As part of an ongoing series of direct actions, activists confronted CEO Marc Gerken and demanded that AMP-Ohio cancel its plans for construction of a new and widely opposed coal-fired power plant in southeast Ohio.

Dozens of activists charged the building and occupied the lobby, disabled video cameras with silly string, danced on furniture, banged on pots and pans, and delivered anti-coal messages to employees with chants and songs. Five activists locked themselves down in the lobby and two activists climbed the flagpoles in front of the building, hoisting signs that read "no new coal!" and "we won't stop until you do."

Business as usual was disrupted for several hours while police forcibly removed demonstrators from the property, arresting eight. Bail money is still needed for several activists. Please help out by donating to the legal fund at http://earthfirstjournal.org.


Morgan Kipler, an Earth First!er from Columbus, said that the proposed plant “is currently the greatest threat to Ohio's health, safety, and welfare, and must be cancelled immediately.”

Earth First! opposes the power plant for a number of reasons. The proposed plant would be a major climate change contributor, emitting 7.3 million tons of CO2 into the air every year. The local impact is just as dramatic: Meigs County ranks number one in the state for lung cancer incidence, and number two for related mortalities.

A study released by the Clean Air Task Force shows Meigs County to be in the center of a tri-state hot zone for premature death rates directly attributable to PM 2.5 exposures. PM 2.5 is the particulate matter released by power plants responsible for a multiplicity of life-shortening illnesses including cancer and cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.

If the proposed AMP-OH plant is built, it will become one of five coal plants within a ten-mile radius to the southern tip of Meigs County. Additionally, four more coal-fired plants have been proposed for construction in the area by other electric utility providers. This is an obvious injustice as it forms the backbone of the highest concentration of coal-fired power plants in the country.

The power plant is also a bad deal for electric customers. Costs of construction have escalated from $1.2 to $2.9 billion since October of 2005, an increase of about $1.7 million per day over the last 3 years! At a time of cost hikes, nationwide power plant cancellations and rejections, and pending federal legislation on global warming emissions, AMP-Ohio is making a bad decision for its member communities, the people of Meigs County, and future generations in Ohio and beyond.

Earth First! said it will continue to resist the construction of the AMP-Ohio plant with a diversity of tactics.

http://www.nbc4i.com/midwest/cmh/news.apx.-content-articles-CMH-2008-07-07-0020.html
http://www.wsyx6.com/shared/newsroom/top_stories/wsyx_vid_741.shtml
http://www.10tv.com/live/content/local/stories/2008/07/07/plant_protest.html?sid=102
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wosu/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1313887&sectionID=1
http://www.wdtn.com/Global/story.asp?S=8632103
http://dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/07/07/protest.html?sid=101
http://www.10tv.com/live/content/local/stories/2008/07/07/plant_protest.html?sid=102
http://athensnews.com/news/local/2008/jul/10/columbus-protest-against-meigs-county-power-plant-/
http://www.wtte28.com/template/inews_wire/wires.regional.oh/32515dad-www.wtte28.com.shtml
http://www.mydailytribune.com/articles/2008/07/09/news/news01.txt
http://www.mydailysentinel.com/articles/2008/07/09/news/news00.txt
cbusimc.org/node/13900
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/3/2008/3154
http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/07/08/utility-headquarters-overtaken-by-earth-first-no-more-business-as-usual

Earth First! is an international movement rooted in bio-centrism and direct action. This action concludes the Earth First! 2008 national gathering, which took place in Southern Ohio from June 30-July 7th.

That translates into 25% of the cost of the green roof.  Why does this matter?  Jobs, food, efficiency --> an ecologically responsible, socially just and personally healthy society.

This highlights the for-profit company that has spun off from the SSBx and its green jobs training program, B.E.S.T. The company, Smart Roofs, LLC, is poised to establish itself as a leading provider of green roof installation with the new regulations in place.  We're used to dirty energy companies re-writing the laws to improve business.  Lets not forget, we should be doing that too!

Europe has always had higher gas prices than the U.S, but in the past year European consumers have seen a dramatic increase in fuel costs. In Spain, truckers are no longer breaking even with diesel at almost $9 a gallon, and have launched a coordinated direct action campaign to protest this economic hardship and pressure the government to take action. Yesterday, truckers organized a blockade of Spain's border with France. Check out the  NYTimes article

Mass actions such as this highlight the desperate economic situation which many working class people, both in the U.S. and abroad find themselves in, trapped in a petroleum based economy with the cost of fuel continually escalating. Oil is predicted to reach a record high price of $150 per barrel, which will continue to impact lower income and working class people the hardest. To me, this is another example of energy injustice, and further highlights the need to quickly transition to a clean, just, affordable energy future.

This just in: the North Carolina state legislature may take the destructive and despicable practice of mountaintop removal coal mining head-on by banning the use of coal obtained from mountaintop removal at any North Carolina coal plant.   The Appalachian Mountains Preservation Act, introduced today by Representative Pricey Harrison (D-Guilford) and supported by our friends at Appalachian Voices, would be the first of it's kind in the nation.

From the Appalachian Voices press release:

“Right now, North Carolina is one of the nation’s top consumers of coal from mountaintop removal mining,” said Rep. Harrison.  “That needs to change.  Mountaintop removal coal mining presents a clear and present danger to the Appalachian Mountains, which are home to a vibrant and indelible culture, stunning biodiversity and enormous economic potential.”

Mountaintop removal coal mining is an extremely destructive form of strip mining found throughout Appalachia, with some mines as big as the island of Manhattan.  Coalfield residents say that it tears apart communities, poisons water supplies, pollutes the air and destroys our nation’s natural heritage – while only making the climate crisis worse.
“The mountains being destroyed by mountaintop removal here in eastern Kentucky are very similar to the mountains of western North Carolina,” said Teri Blanton of Kentuckians for the Commonwealth. “Mountaintop removal is destroying our culture and biodiversity across Appalachia, and we are pleased to see that the people of North Carolina, who value their mountains, recognize the connection and want to treat all the mountains of the region with the same respect.”

Thirteen North Carolina power plants purchase coal from mountaintop removal mine sites, according to the records included in the My Connection tool created by Appalachian Voices, online at www.ilovemountains.org.

“With this landmark legislation, North Carolina has a chance to lead the nation in calling for an end to highly destructive and unnecessary mountaintop removal mining,” said Mary Anne Hitt, Executive Director of Appalachian Voices.  “North Carolinians know we can find better ways to generate electricity.”

Sixty-one percent of the electricity used to power North Carolina homes and businesses is generated by coal-fired power plants.  Nationwide, North Carolina is second only to Georgia in its use of mountaintop removal coal.

Head to www.ILoveMountains.org for more on mountain top removal and how to fight it.

image credit: www.ILoveMountains.org

The role of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology in our energy future has sparked a vigorous discussion here at ItsGettingHotInHere and within the youth climate movement. There are hard questions about CCS that each of us must answer for ourselves, and a I feel like I've been wrestling with these questions within my own soul for quite a while, most recently as I look at a very real example here in the Northwest.  As a renewable energy advocate and climate activist in the Pacific Northwest, I've been pondering what to do about this coal dilemma, and what role the region's youth climate activists should play:

The question is this:  Under what context should we fight a proposed IGCC coal plant in the Northwest that plans to be equipped with CCS to capture at least 50% of its emissions from day one?

If the new plant was going to increase emissions in the region, we're clearly justified in opposing it.  But what if the new plant was going to replace an equal amount of electricity from existing coal plants in the region?  What if building this new plant let us shutter a pre-Clean Air Act coal plant that is the largest emitter of just about everything bad in the state of Oregon (and is scheduled to run for another 20+ years)? That question could very well come to the fore here in Oregon soon, as we pressure PGE to close down the Boardman coal plant, the dirtiest beast in the entire state and replace it with something else.  We're already pushing efficiency and renewables here in Oregon full throttle, we're fighting off LNG, fighting off new pulverized coal plants (six in the last year!) and fighting off an independent IGCC plant that had no plans to sequester emissions. Where does that leave us?

