To Earthworks executive director Jennifer Krill, ‘business as usual’ is driving the world straight into a climate catastrophe.

Through our “Ask An Advocate Anything” blog series, we chat with influential activists and campaigners, seeking to better understand their theories of change and explore how NGOs are challenging and collaborating with companies to advance business as a force for good.

The views and statements shared in the following interview are those of the interviewee alone and do not represent the perspective of Future 500. To learn more about how we approach these conversations, check out our Editorial Policy.

In the Earthworks mission statement, you say in part that you work to increase “corporate accountability.” What does that look like for you?

Earthworks is a nonprofit organization committed to protecting communities from the adverse impacts of oil and gas and mineral extraction. We work directly with regulators, and have worked to secure laws that help protect communities from harm. But sometimes the law hasn’t caught up to the practices, and when that happens we work with the companies directly. If a company is interested in talking to us, we enter into a dialogue. If they’re not, then we run a campaign to pressure it to change practices that are causing harm to the environment and community.

What is your theory of change?

We believe that if adverse impacts of [an extractive-industry company’s activities] on communities and the environment are exposed, then the company will change those practices—through pressure, through persuasion, through the desire to be a good neighbor. We have also experienced times in which companies don’t seem to be interested in being a good neighbor, or who don’t behave as though the resources that we all share—like clean water and a livable climate—are important. Then we work to expose those practices.

On that front, Earthworks has proven itself an innovator. Your use of optical gas imaging technology pioneered a whole new approach to accountability by revealing otherwise-invisible pollution at natural gas well sites. What kind of impact has the campaign had? 

The oil and gas industry doesn’t have to report on, or manage, its emissions under the Clean Air Act, because each point source—each oil or gas well—is too small in terms of emissions to meet the required threshold under the legislation. This leads to a situation where the regulation of the oil and gas industry falls to the states. Some states do a worse job than others, leaving communities at risk. Earthworks has been working since 1988 with communities on the front lines of extractive industries, and our work on the oil and gas industry began in 1999. We knew from being in these communities that there was a significant air-pollution problem, and it was not being sufficiently regulated. We saw the boom of hydraulic fracturing, which enabled the rapid expansion of oil and gas drilling in the United States, in places it had never been done before.

We felt like there was a story that was missing and that was the story of people who live on the front lines of oil and gas extraction and hydraulic fracturing. So we bought our first optical gas imaging camera in 2015, in order to explain to regulators what was happening as a result of oil and gas drilling and fracking and pipelines and infrastructure and refining and gas electricity generation by making this invisible pollution visible.

The footage is certainly powerful. What’s in that pollution?

It includes methane as the largest constituent, a powerful greenhouse gas that is not, in of itself, harmful to health, but also a considerable list of about 19 other chemicals that are. When we’ve taken samples of the pollution on the front lines of oil and gas extraction to a lab, we find an even longer list—chemicals like benzene, xylene, and toluene. We’ve done this hundreds of times now. There are 1.5 million producing oil and gas wells across the United States. And hundreds of operators. 

Has your work revealing this pollution led to any of these operators cleaning up these emissions, such as stopping flaring or sealing leaks?

We don’t actually think of these as ’leaks’ because a lot of this is happening under the existing regulatory regimen; I also don’t want to imply that that this can be done safely, or without pollution. Some of the places where we’ve recorded pollution can be corrected by sending a worker to repair a valve. But some of the leaks that we’ve captured can’t be corrected. 

Why not?

Well, for example, a natural gas storage tank usually has a little gadget called a “patch.” When the tank gets too full and there starts to be too much pressure in the tank, the patch opens. It’s a safety measure. Without the patch, the tank could eventually burst or explode—a terrible thing could happen. So the patch is necessary. Yet here is this safety feature that is consistently polluting a greenhouse gas that is 86 times worse for the atmosphere than CO2. We’ve come to realize that you just cannot frack, process, compress, and refine natural gas and oil without significant pollution. 

So then is the ultimate answer, in your view, to “keep it in the ground?”

We believe that the only solution in order to maintain a livable climate is that we need to stop this industry from expanding. Keep it in the ground, yes, and cut the methane and reduce the harm where we already have existing infrastructure. About 12.7 million people live within half a mile of an oil and gas well in the United States. Those people deserve to breathe clean air, and that means that we need to address everything we can possibly address with this industry, and we need to stop its expansion and phase out our dependence on oil and gas.

When you sit down with oil and gas companies, do you ever get the sense that they find your positions too “radical?” Is there space for common ground with this industry when you fundamentally feel it should not exist?

Companies don’t, as a rule, find Earthworks to be a radical organization. What we’re asking for is very reasonable, backed by science, and in line with what scientists tell us is necessary in order to protect people and protect the global climate. We have had a number of conversations with a number of [oil and gas] companies and things were very collegial. But they have not resulted in a fundamental change.

What about the mining sector, the other industry you work to transform?

We have had a better track record of collaborative activity there. We’re currently working with two members of the mining industry, Anglo American and ArcelorMittal on a system for voluntary third-party certified, independently audited assurance for more responsible mining. It’s called the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance and we’ve found a very collaborative dialogue with the financial industry with downstream purchasers of mined minerals. So beyond the actual point of extraction, I think companies are excited to work with Earthworks, and we’ve found it a terrific dialogue.

You’ve also had success with retail regulation, with a strong list of retailers including Walmart and others that have committed to only source gold from suppliers that commit to best practices. Is this Initiative building off of that work?

