Activism Today Issue 3

ACTIVISM TODAYInsight into the Environmental Movement

SPRING 2014WORLDWIDE

Frack FreeOpposition grows to shale gas drilling in UK

DEATH OF JAPAN?Who should really be worried about the Fukushima nuclear disaster?

Message for Big Coal in Australia

Blocking a fossil fuel bonanza?

Has it got a future?

Britain & Ireland Frack Free protestors

CANADIAN FIRST NATIONS

IDLE NO MORE

China’s activist artist is peeved

5 Bummer Problems for Societies

Activists like Vanessa Vine, left, are fighting against fracking in Britain’s green and pleasant land

DEATH OF JAPAN?Who should really fear the fallout from the Fukushima nuclear disaster?

Fighting for a Frack Free UK

CONTENTS

Photos: Frack Free Sussex, Britain & Ireland Frack Free, L’Oeil Etranger, Strassenstriche

14

52

A C T I V I S M T O D A Y S P R I N G 2 0 1 4

4 EDITORIALCreeping Clampdown

6 PEOPLE IN THE NEWS

14 Keeping the UK Frack FreeOpposition grows to shale gas drilling

20 This is How to Send a Message to Big Coal

26 Feather and DrumAre Canada’s First Nations threatening the country’s $600 billion fossil fuel bonanza?

32 Is There a Future for Idle No More?

38 Five Bummer Problems that Make Societies Collapse

40 Maya People of Sipacapa Issue International Call for Solidarity Against Goldcorp

42 Sustainability is Destroying the Earth

46 When the Lights Go Out, Imagine Justice

52 Death of Japan?Who should really fear the fallout from the Fukushima nuclear disaster?

62 Choices Photospread

26

20

46

10

EDITORIAL

You know there is something wrong with the US legal system when too much glitter on a

protest banner could get you thrown in jail. That was the case for two anti-fracking activists who hung a red Hunger Games-style banner from the second floor balcony of the office of Devon Energy in Oklahoma in an action in December. Both were charged with a “terrorism hoax,” punishable by up to 10 years in jail. The problem? They’d put too much glitter on their banner and when the banner unrolled, some glitter fell to the floor. Police said they were being detained because they needed to “investigate the substance.”

Suffice to say, it is bad news for non-violent environmental protestors to be charged with anything related to “terrorism” in Oklahoma City, given the shocking 1995 terrorist bombing that killed 168 people, one of the worst acts of terrorism carried out on US soil.

But were the police serious? They were. A lawyer for the pro-testors told a journalist covering the story that he had been expect-ing this “escalation of sensitivity” by the authorities. When popular movements that challenge the power structure gain momentum, the government ups the ante as they try to squash the move-ments, he explains. It is all part of a largely unnoticed, creeping clampdown that is catching peo-ple unawares. The 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US provided the industrial complexes on both

sides of the Atlantic the excuse they needed to use the “threat to security” to tighten their grip on power in the name of profit and endless economic growth.

This will sound alarmist, more like a throwback to George Orwell’s fictional classic, “1984,” than modern-day reality in this increasingly connected and open world, one in which democracy, not dictatorship, is all the rage.

But look closely and the cracks in the façade will begin to appear. As the environmental protest movement builds in the US and around the world, civil liberties are being lost, part of a growing imposition of control by the state, including the militariza-tion of the police and the inva-sion of privacy, as seen recently in the NSA phone and computer-tapping scandal, all under the excuse of US national security.

And it is not just the US govern-ment that has ramped up the rules. In most countries, the “op-portunity” presented by “fighting terrorism” has given governments a chance to tighten control over the population. It has been seized upon in the name of security and a terrorism deterrent, typically masking the insidious patronage of politicians by major compa-nies, including the fossil fuel and agricultural giants.

Environmentalists are now in the crosshairs of govern-ments that support multinational companies, the latter in effect the new bosses on the local, national and international scene, though critics have warned of the threat for decades. Spilling glitter, block-ing a road, holding a sit-in, or staging a flash mob demo can get you arrested and charged, often with a sizable bail penalty. Utah

Creeping ClampdownSPRING 2014

The police are increasingly looking like and acting like soldiers - US police officers on a mission.

CREDITGeneration Alpha

4

EDITORIAL

A C T I V I S M T O D A Y

activist Tim DeChristopher was put away for two years for the non-violent act of civil disobedi-ence in disrupting an oil and gas land auction in 2008.

The gloves are off and govern-ments and companies are fighting for profits and maintenance of the status quo. None of this fits the picture of what many people en-visage a free and fair democracy should look like, or, in the case of the US, what the country’s found-ing fathers had in mind over 300 years ago. And for the growing movement of people who seek a more environmentally-friendly way to live on this planet, this nightmarish mix of business and state is tough to challenge. It is a major struggle to stop environ-mental destruction, pollution, and the trampling of people’s rights under these tightening regimes.

Politicians typically answer to big companies, not the people, and the people’s space to act is shrinking. Mainstream po-litical parties – often hard to tell apart - typically offer lip-service to environmental issues and if governments have a ministry of environment, much of the time the minister will be working, not to protect the environment, but to help companies exploit the environment and skirt environ-mental controls, as notably seen in Australia and the UK.

Luckily, through the efforts of activists, advocates and a growing movement of concerned people, small victories are to be had in the battle to protect the environ-ment and people’s health. But this will not be enough, nor will the “greenwashing” of what is in effect “business as usual” take the movement far enough to effect the change needed to seriously tackle the causes of man-made climate change and the pollution and devastation of the planet. For a paradigm shift in how Man interacts with the Earth to take place, the governing and electoral systems will have to be changed.

For democracies in the US, Canada, UK and Australia, this means a government for the people, by the people, with safeguards to prevent political campaign funding by big business, the stripping of “person-hood” and special privileges from companies, and a radical change in how we live.

“Politics as usual” will not do. Many environmental campaigners are calling for an end to major com-panies undermining democracy by funding politicians and their political parties. There is grow-ing recognition that much of the increasing infrastructure of what is in effect a “police state,” includ-ing military armored personnel carriers and policemen kitted out as soldiers, is actually unneeded. The “terrorist threat” is heavily overplayed, a mask to allow govern-ments to claim they are fighting a war on home turf.

Environmentalists, campaigners and activists who are aware of the dangers realize that the necessary change will not come easily. And one of the first steps will be one of the hardest – waking up the people to the threat in their midst. Far too many people – the vast major-ity – do not recognize just how serious the situation has become. A movement to protect the Earth does not need everybody on board. But it needs far more people than are waving placards and hanging glittery banners at the moment.

The Spring 2014 edition of Activism Today is the third in an occasional series on environmental and social activism today, made available online. It is published by Earth Tribe Media, a UK-registered non-profit NGO that runs Earth Tribe – Activist News (www.earthtribe.co) and its Facebook

Page (www.facebook.com/environmentalactivism) covering issues concerning the environment and activism around the world. Activism

Today has a website at www.activismtoday.co. This magazine is available online for free by signing up for the free Earth Tribe – Activist News

Newsletter. Our email is [email protected]

UNDER ARREST - Activist Stefan Warner gets taken in by police over “suspicious” glitter on his protest banner, above

SPRING 2014 5

Canadian rock singer Neil Young took to the road in January on a Canada concert

tour to highlight the rights of the First Nations and the horror of the tar sands mining in Alberta.

Young visited the Athabasca Chipewyan last summer, and saw the devastation of their land, water, and wildlife with his own eyes. That is why he set out to raise money for the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation’s legal challenge against the tar sands mining in Alberta, one of the only viable options to slow or stop the growth of these mega-projects. The fundraising tour supported the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN) and its fight against Shell Canada’s Jackpine mine, approved by regulators in December, as well as other First Nations fighting oilsands projects.

Young’s comments during the “Honour the Treaties” tour gained a lot of media coverage and Canadian

PM Stephen Harper and representa-tives of oil companies hit back with criticism.

Young had this to say:

“As to the thousands of hard work-ing Canadians, we have respect for all working people. The quandary we face is the job they are working on. They are digging a hole that our grandchildren will have great trouble digging their way out of. By that we mean Climate Change, the result of too much CO2 in the atmosphere There are better jobs to be developing, with clean energy source industries to help make the world a safer place for our grandchildren.

“The oil sands projects are among the very dirtiest on earth. Per day, the oils sands operations produce as much CO2 as all the cars in Canada. While every gallon of gasoline from the cleanest oil sources produces 19.5 LBS of CO2, Alberta oil sands derived

gasoline produces up to three times as much CO2 because of the inefficient methods used, potentially bringing the total CO2 per gallon to almost 60 LBS. This oil is going not to Canada, but to China where the air quality has been measured at 30 times the levels of safety established by the World Health Organization. Is that what Canada is all about?

“As a Canadian citizen, I am concerned that this government is not acting within the advice of science.When people say one thing and do another, it is hypocrisy. Our Canadian environmental laws don’t matter if they are broken.”

As the NGO 350.org put it: “Thanks to Neil’s concerts …, the media’s attention is finally on the reality of tar sands impacts, and his message is reaching ordinary Canadians across the country.”

Neil Young’s tar sands message

PEOPLE IN THE NEWS

SPRING 2014

SPRING 20146

PEOPLE IN THE NEWS

It wasn’t supposed to happen this way. Animal welfare activist Taylor Radiq went to

work at a cattle rearing com-pany in Colorado in order to investigate what the nonprofit organization “Compassion Over Killing” suspected was ill-treatment of the animals. She covertly filmed calves, some so young they still had umbilical cords attached, being kicked, thrown, and slammed onto trucks. After the video footage was released in November 2013 by the NGO, criminal charges were filed against three men shown abusing the animals.The kicker was what happened next. The local Sherriff ’s depart-ment filed additional charges against Radiq.

As the police said in a press release: “The video footage was eventually provided to law enforcement by representatives of Compassion Over Killing approximately 2 months after Radig’s employment ended with Quanah Cattle Company… Ra-dig’s failure to report the alleged abuse of the animals in a timely manner adheres to the defini-tion of acting with negligence and substantiates the charge Animal Cruelty.” Radig was also accused of participating in the abuse.

Compassion Over Killing said in a statement that the prosecution was retaliatory: “The charge against our investi-gator is unsupported by the law and it reeks of political motiva-tion fueled by an agribusiness industry that is once again lashing out in desperation to stop undercover investigators from exposing the truth.” The

prosecution of a whistleblower who exposed animal cruelty in this way is unprecedented.

For those who have been carefully following the attempts by the agriculture industry to cover up bad practice, it is clear Big Ag is on the warpath against activists, campaigning heavily for “ag-gag” laws that make it illegal to photograph or video-tape animal abuse on factory farms. One woman in Utah last year faced charges, eventually dropped, of filming a slaughter-house from a public street.Luckily for Radiq, media cover-age and a 200,000-strong peti-tion appear to have led prosecu-tors to come to their senses.

According to a statement from the prosecutors: “While the Sheriff ’s Office determined that probable cause existed to believe that Ms. Radig com-mitted that offense, the District Attorney’s Office evaluates a case based on whether the charges can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The District Attorney’s Office has concluded that the charges can’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore those charges have been dismissed against Ms. Radig.”

As journalist and author Will Potter says, the announce-ment is another defeat for Big Ag groups, which have at-tempted to criminalize similar investigations. “Ag-gag” bills were defeated in every state they were introduced last year. And the first ag-gag prosecu-tion was also dismissed after public outrage. More bills are already appearing, though, he adds.

Taylor Radiq and animal abuse charges

Compassion Over Killing said in a statement that the prosecution was retaliatory: “The charge against our investigator is unsupported by the law and it reeks of political motivation fueled by an agribusiness industry that is once again lashing out in desperation to stop undercover investigators from exposing the truth.”

Taylor Radiq

SPRING 2014

SPRING 2014 7

It’s a lonely retreat, a strange-looking red-painted wooden treehouse, just 14 meters square, suspended 50 meters above the ground in a Mountain Ash tree.

Hannah Patchett, 20, has taken up residence in what is called the Little Red Toolangi Treehouse in Toolangi state forest, 60 kilometers from the heart of Melbourne, Australia.

The view from the Treehouse is at once impressive and sobering: rolling, forested hills, rainforest gullies, and the pockmarks of clearfell logging coupes. From her treetop perch, Hannah is calling for an end to clearfell logging in forests known to contain Leadbeater’s Pos-sum. Her plea for the state government to take real action to rescue the Leadbeater’s Possum from extinc-tion echoes the findings of 30 years of research by global expert on the species, Professor David Lindenmayer.As Hannah wrote in a column in the Guardian newspa-per:

“My view from the Little Red Toolangi Treehouse is at once awe-inspiring and sobering. I am suspended 25

metres above ground from a sturdy Mountain Ash tree that reaches skywards. Eagles soar above, ants march the branches that hold my treehouse, lyrebirds scratch in the ferns below.

“The treetop hollows of this forest are home to the tiny, notoriously shy leadbeater’s possum – Victoria’s animal emblem. So daintily does this rare creature run amongst the treetops, it is also known as the fairy pos-sum. These trees are still among the tallest in the world, growing on the spine of the Great Dividing Range with deep, fertile soils and moderate rainfall, and only 60kms from Melbourne. It was in 1974, not far from here , that the tallest tree on record was found. It was a Mountain Ash that measured a whopping 152m in height. Little wonder Toolangi means “the place of tall trees”.

“That these forests are still being clearfell logged for woodchips is a tragedy. So I’ve begun my vigil in the Little Red Toolangi Treehouse because real action must be taken to protect these forests.”

Tree house vigil Hannah Patchett

PEOPLE IN THE NEWS SPRING 20148

On December 3, 2013 the Willis Resilience Expedition de-parted from the Ross Ice Shelf

in Antarctica with two goals: to test the limits of resilience in the face of adversity and to help understand our changing world. Nineteen-year-old Parker Liautaud trekked 640 kilome-ters pulling a sledge from the coast of Antarctica to the South Pole and set a new world record, the youngest person to ski to the South Pole and the fastest ever unsupported.

He and the team arrived at the pole on Christmas Eve.

