When the Sierra Club in the United States announces it will take direct action to halt the mining of the tar sands, you know change is in the air. Finally, this conservative environmental group has woken up to the fact that petitions, blogs, banner-waving and words in the ear of legislators fail nine times out of 10 to bring real change.
For Michael Brune, executive director, it is time for real action.
“If you could do it nonstop, it would take you six days to walk from Henry David Thoreau’s Walden Pond to President Barack Obama’s White House,” he says in a message to Sierra Club members. “For the Sierra Club, that journey has taken much longer. For 120 years, we have remained committed to using every ‘lawful means’ … Now, for the first time in our history, we are prepared to go further.”
Brune says some might wonder why the club has taken so long to “participate in an act of peaceful resistance.” For civil disobedience to be justified, he says, there must be something so wrong that it compels the strongest defensible protest.
Brune says the Sierra Club is issuing a challenge to US President Barack Obama, who spoke stirringly in his inaugural address about how America must lead the world on the transition to clean energy. “Welcome as those words were, we need the president to match them with strong action and use the first 100 days of his second term to begin building a bold and lasting legacy of clean energy and climate stability,” says Brune.
The Sierra Club is calling for the rejection of the dangerous tar sands pipeline that would transport some of the dirtiest oil on the planet, and other reckless fossil fuel projects from Northwest coal exports to Arctic drilling. “It means following through on his pledge to double down again on clean energy, and cut carbon pollution from smokestacks across the country. And, perhaps most of all, it means standing up to the fossil fuel corporations that would drive us over the climate cliff without so much as a backward glance.”
The Sierra Club is late to the party. Many environmental groups in the United States and around the world have been taking more strident action to protect the environment. Check out the Tar Sands Blockade fighting against the building of the Keystone XL pipeline. Look at the actions of RAMPS, Radical Action for Mountain People’s Survival, and the recent protests and arrests outside the Peabody Western Coal Company headquarters. Or the Bexhill road protest in the UK. Or the group of small farmers challenging Monsanto in court. Or the action of Australian Jonathan Moylan who sent out a fake press release targeting Whitehaven’s coal mining project in Maules Creek.
More and more activists are being arrested, fined, and some jailed, with a few like Tim DeChristopher spending years behind bars.
All this indicates a recognition that direct action and civil disobedience are a must if the destruction and pollution caused by fossil fuel, mining, logging and agro-industry companies are to be blocked or stopped.
Standing up to the giants
By and large, the relatively small groups of protestors and campaigners face tough odds. Many of the polluting and destructive companies have millions or billions of dollars at their disposal and use money to buy off politicians and legislators. In some cases, billion-dollar fossil fuel companies pay money to try to skew climate science or block or censor fossil fuel mining safety reports.
It is hard to rely on politicians who rely for party funding from these giants.
Luckily, there is a growing public realization that real public action has to be taken to force the government and companies to change track, even through this will involve a radical rethink of how we live on planet Earth. The modern-day consumer society based on infinite growth on a finite planet is leading us towards a cliff. There are no easy answers. But the destructive projects must be stopped. And an alternative path has to be found.
Jonathan Moylan may face jail time for the action he took with the false press release aimed to draw attention to a coal mining project. But as he says, what’s worse? Time in jail or the wrecking of the environment?
Moylan, in a commentary in The Age, says: “Most people would have given up and rolled over by now but the community has pushed on. Despite letters, research, submissions, meetings with ministers, rallies and direct action, they failed to receive the attention they deserved. Farmers have found that when a coal or gas company comes knocking on your door wanting to buy your land, you have little choice – if you refuse, the value of your property will plummet and the company can eventually resort to compulsory acquisition.”
Moylan said he had to take action. “Over my lifetime, I have seen the world’s largest coal export port – my home town of Newcastle – expand rapidly, doubling its output in 15 years, with an accompanying increase in dust, asthma and respiratory illnesses. Current expansions would double coal exports again. It would be irresponsible and irrational for me to do nothing about this. The coal expansion in the Liverpool Plains will directly affect me and my home town.
“I joined the Front Line Action on Coal blockade in Leard State Forest because I believed that the Maules Creek community deserves our support. We will curse ourselves in the future if we are too cowardly to meet the challenge of rapid coal mining expansion with the response it requires today. Clicking ‘like’ on Facebook will not be enough to save our health, forests, farmlands and climate.”
Whether Moylan goes to jail or not, is not the point.
“Life, water, health and climate are things you cannot put a price on,” he says. It is up to the judge to pass sentence. “In terms of the bigger picture, it’s up to us.”
Moylan is right. It is up to us.
