I'd Like to Retract That (and Dear Heidi)

A retraction becomes necessary when something a writer proffers as fact turns out to be untrue, a crow I have not eaten often as I tend to measure my words.  But while facts can’t change circumstances can, so despite all efforts I find I must now suffer the embarrassment of a retraction.   

Last week I blogged that Sherwin-Williams was illegally operating their plant in Rochester, Pennsylvania, which is not the statement I need to retract.  Nor will I need to retract my statement that Sherwin is poisoning people in that town, since the company self-reported that they shat more than 42 tons of VOCs, 10 tons of other hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and 48 tons of criteria air pollutants (CAPs) on the people of Rochester in 2020. 

After that Sherwin stopped testing, adding another violation to the pile.  A smoking gun the plaintiff’s attorney will call spoliation of evidence, when these cases get to court.       

Another statement I’ll have no need to redact is that Sherwin-Williams also violated the Clean Water Act, leading Pennsylvania DEP to cite Sherwin for, “unauthorized, unpermitted discharge of industrial wastes to waters of the Commonwealth.”  Because it’s not enough for Sherwin just to make the air fetid, if there’s money to be made in poisoning the water too.

Which makes it seem unlikely I’ll ever need to retract the statement that Sherwin is unethical, since while they were retching their poison onto Rochester they were telling everyone else they were safely managing waste.  One of many lies Sherwin spews in their thirst to keep their stock price up, which won’t work once this news gets out, which will happen in due time.  Until then CEO Heidi Petz can keep thinking I’m the problem, which she may in the end be right about.

Despite spitting those truths, I still have the need to retract a statement I made in August of 2024.  Words you have never read before, but since you are about to, I wanted to set the record straight. 

Dear Heidi

I admit that when I sent you that email, I had never envisioned this outcome for us.  That our purposes could be so opposed and our fates so intertwined; you laboring to keep Rochester opened while I campaign to have it closed.  Life’s great binary taught on these pages—right and wrong not profit and loss—with your inaction speaking for you. 

Heidi, conscience and humanity demand that all plants operating in violation of Title V be closed until the best available control technology (BACT) for destruction of your waste can be installed, as is required by that law.  For the safety of employees working in those locations and the health of the residents in their proximity, who should not be exposed to such dangers because they need a job or don’t have the funds to flee.  Our government’s failure to enforce the law does not absolve you of your ethical responsibilities towards mankind and I implore you to do what’s right in this moment.  No matter the cost to Sherwin in dollars, which are ill-suited to measure humanity. 

The Clean Air Act sets national standards for air quality, measuring inhalable particulate smaller than 2.5 micrometers in PM2.5.  Scores between 0-50 are considered satisfactory, with increasing jeopardy after that.  Fifty-one to 100 is acceptable, though there may be “risk for some who might be particularly sensitive to air pollution.”  From 101-150 members of sensitive groups “might experience health effects,” though the general public is “less likely to be affected.”  Over 151 on the Air Quality Index (AQI) is considered “unhealthy, up to 200 with anything above that up considered “very unhealthy.” Above 300 is considered hazardous, an air quality emergency where everyone is likely to be impacted. 

For the people of Rochester, this means air thick with particulates of solids and liquids from your processes, a soup of resin, pigments and solvents dissolved into the air all are forced to breathe.  The result exposes the residents of Rochester to grave dangers, including high rates of tumors, cancers and other symptoms of exposure which my investigation determined were prevalent within one radial mile of that plant. 

Too poor to move away they suffer the effects of their proximity, an affliction you have the obligation to end, which I call on you now to do. 

Heidi, it’s immoral to harm another soul so it’s in morality’s name that I demand you bring this to an end, closing plants in violation of Title V until they can be made safe and legal.  The trifling amount that will cost Sherwin is no basis for harming another and its blood money anyway, cursed to all who covet or possess it. 

Absent that action, I retract the apology I gave when you ascended that position, as I would always seek to offend anyone who would perpetrate such acts.  Which you would own from this point forward, now that you have been alerted in this way. 

Because there’s only one reason children in Rochester are choking right now, and it’s that your children are too rich to live there.       

#BoycottSherwinWilliams