MVP -- From stress to distress and more
Letter from E. Scott Geller, alumni distinguished professor at Virginia Tech, Roanoke Times, September 11, 2017
Every societal or cultural issue influences human dynamics — psychology — and vice versa. The proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) crisis is no exception, but the psychological impact of the MVP has not been given much attention. Yes, it is a crisis and it’s causing severe distress among numerous citizens of Southwest Virginia. I did say distress, not stress.
Stress is okay. It means we are under pressure to accomplish something — we’re under the gun to get things done. Stress is actually motivating and not debilitating.
In contrast, distress is debilitating and painful — both physically and psychologically. This proposed pipeline is causing severe distress among the majority of residents who understand the devastating environmental impact of the MVP. And this distress has caused severe, life-threatening illnesses for some folks in our community.
Why distress and not stress? The difference between motivating stress and debilitating distress is the perception of personal control. When people believe they can control a stressor they feel stress, and they work hard to conquer the stressor and move forward. The proposed MVP is a stressor, and for more than three years citizens throughout Southwest Virginia have worked diligently to remove that stressor. They sponsored rallies, conducted neighborhood surveys, wrote newspaper editorials, and produced and shared professional videos to increase public awareness and garner anti-MVP support.
They hired soil specialists, geologists, and lawyers to make the science-based case that the proposed MVP route is unsafe and dramatically destructive to the environment and its resources, including water—a life necessity. They wrote data-based opposition letters to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), explaining the irrationality of the proposed MVP. Yet it seems all of these stress-reduction strategies have fallen on deaf ears. None have yet worked to dissuade the construction of the proposed MVP.
At the same time, these dedicated and hard-working Americans must listen to the industry-oriented and ill-informed dialogue from those advocating for the proposed MVP. “It will bring us new jobs.” “It will bring needed industry to Roanoke.” “It will improve our economy.” Besides being grossly inaccurate and shortsighted, all arguments for the proposed MVP are about financial gain that disregards the irreversible environmental damage and the potential risk of devastating explosions and water contamination.
Those who understand the environmental destruction that will result from the proposed MVP realize that the advocates of the proposed MVP care only about time-limited monetary gain. And it seems the FERC is paying more attention to this self-serving and shortsighted rationale than the people-focused reasoning of those opposing the proposed MVP — those citizens who have spent more than three years becoming well-informed of the devastating and life-threatening consequences of the proposed MVP that will actually benefit only a few greedy individuals.
The result: A debate between rational perspectives to save environmental resources for generations of residents versus an obvious individualistic mindset that will destroy irreplaceable resources and put numerous citizens at risk for water contamination and gas explosions.
Realizing the proposed illogical MVP might actually be built, despite overwhelming evidence that the MVP would cause significant harm to people and their environment, fuels debilitating human distress. And such distress is fueled by the observation that the FERC has seemingly not even considered the data that shows the irrationality of building the MVP.
Psychologists call this “confirmation bias.” People listen to evidence that supports their initial opinion and self-serving consequences, and they deny opposing information. Confirmation bias and personal monetary gain (FERC personnel are paid from monies collected from the pipelines they approve) provide the impetus for the virtual rubber-stamping of pipeline approvals— time after time. Realizing this is truly distressing.
Any attempt to incorporate science-based rationality into the critical decision-making process regarding the proposed MVP could be therapeutic.
Specifically, it’s crucial that the leaders of all organizations involved in decision-making regarding the proposed MVP review carefully the critical information available from all sources regarding the proposed MVP that has been collected, analyzed, and shared with the FERC. We need these leaders to be well-informed of the devastating and multi-generational consequences this proposed pipeline would have on our environment and its invaluable resources.
Point Your RSS Reader to FrackCheckWV.net/feed/
