Democracy Now! Daily Digest: A Daily Independent Global News Hour with Amy Goodman & Juan González for Monday, 3 February 2014
Stories:
Environmental Groups "Shocked" by Reports of NSA Spying of U.N. Climate Talks
In one of the latest revelations based on the leaks of Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency spied on foreign governments before and during the 2009 U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen. An internal NSA document says its analysts and foreign partners briefed U.S. negotiators on other countries’ "preparations and goals," saying, "signals intelligence will undoubtedly play a significant role in keeping our negotiators as well informed as possible throughout the two-week event." We speak to Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. We’re still joined by Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth USA. Erich, I wanted to ask you about the recent reports that the National Security Agency spied on foreign governments before and during the 2009 U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen. An internal NSA document says its analysts and foreign partners briefed U.S. negotiators on other countries’ preparations and goals, saying, quote, "signals intelligence will undoubtedly play a significant role in keeping our negotiators as well informed as possible throughout the two-week event." Your response?
ERICH PICA: Shocking, but not surprised, as we hear more and more about what the National Security Agency has been doing. You know, the 2009 climate talks in Copenhagen was supposed to be this convening of the world leaders to take us into the future of climate negotiations and carbon pollution reductions. And, you know, the United States, throughout those negotiations, had a smug reality to their negotiating stance and was—can be blamed for the collapse of those talks. And kind of hearing through the Snowden documents that NSA was spying on the countries and the negotiators kind of explains many things about why those talks collapsed, because it seems that the United States wasn’t really interested in negotiating just like other countries should be. They were just interested in listening to what was going on.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain the significance of those talks. I remember very well in Copenhagen when Friends of the Earth was kicked out.
ERICH PICA: Yeah, no, we were—we were kicked out for protesting within the U.N. confines. And so, those talks, you know, those 2009 talks, were really about how does the world come together to solve this great issue, which is how to reduce our carbon pollution and save the planet and our society from global warming. And, you know, a lot of countries from around the world, and heads of state, more importantly, came to Copenhagen to try to hammer out an agreement that would have taken us into the future over the next 20 years. And unfortunately, the United States led the—you know, several countries, including Canada, who we were just talking about, in basically destroying the goodwill that these talks had created, to the point where we’ve been now in these negotiations over the last four years, which have really gone nowhere.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you expect from the coming talks? We’ve just come out of Warsaw. Then they’re moving on to Lima, and the binding discussion is supposed to take place in Paris, France, in 2015.
ERICH PICA: Yeah, in Paris. Yeah, well, it’s not a good sign when you’re trying to build trust with other negotiators, other countries, and it comes out that, you know, the United States was spying on those negotiations. There’s already been a level of mistrust and distrust between the United States and countries around the world, particularly those developing countries. And so, you know, where we’re going in Paris, who knows? The United States has not been forthcoming with their negotiating stances. They have not been—we have not been aggressive in reducing our climate change emissions and putting out an offer that the rest of the world can accept. And we haven’t been terribly generous with funding to help these less-developed, these poorer countries in adjusting to both adapting and mitigating the climate impacts that are already happening to them.
AMY GOODMAN: Erich Pica—
ERICH PICA: And so the United States has very little trust in these talks.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you for being with us, president of Friends of the Earth USA, as we turn right now to Michigan.
ERICH PICA: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: Thank you.
-------
Debate: State Dept Moves Keystone XL Closer to Approval, But Does Conflict of Interest Taint Report?
A long-awaited report from the State Department has dealt a potential major blow to efforts to stop the Keystone XL oil pipeline. An impact assessment released Friday says the pipeline’s northern leg would not have a major impact on climate change. In a speech last year, President Obama said his approval of the project will be contingent upon assuring it "does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution." The proposed pipeline would transport 83,000 barrels of crude every day from Alberta’s oil sands to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, which opponents say will have a devastating impact on the planet. The White House says it has yet to make a decision and will await additional feedback from federal agencies. Should the Obama administration approve the Keystone XL pipeline? We host a debate between Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth and Cindy Schild of the American Petroleum Institute.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: The Obama administration is saying it has still not decided on whether it will approve the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline despite a new report playing down the impact the pipeline would have on climate change. On Friday, State Department said blocking Keystone XL would do little to slow the expansion of Canada’s vast oil sands and that it would not significantly exacerbate the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.
The proposed pipeline would transport 83,000 barrels of crude every day from Alberta’s oil sands to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. Environmentalists and scientists have long warned about the devastating impact of further oil extraction from the tar sands in Alberta. In 2011, James Hansen, one of the country’s foremost climate scientists, said, quote, "Essentially, it’s game over for the planet."
On Sunday, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough appeared on Meet the Press and was questioned by host David Gregory about the pipeline.
DAVID GREGORY: Here’s a few newsy items. One has to do with the Keystone pipeline, right? The ability to move all of that oil down through the middle of the country. Republicans have been calling for this. They say it’s big for jobs. There’s been a report now from the State Department saying that there’s no real impact on the climate. So, is this thing ready to be green-lighted by the president? What would hold him back from saying, "Yes, the Keystone pipeline should be built, should go forward"?
DENIS McDONOUGH: He laid out his view on this last summer, which is that his view is that if this is to go forward, it should not significantly exacerbate the climate crisis in this country. The Friday—
DAVID GREGORY: Didn’t the State Department answer that and said it won’t?
DENIS McDONOUGH: The Friday report is an important input into that process. We’ll hear from other Cabinet secretaries.
DAVID GREGORY: What would stop him from saying yes at this point, given his own State Department’s saying there’s not a big impact on the climate from doing this? It’s a—
DENIS McDONOUGH: He’s been very clear that he’s going to insulate this process from politics. Washington loves the politics. [inaudible]
DAVID GREGORY: I didn’t ask about politics. You’ve got a State Department study.
DENIS McDONOUGH: And we have one—we have one department with a study. Now we have other expert agencies—the EPA and many others—who have an opportunity—the Energy Department—an opportunity to look at this and make their determinations. The president wants to protect their ability to do that, make this decision based on the best analysis and most sound science.
AMY GOODMAN: White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough appearing on Meet the Press Sunday.
To talk more about the Keystone XL pipeline, we’re joined by two guests in Washington, D.C. Erich Pica is president of Friends of the Earth. Cindy Schild is senior manager of the American Petroleum Institute’s refining and oil sands program.
Cindy Schild, let’s begin with you. Your response to the State Department report?
CINDY SCHILD: We certainly see it as promising and a good indication of where the administration should go in their approval over the next few months. You know, at this point, we have spent five years reviewing the environmental impacts time and time again, despite the five assessments and most transparent and thorough process to date on anything of its nature. We have seen the same conclusions: minimal impacts, negligible impacts. The climate answer, the environmental answer and concerns have been addressed. This is one factor to be considered amongst several, and it’s time to determine that the project’s in the nation’s interest.
You know, we can appreciate the politics. It was interest to say politics are taken out of this process, because, quite frankly, that’s clearly what has been happening here. And, you know, we can appreciate the pressure that the administration and the president are under, but when you look at the facts and the science, at this point, really, there is nothing left but to determine that it’s in the interest of American consumers and our nation to approve this project.
AMY GOODMAN: Erich Pica, you have a very different view.
ERICH PICA: Oh, absolutely. I mean, this is perhaps one of the most studied pipelines in U.S. history. The problem is, is that the State Department has been hiring oil consultants to actually assess the pipeline. We’ve been doing a significant amount of study on the contractor Environmental Resource Management, who failed to disclose many of the relationships with organizations and companies, such as TransCanada and American Petroleum Institute, that want this pipeline constructed. So, it’s really no wonder that the State Department EIS comes out saying that there’s minimal environmental impact. And that can be—that’s going to be contested, because the contractor that wrote this actually was—is a pipeline advocate.
AMY GOODMAN: Who is it?
ERICH PICA: It’s Environmental Resource Management, or ERM for short.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, this was a concern you had in an earlier assessment that was done—
ERICH PICA: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: —that embarrassed the administration. So, why hasn’t this changed?
ERICH PICA: Oh, absolutely. I mean, we had exposed the fact that Cardno ENTRIX, which was the original contractor three years ago who put together the first environmental impact statement—we had done some investigation and actually spurred an inspector-general report, and they threw out that old EIS. Now you have ERM, and you thought the State Department would have learned that they need to do better vetting of contractors. Well, through research we’ve done, ERM failed to disclose on their conflict-of-interest forms that they had worked for TransCanada over the last three years, that they were associated with organizations that advocated for the pipeline, including API, who is on today, who has spent $6 million in lobbying expenses in 2013. And so, from an environmental perspective, you know, look, the president is not getting the information he needs because the cards have been stacked against him in the State Department’s environmental review process.
AMY GOODMAN: Cindy Schild—
CINDY SCHILD: Can I respond?
AMY GOODMAN: —what about this conflict of interest?
CINDY SCHILD: Thank you. Thank you. I’ve been chomping at the bit to respond here. I mean, first of all, the first investigation that you’re discussing, what was the outcome of that? There’s no wrongdoing. The next one, which we’re about to see soon, I expect to see the same thing. If I am going to have an assessment conducted, a proper evaluation of something so significant, I want someone involved that has experience, that has knowledge of the industry, its operations and the concerns to look for. I don’t want somebody that builds bridges to assess a pipeline project. They’re going to have experience. If you look on our website, it’s fully disclosed as far as who—the fact that they have some experience with us. So, anyone that is going to assess a project is going to have a relationship or a history working with the industry.
What I would like to ask about, rather, is the disclosure that came out actually confirming the emails about the negotiations to kill the project with the EPA—with EPA officials, senior EPA officials, and some interest groups. So, that is a fact. While yet to date, the most transparent process in the history of pipeline approval—and, yes, this is, you said, perhaps the most thorough assessment—this is absolutely the most thorough assessment. And time and time again, the findings are the same. So, again, if we’re really going to move forward and look at where we are, this has job potential, the economic contributions, energy security, from Canada and the U.S.. That’s where we should be focusing the conversation.
AMY GOODMAN: Erich Pica, what about that? You want an entity, a consulting firm, that has experience with an oil pipeline to do this assessment for the State Department?
ERICH PICA: Well, you need to get the right people to assess the pipeline. The problem is, ERM lied on their conflict-of-interest statements before the State Department. And so, this isn’t about, you know, their ability to assess. This is about whether or not they’re truthful. And this has spurred another inspector-general report, which we’re expecting hopefully quite soon. You know, they lied about this. And, you know, we did a quick search, and the numerous conflicts—you know, the Western Energy Alliance, they’re a part of, the American Fuels Petrochemical Manufacturers, Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, the State Petroleum Association—all are advocating for this pipeline. And in fact, on the last one, they have two board members of ERM sit on that board. And then you have the American Petroleum Institute. And then they failed to disclose the fact that they worked on TransCanada projects within the last three years, which is a big question mark, which is a big question in conflict-of-interest form. So, if the—
CINDY SCHILD: I think this is a lot of speculation until the findings come out. So, we could comment on the other thing that happened a few weeks ago, and the actual influence that some groups have with EPA, when the own—our own EPA administrator said, "This is not going to impact climate. The oil sands are being developed. It’s going to get to market. No single project is going to have that much of an impact." So, this isn’t about climate. It’s about another agenda, and it’s about politics.
AMY GOODMAN: Erich, the head of the EPA saying it won’t have an impact on climate change?
ERICH PICA: Well, that’s not—the State Department’s EIS, the one that just came out, despite all of—
AMY GOODMAN: That’s environmental impact statement.
