Tag Archives: environment

Civil Disobedience on Trial: The Story of Bidder 70

Posted on by
2

Tim DeChristopher at PowerShift 2011. Photo by Linh Do.

This week, the saga of Bidder 70 reached a climax when activist Tim DeChristopher was sentenced to two years in prison for his interference with a government land auction. The direct action has made him a hero of the environmental justice movement and a target of the federal government.

The Background

On December 18, 2008, Tim DeChristopher, an economics student at the University of Utah, showed up at a federal land auction in Salt Lake City. As a parting gift to the fossil fuel industry, the Bush Administration was leasing hundreds of thousands of acres in Utah for oil and gas drilling.

DeChristopher walked in planning to protest the auction and get thrown out by security. He walked out as Bidder 70, the winner of nearly $1.8 million dollars of oil and gas leases. And under arrest.

It didn’t matter that the land auction was invalid from the beginning. Or that the Obama Administration later cancelled most of the leases. DeChristopher’s goal in delaying and drawing attention to the auction had been realized, but he still owed the Bureau of Land Management almost $2 million.

With the help of Patrick Shea, who directed the BLM under Clinton, Tim raised the necessary funds much faster than he had expected. But the BLM refused his payment.

The Trial

DeChristopher was charged with one count of False Statement and one count of violating the Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act. From the beginning the prosecutors’ goal was to make an example of him. Their reports insisted that the sentence should “effectively communicate that similar acts will have definite consequences.”

As the trial progressed, it became clear that a guilty verdict was inevitable, maybe even predetermined. The prosecution claimed that DeChristopher had “obstructed lawful government proceedings,” but the defense was forbidden to point out that the auction was not a lawful proceeding. DeChristopher was not allowed to mention that he had offered an initial payment to the BLM. Nor was he allowed to explain the moral motivations behind his action, including climate change.

He told DemocracyNow:

I was able to talk about what my intent was there at the auction… But I wasn’t able to introduce any evidence that supported what I was thinking. I wasn’t able to introduce anything that happened before December 19th, about the corruption within the Department of the Interior in the Bush administration, or anything that happened after December 19th…So, I was only able to throw my views out there as unsubstantiated claims of what I was thinking.

In short, the government prevented DeChristopher from saying anything that would have made his actions appear justified. And the only truly neutral party, the jury, never heard the whole story.

Legal details aside, there’s an infuriating irony in Tim DeChristopher’s conviction. If he had killed 29 people by letting a coal mine explode, or buried a river in toxic chemicals, or somehow given thousands of people cancer, then it would make sense for him to be going to jail.

If Tim DeChristopher’s negligence had helped cause the biggest environmental disaster in U.S. history, wrecking the lives of countless people, a prison term would be justified. If he had poisoned an Amazon community with oil drilling waste, or conspired to blow up hundreds of mountains in Appalachia, we’d be screaming for his head.

But in reality, DeChristopher is going to prison for bidding in an auction and starting a book club, among other atrocities. Meanwhile, the people (remember, corporations count as people now) who do the things listed above carry on with an encouraging nod from the authorities.

The Impact

Of course, we know the real reason for Tim’s sentence. The prosecutors told us, “To be sure, a federal prison term here will deter others from entering a path of criminal behavior.” That “criminal behavior” is also known as civil disobedience, and the government’s response has been known by another name: intimidation.

If you read DeChristopher’s speech from the sentencing (and you definitely should), you’ll see that his political stance was central to the trial:

The reality is not that I lack respect for the law; it’s that I have greater respect for justice. Where there is a conflict between the law and the higher moral code that we all share, my loyalty is to that higher moral code. I know Mr. Huber [the prosecutor] disagrees with me on this….

This philosophical difference is serious enough that Mr. Huber thinks I should be imprisoned to discourage the spread of this idea.

When you read the rest of the speech and see the reactions from the groups that stood behind Tim, you will see the trial has not intimidated their movement, but galvanized it. The dozens of activists that protested at the sentencing, including the 26 that were arrested in Salt Lake City, were not intimidated. The folks signing up to resist the Keystone XL pipeline weren’t intimidated. Nor were the tree-sitters holding off blasting on Coal River Mountain.

And, if Tim DeChristopher himself, who will spend the next two years behind bars, was intimidated, he didn’t show it:

This is not going away. At this point of unimaginable threats on the horizon, this is what hope looks like. In these times of a morally bankrupt government that has sold out its principles, this is what patriotism looks like. With countless lives on the line, this is what love looks like, and it will only grow.

New BP Oil Spill in the Arctic: Up to 4,200 Gallons Leaked from Pipeline

Posted on by
Reply

BP has a long history of oil spills in the Arctic. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

Not content to let Exxon hog all the attention, BP has just sprung back into the spotlight with yet another oil spill — this time in Alaska’s North Slope tundra.

From Reuters:

BP said on Monday that a pipeline at its 30,000 barrel-per-day Lisburne field, which is currently closed for maintenance, ruptured during testing and spilled a mixture of methanol and oily water onto the tundra….