It sure is. The No Dirty Gold campaign has been going for 15 years, working to enlist the jewelry industry into efforts to reduce the toxic legacy from mining—not just gold mining but other minerals as well. We realized that, without an independent third-party verification system, we would be hard- pressed to answer the question, “What gold is not dirty?” So we began working with Tiffany and Co. and eventually we were joined by Microsoft, and Anglo American and ArcelorMittal, and unions such as United Steelworkers, and we found community First Nations women who were advocating for responsible mining. It really takes Earthworks’ original idea, which we called the Golden Rules, and turned it into a credible global third-party standard for more responsible mining.

How do you build a chain of custody system for a commodity such as gold that is so easily smelted and moved around?

Well, for Microsoft it means building its own proprietary database of suppliers, and all of the various issues and concerns, because its supply chain is so complex. Meanwhile Tiffany and Co. has been able to very deliberately and systematically address the concerns that it has with its supply chain, and its sustainability reports outline how it has a high level of confidence of excellence on its sourcing.

Another recent Earthworks campaign, Making Clean Energy Clean, Just & Equitable, seeks to ensure that the renewable-power revolution will protect community health, water, human rights and the environment. Can we balance all of those things and also transition the energy system at the necessary speed?

We know that the production of a single gold ring produces 20 tons of waste. Now imagine the weight of minerals that are going to be required for a wind turbine, or a field of solar panels, or for the electric vehicles we will need to enable us to reduce our dependence on coal, gas, and oil. How and where are we going to source these minerals in order to make sure that we’re minimizing impacts on the environment, respecting the communities that live on the front lines of extraction, ensuring fair and equitable worker representation, and respecting the rights of indigenous people?

How indeed?

Well, Earthworks’ perspective on this is that yes, we can have a renewable-energy revolution, with mines and minerals, but we need to learn from the mistakes of the past. We should design our renewable-energy systems to maximize recycling and minimize toxicity. We can either produce an enormous amount of toxic pollution very quickly, or we can design the new industrial system to do it better. If new mining must be done, then it should be certified through a system like the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance.

But the initiative won’t likely solve all this. Where do you see potential for conflict ahead?

Lithium, cobalt, and nickel are three minerals that are critical for electric vehicles, and there are problems associated with mining these minerals today. Lithium mining can be incredibly water intensive, and take water away from precious places where people need it for survival. The majority of the world’s cobalt is currently sourced from the Democratic Republic of Congo, which is known for tremendous problems with child labor and other human rights abuses as well as the environmental impacts.

So given all of those challenges, what needs to happen if we are to do this right?

The renewable-energy revolution should be built for a climate-constrained world. So, instead of expecting developing countries to have the automobile penetration of the United States—where we have seven cars for every 10 people—instead let’s invest in mass transit and bike transit.

But to play devil’s advocate, if you make investment decisions at a global bank, and somebody comes with a big lithium mine proposal, are you going to say, “Naw, no thanks, but have you got any transit projects in the works?” Are banks even in a position to be able to do that?

I am trying to come up with an analogy of your “devil’s advocate” that is about driving us straight into hell. Look, we’re facing a climate catastrophe. We have to start doing business in such a way that doesn’t drive the world into a climate catastrophe. And that means we need fewer advocates for the devil, and more advocates for the people.

To be clear, we’re not advocating for that...

I know, but it’s time for financial institutions, global multilateral development institutions, regulators and inter-governmental institutions, as well as nonprofit organizations, to start doing business differently. And that means that we are running out of global resources to continue with business as usual, and by global resources I’m talking about more than just the climate here. In the United States, half of the watersheds west of the Mississippi are polluted by mining. Most places in the world that have access to freshwater resources and strong sustainable ecosystems are facing threats to those resources. In order to build our renewable energy revolution, in order to support global climate change, we also need to protect and be good stewards of the resources and watersheds and ecosystems that we have left in the world.

Can business be a force for good?

I think business can be a force for good, but I don’t know if business, by itself, will ultimately fix this. Business needs to work collaboratively with governments, inter-governmental institutions, multilateral development banks, financial institutions, insurance sector, and other businesses in order to change the way business is currently being done. I don’t see a way out of this without [the participation of] business but, at the same time, I don’t see a way out of this without other global institutions working collaboratively to solve problems.

Earlier, you said, more or less, “we’re not radical.” How do you want to be perceived, particularly by industry associations? For example, the National Mining Association, how would you like that organization to think of Earthworks?

Until President Trump took office, we worked with the National Mining Association in a multi-stakeholder effort called the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, and at different times over the years we’ve been able to collaborate on different policy efforts.

What happened?

The Trump Administration dissolved that initiative, and I think if if it were brought back again then we would probably sit down together again and begin working on it. When the livelihood of communities who are affected by these industries and the livelihood of the people who work for these industries are both at stake, then I think we’re all ready to roll up our sleeves and work together. But it does require a government partner that’s willing to engage. We have that right now in some states but we don’t currently have that at the federal level.

Where does Earthworks source its funding?

Our funding comes from individuals and institutional donors, foundations. We don’t take funding from governments.

Could you ever imagine Earthworks receiving funding from a company or industry association, perhaps through an innovative partnership?

It’s not really a viable model for us, because we need to preserve our integrity and our right to be a critic. That’s why we exist. Advocacy organizations like Earthworks generally design our demands, and our theories of change, around what is needed, globally or locally. Publicly traded companies must return value to shareholders, and the profit motive is sometimes—but not always—consistent with the health of a community or the health of an ecosystem. And that’s where we come in.

Which campaigner or organization should we profile for our next Ask An Advocate Anything blog? Send us your suggestions at info@future500.org. To get this series and other stakeholder insights delivered regularly to your inbox, subscribe to our monthly newsletter.

Blog posts by James: