The letter initiates the process of broadening the Patriot Act and domestic terrorism laws to target individuals who resist fossil fuel infrastructure. However, the accusation of terrorism is based on a misrepresentation, as violence against human beings has never been a part of the climate movement’s agenda. The only violent reference cited in the letter is a misinterpretation of a letter to the editor published in a local newspaper in Boulder, Colorado. This attempt to defame the climate movement and suppress dissent is unfounded and seeks to undermine free speech.

Contrary to the claims made by the fossil fuel industry-backed Representatives, anti-pipeline activists have not engaged in violent acts such as burning holes in active pipelines or tampering with pipeline pump stations. The climate movement has consistently employed nonviolent tactics, including marches, disruptions of fossil fuel infrastructure construction, and blockades of coal trains and ships, with the aim of protecting life and averting climate catastrophe.

The letter’s proponents, influenced by significant financial contributions from the fossil fuel industry, prioritize short-term profits over addressing the urgent threat of climate change. Representative Ken Buck (R-CO), who initiated the letter, received substantial campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry during his 2016 re-election campaign. If successful, the expansion of domestic terrorism laws could lead to activists facing life imprisonment under “terrorist enhancement” labels, subjecting them to conditions tantamount to torture.

It is imperative to resist this legislative agenda that seeks to persecute activists and stifle dissent. The United States government’s close ties to the fossil fuel industry, coupled with its failure to adequately address climate change, highlight the urgent need for grassroots movements and nonviolent direct action to effect meaningful change. With traditional avenues of legislative advocacy compromised by industry influence, activists must look to alternative strategies to reclaim government accountability and ensure a just and livable future for all.

The post Fossil Fuel Congress Asks Jeff Sessions To Label Climate Action “Terrorism” appeared first on Timdechristopher.

There are many reasons not to listen to such activists. First, young people tend to have unreliable views on relevant strategy because they are young. This means that they have minimal life experience and are therefore prone to biased perceptions: they have a poor understanding of whether an event is unusual or not. A spike in oil prices or extreme weather will seem much more significant – and scary – to them than to those with decades of experience.

Secondly, young people are less likely to be taxpayers and/or have lower tax rates, so they don’t consider the cost of their proposals. I recall a case many years ago when an anti-nuclear activist, noting a study that suggested that closing all U.S. nuclear power plants would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, said he was willing to pay it. Needless to say, he did not pull out his checkbook:

In addition, there are single-issue activists for oil companies, usually environmentalists. Their position is usually (but not always) driven by environmental factors and environmental factors alone. They do not care about the cost of the proposal or its impact on the company’s operations and profits. True, it’s not their job, but it is the company’s job to have a more comprehensive view of costs and benefits.

This shortcoming is similar to the attitude of those who propose, for example, mandates for the purchase of technology or fuel. Their sole purpose is to promote a technology like electric cars, not to reduce emissions, and using mandates hides their costs.
A few years ago, when I pointed out that California’s zero-emission vehicle requirements in the 1990s were a failure, an environmentalist on the panel pointed out that at least it advanced the technology. Except that the technology being considered then was not state-of-the-art; companies like GM that developed electric vehicles lost all their money and learned very little that is applicable to the current generation of electric vehicles.

The post Oil companies should listen to activists, but with skepticism appeared first on Timdechristopher.

The extraction and transportation of oil can lead to irreversible spills. These spills damage surrounding ecosystems, destroying biodiversity and livelihoods of fenced communities and contaminating drinking water.

Coal mining and fracking produce toxic waste that is known to contaminate water. 

Every year, hundreds of oil spills irreversibly damage the Niger Delta, caused by old and poorly maintained pipelines or criminal activities such as oil theft. Mining operators are unable to clean up these spills, allowing them to continue their devastating impact on the fields, forests and fisheries on which most people in the region depend for food and livelihood. 

The process of fossil fuel production takes up a lot of space, from wells, pipelines and roads to processing and waste management facilities. In many cases, people are forcibly removed from their homes so that companies can extract and produce fossil fuels.

