Archive for February, 2012
Lobby Busting Tour of EU Embassies Debunks Tar Sands Misconceptions
February 7th, 2012
Ottawa - February 7, 2012 - The Council of Canadians, Climate Action Network Canada and the Indigenous Environmental Network have been meeting with Ottawa-based European Union Embassies to counteract Canadian lobbying against an important European climate policy.
“Canadian lobbying against the EU Fuel Quality Directive is riddled with misleading arguments and it does not represent the values many Canadians share,” says Andrea Harden-Donahue, Energy and Climate Justice Campaigner with the Council of Canadians.
The Canadian Government, along with industry allies and the Alberta Government, have launched a coordinated lobby attack on a European Union policy that aims to take steps to address the climate crises. This attack, run as “The Oil Sands Advocacy Strategy” and led by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, is dangerous and irresponsible in the face of global climate change.
The Fuel Quality Directive has been the focus of this lobbying effort. One dimension of this policy aims to achieve meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas pollution from transportation by requiring suppliers to move towards cleaner burning fuels. The policy has identified scientific average carbon intensity values for a number of the highest polluting fossil fuels, including natural bitumen or tar sands. Lobbying against the Directive, which has been subject to unusual delays, has included over 110 meetings in 2010 alone, Canada being the only non-EU state to participate in FQD consultation, advertisements and reports. Prior to meeting with the three civil society organizations, a number of the Embassies had already been lobbied by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and/or Canadian and Albertan government officials.
“The Harper Government has failed Canadians and the world by refusing to take the climate crisis seriously,” says Hannah McKinnon of Climate Action Network Canada. “Instead of fighting a pollution battle at home, the government has chosen to fight a Public Relations battle abroad –it is pathetic that our government is putting more energy into trying to kill climate change policies in other countries than doing its fair share to fight climate change in Canada.”
The organizations discussed the importance of the policy and directly debunked common industry and government lobby points regarding discrimination, carbon intensity of tar sands, and trade concerns. They made clear the critical importance of pressuring the government to take action on cleaning up the tar sands, both from a climate change and energy perspective as well as the human rights implications on directly impacted First Nation Communities.
“Profound human rights violations are being perpetuated by the Canadian governments ongoing tar sands bonanza. First Nations in the region are living with 30% elevated rates of cancer compared to the rest of Alberta,” says Clayton Thomas-Muller, Tar Sands Campaign Director for the Indigenous Environmental Network. “First Nations peoples have been leading an international campaign to stop the Canadian tar sands, this policy will help cut off Prime Minister Harpers ability to peddle this dirty oil to the European market.”
The proposal for the Directive is currently before an expert committee, which meets again on February 23rd.
The three organizations have already met with eight Embassies with plans underway for further meetings. A kit of information is shared with Ambassadors and Embassy staff that includes a document challenging misconceptions raised on the part of Canadian lobbying efforts alongside an open letter challenging Canadian lobbying efforts and supporting the Directive signed by organizations representing millions of Canadians and a letter of support from the Leader of the Green Party of Canada.
For background information, please see Canadian Lobbying Against the EU FQD: Getting the Facts Straight:www.canadians.org/eu-fqd
Advertisement
Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog
Tags: 
Way Beyond Greenwashing: Have Corporations Captured Big Conservation?
February 7th, 2012
Note: Another reason to distrust and de-fund the Biggest “Green” organizations. The following analysis is helpful in understanding why these Big International NGOs (BINGOs) are part of the problem, not the solution.
–The GJEP Team
by Jonathan Latham, February 7, 2012
Imagine an international mega-deal. The global organic food industry agrees to support international agribusiness in clearing as much tropical rainforest as they want for farming. In return, agribusiness agrees to farm the now-deforested land using organic methods, and the organic industry encourages its supporters to buy the resulting timber and food under the newly devised “Rainforest Plus” label. There would surely be an international outcry.
Photo: Auspices
Virtually unnoticed, however, even by their own membership, the world’s biggest wildlife conservation groups have agreed exactly to such a scenario, only in reverse. Led by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), many of the biggest conservation nonprofits including Conservation International and the Nature Conservancy have already agreed to a series of global bargains with international agribusiness. In exchange for vague promises of habitat protection, sustainability and social justice, these conservation groups are offering to greenwash industrial commodity agriculture.
The big conservation nonprofits don’t see it that way of course.According to WWF‘Vice President for Market Transformation’ Jason Clay, the new conservation strategy arose from two fundamental realizations.
The first was that agriculture and food production are the key drivers of almost every environmental concern. From issues as diverse as habitat destruction to over-use of water, from climate change to ocean dead zones, agriculture and food production are globally the primary culprits. To take one example, 80-90% of all fresh water abstracted by humans is for agriculture (e.g. FAO’s State of the World’s Land and Water report ).
This point was emphasized once again in a recent analysis published in the scientific journal Nature. The lead author of this study was Professor Jonathan Foley (Foley et al 2011). Not only is Foley the director of the University of Minnesota-based Institute on the Environment, but he is also a science board member of the Nature Conservancy.
The second crucial realization for WWF was that forest destroyers typically are not peasants with machetes but national and international agribusinesses with bulldozers. It is the latter who deforest tens of thousands of acres at a time. Land clearance on this scale is an ecological disaster, but Claire Robinson of Earth Open Source points out it is also “incredibly socially destructive”, as peasants are driven off their land and communities are destroyed. According to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues 60 million people worldwide risk losing their land and means of subsistence from palm plantations.
By about 2004, WWF had come to appreciate the true impacts of industrial agriculture. Instead of informing their membership and initiating protests and boycotts, however, they embarked on a partnership strategy they call ‘market transformation’.
Market Transformation
With WWF leading the way, the conservation nonprofits have negotiated approval schemes for “Responsible” and “Sustainable” farmed commodity crops. According to Clay, the plan is to have agribusinesses sign up to reduce the 4-6 most serious negative impacts of each commodity crop by 70-80%. And if enough growers and suppliers sign up, then the Indonesian rainforests or the Brazilian Cerrado will be saved.
The ambition of market transformation is on a grand scale. There are schemes for palm oil (the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil; RSPO), soybeans (the Round Table on Responsible Soy; RTRS), biofuels (the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels), Sugar (Bonsucro) and also for cotton, shrimp, cocoa and farmed salmon. These are markets each worth many billions of dollars annually and the intention is for these new “Responsible” and Sustainable” certified products to dominate them.
The reward for producers and supermarkets will be that, reinforced on every shopping trip, “Responsible” and “Sustainable” logos and marketing can be expected to have major effects on public perception of the global food supply chain. And the ultimate goal is that, if these schemes are successful, human rights, critical habitats, and global sustainability will receive a huge and globally significant boost.
The role of WWF and other nonprofits in these schemes is to offer their knowledge to negotiate standards, to provide credibility, and to lubricate entry of certified products into international markets. On its UK website, for example, WWF offers its members the chance to “Save the Cerrado” by emailing supermarkets to buy “Responsible Soy”. What WWF argues will be a major leap forward in environmental and social responsibility has already started. “Sustainable” and “Responsible” products are already entering global supply chains.
Reputational Risk
For conservation nonprofits these plans entail risk, one of which is simple guilt by association. The Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS) scheme is typical of these certification schemes. Its membership includes WWF, Conservation International, Fauna and Flora International, the Nature Conservancy, and other prominent nonprofits. Corporate members include repeatedly vilified members of the industrial food chain. As of January 2012, there are 102 members, including Monsanto, Cargill, ADM, Nestle, BP and UK supermarket ASDA.
That is not the only risk. Membership in the scheme, which includes signatures on press-releases and sometimes on labels, indicates approval for activities that are widely opposed. The RTRS, for example, certifies soybeans grown in large-scale chemical-intensive monocultures. They are usually GMOs. They are mostly fed to animals. And they originate from countries with hungry populations. When 52% ofAmericans think GMOs are unsafe and 93% think GMOs ought to be labeled, for example, this is a risk most organizations dependent on their reputations probably would not consider.
The remedy for such reputational risk is high standards, rigorous certification and watertight traceability procedures. Only credibility at every step can deflect the seemingly obvious suspicion that the conservation nonprofits have been hoodwinked or have somehow ‘sold out’.
So, which one is it? Are “Responsible” and “Sustainable” certifications indicative of a genuine strategic success by WWF and its fellows, or are the schemes nothing more than business as usual with industrial scale greenwashing and a social justice varnish?
Low and Ambiguous Standards
The first place to look is the standards themselves. RTRS standards (version 1, June 2010), to continue with the example of soybeans, cover five ‘principles’. Principle 1 is: Legal Compliance and Good Business Practices. Principle 2 is: Responsible Labour Conditions. Principle 3 is: Responsible Community Relations. Principle 4 is Environmental Responsibility. Principle 5 is Good Agricultural Practice.
Language typical of the standards includes, under Principle 2, Responsible Labour Conditions, section 2.1.1 “No forced, compulsory, bonded, trafficked. or otherwise involuntary labor is used at any stage of production”, while section 2.4.4 states “Workers are not hindered from interacting with external parties outside working hours.”
Under Principle 3: Responsible Community Relations, section 3.3.3 states: “Any complaints and grievances received are dealt with in a timely manner.”
Under Principle 4: Environmental Responsibility, section 4.2 states “Pollution is minimized and production waste is managed responsibly” and section 4.4 states “Expansion of soy cultivation is responsible”.
Under Principle 5: Good Agricultural Practice, Section 5.9 states “Appropriate measures are implemented to prevent the drift of agrochemicals to neighboring areas.”
These samples illustrate the tone of the RTRS principles and guidance.
There are two ways to read these standards. The generous interpretation is to recognize that the sentiments expressed are higher than what are actually practiced in many countries where soybeans are grown, in that the standards broadly follow common practice in Europe or North America. Nevertheless, they are far lower than organic or fairtrade standards; for example they don’t require crop rotation, or prohibit pesticides. Even a generous reading also needs to acknowledge the crucial point that adherence to similar requirements in Europe and North America hascontaminated wells, depleted aquifers, degraded rivers, eroded the soil,polluted the oceans, driven species to extinction and depopulated the countryside—to mention only a few well-documented downsides.
There is also a less generous interpretation of the standards. Much of the content is either in the form of statements, or it is merely advice. Thus section 4.2 reads “Pollution is minimized and production waste is managed responsibly.” Imperatives, such as: must, may never, will, etc., are mostly lacking from the document. Worse, key terms such as “pollution”, “minimized”, “responsible” and “timely” (see above) are left undefined. This chronic vagueness means that both certifiers and producers possess effectively infinite latitude to implement or judge the standards. They could never be enforced, in or out of court.
Dubious Verification and Enforcement
Unfortunately, the flaws of RTRS certification do not end there. They include the use of an internal verification system. The RTRS uses professional certifiers, but only those who are members of RTRS. This means that the conservation nonprofits are relying on third parties for compliance information. It also means that only RTRS members can judge whether a principle was adhered to. Even if they consider it was not, there is nothing they can do, since the RTRS has no legal status or sanctions.
The ‘culture’ of deforestation is also important to the standards. Rainforest clearance is often questionably legal, or actively illegal, and usually requires removing existing occupants from the land. It is a world of private armies and bribery. This operating environment makes very relevant the irony under which RTRS members, under Principle 1, volunteer to obey the law. The concept of volunteering to obey the law begs more than a few questions. If an organization is not already obeying the law, what makes WWF suppose that a voluntary code of conduct will persuade it? And does obeying the law meaningfully contribute to a marketing campaign based on responsibility?
Of equal concern is the absence of a clear certification trail. Under the “Mass Balance” system offered by RTRS, soybeans (or derived products) can be sold as “Responsible” that were never grown under the system. Mass Balance means vendors can transfer the certification quantity purchased, to non-RTRS soybeans. Such an opportunity raises the inherent difficulties of traceability and verification to new levels.
How Will Certification Save Wild Habitats?
A key stated goal of WWF is to halt deforestation through the use of maps identifying priority habitat areas that are off-limits to RTRS members. There are crucial questions over these maps, however. Firstly, even though soybeans are already being traded they have yet to be drawn up. Secondly, the maps are to be drawn up by RTRS members themselves. Thirdly, RTRS maps can be periodically redrawn. Fourthly, RTRS members need not certify all of their production acreage. This means they can certify part of their acreage as “Responsible”, but still sell (as “Irresponsible?) soybeans from formerly virgin habitat. This means WWF’s target for year 2020 of 25% coverage globally and 75% in WWF’s ‘priority areas’ would still allow 25% of the Brazilian soybean harvest to come from newly deforested land. And of course, the scheme cannot prevent non-members, or even non-certified subsidiaries, from specializing in deforestation (1).
These are certification schemes, therefore, with low standards, no methods of enforcement, and enormous loopholes (2). Pete Riley of UK GM Freeze dubs their instigator the “World Wide Fund for naiveté” and believes “the chances of Responsible soy saving the Cerrado are zero.” (3). Claire Robinson agrees: “The RTRS standard will not protect the forests and other sensitive ecosystems. Additionally, it greenwashes soy that’s genetically modified to survive being sprayed with quantities of herbicide that endanger human health and the environment.” There is even a website (www.toxicsoy.org) dedicated to exposing the greenwashing of GMO Soy.
Many other groups apparently share that view. More than 250 large and small sustainable farming, social justice and rainforest preservation groups from all over the world signed a “Letter of Critical Opposition to the RTRS” in 2009. Signatories included the Global Forest Coalition, Friends of the Earth, Food First, the British Soil Association and the World Development Movement.
Other commodity certifications involving WWF have also received strong criticism. The Mangrove Action Project in 2008 published a ‘Public Declaration Against the Process of Certification of Industrial Shrimp Aquaculture’ while the World Rainforest Movement issued ‘Declaration against the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO)’, signed by 256 organizations in October 2008.
What Really Drives Commodity Certification?
Commodity certification is in many ways a strange departure for conservation nonprofits. In the first place the big conservation nonprofits are more normally active in acquiring and researching wild habitats. Secondly, as membership organizations it is hard to envisage these schemes energizing the membership—how many members of the Nature Conservancy will be pleased to find that their organization has been working with Monsanto to promote GM crops as “Responsible”? Indeed, one can argue that these programs are being actively concealed from their members, donors and the public. From their advertising, their websites, and their educational materials, one would presume that poachers, population growth and ignorance are the chief threats to wildlife in developing countries. It is not true, however, and as Jason Clay and the very existence of these certification schemes make clear, senior management knows it well.
In public, the conservation nonprofits justify market transformation as cooperative; they wish to work with others, not against them. However, they have chosen to work preferentially with powerful and wealthy corporations. Why not cooperate instead with small farmers’ movements, indigenous groups, and already successful standards, such as fairtrade, organic and non-GMO? These are causes that could use the help of big international organizations. Why not, with WWF help, embed into organic standards a rainforest conservation element? Why not cooperate with your membership to create engaged consumer power against habitat destruction, monoculture, and industrial farming? Instead, the new “Responsible” and “Sustainable” standards threaten organic, fairtrade, and local food systems—which are some of the environmental movement’s biggest successes.
One clue to the enthusiasm for ‘market transformation’ may be that financial rewards are available. According to Nina Holland of Corporate Europe Observatory, certification is “now a core business” for WWF. Indeed, WWF and the Dutch nonprofitSolidaridad are currently receiving millions of euros from the Dutch government (under its Sustainable Trade Action Plan) to support these schemes. According to the plan 67 million euros have already been committed, and similar amounts are promised (4).
The Threat From the Food Movement
Commodity certification schemes like RTRS can be seen as an inability of global conservation leadership to work constructively with the ordinary people who live in and around wild areas of the globe; or they can be seen as a disregard for fairtrade and organic labels; or as a lost opportunity to inform and energize members and potential members as to the true causes of habitat destruction; or even as a cynical moneymaking scheme. These are all plausible explanations of the enthusiasm for certification schemes and probably each plays a part. None, however, explains why conservation nonprofits would sign up to schemes whose standards and credibility are so low. Especially when, as never before, agribusiness is under pressure to change its destructive social and environmental practices.
The context of these schemes is that we live at an historic moment. Positive alternatives to industrial agriculture, such as fairtrade, organic agriculture, agroecology and the System of Rice Intensification, have shown they can feed the planet, without destroying it, even with a greater population. Consequently, there is now a substantial international consensus of informed opinion (IAASTD) that industrial agriculture is a principal cause of the current environmental crisis and the chief obstacle to hunger eradication.
This consensus is one of several roots of the international food movement. As a powerful synergism of social justice, environmental, sustainability and food quality concerns, the food movement is a clear threat to the long-term existence of the industrial food system. Incidentally, this is why big multinationals have been buying up ethical brands.
Under these circumstances, evading the blame for the environmental devastation of the Amazon, Asia and elsewhere, undermining organic and other genuine certification schemes, and splitting the environmental movement must be a dream come true for members of the industrial food system. A true cynic might surmise that the food industry could hardly have engineered it better had they planned it themselves.
Who Runs Big Conservation?
To guard against such possibilities, nonprofits are required to have boards of directors whose primary legal function is to guard the mission of the organization and to protect its good name. In practice, for conservation nonprofits this means overseeing potential financial conflicts and preventing the organization from lending its name to greenwashing.
So, who are the individuals guarding the mission of global conservation nonprofits? US-WWF boasts (literally) that its new vice-chair was the last CEO of Coca-Cola, Inc. (a member of Bonsucro) and that another board member is Charles O. Holliday Jr., the current chairman of the board of Bank of America, who was formerly CEO of DuPont (owner of Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a major player in the GMO industry). The current chair of the executive board at Conservation International, is Robert Walton, better known as chair of the board of WalMart (which now sells ‘sustainably sourced’ food and owns the supermarket chain ASDA). The boards of WWF and Conservation International do have more than a sprinkling of members with conservation-related careers. But they are heavily outnumbered by business representatives. On the board of Conservation International, for example, are GAP, Intel, Northrop Grumman, JP Morgan, Starbucks and UPS, among others.
At the Nature Conservancy its board of directors has only two members (out of 22) who list an active affiliation to a conservation organization in their board CV (Prof Gretchen Daly and Cristian Samper, head of the US Museum of Natural History). Only one other member even mentions among their qualifications an interest in the subject of conservation. The remaining members are, like Shona Brown, an employee of Google and a board member of Pepsico, or Margaret Whitman who is the current President and CEO of Hewlett-Packard, or Muneer A Satter, a managing director of Goldman Sachs.
So, was market transformation developed with the support of these boards or against their wishes? The latter is hardly likely. The key question then becomes: did these boards in fact instigate market transformation? Did it come from the very top?
Never Ending
Leaving aside whether conservation was ever their true intention, it seems highly unlikely that WWF and its fellow conservation groups will leverage a positive transformation of the food system by bestowing “Sustainable” and “Responsible” standards on agribusiness. Instead, it appears much more likely that, by undermining existing standards and offering worthless standards of their own, habitat destruction and human misery will only increase.
Market transformation, as envisaged by WWF, nevertheless might have worked. However, WWF neglected to consider that successful certification schemes start from the ground up. Organic and fairtrade began with a large base of committed farmers determined to fashion a better food system. Producers willingly signed up to high standards and clear requirements because they believed in them. Indeed, many already were practicing high standards without certification. But when big players in the food industry have tried to climb on board, game the system and manipulate standards, problems have resulted, even with credible standards like fairtrade and organic. At some point big players will probably undermine these standards. They seem already to be well on the way, but if they succeed their efforts will only have proved that certification standards can never be a substitute for trust, commitment and individual integrity.
The only good news in this story is that it contradicts fundamentally the defeatist arguments of the WWF. Old-fashioned activist strategies, of shaming bad practice, boycotting products and encouraging alternatives, do work. The market opportunity presently being exploited by WWF and company resulted from the success of these strategies, not their failure. Multinational corporations, we should conclude, really do fear activists, non-profits, informed consumers, and small producers all working together.
Footnotes
(1) RSPO standards don’t make much use of maps in their Criterion 7 on “Responsible development of new plantings”. Instead, they rely on “Environmental Impact Assessments” and identifying “High Conservation Value” areas. These are every bit as questionable as RTRS maps. According to the UN forum on indigenous peoples, loggers frequently use designations of oil palm plantations as an excuse to log. RSPO, in its guidance notes to Criterion 7.3 under “Responsible development of new plantings”, the standard states: “Development should actively seek to utilise previously cleared and/or degraded land.” It is evident that and RSPO plantations offer logging as an excuse to expand.
(2) These standards are also strewn with loopholes. Under RTRS standards, for example, members are allowed to justify why they dont meet a particular standard. Also under RTRS, farming principles called Integrated Crop Management are “voluntarily adopted”. Annex 5 of the standards states that: “The table below presents a non-exhaustive list of measures and practices that can be used”, i.e. use is optional. Under Bonsucro standards, on the other hand, members must meet 80% of them.
(3) The US version of WWF still calls itself the World Wildlife Fund.
(4) The role of the Dutch Government in financing and otherwise supporting sustainable certification is important to this story. On Dec 16th 2011 The Dutch Trade ministry announced that Dutch imports of soybeans would be 100% “Responsible” within four years. Dutch WWF, which is coordinating much of the program, is receiving money from the Dutch Government because Holland is a key player in international agriculture. The Dutch government’s sustainable food strategy notes the following: “Although the Netherlands is a small country, it plays a key role in food production and is the second largest exporter of agricultural products in the world, the largest exporter of seed and propagating material and breeding animals and internationally it is a prominent centre of knowledge.”
A second important Dutch consideration is that Rotterdam is the largest destination for importation of produce and commodity crops into Europe.
References
Foley, J et al (2011) Solutions for a Cultivated Planet Nature 478: 337–342
Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog
Assaulted photographer accuses UN of cover-up
February 7th, 2012
Note: Global Justice Ecology Project board chair and photojournalist Orin Langelle is continuing his pursual of justice and accountability from the UN regarding the irresponsible actions of their security guards during the climate convention in Durban, South Africa. UN security have been reacting to journalists and civil society observers in increasingly hostile ways, and Langelle is intent on holding them accountable so that the UN repression of the truth will not continue.
For more background please see Orin Langelle’s Formal Complaint Against UN Security and the response Langelle received from John Hay, UN Media Relations Officer UN denies security used undue force when smashing camera into photographer’s face] -The GJEP Team
7 February 2012
John Hay, Media Relations Officer
c/o Elke Hoekstra ehoekstra@unfccc.int, Staff Assistant, Communications Knowledge Management
United Nations Framework Conference on Climate Change
Martin-Luther-King-Strasse 8-53175 Bonn-Germany
Cc: secretariat@unfccc.int
Dear Mr. Hay,
By now you have received an official statement from Kevin Buckland, a witness to the scene I described in my official complaint on 16 December 2011. As you can see from Mr. Buckland’s letter, he confirms that undue force was used on me during the incident in which an unidentified UN security guard smashed my camera into my face without a warning. He is not the only witness.
I received an email last night from another witness to the event who said, “I followed Kevin [Buckland] and the security guard with a flip-cam, videoing from behind and to the side, then moving to about a ‘3 oclock’ position to them to get a better face shot. At this point the security guard saw me, made a 90 degree turn, strode over and literally had to yank it out of my hand, because I said ‘you’ve given me no warning’ and held tight to the camera. After grabbing it and beginning to walk away, I pointed out that other folks were also photographing and videoing- so why the random application of this rule? … said guard immediately stopped, scanned around, then bee-lined for [another witness], grabbed his camera, and then turned back towards the security/UN station/room…Yes, they erased the video of the incident, and I believe erased [the other person’s] as well.”
I will continue to pursue this matter as your response on 2 February 2012 to my official complaint is unacceptable and is devoid of the facts despite your investigation. How did you conduct the investigation? How did you come to the conclusion that undue force was not used on me? Who provided the information to you regarding the incident in question?
Facts are facts and it is my duty as a journalist to report the truth. What is occurring now is a concealment of those facts by either yourself or the investigators of the incident, or is false testimony by UN security.
Whoever is responsible, it is clear that the United Nations is officially and explicitly engaged in a cover-up.
I formally request further action on this matter.
Furthermore, how do I file official charges of the assault by a member of the UN security that could have resulted in great bodily harm to me?
This is a very serious matter that concerns not only me, but all journalists and people who believe in the right to document and report the truth.
I find your response an insult to me and to all that seek justice.
Sincerely,
Orin Langelle
International Federation of Journalists Card Nr. U S 1198
National Writers Union (UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO) ID#83303
Advertisement
Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog
The Heroes of Super Bowl Sunday (Occupy Protest in Indianapolis)
February 7th, 2012
I emerge from the echo-chamber of Super Bowl Sunday energized and armed with a new set of heroes and folk-tales to pass on to others. My hero on our great (near) secular national holiday wasn’t Giants quarterback Eli Manning, who one suspects would be going to Disney World whether he won or lost. It wasn’t the incredible looking Madonna, spotted backstage drinking her daughter’s stemcells, or M.I.A. with her middle finger malfunction. It also wasn’t Clint Eastwood who made a commercial where I think he threatened to murder Detroit.
My new heroes are the people in the Occupy and Labor movements who gathered to protest on Super Bowl Sunday. It certainly didn’t make Sportscenter that night, but several hundred people gathered at the Indianapolis state house to stand up against the recent passage of the state’s “right to work” legislation and make clear that the fight was far from done.
They included representatives from the Indiana Occupy movement, members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, union iron workers, as well as trade unionists from UNITE and the Communication Workers of America. They came from Indianapolis, Bloomington, Anderson and beyond. Their ranks included radical cheerleaders from Indiana University who chanted, “Lies and tricks will not divide. Workers standing side by side….Union town through and through. You for me and me for you.”
My heroes include Randy, a member of the iron worker’s union who came with a delegation all the way from Wisconsin to speak at the rally. Following his words, people chanted, “From Tahrir Square to Wisconsin, we shall fight, we shall win.”
My heroes include people named Amy, Ben, Mike, Heath, Ed, April, Jacob, Jubin, Bill and the tireless Tithi Bhattacharya who emailed me at day’s end, “Class solidarity does exist!”
All of these proud trade unionists and Occupy activists showed up even though the AFL-CIO explicitly instructed people not to protest on the day of the big game. They accepted the bullying line that the Super Bowl was not a day for politics. They accepted this even though a brutal anti-union ad played during the game for much of the country.
That’s why it’s so important that the people were a presence at this Woodstock for the 1 percent, leaving energized and excited about further forging connections between the Occupy and the Labor movements. After all, we don’t have $3 million for a 30 second ad. We just have the ability to gather and be heard.
As for the game itself, I think I’ll always remember the stirring words of Gisele Bundchen. For those who don’t know (and if you don’t, then more power to you) Bundchen is our world’s first billionaire Super Model. She’s also the spouse of New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady. In the aftermath of the game, she was recorded saying, ”You’ve to catch the ball when you’re supposed to catch the ball. My husband cannot fucking throw the ball and catch the ball at the same time. I can’t believe they dropped the ball so many times.” One player said after hearing her words, “It’s like knocking someone when they are down.”
Gisele comfortably carries the billionaire’s impatience with the great unwashed breathing her air, who in her mind, are the fools unable to catch her husband’s throws. But with her statement, I think we can see why so many people are overdosing on schadenfreude following the Patriots 21-17 loss to the Giants. For years, the Patriots have played with a sense of entitlement. They won three Super Bowls in Tom Brady’s first four seasons as a starter and since then, every year, they’ve played like it was their trophy that some other team was just borrowing. It’s an arrogance that has festered and worsened into a scabby crust that surrounds Brady and his coach Bill Belichick with each year of failure. They have become the Randolph and Mortimer Duke of the NFL, screaming after every season ending loss for the stock exchange to “Turn those machines back on!” Then there is Patriots owner Bob Kraft, and his owner’s suite mate Rush Limbaugh, with Limbaugh caught on camera forlornly picking his nose.
Seeing the arrogant and the entitled get knocked down a peg is always welcome. But in the real world it doesn’t mean a damn just because one arrogant and entitled owner’s box cheers, while another weeps. It happens because people around the country are standing up and saying, “Enough is enough.” In Indianapolis, it happened because people heroically dared to be heard on a day when everyone told them to just shut up and watch the game.
Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog
The Heroes of Super Bowl Sunday (Occupy Protest in Indianapolis)
February 7th, 2012
I emerge from the echo-chamber of Super Bowl Sunday energized and armed with a new set of heroes and folk-tales to pass on to others. My hero on our great (near) secular national holiday wasn’t Giants quarterback Eli Manning, who one suspects would be going to Disney World whether he won or lost. It wasn’t the incredible looking Madonna, spotted backstage drinking her daughter’s stemcells, or M.I.A. with her middle finger malfunction. It also wasn’t Clint Eastwood who made a commercial where I think he threatened to murder Detroit.
My new heroes are the people in the Occupy and Labor movements who gathered to protest on Super Bowl Sunday. It certainly didn’t make Sportscenter that night, but several hundred people gathered at the Indianapolis state house to stand up against the recent passage of the state’s “right to work” legislation and make clear that the fight was far from done.
They included representatives from the Indiana Occupy movement, members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, union iron workers, as well as trade unionists from UNITE and the Communication Workers of America. They came from Indianapolis, Bloomington, Anderson and beyond. Their ranks included radical cheerleaders from Indiana University who chanted, “Lies and tricks will not divide. Workers standing side by side….Union town through and through. You for me and me for you.”
My heroes include Randy, a member of the iron worker’s union who came with a delegation all the way from Wisconsin to speak at the rally. Following his words, people chanted, “From Tahrir Square to Wisconsin, we shall fight, we shall win.”
