Update on One Kent local government consolidation proposal
It has been a month since we last reported on the One Kent Coalition proposal to consolidate local government into one unit.
The One Kent Coalition is made up of area powerbrokers such as Dick & Betsy DeVos, Peter Seechia and David Frey, just to name a few. Ever since they first made public their proposal this group has come under scrutiny since there has been a lack of transparency and concerns about their motives.
The One Kent Coalition has generally stated that they want to make the area government more consolidated to be efficient, but more importantly they want to become more of an economic force in the country. However, a memo was revealed in March, which demonstrated other motives.
The memo from the group demonstrates two things. First, it shows that they want the issue to be on the ballot as soon as possible, which means less public dialogue. Second, the memo shows that the kind of government consolidation they are proposing would undermine public employee unions.
However, the local government consolidation group has not met in over a month because both the county and city government are frustrated with the One Kent Coalition group. Grand Rapids City Commissioner Bliss sent me a message saying that the county government is doing its own investigation of the issue and the Grand Rapids City government is actually working to oppose the draft legislation that the One Kent Coalition has drafted.
The draft is 38 pages long and is by no means easy to read. The draft legislation is calling for this new metropolitan government to be run by a CEO, a Chief Executive Officer, who would have executive power and would be elected by the public. There would also be a metropolitan commission who would adopt ordinances and budgets and be given legislative powers.
We will continue to watch this issue and report on the legislation once it is introduced at the state level. However, one thing that this process should tell us is that people with economic and political power don’t care about what the public thinks and will do whatever they can to keep their actions hidden from us no matter what.
GRIID Classes for Fall 2011
Starting in late September, GRIID will be offering two classes that will emphasize both education and action.
One class is a revised version of one we offered last year, Radical Sustainability. The new version will use the book Deep Green Resistance and include an investigation into our food, transportation and energy system. The class will also provide an opportunity for the participants to collectively develop a regional sustainability plan for West Michigan.
The other class is a first-time offering called Organizing for Change. In this class we will look at how to organizing, process, group dynamics, the use of tactics and how to develop a strategy. There is no text for this class, but we will be using lots of online materials, some resources from Project South and a look at numerous case studies for organizing in the US and around the world. The class will also do a power analysis of West Michigan.
Unlike in previous classes, these two classes will be 8 – weeks long, with the Radical Sustainability class on Mondays starting September 26 and the Organizing for Change class on Wednesdays starting September 28. Both classes will run from 7 – 9PM in the community rooms at Steepletown Ministries – 671 Davis NW in Grand Rapids.
Each class is $20 dollars, which does not include the cost of the book for the Radical Sustainability class.
For more information or to sign up contact either Jeff Smith jsmith@griid.org or Mike Saunders outobol@gmail.com.
MLive and the Obama visit to Holland
For the last 12 years GRIID has been monitoring the local news media and providing some news analysis of both issues and individual stories. An MLive article on the speech President Obama gave on Thursday at the Holland-based Johnson Controls is a perfect example of journalism as stenography.
As a matter of clarification, journalism as stenography is when reporters either just quote or summarize the claims made by someone without verifying the claims. Verification is particularly important when reporting on power, such as when the US President is the subject of story. In fact, being a watchdog of power and verifying claims made are both basic principles of journalism.
In looking at the August 11 MLive story, we see that nearly the first half of the article is devoted to pointing out that President Obama was upset with Congress and partisan politics. This first quote that reporter Ursula Zerilli cites from the President was, “There is nothing wrong with this country; there is something wrong with our politics.”
While there could be lots of debate about what is wrong with politics in the US, there are some fundamental problems with the US that would contradict the President’s claim that there is nothing wrong with this country. There are millions of people who are unemployed and underemployed in the US; right now in the US there are roughly 634,000 homeless people; the US has the highest number of people in prison – 2.3 million; the average salary of a CEO is 344 times that of the average worker in the US; and the US spends more on the military and war than all other social programs combined.
The MLive reporter then cites the President making claims that the US credit rating could have been downgraded, where he again blames Congress. However, there have been plenty of astute observations that would also include the White House in the category of blame on the “debt ceiling” issue.
After additional comments that blamed Congress and partisan politics, the MLive reporter then said that the President wants to see “Made in America” stamps on products worldwide and young people driving American-made vehicles.
