Natural Gas Gathering and Transmission Pipelines and Social Vulnerability in the United States

Abstract

Midstream oil and gas infrastructure comprises vast networks of gathering and transmission pipelines that connect upstream extraction to downstream consumption. In the United States (US), public policies and corporate decisions have prompted a wave of proposals for new gathering and transmission pipelines in recent years, raising the question: Who bears the burdens associated with existing pipeline infrastructure in the US? With this in mind, we examined the density of natural gas gathering and transmission pipelines in the US together with county-level data on social vulnerability. For the 2,261 US counties containing natural gas pipelines, we found a positive correlation between county-level pipeline density and an index of social vulnerability. In general, counties with more socially vulnerable populations have significantly higher pipeline densities than counties with less socially vulnerable populations. In particular, counties in the top quartile of social vulnerability tend to have pipeline densities that are much higher than pipeline densities for counties in the bottom quartile of social vulnerability. The difference grows larger for counties at the upper extremes of pipeline density within each group.

The Role of Behavioral Medicine in Addressing Climate Change-Related Health Inequities

“…As behavioral medicine professionals, we must partner across communities and disciplines to generate evidence needed for legislative action and advocate for meaningful policy changes nationally and locally (including at our own institutions). For example, the construction of oil pipelines is concentrated near Indigenous communities, increasing health risks via environmental destruction, exposure to toxic chemicals, and increased risk of sexual violence [ 86–89 ]. Research on the short and long-term health, behavior, and quality of life consequences of proximity to fossil fuel infrastructure supports legislation banning new fossil fuel infrastructure development in communities targeted for marginalization [ 39 , 55 , 90 ].…”

Environmental Injustices of Leaks from Urban Natural Gas Distribution Systems: Patterns among and within 13 U.S. Metro Areas

“…We broadly classify these burdens into three categories: safety, economic, and environmental/public health burdens. These burdens range from chronic to acute and likewise vary in severity, as has been documented for a variety of other EJ burdens. ,, …”

“…Several studies have now documented the burdens, benefits, and injustices of the oil and gas industry and its infrastructure. , These studies document the EJ impacts of oil and gas production, especially those related to fracking. − Looking at the location of natural gas gathering and transmission pipelines, Emanuel et al found that counties with a high social vulnerability index (SVI) have higher pipeline concentrations than counties with a lower SVI. The SVI includes factors such as socioeconomic status, household composition and disability, nonwhite non-Hispanic population and language, and housing type and transportation .…”

It’s electric! An environmental equity perspective on the lifecycle of our energy sources

“…74 Natural gas infrastructure, such as pipelines, compressor stations, and power plants, are often located in the middle of low-income neighborhoods. [75][76][77] In areas where natural gas is used for cooking, historically marginalized populations are disproportionately exposed to gas leaks, and repair times are often longer in communities of lower socioeconomic status. 78 Other aspects of the natural gas development process have not been robustly assessed with respect to environmental justice.…”