During the Expedition, Parker, his walking partner Doug Stoup, and his team conducted scientific research, taking snow samples, aimed at explor-ing the impact of climate change. He and his teammate covered 314 miles to the bottom of the world pulling sleds weighing in excess of 80 kilograms over ice and snow, across the trans-Antarctic mountain range, through blizzards and mist in tem-peratures as low as minus 50 degrees Celsius.

The expedition had three scientific research programs, one of which was to study the deposition rate of Tritium, a radioactive isotope of Hydrogen, across Antarctica. The data collected will be used to better understand the global water cycle, which is important to unraveling the mysteries of climate change. Liautaud and Stoup’s data will show the variability of isotope compo-sition in precipitation across Antarc-

tica and the samples they provided came from ice that has not yet been researched.

The half-French, half-American teenager has done three expeditions to the North Pole since turning 15 years old, according to the Willis Re-silience Expedition. His expeditions aim to draw attention to the immedi-ate need for action to address climate change. Since 2011, Liautaud has also partnered with academic institutions to undertake climate research on each of his expeditions.

Liautaud works with like-minded organizations to promote awareness of the human implications of climate change. He is an ambassador for One Young World, an organization that gathers together young leaders from around the world, helping them make lasting connections to create posi-tive change, according to the Willis website.

With One Young World, Parker has shared the same stage as Kofi An-nan and Sir Bob Geldof, and he has addressed over 1,200 delegates from 190 countries (One Young World brings together the most countries of any gathering outside the Olympic Games). Liautaud has led several ini-tiatives with other One Young World Ambassadors.

Liautaud studies Geology and Geophysics at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut.

Teenager’s climate change South Pole walk

PEOPLE IN THE NEWSSPRING 2014

Parker Liautaud

9

Is artist Ai Weiwei China’s most dangerous man? You’d think so way he has been hounded, ar-

rested, jailed and pressured by the Chinese authorities over the decades. His recent social commentary has included criticism of the dire pollu-tion in Beijing and around China. Ai donned a gas mask for a photo-shoot in 2013 to make the point that something needs to be done to reduce pollution and protect the health of the people.

Fifty-five-year-old Ai lives in Cao-changdi, a village in suburban Beijing favored by artists, where he regularly greets visitors who come to pay hom-age to his vision of a better China, one where he can breathe easier and not be troubled by the smog.

In comments made recently to the Smithsonian magazine, Ai said that he remains astonished by his prominence. “The secret police told me everybody can see it but you, that you’re so influential. But I think [their behavior] makes me more influential.

They create me rather than solve the problems I raise.”

Ai has reason to be concerned by the pollution where he lives and across the country. Millions of Chi-nese suffer from pollution of the air, water and food, many dying an early death.

China has been pushing for eco-nomic growth, one way to stave off social discontent under a government averse to allowing democracy take root. But failing to deal successfully with the pollution threat has been sparking unrest, according to Dai Qing, a famous journalist. Over the last couple of years, there have been many public protests over pollution caused by industry in communities, including demonstrations against a petrochemical complex in Ningbo, and alleged lead poisoning in Xinzhi. There have also been a rash of media reports about so-called “cancer vil-lages,” where a large proportion of the village populations have been suffer-ing and dying from cancer.

Ai Weiwei upset by China’s pollution

Artist Ai Weiwei, left, with Tsering Woeser, a Tibetan activist and writer

Photo: Tsering Woeser

10

My name is Lance Talstra and I live in Mount Maunganui, New Zealand. Since the

second of October I have been walk-ing the length of my country, from north to south, via the Te Araroa Trail in order to raise awareness about the deterioration of our water quality. Along the way I have been talking to local people to ask them about their views on the subject.

What I have found is that the typical response reflects The Trien-nial Public Perceptions survey of New Zealand’s Environment. Journal-ist Rachel Young has reported that: “According to researchers at Lincoln University the 2013 survey found water-related issues were perceived to be the most important problem facing the environment. Respondents indicated that growth in produc-tion and consumption, as well as an intensification of activities including farming and forestry were putting increasing pressure on the environ-ment. Rivers, lakes, and groundwater were the worst-managed environ-ments mainly because of negative perceptions concerning the manage-ment of farm effluent and runoff. The survey, conducted by three Lincoln University lecturers of 2200 people, asked questions across a wide range of environmental categories including air quality, native plants and biodiver-sity. Report co-author Ken Hughey said water was the top issue for New Zealanders.”

New Zealand is known interna-tionally as a beautiful place with a clean green image. Unfortunately, the “100% Pure” brand that our government has been pushing for some years has little to do with our environmental credentials. During periods of rain, up to 60 percent of our monitored waterways are unsafe for swimming due to pollution. There are many sources of this pollution, including urban storm water and industrial point sources, but the vast majority is caused by intensive

agriculture. Over the last 20 years, increasing

dairy commodity prices have lead to a dramatic transformation of our farmland. Between 1996 and 2008, nearly 285,000 hectares of farmland was converted from sheep and beef into dairy; this trend is projected to continue. Modern dairy farming is very intensive and uses high levels of nutrients which end up in lowland waterways, causing algal build up which can toxify these eco systems making them unfit for recreational use and eventually, an unfit habitat for native aquatic species such as the long finned and short finned eel, and the kokopu. Other forms of pollution from this booming industry include sedimentary and pathogen pollution.

While dairy is a very important industry to New Zealand and the industry has taken important steps to combat pollution, increased conver-sion of land into dairy farms can

only lead to increased pollution and decreases in our water quality. In her report on nutrient pollution released in November 2013, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Jan Wright found that “the amount of nitrogen entering fresh water every year in virtually every region of the country will continue to rise”, meaning “generally worsening water quality - more blooms of algae and cyanobacteria, more streams trailing metres of brown slime, fewer stream insects and fish, and more wells and waterways exceeding nitrate toxicity limits.” This is sobering stuff. I am nearing the half way point of my jour-ney and I have learned a huge amount about this beautiful country so far but I feel that if we really want to claim a clean green image, New Zealand has a lot further to go.

Check out my adventures at: www.facebook.com/walkforwaterqualitynz

Lance Talstra’s ‘Walk for Water Quality’

PEOPLE IN THE NEWSSPRING 2014 11

The four founders of Idle No More were recently recognized by Foreign Policy magazine

“Global Thinkers” for their work in highlighting First Nations and environmental concerns in Canada. What began in late 2012 as “a flurry of emails among four Saskatchewan women grew into a robust grassroots movement,” according to the maga-zine.

The women—Jessica Gordon, Syl-via McAdam, Sheelah McLean, and Nina Wilson—were corresponding about a budget bill that would affect land management on the reservations of Canada’s indigenous communities, called First Nations. Believing the bill challenged First Nations’ sover-eignty and weakened environmental protections, they organized a meeting of local activists. Gordon called the

Facebook page that resulted from the meeting “Idle No More” as a reminder that the community had to “get off the couch and start working.”

Idle No More has grown quickly, tapping in to a vein of serious concern amongst the First Nations communi-ties in Canada over changes to their rights and protection of the land and waterways.

As Foreign Policy magazine said, “Solidarity demonstrations also oc-curred in the United States, Europe, and Australia. The protests in particu-lar targeted Canada’s extractive in-dustries, asserting that new pipelines and other projects would destroy land and disrupt ecosystems. One protest delayed exploratory drilling in British Columbia.”

Idle No More has done well in gaining support from people of many

creeds and colors, and their message has resonated with other indigenous and tribal groups around the world fighting to protect the land and way of life. Of course, it is not without its critics, and there are questions as to whether it can develop from anything more than a talking shop, an educa-tor, and an inspiration for flash mobs, round dances and placard-waving. (See “Is there a future for Idle No More?” by Aaron Paquette in this issue)

That said, the Idle No More movement has done much to help air critical issues facing First Nations and the threats to their land and the envi-ronment in a country facing serious problems from the fossil fuel industry, backed by the government.

PEOPLE IN THE NEWS SPRING 201412

Reporting on the environmental movement

Find us at www.earthtribe.co

No time to stand idly by

13

ACTIVISM TODAY SPRING 201414

Getting a handle on an environmental move-ment can be helped by zeroing in on a person who tries to speak for

that movement. When it comes to the fight against hydraulic fracturing or fracking in the UK, it might be tempt-ing to go for a celebrity, like Bianca Jagger, or pop singer Christie Hynde’s

daughter, who came to show support for the protest against exploratory drilling in the village of Balcome in Sussex last year.

But in a movement that has widened from the South Downs to the north of England, one face keeps cropping up – Vanessa Vine.

Vine is a teacher and lives four miles from the Balcome site subject

to drilling last year by Cuadrilla. She started the groups Frack Free Sussex and Britain & Ireland Frack Free (BIFF) and has become a vocal spokesperson for a movement that still has some way to go to gain traction amongst ordinary Britons who tend to be unaware of the potential dangers posed by fracking.

David Cameron’s Conservative

Keeping the UK Frack FreeOpposition grows to shale gas drilling

By Julian Gearing

People protesting plans to frack for gas in the UK. Photo: Britain & Ireland Frack Free

government has made a great deal of fuss over what they say is the energy windfall under the ground in the UK made possible by a drilling technique now made technically and financially viable. Many countries including the United States have been heavily exploiting hard-to-get gas and oil us-ing the fracking method that involves forcing a mix of water and chemicals deep underground to crack open rock, releasing the fossil fuel, which is then siphoned off.

TV clash

Vine has been out with the protes-tors at Barton Moss in the north of the country and has been making waves. In a Channel 4 TV News interview with Conservative MP Peter Lilley in the studio and Vine at the Barton Moss protest site in January, Vine expressed her outrage that the MP should boldly lie live on TV claiming fracking has been used for decades in the UK and that the process has seen “not a single person … poisoned by contaminated water.”

Lilley came off badly in the TV news report, if the responses on social media are anything to go by.

The Conservative MP, who is a member of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, and who has a stake in a fossil fuel company, has been trumpeting the UK govern-ment’s push for “energy independ-ence” through the use of natural gas that can be extracted through the fracking process. The government claims the extraction and use of such gas is less detrimental to the climate than other forms of fossil fuels. They have been attempting to sell the idea as a “bridging fuel” – between fossil fuels and so-called renewable energy options.

Slamming the anti-frackers

As Lilley wrote in an April 2013 article entitled, “The green spin of en-vironmental activists has skewed the fracking debate”, the aim of campaign-ers is to prevent the exploitation of fossil fuels.

“That is why they grotesquely

exaggerate the supposed environmen-tal risks of fracking. They claim it will lead to contamination of the water table, ‘earthquakes’ and methane com-ing out of your taps. In fact, fracking

is a tried-and-tested technology which has been used since the late Forties. Hydraulic fracturing, to give fracking its full name, simply involves pumping water under great pressure into shale

Vanessa Vine, right, on home

ground in Balcome, and below on the

screen, during her live TV

interview, replying to MP

Peter Lilley, seated

ACTIVISM TODAYSPRING 2014

People protesting plans to frack for gas in the UK. Photo: Britain & Ireland Frack Free

15

beds several kilometres underground until tiny fissures open up, which are then kept open by grains of sand so that the gas can flow out. Over 100,000 wells have been fracked in recent years. Not a single person has been poisoned by contaminated water, nor a single building damaged by the almost undetectable seismic tremors sometimes released. The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineer-ing concluded unequivocally that any ‘health, safety and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing… can be managed effectively in the UK as long as operational best practices are implemented and enforced’.”

Lilley writes off what he refers to as the “propaganda film, Gasland,” a documentary by Josh Fox on the fracking controversy in the United States, and suggests residents living near planned UK fracking sites might need a financial incentive. “So now we need to give those living in the areas where drilling may take place an incentive to look critically at environ-mentalist propaganda. A cut in their energy bills should do the trick,” he writes.

‘Activist loony’ accusation

Lilley, who vice chairman of Tethys Petroleum, a company seeking to frack in Central Asia, is less than complimentary about Vine, writing in response to her criticisms:

“Vanessa Vine is a shrill, scare-mongering environmental activ-ist loony, and her views should be entirely discounted.

“Like all ecofascists, who thought that global warming could be a lever to deindustrialise and depopulate the West, she is appalled at the prospect of her ostensible objective - lower CO2 - being met by gas. Lowering CO2 was never the agenda, it was always the stalking horse. If shale gas eliminates CO2, then nutters like Vanessa want to eliminate shale gas.

“Ecofascism kills people, especially

poor people, old people and children. And its adherents could not care less.”

Look at the dark side

As the debate heats up in the UK, Vine and a growing number of ordinary people have been rallying together to stress their opposition to fracking and wake up the British public, many of whom are unaware of the potential dangers.

Many people in the United States have been reflecting on the dark side of the industry for years. In a story for Salon magazine, Ellen Cantarow, dis-

cusses a host of negatives surrounding the fracking industry. In the story she points to Cornell University’s Anthony Ingraffea, the co-author of a study that established the global warming footprint of the industry, claiming fracking “involves much more than drill-the-well-frack-the-well-connect-the-pipeline-and-go-away.” Almost all other fossil fuel extraction indus-tries “occur in a zoned industrial area, inside of buildings, separated from home and farm, separated from schools.” By contrast, the industry spawned by fracking “permits the oil and gas industries to establish [their

No age limit to the protestors


CREDIT Peter Yankowski

infrastructures] next to where we live. They are imposing on us the require-ment to locate our homes, hospitals, and schools inside their industrial space.”

As Cantarow points out, wells, flanked by batteries of vats, tanks, and diesel trucks, often stand less than a mile from homes. So do compres-sor stations that condense gas for its long journey through pipelines, and which are known to emit carcinogens and neurotoxins. Radioactive waste (spewed up in fracking flow-back and drill cuttings) gets dumped on roads and in ordinary waste sites. Liqui-fied natural gas (LNG) terminals that move this energy source for export are a constant danger due to explosions, fires, spills, and leaks. Every part of the fracking colossus, it seems, has its rap sheet of potential environmental and public health harms.

UK nightmare

As Vine told the Guardian newspaper, many people in the UK were highly concerned. “This un-conventional fossil fuel technology is damaging to communities, human health and wild ecology at every turn. The impact on road infrastructure will be a nightmare and – if allowed to continue to production stage – the methane flaring will emit dangerous particulates into the air that will ad-versely affect people living nearby and the methane leakage will contribute dreadfully to greenhouse emissions.”