ERICH PICA: The environmental impact statement, despite the—you know, what we think is just the undue influence by the oil industry, actually says that you could have up to 27 million metric tons of carbon a year in addition released. That’s 5.7 million cars. And so, if you’re looking at the president’s test, when it says he will not approve a pipeline that adds significant carbon emissions, this pipeline can emit significant carbon emissions into the air.
AMY GOODMAN: Can we talk about what this tar sands pipeline will do? Let’s start with you, Erich, and then we’ll move on to Cindy. The issue of where the oil goes and who uses this oil that crosses the United States through Nebraska down to the Gulf Coast?
ERICH PICA: Right. Well, that’s an interesting question, because when we talk about energy security, it’s for who? And so, the head of TransCanada, before Congress, was asked, in testimony, whether or not this oil, this tar sands, will be used on American soil, will be used, you know, exclusively in the U.S. And he couldn’t testify under oath that it would. And then the State Department’s environmental impact statement kind of further clarifies that much of this oil and the refining of the tar sands is going to be used for export. So, kind of this whole energy security argument is really, you know, just like the Cardno—or, I’m sorry, ERM’s conflict-of-interest disclosure: It’s just bogus.
AMY GOODMAN: Cindy Schild, your response?
CINDY SCHILD: You know, you clearly know I’m going to disagree. I mean, initially, there was some criticism, or, you know, one line of attack was that this was an export pipeline, and we’re going to ship crude from Alberta province in Canada down to—1,700 miles down to the Gulf Coast. And, you know, when that didn’t hold up or have water, then it became, "Oh, now we’re going to export products."
You know, there is a boom in U.S. production, which is a terrific opportunity, but there’s also the opportunity to increase our imports from Canada. By 2030, we would be able to import about four times as what we import right now from the Persian Gulf. So, that’s significant. And when you have reliable sources of oil and supplies—it’s our top trading partner, as well, so there’s a lot of benefits in reciprocities between the U.S. and Canada.
So right now we’ve got half of this line built. We need to finish it. And when you talk about energy security, it’s absolutely—you know, this is in the interest of consumers. We’re going to end up getting—demand is demand. So whether those refineries in the Gulf are fed supplies from the United States domestic production in Canada or it’s going to get it from less stable regions of the world, that’s what’s going to happen. And that oil that’s sitting in the ground in Canada, their largest source of GDP, it’s not going to stay there. It’s going to get to market. This is one of six significant pipeline projects, not to mention other modes of transportation. Rail transportation is increasing. Truck transportation is increasing. It’s not going to stay there. There’s two proposals to the west coast of Canada, two proposals to the east coast of Canada. One is just a reversal of a line, and one’s a conversion of natural gas line. This is getting to market. We have to consider the alternatives and what the most efficient and safe way to bring the oil to consumers.
AMY GOODMAN: The Canadian government hailed the State Department report. This is Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver.
JOE OLIVER: We welcome the U.S. State Department’s report and are encouraged that it concludes that Keystone XL would not have a significant environmental impact. The Keystone XL project is expected to support 42,000 jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity in both Canada and the United States, and revenues to government to contribute to social programs like healthcare, education and housing.
AMY GOODMAN: That was the minister of natural resources in Canada, Joe Oliver. Erich Pica, your response?
ERICH PICA: I think, from the U.S. perspective, let’s talk about jobs. I mean, the State Department finally just debunked this jobs myth. It’s like a thousand jobs, temporary jobs, and 50 permanent jobs here in the United States. And particularly with a country that employs over 150 million people, you know, the jobs question is just—it’s a minuscule benefit to the United States.
And I’d like to get back—I mean, when it comes to export energy security, there’s nothing that says that the tar sands oil is going to stay in the United States. And in fact, we should be keeping this oil in the ground and using other types of transportation alternatives—energy efficiency, public transit, renewable energy—to begin transferring our fleet to something that’s greener. You know, what will happen is that TransCanada will make tremendous profits out of shipping this oil. And so, that’s what this is about. This is about billions of dollars in revenue that TransCanada is going to benefit from by basically sticking a pipeline through the heartland of America for export.
AMY GOODMAN: And explain what this particular oil, tar sands, is.
ERICH PICA: This is the dirtiest of the oils. This stuff is—you know, it’s kind of—it’s worse than tar. It’s like this really kind of abrasive sludge that requires special handling, requires to be heated. It needs to be mixed with other chemicals. This is the oil that was spilled in Kalamazoo, Michigan. I’m from the Midwest and from the Kalamazoo area. You know, this is the oil that spilled in the Kalamazoo River that is costing almost a billion dollars to clean up because of the carelessness of these pipeline service companies.
AMY GOODMAN: Cindy Schild, can you expand on that, on what tar sands is?
CINDY SCHILD: Absolutely. I mean, first of all, you know, we had the debate about whether it’s oil sands or tar sands, and quite simply, we’re producing oil and oil and gas products. We are not—there’s no tar being produced here, so that’s just a terminology depending what side of the fence you sit on.
You know, I think as Erich mentioned—you know, he said it clearly—they want the oil to sit in the ground. And it’s not going to. The State Department said it, and as do many experts across the board. It’s not going to. So, we support all forms of energy, but you can’t preclude one from another. This is going to come to market, and demand in the United States is going to be what it is. It’s going to be met. So that crude source is going to come from somewhere. We believe it should come from Canada and the United States.
So, when you really—if the environment is the issue that you’re concerned with, it’s been put to rest. Again, right now, we’ve spent over five years discussing this. There’s been dozens of public hearings, over a million comments generated.
AMY GOODMAN: How is—Cindy—
CINDY SCHILD: So, at this point, every other pipeline has been approved, in less than two years.
AMY GOODMAN: Cindy, how is the American Petroleum Institute gearing up for the mass protests that are being planned all over the country in response to the State Department’s report?
