The Latest in Climate Change Capitalism's Brilliant Public Deception: The Breakthrough Energy Coalition

Today I received an listserv email from a natural gas cheerleader promoting  Bill Gate's "Breakthrough Energy Coalition."

The breakthroughenergycoalition.com is absolutely nothing but a placating cover for a "coalition" whose singular objective is to cash in on the last gasps of fossil fuel extraction and/or cash in on climate change. That their board of directors includes a few billionaire philanthropists cannot possibly make up for the fact that it also includes companies who stand among the most vile human rights abusers on the planet, especially with respect to the exploitation of the developing world and indigenous peoples. 

And nowhere on their website are we told two fundamental truths:

1. If the wealthy North continues to consume at the rate it now does, there will be no technology that can save us--any of us--from the consequences of climate change, including desertification, deforestation, pandemic disease, war, and terrorism.

2. If we continue to consume animal bodies, especially but not exclusively those who've lived out their short and miserable lives on factory farms, we might as well just commit collective suicide now because we're condemning our children and grandchildren to a planet so despoiled by climate change that words like "mitigation" will become the taglines of dark satire and even darker jokes.

The Breakthrough Energy Coalition isn't interested in any more than cosmetic fashion about either of these two truths, and in fact, would convince us that we really can have it all--loads of material wealth, lots of bacon-burgers--and a clean beautiful plaanet.

Ain't gonna happen.

In fact, the only thing "transformative" about this ugly ensemble is their transformation of the planet into their off-shored bank accounts, and their ability to convince us that they're acting in our interests.

it's hard to imagine a more cynical bastardizing of the term "philanthropic" than The Breakthrough Energy Coalition. 

Here's their mission statement: 

The world needs widely available energy that is reliable, affordable and does not produce carbon. The only way to accomplish that goal is by developing new tools to power the world. That innovation will result from a dramatically scaled up public research pipeline linked to truly patient, flexible instuments committed to developing the technologies that will create a new energy mix. Breakthrough Energy Coalition

Translation:

We at BEC will exploit any form of energy we can, and like our fellows over at Exxon or Chevron, we'll call it "responsible," and we'll get away with that because the governments of the countries that fly our flags are only to happy to let us write their environmental regulations, lease us access to their rain forests, their labor pools, and their minerals. 

"Dramatically scaled up public research" is best for our companies since, as is our tradition, we'd like tax-paying citizens to fork over for the research that we'll then exploit to enhance our revenue streams. 

"New energy mix" means that whatever the technologies taxpayers help us develop will make us money--that is, so long as you all keep up the consumption.

Thanks!

Whatever this group's stated commitment to the "Green Energy Revolution" (Mission Innovation | Accelerating the Clean Energy Revolution), we can be certain of one thing:

Their first priority is to transform climate change into climate cash, and if we think that has anything to do with social justice, preserving species from extinction, narrowing the gap between the wealthy North and the struggling South--or, God forbid, reducing consumption, we are fools.

The Breakthrough Energy Coalition is a textbook example of how multinational capitalism postures itself to:

a. Cash in on climate change.
b. Make itself look like it cares about the world's vulnerable people all the while it continues business as usual.
c. Insure the longevity of capital accumulation any way it can.

For just a tiny few substantiating examples that make it abundantly clear that it is woefully irresponsible to promote this group, please consider just a smidgeon sample from its its board of directors:

MUKESH AMBANI--Reliance Industries Ltd, India--among other highly polluting interests, petrochemical company:

http://www.nytimes.com/…/mukesh-ambanis-reliance-industries…
"Mr. Thakurta’s book [GAS WARS], which argues that Reliance tried to influence the previous government to raise the price of natural gas by leaning on favorably inclined politicians and officials, is yet another blow to Mr. Ambani’s image — not only for what it says but also for the fact that Mr. Ambani’s threat of legal action against the authors if the sale of the book is not stopped has been laughed away by them."

http://www.thehindu.com/…/ril-in-fresh-t…/article5097794.ece

Reliance has also been found guilty of human rights abuses in the already highly threatened Amazon:
http://etikkradet.no/…/recommendations-from-2010-2012-and-…/:

"On 1 December 2010 the Council on Ethics recommended the exclusion of the companies Repsol YPF (now Repsol S.A) and Reliance Industries Limited from the Government Pension Fund Global. The companies were partners in a joint venture which was conducting oil exploration activities in Block 39 in the Peruvian Amazon. Repsol was the operator of the joint venture. Block 39 is located in an area which is thought to overlap the territories of indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation. In the Council’s view, the exploration activity undertaken by the companies in Block 39 would increase the risk that any indigenous peoples who may be living in voluntary isolation within the block would come into contact with outsiders, leading to potentially serious consequences for these peoples’ life, health and way of living. This would constitute an unacceptable risk of the companies contributing to serious and systematic human rights violations."

AILKO DANGOTE--Dangote Industries, Nigeria:

9 % Investment in Block I in Joint Development Zone ( JDZ ) of Nigeria Sao-Tome along with Chevron Texaco and Exxon Mobil

Dangote, in other words, is in league with three of the top human rights abusers on the planet--especially in Nigeria, and especially concerning torture: 

http://business-humanrights.org/…/chevron-lawsuit-re-nigeri…:

"In 1999, a group of Nigerians of the Niger Delta region, where Chevron engages in oil production activities, brought a lawsuit against Chevron in US federal court. The plaintiffs allege that they suffered human rights violations, including torture and summary execution, at the hands of the Nigerian military and police acting in concert with Chevron to suppress the plaintiffs’ protests against Chevron’s environmental practices in the Niger Delta. The claims against Chevron are based on two incidents. First, two protestors were shot by Nigerian military and police allegedly recruited by Chevron at its Parabe offshore platform. Second, two Nigerian villages, Opia and Ikenyan, were attacked by Nigerian soldiers using helicopters and boats allegedly leased and/or owned by Chevron, and these attacks allegedly caused the death and injury of a number of villagers."

Dangote has its own deeply troubling history:
http://www.premiumtimesng.com/…/169022-nigerias-human-right…:

"PREMIUM TIMES had on June 30, exposed the massacre of seven youth at Mr. Dangote’s multi-billion naira cement factory after demonstrators gathered to protest the shooting, by a soldier, of 19 year-old Terhile Jirbo.
Mr. Jirbo was attacked for relieving himself near the cement factory and refusing to pack the waste with his mouth when a soldier ordered him to do so.
Mr. Jirbo survived the attack but the bullet tore his mouth apart and left him permanently disfigured.
Villagers, who responded after the shooting by staging what several witnesses said was a peaceful demonstration to the Dangote factory, met a bloody pushback by the troops.
Hours after the protest, the soldiers opened fire, killing seven of the protesters including a woman, who was shot in the head at close range.
The 19 year-old woman, Doose Ornguze, a resident of Tsekucha, near Mbayion, survived the first shot at her, and was trying to crawl to safety before a soldier walked up close and fired into her skull."

JOHN ARNOLD: (John D. Arnold - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)  "is an American billionaire and former hedge fund manager who specializes in natural gas trading. His firm, Centaurus Advisors, LLC, was a Houston-based hedge fund that specialized in trading energy products."

And from a Rolling Stone expose:

In 2011, Pew began to align itself with a figure who was decidedly neither centrist nor nonpartisan: 39-year-old John Arnold, whom CNN/Money described (erroneously) as the "second-youngest self-made billionaire in America," after Mark Zuckerberg. Though similar in wealth and youth, Arnold presented the stylistic opposite of Zuckerberg's signature nerd chic: He's a lipless, eager little jerk with the jug-eared face of a Division III women's basketball coach, exactly what you'd expect a former Enron commodities trader to look like. Anyone who has seen the Oscar-winning documentary The Smartest Guys in the Room and remembers those tapes of Enron traders cackling about rigging energy prices on "Grandma Millie" and jamming electricity rates "right up her ass for fucking $250 a megawatt hour" will have a sense of exactly what Arnold's work environment was like.

In fact, in the book that the movie was based on, the authors portray Arnold bragging about his minions manipulating energy prices, praising them for "learning how to use the Enron bat to push around the market." Those comments later earned Arnold visits from federal investigators, who let him get away with claiming he didn't mean what he said.

As Enron was imploding, Arnold played a footnote role, helping himself to an $8 million bonus while the company's pension fund was vaporizing. He and other executives were later rebuked by a bankruptcy judge for looting their own company along with other executives. Public pension funds nationwide, reportedly, lost more than $1.5 billion thanks to their investments in Enron.

In 2002, Arnold started a hedge fund and over the course of the next few years made roughly a $3 billion fortune as the world's most successful natural-gas trader. But after suffering losses in 2010, Arnold bowed out of hedge-funding to pursue "other interests." He had created the Arnold Foundation, an organization dedicated, among other things, to reforming the pension system, hiring a Republican lobbyist and former chief of staff to Dick Armey named Denis Calabrese, as well as Dan Liljenquist, a Utah state senator and future Tea Party challenger to Orrin Hatch.

Soon enough, the Arnold Foundation released a curious study on pensions. On the one hand, it admitted that many states had been undercontributing to their pension funds for years. But instead of proposing that states correct the practice, the report concluded that "the way to create a sound, sustainable and fair retirement-savings program is to stop promising a [defined] benefit."

 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/looting-the-pension-funds-20130926#ixzz3tYPkVAPY  

Had enough?

How about PATRICE MOTSEPE--African Rainbow Minerals:http://www.arm.co.za/:

http://www.miningweekly.com/…/human-rights-commission-findi…:

"The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) deems the relocation of a Limpopo community to make way for a platinum mine as “adversely affecting” the communities concerned. The world’s largest platinum-mining company, Anglo Platinum (Angloplat), relocated the communities that surrounded its Potgietersrus platinum mine in Mokopane."

Or: http://www.bloomberg.com/…/mandela-s-wealth-sharing-dream-f…:

"Villagers say that in 2000, Motsepe’s people offered them an 8.5 percent stake in the Modikwa platinum mine on credit, promising to develop schools, hospitals, homes and roads in the hills of Limpopo province. While Motsepe today is a billionaire, the 80,000 community members still collectively owe about 158 million rand on their share. “They promised to develop the village,” Moime said in front of her crumbling home, where a row of bricks serves as a kitchen surface. “Houses were never built. Roads weren’t built properly. We’re not happy at all....Almost 14 percent of South Africa’s 53 million people live on less than $1.25 a day, according to the World Bank. Black citizens on average earn a sixth of what their white counterparts do and 1.9 million households have no income, census data shows...Motsepe is worth $2.2 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. His 40.7 percent stake in African Rainbow is worth $1.39 billion and a share in financial services group Sanlam Ltd. is worth $597 million. He also has about $200 million in cash and is the board chairman of Harmony Gold Mining Co. Ltd., in which African Rainbow has a 14.6 percent stake."

BILL GATES, AND THE BILL AND MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION:

The charity run by Bill and Melinda Gates, who say the threat of climate change is so serious that immediate action is needed, held at least $1.4bn (£1bn) of investments in the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies, according to a Guardian analysis of the charity’s most recent tax filing in 2013.
The companies include BP, responsible for the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, Anadarko Petroleum, which was recently forced to pay a $5bn environmental clean-up charge and Brazilian mining company Vale, voted the corporation with most “contempt for the environment and human rights” in the world clocking over 25,000 votes in the Public Eye annual awards. 

Revealed: Gates Foundation's $1.4bn in fossil fuel investments | Environment | The Guardian

VINOD KHOSLA, Khosla Ventures: Khosla Ventures:

Included in his portfolio is 

Ciris Energy:

Ciris Energy develops technology for the production of electricity from buried coal and other hydrocarbon deposits. Their technologies, ISBCTM and ESBCTM, share a common component: the microbial bio conversion of carbon. The ISBC technology process is conducted below ground in coal seams where indigenous microbes convert coal to methane. The ESBC technology is conducted above ground after coal has been mined and combines a low cost thermochemical pretreatment of coal with engineered microbes to convert coal to chemicals and methane.

 GreatPoint Energy:GreatPoint Energy produces clean, low cost natural gas from coal, petroleum coke and biomass utilizing its bluegas™ catalytic hydromethanation process.

And, last but not least, The Climate Corporation, owned and operated by Monsanto: Monsanto Acquires The Climate Corporation

Well, not quite last--if you think Mark Zuckerberg is some awesome philanthropist, you should review that assessment:

How Mark Zuckerberg’s Altruism Helps Himself - The New York Times:

Mark Zuckerberg did not donate $45 billion to charity. You may have heard that, but that was wrong. 

Here’s what happened instead: Mr. Zuckerberg created an investment vehicle.Sorry for the slightly less sexy headline. Mr. Zuckerberg is a co-founder of Facebook and a youthful megabillionaire. In announcing the birth of his daughter, he and his wife, Priscilla Chan, declared they would donate 99 percent of their worth, the vast majority of which is tied up in Facebook stock valued at $45 billion today. In doing so, Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Chan did not set up a charitable foundation, which has nonprofit status. He created a limited liability company, one that has already reaped enormous benefits as public relations coup for himself. His P.R. return-on-investment dwarfs that of his Facebook stock. Mr. Zuckerberg was depicted in breathless, glowing terms for having, in essence, moved money from one pocket to the other. An L.L.C. can invest in for-profit companies (perhaps these will be characterized as societally responsible companies, but lots of companies claim the mantle of societal responsibility). An L.L.C. can make political donations. It can lobby for changes in the law. He remains completely free to do as he wishes with his money. That’s what America is all about. But as a society, we don’t generally call these types of activities “charity.”

 Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Chan are simply sheltering their money, and making you think they care about you.

Bull shit.

Continue reading the main story

That these companies also dabble in sustainable energy, food production, etc. should not be taken as anything like a commitment to a sustainable world. They're simply diversifying their portfolios to make as much as they can under the current circumstances.

And that's all--except for that they'd like you to believe they're interested in you and the planet.

Of course, there are the easy invite me to your next party Big Green Corporations like the Sierra Club who trip all over themselves to get photo ops with the Breakthrough Boys:

Tech billionaires team up for clean energy coalition at Paris climate talks | Grist

Michael Brune, executive director of the environmental group, the Sierra Club, said clean energy was already "winning the fight" against fossil fuels. "Now, these incredible public or private commitments, which are historic, essential, and timely, show that the nations of the world-- as well as many of the world's leading visionaries and philanthropists--are committed to making clean energy even more widespread, even faster," he said. "What's now clearer than ever is that our future will be 100 percent clean energy, and that dirty fossil fuels are merely riding out their final wave."

 Were this not so tragically wrong, it would almost be funny. "Riding out their final wave"? Absolutely--right on the backs of the world's poorest peoples in places like Nigeria.

So, no, it's not funny.


And this isn't really about the Sierra Club, EDF, 350.org, or any of the other  Big Greens who are already so compromised it's hard to distinguish their donor lists from the boards of directors at Shell or Monsanto or Exxon.

Photo: Carley Aurora Lee-Lampshire
Kolkata, India 2009.

Breakthrough may dwarf them all--and the cost of this latest play to sucker us into believing we can continue to consume at ever increasing rates--that there are no limits to growth with the right technologies?

Us. Or rather, the most vulnerable among us--just like always.

Open Letter from David Lauer: Send a Strong Signal for the Energy Transition Worldwide with a Ban on Fracking in Germany

PLEASE NOTE: This is a rough translation of the original letter that is written in German. The English version of the letter will not be sent to German Members of Parliament.

To: The Members of the Committee for the Economy in the German Parliament, The Members of the Committees for the Environment in the German Parliament,

Berlin, 5 June 2015

To whom it may concern,

The Environment Committee of the Federal Council has advocated on 22 April 2015 to prohibit "the breaking of rock under hydraulic pressure for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons". Nevertheless, the federal government wants to essentially hold on to their current bill and allow fracking in Germany. Since Germany is perceived as a leader in protecting the climate and environment worldwide, the German legislation also is a strong signal for other countries. Particularly in countries of the global South, the use of fracking is accompanied by severe environmental and social impacts. We therefore urge you to ban fracking in Germany and to thus send a strong signal in favour of the energy transition - in Germany and worldwide.

To still limit global warming to two degrees Celsius, two thirds of the world's known fossil fuels must remain in the soil according to the International Energy Agency. The development of new deposits by Fracking runs counter this target. The fracking boom in the US has led to a sharp decline in oil prices worldwide, thus reducing the incentive to promote climate-friendly alternatives. The poorest countries and population groups suffer most from the consequences of climate change.

This holds equally true with regard to fracking: Some of the largest shale reservoirs worldwide are located in developing and emerging countries, often in extremely dry and earthquake-prone regions. The use of fracking does not only directly compete with the supply of drinking water or agricultural irrigation, but can also trigger violent earthquakes. In addition, there are conflicts over the use of land, often with indigenous populations.

In Germany, the potential for shale oil and natural gas is relatively low. The exploitation of unconventional deposits in Germany would afford neither a crucial contribution to security of supply, nor would it lead to falling gas prices or significant impulses on employment in this country. The Advisory Council on the Environment therefore concludes that the extraction of shale gas in Germany cannot be justified with energy policy reasons. Given the large environmental, health, climate and development risks, we urge you as a member of the Environment/Economy in the German Parliament to ban fracking in Germany and to thereby send a strong signal for the energy transition - in this country and worldwide.

Yours sincerely,

Name Here

Some Philosophical Observations About "Community Rights," Pipeline Fights, and "Rights of Nature"

Photo Wendy Lynne Lee, 5.15.15

***Additional update: In some further correspondence with my friend about issues internal to the ideology of CELDF, I was finally compelled to say this:

You can tell yourself--indeed, folks at NCRN, CELDF, PA CRN can tell themselves that the community rights model is without parallel, that it represents precisely how things ought to be. It has many many virtues--but it is not without serious deficits in an age where the consequences of the actions of some--corporations--reach well beyond communities, indeed, to the planet itself. A loose confederation of communities--of NIMBY fiefdoms--will not mitigate climate change, will not prevent an outbreak of infectious disease, will not thwart terrorism, will not prevent war, will not put a stop to human trafficking. These vital issues demand communication across communities--across the globe. And if we fail to address them globally, communities will eventually cease even to be fiefdoms--they'll simply be annihilated in wars fought over water, land, and fuel. There are communities in Mad Max--but no one wants to live in them.

And that's about as clear as it gets, I think. The rights of communities to self-determination are surely values worth fighting for--but they are not intrinsically valuable such that community self-determination overrides the rights of others--wherever they are--not to be harmed or disenfranchised by that self-determination. 


**UPDATE: I recently received a very thoughtful email missive from a friend concerned with my criticism of CELDF. The tone of the missive suggested that anyone who generally supports the concept of community rights and charters ought to treat CELDF and its recently formed outreach arm--the Community Rights Network--as a sort of sacred cow beyond the pale of critique. That I certainly cannot do--and none of us ought to trek that route. Indeed, any organization that's unable to address the reasoned questions and criticisms of the very citizens it would claim to represent is doomed to atrophy from within, and in CELDF's case risks the appearance of a sophisticated NIMBY-ism dressed up as community rights codified in charters and ordinances. To be very clear: I think CELDF does some very fine work, and I also think it has some real work to do on at least two fronts relevant to the essay below: 

(1) When does the appropriate response to a global issue trump the rights of communities to self-determination? CELDF's answer here seems to be "never." But this opens itself up to a cornucopia of objection not the least of which is that climate change demands an orchestrated global response. A community of climate change deniers does not have the right to contribute to climate change through the emission of greenhouse gasses. A community of vaccination-avoiders does not have the right to make other people's children vulnerable to measles.  A community of animal-body eaters does not have the right to expose other communities to the massive pollutants of their factory farm cultivation, execution, and waste disposal processes. Minimally, where the issues are a matter of public health, communities do not have the right to expose other communities or individuals to activities that threaten the public health--especially when that public is global.

(2) "Rights of nature" is very very vague. Does it include the rights of nonhuman animals not to suffer unnecessarily? does it refer to nature external to my body or internal to it? Does it  refer only to nature--like the Ecuadorian Amazon--that's relatively pristine? Does it include urban parks? CELDF must get clearer about this if this idea is going to have any legitimacy within a community ordinance. The evidence that it is not clear is CELDF's support of a chicken bar-b-que fundraiser to generate funds to defend against the incursion of a pipeline. This is self-defeating, and it risk hypocrisy.

While I am not going to reveal the writer's name, sex, or affiliation, I am gong to post my answers to the questions of the missive I mentioned above. I have altered the questions so as to avoid quotation:

1. The writer suggests that my essay below is an effort to damage CELDF. I respond thusly:

There is a world of difference between "seeking to damage a thing" and raising important questions. I am clearly engaged in the latter. There are truly serious tensions between the rights of communities and our responsibilities, individually and collectively, to issues that exceed any community's geographical, political or cultural boundaries. Both pipelines and climate change exemplify these issues. As I said several times in the piece, I respect the CR approach greatly--and I do. But if waging community struggles for self-determination is going to mean more than the assertion of NIMBY interests, CELDF/CRN MUST confront the sorts of questions I raise in the piece. It is otherwise going to gradually but inexorably be reduced to the defense of competing fiefdoms--and that's not what any of us meant by community rights.

2. The writer asks the following question--rephrased to doubly respect the writer's anonymity: "If CELDF's aim is to teach communities how to defend themselves from the corporations and stand up for their constitutional liberties so that they can define their communities for themselves, wouldn't it be hypocrisy for CELDF or the National Community Rights network to try to make a community follow a rigid notion of "sustainable"?" 

My response: 

The answer here is a resounding NO. Here's why: anthropogenic climate change is well-established in the scientific literature. Moreover, it's consequences present and future are clearly global. No community has the right to enact charters, statutes, laws that clearly conflict with the well-established science when their laws--say a community of climate change deniers--then allow them to engage in activity--say factory farming--that will produce negative consequences for other communities and persons--in this case the global community. Here's an analogy: Does a community have the right as a community to structure its public school science curricula to teach that the earth is flat? No. Why? Because the earth is not flat, and in teaching so false a doctrine people--especially children--will be harmed. Ditto for evolution. Ditto for vaccines. The principle is this: However much a value is the right to self-determination for a community, that does not imply that the rights of communities exceeds the rights of individual human beings, nonhuman animals, or ecosystems. No community has the right to realize its desire for self-determination where the established potential for harm to others within and without that community is significant.

3. The writer refers to a rigid definition of "sustainable.""

My response:

I am not sure what you mean by  "rigid definition of sustainable," but what I do know is two things: (A) we don't need "iron clad" to demonstrate to us that if we continue to emit greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere we and futures generations of "we" will suffer greatly. We know that any industrial scale extraction or animal agricultural operation does emit greenhouse gasses. Therefore, the minimal definition of "sustainable" must include curtailing the emission of greenhouse gasses--that is the sine qua non of "sustainable," and that in no way guarantees a future that's desirable. (B) "Rigid" is fallacious appeal to straw argument--it sets up a distorted, easy to dismiss--version of an argument, and this is frequently used by the climate change deniers who insist that "the science is not settled." Their reasoning is absurd. No science is ever settled. But that does not prevent us from, for example, administering antibiotics,  sending probes to the moon, or tracking the processes of photosynthesis. Climate change is no different. Hence communities have a clear moral duty to act to mitigate it.

4. The writer asks: "how could it be acceptable to only agree to help a community to keep out something like a pipeline if their members are all vegan?"

My response:

Let me turn this around: Given their explicit and heavily promoted commitment to rights of nature, how can CELDF represent any community who is not vegan/vegetarian? This is manifest hypocrisy. Unless CELDF can give a convincing principled argument that rights of nature precludes the rights of nonhuman animals not to suffer unnecessarily, this is a serious problem. Moreover, it's not only about this commitment--it's also about the effects of factory farming. A community that tacitly condones factory farming by have a bar-b-que fundraiser in fact is caught in a plain contradiction--and their actions are NIMBY: they want to stop a harm for their community, but are unconcerned with the consequences of animal agriculture for other communities. This is a cake neither the community nor CELDF can have and eat too. It undermines their credibility, and puts the lie to their commitment to rights of nature. Indeed, it makes the appeal to rights of nature look more like an advertising strategy than a principled moral value.

I would welcome a response from members of CELDF. Indeed, their mission is certainly advanced through this variety of respectful public discourse. Addressing observations, questions, and criticism is how worthwhile organizations demonstrate their commitment and their capacity for thoughtful exchange to their members and future members. I hope CELDF/CRN will take this opportunity and rise to the occasion. We would all be benefitted--especially the communities CELDF purports to defend--if they did.
***********************************************************

*The following is a set of observations posted on a Lancaster On-Line article, written by Ad Crable

What is track record of community-rights ordinances sought by some in Conestoga and Martic townships? - LancasterOnline: Local News

There are certainly many very important issues here--the pipeline being one, but not the only one.

First, and most importantly, what is at stake is the fundamental idea that communities have a right to self-determination. At one level, this seems obvious, and clearly consistent with the democratic ideal that a community--as a body of voting members--ought to be able to determine the character and ordinance structure of that body. There is much to recommend this. But it also must be said that if a community is going to uphold equality and justice as essential governing principles, it must--must--act not only in its own interest, but that of communities affected by its decisions. Although the CELDF/Community Rights Network aims certainly do not oppose these principles, there's also little particularly explicit in their current presentation that emphasizes their significance. And this does matter--greatly. 

For example, what prevents Community X along the Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline ROW from enacting a CR ordinance, and then determining that what's in their best interest is hosting the pipeline? Perhaps they decide that since their township is, say, an unlikely site for a Compressor and their not really in drilling country, that their monetary gains outweigh the risk from potential pipeline explosions or leaks? What if this is a relatively poor and small township--and Williams has offered them some substantial bribe? It is a bribe--and we all know it. But that's not really the point. The point is that what in the current CELDF promotion of a charter--something Community X has adopted--prevents Community X from deciding something that is manifestly damaging to Community Y? 

And to be clear--I have enormous respect for the community rights approach--but I also can see plainly that it is not a panacea for solving the tremendously serious issues we face with respect to the environmental costs of the gas company buildout--cost that outweigh in important respects the capacities of any community--some which simply do demand an approach BIGGER than any community.

Second, CELDF's perfectly reasonable response to my critique here might be this: Community charters ought to be drafted consistent with these principles--equality and justice, and the "rights of nature." Any charter not so drafted is not adequately democratic and does not expand rights. 

Well and good. 

But this does not and cannot go nearly far enough.

Here's why:

A community--and we have copious examples--can absolutely agree to these principles, AND determine that they apply to some who then count as members while others do not. A community can decide, for example, that the criteria for membership depends on sex, ethnicity, gender, or species status. CELDF can rightly decry this as discrimination--but without clear criteria for determining what/who counts as a member, "expansion" remains elusive. Let me give a specific example: If my understanding is correct, one township on the pipeline corridor recently held a chicken Bar-b-que to raise money for its community rights efforts. 

Fine. 

But this effectively makes a determination that nonhuman animals are not to be accounted as members with any right to equality in any respect in their particular vision of "Community." This stands in direct conflict with CELDF's specific referencing to "rights of nature." Or: If chickens are not to be counted as community members in any sense--minimally that they have a right not to be killed unnecessarily, then this township has a duty to explain as a part of their understanding of their own charter why. The upshot is clear: It's one thing to talk about justice and equality. It's another to enact it as a chartered part of a community's forward-moving structure. 

And WHO is to count is as essential to that charter as it could possibly be. Moreover, if the meaning of "expansion" does not include very explicit and clear language concerning one community's relationship to others affected by its chartered decisions, it's hard to see how conflicts will be resolved. 

Let me offer one more example here: let's say that the township that held the chicken Bar-b-que sold chicken raised at a factory farm. What that means in effect is that while they oppose a pipeline, they do not oppose factory farming--at least chickens. In addition to this seeming very inconsistent with their concern for the health and welfare of their own community members--since animal agriculture is a far more serious immediate and long-term health hazard for people in and out of that community--it is clearly not in keeping with any concern for the health and welfare of people in other communities who may very well be affected by, say, Tyson's proposal to build a factory farm in that county. 

How does CELDF litigate between the community who--at least judging by their behavior-- is comfortable with the prospect of factory farms and the community who opposes them? Perhaps this seems apples and oranges with pipelines--but it manifestly is not. VOCs wafting from compressor stations and toxic pollutants wafting from factory farms across relatively wide distance on a breezy day affect folks outside the community where the specific facility is located. How does a community rights charter deal with this? To be clear again--I favor the community rights approach. But it has begun to worry me greatly that some really deep-going and fundamental issues have not seen the light of day.

Third, there is much to be said about the meaning of "rights of nature." But if CELDF is really committed to that principled idea, how does it sanction a community that has a Chicken Bar-b-que to raise money to wage its community rights campaign? This strikes me as a tad bit mercenary. That is, is CELDF so committed to a win in this community that it is willing to sacrifice a central tenet of its platform in order to advance that community's charter? I don't know the answer here--but what I do know is that CELDF is caught in a Queen's fork:

1. If what CELDF means by "community rights" necessarily includes nonhuman nature and animals, then it cannot attach its name to an event that violates the rights of nonhuman animals (especially factory farm animals whose lives have been nothing but misery). That includes chickens. 

2. If what CELDF means by "community rights" is negotiable around nonhuman animals, it's negotiable around human animals. Hence nothing prevents a community from writing a charter that converts women to sex slaves or any other group of people into subservients. 

3. If CELDF's response here is that ALL charters must recognize at least people equally, fine--but then it must remove its references to rights of nature. 

4. If CELDF removed the references to rights of nature, any and all cases against factory farms, and gas company activity including pipelines is seriously weakened since a crucial part of the fight against the latter industry was premised on environmental considerations.

Fourth, I appreciate greatly CELDF's Chad Nicholson's point that people are tired of having no options. But the fundamental fact here is that while a community charter is at least potentially better than the township structure that clearly privileged corporations--CELDF is right on the money here--it will still mean very little unless the community members empowered by the charter are willing to actively defend it. And with respect to the pipeline, that could mean a siege--very much like the defense at Crestwood at Lake Seneca. In other words, there is NO charter, ordinance, law, policy--anything--that's going to keep out that pipeline without the willingness of citizens across the Pipeline ROW to join with others from neighboring communities with their bodies to defend it.

I make this obvious point as another way of expressing the crucial observation about cross-community communication and organization. This could not be more essential than with a pipeline. Moreover, while it is certainly in the interest of CELDF as an organization looking to advance a highly laudable campaign to re-empower citizens over corporations in the U.S.--a campaign for which I applaud them--it is another thing for particular communities to be the effective test cases in the service of that larger objective. 

It is no doubt true that there's no other way to get to that larger objective than through communities adopting charters. But that does not mean and cannot mean that particular communities can be sacrificed along the way. CELDF MUST take on the responsibility of standing with the communities they offer to assist--and if these mean great sums of free legal service, pepper spray in the face, arrests, then so be it. There's no revolution without revolutionaries.

And I put it this way not to by incendiary, but to make it clear that CELDF's premises about the powers of corporations trumping those of private citizens is absolutely on the money--but what taking back what is rightfully ours means IS nothing short of a revolutionary objective. We need to be and have a right to be clear about what this morally defensible objective is.

Fifth, and lastly, it bears repeating a thousand times that there is no reason whatever to believe that FERC has any other interest but permitting this pipeline. Register objections. Absolutely. 

But only because we have the right to an historical record where we have clearly said no to this incursion on our rights and our lands. FERC WILL approve this pipeline. Make no mistake about it. Township supervisors WILL be bribed into silence about it. County Commissioners--ditto. 

A charter may be the beginning of your assertion of your right to clean air and water--but it cannot be more than that. 

Pittsburgh's charter is commonly referred to as a successful example of where a community rights approach has been successful. I would caution us all to be thinking about this. No gas company was going to risk drilling in Pittsburgh. The hazards were far too great, the outcry too loud. 

Rural communities are a very different animal. Fewer people, more bribable old boy township boards and county structure--lots of sparsely populated land. Our lives just don't rate as highly--and so it is doubly important for communities to band together.

But that is precisely what raises the first set of questions I have posed here.

Put differently: many issues lend themselves to a community rights approach. But some--and especially where the issues have global consequences--are not as obvious a fit. 

Any industry as intimately connected to the emission of greenhouse gasses is one. The reason why is because what one community does in choosing for any bit of gas infrastructure contributes to climate change. 

In other words, it's a fairly easy thing to stand up for the rights of one's own community. It's a far harder thing to see the implications of one's community for the global community. 

A collection of independent communities, each with their own charters no matter how humane and thoughtful, does not necessarily make a sustainable--much less desirable--future for the planet.