She told the newspaper: “If permission is given for Cuadrilla to recommence operation in Balcombe, their shareholders will come to regret it bitterly and wish they had invested wholly in safe renewable energy technologies instead. People have had enough of being lied to and told that international frack dealers have our communities’ best interests at heart.”

As the NGO BIFF that Vine runs has made clear: “High volume hydrau-lic fracturing has only happened in the

Activist “Tigger” locked to a caravan in order to block access to the Balcome fracking site. CREDIT BIFF

ACTIVISM TODAYSPRING 2014 17

CREDIT Peter Yankowski

UK at one location. (Prime Minister) David Cameron, Michael Fallon, Peter Lilley and all the other MPs frequently state that fracking has been used at ‘200 locations’ around the UK. This is a misleading statement.”

In a written response to Lilley’s story in the Daily Telegraph, Vine had this to say:

“I am in personal contact with many people in Pennsylvania, Queensland, Alberta and elsewhere who are suffering dreadfully from the direct effects of the ecocidal frack-ing industry. Livestock is sick, pets are dying. Frack field workers are developing potentially lethal silicosis in their lungs from the silica sands he posits as innocuous. All he has to do is read “The List of The Harmed” from the Pennsylvania Clean Air and Water Alliance.”

She explained that over 1,500 families in the US have detailed the devastating ill-health effects they are suffering, and the numbers of people with a bad story to tell continue to grow.

Dumping waste

She took MP Lilley to task for his inaccurate portrayal of the situation:

“High volume, horizontal, slickwa-ter hydrofracking has not been going on for decades. It is a relatively new and insidious process which wastes vast quantities of water we cannot afford to lose and produces huge quantities of fluid contaminated with carcinogenic toluene, benzene, hydro-chloric acid et al., and with radionu-clides that have been both released and introduced. Some of this toxic and radioactive effluent has already been dumped - with Environment Agency sanction - in the Manchester Ship Canal.”

Water supplies, which are already under pressure, will face serious problem.

“One does not have to be a hydro-geologist to infer the stark implica-tions of what happens when this stuff leaks into aquifers, reservoirs and wild water courses - which it will if we let the shale gas and coal bed methane industry take hold in this country. It

cannot provide a magical employment panacea for Britain. The work is spe-cialised and bores are not drilled for long. Workers are moved on - while the wells are left to leak ad infinitum.”

Given the misinformation spread by the oil and gas industry over Gas-land documentary producer Josh Fox, she said he had not remotely been discredited. “As detailed in ‘The Sky is Pink’, (a follow-up documentary) the whole biogenic methane argu-ment has been manipulated beyond belief by the industry and those politicians whose interests are vested in it. Gasland stands as testimony for the future political legacy of people like Peter Lilley, whose citing of the industry-funded Fracknation movie as a credible authority, has finally and unequivocally shown him to be utterly unfit for office.”

She expressed her concern about

his influential position as a member of the Energy and Climate Change Com-mittee, which she said was “frankly deeply disturbing”.

The ‘costs’ far too high

As Charles Metcalfe of Balcome, site of Cuadrilla’s exploratory site, wrote in a comment in the Daily Telegraph in response to MP Lilley’s assertion that people living in villages in the southern countryside will sup-port fracking because of a reduction in their energy bills, the costs are far too high.

“We are faced with the prospect of uninsurable homes, an industrialised countryside dotted with wells, convoys of giant water transporters breaking up entirely unsuitable rural roads, and the real possibility of seismic events such as earthquakes, polluted water


and toxic fumes from drill-site flares,” Metcalfe writes.

“Will a few pence off our gas bills compensate for the loss of the beauti-ful Weald environment, a collapse in the value of our homes and health-threatening pollution from air and water?”

As Tony Bosworth of Friends of the Earth put it, in response to the controversy: “Shale gas is a fossil fuel. We already have enough known re-serves of gas to last the world for 120 years. If we want to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, we can only burn part of that – so why look for more?

“Instead of gambling with shale gas, we should be building a safe and affordable power system based on clean energy from the wind, waves and sun.”

Vanessa Vine addressing a meeting in Brussells on the dangers of fracking, above. Fracking drills, right, are al-ready arriving in the UK. The protests are spreading, left


This is how to send a message to Big Coal

By Ben Pennings, Generation Alpha


Big Coal? We’re talking the biggest. The Galilee Basin is the biggest proposed coal complex in the world. The numbers are staggering, frightening, well past the point of

insanity.The great news is that the nine mines planned

are very marginal economically. The ‘quality’ of coal is low, the price of coal is low, and the debt levels of many companies involved are high. However, a company called Aurizon is planning to bail out the debt-ridden company GVK, al-lowing them to dig up the first two mines. These mines alone would be responsible for carbon pollution six times that of the UK.

A broad cross-section of the mainstream en-vironment movement have signaled their inten-tions towards Aurizon, but thus far been pretty much ignored. Millions of emails have gone unheard. Aurizon continues unabated towards investing billions to mine the Galilee Basin, before solar makes it completely economically unviable.

The Over Our Dead Bodies campaign is adding a new dimension to the decision-making processes of Aurizon, and has garnered signifi-cant interest from both the company and police. Aurizon now face sustained direct action and civil disobedience strategies, on top of the in-creasing pressure from mainstream groups. The campaign is blatantly honest, starting to docu-ment the number of activists in Australia and globally who will do whatever it takes to stop Aurizon.


“Over Our Dead Bodies” activists deliver a message to the company lined up to transport coal.

21

Activists started the campaign by stealing a ‘carbon bomb’ from their offices, visiting the CEO’s mansion (twice) and messing with their foot-ball sponsorship. All in one week-end. While also hunger striking! But the real deal is still to come.

How can activists be honest with Aurizon about what may be on the way? Go along to their AGM of course! I was one of twelve activists who bought enough shares to attend and ask questions that were not the usual fare. For the first time in AGM

history (as far as we know), activ-ists asked audacious questions to directly challenge a company about the security, insurance, industrial action and recruitment costs related to direct action by environmental ac-tivists – providing an honest warning to shareholders of risks the company has thus far refused to disclose.

A multi-organisation protest was also held outside the AGM venue. Police inside and outside the AGM outnumbered protesters two to one – uniformed, plain clothes,

photographers and high-ranking officers. Walking from our brief-ing to the venue, the anti-terrorism police made their presence known, greeting me by name. As did other officers throughout the morning. Nice to be loved! Here’s one of the anti-terrorism police ‘Aaron’ (real name is Bruce) talking to an activist on the day.

Activists know they can’t stop Aurizon’s plans through appealing to their ethics or values. Those who have tried have failed. The chair of


A “carbon bomb” - what Aurizon will be delivering if it goes ahead with plans to transport coal.

22

the board John Prescott con-firmed this belief when answer-ing the first question:

“The fundamental business of this company is transportation, the majority of it by heavy haul rail systems, and a key part of that is certainly the carriage of coal… it is a fundamental part of this company’s business to carry coal for interested customers. It is a perfectly legitimate activity and it is one that to withdraw from would not be in the inter-est of shareholders, customers, employees, and the communities in which we serve.” He also admitted to shareholders in this first exchange that Aurizon “have not made any estimates” when asked about the costs of activism by organisations with many millions of members. This is an important admission but the point needed to be laboured. The next question about their security strategies got right to it:

“It seems to me that Aurizon are very vulnerable to direct action strategies from environmen-talist groups. Given you have thousands of kilometres of rail line and have difficult to secure facilities around the country, what strategies do you have in mind to secure what seems to be in-securable?”

After questions about climate change, water and the future of coal, it got serious with a ques-tion about targeting the board and executives.

“As Aurizon’s planned invest-ment in the coal mines in the Galilee Basin (involves releas-ing) truly massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, threatening life as we know it on this planet, such a radical step calls for a radical response. Are

you aware that over two hundred activists from one group alone have thus far committed to use direct action against the Aurizon Board of Executives to remind them of their personal responsibility regarding runaway climate change; and given they claim to have home addresses of most of the board members and senior executives, and considering activists have already visited the CEO’s home twice, are you con-cerned that executives and board members will leave the company if they are seriously challenged in their homes and neighbourhoods about these responsibilities, their responsibilities beyond Aurizon, responsibilities to the future of all of our children, our grandchildren, the community, country and the world we live in?”

Despite protestations, a further auda-cious question was asked, this times

about stopping trains with card-board boxes;

“In 2011, an activist stopped a coal train in New South Wales using a lightweight box contraption. Now he was inside that box, but it’s eas-ily conceivable that you could stop a coal train with an empty card-board box. Now given you’ve got thousands of kilometres of track, how do you envisage oversight over those tracks and managing that; I can see it would be quite easy for activists to stop coal trains and get away with it scot free. So is there a cost each time a train is stopped like this, and have you factored those kinds of costs into your business plans?” Just by chance, this (train stopper) happened to be outside the building when shareholders left the meeting.

You can imagine the company


(and some shareholders) were not too happy with such ques-tions. The chair of the board said repeatedly that they would not divulge security strate-gies, but it seemed reasonably clear such strategies did not exist. But the shareholders did respond with applause to the question about coal dust, pub-lic health, and the excessive salary of the CEO:

“My question is to Lance Hockridge, CEO, and my concern is about dust. I’ve been reading a bit in the media the last few months about coal dust coming from wagons and about the particles, and the doctors and health ex-perts’ concerns about the dust particles; the larger ones and the smaller ones which can get lodged in the lungs and in the bloodstream and the concern,

particularly for children… My question, given that Aurizon has so far refused to cover the coal wagons and that there is quite a bit of public outcry about this issue is, Lance, you earned $6 million more than the aver-age Australian last financial year, would you personally be willing to donate some money to stop the damage to public health, and if not, would you personally live on a railway line and breathe in what you transport?”

That question was bound to be popular but this question hit a different nerve:

“Are you concerned that once environmental activists start direct action strategies that your unionised staff will un-dertake industrial action due

to perceived safety risks? Have you factored in these potential massive costs to your invest-ment in the Galilee?”

A shareholder responded to this, saying she was “absolute-ly appalled at the suggestion that lives would be put at risk because of ideological beliefs”

I jumped up to defend this activist before question time ended. It is Aurizon in fact who are putting millions of lives at risk over an ideological belief, the belief that profit by any legal means trumps ethical considerations, or a livable planet for that matter.

After the AGM some share-holders spoke freely with ac-tivists. Many were concerned about climate change, coal dust, and the shortening future of the coal industry. Aurizon


A variety of methods are being used by protestors to block work at fossil fuel mining sites.

24

have since sent a strongly worded legal letter, threatening a Supreme Court injunction against Generation Alpha, Over Our Dead Bodies and their ‘members’. What a shame that Generation Alpha is a Facebook page, Over Our Dead Bodies is a website, and neither have members!Aurizon write that they are ‘disap-pointed’ in us, and if we do what they say we’ve threatened, we’re in big trouble! But now they just have to wait and prepare, knowing they can do little to stop the next move by the 221 (and counting) activists who have said “Over Our Dead Bodies.”


Over 220 people have signed up to put their bodies on the line in this campaign against

coal mining in Australia.

A protestor, left, talks with a plain clothes police officer outside the Aurizon office

25

Feather and DrumAre Canada’s First Nations threatening the country’s $600 billion fossil fuel bonanza?

By Jeremy Grimes

In an important story published in Oil Price news recently, the question was raised as to whether Canada’s First Nations will scupper plans by the Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper to, as they put it, to “turn western Canada into an energy powerhouse underwriting eastern Asia’s various demands for

energy.”This is a good question. First Nations people in Canada are grow-

ing restless. Over the last year, we have seen a myriad groups take to the streets and to the land to voice opposition to tar sands mining, oil pipelines, ports and refineries, and hydraulic fracturing or fracking for hard-to-get natural gas.

John Daly of Oil Price clearly points out the challenge from both sides in the equation.

Writing from the oil industry perspective, Daly says the “obstruc-tionists” are the 630 First Nations governments or bands spread across Canada, roughly half of which are in the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia.

“For decades Canada has belatedly dealt with issues as Pacific coastal natives sought treaties to spell out their relationship with the rest of the country,” Daly writes. “Accordingly, successive Canadian courts have ruled that in the absence of settled claims, the First Na-tions actually have rights and title to all aspects of traditional lands.”

Daly says the First Nations are somewhat skeptical of Ottawa’s blandishments about the benefits accruing from developing the na-tion’s hydrocarbon resources. The imperiled projects include Trans-Canada Corp.’s Energy East’s proposed 3,000-mile pipeline across First Nation lands, which would traverse the traditional territory of 180 different aboriginal communities, each of whom must be consulted and have their concerns accommodated as part of the company’s effort at winning project approval.

27

Fossil fuel binge

As we have seen, First Nations activists have taken to the land and roads in many standoffs across Canada, and according to a new report by the Fraser Institute, there are more than 600 major resource projects totaling $650 billion in western Canada that are “imperiled”

by what is said to be “Ottawa’s poor relations with the First Nations.”

As the report points out, there is no project which does not impact at least one First Nations community, and the progress with these projects will to a large extent depend on what the report calls the “willingness” of communities

to support the projects. But the current government of PM Ste-phen Harper continues to push on with the drive to maximize profit from the extraction of fossil fuels.

Divide and rule

Those seeking to maximize fossil fuel sector profits wonder

A standoff between First Nations people in New Bruswick and frack-ing company SWN led to the company temporarily pulling out


CREDIT Steven Standing Wolfpaw Kakinoosit

28

how the government and these companies can move forward. As Daly suggests, they need to negotiate, and that the efforts of the Canadian’s government’s lawyer and treaty negotiator Doug Eyford “could perhaps shift discussions to innova-tive and dramatic discussions between the First Nations” and the government.

What is happening is the Ca-nadian government is currently using divide-and-rule tactics to win over First Nations leaders with money and perks so that they bend to the will of the big oil and gas companies.

It is a classic tactic and in many cases it is working. As has been seen in a number of cases, First Nations leaders “sell out,” without proper consultation with their people. Little wonder there is controversy within the community at the moment over allowing the leaders to run the show – people at the grassroots are unable to make their voice heard or worry that their points out that if the talks fail, maybe the government should turn to the media to get its struggle to protect the land, waterways and people’s health is being undermined by their very own leaders.

Superstars to the rescue?

Daly message out. The Harper government has reportedly been spending tens of millions of dol-lars on a PR campaign to pro-mote tar sands mining and the fossil fuel industry as a whole, even taking the publicity spin to Europe to convince countries that the industry is “clean and responsible.”

Ottawa may need to step up its campaign in the wake of the “Honour the Treaties” music tour by rock singer Neil Young. The singer played concerts in Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina and Calgary with 100 percent of the tickets sales going to support

the northern Alberta aboriginal band Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation in their court case. The legal challenge is being made against the expansion of the Jackpine Mine from 7,500 hectares to 13,000 hectares. According to CBC, Shell said it could bring the Alberta and federal governments an esti-mated $17 billion in royalties and taxes over its life and create an additional 750 full time jobs. But Indigenous and environ-mental groups say the predicted damage to water, land and animals outweighs any profits the addition to the oil sands will yield, according to CBC. Young got into a tussle with the government over his outspo-ken remarks criticizing the tars sands mining project, and stick-ing to his claim that the mining area near Fort McMurray looks like the aftermath of the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. The singer has seen the devastation himself and on the tour showed the documentary, “Petropolis,” that clearly shows the devastation as viewed from the air.

Not energy independence

What is often conveniently for-gotten in the discussions about the pros and cons of extracting fossil fuels is the market for the fuel products. Often Canadian government spokespeople casu-ally claim the fossil fuel min-ing is aimed at supplying the Canadian market, offering the country “energy independence.” The key thing to remember is Canada does not need this massive fossil fuel binge for energy independence. Over 90 percent of the oil and gas drilled and dug up will end up being shipped abroad, mostly to Asia, particularly China.

Profit for the elite

All this massive extraction –


CREDIT Steven Standing Wolfpaw Kakinoosit

29

which will bring damage to the land, waterways and people’s health, and have a major effect on climate change through the massive release of carbon diox-ide and other toxic emissions – is designed to line oil and gas company executives’ pockets, fund the government, and pro-vide at most a trickle-down ef-fect for the people. Big Oil and the government take the profits and a country that once stood tall as relatively clean and envi-ronmentally-friendly suffers. Its global environmental ranking is now in the doldrums.

With all the money at stake and the machinery of state, in-cluding local governments and the police on hand, the cards are stacked heavily in favor of what many call the “corporate state,” in which big companies now dictate policy to a a willing government in Ottawa. Many critics have expressed shock at how low PM Harper’s govern-ment is willing to go. Of par-ticular concern is the Harper government’s tie up with China and Chinese companies. As environmentalists and many amongst the First Nations point out, the environment and health of Canada is being sacrificed to sell fossil fuels to foreign companies.

Feathers and drums

Will First Nations’ protestors carrying feathers and drums

be able to beat back against the planned destruction of Canada’s environment? And will they be joined by rank-and-file Canadi-ans who are aware of the threat?

There is a growing move-ment, a mix of First Nations and local Canadians, who are waking up and taking to the front lines, as was seen recently

in the anti-fracking protests in New Brunswick, but the num-bers still remain relatively small.

Are Canadian’s finally wak-ing up to the danger in their midst? Maybe more rock stars need to take to the road with the message that Canada is being wrecked for profit.


Traditional guardians of the land - First Nations people are the roadblock in the way of fossil fuel companies seeking to exploit the land. CREDIT John Jeddore

30

Are Canadian’s finally waking

up to the danger in their midst?

Maybe more rock stars need to

take to the road with the

message that Canada is being

mined and wrecked for profit.


pOlITICS

We are at a crossroads. People are writing off the “Red Winter”

from a year ago…At around this time last year,

the hashtag #idlenomore was just starting to make its rounds on Twitter. I made some of the first iconic images for Idle No More. Then the phrase hit Facebook, blogs, news sources and the rest is history. Next thing you know, there are friendly Round Dances

in malls and streets around the world.

As silly as the term “Idle No More” sounded (should I turn off my truck?), it struck a chord with people. There was a feeling that with ecological and political stresses mounting that perhaps we, as a human family, had been far too idle.

Although there were many is-sues at hand, the one that captured people’s attention more than anything was a piece of Canadian legislation that, overnight, ren-

dered over 2 million waterways unprotected by the federal govern-ment.

In an era of oil spills, tailings pond leaks, rail disasters and an uncomfortable and overt alliance between the government and resource extraction corporations, this was something that most Canadians couldn’t fathom.

How could it come to this?And so in a remarkable display

of friendship and co-operation, they became Allies to First Na-tions, Metis and Inuk peoples.

IS THERE A FUTURE FOR IDLE NO MORE?By Aaron Paquette

Afghans join the chorus of support from around the world for Idle No More

32

IS THERE A FUTURE FOR IDLE NO MORE?

They became Allies to the natural world, on which we depend for, well, basically everything.

For possibly the first time in Canadian history, middle class households were talking about the same kinds of concerns that the Indigenous people of the land have been discussing for literally centuries.

All Our RelationsResponsibility to the Seventh GenerationThe Sacredness of WaterThe 8th FireLiving in the HoopThe Missing and Murdered, Our Stolen Sisters

Discussion was happening in coffee shops about honouring Canada’s legal and spiritual found-ing documents, the Numbered Treaties, the Treaties of Peace and Friendship, the new Treaties and Agreements.

And news outlets around the world took notice. People from around the world took notice. For the first time, it seems that a shadow was lifted from billions of eyes and the horrifying truth of Canada’s colonial relationship with the First Peoples was made clear.

What Idle No More did was stunning.

And the most perplexing part of it all was…where were the lead-ers of this movement?

Where was the boss?And frustratingly enough for

journalists and politicians alike, there were none.

There were Four Women who began teaching about the dreaded legislation, hosting sessions, put-

ting the word out, but they didn’t claim leadership. They simply ac-knowledged themselves as women who felt strong enough to speak. And people listened.

It was a spontaneous move-ment of like-minded, or at least like-spirited, people who felt the time to stand was now.

I won’t take you through all the events that followed. They are easy to find if you do a simple Google search, but I will mention that it was the first time the Harper Gov-ernment found itself under siege by the people of Canada. And that is a feeling that has gone on since. Idle No More cast so much light on the government that their secrets began to unfold one by one until today we see scandal upon scandal piling up and pretty soon

there will be no more room under the bus. The CPC will have to start throwing their disgraced people in the closet, or perhaps into the now conveniently unprotected waters. Basically, anywhere they can find room at the rate things are going.Idle No More put so much focus on Ottawa that things just started falling out of the woodwork. And still are.

From the muzzling of our scientists, to the wholesale sellout to China, to constant prorogation, the breaking of electoral and par-liamentary law, the Senate Scandal and on and on…the list is weighty and quite shameful. Harper has lost the benefit of the doubt from ordinary Canadians.

Without the influence of Idle No More, and the way it systemat-ically shattered long held illusions, myths and lies about First Nations, the widely scorned Education Bill this government is attempting to push through might have easily passed. Canadians, however, are watching. And that is historic. The Rex Murphys of the land aside, most Canadians are beginning to understand that they’ve been sold a bill of goods when it comes to their understanding of Indigenous politics. They are waking up.

So when we see Shawn Atleo (National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations), whom many would describe as being a little too friendly with the federal govern-ment, condemning this legislation, you know it’s got to be a pretty shady piece of business. The fact that instead of properly fund-ing First Nations education the government will just take over as it sees fit, galls more than a few people as a throwback to a pater-


Aaron Paquette’s artwork

33

nalistic, Residential School-type mentality.

So we can see that Idle No More has already started the process of ushering a new era in Canadian politics. The movement has maintained the philosophy of teaching, forming alliances and bonds of friendship (basically dis-pelling myths and prejudices with knowledge and kindness) with which it all began.

The website has a great deal of information. You can plan an event and post it there; you can create a seminar or teach-in; or just share important information. There is a robust community on Facebook and Twitter and the work pro-ceeds. Problems

One concern for Idle No More, or

#INM as it is known more com-monly known, is that without a clear leadership and hierarchy, there’s no sense of strong direc-tion.

While there are the aforemen-tioned events and calls to action, there is no clear roadmap, no sense of building something tangible and measurable. And people do need that. Even without clear leader-ship, there’s still a need to know and see that it’s all amounting to something.

There are the Big Ideas: No more discrimination, Honouring the Treaties, Following the recom-mendations of the Royal Com-mission on Aboriginal Peoples, building stronger relationships with non-indigenous Canadians, Protecting the Waters and so forth.But there is very little in the way of a path that takes us from here to

that great future.There is no narrative, no story.

No achievable and clear milestones and goal posts to reach along the way.

Instead, there is a constant reaction to the news of the day, the tragedy of the moment. Instead of blazing the trail, Idle No More responds to someone else’s fires.

The result is that you have the die-hards who are aware and trying to right every wrong they see, and then you have the great majority who are often confused as to what they are supposed to do, or what Day of Action is actually important for them to attend…and why?

And so you get the formation of a new group.

Out of their frustration with what

“There is no narrative, no story. No achievable and clear milestones and goal posts to reach along the way. Instead, there is a constant reaction to the news of the day, the tragedy of the moment. Instead of blazing the trail, Idle No More responds to someone else’s fires.”


Aaron Paquette’s artwork

34

they view as the lost opportu-nity for change that Idle No More represents, a few well meaning and good hearted folks got together and created a manifesto of sorts. Using the INM acronym, they formed the Indigenous Nation-hood Movement, also known as Nations Rising.

Obviously, this is meant to utilize the popularity of Idle No More (INM) to help launch their new movement, viewing itself as a natural offshoot. The only problem might be with people confusing the two groups as having similar aims (which for the most part they

do), but being unaware that they espouse different tactics.

While Idle No More (INM) is focused on Education and Alliances as a means to long term change, Na-tions Rising (INMvmnt) would like to see more direct action, an em-brace of warrior culture as a means of achieving meaningful, concrete results.

This is exciting for many people who are frustrated with the slow pace of Idle No More. The promise of action sounds much more appeal-ing and Nations Rising is indeed rising in popularity among certain folks. They aim to Reclaim, Rename

and Re-Occupy.With rising tensions in

Elsipogtog and the peaceful blockade that has already once been violently broken by RCMP, you can see why this philosophy of empowerment resonates with those who are feeling a sense of frustration and powerlessness. There is a desire to be viewed as strong, as standing firm in the face of colonial opposition and dominance.

However, Nations Rising suf-fers the same entropic malaise as Idle No More in that there is no sense of forward movement, no

Singer Buffy Saint-Marie gives the thumbs up to Idle No More


uniting vision or plan. There are only Declarations and Guiding Principles, which of course are admirable, but ineffective in leading the way to the prover-bial Promised Land.

Possible Solutions

As you know, Elsipogtog First Nation has formed a peaceful roadblock in New Brunswick. They are concerned about

SWN Resources and their plans to hydraulically fracture for oil (a practice that is being banned in many world nations due to its long-term, irreversible pollution of groundwater). Many non-indig-enous people joined them at the blockade as this is an issue that af-fects everyone. The RCMP (were) stopping more cars from going in, arresting people on a whim whom they suspect of being sympathetic to Elsipogtog First Nation.

This isn’t just an indigenous thing, it’s an ‘us’ thing, it’s a water thing. At some point we have to take personal responsibility for the land.

Why not now?Can we all spend at least 5

minutes a day learning and writ-ing and calling and emailing and signing…Can we plan for busload after busload of supporters to go to Elsipogtog? Remember when Quebec was going to split and tens


of thousands of people went to the province to show support, one way or another? Can we show support for our own children and theirs? Can we show support for the long term viability of our survival?

Or are we too jaded and spoiled?

I don’t think that we are.I ask you to look seriously at

the condition of the world and ask yourself if this is not a good time to step up. Ask seriously. Ask and answer.

You know what your true voice will say.

It’s time.

The Future

And so with that as a starting point, where do we go from here?For starters, there needs to be a strategy. Not tactics, not respons-es, not a million mini events, but an actual strategy. A strategy that incorporates the vision of both Idle No More and Nations Ris-ing and any other group that has ideas. A strategy that judiciously

weighs varying “change tactics” and utilizes them to determine an actual path forward. A strategy that leads, step by step to achiev-able goals, each one building on the last.

Rather than efforts being spread thin, with everyone and their dog setting up a roundy, there should be singular, impor-tant events. Each event should have a clear, definable purpose – a big purpose. For example, rather than just saying ‘no’ to the new education bill, a better bill could be created in co-operation with Chiefs, educators and their com-munities. Then you go to Ottawa and present it. With ten thousand people literally standing with you.

Instead of reacting to events, shape them.

After that, begin setting the agenda. Bring to Parliament a new understanding.We can say together –

“We have found our voice. Al-

though we debate and argue and disagree, although we are many nations, each with a long and proud history, although we have differing opinions, we have united for our future generations and for the sake of the world.

“We are speaking.“And you will hear us.”

And that’s how you do it.Is there a future for Idle No More? I have the feeling that all our bet-ter tomorrows may, in some sense, depend on it.

Happy birthday, Idle No More. Welcome, Nations Rising.And to you, the reader, the ally, the think-er, the real power of nations…

Let’s get to work.Hiy hiy!

Aaron Paquette is one of Canada’s premiere First Nations artists. He is a painter, writer, keynote speaker and workshop facilitator. He is also a political commentator, film production designer, goldsmith and cathedral stained glass artist.

“Is there a future for Idle No More? I have the feeling that all our better tomorrows may, in some sense, depend on it.”


Aaron Paquette

37

ACTIVISM TODAY

“If anyone tells you that there’s a single-factor explanation for societal collapse,” says collapse guru Jared Diamond, “you know right away that they’re

an idiot. This is a complex subject.”So, forget about peak debt, peak oil, peak climate, peak Harry Potter or even peak everything as the single most important problem that could bring today’s whole pulsing, beaming and txt-messaging mess down into a lifeless pile of shorted-out micro-chips, busted carburetors and busted sporks from Taco Bell.

In a TED talk that Diamond gave in 2003 with eerie relevance for this very minute, the author of two books on collapse, the solid-gold hit “Guns, Germs and Steel” and the more recent “Collapse: How Societies

Choose to Fail or Succeed”, outlined five factors required for any ad-vanced society to give up the ghost.

Norse: It could be worse

For each factor, Diamond gives an example from the Greenland Norse. These were the unlucky Vikings who, when it came time to diversify out of raping and pillaging into the more profitable business of running a civilization, missed the boats to Sicily or Normandy, where their more for-tunate countrymen set up colonies.Instead, starting in the year 984, these poor schlubs wound up on an un-aptly named island in the North Atlantic with precious few trees but plenty of rocks and glaciers. Maybe not the brightest torches in the long-

boat, the Greenland Norse were at least smart enough to eke out a basic European lifestyle on their huge, sparse island for about 500 years, until the last of them died off around 1450.

Why’d they fail? Here’s their Fatal Five:

1. Human impacts on the en-vironment. The Vikings unintention-ally caused erosion and deforestation by reckless farming and logging. This deprived them of both food and charcoal, the latter leaving them as an Iron Age culture with no freakin’ way to make iron.

2. Climate change. Yup, they had it too, though as climate skeptics

Five bummer problems that make societies collapse

By Erik Curren

SPRING 201438

ACTIVISM TODAY

like to point out, it went the other way that time — things got colder starting in the 1300s. Yet, more cold and ice wasn’t fatal to the Vikings’ neighbors, the Inuit, who weren’t such babies about a few more blizzards every sea-son.

3. Friendly neighbors going. The Greenlanders always relied on trade with the motherland. But when the seas started to ice up more, ships from Norway became fewer and far-ther between. Not that they were ever that hot and heavy to start with. But still.

4. Hostile neighbors coming. That would be the Inuit again. They killed the Vikings (doing which makes you pretty darn butch in the warfare world) and may have also blocked Norse access to fjords, sending the price of seals, which the Vikings thought were finger lickin’ good, through the roof.

5. Dysfunctional political and cultural practices. As devout Chris-tians, when times got tough, the Norse glorified God by cutting the food and defense budgets to fund the cathedral-building budget. And since they had nothing but scorn for the tribal Inuit, they refused to learn from them how to adapt to colder weather and dwin-dling resources.

It doesn’t take a genius

Were these people so stupid that they didn’t know what was going on? And if they did know, then were they too fat and lazy to do anything about it? Diamond’s students at UCLA ask these questions all the time about the societies they study in his collapse class (why wasn’t that offered at my

college?), from the Yucatan Maya to the USSR.

You do have to wonder, couldn’t Joe and Thjodhilde Viking tear them-selves away from Greenland’s Got Talent long enough to see that some abbot was cutting down the last tree to carve a honkin’ big crucifix for the Good Friday procession?

These guys gave new meaning to the phrase “everybody complains about the price of blubber but nobody does anything about it.”

Diamond thinks a big problem was that the rich and powerful were so into keeping up with the Joneses — “flogging” the land (that’s over-farming to you and me) to compete with other chiefs for who could bring in the most crops and support the big-gest posse of loyal retainers — to do anything to stop the madness.

Or, as Diamond puts it, there was a conflict between the short-term inter-est of the elites and the long-term in-terest of the whole society. And, since the chiefs and bishops were largely insulated from the problems that their reckless consumption created, they didn’t see how messed up things were getting until it was too late.

Plutocracy anyone?

If you think this sounds a lot like today’s big corporations — squeezing all the cash they can out of foreclosing mortgages, shuttering factories and cheating on their taxes, all while buy-ing politicians who will do anything from invading Turkmenistan to erect-ing a monument to Clean Coal on the National Mall just to keep the fossil fuels coming fast and cheap, climate change be damned — then you’re just not thinking like a good Greenlander.By living in gated communities and drinking bottled water, the rich can

keep their high times going a bit longer while the rest of us start get-ting pretty hot and bothered, thinks Diamond.

Diamond’s not just trying to spoil your afternoon. He’s trying to scare us all straight. Society can address the problems ourselves, trying to mini-mize suffering. Or we can just jolly well wait and see what happens, which we seem to be doing a pretty good job at right now.

We know how that turned out in Greenland. And it was cold (!) com-fort that, when the last peat fire fizzled out and the last strip of seal jerky was gnawed, the chiefs died along with the peasants. A reminder that the Koch Brothers will probably go down with the welfare moms, eventually.

Erik Curren, Transition Voice

By living in gated communities and drinking bottled water, the rich can keep their high times going a bit longer while the rest of us start getting pretty hot and bothered, thinks Diamond.

SPRING 2014 39

The Maya People of Sipacapa issued an international appeal for solidarity in December, in the midst of ongoing protests against

Goldcorp Inc.’s mining activities in San Marcos, Guatemala.

The Maya began protesting with campesino communities on December 4, 2013, setting up two separate block-ades on the Inter-American Highway -- at Kilometer 170 in Santa Catarina Ixtahuacán, Sololá and Kilometer 242 near Pajapita, San Marcos.

According to the appeal, issued by The Mayan Council Of Sipacapa on December 7, Goldcorp and its subsidi-

ary EntreMares de Guatemala are vio-lating a community decision to reject any mining exploitation in Sipacapa.

The appeal states:

“In 2005, the population firmly re-jected mining exploration and exploita-tion in its territory, as was documented in the acts of the community consulta-tion carried out in good faith on June 18, 2005 in each community of the municipality. Since that time, the com-munity has continued to defend that position. The population does not want its land destroyed by metallic mining, which only leads to social contamina-

tion (conflict), environmental contami-nation, health problems, deterioration of wildlife and economic injustice, as we see in the sister municipality of San Miguel Ixtahuacán, department of San Marcos. Nevertheless, on April 30, 2012, the Ministry of Energy and Mines - through its general director of mining - issued a mining exploration license to the company Entre Mares de Guatemala (owned by Goldcorp Inc.), called the “Chocoyos” license, to exploit gold, silver, nickel, cobalt, chromium, copper, lead, zinc antimony and rare earth elements in an area of 23 square kilometers.”

The Maya are now demanding

Maya People of Sipacapa issue international

call for solidarity against Goldcorp

By John Ahni Schertow


CREDIT Leonardo East Hastings

ACTIVISM TODAY

the withdrawal of both the company’s personnel and its machinery from Sipacapa, and requesting “that central government authorities respect the community consulta-tion carried out in 2005.”

They are further demanding an end to any ongoing efforts to force them to accept the new mine as well as the presence of various government officials “To resolve this issue, since the only thing we seek is peace”, state the Maya People of Sipacapa, adding, “The presence of the mine is causing social conflict, on a family level and on a commu-nity level, and it is destroying our social harmony.”

In addition to their demands, the Maya People Of Sipacapa are asking “our sisters and brothers from other nations to accompany us in this struggle which [is] in benefit of all.”

The following is the December 7 Appeal from The People Of Sipacapa, by Rights Action:

The People Of Sipacapa, Via The Mayan Council Of Sipacapa, Informs:

• Toallsisterlyandbrotherlypeoples,nationalandinternational authorities, national and international social and human rights organizations;

• TotheMinistryofEnergyandMines,theMinistry of the Environment and Natural Resources, the Ministry of the Interior; and

• ToEntreMares(GoldcorpInc.):Sipacapa Already Said No To Mining Exploitation.“Sipacapa Is Not For Sale”In 2005, the population firmly rejected mining explora-

tion and exploitation in its territory, as was documented in the acts of the community consultation carried out in good faith on June 18, 2005 in each community of the munici-pality.

Since that time, the community has continued to defend that position. The population does not want its land destroyed by metallic mining, which only leads to social

contamination (conflict), environmental contamination, health problems, deterioration of wildlife and economic injustice, as we see in the sister municipality of San Miguel Ixtahuacán, department of San Marcos.

Nevertheless, on April 30, 2012, the Ministry of Energy and Mines - through its general director of mining - issued a mining exploration license to the company EntreMares de Guatemala (owned by Goldcorp Inc.), called the “Chocoy-os” license, to exploit gold, silver, nickel, cobalt, chromium, copper, lead, zinc antimony and rare earth elements in an area of 23 square kilometers.

For these reasons, we have been protesting peacefully since December 4, 2013, to reject the presence of explora-tion machinery and personnel from EntreMares/ Goldcorp. We demand the withdrawal of this machinery and the com-pany personnel from the territory of Sipacapa, and request that central government authorities respect the community consultation carried out in 2005.

We request and demand that they cease to force us to accept the presence of the EntreMares/ Goldcorp mine in Sipacapa. We continue to be intimidated by the presence of the National Civilian Police.

We also demand the presence of the departmental governor, the director of Energy and Mines, the Minister of Energy and Mines and the Human Rights Prosecutor. We request their presence in our municipality to resolve this issue, since the only thing we seek is peace. The presence of the mine is causing social conflict, on a family level and on a community level, and it is destroying our social harmony.

We ask our sisters and brothers from other nations to accompany us in this struggle which in benefit of all. Municipal authorities should not be promoting destructive projects.

Municipality of Sipacapa, San Marcos

December 7, 2013

John Ahni Schertow, Intercontinental Cry Magazine

SPRING 2014

CREDIT Leonardo East Hastings

Sipakapa, San Marcos, Guatemala

For more news on indigenous rights and issues, go to:

IntercontinentalCry.org

41

ACTIVISM TODAY

Don’t talk to me about sustain-ability. You want to question my lifestyle, my impact, my

ecological footprint? There is a mon-ster standing over us, with a footprint so large it can trample a whole planet underfoot, without noticing or caring. This monster is Industrial Civilization. I refuse to sustain the monster. If the Earth is to live, the monster must die. This is a declaration of war.

What is it we are trying to sustain? A living planet, or industrial civiliza-tion? Because we can’t have both.

Somewhere along the way the environmental movement – based on a desire to protect the Earth, was largely eaten by the sustainability move-ment – based on a desire to maintain our comfortable lifestyles. When did this happen, and why? And how is it possible that no-one noticed? This is a fundamental shift in values, to go from compassion for all living beings and the land, to a selfish wish to feel good about our inherently destructive way of life.

The sustainability movement says that our capacity to endure is

the responsibility of individuals, who must make lifestyle choices within the existing structures of civilization. To achieve a truly sustainable culture by this means is impossible. Industrial infrastructure is incompatible with a living planet. If life on Earth is to sur-vive, the global political and economic structures need to be dismantled.

Sustainability advocates tell us that reducing our impact, causing less harm to the Earth, is a good thing to do, and we should feel good about our actions. I disagree. Less harm is not good. Less harm is still a lot of harm. For as long as any harm is caused, by anyone, there can be no sustainability. Feeling good about small acts doesn’t help anyone.

Only one-quarter of all consump-tion is by individuals. The rest is taken up by industry, agribusiness, the mili-tary, governments and corporations. Even if every one of us made every ef-fort to reduce our ecological footprint, it would make little difference to overall consumption.

If the lifestyle actions advocated really do have the effect of keeping our culture around for longer than it would

otherwise, then it will cause more harm to the natural world than if no such action had been taken. For the longer a destructive culture is sustained, the more destruction it causes. The title of this article isn’t just attention-grabbing and controversial, it is quite literally what’s going on.

When we frame the sustainability debate around the premise that indi-vidual lifestyle choices are the solu-tion, then the enemy becomes other individuals who make different lifestyle choices, and those who don’t have the privilege of choice. Meanwhile the true enemy — the oppressive structures of civilization — are free to continue their destructive and murderous practices without question. This is hardly an effective way to create a meaning-ful social movement. Divide and be conquered.

Sustainability is popular with corporations, media and government because it fits perfectly with their aims. Maintain power. Grow. Make yourself out to be the good guy. Make people believe that they have power when they don’t. Tell everyone to keep calm

Sustainability is Destroying the EarthBy Kim Hill

SPRING 201442

ACTIVISM TODAY

and carry on shopping. Control the language that is used to debate the issues. By creating and reinforcing the belief that voting for minor changes and buying more stuff will solve all problems, those in power have a highly effective strategy for maintaining economic growth and corporate-con-trolled democracy.

Those in power keep people believing that the only way we can change anything is within the struc-tures they’ve created. They build the structures in a way that people can never change anything from within them. Voting, petitions, and rallies all reinforce the power structures, and can never bring about significant change on their own. These tactics give corporations and governments a choice. We’re giving those in power a choice of whether to grant our request for minor reform. Animals suffering in factory farms don’t have a choice. Forests being destroyed in the name of progress don’t have a choice. Millions of people working in majority-world sweatshops don’t have a choice. The 200 species who became extinct today didn’t do so by choice. And yet we give those responsible for all this murder and suffering a choice. We’re granting the desires of a wealthy minority above the needs of life on Earth.

Most of the popular actions that advocates propose to achieve sustain-ability have no real effect, and some even cause more harm than good. The strategies include reducing electricity consumption, reducing water use, a green economy, recycling, sustain-able building, renewables and energy

efficiency. Let’s look at the effects of these actions.

Electricity

We’re told to reduce our consump-tion of electricity, or obtain it from alternative sources. This will make zero difference to the sustainability of our culture as a whole, because the electricity grid is inherently unsus-tainable. No amount of reduction or so-called renewable energy sources will change this. Mining to make electrical wires, components, electrical devices, solar panels, wind turbines, geothermal plants, biomass furnaces, hydropower dams, and everything else that connects to the electricity grid, are all unsustainable. Manufacturing to make these things, with all the human exploitation, pollution, waste, health and social impacts, and corporate profits. Fossil fuels needed to keep all these processes going. Unsustain-able. No amount of individual lifestyle choices about electricity use and generation will change any of this. Off grid electricity is no different – it needs batteries and inverters.

Water conservation

Shorter showers. Low-flow de-vices. Water restrictions. These are all claimed to Make A Difference. While the whole infrastructure that provides this water – large dams, long distance pipelines, pumps, sewers, drains – is all unsustainable.

Dams destroy the life of a whole watershed. It’s like blocking off an ar-

tery, preventing blood from flowing to your limbs. No-one can survive this. Rivers become dead when fish are pre-vented from travelling up and down the river. The whole of the natural community that these fish belong to is killed, both upstream and downstream of the dam.

Dams cause a lowering of the water table, making it impossible for tree roots to get to water. Floodplain ecolo-gies depend on seasonal flooding, and collapse when a dam upstream pre-vents this. Downstream and coastal erosion results. Anaerobic decomposi-tion of organic matter in dams releases methane to the atmosphere.

No matter how efficient with water you are, this infrastructure will never be sustainable. It needs to be de-stroyed, to allow these communities to regenerate.

The green economy

Green jobs. Green products. The sustainable economy. No. There’s no such thing. The whole of the global economy is unsustainable. The econ-omy runs on the destruction of the natural world. The Earth is treated as nothing but fuel for economic growth. They call it natural resources. And a few people choosing to remove them-selves from this economy makes no difference. For as long as this economy exists, there will be no sustainability.

For as long as any of these struc-tures exist: electricity, mains water, global economy, industrial agriculture – there can be no sustainability. To achieve true sustainability, these struc-

SPRING 2014 43

ACTIVISM TODAY

tures need to be dismantled.What’s more important to you – to

sustain a comfortable lifestyle for a little longer, or the continuation of life on Earth, for the natural communities who remain, and for future genera-tions?

Recycling

We’re made to believe that buying a certain product is good because the packaging can be recycled. You can choose to put it in a brightly-colored bin. Never mind that fragile eco-systems were destroyed, indigenous communities displaced, people in far away places required to work in slave conditions, and rivers polluted, just to make the package in the first place. Never mind that it will be recycled into another useless product which will then go to landfill. Never mind that to recycle it means transporting it far away, using machinery that run on electricity and fossil fuels, causing pollution and waste. Never mind that if you put something else in the colored bin, the whole load goes to landfill due to the contamination.

Sustainable buildingPrinciples of sustainable building:

build more houses, even though there are already enough perfectly good houses for everyone to live in. Clear land for houses, destroying every living thing in the natural communities that live there. Build with timber from plantation forests, which have required native forests to be wiped out so they can be replaced with a monoculture of pines where nothing else can live. Use building products that are slightly less harmful than other products. Convince everyone that all of this is beneficial to the Earth.

Solar power

Solar panels. The very latest in sustainability fashion. And in true sus-tainability style, incredibly destructive of life on earth. Where do these things come from? You’re supposed to believe that they are made out of nothing, a free, non-polluting source of electricity.

If you dare to ask where solar pan-els come from, and how they are made,

it’s not hard to uncover the truth. Solar panels are made of metals, plastics, rare earths, electronic components. They require mining, manufacturing, war, waste, pollution. Millions of tons of lead are dumped into rivers and farmland around solar panel factories in China and India, causing health problems for the human and natural communities who live there. Polysili-con is another poisonous and polluting waste product from manufacturing that is dumped in China. The produc-tion of solar panels causes nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) to be emitted into the atmosphere. This gas has 17 000 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.

Rare earths come from Africa, and wars are raged over the right to mine them. People are being killed so you can have your comfortable Sustain-ability. The panels are manufactured in China. The factories emit so much pollution that people living nearby become sick. Lakes and rivers become dead from the pollution. These people cannot drink the water, breathe the air or farm the land, as a direct result of solar panel manufacturing. Your sustainability is so popular in China that villagers mobilize in mass protest against the manufacturers. They are banding together to break into the fac-tories and destroy equipment, forcing the factories to shut down. They value their lives more than sustainability for the rich.

Panels last around 30 years, then straight to landfill. More pollution, more waste. Some parts of solar panels can be recycled, but some can’t, and have the bonus of being highly toxic. To be recycled, solar panels are sent to majority-world countries where low-wage workers are exposed to toxic substances while disassembling them. The recycling process itself requires energy and transportation, and creates waste products.

Solar panel industries are owned by Siemens, Samsung, Bosch, Sharp, Mitsubishi, BP, and Sanyo, among oth-ers. This is where solar panel rebates and green power bills are going. These corporations thank you for your sus-tainable dollars.

Wind power

The processing of rare earth metals needed to make the magnets for wind turbines happens in China, where peo-ple in the surrounding villages struggle to breathe in the heavily polluted air. A five-mile-wide lake of toxic and radioactive sludge now takes the place of their farmland.

Whole mountain ranges are de-stroyed to extract the metals. Forests are bulldozed to erect wind turbines. Millions of birds and bats are killed by the blades. The health of people living close to turbines is affected by infra-sound.

As wind is an inconsistent and un-predictable source of energy, a back-up gas fired power supply is needed. As the back-up system only runs intermit-tently, it is less efficient, so produces more CO2than if it were running constantly, if there were no turbines. Wind power sounds great in theory, but doesn’t work in practice. Another useless product that benefits no-one but the shareholders.

Energy efficiency

How about we improve energy efficiency? Won’t that reduce energy consumption and pollution? Well, no. Quite the opposite. Have you heard of Jevon’s paradox? Or the Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate? These state that technological advances to increase efficiency lead to an increase in energy consumption, not a decrease. Efficien-cy causes more energy to be available for other purposes. The more efficient we become at consuming, the more we consume. The more efficiently we work, the more work gets done. And we’re working at efficiently digging ourselves into a hole.

The economics of supply and demand

Many actions taken in the name of sustainability can have the opposite effect. Here’s something to ponder: one person’s decision not to take flights, out of concern about climate change or sustainability, won’t have any impact. If a few people stop flying, airlines will

SPRING 201444

ACTIVISM TODAY

reduce their prices, and amp up their marketing, and more people will take flights. And because they are doing it at lower prices, the airline needs to make more flights to make the profit it was before. More flights, more carbon emissions. And if the industry hit financial trouble as a result of lowered demand, it would get bailed out by governments. This “opt-out” strategy can’t win.

The decision not to fly isn’t doing anything to reduce the amount of car-bon being emitted, it’s just not adding to it in this instance. And any small reduction in the amount of carbon being emitted does nothing to stop climate change.

To really have an impact on global climate, we’ll need to stop every aero-plane and every fossil-fuel burning machine from operating ever again. And stopping every fossil-fuel burning machine is nowhere near the impossi-ble goal it may sound. It won’t be easy, but it’s definitely achievable. And it’s not only desirable, but essential if life on this planet is to survive.

The same goes for any other destructive product we might choose not to buy. Factory-farmed meat, palm oil, rainforest timbers, processed foods. For as long as there is a product to sell, there will be buyers. Attempt-ing to reduce the demand will have little, if any, effect. There will always be more products arriving on the market. Campaigns to reduce the demand of individual products will never be able to keep up. And with every new prod-uct, the belief that this one is a need, not a luxury, becomes ever stronger. Can I convince you not to buy a smart-phone, a laptop, a coffee? I doubt it.

To stop the devastation, we need to permanently cut off the supply, of everything that production requires. And targeting individual companies or practices won’t have any impact on the global power structures that feed on the destruction of the Earth. The whole of the global economy needs to be brought to a halt.

What do you really want?What’s more important – sustain-

able energy for you to watch TV, or the lives of the world’s rivers, forests, animals, and oceans? Would you

sooner live without these, without Earth? Even if this was an option, if you weren’t tightly bound in the in-terconnected in the web of life, would you really prefer to have electricity for your lights, computers and appliances, rather than share the ecstasy of being with all of life on Earth? Is a lifeless world ruled by machines really what you want?

If getting what you want requires destroying everything you need – clean air and water, food, and natural communities – then you’re not going to last long, and neither will anyone else.

I know what I want. I want to live in a world that is becoming ever more alive. A world regenerating from the destruction, where every year there are more fish, birds, trees and diversity than the year before. A world where I can breathe the air, drink from the rivers and eat from the land. A world where humans live in community with all of life.

Industrial technology is not sus-tainable. The global economy is not sustainable. Valuing the Earth only as a resource for humans to exploit is not sustainable. Civilization is not sustain-able. If civilization collapsed today, it would still be 400 years before human existence on the planet becomes truly sustainable. So if it’s genuine sus-tainability you want, then dismantle civilization today, and keep working at regenerating the Earth for 400 years. This is about how long it’s taken to create the destructive structures we live within today, so of course it will take at least that long to replace these structures with alternatives that benefit all of life on Earth, not just the wealthy minority. It won’t happen instantly, but that’s no reason not to start.

You might say let’s just walk away, build alternatives, and let the whole system just fall apart when no-one pays it any attention any more. I used to like this idea too. But it can’t work. Those in power use the weapons of fear and debt to maintain their control. The majority of the world’s people don’t have the option of walking away. Their fear and debt keeps them locked in the prison of civilization. Your walking away doesn’t help them. Your

breaking down the prison structure does.

We don’t have time to wait for civi-lization to collapse. Ninety per cent of large fish in the oceans are gone. 99 per cent of the old growth forests have been destroyed. Every day 200 more species become extinct, forever. If we wait any longer, there will be no fish, no forests, no life left anywhere on Earth.

So what can you do?Spread the word. Challenge the

dominant beliefs. Share this article with everyone you know.

Listen to the Earth. Get to know your nonhuman neighbors Look after each other. Act collectively, not indi-vidually. Build alternatives, like gift economies, polyculture food systems, alternative education and community governance. Create a culture of resist-ance.

Rather than attempting to reduce the demand for the products of a destructive system, cut off the supply. The economy is what’s destroying the planet, so stop the economy. The glob-al economy is dependent on a constant supply of electricity, so stopping it is (almost) as easy as flicking a switch.

Governments and industry will never do this for us, no matter how nicely we ask, or how firmly we push. It’s up to us to defend the land that our lives depend on.

We can’t do this as consumers, or workers, or citizens. We need to act as humans, who value life more than consuming, working and complaining about the government.

Learn about and support Deep Green Resistance, a movement with a working strategy to save the planet. Together, we can fight for a world worth living in. Join us.

In the words of Lierre Keith, co-author of the book Deep Green Resist-ance, “The task of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much personal integrity as pos-sible; it is to dismantle those systems.”

Kim Hill is based in Adelaide, Australia, and works with the activist group Deep Green Resistance.

SPRING 2014 45

wef

“By whatever measure you look at it, from individual freedom and health to social justice and ecological

sustainability, civilization has been an absolute disaster. “

46

When the lights go out, imagine justice

By Max Wilbert

When I start talking about the end of civilization as a way of life, people get confused.

Their confusion makes sense; after all, the dictionary definition of civiliza-tion is “the stage of human social development and organization that is considered most advanced.” Who would want to end that?

Here’s the problem: I’m working with a different definition. We aren’t using that word - civilization - in the same way. Here’s my definition. Civi-lization is a form of social organiza-tion - a way of life that began around 8,000 years ago in the Middle East - when humans began using large-scale agriculture to produce storable food and began living in large concentra-tions called cities - settlements dense enough to require the routine im-portation of food, timber, and other resources.

We’ve all been taught, based on that dictionary definition, that civilization is a good thing - that cities and agriculture led to the beginning of goodness, refinement, cultural advancement, and all that is right in the world. We’ve been taught that civilization is not only the basis of life, but that it is the only true, righteous way to live.

We’ve been lied to.By whatever measure you look

at it, from individual freedom and health to social justice and ecological sustainability, civilization has been

an absolute disaster. With civilization began kingdoms and empires, global wars, massive slavery, widespread deforestation, accelerated species extinction, and global warming. The list of atrocities is endless.

Don’t trust me. Go read the schol-arship: Ruddiman, Catton, Keith, Manning, Montgomery, Diamond, Kaplan. It’s all there. When people began living in cities and tilling the land for dense annual monocrops, disaster followed. Sometimes not for five hundred or a thousand years - but disaster followed. Civilization, in one way or another, lies at the root of many of the social and environmental issues in the world today.

Deliberate Deceptions

A lack of understanding about the roots of some of these global issues - along with a general misunderstand-ing of how power and injustice func-tions - are two factors that contribute to failures in our ability to plan for and achieve justice.

Without understanding the problem, how can we even begin to imagine a solution?

It’s not surprising, then, that most of the proposed solutions to envi-ronmental and social justice issues address only a small fraction of the problem. Look at race, for example. Since the 1960’s, we’ve seen a huge push for “multiculturalism”. It seems nice; it certainly is a good and worthy thing to understand different cultures.

But multiculturalism is little more than a facade.

Behind the veneer of politically correct rhetoric, ruthless exploitation of black and brown people continues unabated. Jails in the U.S. are packed with the victims of policing programs that target poor communities of color, especially the so-called “war on drugs”. The school-to-prison pipeline isn’t just an idea - jail expansions are explicitly determined based on elementary school test scores. Parents: does that make you uneasy?

The system is built to chew people (and whole communities) up, and the multi-billion dollar private prison industry swallows them whole. Every social system - education, housing, banking, military, industrial, media - is set up to denigrate and exploit people of color in this country. That’s why reform will never be enough (although it is useful: all other things being equal, I’d rather have the mini-mum wage at $15 than $7.50).

In order to achieve substantial change, power needs to be fundamen-tally redistributed, which will require a radical restructuring of current institutions or their complete over-throw. As the saying goes, “the system isn’t broken. It was made this way.”

Another example of a popular false solution is the massive fixation within the environmental movement on technological change in energy production and transportation. There are a few major problems with this. First, there are serious concerns about


the true sustainability of these and other “green” technologies.

Author and activist Lierre Keith writes:

“Windmills, PV panels, the grid itself are all manufactured using that cheap energy [from fossil fuels]. When fossil fuel costs begin to rise such highly manufactured items will simply cease to be feasible: sic transit gloria renewables… The basic ingredients for renewables are the same materi-als that are ubiquitous in industrial products, like cement and aluminum. No one is going to make cement in any quantity without using the energy of fossil fuels… And aluminum? The mining itself is a destructive and toxic nightmare from which riparian com-munities will not awaken in anything but geologic time.”

This highlights the second issue with so-called “green technologies”: social justice. In India, in the state of Orissa

on the eastern Coast, mountains containing Bauxite - the raw ore that is refined into aluminum - are being threatened by massive multinational mining corporations. The problem is that these mountains are covered in life - a thick rainforest, innumer-able plant and animal species, and a community of the Dongriah Kondh adivasi (indigenous) people.

Just to give a sense of the amount of industrial materials required to produce some of these “green tech-nologies”, let’s look at a wind turbine. One of the most common wind tur-bines in the world is a 1.5 megawatt design produced by General Elec-tric. The nacelle - the portion of the turbine on top of the tower - weighs 56 tons, while the tower weighs in at 71 tons and the blades at 36 tons. A single turbine, at over 60 percent steel, requires over 100 tons of the material. This 1.5 megawatt model is a smaller design by modern standards - the lat-est industrial turbines stand over 600

feet tall and require about eight times as much steel, copper, and aluminum.

This material comes from some-where, and that somewhere is always someone’s home, someone’s sacred site, someone’s source of food and wa-ter and air. We just don’t hear about them, because if they are humans, they are usually poor and brown. This is where racism, colonialism, environ-mentalism, and extractive economics come together.

The third issue with industrial technologies like solar panels and wind turbines is the issue of corpo-rate power. The largest producer of wind turbines in the world is Vestas, which is a $15 billion corporation. The largest U.S. producer of turbines is General Electric, which has assets of more than $700 billion and is the fourth-largest producer of another commodity: air pollution. Can any-one really think - after Fukushima, Hanford, Bhopal - that these massive corporations are concerned about


A reminder of the misery of the Industrial Rev-olution era in the West - that misery continues, largely in so-called developing countries

48

justice or sustainability? Profit is their bottom line, and life will always remain secondary to that. Any wishes to the contrary are just that.

Just to be clear, I’m not arguing against small-scale implementation of solar power or wind turbines. A few friends who live in remote locations have solar arrays on their homes, and if I had the choice between having solar panels and continuing to live on the grid, that choice would be easy for me.

My point is that this is a lifestyle decision, not a political one. Either route - on-grid or off - is mediated by global industrial civilization.

Any deep examination of indus-trially-produced technologies like wind turbines, electric cars, or solar panels yields the same result. These technologies require strip mining, the displacement of peoples, and global-ized systems of exploitation. So the

question is clear: is aluminum worth the deaths of plants, animals, moun-tains, cultures? Is steel? Are solar panels and electric cars? Is electricity itself?

The Way Out of a Double Bind

We’ve been given two options: par-ticipate in the system willingly, or take part in a patented, mediated sort of resistance carefully designed to be ineffective and exhausting.

As a friend of mine often says, “the only way out of a double bind is to smash it.”

I believe that in order to funda-mentally address many of the current issues facing the world, we need to get at the root of these problems, and that requires moving away from civiliza-tion as a form of social organization. Of course, it’s not as simple as just

walking away. Civilization is a power structure, built to perpetuate itself through economic and political actors. Civilization wields power to maintain and grow power, and it won’t be unseated easily. Civilization is based on force, and confronting civilization means dealing with - dis-abling, destroying, and/or replacing - each of the systems it uses to enforce its urban paradigm: economics, education, food and water, military, governmental, communications, transportation, fuel, power, and more.It’s a massive job, but there is amaz-ing work being done in all these areas already. This struggle has been ongoing for millennia, and there are a million different places to fit into the resistance.

The collapse of industrial civiliza-tion has begun, and it looks more like the collapse of the Soviet Union than some Mad Max scenario. Peak


All that glitters is not gold - a petrochemical plant in the heart of the US

49

oil has been bumped back a few years by quick-to-deplete fracking wells, but fossil fuels are on their way out. Corporate domination continues to grow. The GDP rises while the ranks of the poor and homeless swell, and the infrastructure that helps the people crumbles while new skyscrapers and penthouses rise.

Mainstream solutions are easier and easier to see as the illusions they are. Black and brown communities live in greater poverty than ever while a black president sits in the White House. Renewables, besides their obvious envi-ronmental and social justice issues, look great on the TV spots but will never replace the dense, easily transported fossil fuels. Extreme energy is booming. Fracking, tar sands, and offshore oil drilling are all expanding. Nuclear energy may be experiencing a resurgence, as those who care about justice find themselves stabbed in the back by those who should be their allies. Two examples: George Monbiot and James Hansen, who have both bought into the mythos that this indus-trial culture must continue by any means necessary.

My community is talking about any means necessary too, but in a different context. Without intervention, civili-zation might rumble on for another decade, two, three. By that point, it would be too late for much of life on Earth: to take just one example, carbon emissions need to be cut more than ninety percent by 2020 to have a decent chance of avoid-ing runaway global warming. That’s why many thousands of us are actively working against global industrial civilization

- its infrastructure, its institu-tions, its operators - to try to stop them before it’s too late. I work with a group called Deep Green Resistance that advocates strategic resistance to dismantle global industrial infrastruc-ture - to shut down the world economy before it is too late. Time is short, and the situation is dire.

When The Lights Go Out

Working to stop industrial civi-lization comes with a serious question: “what is the alterna-tive?”

Can you imagine a life without modern luxuries and without the exploitation they require? What would life look like, in the place you live right now, without industrialism, without capitalism, without industry, without civilization? Take a moment and think. How would you live?

That might seem scary to you; it certainly is to me. I live in Salt Lake City at the mo-ment, and winters are cold here. It’s was below freezing for the whole month of December, a point where winter is less than halfway through.

But then I remember: right now, half the world’s popula-tion lives without electricity, with furs and fires and hearty meals to hold them through the winter. I have many friends who have built homes with local ma-terials - straw bales, cob, timber, and stone - and who heat and cook with wood alone. Living without modern civilization isn’t impossible. It’s not even hard to imagine.

One friend of mine raises goats, chickens, and a large garden, preserving her harvest and living from the land year-

round. Another friend, a Sho-shone man, hunts wild deer, elk, turkey, and more with nothing beyond a bow and arrows. My aunt weaves beautiful, function-al baskets, mats, and containers, while yet another friend keeps alive the herbal medicinal tradi-tions of her people.

All of these people wor-ship the world in one way or another; Earth provides them with what they need, and they give thanks and pledge to give back in what ways they can. These survival skills - from bas-ket weaving to herbal medicine to fire-making - are complex technologies that have been passed down from generation to generation because they are functional and democratic, because they work, and because they don’t require the world to be killed.

These are the beginnings of community, and community is the antithesis of civilization and the fulcrum of survival in a post-civilization world.Far from what some would have you believe, a life based on these simple ways is not nasty, brutish, and short. Imagine living life nestled inside a com-munity nestled inside a forest, grassland, wetland. Imagine no clocks, the cancer epidemic a distant memory, no wage slavery, no drones, and global warming just a fading myth as the living land soaks up the toxic air of a bygone era. This life is not only possible, it’s our only real option. No other way of life is sustainable; nothing else will last. It’s right around the corner.

I don’t mean to glamorize the situation. Beyond the con-veniences of modern civiliza-tion, some discoveries - like much of modern medicine,


lighting, and more - are indeed amazing. Indigenous societies tend to have high rates of infant mortality and many other is-sues, but the main point stands: no other way of life is sustain-able; no other way of life will last. We have no other option. For many of us who come from inside civilization, there is some sadness in that, but there is also salvation.

Life without gas heating would be hard here in Salt Lake City. But it would be life, which is more than can be said for modernity. The inevitable con-clusion of civilization is barren saline fields, silent clearcuts, en-slaved and conquered peoples. Which side are you on? Don’t you want something different? What will you do when the lights go out?

I know what I will do. I will light a candle, sit with my loved ones, close my eyes, and imagine justice.

Max Wilbert is a writer and organizer based in the Pacific Northwest. His activism began in Seattle at a young age with cam-paigns against police brutality, racism in schools, and imperial-ism, then expanded to environ-mental issues. He currently lives in Salt Lake City and is working to oppose tar sands mining and water extraction projects in the region.


DEATH OF JAPAN?


Who should really fear the fallout from the Fukushima nuclear disaster?By Marc Jacob

52

DEATH OF JAPAN?


Last year’s announcement that Tokyo had won the 2020 Summer Olympics and Paralympics ap-peared to win pride of place in the hearts of the Japanese people and a

flurry of media coverage. For Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the award of the games provided a much-needed boost, a success story set against a background of struggle to kick life into the economy and revive the standing of his country, troubled by tensions with his country’s neighbors.

Any country that wins the chance to host the Olympics will make a fuss. For Japan and Prime Minister Abe the award was also a question of face, an honor to display to the world.

But as construction gets underway of the venues for the 2020 Olympics and life goes on for the 127 million Japanese people, a shadow hangs over Tokyo and Japan as a whole, and over the wider world.

Asking the right questions

Just how much of a threat does the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant pose? And are we asking the right questions when we probe into the potential extent of the danger?

Tokyo, just 250 kms south of Fukushima, home to around 20 million people

CREDIT Sprengben

53


The March 11, 2011 Tohoku earthquake and resulting tsunami led to 19,000 deaths and the failure of the nuclear power plant, the largest nuclear catastrophe since the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant disas-ter. Fukushima was rated level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, the highest level disaster. The earthquake and tsunami resulted in serious damage to the nuclear plant, the meltdown of three out of the six reactors and the heavy release of radiation into the air and into the water. Radioactive water continues to leak into the Pacific Ocean today.

If comparisons are to be made, the potential fallout from Fukushima could be dozens as times as large as

that of the Chernobyl nuclear plant meltdown.

Threat to Tokyo?

At one point, in the immediate aftermath of the quake, the then government of Prime Minister Naoto Kan considered the evacuation of Tokyo, one of the world’s most popu-lated cities, a move that would have “threatened the future of the Japanese state,” it was said at the time. That first knee-jerk response fleetingly raised the specter of a major threat to the Japanese people, a peacetime remind-er of the awesome destructive power of nuclear fission.

In the end, the evacuation plans

were scaled dramatically back to place a 20 kilometer exclusion zone around the Fukushima site, in addition to a 30 kilometer voluntary evacuation zone. Tokyo lies about 250 kms to the south. More than 340,000 people were forced to became nuclear refugees, abandoning their homes and liveli-hoods, most of them now living in formerly empty buildings on the outskirts of Tokyo. Few, if any, are likely to be able to return, despite the suggestion by the government that they might be able to go home after a period of six years has elapsed. The level of radioactive contamination is too high.

In the immediate wake of the earthquake and tsunami, Prime

Organized tours of the Fukushima plant are put on for journalists on occasions to show the clean-up work underway

Photo: IAEA

54


Minister Naoto Kan was criticized over his government’s handling of the crisis. That said, his decision to call for a skeleton crew to remain at the crippled nuclear plant in the immedi-ate aftermath may have saved it from total collapse, and a far bigger crisis than faced today.

Threat to the Northern Hemisphere?

In the initial flurry of reactions to the Fukushima meltdown in 2011, the specter of global disaster loomed large. Talk was that the fallout was spreading by air and sea across the Pacific Ocean with fears voiced that radiation posed a major threat to the West Coast of North America and even further afield.

But the potential for a serious

threat to people’s and animals’ health across the Northern Hemisphere appears to center less on the daily leakage of radioactive water into the ocean, though there are concerns. If there is a serious threat it centers on the danger of a nuclear plant meltdown that could spark a chain reaction within the plant and release large doses of radiation into the atmo-sphere and water. A meltdown could also spell an end to the clean-up work currently underway by hired workers. Dr Helen Caldicott, a physician and prominent anti-nuclear activist, has warned that the magnitude of the Fu-kushima disaster was two dozen times as bad as the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster, and that “if Spent Fuel Pool No. 4 collapses I am evacuating my family from Boston,” aiming to take up residence in the

Southern Hemisphere. Caldicott described the risks of re-

moving the rods as “terribly serious” because of the danger of releasing a large amount of radiation. “Two rods could touch each other in this process which has been done before and there could be a fission reaction and a very large release of radiation.”

Scientist David Suzuki has been both hard-hitting and cautious in his response to the disaster. He has been extremely critical of the Japanese government’s handling of the crisis, claiming it has been “lying through its teeth.” In a report in November 2013 in Russia Today, Suzuki, a Japanese-Canadian, said Fukushima is the most terrifying situation he can imagine, noting that another earthquake, in this quake-prone region, could trigger a meltdown, a potentially catastrophic

Photo: IAEA

Meters to check for radiation levels are now popular in Japan

55


nuclear disaster. “The fourth [reactor] has been

so badly damaged that the fear is if there’s another earthquake of a 7 or above then that building will go and all hell breaks loose,” he said, adding that the chances of an earthquake measuring 7 or above in Japan over the next three years were over 95 percent.

“If the fourth [reactor] goes under an earthquake and those rods are exposed, then it’s bye, bye, Japan and everybody on the west coast of North America should be evacuated. And if that isn’t terrifying, I don’t know what is,” Suzuki said.

Much of the focus is on Building Four, which was switched off at the time of the disaster but contains 1,400 spent fuel rods. As nuclear technol-ogy historian Robert Jacobs told Russia Today, there could easily be more destruction at the plant’s fourth reactor. “If this building were to col-lapse, which could happen, it would spill these spent nuclear fuel rods all over the ground which would make the 2020 Tokyo Olympics impossible and could threaten all kinds of health problems throughout northern Japan and Tokyo itself,” Jacobs said.

Dr Suzuki, however, has tended to play down the fears, fanned by messages on social media, that the Pacific Ocean is badly contaminated by Fukushima radiation spillage and that eating seafood or even swimming off the North American coast is now dangerous. As he said in late 2013, given the lack of information around containment efforts, some may find the fear of eating seafood reasonable. “But preliminary research shows fish caught off Canada’s Pacific Coast are safe to eat.”

A radiation plume is a expected to reach the West Coast of North America this year, he says, but while there are concerns – partly due to the lack of systematic monitoring of the coast, this should not be a cause of serious alarm.

“Recent testing of migratory fish, including tissue samples collected from Pacific bluefin tuna caught off the California coast, assessed radia-tion levels and potential effects on marine food webs far away from Japan,” he said. “Trace amounts of radioisotopes from the Fukushima

plant were found, although the best available science puts them at levels below those naturally occurring in the environment around us. Natural, or background radiation, is found in many sources, including food items, medical treatments and air travel.”

Dr Suzuki points out that any

The most vulnerable are the workers attempting to clean up the Fukushima nuclear plant

Photo: IAEA

56


amount of leaked radiation is harm-ful to the planet and the health of all species, including humans. A major release of radioactivity, such as that from Fukushima, is a huge concern, with unknowns remaining around long-term health risks such as cancers. But, he says, that doesn’t mean it’s unsafe to eat all fish caught on the Pacific West Coast. “I’m taking a precautionary approach: fish will stay part of my diet, as long as they’re caught locally and sustainably, and will remain so until new research gives me pause to reconsider.”

Secrecy and blackout

The disaster happened almost three years ago. Today, after a rash of news

stories and videos speaking of the potential for world calamity as a re-sult of the disaster – mostly from the alternative rather than mainstream media – it is clear that efforts to clean-up the Fukushima nuclear plant site are moving slowly, with worrying projections of how long the whole process could take. Official predic-tions suggest the clean-up will take four decades.

To compound the problem of un-derstanding what is happening at Fu-kushima and the dangers posed, the government appears intent on a cover up, with fears further compounded by Prime Minister Abe’s government move to pass a state secrecy law in December 2013.

As Sophia University Professor

Koichi Nakano explained in Janu-ary to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now in discussing the law, “… it concerns primarily security issues and anti-terrorist measures. But ... it became increasingly clear that the interpretation of what actually constitutes state secret could be very arbitrary and rather freely defined by government leaders. For example, anti-nuclear citizen movements can come under surveillance without their knowledge, and arrests can be made.” Journalists or activists attempting to probe into the problems posed by Fukushima might also feel the weight of the law, he says.

As Counterpunch Magazine pointed out in January, many of Japan’s most famous scientists,

57

Photo: IAEA

Japan has a growing anti-nuclear power movement - a demonstration in Tokyo. CREDIT Sando Cap


including Nobel laureates, Toshihide Maskawa and Hideki Shirakawa, have led the opposition against this new state secrecy legislation with 3,000 academics signing a public letter of protest. These scientists and academ-ics declared the government’s secrecy law a threat to “the pacifist principles and fundamental human rights estab-lished by the constitution and should be rejected immediately,” the maga-zine reports.

Critics claim Abe is trying to cover up the real dangers posed by the slow and poorly-handled cleanup of the Fukushima nuclear plant, with the aim to revive plans to restart Japan’s nuclear power drive, despite a growing grassroots anti-nuclear power movement taking to the streets of Japan.

On another level, the Japanese prime minister wants to avoid any suggestion that Fukushima could imperil the 2020 Olympic Games. If athletes or visitors felt they could be at risk when they come for the games, this could seriously jeopardize the outcome of the world’s top sporting event for a country desperately keen to run it perfectly.

Lack of safe storage

It is not just transparency over the Fukushima meltdown that is in ques-tion. As writer William Boardman points out in Global Research maga-zine, Prime Minister Abe has moved aggressively to expand Japan’s reliance on nuclear power, even though the country has no nuclear waste re-pository and already has more than 14,000 tons of spent fuel in cooling pools at 50 nuclear plants around the country. During a visit to Japan in early December 2013, the head of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Allison Macfarlane, cautioned Japan about nuclear expansion as long as there’s no place in the world to store nuclear waste safely. In addition, local anti-nuclear activists have questioned

the wisdom of building nuclear power plants in a country prone to suffer fre-quent earthquakes.

Adding an unsettling edge to Japan’s pro-nuclear policy, Prime Minister Abe has foreshadowed a growing Japanese militarism that has drawn outspoken disapproval from both South Korea and China, where the horrors of Japanese military oc-cupation during the mid-twentieth century are far from forgotten, Board-man writes.

As he says Japan’s nuclear policy has gone full circle – from pro-nu-clear to anti, back to pro – and Abe is leading the nuclear charge. Further adding to the wariness of Japan’s neighboring countries presumably is Abe’s efforts to expand the Japa-nese military, to allow it to be able to move from a defensive posture to an offensive position, should the need arise. Japan’s large stockpile of Pluto-nium (44 tons, enough for more than 6,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs), puts Japan much closer to having nuclear weapons than Iran and most other non-nuclear nations.

Boardman says there is little comfort in knowing that the walls of secrecy Japan has been put up around Fukushima and other nuclear power activities, which will make it harder to know about what if any weapons pro-grams the country undertakes. And there is even less comfort in know-ing that no international body, no government, no non-governmental nuclear regulator is raising any active, public challenge to Japanese nuclear secrecy, civilian or military.

As journalist Goodman of De-mocracy Now wrote in a column in January entitled, “Fukushima is an ongoing warning to the world on nuclear energy”: “Prime Minister Abe, leading the most conservative Japanese administration since World War II, wants to restart his country’s nuclear power plants, despite over-whelming public opposition. Public protests outside Abe’s official resi-

dence in Tokyo continue.”

A country in crisis

On the face of it, Japan today presents an image of modernization and de-velopment to the world, a miraculous revival from the devastation found in the wake of World War II including the destruction of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Naga-saki. A visit to Tokyo today reveals a modern façade, replete with the latest technical gadgets and innovations. Yet the glitz and order cover worry-ing problems of a troubled and aging society struggling to reinvent itself, both economically and culturally.

As John Kampfner wrote recently in the Guardian newspaper, the no-tion of Japan in crisis is a strange one. “Little of the old confidence remains; a succession of weak and unimagina-tive governments has made little im-pact. There is much head scratching about a corporate culture that is long past its sell-by date. Yet this is not a country afflicted by overt poverty or social dislocation. Crime remains extremely low, as do prison rates.”

Prime Minister Abe’s government represents a swing to the right, eerily reminiscent of the country’s relega-tion to the backwaters in the years between the World War I and World War II. But it is a swing that many in Japanese politics and the corpo-rate world appear to be embracing, seeking desperately to stay relevant in a changing world, maintain strong economic growth, and hold on to the lifestyle that comes as a result of being a developed nation.

A question of face

Face matters to Prime Minister Abe and his government, keen to retain their country’s status on the world stage and revive their authority after over half a century of having to pub-licly make amends for the country’s brutal aggression in Asia and further

58


afield. The Fukushima disaster is an unneeded diversion and Abe and other government ministers are try-ing to ignore and downplay it.

Critics have expressed fears that the full extent of the dangers posed by the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant are being covered up. With Tokyo keen to restart their nuclear power drive, the last thing they want is news stories about the difficulties being faced in the clean-up and the potential dangers posed on a local, national and international level.But stories are seeping out with Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) at the center of the controversy. The power company that was running the power plant is in charge of the clean-up, yet it has little or no experience of dealing with nuclear disaster clean-up issues. Their efforts to deal with the

problem, and their staff-hiring prac-tices, including relying on companies linked to Japan’s underworld Yakuza, have come in for criticism.

In January, TEPCO President Naomi Hirose was still sticking to the line that his company would continue to handle the decommissioning of the nuclear plant, despite shriller calls on an international level to bring in outside expertise. Hirose told Reuters news agency that if working condi-tions improve significantly at Fuku-shima and worker shortages become no longer a problem, the utility could consider hiving off the Fukushima decommissioning from the rest of the business, a suggestion that had put forward by policymakers way back in the immediate wake of the disaster close to three years ago.

TEPCO is in a bind. Central to

TEPCO’s business revival plan is the restart of the reactors at Kashiwazaki Kariwa, the world’s biggest nuclear power plant, as early as July 2014, a move which faces staunch opposition from a local governor who has repeat-edly called for the company’s liquida-tion, according to Reuters. Governor Hirohiko Izumida of Niigata, home to the Kashiwazaki plant some 300 kilometers northwest of Tokyo, said TEPCO’s plan does not hold share-holders and banks accountable. He has also said that TEPCO must not be allowed to consider restarting its other nuclear facilities before a com-prehensive review of the Fukushima disaster has been carried out. In an attempt to jumpstart the Kashiwazaki plant, TEPCO is warning that it may have to raise electricity prices by as much as 10 percent if there is further

Many Japanese appreciate that the fall-out does not only affect Japan - a demonstration in Tokyo

59

delay in bringing this plant online.

Reluctance to bring in help

TEPCO has been reluctant to invite outside help, despite many nuclear energy experts around the world call-ing for nuclear engineering experts to offer guidance on the tricky decom-missioning process at the troubled nuclear plant. The company has been broadly criticized by regulators for a string of recent announcements related to the cleanup efforts. Tanks holding contaminated water were found to be leaking, and radioactive water from the damaged reactors is spilling into the sea. Roughly, 400 cubic meters of contaminated water is being released into the sea every day. According to media reports, TEPCO plans to solve the problem by setting up special equipment to freeze the ground around the reactors. The work, begun in January 2014, includes plunging tubes carrying a coolant liquid deep into the ground. The plan is for the coolant to freeze the ground solid so that no groundwater can pass through it. But this is unlikely to work, say critics including Dr Suzuki.

According to Arnie Gunderson of Fairwinds Energy Education, who formerly worked in the nuclear power industry, the clean-up is a half a trillion dollar problem that is being amateurishly dealt with on a local level when foreign experts should be brought in. He says the plant is continuing to contaminate the land, sea and air around Japan. Gunderson points to the precarious situation at buildings four and three, the latter more seriously damaged than build-ing four but containing fewer fuel rods. He says Japan should be treating the clean-up like a war, so serious is the threat.

But this is only part of a much bigger – and more scary – problem, he says. Experts are warning that not only could it take decades to clean up the nuclear power plant at Fukushima

but that the fuel rods and their con-tainment is highly unstable. The mainstream media in Japan and abroad has failed to convey the grav-ity of the problem, and the interna-tional community is doing far too little, if anything, to help.

As Akio Matsumara said in a story entitled, “Japan, Swallow Your Pride and Ask for Help,” his country should show wisdom in reaching out.“Prime Minister Abe should use his hard-won political independence to stave off a crisis. He has the opportu-nity to overcome Japan’s incapacitat-ing national pride and ask for the best technical support and expertise the world can offer. The world would no doubt quickly come to Japan’s aid. Asking for assistance should be his first governing priority. Besides, it is good politics. How can he build a strong Japanese economy if a top export is radioactivity?”

More than the Olympics

Deteriorating conditions at the Fukushima plant could mean serious problems for Japan, Eastern Asia and further field in the Northern Hemi-sphere. But for the Japanese people, it is not just a question of whether Tokyo will be safe for the 2020 Olym-pics.

Fairewinds Energy Education’s Gundersen says, all of Japan is radio-logically exposed. Fukushima in effect is a never-ending disaster, for the next half a century, and just mere specks of radioactive dust can lead to health problems including cancer.

One of the problems, according to Dr Caldicott, is the relatively long periods between exposure to serious doses of radiation and serious health effects including cancer and death, typically anything from five to 15 years. According to a report published in Russia, over 1 million people have died so far as a direct consequence of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, she points out. But the Chernobyl

cleanup was carried out fairly quickly with the help of the Russian Army.

Two-fold threat

The threat to Japan could be charac-terized as two-fold. Firstly, millions of people have already been exposed to airborne and waterborne radioactive particles and the number will increase year after year as the damaged plant continues to “leak” radioactive waste. Secondly, there are serious worries about a meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant either through an ac-cident in the spent nuclear fuel rod removal process or due to another bad earthquake, which scientists predict has a 95 percent certainty of happening within the next few years, a quake that could lead to the collapse of Building Four or further destruc-tion of the other buildings, including Building Three.

Japan could feel the brunt of this nuclear disaster medium to long term, through the ongoing radioactive pol-lution of the north and central region of the country, and spillage into the ocean. How many deaths this will lead to is unclear at this stage. But if there is a major meltdown, as described, a question would hang over just how many people would have to be evacuated, from how big an area, and just how many would fall ill and die from the spread of the radiation.

Would Japan as a nation be under threat? The naysayers say yes. Large areas of this tightly-packed country could be subject to a radioactive fall-out that could threaten the health and lives of tens of millions of people. A sizeable area of the country could effectively become uninhabitable. Whether that would include the na-tion’s capital Tokyo is unclear. Such a scenario could prove catastrophic for Japan as a nation state.

A serious threat is posed to coun-tries in the Northern Hemisphere. But in the end, it is Japan that will bear


the brunt if there is a major meltdown.

Japanese public begins to wake up

The Japanese public is beginning to wake up to the dangers posed by the crippled Fukushima plant and the questions over the safety of nuclear power. Anti-nuclear protestors marched through Tokyo in October, calling on the government not to restart the nuclear power plants that were closed in the wake of the earth-quake and tsunami that damaged the nuclear plant in Fukushima.

The fact that a sizeable number of Japanese people are coming together to express their opposition to nuclear power, may seem reassuring. Japan knows only too well the destructive power of nuclear materials when used as weapons of war. There are fears that this earthquake-prone series of islands is too unstable for nuclear power plants, particularly given the current plants do not appear to be built to withstand major quakes. Many people are calling for the government to focus on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.

Gundersen from Fairewinds and international diplomat Akio Matsu-mara say TEPCO must be removed from the clean-up process and expert international engineers brought in.But there is little to indicate a change of heart from the Japanese government or TEPCO.

The last words could go to Matsu-mara, who regularly speaks out on the issue. As he wrote in the wake of the disaster, many people “might find it difficult to appreciate the actual mean-ing of the figure, yet we can grasp what 85 times more Cesium-137 than the Chernobyl would mean. It would de-stroy the world environment and our civilization. This is not rocket science, nor does it connect to the pugilistic debate over nuclear power plants. This is an issue of human survival.”

A serious threat is posed to countries in the Northern Hemisphere. But in the end, it is Japan that will bear the

brunt if there is a major meltdown.


CREDIT N Feans

61

CHOICES BY MAX WILBERT

Ferns and forest, USA.

62

Check out more photos from Max Wilbert at http://maxwilbert.org

Ferns and forest, USA. Power station in Moscow, above; tar sands mining site, Utah, USA, below.

63

Because you care

News and insight on people making a difference

Check out www.earthtribe.co

Documents

Activism Today Issue 3