My heroes include people named Amy, Ben, Mike, Heath, Ed, April, Jacob, Jubin, Bill and the tireless Tithi Bhattacharya who emailed me at day’s end, “Class solidarity does exist!”
All of these proud trade unionists and Occupy activists showed up even though the AFL-CIO explicitly instructed people not to protest on the day of the big game. They accepted the bullying line that the Super Bowl was not a day for politics. They accepted this even though a brutal anti-union ad played during the game for much of the country.
That’s why it’s so important that the people were a presence at this Woodstock for the 1 percent, leaving energized and excited about further forging connections between the Occupy and the Labor movements. After all, we don’t have $3 million for a 30 second ad. We just have the ability to gather and be heard.
As for the game itself, I think I’ll always remember the stirring words of Gisele Bundchen. For those who don’t know (and if you don’t, then more power to you) Bundchen is our world’s first billionaire Super Model. She’s also the spouse of New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady. In the aftermath of the game, she was recorded saying, ”You’ve to catch the ball when you’re supposed to catch the ball. My husband cannot fucking throw the ball and catch the ball at the same time. I can’t believe they dropped the ball so many times.” One player said after hearing her words, “It’s like knocking someone when they are down.”
Gisele comfortably carries the billionaire’s impatience with the great unwashed breathing her air, who in her mind, are the fools unable to catch her husband’s throws. But with her statement, I think we can see why so many people are overdosing on schadenfreude following the Patriots 21-17 loss to the Giants. For years, the Patriots have played with a sense of entitlement. They won three Super Bowls in Tom Brady’s first four seasons as a starter and since then, every year, they’ve played like it was their trophy that some other team was just borrowing. It’s an arrogance that has festered and worsened into a scabby crust that surrounds Brady and his coach Bill Belichick with each year of failure. They have become the Randolph and Mortimer Duke of the NFL, screaming after every season ending loss for the stock exchange to “Turn those machines back on!” Then there is Patriots owner Bob Kraft, and his owner’s suite mate Rush Limbaugh, with Limbaugh caught on camera forlornly picking his nose.
Seeing the arrogant and the entitled get knocked down a peg is always welcome. But in the real world it doesn’t mean a damn just because one arrogant and entitled owner’s box cheers, while another weeps. It happens because people around the country are standing up and saying, “Enough is enough.” In Indianapolis, it happened because people heroically dared to be heard on a day when everyone told them to just shut up and watch the game.
Wapichan people in Guyana showcase community proposal to save tropical forests on their traditional lands
February 6th, 2012
Georgetown, 7 de Febrero: en el día de hoy, el pueblo indígena Wapichan de Guyana, Suramérica, hará público un mapa digital de su territorio tradicional que ha sido recopilado por sus comunidades, junto con una innovadora propuesta para cuidar 1.4 millones de Ha de bosque tropical para el beneficio de sus comunidades y del mundo. La rica variedad de selvas pluviales, montañas, humedales, y pastizales de sabana mezclado con bosque seco que se encuentran en este territorio, son las tierras ancestrales de 20 comunidades que viven de la agricultura de pequeña escala, la caza, la pesca y la recolección, actividades que han realizado en toda la zona por generaciones. El mismo territorio, localizado en el Distrito Sur del Rupununi al suroeste de Guyana, tiene una abundancia excepcional de vida silvestre, incluyendo especies en peligro de extinción como las nutrias gigantes de río, los jaguares, y los perros de monte, así como especies endémicas de peces y aves, como por ejemplo el pájaro hormiguero del río Branco.
Esta propuesta de base llega en un momento crucial, ya que la totalidad del territorio Wapichan en Guyana, al igual que muchas otras partes de la cuenca amazónica y del Escudo de Guyana, se encuentra amenazado por mega-proyectos de represas y carreteras, así como por planes externos para la extracción maderera, la minería y el desarrollo de la agroindustria. Al igual que muchos otros pueblos indígenas a través de Guyana y Suramérica, las comunidades son vulnerables a la expropiación y la marginalización, ya que no poseen títulos legales sobre gran parte de sus tierras ancestrales.
El pueblo Wapichan ha respondido a estas amenazas haciendo un mapeo del uso consuetudinario de sus tierras como parte de una larga campaña para obtener el reconocimiento legal de sus derechos a sus tierras tradicionales. El proyecto de mapeo ha sido llevado a cabo por comunidades Wapichan bajo el liderazgo de sus Toshaos (dirigentes) actuales y anteriores, los cuales han recibido la ayuda de sus propias organizaciones comunitarias. Tal y como dice el señor Kid James de la Asociación para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos del Sur Central (SCPDA por sus siglas en inglés):
Los cartógrafos de nuestras propias comunidades han utilizado la tecnología de Sistema de Posicionamiento Global (GPS) para mapear la localización de los sitios espirituales, de medios de vida, y de patrimonio cultural que tienen una importancia profunda para nuestro pueblo y sostienen nuestra forma de vida. Después de diez años de trabajo concienzudo, estamos muy orgullosos del resultado final. Ahora queremos compartir nuestro mapa territorial con las autoridades del gobierno, para mostrar cómo ocupamos y usamos la tierra según nuestra costumbre, y cómo estamos pegados a nuestro territorio.
Basándose en el trabajo de mapeo y en la investigación de la comunidad para documentar el conocimiento tradicional y el uso consuetudinario de los recursos, los Wapichan organizaron más de 80 consultas comunitarias, talleres y encuentros públicos entre 2008 y 2011, para preparar propuestas colectivas que promuevan el uso sostenible de la tierra, apoyen los medios de vida locales y protejan el territorio Wapichan contra el desarrollo dañino. Las propuestas están contenidas en un plan territorial detallado titulado Pensando juntos para las generaciones que vienen detrás de nosotros. Dicho documento explica las leyes consuetudinarias sobre el cuidado de la tierra. Además, contiene más de 40 acuerdos comunitarios sobre los derechos de las comunidades a la tierra, junto con medidas acordadas para cuidar los recursos utilizados para los medios de vida. Los acuerdos incluyen planes para establecer reservas comunales locales que tienen el fin de proteger sitios sagrados y de patrimonio cultural, al igual que diferentes hábitats importantes para la vida silvestre y la biodiversidad. El Toshao Habert Wilson, presidente del Consejo de Toshaos del Distrito Sur Central dijo:
Todas nuestras comunidades han trabajado juntas dentro del marco de la Ley Amerindia de Guyana y de la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas, para documentar las prácticas tradicionales y nuestro uso de la tierra, y para presentar nuestras propias propuestas para proteger y cuidar a esta hermosa tierra que llamamos Wapichan wiizi.
Patrick Gomes, presidente del Consejo de Toshaos del Distrito del Sur del Rupununi, dijo:
Nuestros acuerdos del uso de la tierra contenidos en nuestro plan han sido validados por las comunidades, e incluyen una propuesta para establecer un gran Bosque Conservado por el Pueblo Wapichan en las regiones del este y del sur de nuestro territorio, así como numerosos planes para proteger nuestros sitios sagrados y lugares importantes para la pesca, los animales de monte y la vida silvestre. Nuestro plan contiene además acuerdos hechos entre nuestras comunidades en lo referente a las propuestas sobre la ampliación de los títulos existentes y sobre la definición de los límites comunes entre las comunidades. Además, el plan contiene reglas y principios de las comunidades para tratar con nuestro derecho colectivo al consentimiento libre, previo e informado (CLPI).
Los líderes Wapichan enfatizan además que la garantía de sus derechos sobre sus bosques brindará importantes co-beneficios para el clima regional y mundial, y que facilitará la implementación de la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas y de los instrumentos de derechos humanos conexos, así como de los tratados ambientales firmados por Guyana. Angelbert Johnny, Toshao de la comunidad de Sawari Wa’o, declaró:
El reconocimiento de nuestros derechos para controlar y manejar nuestro territorio tradicional sería una de las formas más adecuadas de ayudar a Guyana a cumplir tanto con sus compromisos de enfrentar el cambio climático como con sus obligaciones bajo el Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica, el cual tiene los objetivos de conservar la biodiversidad y promover el uso sostenible de los recursos biológicos.
Se tiene esperanza en que la presentación del mapa comunitario y del innovativo plan territorial promueva el diálogo con el gobierno y las organizaciones internacionales acerca de posibles formas de ayudar al pueblo Wapichan a lograr su visión para su propia tierra. Patrick Gomes dijo:
Hacemos un llamado al gobierno y a nuestros aliados nacionales e internacionales para que nos ayuden a adelantar este plan: trabajemos juntos para asegurar la plena ampliación de nuestros títulos de la tierra y para poner en marcha nuestros acuerdos comunitarios para el beneficio del pueblo Wapichan, de los ciudadanos de Guyana y de la comunidad internacional.
Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog
Scientists: Arctic Melting Leading to Europe’s Freeze
February 6th, 2012
Note: While many in northern North America are still waiting for winter to arrive, Europe is in the deep freeze. Climate chaos is already here and climate catastrophe will not be far behind if we do not transform the global economic and political paradigm that has led to massive social injustice and ecological destruction–and is at the root of the climate crisis.
–The GJEP Team
Is Climate Change Bringing the Arctic to Europe?
Bulgarian women walk through heavy snow Saturday, January 28 in Rakovski. (Getty)According to Reuters today:
Cross-Posted from Common Dreams 2/5/12
The unusual cold weather in eastern Europe has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of vulnerable people living in areas unprepared for the freezing conditions. Extreme weather events have been increasingly evident in recent years, and now scientests are fearful that the ‘feedback loops’ of climate change are occurring in ways that uphold predictions made by global warming models showing how seemingly unrelated occurrences, such as the melting of ice in the arctic, are noticeably changing weather patterns in faraway regions.
Bitterly cold weather sweeping across Europe claimed more victims on Sunday and brought widespread disruption to transport services, with warnings that the chilling temperatures would remain into next week.
Hundreds have lost their lives in eastern Europe as freezing weather sweeps across the continent westwards, while major airports warned that services would be delayed or cancelled.
Steven Keates, a weather forecaster at Britain’s Met Office, said the severe wintry conditions were expected to last, and spread to other areas.
“It will still be very cold, maybe not quite the exceptional temperatures we’ve seen this last week, but still very cold,” he told Reuters, saying the current front which brought snow and ice to Britain overnight was now heading to Belgium and Germany.
The Independent reports:
Studies by scientists at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research have confirmed a link between the loss of Arctic sea ice and the development of high-pressure zones in the polar region, which influence wind patterns at lower latitudes further south. Scientists found that as the cap of sea ice is removed from the ocean, huge amounts of heat are released from the sea into the colder air above, causing the air to rise. Rising air destabilises the atmosphere and alters the difference in air pressure between the Arctic and more southerly regions, changing wind patterns.
Professor Rahmstorf said the Alfred Wegener study confirms earlier predictions from computer models by Vladimir Petoukhov of the Potsdam Institute, who forecast colder winters in western Europe as a result of melting sea ice.
Dr Petoukhov and his colleague Vladimir Semenov were among the first scientists to suggest a link between the loss of sea ice and colder winters in Europe. Their 2009 study simulated the effects of disappearing sea ice and found that for some years to come the loss will increase the chances of colder winters.
“Whoever thinks that the shrinking of some far-away sea ice won’t bother him could be wrong. There are complex interconnections in the climate system, and in the Barents-Kara Sea we might have discovered a powerful feedback mechanism,” Dr Petoukhov said.
Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog
Bio-Lab by the Bay
February 6th, 2012
Recent news coverage highlights possible benefits the expanded Lawrence Berkeley National Lab could bring the city of Richmond (“Richmond chosen as site for Berkeley lab’s second campus,” CCT 1/26/12.) But Richmond residents have reason for concern. Much of the research to be conducted at the lab will use a new, insufficiently regulated, potentially dangerous emerging technology — synthetic biology. http://www.humanebiotech.com/theissues/syntheticbiology.html
Synthetic biology is an extreme form of genetic engineering where biotechnicians attempt to program and write DNA in new ways to create self-replicating organisms never before found in nature. The risks this research poses to worker safety, public health, and the environment are poorly studied and poorly regulated. While the synthetic biology industry trumpets this technology’s promise for manufacturing biofuels and new pharmaceuticals, the technology is inherently risky and its claims for ushering in a “green” future are suspect.
Synthetic biology research could make existing diseases more infectious, lead to the accidental release of synthetic organisms that could disrupt local ecosystems, and expose workers to organisms with unknown risks to human health. Laboratory accidents occur too frequently for complacence. The lack of adequate bio-containment and safety protocols within existing labs has been associated with serious illness and death. http://www.humanebiotech.com/theissues/biotechsafety.html
The hazards of synthetic biology – compounded by the siting of the lab on an earthquake prone low-lying piece of land abutting the San Francisco Bay – make transparency, accountability, and citizen-involved regulatory oversight non-negotiable, especially in a densely populated urban community that has long endured public health peril for industry benefit.
The lab’s work in Richmond has global implications. The campus likely will host private synthetic biology companies working to commercialize synthetic organisms to ferment fuels, medicines, and plant-based plastics. These organisms need to eat. Their food comes largely from sugars found in plants. Early indications are that large-scale harvesting of these sugars will harm communities in the Global South. Emeryville synthetic biology company Amyris, for example, has set up shop in Brazil to access cheap sugarcane, ignoring the sugarcane industry’s troubled record of modern day slavery and environmental degradation. The impact of this maneuver on people living in the region, on their land and water access, on community rights and on the health of the environment remain inadequately addressed by those standing to profit lavishly. Surely, this is not the clean, green future proffered by lab proponents.
In nearby Berkeley on March 29, a coalition of local, national and international organizations concerned by the health and environmental risks of synthetic biology will host an evening public symposium, “Unmasking the Bio Lab and Synthetic Biology: Health, Justice, and Communities at Risk.” Residents of Richmond and the Bay Area who want to learn more about what it means to welcome to their shores what is likely to become the world’s largest synthetic biology lab are invited to attend.
Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog
Another witness of UN security violence to photographer during Durban Climate Convention
February 6th, 2012
Note: This official statement below, from Kevin Buckland, was sent to the UN today regarding Orin Langelle’s Formal Complaint Against UN Security and the response Langelle received from the UN’s John Hay, UN Media Relations Officer. [See the response from the UN that Climate Connections posted last Friday: UN denies security used undue force when smashing camera into photographer’s face] Langelle was on assignment for Z Magazine and he is also the board chair for Global Justice Ecology Project. We will continue to keep you posted as things develop.-The GJEP Team
To Whom it May Concern,
I am writing to submit an official statement regarding an act of violence that occurred inside the ICC on December 8th, 2011 in Durban, South Africa by a member of the UNFCCC Security. As mentioned in the official complaint filed by Orin Langelle, I was being escorted by security after giving an interview wearing a traditional clown costume (at this moment, I will not raise question as to the legitimacy of this expulsion). Upon descending a staircase, a reporter, Orin Langelle, began to loudly question the security officer asking (I do not recall the exact wording): “Is this man being expelled from the conference? What rules have been broken? Are you arresting him?” At which point the security officer very quickly approached Mr. Langelle and grabbed the front of the lens of his camera covering it so he could not photograph. The officer did not attempt to remove the camera from Mr. Langelle, but instead decided to very aggressively physically pushed the camera into his face. Mr. Langelle was notably distraught after such an unwarranted act of violence. In the next 30 meters, from the bottom of the stairs to the security office, the same officer aggressively but nonviolently confiscated two more cameras of two other conference attendants who began to photograph the incident. The officer did give a warning to one of the photographers who was photographing immediately before taking his camera, but no warning was given to Mr. Langelle or the other photographer. The officer arrived to the security office with no less than 3 cameras he had confiscated (these were shortly returned).
