It\’s Getting Hot In Here

I´m currently sitting in a hot and humid Internet cafe in the city of Iquitos, located in the middle of the Peruvian Amazon.  I´m here partly to investigate the many fossil fuel-related environmental and human rights issues in this part of the world.  But what´s struck me again and again, while here, is how closely the future of the Peru´s Amazon is tied to another battle raging in my own home: the Pacific Northwest, USA.  In this post, I want to try to convey some of the urgency of confronting fossil fuel development in Oregon and Washington for the people and ecosystems of Peru.

Over the last few months, Peru has become a front line in the fight against the globally expanding fossil fuel empire.  Peru is also a shining example of how corporate globalization and ¨free trade¨ contributes inevitably to the strengthening of that empire.  As regular readers of this blog will already know, last month saw the massacre of an unknown number of indigenous activists protesting oil, gas, and timber development, and the seizure of indigenous lands in the Amazon.  Most of the killing occurred in the Bagua area of Peru, and the Peruvian government has attempted to cover up the actual number of activists killed (the highest number I heard in the US was about 80 deaths, but the actual number seems to have been much higher).  The protests were brought on in response to several decrees passed by the Peruvian government to facilitate a ¨free trade¨ agreement with the US.  From the beginning, it´s been clear: the environmental and human rights abuses which triggered the protests and the massacre in Bagua came about as a direct result of this trade agreement, and pressure from the US for Peru to open up its oil and gas reserves for exploration.

But the international implications of the massacre go even deeper, and center on several communities in Oregon and Washington currently working to keep infrastructure for a new and dirty fossil fuel out of the Northwest.  Here, energy companies are attempting to build at least three import terminals for natural gas extracted in distant parts of the world, and shipped to the US after a supercooling process to convert the gas to a more easily transported liquid: thus the name Liquefied Natural Gas, or LNG.  The Northwest is a focal point for an industry attempt to make LNG a much more important fuel in the United States.  And where would this imported gas come from?  Well, it could be the Middle East, or it could be Russia.  Or it could be the heart of the Peruvian Amazon.

If the energy giants get their way, importation terminals in my home region will grant LNG an open door to the US market.  Suddenly, the Peruvian government will have an even greater incentive than it does now to explore for gas in the Amazon.  I recently spoke with a local concerned citizen in Iquitos, whose name I will protect, who explained to me what increased oil and gas development will mean for the people of the Amazon.  My Spanish is not the greatest, but in a conversation consisting of mixed English, Spanish, and hand gestures, my friend conveyed this central message: the Peruvian government and President Alan Garcia are not particularly concerned with the well being of Peru´s indigenous people, and will not hesitate to use force to obtain land for fossil fuel exploration.  The Bagua massacre could be only the beginning, and importing LNG in the Northwest will only exacerbate the pressure on indigenous communities. 

In Iquitos – a town that grew up around rubber extraction and where the extractive industries continue to be important – graffiti art criticizing Garcia and the exploitation of the Amazon is a common sight.  This is the opposite of the old, misguided stereotype that rainforests are being destroyed because the local people don´t know how to take care of their own resources.  In Peru, there can be no doubt as to the real force behind deforestation.  Over half of Peru´s forest is already under concession to oil and gas developers, and the disillusioned local people I have spoken with are well aware of the health and environmental effects of fossil fuel development.  To save Peru´s carbon-sequestering Amazon and the people who live there, we must reverse or substantially alter the US-Peru Free Trade Agreement.  We must get US corporations out of the Amazon.  And we must stop LNG from becoming an important source of fuel in the US.

Peru´s Bagua massacre may be the worst case of violence in Latin America that can be traced directly to a trade agreement with the US.  The horror of the police crackdown and subsequent cover-up here is not something I can even attempt to convey.  But there are some signs of hope on the horizon.  The two most controversial government decrees have been, at least for the moment, suspended in response to the Bagua crisis.  In Oregon, the legislative session just ended with the defeat of a bill that would have smoothed the way for LNG companies attempting to begin work on projects there.  This fight that extends from the heart of the Amazon to rural areas in Oregon and Washington will be a long one, but it´s one I believe we can win.

My friend from Iquitos and I agreed that both our country´s governments have ignored the effects of fossil fuel extraction for far too long.  I tried to convey that we are making some progress in the US, though my optimism was far from unqualified.  ¨Your president,¨ said my friend, ¨he has an honest face.¨ I replied cautiously that I believe Obama truly wants to make change, but there are many other individuals in our government who will make it difficult for him.  My eyes lingered on the No LNG button pinned to the backpack of my travelling companion from the US.  She, like me, has gone to protests against LNG back home, and worked to raise awareness of the issue at our school.

I have never felt the international implications of the struggle against LNG more tangibly than now.  It´s time to shut the door to new fossil fuels in the Northwest once and for all, and score a victory for a battle that extends to indigenous communities in the heart of the Peruvian Amazon.

This essay originally appeared in Orion Magazine Written by Derrick Jensen

A FEW MONTHS AGO at a gathering of activist friends someone asked, “If our world is really looking down the barrel of environmental catastrophe, how do I live my life right now?”

The question stuck with me for a few reasons. The first is that it’s the world, not our world. The notion that the world belongs to us—instead of us belonging to the world—is a good part of the problem.

The second is that this is pretty much the only question that’s asked in mainstream media (and even among some environmentalists) about the state of the world and our response to it. The phrase “green living” brings up 7,250,000 Google hits, or more than Mick Jagger and Keith Richards combined (or, to look at it another way, more than a thousand times more than the crucial environmental philosophers John A. Livingston and Neil Evernden combined). If you click on the websites that come up, you find just what you’d expect, stuff like “The Green Guide: Shop, Save, Conserve,” “Personal Solutions for All of Us,” and “Tissue Paper Guide for Consumers.”

The third and most important reason the question stuck with me is that it’s precisely the wrong question. By looking at how it’s the wrong question, we can start looking for some of the right questions. This is terribly important, because coming up with right answers to wrong questions isn’t particularly helpful.

So, part of the problem is that “looking down the barrel of environmental catastrophe” makes it seem as though environmental catastrophe is the problem. But it’s not. It’s a symptom—an effect, not a cause. Think about global warming and attempts to “solve” or “stop” or “mitigate” it. Global warming (or global climate catastrophe, as some rightly call it), as terrifying as it is, isn’t first and foremost a threat. It’s a consequence. I’m not saying pikas aren’t going extinct, or the ice caps aren’t melting, or weather patterns aren’t changing, but to blame global warming for those disasters is like blaming the lead projectile for the death of someone who got shot. I’m also not saying we shouldn’t work to solve, stop, or mitigate global climate catastrophe; I’m merely saying we’ll have a better chance of succeeding if we recognize it as a predictable (at this point) result of burning oil and gas, of deforestation, of dam construction, of industrial agriculture, and so on. The real threat is all of these. Continue reading ‘World at gunpoint, or what’s wrong with the simplicity movement. By Derrick Jensen’

Jessy Tolkan rallies the crowd on Capitol Hill as the House votes on ACES inside

As a young person, you care about global warming. You know that a clean energy economy will create millions of jobs and pathways out of poverty, reduce pollution, and save the planet. And you are willing to do whatever it takes to make that happen. Right?

Well, Thomas L. Friedman, the popular New York Times columnist, isn’t convinced. In fact, Friedman concludes his latest column* by calling us out! He writes:

“Attention all young Americans: your climate future is being decided right now in the cloakrooms of the Capitol, where the coal lobby holds huge sway…. Play hardball or don’t play at all.”

Does Friedman have a point? Do we need to be bigger and louder?

I think the answer is yes.

We know that thousands of young people across this country are working tirelessly to usher in a clean and just energy future for us all. But if we want to truly achieve our goals, we need our elected officials to know that we are watching closely as they debate the climate policy that will shape the rest of our lives.

Take the first step. Let President Obama and your Senators know that you demand bold, just, and science-based climate solutions, and ask your friends and family to do the same. Continue reading ‘Tom Friedman Called Us Out’

Join ACE this July 4 as we break up with oil! Declare your Independence from Fossil Fuels and Sign the Declaration:

www.climateeducation.org/petition

The below article is an attempt to use a satirical historical comparison to demonstrate how we have drifted away from moral messages that convey our values and the seriousness of the situation in favor of treating a societal evil (emitting greenhouse gases) as a trade-able commodity that has a rightful place in our society.

“Cap and Trade Bill Passes House, Democrats Attack as Assault on Economy”

June 26th, 1859

The United States House of Representatives, in a victory for the nascent Republican Party, narrowly voted to substantially reduce the amount of slaves in the United States by the turn of the century.

“This is a great victory for freedom and equality” said Rep. Daniel Webster, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce of the House and lead author of the bill.  ”By the end of the century, about 80% of the slaves alive right now will be free.”  Webster worked closely with long-term ally Henry Clay to draft the legislation. Continue reading ‘Sacrificing the Moral Highground: A Satirical Article on How We Got to Where We Are’

Tom Friedman’s piece in yesterday’s New York Times gets a few things right: Waxman-Markey (ACES) is disappointingly weak thanks to the GOP’s unwillingness to find solutions, we must strengthen and pass it through the Senate, “We The People” owe it to the future to rise up like never before to make this happen.
But he narrows “We The People” to mean We The Young People.

I’ve got news for you Mr. Friedman – young people are rising up like never before to make this happen. We’ve been to DC twice and stormed Capitol Hill with young lobbyists to counter dirty energies hired hacks. We’ve held hundreds of events engaging members of Congress with their constituencies to call for action. We’ve flooded their offices with phone calls and letters. And we’re just getting started.

The youth climate movement deserves at least some of the credit for the passage of ACES – the bill barely made it through, and the youth movement has been pushing on it hard via campaigns like Power Shift and Focus the Nation’s nationwide clean energy town hall.

You say we should get off of facebook and into legislators’ faces, out of the chat rooms and into the cloak rooms. Check and check. We’re in their faces, we’re in the cloakrooms, we’re doing every last thing we can. And by the way, we use the internet to organize real on the ground action – that’s called innovation, something you’re supposed to be a fan of.

Now we’re turning up the heat even further to push Senators to strengthen this bill and make it something we can be proud of. My question to you, Mr. Friedman: When is your generation going to rise up the way we have? You owe it to us, to your kids, and to ours.

He listened! Obama listened!

We chanted during PowerShift’s march on the Capital Coal Plant and even later that night outside of the While House calling for “Food, Not Bombs! Plant a Garden on the White House Lawn!” It sounded good, and I remember seeing the lights go on in an upstairs window as we sang late at night, but maybe that was just a twinkle in the White House’s eye.

Either way, I just learned that Obama did plant a nice big vegetable garden on the White House lawn in March, the first since Eleanor Roosevelt’s Victory Gardens, and things are coming up golden. They’ve 90 pounds of food,  enough produce for the White House kitchens and local soup kitchens as well.  Good and always with honor have released a detailed map of the White House Garden – let’s hope more people follow suit, eating as locally as physically possible, their own backyards!

In his most recent blog post, Ken Ward highlights Rick Boucher’s love of the climate bill because of the amount of coal support in it:

…The EPA projects that by 2020, coal usage in America, under the terms of this bill, will actually grow.

As transportation electrifies and the demand for electricity increases, coal, our most abundant fuel, will still be the fuel of choice to meet that rising demand. The claims of opponents that the CO2 controls under the bill will force utilities to surrender coal use, causing an overreliance on natural gas with attendant broad economic harm to the Nation are also simply wrong.

~Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., on the climate bill

If you didn’t know already, Boucher is the man that has taken more money from the coal industry than any other representative — despite the fact that he has run unopposed! His dirtying up the climate bill inspired this awesome protest last month.

Ward also points out that

The United Mine Workers union concluded the bill ensured that “the future of coal will be intact” (but still withheld its endorsement, seeking more concessions for coal companies and coal-fired utilities).

Perplexed by the inter-related problems India faces as it develops at the cost of 2/3 rd of its population living outside the economy, two young activists from Switch ON, rode their cycles 1800 kilometers across India through the coal belt – to question India’s growth based on fossil fuel, and to seek and highlight alternatives for a sustainable and equitable development.

Why New Coal gives a new perspective to Coal in India – addressing India’s growing energy needs, problems of energy security and Climate Change Vulnerabilities – by interviewing experts across the nation, while also documenting Vinay and Hoob’s epic journey across the nation.

Continue reading ‘Why New Coal?’