I've worked for the region's leading renewable energy advocacy organization for the past two years.  I helped pass the Oregon Renewable Energy Act, fight off PacifiCorp's coal plant plans and co-founded the region's largest youth climate network, and even I wonder how far and how fast we can push renewables and efficiency?

Regional projections right now show that even with renewable energy standards in place in three of four Northwest states (25% by 2025 in Oregon for example) and with some of the most aggressive energy efficiency programs in the nation, efficiency and renewables will only be enough to meet growing electricity demand over the next 20 years.   To put it another way: ramping up renewables and efficiency as fast as our aggressive renewable energy and efficiency policies requires will only hold emissions steady at current levels. In order to cut emissions 15%, 30%, 80%, we'll need to do something to replace and close down existing coal-fired power plants serving the Pacific Northwest.  The question then, is what will we replace them with?

Keeping LNG away means limiting the role of natural gas plants.  Nukes are pretty much off the table in Oregon (banned in state by a statewide ballot measure!).  We may be able to push renewables and efficiency farther, faster, but how far will it get us?  What are we going to replace the Boardman coal plant with?...

Initially, experts estimated the death toll to be in the tens of thousands, but revised the number as it became clear that despite international aid efforts, families were starving and that many had perished in the surging waters. In addition, recent reports show the ruling military Junta, which a few months ago brutally cracked down on peaceful opposition demonstrations led by Buddhist monks, seized recent UN and international aid shipments intended for those affected by the storm and subsequent floods. In response, the UN has temporarily suspended direct aid to Burma, citing corruption and theft of donated food and supplies.

The first strike was the storm itself; Though we can't make a direct link between climate change and specific extreme weather events, we know that cyclones, floods, droughts, fires and hurricanes will be more frequent and intense. We will see more storms like Cyclone Nargis this century -- climate refugees will become ubiquitous.

The second strike was the military Junta that governs Burma with an iron fist. On Friday the United Nations discontinued aid shipments to Burma. “All the food aid and equipment that we managed to get in has been confiscated,” said Paul Risley, World Food Program in Bangkok. For more than 24 hours, food, blankets, clean water and medicine were withheld from those affected by the floods. Aid shipments resumed only a few hours ago, albeit in a reduced capacity.

If this is any indication of the nexus of climate-related events and politics worldwide, the next decades will cost us dearly in human lives. This is ground zero, where climate justice becomes more than a campaign slogan, but a basic human right. It's as much our responsibility in the global north to ensure that those people affected by climate-related events receive the resources and materials they need. It's up to us, the youth, to make these connections worldwide, and to highlight how fragile these communities on the margins really are.

And finally, it's our duty to make sure we hold our leaders accountable, and stand in solidarity with those citizens elsewhere, like the Buddhist monks in Burma, who are standing up for freedom against ignorance and violence.

Tropical Cyclone Nargis slammed into Burma this weekend, leaving as many as 60,000 missing or dead and millions displaced. A massive sea surge, shown here, engulfed the low-lands and stretched tens of kilometers inland as far as the capitol, Rangoon, in the red box.

For more information on the path and effects of the storm, click here.

From the scientific community, is this a sign of climate change? No singular weather event can be called climate change, but whether there is a measurable increase in the frequency of such storms as this, Katrina and Gonu on the Arabian peninsula last year is still an object of contention. See the National Post for arguments on both sides, but I think we're all pretty clear that there's more of this coming.

Lastly, a recent report noted that climate change will affect tropical species as much as arctic ones. The loss of wetlands and rich coastal ecosystems is yet another worry.

Can coal ever be clean?

These guys are spending tens of millions trying to convince you, the American voter, that the future of America's energy lies with "clean coal."

A new documentary film, "Burning the Future: Coal in America" aims to clue Americans in on why "slightly less deadly coal" is probably a more accurate term for what the spooked coal industry is trying to push these days. Or maybe "laundered coal." But "clean?" Well check out the trailer and see what you think:

Here's the film's short synopsis:

In Burning the Future: Coal in America, writer/director David Novack examines the explosive forces that have set in motion a groundswell of conflict between the coal industry and residents of West Virginia. Confronted by an emerging coal-based US energy policy, local activists watch the nation praise coal without regard to the devastation caused by its extraction. Faced with toxic ground water, the obliteration of 1.4 million acres of mountains, and a government that appeases industry, our heroes demonstrate a strength of purpose and character in their improbable fight to arouse the nation's help in protecting their mountains, saving their families, and preserving their way of life.

[Update - May 1st, 2008: "Burning the Future: Coal in America" will be airing again soon on the Sundance Channel, May 13th, 16th, and 18th. In addition, the DVD's will go on sale next week on the film's website: www.burningthefuture.com.]

No coal is clean coal!

Are we going to let them get away with it?!

I think not!

We're already going toe-to-toe with the coal-front group "Americans for Balanced Energy Choices" on the ground in primary states. We're fighting proposed coal plants across the country and beating back the coal rush. We've pushed banks to scrutinize investments in dirty energy. We're spending our spring breaks fighting dirty energy extraction and mountain top removal at Mountain Justice Spring Break, and we're going to be a force to be reckoned with in the 2008 elections. And now we're talking about a nationally-unified "No Coal!" effort and nationwide actions against fossil fuels on Fossil Fools Day.

So it's David-and-Goliath time folks: time to get out that slingshot and keep hammering on the giant - the coal industry. We've got them mighty uncomfortable if they are spending tens of millions of dollars to fight back.

And sure, we're up against a giant, but remember that there are two kinds of power in the world (as my friend Jenny says): money and people. Well we might not have much of the former, but we're certainly strong on the latter!

So here's to people power, taking on an industry intent on peddling a dirty energy future and putting billion dollar coal companies on the defensive!

And here's to our vision of a sustainable, just, and prosperous future that inspires us to seek alternatives to a dirty energy future and ignore the coal industry's package of lies!

Keep fighting the fossil fools. As I say at WattHead, a sustainable, just, and prosperous energy future is possible, and we can make it real.

[Update 2/28/08: Here's a link to the Americans for Balanced Energy Choices ads running in Ohio right now and in Iowa during the Caucuses. One of these, the "Ohio Jobs Ad," attacks green jobs head on. ABEC is a coal-industry funded "astroturf" group, a fake grassroots organization that claims to have 1500,000 members, "people like you." When you click on the ABEC Supporters tab, you find out who ABEC, really is. Supporters including "America's Coal-based Electricity Providers:"

* AMEREN Corporation
* American Electric Power
* Arch Coal, Inc.
* Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
* Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.
* Basin Electric Power Cooperative
* BHP Billiton
* Buckeye Industrial Mining Co.
* Buckeye Power, Inc.
* Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp.
* CONSOL Energy Inc.
* CSX Corp.
* Detroit Edison
* Duke Energy
* First Energy Corporation
* Foundation Coal Corp.
* Hoosier Energy
* Norfolk Southern Co.
* Peabody Energy Corp.
* Southern Co.
* Tri-state Generation & Transmission Assn. Inc.
* Union Pacific Railroad
* Western Farmers Electric Cooperative

Oh yah, people just like you and me. We're all CEOs of major coal companies, right?!]

Amidst concerns about a potential North American natural gas supply crunch, several energy developers are betting big on new terminals to import liquefied natural gas into the United States market. Three terminals are proposed in Oregon, and they have generated considerably controversy and strong opposition from local communities.

There are many reasons to be concerned about imported liquefied natural gas, or LNG, natural gas that has been supercooled to -260 degrees F in order to turn it into a liquid ready to transport on specially-designed tankers from LNG exporting countries like Indonesia, Russia, Iran and Qatar. From increased dependence on foreign fossil fuels to increased greenhouse gas emissions, seized farmland for new pipelines and health and safety concerns, citizens of potentially impacted communities have found plenty of reasons to rally against LNG terminals and pipelines.

The principle argument to forge ahead with new LNG terminals despite these concerns is the assumption that increasing North American natural gas supplies with LNG imports will reduce prices. It's a simple "laws" of supply and demand that increased supply will reduce prices, right? That's what we all learned in economics 101, right?

Unfortunately, a recent front page article in the Wall Street Journal (April 18th) warns us that the economics of LNG is a bit more complicated than that. This is economics 202 stuff at least (the online copy is here, sub$cr. required).

The gist of the story is that we shouldn't be betting on increased LNG imports to help lower natural gas prices in the US. Read on to find out why...

Unlike oil, which is easily shipped globally and has been a globally traded commodity for some time, natural gas has developed more regional markets separated by delivery constraints, each with different gas prices. LNG changes the game, and increased global LNG capacity is making natural gas a global commodity with a global price. That's bad news for the United States, where natural gas prices are about half what Japan is willing to pay for a shipment of LNG, for example.

According to the WSJ article: "Today, a tanker of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, pulling into port in Japan can command close to $20 per million BTUs, roughly double the price of the U.S. benchmark."

As with any globally traded commodity, the marginal price sets the price for everyone. If Japan is willing to pay $20 per million BTUs (mmBTU) for LNG, prices globally will float up towards this price, and that's about what we should expect to pay here in the Northwest if an LNG terminal is built. We'll essentially be linking our mostly regional market to an intensely competitive global market for LNG, where the price is set by the highest bidder.

It'd be foolish then to bet on LNG, for which international competition can drive prices up to around $20/mmBTU, to help lower Northwest (or North American) natural gas prices, which are now in the vicinity of $6-8/mmBTU. In fact, the very opposite could occur. If LNG prices set the marginal supply cost for LNG in the Northwest, domestic natural gas prices may even rise to this new marginal cost. That's how commodity markets work, isn't it (told you this was Econ 202 kind of stuff)?

In short, the main argument for new LNG terminals in North America (and here in the Northwest) is that they will help reduce natural gas prices regionally by increasing supply. Problem is, that's not how this competitive global market works. Instead, we'll merely be hooking ourselves up to another global market for a foreign fossil fuel and put ourselves in a competitive bidding war with Japan, Korea, India, China, Spain, and others to see who lands that next shipment of LNG. Not exactly a competition I'd like to get into.

Oh, and did I mention that there's talk of forming a new cartel of LNG exporting countries, just like OPEC, to manipulate the markets to exporters' advantage. The Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration cautions:

"One risk that cannot be ignored is the likely formation of an LNG cartel, given that so few countries control such a large portion of the world’s stranded natural gas reserves, and its power to affect LNG prices."

This was new stuff for me - I thought the old Econ 101 argument seemed pretty sound - and I didn't expect this kind of warning to come from the Wall Street Journal of all places. Seems like we've got yet another reason to be cautious about proposed LNG terminals in Oregon and elsewhere.

[Graphic credits: LNG terminal map from MSNBC; LNG tanker and terminal from LNGWorldwide.com]

The February 10th "Young Dems on Kayford" event that brought more than 35 Young Dems onto Kayford Mountain to see the effects of Mountaintop Removal was a crucial event in the organization learning about the issue and taking a stand.

This resolution on Mountaintop Removal was passed as a result of years of building awareness and involvement on the issue. This resolution passed with the solid margin of 32 votes in favor and only 10 votes against (with 2 abstaining votes). The WV Young Democrats have been a focus of education throughout the past year as we organized events to show both the leadership and the membership what Mountaintop Removal is doing to the people and land of Southern (and increasingly Central) WV. The resolution was formed and revised to its final content by a room of high schoolers, college students, deep miners, organizers, and concerned citizens to its final form. This resolution is causing reverberations through the WV Democratic Party and WV politicians (who have long been kinder to the coal industry than citizens) are taking notice.

Volunteer SEACers in WV were crucial in pressuring and educating the WV Young Democrats on Mountaintop Removal and other coal issues. We are not, by any means, associated with the Democratic Party, but have done the day-to-day youth organizing and event organizing that has raised the profile of this issue in WV to be able to pass the Young Dems with the overwhelming margin that it did. Mountaintop Removal is increasingly discussed as part of the national climate movement, which is good, but it's going to take growing political support in Central Appalachia to end it. This resolution is an incredible step towards that goal and is an incredible showing that grows political support in WV for environmental justice.

Here are the measures the WVYD called for in its "Healthy Jobs, Healthy Communities, Healthy Mountains Resolution:

See the "Whereas" section
Be It Resolved by the West Virginia Young Democrats

That the WVYD supports enforcement of set regulations around safety and environmental laws with respect to mountaintop removal and if necessary implement new legislation around concerns

That the WVYD opposes a high concentration of mountaintop removal sites in a geographic area

That the WVYD supports a moratorium on new permits until further study can be done on the effects of mountaintop removal while active sites which comply with current regulations remain active

That the WVYD supports further investigation into the long term ramifications of continued coal mining on the health of communities surrounding mining

That the WVYD moves that the reapportionment or increase of the coal severance tax should be reviewed in order to provide additional investment in renewable energy

That the WVYD supports alternative methods of mining coal

That all Democratic legislators on all levels of government publicly, vigorously, and quickly act to protect safety standards in deep mines and bring good paying green jobs through reclamation, renewable energy, sustainable industries, and other areas of the economy to all areas of WV

The photos are ordered from east to west around the world (New Zealand is 1st, U$A last)…

60 actions are featured here: if you have a photo from an action that is missing email it to fossilfools–AT–RisingTideNorthAmerica–DOT–org

Mr. Frumkin presented the fact that climate change will directly impact health in the United States, particularly the health of children and the elderly. He described the increase in droughts, heat waves, flooding, increased extreme weather events, and the spread of vectorborne diseases. Yet, in a move more worthy of Fossil Fool's Day than World Health Day, he then did not comment on whether carbon dioxide, a leading greenhouse gas, was thus a public health threat. Instead, his cautious phrasing was: "To the science, there is strong evidence that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas... and there is strong evidence that climate change affects public health." Thanks, Frumkin!

The issue is, if Frumkin, the CDC, or the WHO do declare that because of the "strong evidence" connecting the simple dots, they would force the EPA to recognize that carbon dioxide IS a danger to public health, which would thus mean that the US EPA would be required to regulate it, according to a Supreme Court decision last year. But the EPA is stalling, saying that such a regulation would have major implications across sectors. Yeah! Exactly! This week, a coalition of states, led by Massachusetts, have brought this issue back to the US Court of Appeals, demanding that the EPA publish its findings related to emissions, after their 2003 claim that there remained "substantial scientific uncertainty" regarding the impacts of greenhouse gases. There wasn't uncertainty then; there isn't now. And as James Milkey, head of the environmental protection division of the Massachusetts Attorney General's office, said to NY Times reporters, "One year ago today, the court rejected E.P.A.’s claim that it lacks authority under existing law to regulate greenhouse gases. It has the duty to regulate, not just the authority."

Frumkin was able to say more than CDC Director Julie Gerberding could when she presented before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last October. Her draft testimony was dramatically limited by the White House; it was cut from 14 pages to 4, and almost all of the specific references to potential health risks were removed. The entire section "Climate Change is a Public Concern" was deleted, along with specific numbers of the people who could be impacted by climate change.

So despite my cynicism towards Frumkin's testimony, as it seems to be more than a little restrained in comparison to the WHO's scientific findings, things are changing, as it is now all too clear that climate change will impact our health. Margaret Chan, Director of the World Health Organization has said that climate change will affect "the most fundamental determinants of health: air, water, food, shelter and freedom from disease."

I was able to attend the event at Southeast Asian Regional Office of WHO on World Health Day -- to perform a rap about climate change and health, no less -- and heard the Regional Director speak about the threats to Southeast Asia, where the health impacts are and will be enormous. Like everything associated with climate change, the impacts will not be equitably distributed throughout the world, and the threats are particularly frightening in India, with its large coastline and coastal population, large reliance on rainfed agriculture, and enormous population without access to basic health services already.

The massive migrations and health impacts caused by increasing floods AND droughts seem almost like a horror movie, and the rising sea levels will change both physical and cultural geographies due to mass migrations of climate refugees. All of these will not only impact physical health, but also create enormous mental health impacts.

However, the intersection of climate change and world health is not only that climate change will lead to direct health impacts, but that climate changes will exacerbate existing health problems and put greater stress on public health networks. Malaria is an issue the global health community is struggling to address, killing almost 1 million people annually, and warming winters will allow more malarial mosquito vectors to survive the cold seasons. Malnutrition is a problem that has not been solved despite the promises of the green revolution, still causing more than 3.5 million deaths a year, and the stresses of changing climatic conditions will only make the fight to survive an even more difficult battle. Lack of access to clean drinking water leads to diarrhoeal diseases, and increases in both droughts and floods are likely to decrease availability of fresh water. Urban sewage systems in India cannot treat the waste of existing populations, and with growing populations, rising sea levels AND increased precipitation, these problems will also be exacerbated. The global health community, and the general public must be aware of the impacts of climate change on health and prepare for these changes by expanding existing public health networks.

Dr. Chan, Director General of the WHO, wrote

We need to put public health at the heart of the climate change agenda. This includes mobilizing governments and stakeholders to collaborate on strengthening surveillance and control of infectious diseases, safer use of diminishing water supplies, and health action in emergencies.

This intersection between climate and health is actually demonstrative of even bigger issues of integrating adaptation into sustainable development. As Dr. Chan said, water supplies are already threatened by so many other human impacts - including overuse and massive pollution - such that melting glaciers, desertification and changing precipitation patterns will only increase freshwater scarcity. The forced migration and conflicts over scarce water resources, as witnessed in Darfur as Lake Chad shrinks, will only become more severe with climate change.

On the plus side, many of the ways we address climate change can also improve health directly. Reducing fossil fuel combustion will reduce the particulates in the air and other non-GHG emissions. Even, dare I say it, walking or biking to work rather than driving improves cardiovascular health and reduces emissions. Furthermore, indoor air pollution (primarily from cooking with dung, fuelwood or coal) causes 1.6 million deaths a year. Addressing climate change by finding more efficient ways to cook in rural areas (biogas, solar cookers, or more efficient solid fuel stoves) can greatly reduce the health impacts directly (and indirectly via emissions). In 2002, the WHO estimates that more than 120,000 people died in India alone of diseases exacerbated by air pollution! Reducing fossil fuel combustion can help improve air quality and reduce emissions, helping health directly and indirectly.

The Southeast Asian Regional Office of the WHO celebrated World Health Day with a performance by the music club of The Energy & Resources Institute, Pratibimb. The founders of the WHO 60 years may not have anticipated that the institutional birthday would be celebrated by a rap about climate change, but the world is full of surprises. As the Regional Director of WHO said, 60 is the year to retire, but WHO is still young and is never retiring -- they might not be quite young enough to really be ready for rap, but I'm including a few of my favorite lyrics below, and will attach the recorded song as soon as I can.

The truth of climate change is all too clear;
We feel the climate impacts, they're already here.
We know these climate changes will impact our health,
Threaten food security, safety and wealth.
Monsoons and floods are getting even stronger
While seasons of drought are getting even longer
Floods mean more drowning, and droughts mean starvation
Adaptation and mitigation offer salvation.

Our health is at stake, there are actions we must take
Let’s make it our mission to stop our emissions.

Warming waters lead to rising seas
With oceans submerging communities.
This heat increases storm intensities
Meaning bigger disasters with more injuries.
Climatic changes forcing families to move;
Mental health impacts are easy to prove.
All these massive changes making climate refugees --
No government's prepared for migrations like these.

Our health is at stake, there are actions we must take
Let’s make it our mission to stop our emissions.

Climate change is shifting eco-zones;
More malarial mosquitoes entering homes.
Warming winters help vectors spread disease,
Making life easier for ticks, rats and fleas.
On the poverty line, the fight for life is getting tougher;
Old and young, the poor will be the ones to suffer.
The largest emissions come from the wealthy,
But can we afford to keep the world healthy?

Our health is at stake, there are actions we must take
Let’s make it our mission to stop our emissions.

Addressing climate change also makes cleaner air;
Improved respiration everywhere.
We’ll protect our climate and our health when we conserve;
Save our children’s planet, as they deserve
Stopping climate change, our emissions and pollution,
You know that we’re all part of the solution.
So on World Health Day 2008
Let’s be the change we wish to create.

Our health is at stake, there are actions we must take
Let’s make it our mission to stop our emissions.

The mass material affluence that characterizes much of American society is a testament to the power of our economic and political system. The cities we inhabit, the cars we drive, the gadgets we use, the ways we communicate, the food we eat, and the energy we consume are all products of its success.

But remember, "There is no such thing as a free lunch." Someone is footing the bill.

Allow me to modify that statement. There is no such thing as a dollar menu. Transactions inflict costs on the real world that are not reflected in a market pricing system.

A friend of mine is particularly fond of McDonald's Dollar menu, and makes a habit of ordering $1 cheeseburgers. The $1 he spends covers the costs McDonald's has incurred - buying the ingredients, shipping, operational, and labor costs - and of course a slice of profit. However, those are only a fraction of his cheeseburger's true cost. Enter the world of externalities.

The Economist defines an externality as "An economic side-effect. Externalities are costs or benefits arising from an economic activity that affects somebody other than the people engaged in the economic activity and are not reflected fully in prices." (1) My friend's dollar spent does not include the side-effects of cheeseburger consumption, such as longterm costs of carbon emitted by transport and methane toots of former cows. Entirely unconsidered is the irreversible loss of biodiversity from the conversion of rain forest to industrial soy-bean monocrops to feed the hamburgers-in-waiting of American factory farms (2). Humans and nonhumans alike bear the cost of our externalities.

To call carbon emissions and rain forest destruction external, however, is simply misleading. It implies that they are at most tangentially related. However, had industrial monocrops never replaced native biodiversity, cows could not be fed on a scale to bring the price of their flesh to less than $1 per patty. If there were no fossil-fuel-powered transportation network, it would be uneconomic for hamburger-patties to traverse continents. The $1 cheeseburger's existence is predicated on the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of biodiversity.

A $1 cheeseburger from McDonald's is easy to scape-goat. In bringing attention to it my aim is not to single out McDonald's $1 cheeseburger, but to use it as a window through which the much larger shortcomings of our economics can be seen. All material goods are intertwined in a labyrinthine web of externalities. Externalities are the bedrock on which our system of production and consumption stand.

Adbusters is an anti-corporate magazine that aims to break the insanity of contemporary consumer culture (3). Recognizing the dangerous disconnect between the market price of a good and the true costs it inflicts in reality, they advocate for the implementation of true cost economics (4). True cost economics claims that it is possible to eliminate this gap by internalizing externalities through regulation and taxation. For now, leave aside the monumental question of economy-wide implementation and turn your attention to a bin labeled "externalities." It's tucked away under the desks of economists, business-men, politicians, and citizens where we can toss the "side-effects" of our past, present, and possibly future economic and political actions. What's in the bin?

Near the top sits greenhouse gas emissions. This one has garnered enough attention that it may soon move to the bin labeled "regulated." Under greenhouse gases, you will find global deforestation and habitat destruction. Destroyed mountain tops. Beside this wreckage are cancer victims living in the shadow of industrial facilities. Casualties of war can be found in much-honored, yet rather gruesome, patriotically-draped clumps. Do not avert your eyes. The dead water of one-hundred-forty-six oceanic deadzones, where marine life cannot survive, dampens everything. Smog-suffocated children and elderly cough in a corner. Careful not to get lead poisoning as you rummage. Pesticide-poisoned farm workers wash their hands, but it is futile. Do not drink the water - it is polluted. Children in sweatshops. Men and women in sweatshops. Do not shut your ears. Sprinkled throughout are the countless species driven to extinction, and thousands more on the brink. Sense the human lives spent and lost in factories, mines, and labor for an insufficient wage. Homeless people live in the bin. Slavery. Four-hundred years of race-based slavery. The harvesting and harnessing of humans to build the foundation of our economy. To dig through this, you must also uncover the perpetual economic, political, and social disenfranchisement of people of color down to this day. Do not close your mind. It runs deep. You near the bottom, but first there is genocide. Systematic genocide of indigenous people and cultures world-wide. The economics and politics we've inherited had no need for them, but it coveted their land, so here they lie in the bin. Many are beyond resuscitation.

Consider these words. Extinction. Slavery. Ecological Collapse. War. Climate Change. Exploited Lives. Toxic waste. Genocide. Open your heart.

Externalities or Atrocities? Do not underestimate the power of semantics. Words can illuminate or obfuscate.

We are not evil, yet our political and economic system does not account for the true cost of "external" atrocities. Why? A central problem of true cost economics may point to the reason our economic system does not internalize "external" atrocities. In a true cost economic system, how would you include the cost of a life cut short? What is the price of biodiversity? A life stolen by slavery? Generations damned by climate change and ecological collapse? To internalize "external" atrocities through pricing or taxation is to say that all this has an abstract monetary value. Ask a child, ask yourself. There is no alchemy to transfigure life's beauty, degradation, or destruction into economic terms. Infinite value defies quantification. The calculus of our politics and economics cannot internalize the unquantifiable, so the infinite is made non-existent. Ours is an economics of denial.

The cities we inhabit, the cars we drive, the gadgets we use, the ways we communicate, the food we eat, and the energy we consume are all products of economic success. Definitely in sweat and perhaps in blood and carbon, someone has, is, or will foot the bill. Mass material affluence is predicated on the denial of real mass atrocity.

I believe that we can have a carbon-neutral society. I believe that we can have a just society. However, the two are not synonymous. Carbon-neutral atrocities can underpin carbon-neutral mass material affluence. Or the vision of Sustainable Justice can underpin the end of atrocity.

Sustainable Justice is a vision of cultural transformation. In Sustainable Justice we step from the reality of atrocity and into the dream of justice and sustainability. This is not an abstract eco-utopian dream. It is a reawakening to the ecological relationships that bind all beings.

The society we have inherited and continually mold is but one possible collective manifestation of human nature, and it is far cry from Sustainable Justice. Climate Positivity recognizes the multiplicity of human potential with the statement that not only are we the cause of climate change, we are the solution. If this is true, then it is also true that we are the seeds of Sustainable Justice.

We are participants and teammates, not enemies and slave masters. We are beginning to awake from our denial and realize this truth. For many of our human and nonhuman teammates, this awakening is already too late. Our role, as a movement, is to bring society into a conversation that will catalyze the awakening before it is too late for us all.

The infinite is at stake.

Citations

1. The Economist www.economist.com

2. Conversion of rain forest to industrial soy-bean monocrops to feed hamburgers-in-waiting in American factory farms http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0406-greenpeace.html

3. Despite my criticism, Adbusteres is an awesome publication. The best magazine in print. www.adbusters.org

4. Adbusters advocates for truecost economics www.truecosteconomics.org

5. Climate Positivity http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/03/18/washington-post-and-msnbc-80-by-50-not-good-enough/#more-4449

If you would like background information anything else discussed, please ask me.

The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968

There are few speeches that people remember. Most of us know at least the first few lines from the Gettysburg Address, or FDR’s ‘a date which will live in infamy’ response to the attacks on Pearl Harbor. And who hasn’t heard a politician quote from JFK’s inaugural ‘ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country’ speech? But no speech is more powerful or symbolic of a movement than the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘I Have a Dream’.

On this fortieth anniversary of King’s assassination, I feel that it is important for all of us to stop and take a minute to appreciate all the amazing strides the civil rights movement made in the 60’s. Dr. King and other civil rights leaders laid the groundwork for the social justice movements going on today. As we continue to strive for equality and we work to improve our environment, take some time to remember how far we have come and be inspired by the changes we have already made.

In an interview on West Virginia Public Radio this morning, Hillary Clinton revealed some pretty profound ignorance about the true costs of coal and especially about the destruction mountain top coal mining is wrecking on both communities and ecosystems in Appalachia. Give it a listen:

[audio http://www.wvpbmedia.com/audio/news/0319wvm1.mp3]

Sure sounds like Hillary has drunk the (sour) kool-aid being peddled by coal-front group "Americans for Balanced Energy Choices" (or ABEC, which might as well stand for "American Blowhards Excited about Coal"). Lets compare what Hillary is stumping and what the coal industry's PR machine has to say:

Clinton even calls for "subsidies to coal-to-liquids plants that meet [an unspecified] environmental standard."

How does she feel about the prospects of "clean" coal?

"I'm excited," she says, about starting on all this pro-coal work today. She even admonishes the Bush administration for not being enthusiastic enough about "clean" coal and for pulling the plug on the FutureGen demonstration project.

And who wouldn't be excited about the magical transmutation of America's dirtiest fuel to the clean energy source of the future? (It doesn't hurt that you get to score some brownie points with one of America's strongest industries while you're at it...)

The problem is there's no such thing as "clean" coal. Slightly-less-deadly, sure. "Climate friendly" coal is even possible. But clean?! Don't try to shovel me that!

It's simply appalling to hear a presidential candidate talk to me about the wonders of "clean" coal while the coal industry levels mountains, razes forests and erases streams, poisons wells, threatens people's lives, and destroys communities through the practice of mountain top coal mining.

Let me be perfectly clear: I am not opposed to carbon capture and storage. I do not believe, as some do, that the technology poses a dangerous risk. I do not think that the technical challenges are insurmountable to capture the greenhouse gas emissions from coal plants and burying them for centuries underground. I understand that CCS may be a necessary part of the response to the climate crisis.

But am I "excited" about coal and CCS? Will CCS make coal "clean"? Will CCS do anything to stop the environmental destruction of coal extraction, particularly mountain top removal?

NO! is the answer to all three of those questions, and it should be the answer that comes from our presidential candidates as well, especially ones who tout their environmental chops on the campaign trail (that'd be all three of them!).

To be fair, Barak Obama talks up "clean" coal on the campaign trail just as much as Hillary (as I pointed out here).

No matter how clean the emissions are coming out of the smokestack, you can't ignore the destruction wrought by coal extraction. Talking up how "clean" coal is, or can be, means you're either woefully ignorant (as Hillary seems to be), talking out of both sides of your mouth (as Obama gets dangerous close to doing), or purposefully trying to sell the American public on some "clean coal" snakeoil (as ABEC and the coal industry clearly is). You decide which is worse.

Here's what truly appalls me about Hillary's interview though: she doesn't seem to have a clue about mountain top removal!

When asked point blank about mountain top removal, an issue at the top of many West Virginians' minds (for obvious reason), Clinton equivocated, falling back on the age-old false dichotomy between environmental protection and economic development before closing with a good old dose of (completely unrealistic) wishful thinking...

"I am concerned about it for all the reasons people state," she said, "but I think its a difficult question because of the conflict between the economic and environmental trade-off that you have here."

She went on:

"I’m not an expert. I don’t know enough to have an independent opinion, but I sure would like people who could be objective, understanding both the economic necessities and environmental damage to come up with some approach that would enable us to retrieve the coal but would enable us to do it in a way that wouldn’t damage the living standards and the other important qualities associated with people living both under the mountaintop and people who are along the streams. You know, maybe there is a way to recover those mountaintops once they have been stripped of the coal. You know, I think we’ve got to look at this from a practical perspective."

"I'm not an expert"?! "I don't know enough to have an independent opinion"?! No shit!

This answer wrong for so many reasons I don't even know where to start, and it evidences a complete lack of understanding about mountain top removal and the effect it is having on West Virginia and across Appalachia.

Let's look at the economy vs. environment shlock. These two graphics (from Appalachian Voices) pretty well sums up the error in her argument:

Basically, as mountain top removal has ramped up, coal mining jobs have disappeared, as machinery- and explosives-intensive mountain top surface mining replaced labor-intensive underground mining. In other words, as the environmental destruction ramped up, the economic benefits for Appalachian communities vanished, flipping that old environment/economy dichotomy right on it's head.

It's no surprise then that the areas that this environmentally devastating practice occurs today are some of the poorest in the nation. If someone's economically benefiting from mountain top removal, it's certainly not the people of Appalachia.

Finally, Clinton wistfully wonders "maybe there is a way to recover those mountaintops once they have been stripped of the coal." Well that'd sure be nice, Hillary! And while you're figuring out how you're going to turn this...

...back into this...

...I've got a magic elixir I'd like to sell you that'll guarantee that anyone who drinks it will suddenly win the presidential election.

Come on Hillary! WTF?!

[A hat tip to Dana from West Virginia for publicizing the interview]

On April 4, 1968, a sniper assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The preeminent civil rights leader of his time, King had come to Memphis, Tennessee, to aid striking sanitation workers. He was only 39 years old.

Forty years have passed since that fateful day. As of this month, Dr. King has been gone from us longer than he was ever here. As we pass this milestone in history, we gather in Memphis to remind ourselves and the world that - though a bullet killed the dreamer - it did not kill the dream.

Dr. King had a vision of an America as good as its promise, and a world at peace with itself. That vision lives on in the hearts of hundreds of millions - including two generations of adults and a rising generation of teen-agers, all of whom have been born since King's passing. The time has come for us to step forward. We must take full responsibility to advance the cause of justice, opportunity and peace.

It must be said that we are stepping onto history's stage at a frightening time—at a time when "the Market" is free, and the people are not.

A time of global warming and global war. A time of mass incarceration of people, and mass extinction of species. A time of "no rules" for the rich, and "no rights" for the poor. A time when our courts seem to give nothing but evictions and convictions to those on the bottom. A time of increasing profits for the few, and decreasing options for the many.

And yet, inside the United States, the tide has begun to turn. The GOP juggernaut that carried the nation to the brink of destruction has begun to run out of gas. Ordinary Americans today are longing for a leader, not a cowboy-in-chief. Some are rethinking consumerism, seeking healthier choices for their families, worrying about oil prices and even the climate crisis. And just three years after George W. Bush's re-election, the mighty political party that Karl Rove thought would rule America for generations appears to be falling apart at the seams.

Something has shifted—profoundly. Unfortunately, all the old political figures, outdated modes of discourse and stodgy institutions are still with us. But you can feel something exciting beginning to stir —and break loose—underneath.

The future is getting restless. We are on the brink of something promising and new. And for the first time in more than a generation, those of us who value living beings over dead products have a chance to offer real leadership to the country.

Our generations must embrace the example Dr. King set - and re-imagine it, to meet new challenges.

For example: in his time, Dr. King worked for equal protection and equal opportunity. We, too, must adopt that agenda. But ours is an age of both ecological AND social peril. Therefore, we must insist that vulnerable communities get equal protection from racial discrimination - and from the floods, storms, droughts, plagues and fires that global warming is causing. (No more Katrinas!)

Ours is also an age of positive economic transformation: billions of dollars are pouring into the solar, wind, organic agriculture and other clean industries. This green economy will generate thousands of business opportunities - and millions of new jobs. We must seek to guarantee equal opportunity in this growing "green" economy. We must insist that the coming "green wave" lifts ALL boats. Those low-income communities that were locked OUT of the pollution-based economy must be locked INTO the clean and green economy. Our communities and especially our children deserve "green jobs, not jails."

Dr. King - and many others - fought, bled and died to racially integrate a pollution-based economy. Today, America is creating a new, clean and green economy. From the start, it should be designed to have a dignified place for everyone.

Dr. King linked the solutions of civil rights, peace and economic opportunity. We must link the solutions of social justice, peace and ecological sanity. Our dream must uplift the people - and the planet, too. This is the calling of our time.

We seek a world society wherein we use clean, alternative energy to fuel our machines ... healthy, organic and local food to fuel our bodies ... and hope, solidarity and love to fuel our movements for change. Our cause itself must become irresistibly beautiful, vital and sustainable. Success will come when our networks are practical enough to "organize" tens of thousands – and soulful enough to "magnetize" millions.

So let us dare to imagine: a healthy, joyous, self-confident liberation movement. A movement that celebrates more than it condemns. That solution-izes more than it problem-atizes. Imagine a movement for justice - with its arms wide open.

In these "difficult days," we have a duty to do more than curse the darkness. We must, ourselves, shine a new light. That is what Dr. King did. And forty years later, new generations have come to Memphis - bearing lanterns of our own.

Green For All welcomes you to Memphis. Here and now, we boldly, proudly and loudly declare The Dream ... REBORN.

Climate change is the unthinkable. It is unimaginably vast and catastrophic, and its causes are frustratingly avoidable. As youth activists, we are used to this - but the very real idea of new coal plants in Washington still took us aback. After all, we are one of the lowest carbon-emitting states in the nation, and we have repeatedly proven ourselves as dedicated international leaders on the climate action front. The geology of our region, including the mighty hydropower production of the Colombia river, has made this possible.

For better or for worse, another local feature has been recruited as a key player in the power game: our cavernous Colombia River Basin basalt beds, just the right sort to house to potentially calcify liquid carbon from a coal gasification power plant. The complications of hydropower in Washington pale in comparison to those of a proposed "clean" (aka slightly-less-deadly) coal plant, which a consortium aims to construct in the coming years at Wallula, a town near Walla Walla on the Colombia river.

Once again, rural southeastern Washington has made headlines in the energy world with promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while providing an abundance of energy for the Northwest.

Wait a minute... clean coal? It's an idea - and nothing more - that has somehow become a "reality" for people through the constant repetition of half-truths. Perhaps you've seen the sexy ads for "America's Power" on the Democratic primary debates, which follow Hillary and Barack's promises for a clean, independent energy future . Politicians love to portray America as the "Saudi Arabia of coal." We don't think this is something to boast about.

This dirty fossil fuel sickens communities, pollutes our air and water, and is responsible for one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions. However, it provides approximately half of our nation's electric energy needs, which presents a daunting economic and political conundrum.

Proponents of coal are spinning away the terrible drawbacks of the fuel by presenting it as an environmentally-friendly energy solution, rather than acknowledging it as a non-renewable, polluting culprit of climate change. And they do so to the tune of technology fixes, altruistic intentions, and economic opportunity. These ads and the language currently surrounding coal are alluringly deceptive.

Let's bring it back home. Students here in Walla Walla are often under the impression that we're in the "the middle of nowhere," and in many ways, that's correct. For youth activists at Whitman College, this has proved a two-edged sword: sometimes we feel isolated in our distance from urban centers of activity; however, we are far enough away from centers of influence that when we lobby, our elected representatives in the capitol make time for us - students? From Walla Walla?

Our far-flung location is again a two-sided coin when it comes to coal. It seems that we are just rural, just distant enough, that there won't be much of a fuss if big industry wants to roll in and set up camp. But when they did - we were ready to meet them, somewhat surprised that the hottest issue in climate change and US energy independence had just landed at our feet.

Here's the story:

A consortium of power companies want to build an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant in Wallula, a town along the Columbia River. The catch, however, was that a bill passed last year in Washington limited the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted per amount of energy produced.

The solution seemed to be sequestering the carbon dioxide emissions (at least 65% of smokestack emissions) in the underlying basalt: a completely unproven technology. Thus, the Wallula area has become a testing ground (battle ground may be a more suitable expression) for carbon sequestration technology and all of the health, safety, and environmental impacts implicated therein.

The problem? The testing would involve injecting 5,000 tons of carbon dioxide over a period of two to four weeks. Once the power plant is up and running, they will inject nearly 6,000 tons EVERY DAY! To those of us with our heads on straight, this CLEARLY presents a problem. In response to this prospect, community members and students in Walla Walla began organizing to fight this proposed coal plant. After all, we don't want to live, work, and play in a valley downwind of a polluting power plant - who would?

This working group, Coal Concerns, consists of folks of all generations and professions. Each person has their own reason for opposing the plant, from protecting our wine industry to preserving clean air in the valley. We are united by our passion and our strong opposition to coal - not just in our valley or in Washington, but anywhere and everywhere.

In early March, the Port of Walla Walla (the group that was voluntarily providing the land for the operation) decided put the brakes on the plant. The Port cited liability, possible environmental problems, and having too little information to allow the drilling to begin in late March or early April. Now, Batelle (the group doing the sequestration testing) is on the defensive, trying to earn their right to drill and complete the testing. The more they push for testing to continue, the more it becomes apparent that testing and the reality of a coal plant may be one and the same.

This unexpected decision shook up business as usual, and has given concerned citizens the time we need to thoroughly plan for a coal-free future in our valley and all of Washington state. It appears that the Port's decision sets the sequestration pilot project back a year, so the chances of never having a coal plant have certainly gone up. he sequestration test and coal plant aren't dead yet, but they are on life support.

Meanwhile, across the state, students from many other universities are joining us for Fossil Fools Day actions to broadcast our no-coal message on a broader scale. Together we have photographed approximately 1000 faces in solidarity against new coal plants. We were especially excited when our college president joined us! [see picture at top of post!] These photos will be joined in a banner-sized montage which direct action groups will use on April 1st at selected "Fossil Fool" sites (such as the Bank of America and other coal plant funders and supporters) as backdrops for media-attracting tomfoolery. We're pleased that now we can offer messages of thanks to groups like the Port of Walla Walla, and hope that the tide against coal will continue to rush in our direction.

Alternately, toxic coal sludge is injected underground into abandoned coal mines, which are also unlined and allow the toxic waste to seep into local well water. Most rural West Virginians depend on well water for drinking, cooking and bathing, and many face a 20 mile drive each way to pick up water from the store. And yes, that little girl has to bathe in that water. To learn more, check www.sludgesafety.org or here.

A few months ago, a group of us revived Direct Action To Stop The War (which organized tens of thousands of people to shut down San Francisco 5 years ago when the war started), and worked in conjunction with local Richmond community groups mobilize a diverse, multi-generational, multi-issue coalition to non-violently shut down one of Chevron's largest oil refineries in the nation.

The demonstration was endorsed by Direct Action to Stop The War, Greenaction, West County Toxics Coalition, Amazon Watch, Richmond Progressive Alliance, Richmond Greens, Community Health Initiative, Communities for a Better Environment, Global Exchange, and Rainforest Action Network. The purpose of this action was to shut the Chevron refinery down for the day - to do our best to prevent oil from entering or leaving the refinery. By boat, by bike, and by foot - we mobilized a broad coalition of groups working on climate change, environmental justice, and anti-war efforts. This action is supporting ongoing community efforts to stop Chevron from expanding its refinery, which will increase pollution and further increase asthma, cancer and rising death rates in surrounding communities. Chevron is driving the war and occupation in Iraq, refining over a million barrels of stolen Iraqi oil in Richmond a month, and actively lobbying for the privatization of Iraq's oil fields to further increase profits for the oil industry, and maintaining our addiction to climate-destroying fossil fuels.

No War! No Warming! No Pollution!

After a large rally with dozens of musicians and speakers on stage (including the Mayor of Richmond!), we marched to the refinery. Despite a massive police presence (225 officers on call), the large crowd surrounded the gate where trucks come in to refuel. About 75 people then sat down and blockaded the entrance to the refinery - many locking themselves to oil barrels and creating a massive, immovable human chain. Hundreds more rallied around those committing civil disobedience, and 2 woman scaled traffic poles to hang a giant banner above the crowd. Radical Cheerleaders, the Brass Liberation Orchestra, creative street theater and more kept the energy high. We watched as several tanker trucks remained parked on the inside of the gate for the rest of the day. (Typically, a truck leaves this gate every 5 minutes, throughout the day).

After a few hours of blockading the entrance, the group decided to take their demands even closer to Chevron. With the goal of "arresting Chevron" - people began unlocking from each other, proceeded to dismantle the police barricades, and marched directly onto the refinery property. After a tense standoff with police, the group continued their peaceful blockade of the entrance. Once dusk started to fall, 24 people refused to leave, and were eventually arrested by police. All were released later that night.

And on this Wednesday, March 19th - join thousands of people on the 5th anniversary of the Iraq War. Major protests will be held in San Francisco, Washington D.C., and around the country!

I'll list a few corporate media stories below - this action was the lead story for several news cycles around the region and across the country. Check out the photos below, or visit www.indybay.org for more photos and stories.

NO WAR! NO WARMING! RESISTANCE IS FORMING!

No Blood For Chevron
March 15, 2008
Antonia Juhasz, Alternet

Protest held at Richmond Chevron refinery
March 15, 2008
Sue Thompson, ABC 7 News

24 arrested at war protest outside Chevron
March 15, 2008
Tom Lochner and Mike Taugher, San Jose Mercury News

Antiwar Rally at Richmond Chevron
March 15, 2008
KPFA

Evening News
March 15, 2008
KPFA

Anti-War Protest Outside Chevron Refinery
March 15, 2008
Ken Pritchett, KTVU

Protest, attempted blockade at Chevron refinery in Richmond
March 15, 2008
Anastasia Ustinova, San Francisco Chronicle

March 15 protest scheduled at Chevron Richmond Refinery
March 14, 2008
East Bay Business Times

The process is the same as before. If you did not take part last year, what we do is to create a task force of individual young people, school groups, etc. and get them to bring to life the key messages of the HDR with opinion pieces, reports, poems and stories, paintings, cartoons and photographs - so that everyone can understand these messages. The result is a beautiful, fascinating book entirely written and illustrated, designed and edited by young people. You can view the one we did last year here the design and editing is done by the young international interns here at the world-famous Peace Child International centre, near Cambridge, UK.

Contributors can watch the book come together, page by page, online. Also, you can suggest a different story, another photograph, painting or design element, just as if you were sitting at the Editorial Meeting table.

VIDEOS:

This year, the UNDP has asked us to go further and invite young people to create 30 to 90 second videos
on how climate change affects you and what you feel should be done about it. There are three ways you can contribute:

1) If you have a camera and the necessary editing equipment, you can go ahead and make your video. They can be short, dramatic pieces, scripted and acted out by you and your friends; or a documentary cut together to make an impactive statement about what you feel to be a key aspect of climate change. Or a mix of the two. The finished videos should be uploaded to our YouTube Group

2) If you have a camera, but no editing equipment, you can send us a tape, along with a script of how you would like it to be edited, and we will edit it here – IF we feel the material and idea is of sufficient quality.

3) If you have no camera but a great idea, write a script: we – and the UNDP – will review all of them and select the best 4-5 scripts, arrange production details – and edit the tape into a finished movie.

You will be able to view all the videos on the YouTube group - and choose your favourites. The best 15-20 videos submitted will be edited into a single 30-minute show introduced by a celebrity host. It will be distributed by the UN to broadcasters around the world in time for International Youth Day – August 12^th 2008. For questions on the video project please email Adam

What are the Key Messages this HDR delivers about Climate Change?

• Climate Change - its effect on People: We've had the UN scientists' report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); we've had the report on its economic impact in the Stern Report. This Human Development Report is about people and how we are all affected by climate change.

• The poor suffer most from Climate Change - and will suffer more: Given that 2.6 billion live in poverty, unable to meet their basic needs, these people are likely to be the first to face the impacts of dangerous climate change and suffer human development reversals. The Report tells that the poor are already suffering, and will suffer more, as a result of climate change. But we will all suffer later. In fact, some rich countries are already seeing the impacts of climate change and are dealing with its consequences. If we do not avoid dangerous climate change, the consequences will be more severe and widespread.

• Urgency: The Report argues that climate change needs urgent action: today we are living with what we did yesterday; tomorrow we will all live with what we do today. We need to take action now.

• Climate change - a serious threat to our ability to meet the MDGs: - we depend on our world’s eco- systems for water, for agriculture, for our industries, our livelihoods and many other aspects of our life - climate change poses a serious threat to our ability to meet the eight Millennium Development Goals especially as it is the poor who are already seeing its impacts.

• Climate change - an immense threat to Human Rights: The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights talks of the inalienable rights of the human family to “freedom, justice and peace”. Climate change is an immense threat to those rights. Yet it is also a reminder that we are a single, interdependent human family sharing a common home on Planet Earth. The UN has a key role in the discussion, and the action, on climate change to protect human rights.

• Both Mitigation and Adaptation needed: Mitigation means taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid more climate change. It is about transforming the way that countries produce and use energy and changing industry and activities to reduce or eliminate emissions. Adaptation is the way people respond to new or changed conditions in climate, such as more droughts, flooding or severe storms. It means adapting our current and future lifestyles, towns, cities, infrastructure - everything! - to take account of climate change. The report states that both actions need to be taken to fight climate change and the threats it poses to humanity.

• UN is well-placed to give Leadership: Climate change is exactly the kind of global challenge that the UN was set up to address. The Secretary-General has made it his personal priority to work with Member States to ensure that the United Nations takes effective leadership in the fight against climate change.

Almost every government now puts climate change high up their national agenda. We know it is important - and could actually have catastrophic consequences in many regions of this planet. Yet, to date, our behaviour has changed very little: we drive our cars as much if not more; we are taking more holidays in more further-away places than ever. And our schools are still more likely to teach us about ancient history than the near-future when the impact of climate change will irreversibly affect our lives.

The key messages of this HDR represent the world's best thinking about the impact of the climate change crisis on people and what we should all do about it. If you choose to join our Task Force and contribute to this project, we shall send you bi-monthly updates full of ideas and information from the report. For now, here's how you can help:

What we want you to do?

If you want to contribute stories, paintings, poems and reports about climate change, sign up now for the Task force at: publications@peacechild.org. We will give you password restricted access to the editorial process. Contributions can be made in any UN language - English, French, Spanish, Russian, Arabic and Chinese. The booklet will be edited in English, so English submissions are preferred where possible. Videos can be submitted in any language, as long as any dialogue are translated into English. All contributors will get a copy of the finished booklet and a certificate. The best contributors will be invited to be editors and given an all-expenses paid trip to the UK to work with the Peace Child youth team + UNDP officials on editing the final booklet. But hurry! The contribution deadline is May 29^th 2008 and, if you want to be considered as an editor, get your contributions to us by April 26^th 2008.

How exactly should we contribute?

Video Format – The higher the quality, the better: if you submit mobile phone videos, it might make it to the YouTube Group – but is very unlikely to be broadcast. Digital format is, of course, preferred – though we can deal with analogue format if that is all you have. Note that most videos fall down on sound quality - so take steps just to use a music track or sound effects. And make your video as visual as possible.

Booklet Format- Here, as last year, is an outline of what we have in mind, and what we need from you:

ILLUSTRATED FRONT COVER This is a challenge for a great young artist or illustrator: we are looking for a really striking image that reflects the issues outlined above; allow your imagination to run wild and create an image that will make our entire global family understand why young people are concerned about climate change. The person whose painting/cartoon is chosen for the front cover is automatically invited to the editorial meeting.

- Forewords: One by a UN Official - probably the UN Secretary General this time; the other by the young editors

- What is Human Development? - An Introduction to Human Development and the history of these brilliant UN reports.

- What is Climate Change? - the background, the history, and why it is so important. This is a great opportunity for creative writing and images: if you suffer the consequences of climate change - think of creative ways to communicate your situation: you know - first-hand - why climate change is such an important issue: scream your concern through a story, or a painting, or a powerful photograph! If you are interested, look back in your history - find out when Climate Change first became an issue for people in your country. Identify those politicians, those scientists, celebrities and, if possible, young people - who first drew attention to it. Tell us their stories (with a photograph of them if possible)

- The impact of climate change on people: - why is it that the poor have contributed least, yet are already the ones suffering most - and will suffer more - from Climate Change: this is perhaps the most important message coming out of the UNDP's report - and we must communicate it powerfully and vividly. Consider the recent cyclone in Bangladesh: imagine the pain of a resident of a Pacific Island as s/he prepares to leave their home because the sea-level is making their island disappear beneath the waves. This is another great opportunity for creative writing - poems, stories, diary entries from a future date, letters dated 2050 to your grand-children - along with powerful paintings and drawings.

- How Climate Change impacts all the other UN Agendas: these pages will explain the UN's Millennium Development Goals to halve the numbers of people living in extreme poverty by 2015 etc. Climate change can stop that happening: floods, hurricanes, droughts, sea-level rise and heat-waves will wipe out farming communities, wreck our cities, destroy crops and animals and create environmental refugees. Imagine that - research the impact, and write stories and poems, paint paintings to communicate those human development setbacks. Here we are, happily getting richer, better fed, with healthcare services and schools at last - then suddenly, climate change comes along and all our hard-earned gains are lost in a night of flooding. It can happen here in Europe - and in North America as we saw with Hurricane Katrina.

- Solutions (1) Mitigation: it's a big word - not much used by young people. So - explain it to yourself and to your friends! It means taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid more climate change, such as building renewable energy grids - de-carbonising our communities. Again, not rocket science: investing in electric solutions - where the electricity is generated by wind, solar, hydro power, not coal-fired power stations; not traveling so much - tele-commuting; taking holidays nearer to home; personal carbon or air-travel quotas; turning off the lights and applicances that are not being used; these are all part mitigation strategies. Research the issues: explain what you want your government - and the UN - to do now to reduce (mitigate) the effects of climate change!

- Solutions (2) Adaptation: Another big word - it means adapting our current and future lifestyles, towns, cities, infrastructure - everything! - to take account of climate change. It's all pretty obvious stuff - building sea walls to protect coastal regions from rising sea-levels, adapting agricultural practices to changing weather patterns, and assisting those who are already affected by climate change by increasing their resources. There are hundreds of practical solutions we can summarise and simplify here. Along with your photographs, paintings, poems and stories!

- A global problem needing global solutions: the UN has been waiting for an issue like thi