Fossil Fuel Racism: The Ongoing Burden of Oil and Gas Development in the Shadows of Regulatory Inaction

With the slow pace of protective regulatory measures, low-income, racially segregated, or otherwise disadvantaged areas (i.e., persistently marginalized populations) continue to bear the brunt of exposures to oil and gas development and associated infrastructure, a phenomenon often called fossil fuel racism.¹ Two articles in this issue of AJPH reveal that, unsurprisingly, the reality of California’s Los Angeles County is no different. Berberian et al. (p. 1191) and Chan et al. (p. 1182) conducted environmental justice analyses that show how California’s oil and gas development excessively exposes persistently marginalized populations to preventable health-relevant hazards.

Berberian et al. demonstrate higher potential for community water supply contamination from oil and gas development in areas that were historically redlined or are currently racially segregated. This finding is particularly important given the relative research and regulatory focus on air pollution as opposed to water-related pathways. Chan et al. elucidate how neighborhoods with oil and gas development are often colocated with environmental hazards beyond the resource extraction itself (e.g., cleanup sites, hazardous waste facilities, groundwater threats). This demonstrates an inherent issue with regulating environmental hazards “one by one” because many persistently marginalized communities are experiencing a toxic combination of polluting industries, each of which may affect health.

Both studies also find clear evidence that Black communities are particularly affected, reflecting decades of racist land-use policies. This scenario is a prime example of the “double jeopardy” of environmental hazards and structural racism, creating conditions that can exacerbate existing health disparities among different racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups.² Importantly, the recent analyses focus on one component (extraction) of the massive oil and gas supply chain and infrastructure across the United States,³ therefore likely underestimating the true burden of fossil fuels on persistently marginalized communities.

Time⁴ and time⁵ and time⁶ and time³ again, scientists have called for stronger public health protective regulation on oil and gas development. Researchers have summarized and synthesized evidence of the health harms from oil and gas development, discussed how oil and gas production is disproportionately sited in persistently marginalized communities, and highlighted shortcomings and inadequacies of existing regulations to protect against health harms from oil and gas development.^3–6 Despite these calls and ongoing community concerns, limited regulation exists and the United States continues its heavy dependence on oil and gas; in fact, the US Energy Information Administration projects that production of both oil and natural gas will continue at its present level through at least the year 2050.⁷

California has recently made admirable, albeit incremental, progress on regulating where oil and gas development is sited (Figure 1).⁸ In 2019, the state convened a health-oriented expert panel of epidemiologists, exposure scientists, and toxicologists who were tasked with creating evidence-based policy recommendations related to setback distances (i.e., the distance between an extraction site and a residence, school, nursing home, etc.).⁹

FIGURE 1—

A Comparative Timeline of Health-Protective Policy for Oil and Gas Development in California and New York

Note. CalGEM = California Geologic Energy M​anagement Division.

Although the panel determined that a 3200-foot setback distance would be health protective,⁹ their final report has not yet come to light. California also plans to stop issuing fracking permits (a subtype of oil and gas development that is relatively uncommon in the state) in 2024 and phase out oil extraction by 2045.⁸ However, this regulatory work functionally began in late 2019, almost a decade after the publication of the first peer-reviewed evidence of human health hazards related to modern oil and gas development.⁴ Regulatory implementation will lag even further behind the initial scientific alarm bell.⁸ Even more importantly, all of these regulations will likely be delayed even further because of ongoing legal challenges—even California, a liberal state leading on climate change, cannot successfully create health-protective regulations around oil and gas activity.

Meanwhile, as the clock ticks, fossil fuel racism will continue to run rampant.¹ California’s regulatory measures offer greater health protection potential than almost any other state, yet the residents are still going to be burdened by two additional decades of fossil fuel hazards before these protections are fully in place. As highlighted by Berberian et al. and Chan et al., these ongoing hazards from fossil fuels will disproportionately affect persistently marginalized populations, particularly Black communities, especially hard.

Although we do not know what exact component of oil and gas development is most toxic (e.g., drilling, frac fluid, flaring, truck traffic), the literature is remarkably consistent across states—oil and gas development harms population health and unduly affects persistently marginalized communities.^3–6,9,10 Although weaker interventions exist,¹⁰ stopping the construction of fossil fuel facilities and retiring existing infrastructure are the most protective measures for public health. Rather than waiting until harms are overwhelmingly apparent, regulatory action could (and should) have been taken at the first evidence of harm.¹¹ Now, the only remaining opportunity is to prevent further harm.

Outside of California, there are examples of where a precautionary health-protective policy for oil and gas development was implemented, the most notable of which is New York State (Figure 1).¹² A mere two years after the first evidence of potential harm of hydraulic fracturing appeared in the scientific literature in 2012, the New York Department of Health began reviewing the literature on the harms of hydraulic fracturing. Two years after their review commenced, the state of New York announced a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing via an executive order in 2014.¹² This executive order was codified into law in 2020, although other types of extraction remain legal and active. New York’s ban was based on evidence of the potential harms to public health. It went in place despite uncertainty and gaps in the evidence, and only four years after the first indications of potential harm from hydraulic fracturing. Most importantly, the executive order explicitly cites the spirit and intent of the precautionary principle in making this decision.¹²

California has codified in regulation the ability to use the precautionary principle in response to evidence of potential public health harms in other domains (e.g., the state’s Safer Consumer Products program). In the case of oil and gas production, there exists not just ample evidence of potential health harms, but rigorous, empirical evidence of current health harms. Here, Berberian et al. and Chan et al. provide further evidence of fossil fuel racism running rampant in the case of oil and gas development.¹ Even if this industry was banned tomorrow, a plan would still be needed to dismantle the epic quantity of oil and gas infrastructure across the country, including both the supply and demand sides, to protect communities from the harms of abandoned and legacy infrastructure.^3,6

What will it take for California to act on these early indications of harm and take action to protect public health from the long-term effects of oil and gas activity? More importantly, what bar of evidence is needed for the Biden administration (or subsequent executives) to act at the federal level, or for state governors to act at the state level? Although we do not know what it will take to pass and implement health-protective regulations, we do know that “lack of evidence” is no longer a legitimate argument against policy action for oil and gas development.