The MLive reporter could easily have asked if this was the case why would the President support trade policies that will result in more US based jobs being sent to other countries. The irony of this is that Johnson Controls, the very place that the President was making such a comment, has sent over 1,000 jobs out of the US since the passage of NAFTA.
As to the issue of the President wanting to see young people driving American-made vehicles, a competent reporter could ask why the White House used the bailout of the Big Three automakers as an opportunity to allow more auto-manufacturing jobs to be sent to countries like Mexico and China?
Next the MLive reporter says, “Obama and automakers agreed earlier this month to pegging overall fuel economy standards at 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.” Unfortunately, this claim is only part of the story. What the President omitted and what the MLive reporter did not verify was that this new fuel standard will only be implemented in cars made starting in 2017 and not include any existing cars now in use or those sold before 2017.
The article then concludes with comments from the President about Johnson Controls and what the new electric car battery plant will mean for Michigan’s economy. The reporter does state that the factory received $168.5 million in state tax incentives and $299 million in federal grant funds to develop the electric car battery production.
Again, the reporter provides no history of Johnson Control’s outsourcing of jobs from West Michigan, nor the fact that the company has recently filed a lawsuit seeking to divorce itself from the French company Saft.
When the President of the US or anyone else that holds political or economic power is the focus of a news story, it is absolutely essential that local reporters practice good journalism. Failure to provide the public with critical analysis of those in power will most certainly result in a less informed and less engaged citizenry.
The Verizon Strike as the Next Wisconsin
This article by Mark Engler is re-posted from Dissent Magazine
The picket lines are up. This past weekend 45,000 Verizon workers on the East Coast, represented by the Communications Workers of America (CWA) and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), went on strike. The cause of the strike was the company’s attempts to win massive concessions from the unions. Verizon argued that the employees should give up gains they had won over many years of struggle and negotiation in previous contract fights.
As the Wall Street Journal put it, “Verizon Communications Inc. is seeking some of the biggest concessions in years from its unions.” Demands include the weakening of health-care benefits, cuts in pensions, reduced job security, and elimination of paid holidays such as Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. This despite the fact that the company reported billions in profit last year, and that, in the words of New York Times reporter Steven Greenhouse, “Verizon’s top five executives received a total of $258 million in compensation, including stock options, over the last four years.” The unions argue that Verizon has made some $20 billion in profit in the same time period, and Citizens for Tax Justice has pointed out that the company has done so while paying little to nothing in corporate income taxes.
Without a doubt, this is a conflict of national significance. As Bob Master, CWA District 1 legislative and political director, explained Wednesday in a conference call with supporters,
This is an enormously profitable company, which we believe is trying to take advantage of an anti-union environment and, in a sense, to replicate at a giant private-sector corporation what the governors of Ohio, New Jersey, and Wisconsin have been trying to do to the public sector. Our members feel very strongly that we need to draw a line here.
The parallel to Wisconsin is apt for several reasons. First, like the Republican elected officials in their attacks on unionized schoolteachers and other public employees, Verizon is taking aim at one of the last bastions of the American middle class. As a main strategy in its public relations, the company is trying to stoke resentment about the fact that the CWA and IBEW workers actually have living-wage jobs. It is hoping that “I don’t have a pension, why should they” logic will carry the day.
Accordingly, on Wednesday Verizon took out a full-page ad in the Philadelphia Inquirer suggesting that a typical employee makes $80,600 in annual pay and $42,000 in benefits. The union disputes this claim, contending that salaries are generally in the $60,000 to $77,000 range, and that benefits are less costly than the company would suggest. But, regardless, the debate over numbers misses some critical questions: What’s wrong with workers sharing in the profits of a healthy corporation? Isn’t that the way our economy is supposed to work?
(On a side note, it’s always a treat when companies plead poverty at the negotiating table and then turn around and spend big bucks on media spots, anti-union consultants, and pricey PR firms—but that’s another story.)
The fate of 45,000 middle-class jobs is a big deal for all of America. Last month, the entire U.S. economy had a net gain of only 117,000 jobs. Not only is that for the whole country, it represents a pretty decent month given the numbers from the past year. Furthermore, almost all of the new jobs now being created are low-wage. Given these realities—and the fact that concentrating all wealth in the hands of the rich is a very bad strategy for creating the kind of demand the economy needs to rebound—what happens to the Verizon workers is a matter of broad public concern.
Bob Master is right that Verizon’s aggressive bargaining stance, like Governor Scott Walker’s public-sector power grab, is the product of a political climate in which corporate interests feel they can do whatever they want to working people, and employees will have no recourse. The Verizon strike is unfortunately akin to Wisconsin in that it is a defensive battle—an effort to stop tragic rollbacks in previously established standards of fair employment.
The background for the contract dispute is that Verizon is now making most of its profits from its wireless services. While a small number of wireless technicians are involved in the strike, that part of the company is mostly non-union. In an ideal world, CWA and IBEW would be able to “bargain to organize,” balancing any concessions at the negotiating table for current union members with agreements that the company will remain truly neutral and allow workers at Verizon Wireless to make their own decision about whether or not to unionize. But this is not an ideal world. Like in Wisconsin, labor and its allies face a difficult fight merely to stave off the worst of a rabidly anti-union assault.
That said, there is a case for hope. The mass protests in Madison earlier this year gave some cause for optimism that a new type of energetic, broad-based, community-labor mobilization might become a lasting force in that state’s politics—and become a model for movements in other parts of the country. Wisconsinites’ success this week in recalling some Republican State Senators (although not as many as hoped) suggested that the struggle will be a long one, but that progressive efforts could have some real legs.
As for the strike, all those who have been wondering when working America will be fed up enough to finally stand up and fight should not sit this one out. If the Verizon strike becomes a rallying point in this country for a movement against runaway corporate power and for a fairer economy, it could have much broader implications than what contract terms are ultimately hammered out for those now walking the picket lines. That these workers are not rolling over in the face of company insistence on concessions is important and courageous. And they deserve widespread support.
***
Those on the East Coast can find a picket line to visit here.
Supporters all over the country will soon be able to “adopt a Verizon Wireless store” in their area and help to organize pickets at that location.
Finally, without even leaving your computer, you can sign the petition in support of the 45,000 CWA and IBEW workers on strike.
What is Planet of the Apes in a World without Black Power?
This article by Josh MacPhee is re-posted from Just Seeds.
I must admit, I ran out to see Rise of the Planet of the Apes the day it came out. I’ve been a life long fan of Planet of the Apes, but I honestly can’t remember what initially drew me to the movies as a teenager. Maybe it was the Philip K. Dick-like pretzel of time travel and alternate reality shifts, maybe it was simply the irresistible combination of science fiction and old-school primitive fantasy with loin clothes and sword fights (a la Conan), but I’ve had a deep affection for the whole thing ever since. It’s amazing to me that a 1963 French sci-fi book originally translated as Monkey Planet could turn into 7 feature films, a TV series, an animated cartoon, dozens of spin-off serial novels and comic books, as well as lines of toys and other merchandise tie-ins.
It wasn’t until I went back and watched all the films again later that I realized what makes them so interesting and compelling is not the hokey special effects (yeah, yeah, I know they were miles ahead of their time…) or Charlton Heston’s terrible acting, but the strange Hollywood channeling of white fear about Black Power.
Think about it, Planet of the Apes is a world run by violent, rage-filled, and seemingly irrational dark-skinned apes (clearly men in ape costumes), who have created a slave trade of (almost entirely) white humans, who are not simply silenced by their oppression, but ignorant, brutal, and literally mute, unable to speak! Apparently Black people in power leads to white people becoming completely stupid. I suppose in some ways that prediction has come true. Obama being elected—hardly Black Power!—has created an army of white nut jobs babbling incoherently about birth certificates.
The new film, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, has some thrilling chase/fight scenes and impressive CGI, the acting isn’t terrible, and the plot is serviceable—in general I’d classify it as a mildly successful action film. But this isn’t supposed to be a generic action film, it’s supposed to be Planet of the Apes. Given that, the film seems to entirely miss the point. What was so powerful about the original Rise (titled Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, and released in 1972) was the fact that it was a combination slave revolt and prison riot in “apeface!” Conquest, and possibly even all the original films, would never have been made if the largely non-violent Civil Rights Movement hadn’t shifted towards Black Power in the late ’60s, national liberation struggles in the form of the Black Panthers and Brown Berets, and eventually by the early ’70s into small-scale guerilla warfare via the Black Liberation Army. Check out the similarities between the cover of Stokely Carmichael’s 1971 book Stokely Speaks, and the intro credits to the Planet of the Apes 1974 TV series:
The original Planet of the Apes film was an astounding channeling of the sublimated (and sometimes not so sublimated) white fears of what would happen in a world run by Black people. Conquest of the Planet of the Apes was a reenactment of the race riots that swept across the U.S. throughout the 60s, and a strange brew of both celebration and denouncement of the prison riots that were taking over headlines, especially the Attica Rebellion of the previous year. I can only assume that by the time Conquest was filmed, the producers understood that a large part of the appeal of the franchise was its visceral articulation of white fear (of Black Power, miscegenation, emasculation), so they pushed it up a notch, creating a U.S. where primates truly are slaves—servants to humans with no free will. The opening credits of the film run on top of large groups of men dressed as gorillas and chimps walking while standing up, wearing red and green jumpsuits (respectively), and being corralled and threatened by armed, uniformed guards.
