These plants are some of the dirtiest in the nation, and are probably part of the reason I, and so many others, grew up with asthma. What’s more, their impact on the climate will shortly be eliminated and I hope that means the demand drives further renewable energy production.  Below are many links where you can learn more, but a huge debt of gratitude goes out to the organizations who have been fighting these, and for those who mobilized the American public to get stronger rules at EPA. In particular, the communities of Pilsen and Little Village have been dealing with the health effects of Fisk and Crawford and have been fighting for their closure for some time.

Here’s more: P.E.R.R.O, Washington Post, Greenpeace , Sierra Club,  Chicago CBS, Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, Pittsburgh Post Gazette

One year from this week, government leaders, civil society members and representatives of the business community will meet in Rio de Janeiro to discuss the future of the planet. The Earth Summit (also called Rio+20 after the first such global event in 1992) can help lead to a more prosperous world that utilizes natural resources more efficiently and responds to the needs of the most impacted communities of environmental degradation. But only if youth help write the story, and here’s why.

Rio 1992 was a watershed moment for the global environmental conscience. Treaties were signed, commissions created, and action plans drafted. Yet one of the most memorable speeches from the two-week conference was by a 12-year old girl (here’s what she’s doing now).

Now, a generation later, my generation is faced with two seemingly insurmountable challenges: the world is changing at a rate never before seen, and the current governance structures are insufficient to meet even the environmental problems of the 1970s.

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Trustee and former United Nations Development Programme head Gus Speth writes of his “generation of great talkers” in Global Environmental Challenges: “For the most part, we have analyzed, debated, discussed, and negotiated these issues endlessly…On action, however, we have fallen far short…The threatening global trends highlighted a quarter-century ago continue to this day.”

That’s why we’re looking for something different this time around. NRDC is inaugurating our Race to Rio campaign with an initial set of Earth Summit deliverables we would like to see heads of state, business executives and civil society leaders agree to (see more details and climate/energy asks). The criteria are simple, they must be specific and short-term; involve commitments to work together; and have robust monitoring and reporting provisions.

Actions and accountability

Fortunately, as I reported back from the last preparatory meeting, civil society is already focusing on the dual challenges of actions and accountability. This was reflected in submissions (pdf) to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon’s High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability as well as recent calls for greater ambition.

We as civil society must channel this energy, however, neither wasting precious time pointing fingers at every unfulfilled promise of the last forty years nor demanding that our leaders commit to lofty ideals long after they will be out of office. NRDC President Frances Beinecke thinks we can learn from the Clinton Global Initiative, which has a unique track record for generating real actions on the ground.

As we contemplate what needs to be done in the next five to ten years, though, be sure: from now until Rio 2012 is the most important year. I uncovered a public service announcement from the run up to Rio 1992 calling on every American to send a telegram to the White House asking the U.S. to lead. We need the same passion and pragmatism guiding us toward Rio in 2012.

An open challenge to youth

Our new abilities to tear down planetary boundaries are only surpassed by our tools to tear down cultural and geographic boundaries.

It’s interesting to look at what’s happened in my generation – the generation of billions: we’ve added 1.3 billion new people to the planet (a billion in our cities), two billion Internet users, five billion mobile phone subscriptions, and brought billions out of the worst kind of poverty.

We know that a successful Earth Summit must engage all strata of society, and thankfully we are beyond telegrams and faxes. But, how do we bring the myriad new media tools to bear on the problem of accountability and actions? This is an open challenge for youth to help shape the debate using a new, more effective language. This week, we raise awareness through posts on #earthsummit and #rioplus20, but we need to think beyond.

Some examples already exist. Earth Day Network’s Billion Acts of Green campaign encourages all of us to share our local actions toward sustainability. The European Environmental Agency’s iEnviroWatch app gives local environmental conditions and wants to invite users to submit content. Various youth rapid response networks at UN climate negotiations provide instant accountability to constituents back home.

And youth from Canada to the UK are coming up with creative ways to engage.

These and many more need to be scaled up by Rio next year, because it is obvious to UN leaders that the current way of doing things will not survive another twenty years. Our world cannot wait for a Rio+40 to curb climate change, repopulate the oceans and restore lost forests.

We need to blaze a path forward at the same time we ask our leaders to lead.

RIO+20 Earth Summit: Potential Deliverables (pdf)

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.

Late Wednesday night, after our last final, Jordan and I drove out to DC to make our court date Thursday morning. The commute is a hard one and my little PT Cruiser wasn’t much help, but we’ve sort have become pros at it- after all, we did the same exact thing a few weeks back when we decided to disrupt the House with a song. Thursday night, April 14th we headed out to DC to meet up with youth activists from all around the country who were ready to take a risk to inspire the 10,000 students attending Powershift that weekend. We sang an alternative version of the Star Spangled Banner, one that called for our congressmen to start standing up for our future- our right to clean air, water, and food- not big oil, gas, and coal. Disrupting congress is an arrestable action, something that we knew going in. But even though we were arrested and stayed in jail for over 6hrs, we had accomplished our goal. That Monday, hundreds of activists stormed the Department of the Interior and stayed despite the threat of arrest. 21 stayed for arrest even after being threatened with felony charges.

This past week, the nine of us who were arrested that friday all had to come back to DC for our arraignment. For some of us, that meant flying in from Utah, long train or bus rides from Massachusetts, Maine, etc. For Jordan and I it meant pulling another all-nighter to drive in from Michigan. At 8am, Thursday morning, we met with our lawyers and we ended the day with a drug test at around 3pm. This is the not-so-sexy side of civil disobedience, the part where sacrifice starts to kick in and we are forced to face financial, personal, and professional consequences for our action. But at the same time, these past couple of days have been the most encouraging for me.

I see the beginning of a culture within our movement that is willing to support those who decide to take action even at the expense of their own future. I am beginning to see a movement with people that can find it in their hearts to give the little that they have to support those who they can call allies. I’m beginning to see a movement that is becoming financially independent, and with financial independence comes true mobility. Is the movement strong enough to support one another? Is it capable of making things like money less of a concern when taking action? I think it is.

Going to court on Thursday wasn’t a walk in the park. I saw too many of my less fortunate black brothers and sisters in that room and too many people there for minor drug charges. The failure of our court system was hard to ignore- the true victims of our unjust society were criminalized while the true criminals were no where to be found. Yet there was still hope because in the middle of this scene was a row of individuals who were crazy enough to think that they could take on this institution…and there are hundreds who were starting to stand behind them and their action.

Even though Thursday I was surrounded by those who force their laws on us, It also wasn’t scary, nerve racking, or daunting- it was liberating. I am not alone. I have countless of people- some I don’t even know personally- who are there to back me up. I want to see more of those seats filled with activists standing up for what is right. I want them to feel the same sense of relief that, despite the outcome, there is a whole movement of like minded individuals ready to bring about support in any way that they can- whether it be with time, money, or just encouragement. I believe the nine of us and the 21 who got arrested in the department of Interior are continuing to play a part in inspiring others to join us in tactful civil disobedience. A movement that has learned how to sacrifice individually and for one another is powerful. It’s a force to be reckoned with!

LNG is a fossil fuel with a carbon footprint much greater than ordinary natural gas, imported from regions of the world like the Middle East, Russia, and Peru.  LNG companies are trying to make inroads in Oregon, but grassroots activists have held them back so far.  Almost a year ago the Palomar pipeline application was indefinitely suspended – this happened shortly after the Bradwood LNG import terminal (which Palomar was supposed to connect to) was cancelled.  Now energy companies have officially given up on Palomar.  Should they try to resurrect the pipeline later, they would have to start from scratch and it would be treated as a completely new project.

There are still two proposals to build LNG infrastructure in Oregon: the Oregon LNG pipeline and terminal on the Columbia River, and the Jordan Cove project in southern Oregon.  But I believe the elimination of Palomar and the Bradwood terminal marks the beginning of the end for LNG.  Activists who have been fighting the Palomar pipeline for years can now channel their energy into defeating the remaining two LNG proposals and other fossil fuel projects.  Already both Oregon LNG and Jordan Cove LNG are years behind schedule and struggling to obtain permits they need to begin construction.

The defeat of Palomar is a testament to the power of grassroots activism and a reminder that big victories do not happen overnight.  Activists in Oregon began fighting this pipeline proposal years ago; when they started they were laughed at, and told it was impossible to stop powerful companies like Northwest Natural Gas from doing whatever they wanted.  Yet this week Oregon communities have triumphed over some of the most important energy players in our region.  We’ll do this again and again, as many times as is necessary, until the remaining fossil fuel companies pack up and leave.

Our national elected leaders have failed us when it comes to generating the kind of change needed to avert catastrophic global warming.  But meanwhile communities are getting to work and taking matters into their own hands.  Coal mines, nuclear power plants, LNG pipelines and other destructive projects will have to break through a wall of resistance before they can think about breaking ground.  Let’s make their job as hard as possible.

After a year-long effort by students Clemson President Jim Barker announced the university will be investing in several university upgrades including ending the use of coal on campus!  The campaign, spearheaded by Students for Environmental Action at Clemson, has been working with the administration to stop burning dangerous coal in the campus steam plant situated near the aptly named “Death Valley” – the university’s football field.  Ending their use of coal is just phase I of several planned utility upgrades over the next five years and a significant step towards meeting the university’s commitment to reduce their overall carbon emissions to zero by 2030.

Students are excited and looking forward to another address by the President planned for next week at their “Solutions for the Next Decade” teach-in where they hope to hear more details for the transition.

