Green Party of Santa Clara County

Category Archives: Environment

We must remove each and every ton of CO2 emitted into the air

Category : blog , Divestment , Economy , Energy , Environment , Politics

Geordie Zapalac, October 3, 2019 (revised Jan 22nd 2020)

It has been inspiring to witness many people take to the streets to demand action on the climate crisis, and to direct attention to the deep links between the climate crisis and social injustice. Climate activism in the United State has most recently been focused on implementing Congressional preamble H. Res. 109 called the “Green New Deal” that addresses both the need to reduce CO2 emissions and the needs of marginalized communities after the required shift in the energy system. A more comprehensive Green New Deal had first been a central part of the Green Party’s platform, in 2010 by Howie Hawkins and in 2012 and 2016 with the Jill Stein presidential campaign. For this discussion the “Green New Deal” or “GND” will refer to H. Res. 109.

The GND calls for the transformation of our energy system to reduce CO2 emissions “to the extent technologically feasible.” It specifically recognizes the November 2018 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that asserts that CO2 emissions must be reduced 40-60% by 2030 and 100% by 2050 in order to prevent the average global temperature from rising more that 1.5 oC above the preindustrial temperature. It also recognizes a need to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere “through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil carbon storage, such as land preservation and afforestation.” But does the GND effectively confront the climate crisis, or is it becoming a panacea that distracts us from the real action that is now necessary to save the planet?

Since the industrial revolution the CO2 concentration in the air has increased by about 50% and the global average temperature has increased by 1.1 oC.(1) What have been the consequences of 1.1 oC of warming so far? We have seen the loss of glaciers, the accelerating loss of ice from the Greenland ice sheet, an almost complete loss of sea ice from the Arctic, accelerating ice loss from the Antarctic, devastating and lethal heat waves and wildfires including vast fires in the boreal forests of the Arctic, catastrophic floods, a significant increase in the frequency of category 4 and 5 hurricanes, significant losses of agricultural yields, the death of coral reefs, a 20 cm rise in sea level, and a dramatic loss of life and biodiversity across the planet.

Is the temperature increase of 1.1 oC that we have experienced so far really acceptable? The Greenland ice sheet for example is not going to stop melting and will eventually cause 7 meters of sea level rise – would that be acceptable? And if not, then why should we regard the 1.5 oC temperature rise recommended by the IPCC as acceptable? Haven’t we exceeded our “carbon budget” already? Furthermore the IPCC has not been entirely truthful: they have chosen to simply ignore inconvenient observational data and to report instead the results of their climate simulations. It is well known that these simulations do not adequately account for several feedback mechanisms now in play in the Arctic, therefore they catastrophically fail to predict even the most basic observational data such as the rate of sea ice loss in the Arctic (2) or the climate sensitivity to CO2 measured from ice core samples.(3) Discarding observational data in favor of computer simulations should never provide a basis for policy decisions.

The higher the concentration of CO2 in the air, the higher the global average temperature of the earth, this is a consequence of basic physics.(4) The climate sensitivity measured from ice core samples indicates that if the 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since preindustrial times is sustained, it will eventually increase the global average temperature by 3.5 oC.(3) This implies that another 2.4 oC of warming is yet to come, if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is not reduced. Today 40 gigatonnes per year of CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere worldwide, sinking us ever deeper into carbon debt.

It is important to realize that the carbon already released into the atmosphere is sufficient to eventually destroy much of the life on the planet, whether due to climate change or ocean acidification, and that this carbon will not be affected by any program we put in place to restrict emissions going forward, including the Green New Deal.

Will planting trees save us? By all means we should plant trees – it can only help. But it takes decades for a newly planted forest to begin removing significant amounts of CO2 – assuming that the forest does not burn down during this period thanks to climate change – and we do not have decades to wait.

The only remaining solution that averts catastrophe appears to be the removal of CO2 directly from the air by chemical means, a technology called “Direct Air Capture” or DAC. There are currently four commercial undertakings for DAC: Carbon Engineering, Climeworks, Global Thermostat, and a collaboration between Silicon Kingdom Holdings and Arizona State University. Ideally this list will expand significantly in the future with additional startups working on improving the technology to build a competitive carbon capture industry. The existing companies currently anticipate costs of roughly $100 to remove one tonne of CO2 directly from the air at scale.(5) This cost should be regarded as an upper bound after a few years of field experience with DAC at scale: convincing arguments predict that the cost of DAC will probably drop to $30 per tonne.(6) For the remainder of this discussion let us assume the conservative cost of $100 per tonne.

We may now answer the question: What is the hidden cost of emitting 1 tonne of CO2 into the atmosphere? It is not necessary to somehow account for the current or future damage from floods, hurricanes, droughts, wildfires, or sea level rise that is caused by climate change. Nor is it necessary to assign a price to the human lives taken by climate change, or a price to the ongoing loss of biodiversity; both of course are priceless. The hidden cost of emitting 1 tonne of CO2 is precisely the cost to remove 1 tonne of CO2 directly from the atmosphere: $100 per tonne.  When fossil fuel prices are increased to account for this hidden cost, then technologies for energy conservation, renewable energy, battery storage, and electric vehicles will become more competitive in the marketplace. It is likely that we will continue to burn fossil fuels, but we will burn significantly less fossil fuels and we will burn them responsibly because the cost of removing the emitted carbon as a ‘carbon removal tax’ will be factored into the cost of doing business for the fossil fuel industry.

We will need to remove significantly more CO2 than we emit to avoid catastrophic climate change, but for the remainder of this discussion let us explore the economic consequences of a carbon removal tax, intended to bring us immediately to zero net emissions so that at least we are not making the problem even worse. It is important to emphasize that a tax of $100 on one tonne of emitted CO2 must be used to remove one tonne of CO2 from the atmosphere: it cannot be diverted to any other cause however admirable such as research on wind turbines, adaptation to sea level rise, climate education for K-12 schools, etc. If the tax proceeds are not directly used to remove the emitted CO2 from the atmosphere then we will have solved nothing: climate physics makes no allowance for alternative causes with good intentions.

How would the U.S. economy respond to a carbon tax of $100 per tonne?  The reader may keep in mind that there are already four countries that have a tax in excess of $50 per tonne of CO2 (tCO2) and their economies are doing fine (7): Sweden ($133/tCO2), Switzerland ($87/tCO2), Finland ($65/tCO2), and Norway ($53/tCO2). The U.S. consumer would experience a tax of $100/tCO2 as an inflation of prices on most goods and services. Probably all prices would be at least slightly affected since in general the production of goods requires energy, but the most direct rise in prices would be for the direct energy costs of gasoline, electricity, and gas heating. We will review each of these costs to estimate its impact on the consumer and its contribution to the increase in the inflation rate, and then compare the total increase in the inflation rate to the inflation rate that we experience today.

  • Burning a gallon of gasoline releases about 10 kg of CO2 which would be taxed at $1.00. This increases the average price for a gallon of gasoline ($4.00) by 25%. The average household spends $368 a month on gasoline (8) to purchase 1104 gallons of gasoline per year, so they would be taxed $1104 each year to remove the CO2 from the air.
  • The average cost of electricity is 12 cents per kWh.(9)  In the U.S. each kWh of electricity produced releases on average 0.5 kg of CO2.(10)  This would incur a carbon removal tax of 5 cents, or a 42% increase in the electricity bill. The average annual electricity bill is $1340 which incurs a tax of $562 to remove the CO2 from the air.(11)
  • Each therm of natural gas releases 0.0053 tonnes of CO2.(12)  The average household burns 755 therms per year (13) releasing 4.0 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere which would be taxed at $400.

The total average annual tax on the direct use of energy is therefore $2066. Because the average U.S. household spends $60,061 per year (14), this additional spending represents an increase in the inflation rate for the average household of 3.4%. Historically, increasing energy costs have had only a slight effect on the inflation of prices that are not direct energy costs.(15)  We will use 7% as a conservative estimate of the total inflation caused by the carbon removal tax: a doubling of the inflation due to the direct costs of energy.

There are four important comments about the inflation rate due to the carbon removal tax:

  1. We must compare this inflation to the true rate of inflation not the Consumer Price Index (CPI) of about 2% that is typically quoted by the press as “inflation.” The CPI is calculated in secret and assumes that consumers will substitute less expensive goods when prices rise: the CPI therefore does not account for the actual rise in prices. Its purpose is to allow the government to avoid indexing government programs to the true inflation rate which is really 7% to 13%.(16)
  2. The carbon removal tax only increases the inflation rate in the year that it is implemented: it is a one-time increase on energy prices, whereas we suffer under the true inflation rate every year.
  3. In many cases the carbon removal tax may be avoided, for example, by driving an electric vehicle, or weatherproofing a house, or installing solar panels. No such options exist for avoiding the true inflation rate, which is created by the banking system and benefits only the extremely wealthy.(17)
  4. There will be a need to address the social justice impact of this increased inflation on low-income people and communities, Although not discussed here, addressing equity will be an important part of implementing any tax.

To summarize, H. Res. 109 Green New Deal cannot possibly avoid catastrophic climate change because it minimizes the significance of the carbon already released into the atmosphere and only calls for reducing emissions “to the extent technologically feasible.” We must unequivocally demand the removal of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. It will cost at most $100 to remove one tonne of CO2 from the air after a few years of field experience while DAC is being deployed at scale. The hidden cost of emitting one tonne of CO2 is precisely the cost of removing one tonne of CO2 from the air. This leads immediately to a carbon removal tax of $100 per tonne of CO2 in order to reduce net emissions to zero. This cost would be experienced by consumers as an increase in the inflation rate of at most 7% and mostly only the first year that the carbon tax is implemented. This inflation rate should be contrasted with the current inflation rate of about 10% that we must endure today,(16,18) year after year.

Therefore a carbon removal tax is a reasonable, an accessible, and – most importantly – a responsible first step towards avoiding a climate catastrophe.

Geordie Zapalac is a physicist working in Santa Clara, CA in photovoltaics.   He is an active member of the Green Party of Santa Clara County.

References

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
  2. Peter Wadhams (2017), A Farewell to Ice. Oxford University Press, pp. 88-9.
  3. J. Hansen et al. (2008). Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim? The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2, pp. 217-231.
  4. Peter Wadhams (2017), A Farewell to Ice. Oxford University Press, pp. 47-52.
  5. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-carbon/scientists-say-cost-of-sucking-carbon-from-thin-air-could-tumble-idUSKCN1J325H
  6. K. S. Lackner (2009). Capture of carbon dioxide from ambient air. Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics, 176, pp. 93-106.
  7. https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-pricing-popular
  8. https://money.cnn.com/2011/05/05/news/economy/gas_prices_income_spending/index.htm
  9. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/10/27/141766341/the-price-of-electricity-in-your-state
  10. https://blueskymodel.org/kilowatt-hour
  11. https://smartasset.com/personal-finance/how-much-is-the-average-electric-bill
  12. https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calulations-and-reference
  13. https://www.howellsac.com/blog/cost-of-gas-heat-vs.-electric-heat
  14. https://www.gobankingrates.com/saving-money/budgeting/how-much-average-american-spends-daily/
  15. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2018-10/07-21-energy-dist.pdf
  16. ttps://www.businessinsider.com/if-people-knew-the-actual-inflation-rate-it- would-crash-the-economy-2016-8
  17. Many classic texts are devoted to this topic. A clear and concise introduction is provided by “The Case Against the Fed” by Murray N. Rothbard.
  18. https://medium.com/@bgschust/true-inflation-exceeds-7-8dced84ae05

A Green Perspective on the Green New Deal

Category : blog , Economy , Environment

Two weeks ago, New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey introduced HR 109, the Democrats’ version of a Green New Deal. This non-binding resolution is a “10-year national mobilization” to transition the country to 100% clean energy while providing millions of jobs and addressing “systemic injustices”. If approved, a select committee appointed by Nancy Pelosi will work to create a Green New Deal Plan by January 2020 which will then be transformed into a legislative draft by March 2020, just in time for the primary elections.