CINDY SCHILD: Our plan is going to continue as it has been for the past five-some years. I mean, we’ve been trying to promote the benefits and the facts, and correct some of the misinformation that’s out there that can be easier to believe. I mean, it’s not heated, anything like that. It can be frustrating when you kind of are debating a battle that’s being fought with some political organizing and sound bites. And, you know, if some groups choose to engage in civil disobedience, that is their prerogative and right. You know, we’re certainly going to continue to stick with the facts and promote the reasons why this benefits the economy, consumers.
And again, it is a jobs creator. So, know what? However you want to cut it down, from which number you want to use or anything else, quite frankly, it is a fact that the southern portion of this line is just completed. That created 4,000 jobs. This portion is longer. So, those jobs that are done, they want their jobs to create—to get back to work on the northern leg. So—and that’s just the direct jobs that’s induced. You know, you’ve also got the benefits in reciprocity I mentioned earlier with our relationship with Canada. So, you know, for every dollar we spend on Canadian goods, 89 cents or up to 89 cents is returned to the United States’ economy. And that does not happen with any of our other trading partners. So—
AMY GOODMAN: Erich Pica, I want to get your response to Cindy Schild saying that the tar sands are not related to tar, that’s just rhetoric.
ERICH PICA: Well, look, I mean, what they do in Canada is—let’s be very specific. They log the land, and then they basically strip-mine this tarry, dense substance out of the soil. And then they—
AMY GOODMAN: More dense than other oil?
ERICH PICA: More dense. This is the densest. This is the densest oil that you’re going to produce.
CINDY SCHILD: That’s been disputed time and time again.
ERICH PICA: This is the bottom of the barrels. This is the—this is the dirtiest oil that they’re going to produce. And it’s coming out, and it’s strip-mining—I mean, if you look—
CINDY SCHILD: The State Department even just said it’s very comparable to other conventional crudes we refine in the United States.
ERICH PICA: If you look at the process, if you look at the pictures in Alberta, Canada, this looks like—you know, I’m a Lord of the Rings fan. This place looks like Mordor, because it’s just so polluted, so kind of destroyed, just to get this oil. It’s not the typical oil derrick that you see. This is strip-mined, and it’s then kind of mixed with other chemicals and then transported. Many of these chemicals are proprietary. We learned in the Kalamazoo spill that, you know, these companies don’t report all the chemicals they have to use to make this stuff viscous or kind of fluid enough to run through the pipelines.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to actually go to Kalamazoo in a minute, but I want to turn to President Obama’s remarks on climate change during his State of the Union address last week.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We have to act with more urgency, because a changing climate is already harming Western communities struggling with drought and coastal cities dealing with floods. That’s why I directed my administration to work with states, utilities and others to set new standards on the amount of carbon pollution our power plants are allowed to dump into the air. The shift—the shift to a cleaner energy economy won’t happen overnight, and it will require some tough choices along the way. But the debate is settled: Climate change is a fact. And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say,
Yes, we did."
AMY GOODMAN: I want to get both of your responses to President Obama’s State of the Union. Erich Pica, you were tweeting like crazy through the State of the Union. Explain.
ERICH PICA: Yeah, I was getting frustrated more and more as I listened to the speech. Look, the president has great rhetoric when it comes to climate change. And, you know, he’s in the process of implementing Clean Air Act rules. There’s a segment of that speech that occurred right before the climate change, which talked about all-of-the-above energy, and it talked about natural gas production. And so, you know, from my perspective, from Friends of the Earth’s perspective, the president cannot talk about making tough choices when it comes to addressing the nation’s carbon pollution emissions while also promoting an energy policy that is promoting oil production, natural gas production, coal production, you know, and all these other fossil fuel, dirty energies that will just add more carbon into the air. And so, in that regard, we are quite disappointed by the president’s speech, which kind of pushed these two concepts together, and many of them which we think are quite contradictory to each other.
AMY GOODMAN: Cindy Schild of American Petroleum Institute, your response to the speech?
CINDY SCHILD: Well, from a standpoint of carbon, we’ve reduced our carbon emissions levels by 20 percent largely due to natural gas. So, you know, we can’t pick winners and losers. There is a viable reason that any of these forms of energy exists, and it’s not going to be a flip of the switch to make those conversions. We’re making significant investments in the energy industry in those alternative resources, so—but we can’t preclude one and explain things maybe incorrectly or not so accurately when we’re trying to make these difficult decisions.
And, you know, when we’re talking about the ways to extract this resource, you know, the land that’s impact is a very small portion, and the amount of oil that comes from oil sands via strip mining is roughly less than 20 percent. Eighty percent is done in a—with a technology called in situ technology, which is quite similar to your typical well: You just go down in a hole, and you drill the oil out. So, that’s 80 percent of how the resources is being extracted, just to explain. And from the president’s standpoint—
AMY GOODMAN: Cindy, we’re going to—
CINDY SCHILD: —this certainly takes—sorry.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to have to leave it there, but I want to thank you both for being with us. Cindy Schild is with the American Petroleum Institute. And Erich, I’d like to ask you to stay after break, because I want to get a response on a very different issue from you before we go to Kalamazoo, and that’s the issue of the National Security—the NSA spying on foreign governments when it came to the climate change talks, going back to Copenhagen in 2009. This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back in a minute.
-------
Michigan Activists Face Up to 2 Years in Prison for Protesting Oil Pipeline Behind 2010 Spill
Three environmentalists have just been convicted for their role in nonviolently protesting the construction of tar sands pipelines in Michigan. Last summer, they tied themselves to excavators at an Enbridge Inc. construction site to stall work on a pipeline that had ruptured in 2010 and dumped about 800,000 gallons of crude oil into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River. On Friday, the protesters — Barbara Carter, Vicci Hamlin and Lisa Leggio — were found guilty of misdemeanor trespassing, as well as resisting and obstructing police, which carries a maximum two-year felony. We are joined from Grand Rapids, Michigan, by Christopher Wahmhoff of the Michigan Coalition Against Tar Sands. In June, Wahmhoff protested the Enbridge pipeline by skateboarding deep inside the pipe and refusing to come out.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We turn to the latest news that three environmentalists have just been convicted for their role in nonviolently protesting the construction of tar sands pipelines in Michigan. Last summer, they tied themselves to excavators at an Enbridge construction site to stall work on a pipeline that had ruptured in 2010 and dumped about 800,000 gallons of crude oil into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River. On Friday, the protesters—Barbara Carter, Vicci Hamlin and Lisa Leggio—were found guilty of misdemeanor trespassing, as well as resisting and obstructing police, which carries a maximum two-year felony. The three were denied bond, remanded to the Ingham County Jail pending a March sentencing hearing. Shortly before the verdict was announced, Lisa Leggio and Barbara Carter spoke to the press.
LISA LEGGIO: Long as tar sands and extraction and pipelines and refinement, MI CATS aren’t going anywhere.
BARBARA CARTER: And even if we’re not on the front lines, we’ll be behind the scenes. You know, we’ll be doing the direct support next time.
LISA LEGGIO: Yeah, instead of the direct acting. And what’s even great—and I feel victorious no matter what—is all of these people, like, you don’t typically—this little town of Mason, you don’t see protesters outside all the time. You don’t see that. So, all of the potential jurors, I—if I were a potential juror, I would be like, "What is this about? What is Pipeline 6B, this oil spill? I remember hearing that." I mean, the whole goal was to get awareness. So we’re going—we’re getting that out to even more and more and more people. So, even if we’re found guilty, we consider it a victory, because that was the whole goal of what we did, was to bring to light the expansion of the pipeline and the spill and Enbridge and all of that. Even if you don’t see a direct link—we didn’t stop this pipeline, obviously. It’s still being expanded. It’s still being—you know, they’re still doing this thing. But don’t doubt for one second the ripple effect of what you do. You throw one little stone, and it creates a ripple. Do not forget that.
AMY GOODMAN: Lisa Leggio and Barbara Carter, two of the three activists who were just convicted of a felony and misdemeanor for nonviolently protesting the expansion of the Enbridge tar sands pipelines in Michigan.
Well, for more, we go to Grand Rapids, Michigan, where we’re joined by Christopher Wahmhoff, who is part of the Michigan Coalition Against Tar Sands. In June, he was arrested when he protested the Enbridge pipeline by skateboarding deep inside the pipe and refusing to come out. Wahmhoff is also an organizer for Occupy Kalamazoo.
Christopher, welcome to Democracy Now! First, explain what you did. You skateboarded inside an oil pipeline?
CHRISTOPHER WAHMHOFF: Yeah, thank you for having me. Yeah, this pipeline was joining with—this was new replacement that was joining with old pieces of pipe they are still using. And I took a skateboard and went in the pipeline within a half-mile of the Kalamazoo River spill site, and—
AMY GOODMAN: The police and others were shooting oxygen in to you?
CHRISTOPHER WAHMHOFF: Yes. We had thought, with it being a new pipeline, there weren’t going to be any chemicals, and we were wrong.
AMY GOODMAN: So, you were arrested?
CHRISTOPHER WAHMHOFF: Yes, I was, arrested and charged.
AMY GOODMAN: Have you served time in jail for these protests?
CHRISTOPHER WAHMHOFF: No, we were given a motion to quash, because I started speaking with the police before they got a chance to give me orders. And because of that, I avoided a command, and my motion to quash was granted.
AMY GOODMAN: So, can you talk about why you and the most recent protesters feel so strongly about this? What is happening in Michigan?
CHRISTOPHER WAHMHOFF: Well, I’m glad you said that. I actually brought some visual examples. I heard that the tar sand isn’t tar and that it’s just oil. This is a piece of tar sand oil recovered from the Kalamazoo River, where over a million gallons of this and unknown chemicals, that we can’t even get the EPA to acknowledge, are all over the Kalamazoo River. You can see it breaks apart pretty easily. And we feel like Kalamazoo has blatantly ignored 300,000 people that are impacted by one of the most toxic oil spills on the planet and the largest online oil spill in U.S. history, aren’t getting a lot of support from our leaders or the EPA, the DEQ or anyone. So, we have children that are getting seizures, and we have people that are sick in the Kalamazoo River. And if our leaders aren’t going to act, we’re going to.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain what the spill was in 2010?
CHRISTOPHER WAHMHOFF: Yeah, it was over one million gallons of bitumen tar sand, tar sand oil, that spilled and then merged with the bottom of the Kalamazoo River. It’s the first spill of its kind, so the company, Enbridge, was completely unprepared for how to deal with a spill of this size and magnitude.
AMY GOODMAN: So, finally, how does this pipeline fit into the TransCanada pipeline from the tar sands down to the Texas refinery?
CHRISTOPHER WAHMHOFF: Well, it fits because it’s the same highly toxic oil, by the same companies, that average one spill a week, that have the deplorable safety records. There is, of course, the carbon argument, but even if you omit the carbon argument, there is an issue of safety that is very, very blatantly, clearly not met by these companies.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, the three activists who were arrested, the three women who face two years in prison, can you explain what they did and what will happen now that they have been convicted?
CHRISTOPHER WAHMHOFF: Well, they—for the same reasons I went into the pipeline, they locked onto construction equipment in Stockbridge right after spending time with homeowners that are getting their land condemned by this company for this pipeline. Unlike myself, they were convicted and immediately jailed. And they did that for their families and their kids, and I’m glad they’re being acknowledged for that.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Christopher Wahmhoff, I want to thank you for being with us, part of the Michigan Coalition Against Tar Sands. In June, he protested the Enbridge pipeline by skateboarding for hours deep inside the pipeline and refusing to come out. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. When we come back, One Billion Rising.
-------
One Billion Rising: Eve Ensler & Kimberlé Crenshaw on Global Movement to End Violence Against Women
A movement is growing worldwide to stop violence against women and girls. One Billion Rising for Justice will take place on February 14, Valentine’s Day, in more than 200 countries worldwide, focusing on the issue of justice for all survivors of gender violence and the impunity that protects perpetrators all over the world. The One Billion Rising and V-Day campaigns were launched by playwright Eve Ensler, creator of "The Vagina Monologues," and highlights the startling statistic that one in every three women on the planet will be raped or beaten in her lifetime. We speak to Eve Ensler and Kimberlé Crenshaw, co-founder of the African American Policy Forum. "Women are putting their bodies at the site where vulnerabilities intersect," Crenshaw says. "By that I mean where vulnerability to gender violence, vulnerability to economic exploitation, vulnerability to the drug war — all these things come together to create unique risks, many times risks that poor women, marginalized women, women of color face."
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We end today’s show with this new worldwide movement that grew out of the global activist initiative called V-Day to stop violence against women and girls. One Billion Rising for Justice will take place on February 14th, Valentine’s Day, in more than 200 countries worldwide, focusing on the issue of justice for all survivors of gender violence and the impunity that protects perpetrators all over the world. The One Billion Rising campaign was launched by playwright Eve Ensler, creator of The Vagina Monologues, and highlights the startling statistic that one in every three women on the planet will be raped or beaten in her lifetime. That’s over one billion women. The 2014 One Billion Rising events kicked off with the world premiere of this new short film called One Billion Rising at the 2014 Sundance Film Festival.
>> It’s a global movement today, so everyone is dancing all over the world.
It’s part of a global revolution.
In more than 205 countries today, people are rising.
I want to tell you: You are making history. This has never happened before in the world, where 200 countries have come together.
This thing that we are part of today has never happened in the history of the world.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, to talk more about the One Billion Rising for Justice campaign, we’re joined by two guests. Eve Ensler herself, the award-winning playwright and creator of The Vagina Monologues and V-Day, the global movement to stop violence against women and girls, her new book, In the Body of the World, has just come out in paperback. And Kimberlé Crenshaw is with us, co-founder of the African American Policy Forum, professor of law at UCLA and Columbia University, as well as a V-Day board member.
We welcome you both back to Democracy Now! Eve, lay out what the plans are for February 14th.
EVE ENSLER: Well, this year, going off the energy and the mad movement of last year, the coordinators came together from all around the world and decided where they wanted to move was in the direction of justice, that we wanted to deepen the campaign and expand the campaign and really get very specific into the places where violence against women meets economic injustice, gender injustice, racial injustice, environmental injustice. So this year we already are, I think, past the number we had at this time last year. I think we’re up to 175 countries. Women and men are rising around the world to look at those intersections.
And some of the places, for example—some of the things that are happening are in the Philippines, for example. Indigenous women are rising in mines, where lands have been taken from them, where it’s increased poverty, it’s increased the militarization of the mines, which has increased sexual violence. Other places that are rising are in the Congo, for example, where they have—a war has been waging there for 13 years, 14 years, and they’ve seen no reparations and no justice. I mean, there are so many—
AMY GOODMAN: And what are the plans in the Congo for February 14th?
EVE ENSLER: There are going to be huge demonstrations and marches and dances through the streets, and then a concert is going to happen. And I really believe there is a set of demands that they are putting forward to the government looking at the time has come for reparations, and it’s very well organized, and I think it will be a very big rising. I was there last year, where about 10,000 people rose just in Bukavu alone. I think we’re seeing, very excitingly, in India, there are tribunals being held across, I think, 25 states. All the districts of Afghanistan are rising. The states—I think every state in America is rising. Thirteen hundred villages are rising in Bangladesh. And many women are rising to look at political crimes—prisoners in Bangladesh, who were held without justice there, and calling for justice for them. I think—
AMY GOODMAN: Kimberlé, can you talk more about what’s happening in the United States, the organizing that’s going on here?
KIMBERLÉ CRENSHAW: Well, what’s so exciting about what’s going on in the United States is that it’s finally linking many of the movements around domestic violence and violence against women, in general, to a global understanding that these are risks that women face around the world as a group. One of the problems so far, or at least historically, with the domestic violence movement and violence against women, in general, is that many times people didn’t perceive that they were linked. So, there would be an anti-incarceration movement, for example, that wouldn’t necessarily see the links between having experienced domestic violence or other forms of abuse and that being a start or a pathway into incarceration, or vice versa.
So what’s happening here is that women are putting their bodies at the site where vulnerabilities intersect. By that, I mean where vulnerability to gender violence, vulnerability to economic exploitation, vulnerability to the drug war—all these things come together to create unique risks, many times risks that poor woman, marginalized women, women of color face. So the idea is that if you—if you basically decentralize, if you encourage women to put their bodies, literally, at the sites where they are not safe and should be, or where they’re not experiencing justice and they have a right to expect that, if you put them in motion and allow them to articulate the ways in which all of these vulnerabilities actually constitute the conditions of their lives, then that makes for a national movement, and it links it to a global movement.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain the issue of intersectionality?
KIMBERLÉ CRENSHAW: Well, I can explain it with an example. If you just look at President Obama’s State of the Union address, there’s a great example there. In one sentence, he talks about the economic marginality of men of color and the need to have programs at the foundation level to address them, and in the next paragraph, he talks about the economic marginality of women. But if you were to really ask where do women of color show up, women of color make—African-American women of color make 66 cents for a dollar that a white man makes, Latinas 56 cents. You didn’t hear that when he talked about women, and you didn’t hear it when he talked about men of color. You wouldn’t know African-American women, their median net worth is a hundred dollars. That means that they experience all sorts of risks that actually lead to violence, and their ability to handle violence when it happens is compromised.
So intersectionality draws attention to the fact that women of color are caught between race, gender, class, and most of the time, the ways in which they’re vulnerable is not discussed. So what’s beautiful about this movement, it allows women to discuss it. Our State of Female Justice events, we had one in New York. We’re having one at UCLA on Thursday. It allows all these issues to come to the fore.
AMY GOODMAN: You’re heading out today to California.
KIMBERLÉ CRENSHAW: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: If you can make it out of the slush and the snow that’s coming down here.
KIMBERLÉ CRENSHAW: If we’re lucky.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain what these State of Justice panels are.
KIMBERLÉ CRENSHAW: So, we might draw an analogy to what happened during the civil rights movement. There was the daily action that put bodies in the street, and then there was what they did at night. They came together. They talked about the issues. They drew examples from each other. And they built community. Well, that’s what the State of Female Justice panels do. We’ve had several here in the United States, but they’ve also gone on around the world. It creates the common language, so that even though women experience vulnerability differently, we’re able to see how the issues are connected.
AMY GOODMAN: Eve, your book, In the Body of the World, is now coming out in paperback this week. How does this relate to One Billion Rising?
EVE ENSLER: Well, I think so much of what we’re talking about is the body, right? And the body of women, the body of the Earth, the body of justice, and so many sites this year—and what is this action? It’s an action of dance. It’s an action of re-inhabiting your body. It’s an action of reclaiming public space with your body, which has been taken away from you through various forms of violence. And it’s so beautiful to look at all the videos and all the posters that are coming around the world, because bodies are such an intrinsic part of what this movement’s about.
And we’re seeing people dancing in places where they never felt free to dance. You know, in the Philippines, for example, every day this month they are doing an action in front of the Payatas, in front of the hospitals to demand the end of privatization of medicine and healthcare. They’re dancing in front of courthouses.
And I think there’s something about when trauma and violence happens to your body, we leave our bodies. We leave the center of our power, the center of our creativity, the center of our resource. And dancing, and also collective dancing, brings us back into our central energy and power. My book is a lot about cancer and Congo and the coming together of those two things, because—
AMY GOODMAN: You survived cancer.
EVE ENSLER: I did, and I’m really happy to be here. And I think, when we can transform and re-enter our bodies, we can really begin, as women and women collectively, to have a vision of what—and feel what’s going on and connect with what’s going on and know we’re part of the story. And I’ve heard from so many women last year who danced publicly, they hadn’t danced in public space ever, they never felt it was theirs, they never felt safe enough, but with the community and with a direct intention to reclaim that space and make it safe for women, they came back into their bodies.
AMY GOODMAN: What is happening in India with this—for the first time in the last year, the kind of attention that’s being paid to gang rape?
EVE ENSLER: Well, I have to say, I was there for three weeks in December, and it’s—I think it’s remarkable what’s going on in India. There is this unearthing of the truth, unearthing of the story. I was just on the phone last night with activists in India, and I think one of the best things about One Billion Rising for Justice is it’s owned, it’s self-directed, it’s determined by people on the ground. Actually, everybody owns this movement. There’s no kind of central point of ownership. It’s if you want to do it, go and do it. And they were saying to me, right now in India, it looks like probably all states are rising. They were talking about this beautiful action that’s gone on where rickshaw drivers have been sensitized so that 100,000 rickshaw drivers now have on their rickshaws, "My religion is respecting women." So there are all these beautiful initiatives that are happening, by men and women. But I think India in some ways is the epicenter of this movement right now. There is just this—
AMY GOODMAN: We have 20 seconds.
EVE ENSLER: —wonderful energy that’s emerging there.
AMY GOODMAN: And if people want to find more about how to connect to this movement on Valentine’s Day, February 14th?
EVE ENSLER: OneBillionRising.org. There’s a huge—there are lots of actions in New York, in Atlanta at the Ebenezer Baptist Church, where Dr. King, you know, led the way. They’re joining forces there with the women’s movements and the civil rights movements. And you can go on and sign up, do your own action or join one of the big actions in your neighborhood.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank Eve Ensler, the award-winning playwright, and Kimberlé Crenshaw, the founder of the African American Policy Forum, for joining us.
-------
Headlines:
Environmentalists Urge Protests After State Dept. Says Keystone XL Would Have Minimal Impact
A long-awaited report from the U.S. State Department has dealt a potential major blow to efforts to stop the Keystone XL oil pipeline. An impact assessment released Friday says the pipeline’s northern leg would not have a major impact on climate change. In a speech last year, President Obama said his approval of the project will be contingent upon assuring it "does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution." The proposed pipeline would transport 83,000 barrels of crude every day from Alberta’s oil sands to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, which opponents say will have a devastating impact on the planet. The White House says it has yet to make a decision and will await additional feedback from federal agencies. In Washington, State Department spokesperson Marie Harf said the pipeline review will now be open to comments from the public.
Marie Harf: "There is no deadline for Secretary Kerry to make a decision. There’s also a 30-day public comment period after the SEIS is released to gather comments from the public. I’d stress that this is only one factor in a determination that will weigh many other factors, as well. And for Secretary Kerry, climate and environmental priorities will of course be part of his decision making, as will a range of other issues."
In a statement, a coalition of environmental groups said the report should prompt a wave of protests to stop the pipeline, saying: "This is an all-hands-on-deck moment to send the message to President Obama that Keystone XL fails his climate test and he must reject it." A new round of anti-pipeline vigils will begin today.
-------
Obama Issues Protections for Long-Term Jobless
President Obama met with top executives on Friday to promote hiring of the long-term unemployed. The White House says the nation’s unemployment rate has been worsened by discrimination against those who have been without a job for over six months. Obama said he would issue an executive order to enhance protections for those who apply to work for the federal government.
President Obama: "We’ve engaged employers of all sizes, all around the country, including many who are here today, to commit to a set of inclusive hiring policies for making sure recruiting and screening practices don’t disadvantage folks who have been out of work, to establishing an open-door policy that actively encourages all qualified applicants. And, of course, it’s only right that the federal government lead by example. So, today I am directing every federal agency to make sure we are evaluating candidates on the level, without regard to their employment history, because every job applicant deserves a fair shot."
-------
Syrian Peace Talks Face 1-Week Pause
The first Syrian peace talks ended Friday with little progress between the Assad regime and the opposition. U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi said the two sides will reconvene after a one-week break if the Syrian government agrees to attend.
Lakhdar Brahimi: "I suggested we resume on the basis of an agreed agenda that we are going to prepare and send to them, that we meet on the 10th of February. The delegation of the opposition agreed to this date; that of the government said they needed to consult with Damascus first. Progress is very slow indeed, but the sides have engaged in an acceptable manner."
-------
Activists: 150 Killed in Aleppo Bombings
Activists in Syria say more than 150 people have died in a weekend of attacks by government forces on the northern city of Aleppo. Syrian government helicopters have been hitting Aleppo for weeks with highly destructive barrel bombs –- oil drums filled with explosives and sometimes with nails or scrap metal. The London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights says most of the victims have been civilians.
-------
Ex-Rebel Leads 1st Round of El Salvador Presidential Vote
A former rebel commander in El Salvador has finished first in the country’s presidential election, setting up a run-off vote next month. Salvador Sánchez Cerén of the FMLN took 48.9 percent of the vote, just shy of the 50 percent needed to avoid a second round. He will square off against right-wing candidate Norman Quijano, who placed second with just under 39 percent. Before Sunday’s vote, Sánchez Cerén attended mass at the chapel where Archbishop Óscar Romero was assassinated by U.S.-backed death squads in 1980.
-------
Al Jazeera Cameraman Acquitted in Egypt
An Al Jazeera camera operator jailed in Egypt has been acquitted of all charges after more than six months behind bars. Mohamed Badr is one of a number of journalists to have been imprisoned since the military overthrew former President Mohamed Morsi in July. Badr’s attorney says he expects him to be released. Around 20 Al Jazeera journalists still face trial on charges including aiding a terrorist group. In a statement Friday, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights voiced alarm over what it called an "increasingly severe clampdown and physical attacks" on Egyptian journalists.
-------
Ex-New Jersey Official Says Christie Knew of Bridge Closures
A former New Jersey official is claiming Gov. Chris Christie knew about the closures of traffic lanes leading to the George Washington Bridge when they occurred. The official, David Wildstein, helped coordinate the closures with a top Christie aide when he worked at the Port Authority last year. Christie has denied having any knowledge, saying he only found out when the scandal broke open last month. But in a new statement, Wildstein says "evidence exists" Christie was aware at the time, contrary to his public statements. Wildstein is seeking legal immunity as well as Port Authority backing for his attorneys’ fees in the probes surrounding the case. In a statement, the Christie administration denied Wildstein’s claims, saying he is only "looking for the Port Authority to pay his legal bills." The Christie administration faces a deadline of today to comply with a subpoena for handing over documents to a state legislative investigation.
-------
California Drought Threatens Water in Rural Areas
California is facing a major drought that is threatening water supplies across the state. At least 17 rural communities, home to around 40,000 people, are in danger of running out of water within 60 to 120 days. California saw less rainfall last year than in any other since becoming a state in 1850.
-------
Undocumented Attorney Sworn In to California Bar
An undocumented immigrant who won the right to practice law has been sworn in to the California state bar. California’s Supreme Court ruled Sergio Garcia can practice law last month after a four-year court battle. Garcia was brought to the United States at the age of 17 months. After his swearing-in, Garcia said he hopes his case will open doors in other states.
Sergio Garcia: "I’m super excited that my case inspires across the nation. I think independently of whether you were blessed with being born in this country or not."
Garcia still cannot be legally hired by an employer, but he says he plans to open his own law firm.
-------
Obama Urged to Use Executive Powers to Reclassify Marijuana
Drug reform advocates are calling on President Obama to use his executive authority to reclassify marijuana in line with his own recently stated views. In an interview with The New Yorker magazine last month, Obama said he does not think marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol and called for treating it as a problem of public health. On Friday, CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Obama if that would lead to a shift in policy.
Jake Tapper: "You said that you thought smoking pot was a bad habit, but you didn’t think it was any worse for a person than drinking. Now, that contradicts the official Obama administration policy, both on the website of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and also the fact that marijuana is considered a Schedule I narcotic, along with heroin and ecstasy. Now, do you think you were maybe talking just a little too casually about it with [David] Remnick in The New Yorker, or are you considering not making marijuana a Schedule I narcotic?"
President Obama: "Well, first of all, what is and isn’t a Schedule I narcotic is a job for Congress."
Jake Tapper: "I think it’s the DEA that decides that."
President Obama: "It’s not something by ourselves that we start changing. No, there are laws undergirding those determinations."
Despite Obama’s claim that marijuana’s status is up to Congress, both the Drug Enforcement Administration and the attorney general have the authority to reclassify. In a statement, the medical marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access said: "President Obama told the nation during his State of the Union address that he would take executive action where he could on behalf of helping the American people. The president has the authority to reclassify marijuana and could exercise that authority at any time."
-------
Actor Philip Seymour Hoffman Dies of Apparent Overdose
The actor Philip Seymour Hoffman has died at the age of 46. He reportedly died of a heroin overdose. Hoffman had previously struggled with addiction before going sober for over two decades and then having a relapse that sent him into rehab last year. He was one of the most celebrated actors of his generation on stage and screen, winning a Best Actor Academy Award in 2006 for the film "Capote."
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment