Cross-posted from the Earth Island Journal

“We will counterattack three corporations for their worldwide terrorism in the next six months.” So declares the eco-anarchist group “The East” near the beginning of Zal Batmanglij’s new film of the same name. With this politically tinged suspense and action film, Batmangilij seeks to break the mold of the usual formulaic summer blockbusters. The director of earlier sci-fi inflected dramas, Batmanglij appears to want to surf the frenzy of Occupy Wall Street and the Tar Sands Blockade that grabbed headlines. The film delves into questions around justice, violence, community, commitment, and ultimately asks the viewer, Which side are you on?

This provocative film is one part espionage thriller, one part love story, and all anarchy. Batmanglij tells the story of undercover corporate spy and ex-FBI agent Sarah Moss (Brit Marling, who also gets a co-writer credit) tasked with infiltrating an eco-anarchist group called “The East.” The collective, fronted by Benji (Alexander Skarsgård) and Izzy (Ellen Page), is wanted for executing covert attacks upon major corporations.

The corporate bad guys have never looked so bad. And the depiction isn’t just caricature: the director drew the film’s corporate misdeeds from real stories of corporate crime. From oil companies spilling billions of gallons of oil into pristine eco-systems, to a pharmaceutical giant putting bad meds on the market, to a chemical company poisoning local watersheds and children, we’re given the sense that The East’s actions are justified. A private security honcho named Sharon (Patricia Clarkson) is especially vile. When, early in her undercover operation, Sarah discovers The East will be poisoning a Big Pharma cocktail party with dirty meds, Sharon orders her to let them proceed – since the party goers aren’t her clients, she doesn’t care what happens to them.

But, for me at least, the verisimilitude breaks down when it comes to its depictions of the eco-warriors at the heart of the film. As a self-identified anarchist and activist, I just wasn’t buying it. Not that Batmanglij and Marling didn’t try to get it right. The writers spent the summer of 2009 traveling through the North American anarchist scene researching the film. To their credit, they depict the anarchist activists as smart, strategic operators – not as dumb, naïve kids duped into some plot, the usual script for the mainstream media. While two months is enough to get a tone and feel for the North American anarchist subculture, it’s not enough to really understand the real meaning of its politics or its inhabitants. In the end, The East’sportrait of anarchists falls flat, seeping some of the movie’s punch.

Like Stuart Townsend’s Battle in Seattle, the film depicts the activists as privileged children damaged by the system or, worse, crippled with “daddy issues” and lashing out with anger and hate. In The East a supporting character, Doc (Toby Kebbell), has dropped out of mainstream society because of the death of his sister at the hands of a pharmaceutical giant. Benji began his rebellion after the death of his parents in a boating accident and the insult of his remaining family trying to buy off his grief with money. Izzy has such poison in her heart for her corporate executive father that she kidnaps him and his boss and forces them to jump into a lake poisoned by their company’s chemical waste. In the end (spoiler alert!), the father willingly jumps in to show his love for his estranged daughter – proving to the audience he has more compassion than his supposedly world-saving daughter.

While not as absurd as Woody Harrelson’s cop in Battle in Seattle apologizing to jailed protestor Martin Henderson after beating the shit out of him (or 2002’s Anarchist Cookbook in which anarchist Puck turns his friends into the police before taking off to marry his Republican girlfriend) the twist at the ending is pushing ridiculous. (Second spoiler alert!) Benji tries to convince Sarah to run off with him and join the resistance. While love is always a wild card, it’s difficult to believe that any anarchist would try and convince an exposed informant to run off into the sunset. Cue face to palm.

Beyond the unbelievable theatrics of the script, there’s a bigger problem with the film’s premise: Its depiction of political activism is a false choice. The film sets up two options for responding to corporate crimes: either violent counter-attack or fuzzy idealism that the system itself will make its own corrections. The filmmakers seem to have ignored (or misunderstood) the lessons from recent successful social movements. We live in a time in which Tunisians and Egyptians have thrown out dictators, Greeks and Spaniards are fighting austerity via strikes and sit-ins, and the occupation of a small park in lower Manhattan sparked a new anti-corporate consciousness in the American mainstream. From students in Montreal stopping privatization of their schools to Bolivians kicking Bechtel out of El Alto, popular movements and mass organizing are the real game changers in today’s political system. But watching The East, you get the sense that violent counter-attack is the only way to strike back against environmental destruction and social injustice.

In the end, Sarah undergoes a radical transformation from law enforcement careerist to whistle-blower. She launches a campaign to expose the corporate criminals by turning them in to government agencies. To me, trusting in the system to function correctly seems a naïve solution to environmental problems. The reality is the revolving door between industry and government make it nearly impossible to distinguish the regulators from those they are supposed to be regulating. Also, it’s sometimes the whistle-blowers who end up being persecuted. This film seems oblivious of the fact that the government usually acts in the interests of the one-percent-ers.

Batmanglij hopes The East will be a conversation-starter not just for anarchists and radicals, but for grandmothers and ordinary summertime moviegoers. Despite my quibbles about the film, I hope he’s right. We need more pop culture offerings that can spark discussions about the resistance to business as usual.

The history of art and insurrection is encouraging. You wouldn’t have had a civil rights movement without Langston Hughes and the Harlem Renaissance. You wouldn’t have had Students for a Democratic Society and massive anti-Vietnam War protests without Allen Ginsberg and the Beats waxing poetically about inherit flaws in the American system ten years earlier. Likewise, stories of a new vibrant environmental movement are gaining in pop culture despite the country being governed by a center-right party (Democrats) and far right party (Republicans). Whether it’s the other-wordly eco-rebellion of Avatar, the animal revolt of Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the proletarian uprising of the Hunger Games, or critically acclaimed documentaries like If A Tree Falls and Gasland, the movie theater has become one of the most important places for exploring environmental politics. Those films and others prove that you can cut all the flowers, but you can’t stop the spring.

The first Boston 500 event kicked off at 8am this morning at the administrative offices of the Boston Public Schools. The staff charged with supporting our youngest Bostonians were introduced to energy conservation strategies and became the first Renew Boston sign ups of the Challenge.

Sean Attri talks to a Boston Public School staffer at the first Boston 500 event.

At 9am tomorrow the Challenge begins with farmers, growers, and neighborhood organizations in Adams Park, who will celebrate the grand opening of the summer’s first Roslindale Farmers Market. GreeningRozzie will be giving out free trees with energy assessment signups and Boston Building Resources will display energy saving and green products for the home.

At 10:30 Boston’s Chief of Energy and Environment, Brian Swett will kick off a press conference outside the Jamaica Plain home of Laura Sylvan. Swett will announce exciting new energy efficiency incentives for Boston duplexes and triple deckers. Sylvan, the owner of a triple-decker, is hosting an “Energy Open House” from 10-12pm to invite neighbors to kick the tires on her new  Total Climate Control heating and cooling system and insulation installed by Renew Boston provider Next Step Living. Her’s is one of four “Energy Open House” events hosted by past Renew Boston customers on the day.

Volunteers and Renew Boston partners will fan out to a 5K “Let’s Get Movin” walk/run in East Boston, a Family Fun Day in Southie, a Family Rowing Day in Brighton, a haircuts and energy savings event at Biz Barbershop in Mattapan, and scores of diverse activities from Hyde Park to Chinatown.

Throughout the day volunteers at each event will tally up their Renew Boston sign ups, hold up a Boston 500 checkered flag with their number on it, and snap a photo. A speedometer will be updated hour by hour on RenewBoston.org/Boston500 as the coalition drives toward 500.

Next Step Living estimates that, with a typical rate of conversion from sign up to energy assessment and weatherization, reaching 500 Renew Boston sign ups could eliminate the carbon pollution equivalent to taking 46 cars off the road for a full year and save residents over $50,000 on annual energy bill in addition to reducing noxious emissions that cause respiratory diseases and creating new green jobs.

This weekend hundreds of Boston families will take simple but powerful steps toward improving the health, economy, and environment of their household and this city. The goal of the Boston 500 is to catalyze the transformation of Renew Boston from an impactful city-led program into a grassroots movement for change. The children heading to school in today’s heatwave are counting on it.

View today’s Boston 500 press advisory.

See photos and updates on our Facebook page and via the #Boston500 tag on Twitter. Watch the speedometer rise toward 500 at RenewBoston.org/Boston500.

by Rachel Smolker and Almuth Ernsting
(cross-posted from Common Dreams)

Will declaring a ‘climate emergency’ help to finally prompt radical action to address climate change?  A growing number of campaigners as well as scientists think so and hope that a major wakeup call about unfolding climate disasters will spur governments and people into action.

The planet needs a break from humanity’s assault, not a new ‘war’ on nature in the form of geoengineering schemes.

Whether a lack of scary-enough facts about climate change has been holding back real action is questionable.  After all, it requires a fair amount of psychological denial to not be alarmed by the escalating heat waves, droughts, floods and destructive mega storms.

Studies about psychological responses to climate change suggest that messages built on fear can cause people to feel disempowered and less likely to take action at all.  Still, constantly playing down the scale of the unfolding destruction of climate and other planetary life support systems so as not to be ‘alarmist’ seems somewhat disempowering to me.  Personally, we much prefer to hear climate scientist James Hansen speak of a ‘planetary emergency’ (in view of  last year’s record low Arctic sea ice cover) than to read excessively cautious comments about uncertainties and the need for more research before concluding what seems obvious, for example that Arctic sea ice is in rapid meltdown and that extreme weather events are already far worse and more frequent than scientists had predicted.

Yet while the language of ‘climate emergency’ may or may not spur more people to action, the crucial question is exactly what type of action is being advocated.  James Hansen’s conclusion: “If we burn all the fossil fuels, we create certain disaster” should be beyond dispute.  Action on climate change will be futile unless fossil fuels are left underground.

Unlike James Hansen, some academics and campaigners are calling for a very different type of ‘radical action’ in response to the climate emergency.  Amongst them is the small but vociferous Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG).  AMEG does not mince words about the seriousness of the crisis: “Abrupt climate change is upon us. Farmers are in despair. Food prices will go through the roof. The government’s climate change policy is in tatters. The government should have acted years ago. Now it may be too late.”

The abrupt climate change scenario put forward by AMEG is, briefly, as follows: The rate of warming is greatest in the Arctic and the rate at which Arctic sea ice has been melting is accelerating.  The loss of sea ice triggers different impacts which in turn make Arctic meltdown, global warming and extreme weather across the Northern Hemisphere even worse.  One of those effects is the release of methane trapped in permafrost, Arctic peat and under the Arctic Ocean.  This could release so much methane at once that it would greatly increase the rate of global warming and lead to “unstoppable runaway warming”.

The first part of this analysis should be beyond dispute.  However, the prediction of an imminent abrupt and catastrophic methane release from the Arctic is much less widely accepted amongst climate scientists, many of whom predict a slower release, over thousands of years – one which will worsen climate change in the long run but (importantly) not surpass the impacts of our own CO2 emissions.

One of the scientists challenging AMEG’s predictions is methane expert, Dr. David Archer who stresses: The worst case scenario is “what CO2 will do, under business-as-usual, not in a wild blow-the-doors-off unpleasant surprise, but just in the absence of any pleasant surprises (like emission controls).”

Is he right? We have no idea how much of the methane in the Arctic will end up the atmosphere by when.  Some recent climate change impacts and findings have turned out to be much worse than what scientists had previously predicted. For example, a recent New Scientist article observed: “We knew global warming was going to make the weather more extreme. But it’s becoming even more extreme than anyone predicted.”

But the argument regarding AMEG’s claims is not just a speculative argument about what might happen in future.  It is also – and primarily – an argument about how we think about climate change and what we want to do about it.  In this respect, we unequivocally agree with Archer’s view:  Business-as-usual will guarantee the worst possible climate disaster.  Arguing about just how bad that worst-case scenario might be seems futile when we should be doing whatever we can to stop greenhouse gas emissions, i.e. fossil fuel burning as well as ecosystem destruction.  This, however, is very different from how AMEG views the climate disaster.

What AMEG most fears is not what humans are doing – it’s the (methane) monsters lurking in nature. Preserving most life on earth, in their view, thus requires nature to be better controlled and its monsters to be tamed. As AMEG’s Strategic Plan puts it, the ‘common enemy’ that’s to be fought, the underlying cause of abrupt climate change isn’t us, it isn’t the fossil fuel economy – it’s the ‘vicious cycle of Arctic Warming and sea ice retreat”.

They demand “something akin to a war room” and the war they want governments to fight is a war against nature – and specifically a war against the way in which nature responds when humans drastically alter the planet’s atmosphere by increasing its greenhouse gases.  The tools for fighting this war that they suggest we use, are a range of geoengineering strategies: Large amounts of sulphur aerosols which they want pumped into the lower stratosphere  starting as soon as March/April 2014, the development of new reflective particles to be pumped into the stratosphere in future, marine cloud brightening, chemicals to destroy cirrus clouds, marine geoengineering, weather modification, and more.

Changing our own society and economy is ancillary to this quest.  Here are the changes which AMEG’s demands in relation to our energy and transport sectors: Postpone drilling in the Arctic, reintroduce a ban on polar flights, relax requirements to clean up ‘bunker fuels’ burnt in ships (because sulphur aerosols have a short-term cooling effect), scrub black carbon but not sulphur dioxide from coal power stations – and that’s it.  Burning more coal and diesel is fine, in their view, as long as we emit lots of sulphur dioxide with it.  Never mind the illnesses and acid rain caused by sulphur dioxide.  Indeed, AMEG members are even, bizarrely, promoting Arctic methane hydrate mining for energy. One of the most widely cited AMEG members, British oceanographer Peter Wadhams, has been criticised by Greenpeace after praising Shell’s credentials for ‘safely’ drilling in the Arctic in front of a Parliamentary Committee.

Not all AMEG members appear this unconcerned about ongoing fossil fuel emissions and some clearly do want to see real emissions reductions – in addition to geo-engineering.  AMEG is a very mixed group: Some supporters clearly have no financial interests in geoengineering and have joined AMEG purely out of the conviction that AMEG has the most credible answer to climate change.  Some are academics who have gained a much greater public profile thanks to AMEG’s campaign – such as Peter Wadhams.  And some have major financial interests in geoengineering – including Ken Caldeira.  Caldeira, together with David Keith (not listed on AMEG’s website) has received over $4.6 million from Bill Gates’ personal funds, around half of it for personal research on geoengineering, the other half to fund ‘research’ by other geoengineering advocates.  He is also listed as an inventor on a patent for a geoengineering device called ‘StratoShield’, held by Intellectual Ventures, a company linked to Gates.

All of them, however, are united in their faith that geoengineering can work and that humans can avert an even greater climate disaster by manipulating the planet’s atmosphere and biosphere.  They do not appear concerned about what unilateral action taken by a government to deliberately manipulate planetary systems might mean for democracy and the rights of most of the world’s population.  This is perhaps because they are convinced that geoengineering is the only way of keeping the planet habitable (at least for most humans).  But this conviction is not derived from scientific knowledge – it is based on unwavering faith in human ability to master and control nature through engineering and technology.

The possibility that their proposals could possibly backfire and end up making climate change even worse, even faster has, it seems, not occurred to AMEG.  Yet what the science confirms is that the full impacts of geoengineering on planetary and climate systems are by their nature unpredictable and that they might well render the climate yet more unstable.  In a recent joint briefing by Biofuelwatch and Econexus, we summarised some of the highest risks of the types of geoengineering promoted by AMEG: Destruction of the ozone layer,  acid rain, possible virtually instant and massive disruption of rainfall patterns, especially in the tropics and subtropics (which could mean a failure of the African and Asian monsoon), vegetation die-back which would release yet more carbon – and those are just some of the known risks.

If we want to have any hope of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change, we clearly need radical action – but that radical action must be aimed at stopping the burning fossil fuels and reversing the destruction of ecosystems (including soils). The very last thing we and the planet need is yet another “war room” and a new battle-front in the war against nature.

Rachel Smolker is a codirector of Biofuelwatch, and an organizer with Energy Justice Network.

Almuth Ernstin

This new app is making the rounds on social media, but here’s a blog from my friend Connor Gibson at Greenpeace explaining how YOU can avoid buying products from the Koch Brothers!

Avoid buying Koch Industries products with new phone app!

Posted on May 15, 2013 by Connor Gibson

Why do old pipes fail? And did you know that over 50% of hazardous-liquid pipeline failures occur in pipes that are over 44% years old?

Last week, TransCanada announced that it is moving ahead with its proposed Energy East pipeline which would carry oil from Alberta to Atlantic waters. If you are among those getting confused by all the different pipelines making headlines—Northern Gateway, Line 9, Kinder Morgan, etc.—this primer is for you!

What is TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline?

TransCanada wants to convert its natural gas pipeline, called the Eastern Mainline pipeline, which is currently operating at half capacity, into an oil pipeline which could carry up to 850,000 barrels per day. At the moment, the Eastern Mainline serves Quebec, but the company and some politicians want to extend it all the way to the Irving refinery in St. John, New Brunswick.

80% of the pipeline (between Saskatchewan and Quebec) already exists and it would need to be extended on either end: in the west to connect the pipe to Hardisty, Alberta; and in the east it would be extended to either Montreal, Quebec City, or St. John, NB—pending approvals and finalized shipping contracts. Why these three cities? All of them are port cities, which helps industry get the crude to international waters.

So much of the pipeline is already there, what’s the big deal?

To explain why this is a “big deal,” I’m going to direct folks to an article in InsideClimate News about a recent rupture in Exxon’s Pegasus Pipeline which spilled up to an estimated 7,000 barrels of bitumen in Mayflower, Arkansas.

“The Pegasus pipeline that ruptured and spilled thousands of gallons of tar sands crude in Mayflower was 65 years old, and was initially built to carry thinner oil at lower pressure in the opposite direction than today.”

Like the Pegasus Pipeline, the Eastern Mainline Pipeline was built in the 1950s and would also carry a substance (oil) thicker than the material for which it was originally made. The article continues to cite a study by the National Petroleum Council for the U.S. Department of Energy which states that “pipelines operating outside of their design parameters such as those carrying commodities for which they were not initially designed, or high flow pipelines, are at the greatest risk of integrity issues in the future due to the nature of their operation.”

Converting an existing gas pipeline to an oil pipeline may mean less effort put into construction and materials, but it also means more risk for the many rivers and lakes along the route such as the Trout Lake Watershed which supplies drinking water for the City of North Bay.

Providing oil to Eastern Canada?

Politicians and right-wing pundits keep trying to convince us that they want to get tar sands to Eastern Canadians; however, there is reason to believe that pipeline is really meant to get tar sands to Atlantic ports so that the crude can be easily exported. Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver has said that the Energy East pipeline could deliver Canadian oil to large energy consumers and new markets. In the end, the oil will go to the highest bidders as shippers are looking to the US’s East Coast and Gulf Coast, Europe, India, and China—not just eastern Canada.

Additionally, there is not even enough refining capacity in eastern Canada to refine the bitumen, and there are no talks of new refineries being built or of old refineries getting the capital investments required to process the oil. This means that the crude would need to be exported to even get to refineries that could make the crude useful for people in the East. The claim that the Energy East Pipeline will service Eastern Canada is mere propaganda.

Reducing dependence on oil imports

We have also been hearing that this pipeline will help Canada reduce its dependence on oil imports, but transporting oil to eastern Canada is not the best strategy. Reducing dependence on all oil, in general, is! The Energy East pipeline is a massive $5.6 billion project, and the fossil fuel sector in Canada receives over a billion dollars in subsidies even though it is an industry that generates corporate revenue. These subsidies could be redistributed and put into projects that reduce emissions on oil and put less strain on the environment, communities, and the atmosphere. Investing in public mass transit, community-based renewable energy projects, and green building retrofits are some of the solutions to reducing dependence on oil imports and tar sands expansion.

Creating jobs

Creating a more sustainable and stable economy does not come from expanding the fossil fuel industry and associated pipeline systems. Studies have shown that investments in renewable energies and community-owned power generation produce more jobs and local revenue. Public and community ownership ensures that power generation is accountable to the public interest and contributes to decent job creation and reduced inequality. For more information, you can refer to Green, Decent, and Public. Fossil fuel subsidies and tax breaks can instead be directed to public mass transit and green building retrofits that not only reduce reliance on fossil fuels and create jobs. This one solution alone prioritizes local jobs and more permanent jobs.

Communities have the Right to Say NO!

Communities along the routes of the Pacific-bound export pipelines, the Enbridge Northern Gateway project and the Kinder Morgan expansion, are saying “No” to having tar sands crude shipped through their communities and threatening rivers, lakes, and salmon spawning grounds. First Nations have also called on allies to help them stop the pipelines at the source–the Alberta Tar Sands. Tar sands mining operations have threatened drinking water supplies and food sources, and have been linked to increases in rare cancers and cardiovascular diseases in nearby communities. Indigenous peoples from the region have called the Tar Sands a “slow industrial genocide.“

Under the United Nations Declaration om the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous people have the right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent which means that they have the right to say “No,” to any industrial project taking place on their traditional lands (consent). This decision must also be made free from any state or corporate coercion (Free), before the project takes place (Prior), and with full information (Informed).

Given that the original pipe was built in the 1950s, and consultation with communities did not begin until the original Mackenzie Valley Pipeline proposal in the 70s, communities along the route were likely not consulted nor did they give their consent to the original pipe. If TransCanada moves ahead with their plans, communities along the route of the pipe and in the Tar Sands will have to pay the true costs to their water, health, and safety.

What can I do about this?

There is currently a petition on change.org about stopping this pipeline from bringing tar sands through Ontario; however, this is about more than bringing tar sands crude through Ontario. Not only would the pipeline also run through the Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, and potentially New Brunswick, but this pipeline is part of a larger agenda of extracting and exporting natural resources for corporate profit regardless of the impacts to our friends and families. It will jeopardize freshwater supplies and enable tar sands expansion, increasing climate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Canada, a highly industrial country, has a responsibility to be cutting its emissions to stop runaway climate change and the social and environmental impacts that result such as droughts, floods, loss of agricultural land, and forced displacement.

But returning to what you can do about this…start organizing in your community! Contact your neighbours, friends, and families and tell them about this pipeline. Write letters to the editor and tell politicians and the company that you don’t want this pipeline. Consider contacting your local Council of Canadians chapter, Regional Organizing Office, or myself madrangi [at] canadians [dot] org.

This blog was originally published at http://www.canadians.org

Environmental Resources Management (ERM), the consulting firm hired to perform the supplemental environmental analysis of the Keystone XL pipeline works for and has worked for fossil fuel companies with a stake in the Canadian Tar Sands. Mother Jones’ Andy Kroll exposed the conflicts of interest in an exclusive story, which included unredacted documents that show the recent work history of ERM’s consultants.

It’s no surprise that ERM painted a rosy picture of Keystone XL’s environmental impact. Their business depends on it. ERM’s major clients in the fossil fuel industry would steer clear of an environmental consulting company that determines fossil fuel projects are not environmentally responsible. ERM claimed in the report that the Keystone
XL pipeline would not lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions or significantly impact the environment along its route.

Last week, Steve Horn from DeSmogBlog documented major problems with another pipeline (the 1,300 mile-long Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan (BTC)) determined by an ERM environmental assessment to be “environmentally and socio-economically sound.” Horn wrote, “An Aug. 2008 Wikileaks cable discusses a BTC explosion in a mountainous area of eastern Turkey …which spewed 70,000 barrels of oil into the surrounding area.” The BTC
pipeline caused enormous environmental damage and failed to live up to the jobs hype created by the project developers, which included BP, State Oil Company of Azerbaijan (SOCAR), Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Eni and Total.

Horn goes on to quote Mik Minio-Paluello, co-author of The Oil Road - a new book documenting the slew of destructive impacts of BTC saying, “Supposedly an environmental consultancy, in practice ERM operated more like aPR firm representing BP and now they’re fulfilling a similar role for TransCanada.”

So why does ERM operate more like a PR firm than an environmental consultancy?

Let’s say ERM provided a review claiming a fossil fuel project was skirting safety precautions or moving too quickly to ensure quality seals on the pipeline (see Keystone XL’s faulty welding here). Would a fossil fuel company, whose financial interest is building more fossil fuel infrastructure, want to hire a consultant that results in delays and increased costs for developing that infrastructure?

Checks & Balances Project contacted ERM’s Global Head of Communications Simon Garcia multiple times over the past week without any response.  We requested comment on the following question: Has ERM ever determined that a proposed fossil fuel project was not “environmentally sound” in an assessment?

The answer is probably “no.”

Here’s a crosspost of a blog by Dave Pomerantz at Greenpeace on last week’s Action Camp. I hope to see increasing discussion of a more collective movement!

John

Title: At Greenpeace Action Camp, a vision of the movement we want

For a long time, corporations and governments have used the tried and true tactic of divide and conquer: they’ve tried to convince us that the immigrant rights struggle is different from the worker rights struggle, which is different from the climate justice struggle, to name just a few of the efforts to make the world a more sustainable place.

Of course, those divisions are false and self-serving: all of those struggles are linked by both cause and effect. The corporations, institutions and systems that caused environmental destruction by prioritizing the wealth of the few over the health of the many are the exact same ones that have trampled the rights of workers, immigrants, and the poor. And environmental crises like climate change promise to hit immigrant and poor communities the hardest.

Last week, Greenpeace hosted an Action Camp in Southern California for 160 activists where we focused intently on pushing back against those false divisions.

The Coastal Canyons Action Camp was the second annual direct action training camp that Greenpeace has hosted in our recent history. Activists learned to drive boats, honed their climbing skills, and practiced creating blockades to their bodies on the line to prevent environmental injustice when necessary. Artists focused on how to tell the story of our protests in clever, beautiful, provocative ways.

Read the rest here: http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2013/03/27/at-greenpeace-action-camp-a-vision-of-the-movement-we-want/

Have you ever heard of the Maldive Islands? Well, neither had I, until a few months ago.  The Maldive Islands, also known as the Republic of the Maldives, or just plain Maldives, are a group of atolls in the Indian Ocean to the southwest of India.  Why are they important? Oh, only because they are being slowly swallowed up by the ocean thanks to sea level rise and climate change.  Did I also mention that they are the same sea level height as parts of Manhattan?

Google Maps image of the Maldives

The former President of the Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, democratically elected in 2008 and overthrown by a coup in 2012, has fought ferociously for global climate change action to save his islands from disappearing.  Now Nasheed fights for democracy in his homeland while simultaneously struggling to stabilize the climate.  Nasheed is doing all that he can in the fight against climate change, even going as far as to hold an underwater cabinet meeting to raise awareness.

Maldives underwater cabinet meeting to raise awareness about climate change issues (2009)

Another way Nasheed raised awareness about the urgency of the issues that climate change presented to the Maldives was through a documentary about the plight of the island called The Island President.  Nasheed has even gone as far as promoting the documentary on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and the Late Show with David Letterman, advocating for action on climate change mitigation.

Interested in seeing the documentary? Well, you’re in luck.  The C2C Fellows Network and the Bard Center for Environmental Policy are teaming up to host a national screening of The Island President on April 17^th, 2013 at 7pm EST.  Colleges, Universities, and communities across the nation are signing up to screen the documentary and participate in the webinar discussion following the screening with interesting and invested people such as:

• Jon Shenk- the Director
• Thilmeeza Hussain- Former UN Deputy Permanent Representative to the Maldives
• May Boeve- Executive Director and Co-Founder of 350.org
• Eban Goodstein (moderator)- Director of Bard Center for Environmental Policy and Bard’s MBA in Sustainability

Join us! Participate in this national day of action focused around political corruption and climate stalemate. We guarantee you will leave the theater both newly cognizant of the scale of the challenge we face, and inspired to be part of the fight for real democracy and a stable climate.

Some people say that stopping climate change is impossible, but in the worlds of Mohammed Nasheed, “We refuse to give up hope.”

For more information about the event, visit our website.

It’s with this inspiring backdrop that activists in Montana are calling for a day of action targeting the finances of one of Big Coal’s most destructive projects.  If you’re running a campus divestment campaign, and can spare a little of that energy to stop one of the planet’s worst carbon bombs – or if you’re not yet part of the divestment movement, and want a way to get involved – you can help.

Sign up to participate in the March 28th day of action

Here’s the background: In 2011, billionaire Forrest Mars Jr. of Mars Inc. (think M&M’s) bought a stake in the Tongue River Railroad (TRR) project in Montana.  Like the Keystone XL pipeline, the TRR threatens to open up huge reserves of buried carbon to development.  Instead of oil though, it would transport coal from Montana’s Tongue River Valley, a largely undeveloped region in the Powder River Basin.

There’s currently no mining in Montana’s Tongue River Valley.  The TRR would change that, by making huge areas accessible to the coal industry.  Most coal from the area would be exported, fueling a new generation of coal-fired power plants overseas.  Trains passing through towns in Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington would expose communities to toxic coal dust and diesel fumes.

Protect communities from dirty coal by registering a local action

How did Forrest Mars get involved?  He owns a ranch in the Tongue River Valley that originally would have been bisected by the TRR.  For years Mars opposed the railroad, until he bought a share in it and used his influence to re-route it around his land.  Now Forrest Mars is one of three investors in the TRR, along with Arch Coal and Berkshire Hathaway.  He’s using a fortune largely built by selling kids candy to finance a project that will destroy those kids’ future.

That’s where we come in.  On March 28th, in communities across the country, volunteer activists will visit stores that sell Mars products, to re-label candy packages with removable stickers that let shoppers know what their purchase may be paying for.  Here’s what it looks like:

You can help by holding a stickering action in your community.  By targeting the Mars brand, and convincing Mars Inc that it’s bad business to be associated with coal, we can pressure Forrest Mars to drop his investment in the Tongue River Railroad.  It’s the first step toward getting the money out of coal in the Powder River Basin.

Ready to take action?  Read more about how to hold a successful stickering action, or sign up to hold an action in your community right now!

Here’s their press release:

Over 100 Youth Risk Arrest, Escalating Fight Against Keystone XL Pipeline

Students hold “Funeral for Our Future” in act of civil disobedience at TransCanada Corporation’s Westborough, MA Office

Westborough, MA – On Monday morning, over 100 students and community members marched into TransCanada’s Westborough office and held a funeral mourning the loss of their future at the hands of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would transport the tar sands that climate scientists say will lock us into irreversible global warming. More than 25 protesters were arrested for refusing to leave the office in an act of civil disobedience.

Carrying a coffin emblazoned with the words “Our Future,” the protesters held flowers and sang an elegy as they marched in procession. Massachusetts Methodist clergy members and a group of mothers holding photographs of their children joined the youth in protest.

The action marked a sharp escalation of the protests in New England against the Keystone XL pipeline. In January, eight students locked and glued themselves at the same TransCanada office. Nationwide, the pipeline has already prompted civil disobedience outside the White House, direct blockades of construction, and the largest climate rally in US history. Today’s action kicks off a week of solidarity actions being called for by our allies at the Tar Sands Blockade. During the week of March 16th-24th protestors from across the country will target the offices of TransCanada and its investors.

The protesters staged the funeral a week after the US State Department released a widely criticized Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL pipeline. While admitting that rejecting the pipeline would have little effect on jobs, the document minimizes claims about the pipeline’s impact on climate change and on communities who would be at risk for devastating pipeline spills like the 2010 Kalamazoo spill, from which the affected communities are still recovering. The impact assessment also makes the assumption that the Alberta tar sands will be developed regardless of whether Keystone XL goes forward—an assumption not shared by today’s protesters and refuted by indigenous communities whose treaties the Canadian government is violating by allowing development of the tar sands.

“If the tar sands are extracted and burned, it will wipe out my future and the future of my entire generation,” said Will Pearl, a Tufts University freshman arrested in the action. “If President Obama will not reject the Keystone XL pipeline, we will stop it ourselves. We will rise up and resist—from the backwoods of Texas, to corporate offices in Massachusetts, to the steps of the White House.”

“The stakes couldn’t be higher,” said Isobel Arthen, a junior at Mount Holyoke who participated in Monday’s action. “The total carbon contained in Canada’s tar sands exceeds all the oil burned in human history. If we develop these incredibly dirty fossil fuels, my future will be marked by superstorms, untold numbers of climate refugees and climate-related deaths, and ultimately an uninhabitable planet. The planet is already the hottest it’s been in 4000 years. How hot will it be when the Keystone pipeline delivers over 800,000 barrels of tar sands a day? We must stop it. We will stop it.”

“President Obama and Secretary Kerry may not be able to stop climate change, but they have the opportunity to reject the pipeline that would make that change inevitable,” said Rachel Bishop, a senior at Brown University. “They have the power to stop investment in dirty fossil fuels and commit to developing clean and renewable energy sources as real alternatives, securing a legacy not of destruction, but of innovation and real leadership.”

“I am standing with these courageous young people and with parents everywhere who are losing hope for their children’s futures,” said Susan Redlich, one of the mothers present at the action. “We are determined to stand up to the fossil fuel industry and preserve a livable future for all children.”

######