Indigenous peoples are particularly and disproportionately affected by land grabs, as most fossil fuel residues are located on their land. In most cases, the livelihoods and cultural identities of these communities are uniquely linked to their land and natural environment. These cultural connections are threatened by the continued use and extraction of fossil fuels.

The post How do fossil fuels harm our water, land and livelihoods? appeared first on Timdechristopher.

“We are in Monte Carlo, one of the richest places in the world, to make sure that a group of super-rich and powerful insurance companies do not exacerbate the hardships of some of the world’s poorest communities in the DRC,” said Irene. Wabiwa, International Project Manager for the Congo Basin at Greenpeace Africa.

Activists disrupted the conference to call on the insurance industry to stop supporting the climate crisis. Oil companies want to drill in Congo’s rainforests, destroying communities and biodiversity, and insurance companies should not support them.

The DRC does not have the national capacity to provide insurance for oil exploration and the high risks it entails. As a result, companies that win exploration rights in tenders for DRC oil blocks will likely rely on the services of some of the world’s largest insurance and reinsurance companies, mostly based in Europe and North America.

In July 2022, the DRC announced tenders for exploration rights to 30 oil and gas blocks. 13 of these oil blocks are located in protected areas and national parks, including the Virunga National Park, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, despite the promises of the DRC’s Minister of Hydrocarbons, Didier Budimba.

Most importantly, oil tenders in the DRC do not respect the free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) of indigenous peoples and local communities inhabiting the territories whose exploration rights are being auctioned. Greenpeace Africa forest activists visited eight oil blocks. They found that local communities “were all shocked at the prospect of their land being auctioned off to oil companies,” and follow-up visits a year later revealed growing opposition to the tenders.

The post Greenpeace in Monte Carlo: activists protest against insurance companies’ support for oil development appeared first on Timdechristopher.

The action aimed to draw attention to how projects like the West Roxbury Lateral contribute to deadly global climate change by further entrenching reliance on fossil fuels. As evidence mounts regarding the high rates of leaked methane from fracking and gas pipelines, the climate movement has intensified its resistance to new fracked gas projects.

Among those lying in the trench was Karenna Gore, director of the Center for Earth Ethics at Union Theological Seminary and daughter of former Vice President Al Gore. Also participating was Tim DeChristopher, known as Bidder 70 for disrupting a government oil and gas lease auction in 2008, resulting in 21 months of federal prison.

“This pipeline trench is our anticipatory mass grave in the age of climate crisis,” stated Tim DeChristopher during a speech before his arrest.

Many of the clergy involved had previously taken action on May 25, when 16 faith leaders led a prayer service at the pipeline trench, resulting in arrests for trespassing and disturbing the peace.

“As religious leaders, we are compelled to take bold non-violent action in the face of climate crisis,” said Rabbi Shoshana Meira Friedman of Temple Sinai.

Despite opposition from Boston city officials, including Mayor Marty Walsh, and federal representatives, construction of the West Roxbury Lateral pipeline continues under authorization from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Concerned citizens, represented by Resist the Pipeline & Stop the West Roxbury Lateral (SWRL), are attempting to halt construction before it reaches the Metering and Regulating station, located near the West Roxbury Crushed Stone Co. quarry. Residents are concerned about the seismic impact of both the pipeline and quarry blasts on their homes and safety.

The ongoing resistance underscores the urgent need to transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy sources to mitigate the impacts of climate change and protect communities from environmental hazards.

The post Press Release: Symbolic Climate Mass Grave Funeral to #StopSpectra appeared first on Timdechristopher.

During the jury selection process, it became evident that many potential jurors had received pamphlets from the Fully Informed Jurors Association, discussing jurors’ rights to use their consciences when making decisions. This revelation sparked panic from the lead prosecutor, who demanded a mistrial, fearing that jurors might exercise their rights to disagree with the government’s stance.

The lead prosecutor’s reaction highlighted the fear of empowered citizens within the legal system. Despite the government’s confidence in securing a conviction in the case, the prosecutor was unnerved by the prospect of jurors asserting their moral agency. This fear was compounded by the judge’s instructions to potential jurors, emphasizing obedience to legal instructions over moral considerations.

The prosecutor’s apprehension subsided once the potential jurors reaffirmed their willingness to follow legal instructions, even if they believed them to be morally wrong. This demonstrated how individuals could relinquish their moral agency in deference to authority figures, paving the way for convictions that may go against their personal beliefs.

Obama’s appointment of John Huber as US Attorney for Utah raises concerns about the government’s stance on citizen empowerment and dissent. Huber’s philosophy of being the “hammer” instead of the “nail” reflects a troubling trend toward authoritarianism within the legal system.

The broader implications of Huber’s appointment extend beyond partisan politics, highlighting the erosion of democratic principles and the marginalization of citizen voices in the legal process. As climate chaos looms and societal tensions escalate, the need for engaged and empowered citizens becomes more critical than ever.

Ultimately, the power of solidarity and moral agency among citizens remains a potent force against authoritarianism and injustice. Huber’s appointment serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggle for democratic values and the importance of preserving citizens’ rights to dissent and conscience.

The post John Huber, Obama’s New Hammer appeared first on Timdechristopher.

I am personally looking forward to presenting our case to a jury comprised of ordinary citizens who will have the opportunity to assess whether our actions were justified. We believe that our government has failed to adequately address the threat posed by Spectra’s activities in West Roxbury and their detrimental impact on our global climate. Despite opposition from every elected official representing West Roxbury, the project has proceeded, compelling us to engage in civil disobedience to safeguard our communities.

The excavation taking place is not merely for a pipeline trench; it symbolizes a mass grave. In an era marked by the anticipation of mass graves, we recognize that each new fossil fuel project commits us to burning fossil fuels for decades, leading to further devastation worldwide. Therefore, our resistance is a necessary response to protect both our local community and the planet as a whole.

The post Court Appearance and Planning for Mass Grave 6 Trial appeared first on Timdechristopher.

Then, a decade ago, Hurricane Katrina provided that stark depiction in unmistakably human terms. The imagery that emerged was of black individuals stranded on rooftops. Given that marginalized communities, including poor and people of color, disproportionately bear the brunt of the climate crisis, this imagery is likely to remain an accurate representation of its human impact.

Yet, even after witnessing the human toll of climate change through the lens of Hurricane Katrina, our society failed to mobilize effectively to address the crisis and prevent the recurrence of such suffering. If climate change meant that black lives were at risk, then it seemed that black lives did not matter enough to prompt action. Undoubtedly, there are numerous barriers to galvanizing political and public will to combat climate change. However, the lesson from ten years ago was that one of these barriers is deeply ingrained racism in the United States.

For many in the predominantly white climate movement, Katrina served as a turning point towards a paradigm of climate justice and an acknowledgment of the link between the climate crisis and white supremacy. Katrina marked a pivotal moment in the grassroots shift from advocating for a cleaner, greener status quo to advocating for collective liberation from interconnected forms of oppression. With a crisis that disproportionately impacts marginalized communities and solutions that often challenge the interests of the wealthy and powerful, it became evident that fighting climate change necessitates simultaneously addressing other forms of injustice.

Over the past decade, the climate justice movement has made significant strides in forging relationships and alliances with other social justice movements. Admittedly, navigating these relationships has at times been challenging, given the historical dominance of white, middle-class perspectives within the environmental movement. Nevertheless, considerable progress has been achieved, particularly among younger activists. Many young climate activists reject single-issue environmentalism, viewing intersectional justice as foundational to their activism. The lesson learned from Katrina is clear: the path to climate justice intersects with racial justice.

The post A Lesson from Katrina appeared first on Timdechristopher.

In the event that the courts fail to uphold the people’s right to protect their community from corporate activities endangering their well-being, the newly enacted ordinance empowers individuals to enforce the Township’s Charter through nonviolent direct action. Moreover, the law explicitly shields participants in nonviolent direct action from facing criminal charges or civil actions initiated by private or public entities.

Stacy Long, a Supervisor in Grant Township, expressed frustration with corporations and regulatory agencies dismissing the community’s concerns about the proposed injection well. “We’re tired of being told that we can’t stop this injection well,” Long stated. “As elected officials, we are committed to safeguarding the health and safety of our Township residents, and we will do whatever it takes to resist threats posed by companies like PGE.”

The controversy surrounding the injection well dates back to 2013 when residents discovered PGE’s plans to obtain permits for the project. Despite opposition voiced through hearings, public comments, and permit appeals, the federal Environmental Protection Agency granted PGE a permit. In response, residents turned to the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) for assistance.

In June 2014, with strong community support, Grant Township passed a Community Bill of Rights ordinance drafted by CELDF, asserting rights to clean air and water, local community self-government, and the rights of nature. This ordinance effectively prohibited the proposed injection well as a violation of these rights. However, PGE promptly filed a lawsuit against the Township, claiming a “right” to inject within its boundaries.

Despite legal challenges, the Township remained steadfast in its commitment to protect its residents. In November 2015, residents voted to adopt a new Home Rule Charter, reinstating the ban on injection wells by a significant majority. CELDF has been instrumental in drafting the Charter and representing the Township in its ongoing legal battle with PGE.

Jon Perry, another Supervisor in Grant Township, emphasized the importance of community rights in the face of corporate interests. “Sides need to be picked,” Perry stated. “Should a polluting corporation have the right to inject toxic waste, or should a community have the right to protect itself?”

Support for Grant Township’s stance is growing, with individuals like Tim DeChristopher from the Climate Disobedience Center expressing solidarity. CELDF community organizer Chad Nicholson commended the Township for asserting its rights and standing up against unjust laws, drawing parallels to historical movements for justice and equality.

As the legal battle continues, Grant Township remains resolute in its determination to defend its community and its Charter, inviting others to stand alongside them in their fight against corporate encroachment.

The post PA Township Legalizes Civil Disobedience appeared first on Timdechristopher.

One fundamental problem with the promotion of nuclear power is the issue of democracy. While proponents argue that nuclear energy can be safely managed, the reality is that safety can be compromised to maximize corporate profits. Without robust government regulation and oversight, there is a significant risk of cutting corners that could lead to catastrophic consequences. Our current governing structures, influenced by corporate interests and lacking accountability, are ill-equipped to handle the responsibility of nuclear power.

Moreover, local democracy is crucial in discussions about nuclear power. The regulatory hurdles and safety standards in place rightly pose challenges to the rapid expansion of nuclear energy. Fast-tracking new nuclear plants would trample on the rights of communities, particularly those already marginalized. It is often the most vulnerable communities that bear the brunt of the negative impacts of nuclear energy, from uranium mining to waste storage. Unlike solar energy, which can be decentralized and integrated into communities, nuclear power plants require massive disruption and displacement.

Contrary to claims that nuclear power lacks subsidies, historical data reveals substantial government support for the industry. Large subsidies, such as the $8.3 billion given to a single nuclear plant in Georgia in 2010, highlight the significant financial backing nuclear energy receives. Despite these subsidies, nuclear growth has remained stagnant for decades, underscoring the flawed economic model of centralized energy production.

Additionally, discussions about nuclear power cannot be divorced from the crisis of income inequality. Nuclear energy perpetuates a centralized economic model similar to the fossil fuel industry, concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a few. Unlike renewables, which decentralize energy production and empower communities, nuclear power reinforces existing inequalities.

Furthermore, in the context of climate change, relying solely on nuclear power is risky. As climate uncertainty increases, diversity in energy sources becomes crucial for resilience. Nuclear power’s massive upfront investment and long-term management requirements make it a precarious bet in an unpredictable future. With rising sea levels and water shortages exacerbated by climate change, the feasibility of nuclear power near shorelines or inland is questionable.

Ultimately, realistic solutions to the climate crisis require acknowledging the limitations of our current consumption patterns and rejecting the notion of techno-fixes as a panacea. Instead of gambling with high-risk nuclear energy, we must prioritize sustainable and diversified energy sources while addressing systemic issues of inequality and corporate influence in governance.

The post Nuclear Is Not the Answer appeared first on Timdechristopher.