While ambitious on paper, the resolution remains vague and widely open to interpretation. Many climate justice groups have already criticized the resolution, including the Indigenous Environmental Network and Food and Water Watch. The Green Party of Santa Clara County also shares the general concern that HR 109 does not challenge big oil interests but instead reassure the Democrats’ wealthy corporate donors by using vague references to general policies while leaving out the needed sweeping policies that will enable funding a meaningful Green New Deal. For instance, explicit terms such as “fossil fuels”, “coal”, “natural gas”, “fracking”, or “pipelines” are not even mentioned in the resolution.

In addition, federal programs like single-payer universal healthcare, guaranteed affordable housing, tuition-free public college education and universal basic income do not appear in the document although they were part of the initial draft. If indeed one of the goals of the resolution is to counteract racial, social, and economic injustices as it claims, then such basic human rights would be guaranteed in a “ Green New Deal”.

The resolution also stops short of rejecting the for-profit, market-based economy and prioritizes private sector partnerships to implement its measures. Climate change cannot be fought with the same profiteering tools that put us in this mess in the first place. But since members of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis are all receiving donations from the fossil fuels industry, the future impact of this resolution remains unclear.

The Green Party’s Green New Deal, on the other hand, is a four-part comprehensive plan that calls for an economic bill of rights, a green and just transition, a real financial reform, a functioning democracy, and demilitarization. Cutting military spending by 50% would not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions worldwide (Department of Defense is the world’s worst polluter), but will help fund the massive public infrastructure works and the transition to 100% renewable energy while creating millions of jobs.

The Green Party of Santa Clara County welcomes a long overdue national discussion on a Green New Deal. However, we believe only a true integrated approach to today’s economic, social and environmental crises can lead us to a sustainable, just and peaceful future.

Only the Greens’ Green New Deal puts people, planet, and peace over profits. Now that the idea of a Green New Deal has been introduced, it is up to us where we want to take it by participating in discussions, raising awareness, calling our representatives, and organizing locally.

Let’s raise our expectations and demand more.
Let’s make the Green New Deal a transformative reality at last.
#WeAreGreen

San Jose Creates New Clean Energy Department for 100% Renewable Clean Energy

Category : blog , Energy , Environment , Politics

San Jose Clean Energy, approved unanimously this May by the City Council, is a new program that offers a choice for more renewable energy at competitive rates with local control and benefits than currently offered by the investor owned utility, PG&E. Many cities in California have created their own Clean Energy alternative and San Jose is one of them! The program, which will offer electricity to residents that is cleaner and/or more affordable while creating more local clean energy jobs, includes a new department, director, 20 staff, and a Citizens Advisory Committee. 

These programs are enabled by a 2002 state law (Assembly Bill 117) that allows cities or counties to choose their electric provider and the source of their electricity.

Communities can purchase and generate electricity according to their own community priorities – greener than PG&E offers, at a competitive cost.  PG&E still maintains the power lines (and manages delivery and billing), but the power purchase contracts are set by the city’s CCE program. Proven successful programs in Marin, Sonoma, and Lancaster (see below) are delivering electrical power with a much higher portion of renewables than PG&E currently provides, at lower costs than PG&E.

The benefits to San Jose are:

Clean Energy: San Jose will, with this one action, enable the community to make a major transition to clean energy faster than any other way.  Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a major goal for the State, and a focus area of San Jose’s Green Vision.

Choice: Each customer personally chooses the energy plan that best fits them. Whether to potentially pay less than they pay now for a cleaner energy mix, pay a bit more for 100% renewable energy, or pay the same price they pay now for the same mix (stay with PG&E) there are no risks to individual rate payers.

Community Control and Economic Benefit: San Jose has made buying locally produced clean energy a priority so local energy companies and producers will have an increased market which stimulated localrenewable energy development projects, helps create local jobs and attract businesses, and puts competition in the energy utility market. San Jose can  capture some of the approximately $400 million per year that San Jose pays PG&E for electricity generation, and have the decision-making control to save customers money, and invest revenues locally to produce jobs and benefit the local economy.

As an example: Since the launch of Sonoma Clean Power (SCP) in 2014, they have increased the percentage of overall spending in Sonoma County from an estimated 3% of dollars by PG&E prior to SCP launch, to over 25% today by SCP, and this percentage is expected to increase over time. SCP has already achieved $50 million in direct customer savings plus over $35 million in shifted spending back into the county.

Marin Clean Energy and Other Leaders

Three community choice districts are already successfully operating in California, and CCE’s operate in at least 5 other states as well.  Originally termed Community Choice Aggregation (CCA), the terms CCE and CCA are interchangeable.

    • Marin Clean Energy (MCE) was the first CCE/CCA in northern California: it first came online in 2010, and by year end 2014 had grown to serve over 125,000 customers in Marin County, unincorporated Napa County and the cities of Benicia, El Cerrito, Richmond and San Pablo. It serves residential, commercial, and municipal customers, and is expected to increase the number of communities it serves in 2016.
    • Sonoma Clean Power is a CCA serving most cities (and all unincorporated areas) in Sonoma County, and came online in 2013.
  • The southern California city of Lancasterlaunched their CCA in early 2015. Lancaster represents a single-city CCA model.

More locally, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties have created Community Choice Energy programs in 2016!

    • In San Mateo County all 20 cities plus the County Unincorporated area have voted to join the local CCE program, Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE).. Program launch in August, 2016.
    • In Santa Clara County all but one of the 11 cities in consideration have voted to join the Silicon Valley Community Clean Energy Partnership (SVCCEP), started in late 2016. 
  • San Francisco has established a CCA (CleanPowerSF), offering service in May of 2016.

Other California communities are investigating CCEs as of June 2015, by formal action of elected bodies (list possibly incomplete):

    • Los Angeles County, including the cities of Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Carson, Torrance, Inglewood, Culver City and Santa Monica.
    • Santa Cruz/Monterey/San Benito Counties (and all cities therein)
    • Lake County
    • Mendocino County
    • Humbolt County
    • San Luis Obispo County
    • Santa Barbara County
    • City of Morro Bay
    • City of Davis
  • City of Solana Beach

Links to Marin’s, Sonoma’s, and Lancaster’s CCAs, and other resources, are here at our Resources page.

San Jose′ Community Energy (SJCE) is a group of residents committed to bringing affordable renewable energy to our community.  We advocated for the formation of a CCE program in San Jose′. 

San Jose plans to roll out the new program incrementally over the next year. To learn more visit the City’s website: sanjoseca.gov

By: Cheryl McGovern

The Big Fat Fake Division

Category : blog , Energy , Environment , Politics

It’s the most familiar tactic in the history of manipulation-divide and conquer. The corporatized political parties that have been trading the football of the US Government back and forth for decades have successfully engaged the entire republic in a non-debate about something that has no divisive features. Their strategy of pitting sides against one another is about as sophisticated as a teenager angling for the car by getting Mom and Dad to fight about who caused the scratch on the door. Embarrassingly, far too many of us keep falling for it.

The Environment is Not An “ISM”

Our planet, the water, the air, the animal and plant life, is not an institution, a theory, a political invention, or any other “ism.” It is a very concrete, finite location and resources. It is the context in which all human activity, good, bad, and neutral, must take place. Living consumes and makes waste. Modern, human life has added a layer of consumption and waste production that can’t be automatically re-incorporated into Earth’s natural cycles. We continually convert a certain amount of the Earth’s matter, into permanently unusable, sometimes even dangerous, waste. That waste is accurately called pollution, a now-old-fashioned word, too clear and useful to be in favor today.

We all know what pollution is and why we don’t want it. It makes living on Earth a bad experience. When it builds up in the air or water or soil we get sick. Everybody knows it’s bad. No one is confused or undecided. No one would rather live in pollution. No one prefers a river with raw sewage spilling into it to one without. But guess what! By changing the language to “climate change” and framing the debate around whether or not it’s caused by human activity, the corporate interests that would pollute freely for profit, distracted us all. Worse, we’re not even debating climate change, or even its causes any more. We’ve devolved into a useless non‑dialogue about climate change DENIAL! Denial is not an issue. It’s a pretense that something doesn’t exist. Talk about talking about nothing!

Sincere Language

But what happens when we call things by reasonably accurate terms, instead of manipulative spin yammer? Replace “climate change” with “planet-wide heating.” Now, instead of a vague, meaningless phrase, we have a fair description of what is actually happening. Instead of arguing about whether society should manage and restrain things that may be turning up the heat, let’s focus on the fact that those same activities simply pollute. Heating up or not, we’ve spent four decades proving that we can choose whether or not to make our planet a filthy, dirty one, or try and clean up after ourselves. Why would we turn back and choose pollution now? We wouldn’t. That’s why the profiteering exploiters prefer we never pose the question that way.

Their argument was, ‘People don’t cause global warming, so forget about protecting the environment and let’s exploit without limits, because money.’ By this logic, if you are making breakfast and you drop the two eggs you were going to scramble, you should throw the other ten eggs on the floor too. Rational adults rejected this idiotic argument so the profiteers now respond with denial, like a three-year-old having a pout.

Planet-wide heating is not good news, but whether our actions can avert it or not, we still have to live here for the foreseeable future. And since we do, why would any sincere, rational person agree to end the limits on pollution, or abandon recycling? We wouldn’t and we don’t.

The Violence of Oil and Gas Pipelines!

Category : blog , Energy , Environment , Politics

In 2016 the United States dropped bombs on seven, what are commonly described as “Muslim Countries”: Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan. These military operations were justified by the Obama Administration as a war on terrorism or ISIS. Was “Terrorism” the true motive of these operations?

Retired General Wesley Clark, West Point Valedictorian, Vietnam Veteran and Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO during the Kosovo War, published a book in 2003, Winning Modern Wars. In this book he recited a conversation he had with an unidentified Military Officer in the Pentagon who, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, revealed a script to attack seven Middle Eastern countries: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finally Iran. With this revelation we now know there was a premeditated plan by the United States to attack seven additional countries to Afghanistan with the passing of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. Which intentionally used vague language to describe the scope of the authorization in order to open the door for the expansion and use of military operations.

The motive of fighting “Terrorism” has been invalidated as well. After a trip to Syria, Republican US Senator Richard Black gives a description of the country unlike anything else you will see on Corporate American media. In an interview with Executive Intelligence Review Magazine’s Jeffrey Steinberg, Senator Black says (3:00), “Syria is one of the most incredibly wonderful nations on Earth,” and goes on to say, “The fact that America set out to topple the Government and destroy it, long before there was the faintest hint of civil unrest,… is really one of the great stains on American honor.” He describes Syria as having religious freedom greater than in the United States. Later in the interview he he gives two devastating revelations. He says (9:28), “One of my questions, is why is there war in Syria?..We know this was not a popular uprising. This was a calculated decision by CIA, MI6, French Intelligence, working with the Muslim Brotherhood, Turks, Saudis…an organized plan to topple the Government and of course, you know, we were familiar that there were competing plans for oil and gas pipelines.” Even more disturbing he says( 35:54), “…we have gone full circle from opposing Al-Qaeda, which sent three thousand Americans to a faming death on 9-11, complete circle to where we now supply them, we arm them, we finance them and it’s all coming with the approval of the highest authorities in the United States Government.” Yes, that is a current United States Senator who said these things.

Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006 may have been the decision maker behind these wars and certainly a major influence to invade Iraq. He stated in his book, The Age of Turbulence, “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” He seems to suggest it was his idea to invade Iraq in a quote from a Washington Post article, Greenspan: Ouster of Hussein Crucial for Oil Security, September 17, 2007, “Greenspan said he had backed Hussein’s ouster, either through war or covert action. “I wasn’t arguing for war per se,” he said. But “to take [Hussein] out, in my judgment, it was something important for the West to do and essential, but I never saw Plan B” — an alternative to war.” We can now certainly conclude that the wars in the middle east are for oil and not a war against “Terrorism.”

The violence for oil has landed on our homeland as well. In North Dakota, Energy Transfer Partners LLC, is able to impose its will with the support of local and out of State Police Departments and Local, State and Federal Governments, against the best interest of Indigenous Nations and the American public. They are constructing an oil pipeline, known as The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), under the Missouri River, which will eventually contaminate the river. According to the US Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, Basin Report: Missouri River, “The Missouri is the longest river in the United States. It has a watershed of more than 500,000 square miles, includes portions of 10 states and one Canadian province, and encompasses approximately one-sixth of the United States. The Missouri drains the largest watershed within the United States and produces annual yields of 40 million acre-feet.” The report goes on to say, “Adequate and safe water supplies are fundamental to the health, economy, and ecology of the United States, and global climate change poses a significant challenge to the protection of these resources.” Protecting this resource from oil spills and climate change is critical to the health of the people of the United States, Indigenous and otherwise.

Water Protectors in North Dakota, the Standing Rock Sioux and other Indigenous Tribes, stood peacefully against the construction of the pipeline. Armed private security were brought in and used dogs to attack the Water Protectors. Luckily this action was captured by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now. This inspired people from all over the United States to support the effort against the DAPL bringing supplies, Money and People Power. Activists converged on Standing Rock in solidarity with the Water Protectors, they were met however with more violence. The Morton County Sheriff’s Department and outside Police Departments sprayed Water Protectors with water, from water cannons, in the frigid cold of North Dakota’s winter, they used tear gas, concussion grenades and shot the Water Protectors with rubber bullets. Sophia Wilansky, 21, nearly lost her arm to one of these grenades. Vanessa Dundon, was hit in the eye with a tear gas canister and nearly lost her eye and Marcus Mitchell, 21, shot in the eye with some kind of pellet rounds, also nearly losing and eye.

Civil Rights are ignored when it comes to protecting the profits of oil and gas companies. There were several high profile arrests of Water Protectors and activists: Standing Rock Tribal Chairman David Archambault II who was charged with disorderly conduct, an arrest warrant was also issued in Morton County for Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein and her running mate Ajamu Baraka on misdemeanor counts of criminal trespass and criminal mischief, a warrant for journalist Amy Goodman’s arrest was issued by Morton County related to the filming of the dog attacks on Water Protectors. Protectors, Physician Sara Jumping Eagle, along with the daughter of LaDonna Brave Bull Allard, who founded Sacred Stone Camp and Actor Shailene Woodly were strip searched for misdemeanor arrests. Allard said that when her daughter was arrested and taken into custody she was “strip-searched in front of multiple male officers, then left for hours in her cell, naked and freezing.” All of this violence and violations of Civil Rights against Americans protecting one of the most important watershed in the United States showed us that the profits of oil and gas companies are more important than the American values we were raised to believe in.

Let’s stop the violence and move away from fossil fuels and towards clean renewable energy. The Green Party advocates for the Green New Deal which, includes investments for renewable energy, taxes and fees for industries that increase carbon emissions and to achieve full employment with living wages in green jobs in sustainable energy. Review the Green New Deal here: https://sccgreens.org///green-agenda/green-new-deal/

The Carbon Fee and Dividend proposal, by the Citizen’s Climate Lobby, looks to return to citizens the dividends paid by the fossil fuel industries by the amount of greenhouse gas emissions they release. You can learn more about this plan here: http://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/

We must stand up to the violence in the name of oil and gas.

FB Events

Green Party of Santa Clara County CA

Recent Posts

Social Media

South Bay for Jill Stein

Green Party of Santa Clara County - 48 S. Seventh Street, Suite 1 San Jose, CA 95112 - 408-236-2016