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation said the spill occurred on Saturday and amounted to 2,100 to 4,200 gallons, affecting 4,960 square feet of gravel pad and about 2,040 square feet of wet and aquatic tundra.

This is a small spill, but it’s important for the public to take notice. For too long, we’ve been letting the oil industry dump poison into the environment and then sweep it under the rug (or water, or dirt, or snow). Heck, most of us seem to have already forgotten about the Gulf oil spill. Maybe the two recent pipeline leaks will wake us up.

Joe Romm pointed out that BP’s operations in the Arctic, just like their marine counterparts, have a dirty track record. For example:

  • The 2006 Prudhoe Bay incident when 267,000 gallons (~6400 barrels) of oil and chemicals leaked from unmonitored, corroded pipeline.
  • llegal toxic substances dumping on Alaska’s North Slope.
  • According to data compiled from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation spill database, 1.3 million gallons of toxic substances were spilled between 1996 and 2000.
  • The November 29, 2010 Prudhoe Bay spill in which 46,000 gallons leaked.
Wherever fossil fuel companies go, they cause toxic, often irreparable, damage–whether it’s Alaska, Montana, Louisiana or Ecuador. And they don’t care. Yet they want us to forgive and forget. It was an accident. Won’t happen again. We don’t need regulations. Regulations are bad for you. Yuck. Not like oil, oil is good.
How much longer are going to believe that?

Girl Scout Cookies and Rainforest Destruction: Teens Working to Break the Connection

Posted on by
1

Why two Girl Scouts are campaigning against Girl Scout Cookies — and how their efforts have taken America by storm.

Four years ago, Girl Scouts Madison Vorva and Rhiannon Tomtishen were doing research for their bronze award project. Their subject of choice was the endangered orangutan and the threats it faces from deforestation. They discovered a little-publicized fact about Indonesian rainforest destruction: Acres upon acres of orangutan habitat are being cleared for plantations to produce palm oil, an ingredient in about 10 percent of consumer products. Madison and Rhianon decided that their goal would be to raise awareness about palm oil and its impact on endangered species.

Girl Scouts Madison Vorva and Rhiannon Tomtishen

If that had been the end of it, the project would have been commendable. But the girls’ focus shifted when they found that the Girl Scout Cookies they sold every year contained palm oil. Suddenly, they weren’t just working toward a badge; they were campaigning to change one of the country’s most well-known nonprofits.

Now fifteen and sixteen, Madison and Rhiannon have partnered with Rainforest Action Network (RAN) to bring their message to a wider audience. Their PR efforts paid off in May with a front-page Wall Street Journal story, followed by a flurry of TV interviews on ABC, CBS, and Fox News (yes, even Fox).

The responses from Girl Scouts USA have been more defensive than sympathetic. In early May, for instance, RAN and Change.org helped Madison and Rhiannon launch a social media campaign to put pressure on the Girl Scouts administration. After about fifty messages had been posted on the Girl Scouts Facebook page, GSUSA deleted the comments and added a statement assuring viewers that “our bakers source palm oil exclusively from members of the Roundtable of Sustainable Palm Oil.”

The claim is true but misleading. RAN calls the RSPO “more of a pay-to-play organization than a serious watchdog group:”

There is a very important distinction between RSPO membership and RSPO certification. RSPO certification is a seal of approval that is given to palm oil grown on a plantation that has been certified through a verification of the production process by accredited certifying agencies. In theory, the “certified sustainable” palm oil (RSPO oil) is traceable through the supply chain by certification of each facility along the supply chain that processes or uses the certified oil.

RSPO membership, however, does not require companies to follow sustainability guidelines. In a letter to GSUSA CEO Kathy Cloninger, RAN explained,

[RSPO} member companies have been documented clearing forest, peatland and critical wildlife habitat while ignoring human rights — all of which are prohibited in the RSPO principles and criteria. In essence RSPO membership does not ensure that deforestation, orangutan extinction, and climate change are not found in Girl Scout cookies.

For instance, one RSPO member, IOI Group, is illegally operating a palm plantation on the ancestral land of the Long Teran Kenan people, in Malaysian Borneo. A court ruled that the plots in question were, indeed, on indigenous land, but the conflict has not yet been resolved, and the RSPO has failed to take decisive action against IOI.

Returning to the Girl Scouts, the organization’s executives did finally meet with Madison and Rhiannon while the girls were in New York for their media interviews. The meeting was a step forward, with GSUSA leaders verbally agreeing to address concerns about deforestation and human rights abuses.

The bakers of Girl Scout Cookies began using palm oil in 2006, in an effort to rid the cookies of trans fats. (Palm oil is the cheapest “healthy” oil.) A spokesperson for the Girl Scouts has insisted that the group has little or no say in the cookies’ ingredients — it’s up to bakers. But if GSUSA demanded a recipe change, the bakers would have to comply, or else lose the Girl Scouts business. With 200 million boxes of cookies selling per year, the idea that GSUSA has no influence is a bit hard to believe.

Part of the mission of the Girl Scouts is to empower girls to “make the world a better place,” and the idea seems to be working. Madison Vorva and Rhiannon Tomtishen are making a difference; they’ve already brought as much attention to the palm oil-deforestation issue as any environmental group has so far. Their biggest challenge, ironically, is getting the Girl Scouts leadership to follow its own credo.

This story should serve as inspiration for any young person who hopes to spark positive change. If and when Girl Scouts USA does make its cookies rainforest-friendly, the impact will be huge. And two teenaged girls will be responsible.

How to get involved: Sign up for RAN’s Girl Scouts e-mail list here. Learn how you can take action online and offline.  

Alexandra Cousteau’s Ocean of Doubt film shows human face of Gulf oil spill

Posted on by
Reply

Four months after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Alexandra Cousteau visited the Gulf states to talk with residents about how the disaster impacted their lives. Her short film Ocean of Doubt: Polluted Waters, Broken Communities seeks to highlight the human tragedy that has followed the environmental wreckage.

The coastal people Alexandra interviewed seem to share a concern–whom can they trust to tell them whether their communities are safe? How will they know if the waters they rely on are poisoned? These questions remain unanswered, even as the mainstream media moves on to other stories.

Oceans of Doubt doesn’t provide the answers, but it does lend a human face to our country’s worst “environmental” disaster. Both simple and poignant, the film is well worth a watch.

Congress set to muzzle EPA and defund clean energy, while protecting oil subsidies

Posted on by
Reply

Amendments to the budget bill could block regulations for air pollution, mountaintop removal, and offshore drilling.

Cross-posted from RYSE.

If you keep track of politics, you’re probably aware that the budget debate in the House of Representatives is in full swing. The reinvigorated Republican Party is eager to push its agenda, while the Administration, concerned about re-election, seems willing to make some serious concessions.

Curious what’s on the table? You might not want to know, unless you’re an oil executive. When it comes to program-axing, clean energy and environmental spending is at the top of the GOP’s list. Among the proposals are a $1.6 billion slash in the EPA’s budget, a cancellation of the high-speed rail project, and a massive cut in the Energy Department’s efficiency and renewable energy programs.

Notably absent is any mention of reducing subsidies for fossil fuels. Apparently, taxpayers will keep donating $4 billion a year to oil and gas companies, in the form of deductions and tax loopholes. Last year, the New York Times reported that tax breaks are available “at virtually every stage” of the exploration and extraction process. For example, BP wrote off 70 percent of the Deepwater Horizon’s rent– more than $225,000 a day.

According to the Tea Party congressmen, clean energy and EPA funding must be cut to preserve the free market (never mind protecting people). In the words of Fred Upton, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, “You don’t subsidize different forms of power — you let the market run on its own.” Okay, so let’s stop subsidizing oil and coal. But no, it seems that funding fossil fuels is actuallygood for the economy because it safeguards American jobs. Meanwhile, the EPA’s greenhouse gas registry, which collects data on industrial emissions, is part of a “radical anti-jobs agenda.“

This type of logic is hardly surpising. Government is limited by the very thing that makes it work: compromise. Even with a Democratic Congress, Barack Obama can’t bring about the clean energy revolution; we have to do a lot of the work ourselves. But energy projects aren’t the only programs slated for execution. Just as dangerous (or even more so) are hundreds of amendments aimed at gutting the EPA’s authority.

According to the Appalachian advocacy group iLoveMountains,

  • Amendment 109 would remove the EPA’s ability to evaluate mountaintop removal permits and would reverse all of the actions taken by the administration over the past two years to safeguard Appalachian streams and communities.
  • Amendment 216 would remove EPA’s ability to veto “dredge and fill” permits that do not meet Clean Water Act standards. The Spruce No. 1 Mine permit was the first time the EPA used this authority in relation to a mountaintop removal site.

Mother Jones reported on eight other measures that spearhead the assault on environmental regulations. For example, one would prevent the EPA from tightening rules against air pollutants, while another would keep the Environmental Appeals Board from reviewing or rejecting offshore drilling permits. Meanwhile, Amendment 574 would ban any U.S. contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

These amendments will pass with the budget bill, even though they have a relatively small effect on the federal budget. The bill has to be passed to literally keep the government running, so the only thing we can do is ask our Representatives to oppose these add-ons. March 4 is the expected deadline for negotiations, and some amendments, such as one defunding the GHG registry, have already been approved.

The EPA itself is threatened by polluter-friendly politicians. Many Republicans and some Democrats want to revoke the agency’s ability to regulate carbon emissions (a right it was granted by the Supreme Court in 2007), and Newt Gingrich, a favorite for the GOP presidential ticket, has plans to shut down the EPA altogether, replacing it with a business-friendly “environmental solutions agency.”

I’ll admit that the federal deficit is a problem Congress must address, and I know the task can’t be done without trimming some beneficial programs. But what’s happening this week is bigger than that. The entire Republican Party (and part of the Democratic) is poised to delete much of what the environmental movement has accomplished over four decades.

Trading away basic protections for clean air and clean water is not just an idiotic bargain. It’s irresponsible. We might not leave future generations with as heavy a debt. But if we leave them, instead, with poisoned water, polluted air, and an altered climate, will they thank us?