Lately in the climate movement I’ve been encountering an idea I believe is based on flawed assumptions: that the only real “solution” to the climate crisis is promoting clean energy and efficiency, while avoiding “problem-oriented” approaches like shutting down existing coal plants and stopping tar sands pipelines.  According to this way of thinking, the climate movement’s best bet is to focus almost exclusively on saying “yes” to things we want, and seldom or never say “no.”

I fully recognize the tremendous importance of working with communities to implement clean energy solutions.  I have huge respect and admiration for people who dedicate themselves to this kind of work.  If that’s your calling, I’m behind you 100%.  But I can’t and won’t agree that having people who are willing to take a principled stand against dirty energy is any less a part of the solution than implementing alternatives to fossil fuels.  We will never build a real movement for climate justice without being willing to say “no.”

If you don’t believe me, imagine what would happen if every US climate activist focused only on renewables and efficiency, while declining to speak out against unjust energy.  The result would be a heyday for fossil fuels.  Relieved of the inconvenience of people willing to stand in the way of injustice, coal companies would finish blowing up the last Appalachians and converting the Powder River Basin to a wasteland.  Largely unopposed, Big Oil would build its long-sought network of pipelines linking the Canadian tar sands to US refineries, solidifying US oil dependence for the next several decades.

Meanwhile we’d be installing lots of solar panels and wind turbines.  But it wouldn’t matter much, so long as fossil fuel companies could go their way unopposed and externalize the costs onto others.  When seen as one wing of a broader movement that also includes confronting injustice directly, renewable energy solutions are hugely powerful.  But if the climate movement becomes unwilling to condemn injustice where it exists, all the solutions we implement are for nothing.  They’ll be swept away in the tide of dirty energy infrastructure fossil companies would build without principled opposition from our movement.

Perhaps more to the point, people on the front lines of the fossil industry’s expansion can’t afford a “yes-only” solution to climate justice.  If you live at the site of a proposed coal export terminal, simply promoting clean energy isn’t a full solution to your problem.  That won’t make the immediate issue of a pending dirty energy proposal go away.  I’m unwilling to abandon solidarity with front line communities, with the vague promise their problems will be alleviated “someday,” when the tide of clean energy finally overwhelms fossil fuels completely.  For many people at the front lines, this day will come too late to save their livelihoods, health, and ability to survive.

No social movement has achieved success without directly confronting injustice.  Where would we be if leaders of the Civil Rights movement had avoided talking about segregation for fear of being called “too problem-oriented”?  What if Gandhi had decided condemning British rule would make the India liberation movement seem “too negative”?  Every movement must identify just alternatives while standing in the way injustices that exist.  Abandoning either side of the equation won’t get us anywhere.

Gandhi urged his followers to harness the power of Satyagraha, translated as “truth force” or “soul force.”  Acting with love and compassion, the Satyagrahis used nonviolent resistance to clog the wheels of the British empire, openly defying an unjust system while showing the way to a society based on moral values.  When arrested by the British in 1922 and tried for his “seditious” critique of the empire, Gandhi made the case for non-cooperation with injustice.  ”In my humble opinion,” he testified during his trial, “non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good.”

I can think of no better advice for the climate movement, where solutions will be found in standing up for clean energy while standing in the way of unjust systems.  Individual activists may of course decide to focus on one or the other piece of this equation.  But in losing sight of the need for both, we can only become ineffective.  Gandhi’s movement liberated India by offering solutions while steadfastly opposing injustice.  Our movement must do the same thing.

Are there any Satyagrahis out there?

Cross-posted from Solar Mosaic Energy 2.0 Blog

Tim DeChristopher understands why he’s going to jail. As he told Rolling Stone in a recent interview, “What I did was a threat to the status quo, so I understand why those in power want to put me away.”

Tim represents a new breed of disruptive, bold climate activists who are putting their lives on the line to bring about the transformational change we need. And he considers Solar Mosaic part of that transformation. Asked what it would take to fundamentally transform our energy system, he pointed to Solar Mosaic as proof that we’re on our way. For the folks at Solar Mosaic, this is both a huge compliment and a great expectation to fulfill.

A quick recap on Tim: One the eve of Obama’s inauguration, a 27-year old economics student from Utah entered an auction set up for oil and gas companies, became the top bidder, and won the lease rights. He had no intention of paying for the land; he was acting to protect public land from destructive extraction. Despite the fact that the leasing plan was flawed and has since been revoked, Tim faces up to ten years in prison for his actions. His sentencing was recently rescheduled for the tenth time and is slated for late July. To read Tim’s full story, click here.

I take a lot of inspiration from Tim, for his personal resolve and his commitment to confronting the inadequacies of the grey economy and spurring on a new energy transformation. I’m also inspired to witness this new paradigm taking hold in concrete ways around the country. Indeed, Solar Mosaic – which aims to democratize clean energy in Oakland, California and around the country – represents a radical departure from traditional top-down fossil fuel systems.

DeChristopher speaks of a future that promotes local power, justice and prosperity for all, and an economy based on human goodness. Solar Mosaic embodies these tenants, putting the energy in the hands of people, creating jobs and helping community institutions save money, and building an economy that reflects the values we strive to live by.

When some people think of solutions to the climate crisis, they picture wind turbines blowing in the breeze or solar panels on a rooftop.  But for me, the best solution is a group of passionate people coming together to directly confront the biggest challenge of our time: re-claiming our political and social power from the fossil fuel industries .  That’s just what happened this past weekend, when a group of student activists from throughout the Northwest got together to start a new chapter in our region’s journey to fossil fuel independence.