As I was being informed of my expulsion from the conference. I commented to UNFCCC official Warren Waetford on the surprisingly aggressive attitude of the officer – considering there was absolutely no aggression besides his own. (I had been walking calmly behind him as I am sure he will acknowledge.) I recommended to Mr. Waetford that this unprovoked act of aggression be addressed, and would like to reiterate that recommendation now to the UNFCCC secretariat, and formally.
I also asked why any security officer had the right to confiscate cameras at will, and was informed that UNFCCC Security Officers have the right not to be photographed, but are required to ask photographers to stop photographing, and only if the photographer refused could the officer confiscate their cameras. In the case of Mr. Langelle and another unnamed photographer, no warning was given.
Finally, I would like to comment on the official response issued by the UN regarding this incident. It stated: “Our investigations indicate that it was necessary to clear a passage within the conference center that was being obstructed, in the interest of the safety of all participants and in the interest of the smooth operation of the conference. At no time was undue force applied in the exercise.” I would like to attest, as a witness to the incident, that this official statement is not true. If this statement derives from testaments by the arresting officer, then he has then both committed an act of violence and lied. No passage was blocked. It was the Security Guard who first approached Mr. Langelle because of his loud questioning, straying from the most direct path to the security office, and without any verbal warnings violently and aggressively took his camera. Undue force was very clearly applied.
I believe this incident should call into question the UNFCCC’s prohibition on documentation of its own security forces. As this case demonstrates – a clear violation both of the policy of giving warnings before confiscation of cameras, as well as an unwarranted act of violence, occurred. If we are denied even the freedom of press to protect ourselves against violence by armed officials inside a space under the jurisdiction of the United Nations, then the UN itself is complicit in the tyranny it was founded to confront.
Sincerely,
Kevin Buckland
Barcelona, Spain
Advertisement
Like this:
Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog
More analysis on Obama’s SOTU address: On his “Clean Energy Shout Out to the Dept of Defense”
February 4th, 2012
During his recent state of the Union Address, Obama shouted out the Dept of Defense as a clean energy partner.
“I’m proud to announce that the Department of Defense, working with us, the world’s largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history -– with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year.”
Unlike some of Obama’s other claims (such as the fantasy that American influence has not waned and that America is even more respected around the world) – this one is true. It’s not only true, it’s just the tip of the iceberg of what the DoD is doing to promote clean energy. http://www.pewenvironment.org/news-room/reports/from-barracks-to-battlef…
Is this DoD greenwashing for good PR? Smart investment to reduce cost? Yes and yes. But above all, the DoD is serious about clean energy for one primary reason: survival.
During the UN Conference on Climate Change in Durban last December, the Department of Defense held a series of sessions touting its agenda to confront climate change.
Sitting in on one of the sessions, I expected a bunch of smoke and mirrors but instead what I heard bowled me over. Climate deniers would have heckled these military officials out of the building!
Here are some of the main points that DoD officials drove home:
– The threat of climate change is real. Research conducted by the U.S. Navy Task Force on Climate Change shows that ice thickness north of Barrow, Alaska has decreased by 40% since the 1980s and more than 20% below the record minimum since 2005. By 2050 navy researchers project we could be seeing 2-3 months of ice free conditions, leading to devastating sea level rise and increasingly sever storm flooding and damage. In the words of Rear Admiral David Titley “Our land is the climactic tail being wagged by the ocean dog. There’s a lot of heat going into the ocean.”
– The threat is large enough to warrant bold goal-setting. The navy’s goal is to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2020. [Note - this nearly meets science-based targets of 50% reduction below 1990 levels by 2017, set at the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth in Cochbamba, April 2010 http://pwccc.wordpress.com/] The army has set a goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20110712/FACILITIES01/107120301
– The threat is also large enough to warrant innovation and significant investment to achieve these goals. The DoD is investing billions in RD for emerging renewable and energy efficiency technologies. One of the most amazing examples they gave was a nanosolar power project being tested on a national guard base in California. In this project, solar panels are created by spraying nanoparticles onto thin aluminum sheets. Yeah. But the DoD isn’t just playing with high-tech toys like this. They are also exploring ways to address transportation challenges and reduce energy consumption through renewables – including rigging supply-carrying donkeys with solar panels.
The DoD is shape-shifting into a climate change warrior. Simply because, as one of the presenters put it: “Energy dependency and climate change threatens our effectiveness as war fighters.” In addition it became clear through the session that the US Navy considers themselves an impacted community, as rising sea levels threaten almost every navy installation across the world.
So in fact Obama should not just have shouted the DoD as a partner in clean energy projects, but as a leader driven not by politics or profit but by the sheer self-interest of survival. And because I support any concerted effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, here are some words of advice to the DoD to help them surpass their greenhouse gas reduction targets:
CLOSE OVERSEAS BASES – the DoD has nearly 1000 overseas military bases across the world, which cost more than an estimated 50 billion to maintain, and emit approximately 220 million tons of CO2. Closing bases including bases in Guam, Guantanamo and South Korea would not only greatly reduce costs and energy consumption, it would reduce the DoD’s toxic impacts on surrounding base environments and communities.http://www.fpif.org/articles/too_many_overseas_bases http://www.enviro-news.com/news/us_military_emissions_assessment_at_army…
CLEAN UP YOUR MESSES – the DoD is responsible for unspeakable amounts of radioactive and chemical waste across the world. The DoD should pay into environmental justice and climate adaptation funding to clean up its waste and support affected communities in repurposing former military land for community and ecological benefit.
CUT TRANSPORTATION EMISSIONS BY STOPPING DRONE MISSIONS – the DoD owns at least 600 drone planes that are powered by jet fuel. Jet fuel accounts for 58% of site delivered energy consumption by the US military. Stopping these missions would greatly reduce fossil fuel emissions as well as civilian deaths from drone strikes in Pakistan.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/12/air-force-is-through-with-predat…http://karbuz.blogspot.com/2009/04/us-military-energy-consumption-in-200…
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29925
FAST-TRACK CIVILIAN TRANSFER OF SOLAR NANOTECHNOLOGY AND OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY AND EFFICIENCY SOLUTIONS, INFLUENCE CONGRESS TO END OIL SUBSIDIES AND USE THIS MONEY TO SUBSIDIZE AFFORDABLE AVAILABILITY OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES so the greenhouse gas reduction targets set by the military can also be set and achieved by grassroots communities across the country, in lieu of massive destructive projects like the Keystone XL pipeline and natural gas pipelines.
Just some modest proposals to support the DoD in their quest as climate change warriors. After all, why shouldn’t climate change be tackled by the biggest polluter and greenhouse gas emitter in the world? But clean energy investment is only one aspect of what’s needed. Stopping consumption and waste production at the source by pruning the wasteful practices of empire will get at the root of climate disruption. Now if only the Obama administration would follow suit.
Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog
Senate Republicans Attempt End Run Around Rejection of Keystone XL Tarsands Pipeline
February 3rd, 2012
Controversial Pipeline Would Worsen Climate Change, Hurt Endangered Species
WASHINGTON— Less than two weeks after President Barack Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, Republicans in the U.S. Senate today introduced a bill that would allow Congress to approve the controversial project. The pipeline would transport dirty tar-sands oil from Canada to Texas, perpetuate the global climate crisis, put wildlife and wild landscapes at risk of oil spills and create additional dependence on tar sands, one of the most polluting types of fossil fuel.
“President Obama made the right decision when he rejected the Keystone XL pipeline,” said Noah Greenwald at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Republicans in Congress need to stop wasting precious time doing the bidding of Big Oil and address the climate crisis and create long-term jobs in a new, clean energy economy.”
Keystone XL would transport dirty tar-sands oil 1,700 miles across six states and hundreds of water bodies, posing an unacceptable risk of spill. An existing pipeline called Keystone 1 has already leaked 14 times since it started operating in June 2010, including one spill that dumped 21,000 gallons of tar-sands crude. The pipeline would directly threaten at least 20 imperiled species, including whooping cranes.
Extraction and refinement of tar-sands oil produces two to three times more greenhouse gases per barrel than conventional oil and represents a massive new source of fossil fuels that leading climate scientist Dr. James Hansen has called “game over” for our ability to avoid a climate catastrophe. Strip mining of oil from Alberta’s tar sands is also destroying tens of thousands of acres of boreal forest and polluting hundreds of millions of gallons of water from the Athabasca River, in the process creating toxic ponds so large they can be seen from space.
“Keystone XL would be an environmental disaster and create few permanent jobs in the process,” Greenwald said. “Instead much of the oil will be exported — even as the pipeline deepens our dependence on the fossil fuels that are polluting our air, land and water and driving the global climate crisis.”
Advertisement
Like this:
Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog
Senate Republicans Attempt End Run Around Rejection of Keystone XL Tarsands Pipeline
February 3rd, 2012
Controversial Pipeline Would Worsen Climate Change, Hurt Endangered Species
WASHINGTON— Less than two weeks after President Barack Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, Republicans in the U.S. Senate today introduced a bill that would allow Congress to approve the controversial project. The pipeline would transport dirty tar-sands oil from Canada to Texas, perpetuate the global climate crisis, put wildlife and wild landscapes at risk of oil spills and create additional dependence on tar sands, one of the most polluting types of fossil fuel.
“President Obama made the right decision when he rejected the Keystone XL pipeline,” said Noah Greenwald at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Republicans in Congress need to stop wasting precious time doing the bidding of Big Oil and address the climate crisis and create long-term jobs in a new, clean energy economy.”
Keystone XL would transport dirty tar-sands oil 1,700 miles across six states and hundreds of water bodies, posing an unacceptable risk of spill. An existing pipeline called Keystone 1 has already leaked 14 times since it started operating in June 2010, including one spill that dumped 21,000 gallons of tar-sands crude. The pipeline would directly threaten at least 20 imperiled species, including whooping cranes.
Extraction and refinement of tar-sands oil produces two to three times more greenhouse gases per barrel than conventional oil and represents a massive new source of fossil fuels that leading climate scientist Dr. James Hansen has called “game over” for our ability to avoid a climate catastrophe. Strip mining of oil from Alberta’s tar sands is also destroying tens of thousands of acres of boreal forest and polluting hundreds of millions of gallons of water from the Athabasca River, in the process creating toxic ponds so large they can be seen from space.
“Keystone XL would be an environmental disaster and create few permanent jobs in the process,” Greenwald said. “Instead much of the oil will be exported — even as the pipeline deepens our dependence on the fossil fuels that are polluting our air, land and water and driving the global climate crisis.”
Advertisement
Senate Republicans Attempt End Run Around Rejection of Keystone XL Tarsands Pipeline
February 3rd, 2012
Controversial Pipeline Would Worsen Climate Change, Hurt Endangered Species
WASHINGTON— Less than two weeks after President Barack Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, Republicans in the U.S. Senate today introduced a bill that would allow Congress to approve the controversial project. The pipeline would transport dirty tar-sands oil from Canada to Texas, perpetuate the global climate crisis, put wildlife and wild landscapes at risk of oil spills and create additional dependence on tar sands, one of the most polluting types of fossil fuel.
“President Obama made the right decision when he rejected the Keystone XL pipeline,” said Noah Greenwald at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Republicans in Congress need to stop wasting precious time doing the bidding of Big Oil and address the climate crisis and create long-term jobs in a new, clean energy economy.”
Keystone XL would transport dirty tar-sands oil 1,700 miles across six states and hundreds of water bodies, posing an unacceptable risk of spill. An existing pipeline called Keystone 1 has already leaked 14 times since it started operating in June 2010, including one spill that dumped 21,000 gallons of tar-sands crude. The pipeline would directly threaten at least 20 imperiled species, including whooping cranes.
Extraction and refinement of tar-sands oil produces two to three times more greenhouse gases per barrel than conventional oil and represents a massive new source of fossil fuels that leading climate scientist Dr. James Hansen has called “game over” for our ability to avoid a climate catastrophe. Strip mining of oil from Alberta’s tar sands is also destroying tens of thousands of acres of boreal forest and polluting hundreds of millions of gallons of water from the Athabasca River, in the process creating toxic ponds so large they can be seen from space.
“Keystone XL would be an environmental disaster and create few permanent jobs in the process,” Greenwald said. “Instead much of the oil will be exported — even as the pipeline deepens our dependence on the fossil fuels that are polluting our air, land and water and driving the global climate crisis.”
Advertisement
Urgent Alert: Thirteen Leaders of the Peasant Movement of the Aguán Valley Detained by Police
February 3rd, 2012
This urgent alert about continuing violence in the Aguan Valley comes to us from COPINH in Honduras. This police kidnapping occurs mere hours after an international human rights delegation left the area, as reported previously on Climate Connections. – the GJEP team
Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH)
¡Thirteen Leaders of the Peasant Movement of the Aguan Valley detained!
The COPINH alerts the national and international community about the arbitrary detention of thirteen leaders of the Unified Peasant Movement of the Aguan (MUCA) by the Honduran national police last night at 9:50 pm. This criminal action was carried out by the police at a security checkpoint in the community of Arizona, Atlántida. The men were taken by unknown roads toward the police station in the city of Tela in a Frontier without license plates, and a white Mitsubishi also without license plates.
The detained men are: Juan Ángel Rodríguez, Omar Cano, Leonel Acosta, Orlando García, Orlando Romero, Jhony Rivas, Enemias Ortega, Raúl Ramírez, Osvaldo Laínez, Juan Chinchilla, José Ismael Quintanilla and two others whose names are not known.
We condemn the regime and the criminal police, and we hold them accountable for any aggression and threat toward the physical and emotional wellbeing of these thirteen people who were simply returning to their communities following a series of meetings in Tegucigalpa, about the situation facing peasant movements in the Aguan.
We call for national and international solidarity efforts to condemn this unacceptable action, and we demand the liberation of these men; similarly we condemn the state of impunity, the violation of human rights, and the criminalization of social movements in Honduras.
¡The more repression, the more struggle and organization!
¡Solidarity with Honduras, solidarity with the Aguan Valley!
– COPINH, Esperanza, Intibucá, Honduras, February 2, 2012.
Advertisement
Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog