottinger terms "dysfunctional moral relations," characterized by widespread abandonment of communities bearing the brunt of industrial pollution. This abandonment is not accidental; it is engineered through the manipulation of shared standards and the denial of moral standing to those most affected. The prevailing narrative often prioritizes economic activity, framing environmental and health concerns as mere costs or inconvenconveniences rather than injustices. Furthermore, accusations of irresponsibility and greed against activists serve to justify inaction and a lack of solidarity from the broader public.
This pattern of abandonment is not unique to environmental justice issues. It mirrors the struggles faced by women reporting sexual harassment, racial justice advocates, and individuals with disabilities seeking equitable treatment. In each case, those demanding accountability are often met with dismissal, accusations of ulterior motives, and a denial of their right to be heard and defended.
For researchers and allies committed to social justice, the lesson is clear: showing up with facts alone is insufficient. Scientific evidence, while vital, can be co-opted and reinterpreted to maintain existing power structures. To truly contribute to moral repair, scientists and advocates must actively work to bolster the moral standing of marginalized communities. This involves not only presenting data but also challenging the moral logics that excuse harm and resisting efforts to exclude affected populations from the collective conscience. As Ottinger concludes, research must focus on the processes of inquiry and their potential to improve moral relations, rather than solely on the dissemination of facts. The goal is to ensure that communities fighting for their health and survival are not left to battle industrial giants in isolation, but are recognized as legitimate stakeholders whose well-being is paramount.