Together we formed the Coal Action Network, a grassroots organization aimed at challenging coal projects throughout the greater Northwest – and perhaps beyond.  Though the name Coal Action Network is new, student efforts to shift the Northwest away from coal are not.  Working in partnership with environmental nonprofits, students have already helped put the only existing coal plants in Oregon and Washington on the path to retirement.  When the Boardman Coal Plant and TransAlta Coal Plant are gone from the grid, our region will have eliminated its two biggest sources of carbon pollution, opening up space for clean energy to grow.

These victories never would have happened without countless individuals who took a stand, and were willing to say “No more” to the coal industry.  With two major achievements down already, we are turning to the next big challenge: protecting our rivers and bays from becoming an international coal export zone.  We are already working in solidarity with impacted front line communities who are fighting coal export infrastructure in their back yards.

Today everyone from President Obama to BP is willing to talk about technological energy “solutions.”  But what about the original democratic solution that formed the foundation of every successful social movement in history: a community of principled individuals willing to stand up for justice?  Technology will of course play a vital part in the transition away from fossil fuels, but wind turbines and solar panels will not on their own stop destructive coal infrastructure proposals.   Just as leaders of the Civil Rights Movement and the India liberation movement won by refusing to cooperate with oppression, we must do the same – and we must remember ignoring the problem is tantamount to participating in it.  That’s why I’m so excited to see this new chapter of solidarity with impacted communities beginning in the Northwest.

In the months ahead we’ll openly confront the coal industry wherever it tries to make inroads on our communities.  Whether by turning out to public hearings, working directly with people on the front lines, or calling out the financial institutions that give the coal giants their funding, we’ll shine a light on what’s happening in our region.  Since oppression only thrives when its perpetrators can operate in secret, we’ll win by harnessing the power of truth: the truth that as passengers on the same planet we are all brothers and sisters, and a threat to any one community’s right to clean water and breathable air is by definition a threat to us all.

Acting on this principle, the Coal Action Network has already organized one action in the Northwest.  Drawing inspiration from groups like the Rainforest Action Network and Rising Tide, which have pioneered non-violent methods for holding financial institutions accountable, activists who attended Saturday’s campaign launch temporarily “shut down” several Bank of America and Wells Fargo ATMs.  Signs posted at the ATMs informed customers the banks were closed “due to investments in coal export projects.”

As the beginning of a new school year approaches next month, I expect to see many other creative actions organized by the Coal Action Network.  Like the Civil Rights Movement and the India liberation movement before us, we pledge to stand non-violently but firmly in the way of oppression, and bring justice to our own communities ourselves.

Jack Nicholson as Frank Costello in The Departed.

“When you decide to be something, you can be it. That’s what they don’t tell you in the church. When I was your age they would say we can become cops, or criminals. Today, what I’m saying to you is this: when you’re facing a loaded gun, what’s the difference?”

-Frank Costello, The Departed

What is the difference? I mean really, does it matter which side of the law you’re on when the end result is dead people? It sometimes baffles me, the legitimacy society grants to one group of people who go out and kill people through environmental and labor abuses, while deeming another group “illegitimate” because they kill people while operating in black markets dealing in gambling and drugs.

Case in point, one of last week’s big news stories was the capture of reputed Boston mob boss James “Whitey” Bulger, who eluded federal authorities for 16 years. Last week, the 81-year-old Bulger was found living somewhat openly in a Santa Monica apartment complex with his long-time partner Catherine Greig. Bulger ran various nefarious rackets in Boston for decades, is linked personally to at least 19 murders, and was also the inspiration for Jack Nicholson’s character, Frank Costello, in Martin Scorcese’s 2006 crime drama, The Departed.

Whitey Bulger mug shot via newcriminologist.com

Then we turn to West Virginia, where this week’s news story has been the revelation that another criminal organization, Massey Energy, faked mining safety reports at the Upper Big Branch mine before the disaster. The company fabricated a set of reports to show mining inspectors while maintaining another set of reports showing actual hazards. The subsequent explosion that occurred on April 5, 2010 killed 29 miners (10 more people than Whitey Bulger is accused of killing.)

This revelation comes on top of the indictment a few months ago of Massey’s chief security officer, Hughie Elbert Stover, for obstructing federal investigators in the Upper Big Branch mining disaster. The FBI is also investigating Massey officials for criminal negligence and bribery of federal regulators.

The only different difference between Whitey’s Winter Hill Gang and Massey? Massey has a corporate charter and operated under full protection of the government, while Whitey had to hide all his business transactions from the FBI, the DEA, the IRS, etc., etc.

Don Blankenship photo via huffingtonpost.com

Massey’s former CEO and reputed mob boss Don Blankenship, an outspoken opponent of mining regulation and active GOP funder, did everything possible to avoid compliance and created a corporate culture to fight regulation at every turn. Blankenship flooded West Virginia’s political system with Massey dollars to manipulate state regulators. Blankenship owned West Virginia politicians like Joe Manchin. And he funded vacations to the French Riviera for himself and West Virginia State Supreme Court Justices to influence rulings on Massey related cases.

An independent investigation has revealed that West Virginia’s politicians were afraid of Massey’s strong arm-style tactics, and the company ignored safety regulations to increase profit.

Blankenship is an arch criminal responsible for the deaths of those 29 miners, the destruction of 500 mountains (plus many miles of forest and waterways) and harming local Appalachian communities with toxic waste, flyrock and refuse from mountaintop removal sites.

But what’s the difference between Blankenship and Whitey Bulger?

Society deems Bulger’s occupation as drug dealer, loanshark and contract killer as illegitimate while Blankenship’s status as a corporate CEO is legit regardless of how much misery he spread. As a result, Whitey Bulger is looking at life in prison and maybe even the death penalty, while Blankenship got a nice golden parachute.

This blog post was cowritten by Monica Christoffels, student activist in Eugene, Oregon and Anastasia Schemkes, Green Transportation Organizer at the Sierra Club Cascade Chapter. 

More than 50 students from around the Pacific Northwest joined hands across the coast of Samish Island, WA in recognition of the second annual Hands Across the Sand international day of action against oil drilling. With the island’s lush forest behind them, they looked out on a serene Puget Sound – their view only to be interrupted by the looming smokestacks of the Anecortes Oil Refinery.

These students stood in solidarity with thousands of Americans across the country in sending a message to our elected officials and fellow citizens: we must do all we can to move America beyond oil.

With toes touching the water and eyes fixed on the ominous smokestacks, the students dug their feet deeper into the sand, becoming more determined to stand against America’s dangerous addiction to oil and for clean energy solutions.

These 50 students were attendees of the Sierra Student Coalition’s Northwest SPROG, one of six summer organizing training programs to be held around the country this summer. They spent a week at a camp on Samish Island, WA learning organizing skills such as messaging and framing, tactics and strategy, campaign planning and articulating a compelling narrative that inspires others to act.

Northwest SPROG attendee Monica Christoffels felt compelled to organize Hands Across the Sand event this year because she wanted to remind people of how much is at stake in the clean energy future.

“I took part in Hands Across the Sand last year, when the BP oil spill galvanized hundreds of thousands of people from literally every corner of the globe, all linking together to protest offshore oil drilling.” Christoffels said.

This year, Hands Across the Sand came at a moment of opportunity to weaken the stranglehold oil has on our economy. This summer, the Obama Administration is working on new efficiency standards for cars – and we need to call on our leaders to increase fuel efficiency as one way to reduce our nation’s dependence on oil.

The White House is set to announce new fuel efficiency standards for 2017-2025 this September. The highest standard under consideration, 62 miles per gallon, would cut the average car’s oil consumption by half – reducing America’s dependence on oil by over 44 billion gallons per year.

“Hands Across the Sand shows me that people all over the world are ready for a clean energy future, and gives me hope that we can achieve that someday.” Christoffels continued.

The youth that attend SPROGs around the country every summer – including those at NW SPROG this year are not only ready for a clean energy future, they are the ones helping create it.

With the tools they learned at SPROG and the same passion that brought them together on the beach, the students at NW SPROG are among those pushing their communities, local leaders and the Obama Administration to make “someday” right now – we can start with 60mpg by 2025.

Tell the Obama Administration you want higher fuel efficiency standards, visit Go60mpg.org.

The following letter was sent to me by an anonymous employee at the Ranco Las Palmas Resort in Palm Springs, California. The author identifies themselves only as “Chucky”. It appears to have been written prior to the first International Conference on Climate Change–an annual gathering of so-called “climate skeptics” in Washington D.C.  The content of the letter suggests that the premise of the ICCC Conference is to manufacture uncertainty in the conversation about anthropogenic global warming.

The employee claims she found it in a briefcase that had been turned in to the lost-and-found desk at the Rancho Las Palmas Resort.  It is worth noting that the resort was the location of a retreat hosted by Charles and David Koch just one day prior to the briefcase being found. The letter includes no conclusive evidence that the letter was addressed to Charles and David Koch.  [I transcribed the letter below due to the difficulty of reading the handwriting. Notes added are in italics and bracketed. Links are included for background information.]

TRANSCRIPT:

Dear Charles and David,

Scanned image of the leaked "Chucky letter" Other pages are below transcript

[continued]

I was glad to get a letter from you. In the mail. You guys are great. Who sends letters anymore? And sealed with a wax stamp…ha ha, you creeps

Well, I have been thinking about the dilemmas you mentioned regarding global warming. And yes, of course I’m happy to offer some advice!

Let’s start with the facts, and don’t let them discourage you–we can beat these pencilnecks[sic]:

There is overwhelming. global, peer-reviewed, all that stuff, scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. All of the top um, scientific bodies around the world (even your friends at NAS) [National Academy of Sciences, presumably] are convinced. And you know how they are about things they are convinced of.

So.

You need an elaborate–I mean, Ocean’s 11, 12, 13 AND 14-style–elaborate–HOAX. You gotta do what it takes to keep the public guessing. Otherwise, they’re going to realize you’re boiling ‘em like frogs in a pot. As dumb as they are, those American Idol wannabe fatasses outnumber us, boys. Ha ha? No but seriously.

Here’s what you do:                    ran out of room–>[sic]

The IPCC is the UN‘s big gang of credible scientists that have the loudest voice in climate change findings. They issue statements and conclusions after they get together at a conference, right? Well, You can have a conference, too!

Call it something similar to the IPCC so it’s hard to tell yours apart from the real one. Call it… the International Conference on Climate Change. IPCC? ICCC?  ICUP? ;-p The media’ll never get the distinction across in one headline.

You won’t get many actual scientists to come to your conference, of course. So focus on inviting smart people who either look good on camera or don’t have any friends left in at their jobs. You know the type–insecure academics who’ll do anything to stand out in their field. Letters after their name is preferable–but not crucial. You can always just make something up.

Better yet–just promote them as scientists on your conference’s website. [This is happening now. Read about it.] It’s a free country, right? What they gonna do, take your birthdays away? (I’ve been to your parties, they couldn’t afford it.)

I did you the courtesy of sending along with this a list of ppl to invite. Ya, you owe me another elephant-shoot. Really. [List was not included. See link in previous paragraph]

(Sorry, this was the only other paper I could find. Just don’t lose this letter.) [letterhead at top of page reads: "Chamber of Commerce / United States of America]

Note: your companies can’t directly host the conference.  You need a wholesome-sounding name for a front group or two that you can control from behind the scenes. Call it the “American Dream Freedom Alliance”…no, no good…the “Institute of the Heartland”  yeah… almost…I’ll work on that one. OH! I got it: “Americans for Prosperity.” I’m on a roll. “What’s that, Dr. Scientist? I couldn’t hear all those numbers you were using in your argument because I was deafened by your HATRED for Americans AND Prosperity!”

That should keep them guessing for long enough to keep the UN from getting in your way. Gotta warn you, though. Your[sic] going into pretty public territory now, (and we’re talking about, like, the death of the planet and all, so be careful.)

Talk soon,

CHUCKY

P.S. And don’t overreact when knucklehead bloggers figure you out. No one reads them anyway.

Page 2

Page 3

Click this image to go to the report

This post was written by Ananda Lee Tan, organizer at GAIA, Rising Tide North America and Energy Action Coalition board member.

Between the pollution trading markets and increasing public handouts for bad corporate behavior, U.S. energy corporations have been laughing all the way to the bank.

Hence it comes as no surprise that some of the most polluting and risky power companies have banded together, once again, to lobby DC for more subsidies and incentives to help finance their plans for more dirty power plants.

This time they have crafted a shrewd and conniving scheme to:

1. Seek cover under the aegis of Renewable Energy such as wind and solar.
2. Get large logging firms and waste industries to rally behind the concept of burning biomass.

A new report released yesterday by the Biomass Accountability Project exposes the billions of taxpayer dollars being handed out for biomass electricity projects. The report highlights the range of subsidies being sought as well as the huge public health and climate impacts that result from burning biomass.

Contrary to the biomass industry’s claims of “carbon neutrality”, biomass burners actually produce more climate pollution per unit of electricity than coal power. Even the US EPA was forced to retract public statements supporting such misleading claims, after strong criticism from scientists about false carbon accounting and legal challenges targeting the integrity of biogenic carbon data on EPA web pages.

via GAIA

While biomass carbon-intensity underscores how federal and state renewable energy designations constitute perverse subsidies, the actual potential of burning biomass is what illustrates the insanity of this option. According to Harper’s Index of January 2006, if every standing tree in the U.S. were to be burned for energy production, we would generate only 1 year’s-worth of energy for the entire country — hardly an attribute that qualifies as being renewable.

Alongside warnings from various medical associations, the proliferation of biomass and waste incinerators is being recognized as a major infraction of civil rights and environmental justice. The vast majority of these polluting facilities are built in poor, people of color communities around the country — often communities that suffer a disproportionate share of health impacts from industrial pollution and waste. According to Robert Bullard, author of Dismantling Energy Apartheid in the United States , in the State of Georgia, 7 of the 12 existing biomass incinerators are in counties where the African American population far exceeds the state average, and 6 of the 9 new incinerators are being sited and constructed in majority black counties.

However, the new biomass subsidies report also highlights hope — a vast number of new incinerator proposals are being defeated by community activists and grassroots groups across the nation. From Springfield, Massachusetts to Valdosta, Georgia, average citizens have been stepping up to protect their communities where lawmakers are failing, forcing elected officials to turn down these polluting smokestacks in their backyards.

So while the biomass burners lobby federal and state policymakers for the corporate welfare historically provided to Big Oil, King Coal and Wall Street, the average American is not so easily fooled. Almost every week, another community stands up to stop these expensive, toxic smokestacks from being built in their backyard.

A number of DC greens are starting to take notice of the biomass threat as well, after being alerted by frontline communities of climate subsidies outside the beltway.

Now, we simply need to work together to keep the pollution peddlers away from the public purse, and protect our communities for the future of the planet.

Today, a group of eleven leading activists and environmentalists released a letter calling for people to join them in Washington DC this August to take part in civil disobedience to help stop the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Want to join in? You can sign up to take part here.

Dear Friends, 

This will be a slightly longer letter than common for the internet age—it’s serious stuff.

The short version is we want you to consider doing something hard: coming to Washington in the hottest and stickiest weeks of the summer and engaging in civil disobedience that will likely get you arrested.

The full version goes like this:

As you know, the planet is steadily warming: 2010 was the warmest year on record, and we’ve seen the resulting chaos in almost every corner of the earth.

And as you also know, our democracy is increasingly controlled by special interests interested only in their short-term profit.

These two trends collide this summer in Washington, where the State Department and the White House have to decide whether to grant a  certificate of ‘national interest’ to some of the biggest fossil fuel players on earth. These corporations want to build the so-called ‘Keystone XL Pipeline’ from Canada’s tar sands to Texas refineries.
To call this project a horror is serious understatement. The tar sands have wrecked huge parts of Alberta, disrupting ways of life in indigenous communities—First Nations communities in Canada, and tribes along the pipeline route in the U.S. have demanded the destruction cease. The pipeline crosses crucial areas like the Oglalla Aquifer where a spill would be disastrous—and though the pipeline companies insist they are using ‘state of the art’ technologies that should leak only once every 7 years, the precursor pipeline and its pumping stations have leaked a dozen times in the past year. These  local impacts alone would be cause enough to block such a plan. But the Keystone Pipeline would also be a fifteen hundred mile fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the continent, a way to make it easier and faster to trigger the final overheating of our planet, the one place to which we are all indigenous.

How much carbon lies in the recoverable tar sands of Alberta? A recent calculation from some of our foremost scientists puts the figure at about 200 parts per million.  Even with the new pipeline they won’t be able to burn that much overnight—but each development like this makes it easier to get more oil out.  As the climatologist Jim Hansen (one of the signatories to this letter) explained, if we have any chance of getting back to a stable climate “the principal requirement is that coal emissions must be phased out by 2030 and unconventional fossil fuels, such as tar sands, must be left in the ground.” In other words, he added, “if the tar sands are thrown into the mix it is essentially game over.” The Keystone pipeline is an essential part of the game. “Unless we get increased market access, like with Keystone XL, we’re going to be stuck,” said Ralph Glass, an economist and vice-president at AJM Petroleum Consultants in Calgary, told a Canadian newspaper last week.

Given all that, you’d suspect that there’s no way the Obama administration would ever permit this pipeline. But in the last few months the president has signed pieces of paper opening much of Alaska to oil drilling, and permitting coal-mining on federal land in Wyoming that will produce as much CO2 as 300 power plants operating at full bore.

And Secretary of State Clinton has already said she’s ‘inclined’ to recommend the pipeline go forward. Partly it’s because of the political commotion over high gas prices, though more tar sands oil would do nothing to change that picture. But it’s also because of intense pressure from industry. TransCanada Pipeline, the company behind Keystone, has hired as its chief lobbyist for the project a man named Paul Elliott, who served as deputy national director of Clinton’s presidential campaign. Meanwhile, the US Chamber of Commerce—a bigger funder of political campaigns than the RNC and DNC combined—has demanded that the administration “move quickly to approve the Keystone XL pipeline,” which is not so surprising—they’ve also told the U.S. EPA that if the planet warms that will be okay because humans can ‘adapt their physiology’ to cope. The Koch Brothers, needless to say, are also backing the plan, and may reap huge profits from it.

So we’re pretty sure that without serious pressure the Keystone Pipeline will get its permit from Washington.  A wonderful coalition of environmental groups has built a strong campaign across the continent—from Cree and Dene indigenous leaders to Nebraska farmers, they’ve spoken out strongly against the destruction of their land. We need to join them, and to say even if our own homes won’t be crossed by this pipeline, our joint home—the earth—will be wrecked by the carbon that pours down it.

And we need to say something else, too: it’s time to stop letting corporate power make the most important decisions our planet faces.

We don’t have the money to compete with those corporations, but we do have our bodies, and beginning in mid August many of us will use them. We will, each day through Labor Day, march on the White House, risking arrest with our trespass. We will do it in dignified fashion, demonstrating that in this case we are the conservatives, and that our foes—who would change the composition of the atmosphere are dangerous radicals. Come dressed as if for a business meeting—this is, in fact, serious business. And another sartorial tip—if you wore an Obama button during the 2008 campaign, why not wear it again? We very much still want to believe in the promise of that young Senator who told us that with his election the ‘rise of the oceans would begin to slow and the planet start to heal.’ We don’t understand what combination of bureaucratic obstinacy and insider dealing has derailed those efforts, but we remember his request that his supporters continue on after the election to pressure the government for change. We’ll do what we can.

And one more thing: we don’t want college kids to be the only cannon fodder in this fight. They’ve led the way so far on climate change—10,000 came to DC for the Powershift gathering earlier this spring. They’ve marched this month in West Virginia to protest mountaintop removal; Tim DeChristopher faces sentencing this summer in Utah for his creative protest.  Now it’s time for people who’ve spent their lives pouring carbon into the atmosphere (and whose careers won’t be as damaged by an arrest record) to step up too. Most of us signing this letter are veterans of this work, and we think it’s past time for elders to behave like elders. One thing we don’t want is a smash up: if you can’t control your passions, this action is not for you.

This won’t be a one-shot day of action. We plan for it to continue for several weeks, to the date in September when by law the administration can either grant or deny the permit for the pipeline. Not all of us can actually get arrested—half the signatories to this letter live in Canada, and might well find our entry into the U.S. barred. But we will be making plans for sympathy demonstrations outside Canadian consulates in the U.S., and U.S. consulates in Canada—the decision-makers need to know they’re being watched.

Winning this battle won’t save the climate. But losing it will mean the chances of runaway climate change go way up—that we’ll endure an endless future of the floods and droughts we’ve seen this year. And we’re fighting for the political future too—for the premise that we should make decisions based on science and reason, not political connection.  You have to start somewhere, and this is where we choose to begin.

If you think you might want to be a part of this action, we need you to sign up here. As plans solidify in the next few weeks we’ll be in touch with you to arrange nonviolence training; our colleagues at a variety of environmental and democracy campaigns will be coordinating the actual arrangements.

We know we’re asking a lot. You should think long and hard on it, and pray if you’re the praying type. But to us, it’s as much privilege as burden to get to join this fight in the most serious possible way. We hope you’ll join us.

Maude Barlow
Wendell Berry
Tom Goldtooth
Danny Glover
James Hansen
Wes Jackson
Naomi Klein
Bill McKibben
George Poitras
David Suzuki

Rather than blame undocumented immigrants for the fires ravaging his home state, Sen. John McCain should be educating the public about something he used to profess to know something about: the climate crisis.

At a press conference last Saturday, McCain said, “There is substantial evidence that some of these fires have been caused by people who have crossed our border illegally.”

This isn’t the first time McCain has talked about seeing the “substantial evidence.” In a 2008 speech at a wind turbine facility in Portland, McCain said of climate change, “No longer do we need to rely on guesswork and computer modeling, because satellite images reveal a dramatic disappearance of glaciers, Antarctic ice shelves and polar ice sheets. And I’ve seen some of this evidence up close.”

John McCain’s transformation from climate Dr. Jeckyll to anti-immigrant Mr. Hyde is a challenge for climate and a immigrant rights activists to find common ground.

Climate scientists have studied not only how increased global warming exacerbates fires across the western United States, but also how the drought caused by climate disruption drives more and more people in Mexico and across Central America to leave their parched homes and risk their lives to find work in el norte. A 2010 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that climate change’s impacts on crop yields may force as many as seven million Mexicans to emigrate to the U.S. over the next 70 years.

Now, the very immigrants that were driven from their homes by the climate crisis are being blamed for its impacts.

As climate disruption continues, it will exacerbate social conflict around the world. As Christian Parenti writes in his new book on climate conflict, Tropic of Chaos, “The United Nations has estimated that all but one of its emergency appeals for humanitarian aid in 2007 were climate related.”

The US border is not the only place where the conflict is coming to a head. India is already building a militarized fence along its 2,500 mile border with Bangladesh, a country that could see 22 million people forced from their homes by 2050 because of climate change.

Weathering the storm of the coming century will require immigrant rights, social justice, and environmental advocates to come together to offer a new vision of how society must deal with the multiple crises we face. Instead of building walls to stop the flow of climate refugees, we need to be building fair and sustainable economies that allow people to stay in their homes. And when refugees are forced to flee extreme weather, we need to show solidarity with one another, rather than cast blame on the most vulnerable.

In a different world, one could imagine Sen. McCain being a voice of reason on these issues. Instead, he’s decided to fan the flames of conflict. Let’s hope that by working together, we can begin to put out the fires.

This post was co-written with Michael Davidson.

Just in case our 5 years of swarming state capitals decked out in green hard hats, running campaigns calling for more jobs in clean energy, and vowing to only vote for candidates who support renewable energy companies hasn’t made it clear — youth really want more green jobs.

While young people have been some of the biggest advocates for green jobs, no one has really tried to answer the question of whether green jobs will be youth jobs? Will more green jobs mean more jobs for youth, or will young people miss out on the very green jobs we’ve worked so hard to create?

So far, the answer has been “we don’t know.” That’s because, despite all of the green jobs studies that have been done, none of them has really looked at the different kinds of people who actually get green jobs (one exception is for income and education level). This is especially true across different races, ethnicities, genders, and, yeah, ages. So, we set out to change that, writing the first study we know of to look at youth access to green jobs, and also the first written by youth.

Building on Kyle’s earlier research on green jobs demographics, we looked at the industries where the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (which finally has the resources to take green jobs seriously) says the most green jobs companies are, and compared that to data on the industries most young people work in. You can see the full results in our paper, but they’re not great:

Basically, industries with the most green jobs, like construction (doing energy efficient building retrofits, for example), don’t employ young people who have jobs (here BLS defines youth as ages 18-24). And the industries that do employ a lot of young people, like retail (and every young person’s favorite job, food service!), have some of the lowest rates of green jobs companies, less than a percent of all green jobs firms. Considering that youth unemployment is even higher than average unemployment, that’s pretty crappy news for all those youth looking to make a difference through a steady job.

To be fair, the data we have only tells us how many green jobs companies there are, not how many actual jobs there are (BLS is surveying total numbers of jobs now, hoping to finish by 2012), and the numbers probably look a little better for youth aged 25-29.

Does that mean more green jobs won’t create jobs for youth? No.

For one thing, tons of studies suggest that investments and policies that support renewable energy, energy efficiency, and solutions to climate change create more jobs overall, compared to equivalent support for fossil fuels and fossil fuel jobs. Just having more jobs total should mean at least some extra jobs for youth, even if most of those green jobs go to older workers. Youth are also not heavily employed in fossil fuel and mining sectors, meaning we will be less hurt by these shifts in investments.

For another, just having more older workers with green jobs (when they used to be unemployed) will create some jobs for youth. That’s because people who are getting paid, when they used to be out of work, also start spending money when they couldn’t before. And they spend that money at places like clothing stores and restaurants — places that employ a lot of young people — and those places start hiring more workers as their business picks up (these are called either indirect or induced jobs). These might not be green jobs directly, and they may not pay the kinds of wages youth need to prosper, but they’re at least an improvement over no job.

But lastly, and most importantly, pushing for green jobs today will mean more green jobs tomorrow. Even if our generation isn’t claiming the majority of green jobs today, you can bet we will soon, as we become the biggest generation in the workforce, becomes innovators helping to solve our energy and climate crises, and move into the age range with the most green employment.

Even putting aside other benefits, like fighting climate change and helping other people find decent work, that’s reason enough for youth to fight for more green jobs.

Michael Davidson was a SustainUS youth delegate to the Cancun climate negotiations in December 2010. He is the China Climate Fellow at the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, DC, where he examines the dynamic U.S.-China energy and environment relationship and supports NRDC’s Earth Summit 2012 campaign. Previously, he was a Fulbright Fellow in Beijing and holds degrees in Physics and Japanese Studies from Case Western Reserve University.

The study — “Green Jobs for Youth: A Preliminary Analysis of Youth in the Green Economy” — is our own work and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or endorsements of the places we work for.

If so-called world “leaders” won’t lead on climate change, global citizens will.  If governments in the world’s most powerful countries insist on stoking global warming by approving massive new fossil fuel projects, then it’s up to groups of concerned people to hold polluters accountable ourselves.  In the last few months I’ve been encouraged to watch as more and more climate activists have begun using creative direct action to sidestep the government delay tactics that have stalled progress on climate issues for so long, and started peacefully confronting corporate polluters directly.

That’s what happened this past weekend, as activists across the world participated in the second International Day of Action Against the Tar Sands.  As you may know, the Canadian Tar Sands in Alberta are the world’s most destructive industrial project, and one of the fastest-growing sources of carbon emissions on the planet.  While the Canadian government’s oil fever has unleashed tar sands extraction, the US is by far the biggest consumer of tar sands oil, and European banks have pitched in to fund tar sands activity.  Further development of the tar sands will threaten the world’s ability to bring climate change under control – and since governments aren’t acting to stop it, citizens and consumers are stepping in.

On Saturday people in twenty US cities took action to expose the companies driving demand for the tar sands – including fruit producers Dole and Chiquita, which use tar sands oil to fuel their huge trucking fleets.  From New York to Los Angeles and from Seattle to Boston, activists unfurled banners outside of supermarkets and staged creative actions by banana produce stalls calling attention to Dole and Chiquita’s involvement in the tar sands.  This comes after months of work by groups like Forest Ethics that have been trying to get the companies to engage in talks about their tar sands-soiled produce.  Dole and Chiquita haven’t responded, prompting activists to take public pressure to the next level.

In my home state of Oregon, a group of volunteer activists walked into a Safeway in Portland, unfurled a banner by a kiosk full of Chiquita bananas, and acted out a short skit alerting store customers to the problems with the tar sands.  While a store security guard shouted angrily and threatened to call the police, a spokesperson for the group politely explained they were only there to make a point about Chiquita and Safeway’s corporate irresponsibility, and would soon be leaving.  No confrontation with police ended up taking place, and Safeway shoppers looked on with interest as the group filed out of the store.

While US activists were pressuring the companies using oil from the tar sands, organizers in Canada, Europe, and elsewhere took action against governments, banks, and other institutions that are pushing the tar sands forward.  What’s notable about these actions is that while the issue at hand is deadly serious, photos compiled by event organizers show activists who are smiling, cheerful, and ready to remain nonviolent in thought and attitude as well as in action.  The same holds true for many other creative direct actions happening with increased frequency across the US and around the world.

More people than ever before seem ready to use the power of nonviolence to directly confront the institutions standing in the way of sustainability, democracy, and a livable future.  I hope Chiquita, Dole, and other corporate players behind the tar sands are paying attention.

Last October 5, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu stood up before a conference of renewable energy advocates in Washington, DC and made an announcement. “As we move toward a clean energy economy, the White House will lead by example,” said Sec. Chu. “I’m pleased to announce that, by the end of this spring, there will be solar panels and a solar hot water heater on the roof of the White House.”

Tomorrow, June 21st, is the final day of spring and despite over 125,000 signatures on a letter asking President Obama to meet his deadline, it looks like the Administration will #fail to get solar on the roof in time. I’ve been on and off the phone with the Department of Energy, the agency in charge of the installation, and the best answer I can get is that the installation is a “federal procurement project” that the spokesman isn’t authorized to comment on.

Ok, I understand, home improvements can be easy to procrastinate on, but look at all the Administration has achieved on climate and energy since last October. Betsy Kolbert outlined some of the most notable accomplishments in her recent New Yorker piece:

Since the midterm elections, Obama has barely mentioned climate change, and just about every decision that his Administration has made on energy and the environment has been wrong. In March, the Administration announced that it would be opening up new public lands in Wyoming for coal mining. In April, the White House delayed plans to impose stricter controls on the mining technique known as mountaintop removal. In May, the Administration put on hold rules aimed at cutting pollution from power plants at places like paper mills and refineries. Also in May, the President announced plans to increase domestic oil production by speeding up permits to drill off the coast of Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico. “Is Obama’s call for more drilling bad messaging masquerading as cynical policy—or vice versa?” the liberal blog Climate Progress asked.

When it comes to handouts for big polluters, President Obama seems to have felt “the fierce urgency of now,” but when it comes to climate, the best advocates can get is a “deliberative process.”

I’ve been trying to think about some of the reasons for this solar #fail.

President Obama’s political advisors may be worried about comparisons to Jimmy Carter,  who installed solar panels on the White House roof in 1979 only to have them removed by President Reagan in 1986. They might be comforted to know that President Bush also installed solar panels at the White House (not on the roof, but on a utility shed nearby). More importantly, public support for solar power and renewable energy is overwhelming: a recent Yale poll shows that 91% of Americans think investing in clean energy should be a high priority. What Team Obama really should be worrying about is the perception that the President can’t get anything done. The timidity and politicking on show in this decision is not just a good way to isolate the progressive base, but also to lose moderates who are looking for a strong leader who can get out there and save the economy. Strapping on a tool belt, hammering in a solar panel, and announcing a green jobs program would be a good start.

But speaking of the economy, isn’t a solar panel just the type of luxury we can’t afford these days? In fact, installing solar on the White House makes such good fiscal sense even Paul Ryan could approve. According to the team at Sungevity, the California based solar company that offered to install Obama’s panels for free, a solar array on the White House could see about a 5 year payback. Solar panels would cut costs, not increase them. Obama himself has spoken at number of solar companies since becoming President and emphasized the importance of renewable energy to the economic recovery.

What about the difficulty of getting the panels up on the roof? Won’t they get in the way of the snipers and all the hi-tech gadgets they must have up there? The Administration already approved the decision, so clearly the installation is possible (maybe the panels give the snipers some cover?). And other world leaders have shown that with the right motivation, the installation can be done quickly: when President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives heard of 350.org’s challenge to world leaders to install solar on their houses, he called up a solar firm, got a bid, and a few weeks later was up on the roof hammering in 48 new panels himself.

No doubt, there would be criticism of the installation. The chattering class would harp on the Carter comparison rather than look at the actual polling. Conservatives would likely seize on the fiscal argument and make Obama out as an elitist (also not looking at the polling). Perhaps most worrisome for the administration, however, would be the vehement opposition from fossil fuel companies and their front groups like the US Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber, of course, sits directly across the street from the White House. They haven’t put solar panels on their roof, but they do let Fox News use it for their White House coverage. With the Chamber promising to spend over $100 million in the 2012 election to block President Obama’s agenda on everything from healthcare to climate, one would think that a nice shining solar panel on the roof of the White House, in plain view from the Chamber’s windows, would be a gesture even Rahm Emmanuel could appreciate.

What’s just as disappointing as the criticism of from opponents to climate action, is the knuckle dragging and hand-wringing of administration allies. In an election year, drawing attention to any of Obama’s failings is taboo. “Political reality” is tough, they say. Well, with scientists regularly sounding the alarm and extreme weather already devastating communities across the planet, reality reality doesn’t look so good either. Waiting until 2013 to see any movement on climate isn’t an option. And in the end, what’s really needed on climate is more than policies, it’s political leadership. What’s needed is a Presidential speech from the White House roof with a shining set of Made-in-America solar panels as the backdrop.

Let’s hope Obama gets those solar panels up soon.

This guest post comes from Jay Mallin, who made the following video while marching on Blair Mountain and interviewing a variety of officials about Blair Mountain’s unique history.

Last Saturday I sat for awhile on a roadside guard rail with a young coal miner in Blair, West Virginia. We watched a rally of people who’d come deep into coal country to try to save Blair Mountain. The miner had wandered over with some neighbors who staged a small counter-protest; they’d left, but he stayed on to catch some of the rally.

“I can see it both ways,” he said once his neighbors had gone. On one hand he understood the value of a job in the coal industry. When he’d switched from being an X-ray tech in a local hospital to a roof-bolter – one of the most dangerous mining jobs – in a nearby underground mine, his salary had doubled, from $45,000 to $90,000. And cousins who’d moved away to find work in other states returned to the area when new coal jobs became available.

At the same time, he admitted, “I don’t really want to see it torn down,” and he gestured up at Blair Mountain, above us to our left. More than one person has called it “the most important site in America that you’ve never heard of,” the place where perhaps 10,000 union coal miners came under machine-gun fire and even aerial bombardment in 1921 as they fought against a mercenery army hired to preserve a feudal system run by coal companies. The miner pointed to the ridgeline above us to our right. Beyond that line of trees, he said, “there’s nothing there,” just a rocky waste left by mountaintop removal.

Just as the miner struggled with that balance, the rally in front of us had its own uneasy tensions. I’d originally been attracted to filming the event because Blair Mountain brought together labor, environmentalists, and historic preservationists. But their alliance was sometimes a tenuous one. Some environmentalists boycotted the event because it focused too much on saving one mountain. Some unions didn’t want to be associated with the march because it could be seen as anti-coal – and coal is jobs, irreplaceable jobs in that part of Appalachia. And the historic preservationists would admit they don’t like any kind of surface mining, but they know from experience they have to work intelligently with property owners if they want to get anything done.

Despite those conflicts, hundreds of people marched over five days, and more than a thousand took a hot, steep hike up the mountain at the end of the rally, in a plea to save Blair Mountain, a piece of American history and Appalachian beauty that no one really wanted to see destroyed.

“Power never takes a back step-only in the face of more power” -Malcolm X

July 8-9-10th: Yellowknife NWT Facebook
July 15-16-17: Camp Meywasin, Wabamun AB (near Edmonton) Facebook 
July 22-23-24: Camp Byng Sunshine Coast, BC (just outside of Vancouver) Facebook

August 12-13-14: Camp Beaverbrook, Halifax NS

August 18-20-21: Unicamp, Oustide of Toronto, ON

*Camps start Friday morning and run until Sunday afternoon (subject to change), and the camp locations are open as of Thursday afternoon.

via the Oregonian

Coal companies are bound and determined to get that dirty black rock out of the Powder River Basin and send it over to Asian markets to line their pockets.

While the EPA is pressing for stricter regulations on coal plants and the anti-coal movement stops new coal fired power plants from being built and existing coal plants from having their lives extended, coal companies like Arch Coal, Ambre Energy and Peabody Energy are looking at Japan, China and India for new markets. These companies have already begun to seek permitting in the Washington ports of Bellingham and Longview and are facing stiff opposition.

In the southern part of the state along the Columbia River at the port of Longview, public pressure caused Millennium Bulk Logistics (a combination of Ambre Energy and Arch Coal) to blink and withdraw their permitting. While Ambre has stated they will re-submit once an environmental impact study is complete, the opposition to the port in Longview has become quite loud and effective at fighting the coal port initiative.

North of Seattle in Bellingham, WA, port logistical company SSA Marine and Peabody Energy have faced their own opposition. In the past few months, people in Bellingham have organized a number of large events around the coal export terminal at Cherry Point, a thousand person rally which featured climate activist Bill McKibben and caused the mayor of Bellingham Dan Pike to publicly oppose the terminal (the most notable politician to speak out against coal exports thus far.)

Now the coal companies are looking to mitigate the effective campaign work of the Longview and Bellingham communities, along with their national, regional and local allies, by spreading the ports south of Washington into Oregon.

Ambre has announced a lease at the port of Morrow (near Boardman, OR) along the Columbia River. Their goal at the Port of Morrow is to minimize the criticism they are getting from the increased rail traffic opening up coal terminals will bring. Their plan is to rail coal from the Powder River Basin to the Port of Morrow, put it on river barges and float the coal down river to coal terminals for export to Asia.

The other Oregon port being talked about is the port of St. Helens. Also along the Columbia this port is almost directly across the river from Longview.  Columbia River Keeper, which has been a leader in fighting coal exports, has been pursuing more information on the Port of St. Helen’s. Oregon’s Democratic Gov. John Kitzhaber, elected with strong support of the environmental community, has stated that the coal exports in Oregon won’t move forward without a vigorous public debate.

While coal companies keep playing every trick in the book, enviros are making no assumptions about King Coal’s determination to export coal and will be fighting them with every means possible.

If you are in the Seattle area or the Northwest in general, please consider coming to RAN’s NW Coal Summit at Seattle University.