It is impossible to not read race, and the 1970s rise of the prison industry, into this. The rest of the film is an acting out of the apes coming to consciousness, rebellion, and eventual insurrection against their masters. Their revolt against the corporation that trains them to be good slaves is filmed just like a prison riot, and at one point a white guard actually bullwhips the black apes.
The larger revolt is certainly intended to evoke the urban riots of the ’60s in places like Detroit, Cleveland, and Watts. The apes are shown as intelligent and crafty, using advanced military planning to outwit the humans, as rioters often do (witness the past weeks’ revolt in the UK). If this wasn’t a clear enough indication for the audience that this film was about race (and full of references to the more political end of Blaxploitation films, like The Spook that Sat by the Door), the inclusion of a Black human character for whom the ape uprising causes both an identity crisis and an ethical dilemma—both terribly over-acted—throws the whole thing over the top.
The final insurrection/guerilla warfare scenes are potent not only because they echo the historical moment they were filmed, but they fulfill the promise of all revolutionary moments, that it is the oppressed that will liberate themselves. This is pop culture riffing off of Frantz Fanon, and it’s damn exciting. In a span of five short years Planet of the Apes went from a strangely racist science fiction thriller to an embodiment of Black Liberation.
The new Rise of the Planet of the Apes is anemic in comparison. After a single showdown with humanity (or at least with the San Francisco police force) the apes will rise, but not so much of their own doing. Their initial jump from simple chimps to an extremely intelligent column of primates is due to a human-developed virus tested on chimpanzees that smartens the apes, but also happens to kill off humans. In some ways this speaks to the contemporary fear of biology gone wild (a la dozens of zombie movies), but also sends some pretty confusing messages about the ethics of vs. the necessity of animal testing. (If this virus hadn’t been tested on primates, wouldn’t humans have just died anyway? Seems to me like an argument for more stringent testing protocols rather than animal rights.)
The race subtext has been completely, but only half-heartedly, replaced with this sub-plot of medical ethics, and the connected concern for animal welfare. One scene, where the main scientist/protagonist (played by James Franco) visits his bio-engineered chimp Ceasar in a poorly run and brutal primate facility, looks to be an almost shot for shot fictional remake of a similar scene in the recent documentary Project Nim. (In the above two images, the top one is from Rise, the bottom from Project Nim) We are made to feel for Ceasar and the other apes, but even with advanced CGI gorillas and baboons acting increasingly human, the animal rights narrative is no where near as compelling as the racial overlay in the original. While animal rights are becoming a larger narrative, they still pale in comparison to the reality of racial inequalities in our society. To call the eventual ape escape and victory against the humans in Rise a story about the ethics of animal treatment would be far-fetched. Such high morals are ill-fitting on 2011 CGI apes, just as they are on most actors in contemporary Hollywood movies.
But race is not entirely absent from Rise, it simply doesn’t seem to matter—on the surface at least. Franco’s character falls for and eventually partners with a South Asian veterinarian (who may also be the only female character in the film, if I recall correctly, and is played by Freida Pinto of Slumdog Millionaire fame), and his boss is a greedy, high-powered CEO who is both the main bad guy in the film, and also happens to be Black. So I suppose in forty years some things have changed, miscegenation with hot women of color is no longer taboo, but Black people in power is still the fastest way to end of us all.
This Day in Resistance History: Flying the Black Flag
On August 12, 1883, the first anarchist newspaper to be called “The Black Flag” (Le Drapeau Noir) was launched in France by French anarchist and feminist Louise Michel. The newspaper, as well as the use of the flag, had two purposes: to remind people of the workers’ battle and deaths in the Canut Insurrections of 1831-1834, and to stir support for another wave of worker resistance more than fifty years later.
The black flag as a symbol of anarchy had originated in Lyon, where silk workers used it during a series of revolts. Despite the French Revolution and the attempt to eradicate the elite from France, by 1830, the capitalists had the economy under an iron grip again. In Lyon, the major industry was silk weaving. The canuts, or silk crafters, owned their own looms and hired their own assistants. Women as well as men were employed, and apprentices lived in the homes of the canuts. Workshops cooperated with each other to meet order demands and set salaries for their workers.
But this collective system had been overtaken by la grande fabrique: a group of bankers, wealthy landowners, and silk traders. They set the prices for the final product, often forcing the canuts and their shops to work long hours for less and less pay. Finally, in 1831, the situation reached a breaking point during an economic downturn.
On November 22, 1831, workers across Lyon captured a fortress used as a police barracks and military base. They successfully fought off French infantry with stolen weapons, although the soldiers and police managed to kill or wound 600 workers. After capturing the fortress, the canuts raised a black flag over the building. It stood, they explained, for their rejection of a government that had inflicted misery and ignored their pleas for justice. This moment in history has held meaning for the French working class ever since.
Canuts then occupied the entire city of Lyon. King Louis-Philippe sent an army of 20,000 to retake the city. The town was placed under military rule with charges being brought against only 11 of the canuts; the King had ordered there be no executions and minimal disruption to the silk trade. But la grande fabrique still held sway. The economy in France improved, but capitalists decided that the workers’ wages were still too high. Initial attempts to lower them triggered massive strikes and worker resistance.
By 1833, conditions for workers worsened, even though the capitalists were taking in more money than ever before. Wishing to boost their profits even higher, la grande fabrique members appealed directly to the King and the government. The Count d’Argout, the Interior Minister, wrote that the canuts were living in “fabulous prosperity” and were grossly overpaid. The government ordered a further reduction in wages.
The result was a second battle between workers and the army in February of 1834, and this time over 10,000 canuts and their workers were subjected to lengthy prison sentences or deportation. The workers would not give up. On the day that the trial started, another wave of fighting broke out. “The Bloody Week” had started. The black flag of the workers, who had rejected their government and its right to control their craft, was raised again, this time over both Lyon and three neighboring towns.
Although the silk workers’ uprisings ended up failure, anarchist beliefs formed during this 19th Century resistance took root. They inspired the organizers of the Paris Commune of 1871. Louise Michel fought on the barricades during those battles. She was arrested, and told the jury, “If you are not cowards, then kill me!” Instead, she was deported to Canada, where she organized natives there to fight against France’s imperialist policies. When she returned to France, she continued her organizing and social justice work for the rest of her life.
By 1883, unemployment reached record heights across France and particularly in Paris. Michel launched her newspaper so she could detail information about worker resistance efforts. She also reminded readers of the role that the government had played in lowering raises and increasing poverty levels among the working class for half a century.
Michel personally raised a black flag over Paris in 1883 during general strikes that she helped organize to protest state control of wages on behalf of the wealthy elite. She took a black petticoat that she owned, cut it up and sewed it into a flag which she waved as a rallying point for workers during the fighting and protests. Due to Michel’s effective information campaign via Le Drapeau Noir, workers across France and especially in Lyon launched insurrections in solidarity with the Parisian workers.
Today, Lyon’s black flag, which stands for no flag—the complete rejection of nation-states and their corrupting power—has become an important symbol worldwide. As Louise Michel wrote in Le Drapeau Noir, “The black flag, with layers of blood upon it from those who wanted to live by working or die by fighting, frightens those who want to live off the work of others.”
Corporate Funding of Urban League, NAACP & Civil Rights Orgs Has Turned Into Corporate Leadership
(This article by Bruce Dixon is re-posted from Black Agenda Report)
“Not only is Bill Gates a cousin,” gushed academic Henry Louis Gates at the Urban League convention in Boston last week, “Bill Gates a brother.” Bill Gates, of course, is the founder of Microsoft, and one of the wealthiest men on earth. Invited to deliver the keynote address at the National Urban League’s annual meeting in Boston last week, the billionaire lectured the assembled on education and poverty, although Gates is not qualified to teach an hour in any classroom in the land, and has certainly never been poor.
Bill Gates has never been a friend of black people anyplace on earth. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a large investor in Monsanto, the company that invented genetic engineering, actually creates hunger on the African continent and undermines the food security of African nations by pushing genetically modified crops upon reluctant African farmers and their governments. If African farmers can be locked into planting patented crop varieties, instead of planting and saving their own seed as they have the last ten thousand years, they will be obliged to buy the expensive and environmentally destructive pesticides these frankenfood crops require, along with paying yearly license fees.
Inside the US, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been a key player in the drive to privatize public education. Gates Foundation staff helped write the guidelines for the Obama Administration’s Race To The Top program, under which states and school districts, in order to receive any federal education funds at all, had to hire consultants, often from the same Gates Foundation to write the detailed plans for closing thousands of neighborhood public schools, implementing high stakes testing and turning teachers into the cowed, insecure and casual WalMart style workforce preferred by private, often for profit charter school operators.
So how did the National Urban League become the mouthpiece and cheering section for corporate experiments on black school children at home and the hijacking of the global food system in Africa? The answer is that like the NAACP, the National Committee on Black Civic Participation, the National Council of LaRza, the National Conference of Black State Legislators and even the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, the Urban League is now and has for some time past been completely dependent on corporate donations to keep going. Those that pay the bills, call the shots.
This is the new model of African American leadership – a leadership that covets, courts, kowtows and accomodates to power rather than speaking truth to it. This is why whenever the interests of ordinary black people conflict with those of corporate America, a great number of our well-funded black misleaders will inevitably side with their corporate sugar daddies rather than their constituents. It’s why the Congressional Black Caucus and Operation PUSH assisted in foisting subprime mortgages on countless black families, and why the NAACP speedily forgave the predatory loan practices Wells Fargo and Bank of America. It’s why Sharpton, the NAACP and the Urban League all endorsed the merger of AT&T with T-Mobile and Comcast’s swallowing of NBC.
It’s time to turn the page on the venerable civil rights organizations, whose model of corporate funding has allowed them to be utterly taken over by corporate interests and used against us at every opportunity. It’s time for something completely different.
(This article by Evan Bush is re-posted from iwatchnews.org.)
All but one member of a government advisory panel weighing the safety of one of the most contentious forms of energy development, known as fracking, have financial ties to the natural gas industry, scientists and some environmental groups are asserting. The scientists called for the ouster of its chairman, former CIA director John Deutch, who sits on the boards of two energy-related companies.
The group, which reports to Energy Secretary Seven Chu, is concluding that development of shale gas can be done safely provided that companies fully disclose the chemicals used in fracturing liquids, and that they face monitoring of their activities and rigorous standards for emissions of airborne contaminants.
While the Energy Department doesn’t regulate natural gas production, the Environmental Protection Agency is still months from reaching conclusions in its own study, and the panel is leaving largely unaddressed the most sensitive issue of toxic chemicals that may make their way into drinking water supplies, opponents of fracking fear the Energy panel’s recommendation can give a boost to the industry.
The committee, formed in May, was tasked to review fracking, also known as hydraulic fracturing, in which gas companies pump sand, water and chemicals into wells drilled into the ground to break up the earth below in order to release and then capture natural gas. Critics say fracking could be tainting groundwater, killing wildlife and, as iWatchNews has reported , giving off methane gas that contributes to global warming.
Earlier this year, in his State of the Union address, President Obama endorsed natural gas as part of the solution to feed the nation’s energy needs, and then sought to have the advice from the Energy Department panel.
In a letter to Chu , 28 scientists complained that the committee, formally known as the Natural Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, “appears to be performing advocacy-based science and seems to have already concluded that hydraulic fracturing is safe.” The scientists ask Chu to replace Deutch “with a person with no financial ties to the natural gas and oil industry,” as well as add “independent members” to the committee.
An environmental group, the Environmental Working Group, previously objected to the advisory group’s makeup, saying Deutch received more than $1.4 million from energy companies Schumberger and Cheniere Energy between 2006 and 2009.
Other members of the committee said to have current financial ties to the natural gas and oil industry are Stephen Holditch, Kathleen McGinty, Susan Tierney, Daniel Yergin and Mark Zoback. The scientists said their “conflicts of interest make it appear that the subcommittee is designed to serve industry at taxpayer expense rather than serving President Obama and the public with credible advice.”
Energy Department spokesperson Tiffany Edwards defended the committee’s composition, saying it is “balanced” and that each member has experience and expertise, including technical and practical knowledge. “Some have said that the panel is too weighted toward industry, while others say it is too weighted towards environmentalists. We think we got it just right, and having a diversity of perspectives will only strengthen the final product.”
Industry representatives often serve on government advisory boards, including the one that advises Energy Department Secretary Chu. As iWatch News has reported , Chu’s advisory board on energy policy includes one of the president’s big campaign fundraisers, a venture capitalist who has invested in companies receiving seed money from the Energy Department.
A 1972 federal law, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, requires only that advisory committees be “fairly balanced.” There are an estimated 900 formal advisory groups scattered across the government, comprising some 65,000 committee members who counsel more than 55 agencies, according to a 2008 Government Accountability Office report . By advising agencies such as the EPA, FDA and Energy Department, members of the advisory committees can influence standards for food safety, environmental protection and energy use.
The role of advisory committees can be more important than it might seem. Industry players or technical experts with a vested interest in agency decisions gain access to regulators and a platform to advance arguments in Congress. Sometimes, agencies have faced legal challenges for ignoring the recommendations of advisory committees.
While the Obama White House has advertised efforts to minimize the direct influence of registered lobbyists, efforts at a crackdown have been soft. Last year, Obama appeared to call for an end to the membership of lobbyists on advisory committees – in the form of an announcement on a White House blog by Norm Eisen, then the president’s special ethics counsel. Lobbyists and executives from Boeing, International Paper Co., IBM and 13 other companies and trade organizations quickly complained – and threatened to circumvent the requirement by having their lobbyists simply stop registering.
“There are financial ties with the industry” on the fracking advisory panel, said Kyle Ash, a lobbyist for the environmental group Greenpeace. “The administration said they weren’t going to have special interests.”
The letter seeking Deutch’s ouster was signed by 28 scientists, including researchers and professors at the University of California, Cornell and Penn State.
While the Energy Department weighs its views on fracking, the EPA has undertaken a study on groundwater quality, due to be finished late next year. Among environmentalists’ concerns: The Energy Department’s advisory panel could influence the issue before that study is made public.
“We’re concerned their findings could undercut the Environmental Protection Agency’s findings, which have taken a lot more time and have been a lot more rigorous,” said Leann Brown, spokesperson for the Environmental Working Group.
In 2009, the Department of Energy predicted that shale gas, the kind of gas that fracking produces, would account for 20 percent of the United States total energy consumption in 2020.
In Pennsylvania, according to a study for the American Petroleum Institute, drilling in the Marcellus shale region, which is one of the most prominent in the country, has risen substantially over the past five years. In 2005, just three wells were drilled. In 2009, that number rose to 710.
On Wednesday, roughly 35 people gathered in front of the federal building in downtown Grand Rapids as part of a new campaign from MoveOn.org to present what they are calling the New Contract for the American Dream.
There are 10 points to this New Contract for the American Dream, including the creation of clean energy jobs, securing Social Security, a fair tax system, investment in public education and ending the wars and investing at home.
This action was in part a response to the national debt debate that had disasterous results for working people. A MoveOn member said, “The debt deal, which will do nothing to create jobs, forces deep cuts to important programs that protect the middle class while asking nothing of big corporations and millionaires. And though it does not require cuts to Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid benefits, it opens the door for these down the road via an unaccountable Congressional committee.”
“We have a simple message: “We need jobs, not budget cuts, “ said Jim Houston, a local MoveOn member. “We’re here today to say ‘enough is enough’ and demand Representative Amash stop his assault on the American Dream. It is far past time that Washington end the tax giveaways to corporations and the wealthy and use that money to revitalize our community and create good jobs that we so desperately need.”
Local MoveOn member Mike Franz address the small gathering before taking a copy of the new contract into the office of 3rd Congressional Representative Justin Amash’s office.
While some of the points in the New Contract for the American Dream is important, such as ending wars and investing in domestic programs, there was no indication how this group or MoveOn plans on making this happen. MoveOn has a history of being a Democratic Party front group and there is no indication that the Obama administration is embracing any of the 10 points presented in this contract.
I spoke with one participant at the MoveOn rally and asked him how they are going to achieve this platform and he said he didn’t know. However, the same person did say that what “we needed in America was to follow what the people are doing right now in England…….protesting in the streets in large numbers.”
This writer would agree that more direct action is certainly needed, but there was no indication that this group was advocating that kind of action. In fact, even before the MoveOn representatives addressed the gathering they were told by a Grand Rapids cop that they could not use the small amp they had with them or engage in loud chanting. The cop at one point even told one of the protestors that if “he yelled one more time he was going to get arrested.” The MoveOn spokesperson told the police that they would not use the amp and discontinue any loud chanting. So much for direct action or challenging the system.
For two weeks from the end of August and the through the first days of September activists from all over the country will descend upon DC to send a message to the Obama administration that the Keystone XL pipeline project from Canada will be a disaster for the US.
Tar Sands Action is organizing a massive civil disobedience campaign to say no to what could be the worst environmental devastating project on the planet. As of this writing the Tar Sands Action group has signed up 1,500 people who will engage in a massive sit in to pressure the Obama Administration to deny the “presidential permit” necessary for construction on the proposed pipeline from Canada through the US south to Texas.
For those who are not familiar with the Alberta Tar Sands Project there are great educational resources online that will put into perspective the magnitude of this ecological monstrosity.
Last year’s Enbridge pipeline disaster in Michigan is one example of what could happen on a larger scale. The Enbridge pipeline that burst was carrying tar sands oil and Enbridge is the main company for tar sands pipeline construction. A new report in April provides new information and analysis on both the 2010 Michigan oil spill and Enbridge’s role in the tar sands project.
Tar Sands Watch has excellent resources and identifies the main points for why this project must be defeated.
Global Warming – Greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands production are three times those of conventional oil and gas production [currently tar sands production emits 27 megatons per annum and is expected to rise to 108-126 megatons by 2015]. Thus, the tar sands are now poised to become Canada’s largest single emitter of greenhouse gas, compounding this country’s contribution to global warming. Additionally, tar sands production is expected to multiply as much as four to five times by the year 2015 to meet growing demands in the U.S. As a consequence, conservative estimates show that greenhouse gas emissions from the tar sands could well leap from 27 to 126 million tons by 2015.
Water Depletion – Oil sands plants typically use two to four barrels of water to extract a barrel of oil from the tar sands, but some extraction methods can use as much as 7 barrels of water. The amount of water needed for the tar sands is seriously lowering the water levels of the Athabasca River, the Mackenzie Valley watershed and other related water sources in the region. The amount of water which can be recycled back into the watershed is still very low, and contaminated water must be stored in tailings ponds, vast holding tanks the size of lakes, some as large as 15 square kilometers, containing hydrocarbons and other chemical by products from tar sands production. Additionally, toxic water spewing from tar sands production has infected fish and wildlife, causing sickness among Aboriginal peoples downstream.
Aboriginal Rights – Many aboriginal groups are being left out of the process and run over in the race for development of the tar sands. First Nations in Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories have claimed that traditional lands are being destroyed for tar sands exploration and extraction, and First Nations are not being included, or properly compensated for their lost and destroyed lands and water supplies.
Energy Insecurity – Currently, 66% of tar sands oil is being exported to the United States, while over 40% of the oil used in Canada is imported to fulfill the needs of Eastern Canada. When the Keystone pipeline is built from Alberta through to the States, the tar sands industry will become increasingly reliant on US refineries for processing and Canada will continue the tradition of providing raw resources to the United States instead of processing it (and creating more jobs) for ourselves. The tar sands industry is ensuring the energy security of the United States while ignoring the energy needs of the rest of Canada. Canada has surpassed Saudi Arabia as the number one exporter of oil to the United States. And, despite growing oil exports to the US, Canada is importing one million barrels of oil a day (over 40% from OPEC countries) to meet energy needs in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. Alberta oil reserves are being shipped south instead of east to meets needs of our own nation. What’s more, Canada is obligated to maintain its oil exports to the U.S. The proportionality clause of the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] requires Canada to continue exporting oil at a level that is the same or above the average volume of exports during the previous three years.
Militarism – The U.S. Department of Defense is the world’s leading consumer of petroleum, sucking up about 340,000 barrels of oil every day, more than the total national consumption of Sweden or Switzerland. The Alberta tar sands are the centerpiece of an energy corridor for exports to the U.S. which is increasingly geared to fuel America’s military machine. The U.S. military economy, which has been largely rebuilt and re-invigorated since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the ongoing war on terrorism, and the invasion of Iraq, has substantially increased U.S. demands for imported oil. The Pentagon is the single largest institutional buyer of oil in the world, consuming an estimated 85 percent of the U.S. Government’s use of oil. Canadian oil exports, which are now the U.S.’s number one source of imported oil, have become a major contributor in fuelling the U.S. war machine.
GRIID plans on writing more about this campaign and hopes to attend the action in DC later this month. If you know of anyone from Michigan that is going let us know.
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 