“Clemson is making strides in becoming more aware of sustainability and taking concrete steps to reduce its carbon emissions.  No where is this more evident than in President Barkers’ announcement to begin Phase 1 of taking the campus coal plant offline.  This will catapult Clemson toward our goal of becoming a carbon neutral campus by the year 2030 and we are very excited to hear yesterday’s announcement,” said Graduate student and SEA leader Holly Garrett.

“This decision to move our university beyond coal shows that the university is really listening to the concerns of students and faculty who want a cleaner, healthier campus and demonstrates our dedication to environmental, economic and social leadership.  I’m very proud to go a university that is committing to building a clean energy future,” said CU Beyond Coal leader Rose Kinane.

“Now, we hope to see the university to continue invest in solutions like efficiency for our buildings and renewable energy projects that will make our school a 100% clean energy institution.”

This is a testament to the hard work of activists who have been building up the pressure on policymakers and on companies involved in the Palomar pipeline, letting them know Oregonians have no interest in seeing another high carbon fuel (with a life cycle footprint nearly equal to that of coal) threaten our region’s clean energy economy.  As readers of this blog may remember, near the end of May close to 300 people rallied outside the shareholder’s meeting of NW Natural Gas, challenging the company to withdraw its support for Palomar.  Barely over a month later, the permitting process for Palomar has been put into a state of ”indefinite delay.”  Coincidence?  I think not.

Palomar is not dead yet, and it won’t be until the project is officially cancelled.  But until then Oregon activists will continue to keep up the pressure – and the delay of the permitting process is an encouraging sign that Palomar’s days are numbered. 

For more information about what yesterday’s announcement means for the fight against LNG in Oregon, please see my post that ran on BlueOregon.com this morning.  Now is a moment to celebrate this important milestone toward victory for one of the hardest-fought climate campaigns in the Northwest.

Yeah, we’re still fighting them too.  If you’re like me and want a little bit of good news amongst all the bad news from the Gulf, today is your lucky day. Today, the Army Corps of Engineers announced that they are going to stop rubber-stamping valley fill permits in Appalachia.

As of today, the Corps will stop issuing Nationwide Permit (NWP) 21, which is has been used to “authorize discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States for surface coal mining activities.”  Valley fills are a crucial aspect to mountaintop removal mining, because once the mountaintops are blasted off, all that material needs to go somewhere.  In Appalachia, that somewhere has been streams and headwaters.  Without the ability to shove all that rubble, i.e. former mountain, into valleys, mountaintop removal mining becomes far less…well, feasible.

The suspension in Appalachia will remain in effect until the Corps takes further action on NWP 21 or until NWP 21 expires on March 18, 2012. While the suspension is in effect, individuals who propose surface coal mining projects that involve discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States will have to obtain Department of the Army authorization under the Clean Water Act, through the Individual Permit process.   The individual permit evaluation procedure provides increased public involvement in the permit evaluation process, including an opportunity for public comment on individual projects.

NWP 21 was intended for dredge and fill projects that would results in minimal aquatic impacts.  By any estimation, destroying headwaters, creating new topography and polluting downstream habitats is not minimal.  While this move by the Corps does not entirely eliminate the potential for additional valley fill permits in Appalachia, it does mean that there will be opportunities for public notification, comment and involvement.  Nor does it stop existing mountaintop removal mines from creating valley fills.  However, in this regulatory climate, it is not likely that many, if any, new individual permits will be approved.

This decision involved more than just the Army Corp of Engineers.  At hearings last fall, the coal industry packed public hearings with their supporters, attempting to intimidate and drown out supporters of the Corps proposal.  According to the Corps, approximately 23,000 comments were submitted, and the substantive comments were nearly evenly divided between support and opposition for the proposal.  Thanks to the many brave residents of the coalfields who stood up to the coal industry and made their support known and heard.  Submitting public comment is rarely a sexy form of action, but it is critical to influencing policy in the federal agencies.

Today is a good day for the mountains.  Now, to stop valley fills and mountaintop removal altogether.  Urge your member of Congress to cosponsor and pass H.R. 1310, the Clean Water Protection Act, and permanently ban valley fills.

2007 Convergence for Climate Action at proposed Bradwood LNG site. The weeklong event, organized by Rising Tide with local communities was a critical moment for movement building.

By Nick Engelfried & Monica Vaughan.

After a five yearlong organizing effort by a diverse and passionate coalition of Oregonians and Southern Washingtonians, the grassroots No LNG coalition triumphed over Bradwood LNG.

Monday afternoon, the fight for the Pacific Northwest’s clean energy future achieved a long-awaited major milestone: the backer of the proposed Bradwood Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Terminal announced suspension of their application for the project.  This renders Bradwood LNG essentially dead.  In a part of the country where there are new coal plants proposed (and where such projects are unlikely to be proposed anytime soon) LNG represents the cutting edge of the fossil fuel industry’s expansion.  Bradwood LNG’s defeat is a victory that should send a warning to fossil fuel projects across the region.

At word of the news, community members wept with joy and phones rang continuously to share the news. At a press conference, coalition members reflected on the complex and significant meaning of such a victory over the fossil fuel industry. As community leader and dedicated volunteer Cheryl Johnson put it, “They have money, but we have heart. In the end, heart always wins”.

It would be impossible to do justice in a single blog post to the groundswell of grassroots activism that led to this clean energy victory.  Throughout the past several years, environmentalists and land-rights activists across Oregon have rallied in opposition to proposed LNG terminals and pipelines – not just Bradwood LNG, but two other import terminals and the network of LNG pipelines that would connect import centers to existing pipelines, sending gas shipped in from Russia, Peru, or the Middle East down to the California market.

Students meet with farmer on 150 year old family farm threatened by pipeline development as part of the second Bike the Pipe event.

Oregon farmers have challenged the LNG industry’s attempts to seize private land; Columbia Riverkeeper and the Nez Pierce tribe fought a fierce legal battle, college students have heavily lobbied state representatives and organized bike-ride protests, Rising Tide organized acts of civil disobedience and other movement-building actions, and hundreds of Oregonians have rallied multiple times at the capitol to demand a future free of LNG.

Now we’re clearly winning, but the fight’s not yet over.  Oregon still faces two other proposed LNG terminals and their associated pipelines.  One terminal would be located on the Columbia River, and the other at Coos Bay.  The remarkable coalition that defeated Bradwood will continue to fight these remaining LNG projects.

Later this month, the NO LNG coalition will be leveraging the power of this victory at the Rally at the NW Natural Shareholder Meeting (backer of the Palomar pipeline) to demand an end to LNG investments once and for all.

And speaking of investments, it seems Bradwood LNG didn’t make such a good one for the project’s backer, Texas-based NorthernStar Natural Gas.  Shortly after Bradwood’s suspension became official, NorthernStar announced it is filing for bankruptcy.  The company reportedly threw away around $100 million on the Bradwood LNG Terminal, and another proposed LNG terminal in California (which recently died a much-deserved death as well).  The company’s hedge-fund investment gone bankrupt, has left a trail of unpaid debt across the state. Leaving unpaid bills to lawyers, consultants, and even an unpaid $186,000 bill owed to Clatsop County.

Though market factors also contributed to Bradwood’s demise, grassroots activism in Oregon can truly be said to have sent this multi-million dollar project packing.  The opening of new reserves of natural gas in North America during the last few years helped put the nails in Bradwood’s coffin.  But, without organized grassroots opposition, the terminal likely would have begun construction years ago.

This week, grassroots activism in Oregon triumphed over one of the most well funded industrial projects in this state’s history.  Let’s hope this marks the beginning of the end for Northwest LNG.

We hope this is a victory can resonate with and inspire all grassroots movements against fossil fuel infrastructure!

So what did this victory earn them? The opportunity to convince students at public universities across Texas to increase their own fees despite tough economic times and rapidly rising tuition. Out of the frying pan and into the fire, some might say. But that’s not how these tenacious organizers saw things.

ThinkGreenFund.org from Public Citizen on Vimeo.

Then in early March, student bodies at the state’s two most prominent public universities voted in favor of creating green funds – UT Austin with 71% support, and Texas A&M with 57% support. Just a week earlier the state’s most prominent private school, Rice University, had created its own green fund in a campaign not related to ReEnergize Texas.

With these victories, Texas is poised to have more colleges and universities with green funds than any other state. Four more public universities will vote on green funds in April, and before the campaigns the state already had one public university and one community college with green funds. Additional Texas campuses are expected to vote on green funds during the 2010-2011 academic year.

There are probably two clear lessons that these victories can teach us. First, despite all the reasons for pessimism about winning on climate and sustainability issues, the youth of this country are demanding something be done. The campaign at Texas A&M was tough, and climate change deniers organized in opposition to the green fund, deploying truly despicable tactics to mislead students. Despite this and despite Texas A&M being one of the most conservative universities in one of the most conservative states in the country, the green fund referendum passed overwhelmingly. Clearly climate and sustainability are far less partisan issues among young people and students.

Second, economic arguments are effective, but they must be based in reality to be effective. One of the first blog posts at thinkgreenfund.org was on how to use a green fund to make college more affordable. Affordability remained a keystone argument, and campaigners were careful to listen to concerns and incorporate real solutions to those concerns into the proposed structures of the green funds themselves.

But maybe the most important lesson is this – if it can be done in Texas, it can be done anywhere. Best of luck to all of you out there doing your part in this movement of ours!