Open letter to the California Air Resources Board on their proposed new Tropical Forest Standard: please sign!

Dear friends and fellow scholars,

A few of us have drafted an open letter to the California Air Resources Board that we hope you consider signing. We’ve had a great initial response and hope to get many signatures by Nov. 11 and present the document at a pubic ARB session on Nov. 15-16. Here’s the story:

The ARB may soon approve yet another way for the state’s biggest greenhouse-gas emitters to buy their way out of their legal obligations by purchasing dubious offsets, this time in the global South. ARB’s proposed new Tropical Forest Standard would link California’s cap-and-trade program to subnational states in the forested tropics. This is a bad idea for reasons we have tried to summarize in the letter. It would set a terrible international precedent as California officials continue to promote the state’s climate policy as a model for the world.

Until now the ARB has mainly taken its cues from environmental economists, its own technical staff, big green NGOs, carefully vetted officials and indigenous spokespeople from Brazil and Mexico, and consultants with personal and career interests in carbon trading and forest conservation financed by offsets. The ARB board and staff seem unaware of the actual record and problems of REDD+ PES, and when told about this, respond that their proposed “jurisdictional REDD” would surmount such problems. Our letter voices widespread concerns about forest carbon offset programs shared by so many geographers and other researchers who are closer to understanding how these projects are working on the ground.

We three authors are approaching this from different perspectives but we think the case against this TFS initiative is very strong. We are not condemning REDD+, etc., nor offsets in general in the letter. We are stressing the ways that the TFS could implicate the state in harmful practices, would fail to achieve any net environmental gain, and fails to meet California’s legislated requirements.

Please sign if you agree, and circulate the letter to other scholars with academic credentials who have worked on REDD/PES, carbon trading/offsetting, tropical forests/conservation/development, etc. We will be adding more citations: suggestions appreciated.

** You can add your name to the letter at this link:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScIUh1PGTF-rdZXynXXARsiWH0m1aYsoZt31o4W2iqYfvXrMQ/viewform

Here is a link to the letter (it’s also attached).

And here is information about the Tropical Forest Standard and how to submit individual letters to the ARB.  Do let us know if you have questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Kathleen McAfee

kmcafee@sfsu.edu

“Radical Bricoleurs”: On Doing Science, Community Life, Activism and Bureaucracy in Mozambique

By Anselmo Matusse, University of Cape Town

One day I was walking with Mr. Angelo, 69 years old, a former Renamo soldier, demobilized in 1994, who is now a farmer and a hunter towards his rice farm in Nvava, which is located in the lands of former colonial tea plantations called Cha Tacuane in Nvava, Lugela district, Zambezia Province, Northern Mozambique. As we walk he tells me that this tea you see here (pointing at a tea plant) was planted in the colonial period; I used to work in this company. When I look around I can see that the land was once used for monocrops, but currently colonial tea plants as wells the local plants co-exist, constituting the present landscapes as both places of memory and engendering new knowledges. The picture I began to paint is one in which the debris of colonial, socialist, civil war, and present neoliberal endeavors are the building blocks from which the foundations of a deep present and visions of the future are built. This realization prompted me to consider “radical bricolage”[1] as a means of understanding these intersections of conservation, development and community life, taking into account the amalgamation of present, past, and visions of the future in Mozambique. The concept draws together Claude Levi-Strauss’s (1966) thinking about the “bricoleur” and Achille Mbembe’s notion of “radical uncertainty” (2011, 2017), to which I return below.

Read more on Engagement, where this article was originally published.“Radical Bricoleurs”: On Doing Science, Community Life, Activism and Bureaucracy in Mozambique

Fracking democracy, criminalising dissent

This article was first published by The Ecologist.

Fracking democracy, criminalising dissent

Andrea Brock, Dr Amber Huff, Dr Judith Verweijen, Professor Jan Selby, Professor David Ockwell, Professor Peter Newell | 18th October 2018
Demonstrators outside appeal hearing of the 'frack-free four'
Source: FrackFree4 Supporters
The anti-fracking victory yesterday should not distract from disturbing trends in the criminalisation of dissent.

Ecological direct action against extractivism represents a threat to the state, because it questions the very ideology of the state and its belief in growth.

Three anti-fracking protesters – Simon Blevins, Richard Roberts and Richard Loizou – were sentenced to 15 and 16 months in prison for ‘causing a public nuisance’ in late September this year. A fourth protester, Julian Brock, received an 18 months suspended sentence after pleading guilty to the public nuisance charges.

The ‘Frack-Free Four’ had been arrested during a ‘month of protest’ in the summer of 2017 that aimed to disrupt exploratory drilling activities at Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road fracking site in Lancashire. The four climbed onto lorries that were delivering part of a drill rig and remained there for up to four days impeding the vehicles’ movement to the fracking site.

Their sentences were overturned, with the judge acknowledging that they were “manifestly excessive”.  It was a huge victory for the anti-fracking movement, and for everyone concerned about the right to protest in the UK and beyond.

Continued protest

Since the harsh sentencing, people across the country have stood up and spoken out against the ruling.

More than 23,000 people signed a petition for a parliamentary inquiry into the shrinking space for civil opposition against fracking, backed by 1,500 academics – including scientists, policy experts, ethicists, legal scholars and others – who expressed their serious concerns about the excessive punishment and increasing criminalisation of protest in the UK.

Most importantly, the anti-fracking movement has shown that it is not intimidated by the ruling. On October 1st, just days after the sentencing, nine individuals blockaded the same site (now ‘protected’ with an injunction) for three days, by climbing and locking onto two tripods.

In the same week, less than a kilometre away, people lorry-surfed trucks heading for the site.

On October 15th, the day Cuadrilla began fracking operations at PNR and two days before the appeal hearing, four protectors blocked the entrance to the same site once again.

Cultures of resistance

The prison sentences for the three lorry surfers represented the first jail sentences handed down to environmental defenders for charges of “public nuisance” since 1932. But imprisonment for environmental defenders is by no means new.

For example, in 1993, seven defenders were imprisoned for 28 days for putting their bodies in the way to stop the building of the M3 highway through Twyford Down. Others were jailed for taking action against the M11 link road in east London and the Newbury bypass.

Yet others have been jailed for protesting field trials of genetically modified organisms or nuclear energy. What distinguished the prison sentences for the anti-fracking campaigners was the length: they were told that would spend almost one and a half years behind bars.

The exceptionally harsh sentencing of Roscoe Blevins, Richard Roberts and Richard Loizou is important for what it signalled, and for the moment at which it occurred. The judgement has shocked many people, but should not come as a surprise when viewed in light of the tensions generated by the government’s backing of fracking, despite rising concerns about climate change and growing public opposition to this highly controversial form of energy production.

Only around 16 percent of the British public support fracking development. The original judgement highlights worrying trends in the suppression and criminalisation of protest and dissent in the UK that particularly affect environmental defenders.

Moreover, the success of the appeal should be seen as a response to the effectiveness of direct action not only in raising public awareness, resisting and stopping harmful industrial developments, but also in creating cultures of autonomy and resistance that constitute a threat to the status quo.

Climate chaos

Unconventional extraction of shale gas or oil through hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, constitutes the frontier of extreme energy extractivism in England. Advocates have praised fracking for ending dependence of foreign (in particular Russian) oil and gas, and the UK government included fracking in its “clean growth strategy”.

However, fracking methods are extremely risky, leading to bans or moratoria in Scotland, Wales, France and Germany, amongst others.

Peer-reviewed scientific studies and testimonies of local residents in fracking areas confirm that the risks to human and ecological health are immense. Well-documented local environmental consequences of hydraulic fracturing include the spillage of methane and leakage of toxic chemicals from drilling wells, contaminated drinking water, radioactive waste and earthquakes (including in Lancashire in 2011).

In addition, as climate chaos is increasingly felt – the heat wave blistering the UK this summer being one obvious example – the continued reliance on fossil fuels seems ecocidal.

Indeed, the fact the fracking at the Lancashire site was resumed just one week after the publication of a landmark intergovernmental report from the IPCC about the need to accelerate action on climate change by abandoning fossil fuels shows the level of indifference and hypocrisy shown by the government to the threat of climate change and its impact on the world’s most vulnerable people.

Government backing

Fracking is not, as advocates often claim, a pathway to achieving energy security. Nor is it more ‘sustainable’ than conventional techniques of extraction: when including the emissions from fracking production processes as well as consumption, the acclaimed net greenhouse gas benefits disappear.

The development of fracking is incompatible with the 2 degree, let alone 1.5 degree target. It does not promote, but rather hampers a much needed sustainable energy transition and fundamental changes to our political economic system, further entrenching (fossil) capital interests.

Yet, the British government is backing fracking at all costs. In recent years, it has been working hard at the policy level to clear the way for fracking development.

According to the website of the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial strategy: “Shale gas has the potential to provide the UK with greater energy security, economic growth and jobs, and could be an important part of our transition to a low carbon future … and government will ensure the right framework is in place to support industry and local communities as [this] exploration, and in some cases production, moves forward”.

Amendments to the 2015 Infrastructure Act were made to facilitate drilling without landowners’ consent. After local councils rejected seven out of eight drilling plans in the first months of 2018, the government initiated a set of measures aimed at pushing projects rapidly through the planning system.

Conflicted interests 

Under plans announced by business secretary Greg Clark, initial stages in the fracking process would be classified as “permitted development”, which means that no local planning application is required.

In addition, fracking sites could be labelled as “nationally significant infrastructure”, which would allow fracking operations to bypass local-level approval. At the same time, the energy secretary announced a few days ago that established health regulations around earthquakes, a frequent effect of fracking operations, might be eroded.

Anti-fracking campaigners have documented that close links to the fracking industry exist at the heart of the British state. This is exemplified by the judge who sentenced the anti-fracking campaigners, John Robert Altham, whose family’s business J.C. Altham and Sons is part of the supply chain for UK-based energy multinational Centrica, which has invested tens of millions of pounds in fracking.

Furthermore, at a time the government was developing its pro-fracking policies, energy industry figures like Centrica chief executive Sam Laidlaw and BG Group director Baroness Hogg were holding senior advisory positions in government.

The consequence of these close ties and patterns of patronage is that the government has systematically prioritised the demands of the fracking industry over the demands of communities, sacrificing local landscapes, human health concerns and the climate. As such, it is simultaneously “fracking democracy”, eroding the basis of any claim the government might have to democratically legitimate policy making by denying space for local public consultation.

Radical communities

For years, people have been taking action against the fracking industry, in hundreds of local groups across the country, and it has been working.

Environmental defenders have worked with local communities, obstructed every step of the legal process, and have taken direct action when people’s concerns were silenced. They have effectively slowed the growth of the fracking industry, despite the best efforts of companies and their government partners.

John, from the radical political theory magazine Aufheben, wrote about the famous anti-road campaign in the early 1990s, which laid the foundation of the ecological direct action movement to which the lorry surfers belong.

He said: “[B]y adopting direct action as a form of politics, we … look to ourselves as a source of change … Therefore the key to the political significance of the … campaign lies less in the immediate aims of stopping the road and in the immediate costs we have incurred for capital and the state (although these are great achievements and great encouragement to others), and more in our creation of a climate of autonomy, disobedience and resistance.

“Thus, this life of permanent struggle is simultaneously a negative act (stopping the road etc) and a positive pointer to the kind of social relation that could be: … a community of resistance.”

Extractivist ideology

The harsh sentencing of Simon Blevins, Richard Roberts and Richard Loizou should be read as a backlash against the widespread and growing resistance to fracking, and as the latest example of the increased stifling and criminalisation of dissent in the UK to make way for such dangerous extractive industries.

The sentence was so absurd that it was quickly overturned, only hours into the appeal hearing. Yet, we need to stay alert. The continuation and intensification of extractivism lies not only at the heart of the industrial system, but also at the heart of modernist ideology and the state-system.

Extractivism involves not just the mining of (fossil) resources, but also ways of controlling people by force, fear or by capturing the “hearts and minds” of the population so that they never think to question the claims made by powerful proponents of harmful extractive technologies.

Charm offensives are increasingly difficult in countries like England, where the “industrialisation of the countryside” and ever more extreme extraction processes have become increasingly unpopular with the public. As a result, powerful alliances between fracking companies and the British government are resorting to increasingly repressive legal means, aggressive policing and erosion of local democracy.

The trend is visible in developments like the granting of injunctions to pre-empt protest and protect profits; government efforts to associate opponents of fracking with political extremism and domestic terrorism; the increasingly militarised policing of protesters; and harsher punishments and compensation payments given to environmental defenders charged with minor crimes such as aggravated trespassing.

Structures of power

All this is taking place while government itself continues to erode one of the key tenets of ‘democratic’ legitimacy upon which this country’s political system is alleged to rest: meaningful public consultation.

Ecological direct action against extractivism represents a threat to the state, because it questions the very ideology of the state and its belief in growth.

Many anti-fracking protectors demand radical changes that would undermine this ideology, calling for ecological justice that represents a rupture with the current concentration of economic/political power and the structures that uphold this power, and that facilitate the ecocide we are witnessing.

More importantly, however, direct action challenges the role of the state to trigger and manage social change, empowers and creates autonomous and disobedient populations, and, in an example like fracking, arguably represents the public’s only recourse in the face of the erosion of so-called democracy.

These Authors 

Andrea Brock, Dr Amber Huff, Dr Judith Verweijen, Professor Jan Selby, Professor David Ockwell, and Professor Peter Newell are researching the political economy of energy, resources conflicts, development and extractivism at the University of Sussex.

Curiosity, relationalities and monkeywrenching: The futures of the Anthropocene

ENTITLE blog - a collaborative writing project on Political Ecology

by Daniele Valisena

Daniele Valisena reviews the book Future Remains: A Cabinet of Curiosities for the Anthropocene, edited by Gregg Mitman, Marco Armiero and Robert Emmett (University of Chicago Press, 2018). If curiosity is insubordination, Future Remains elevates it to a key role in approaching – and hopefully changing – the “human epoch”.

View original post 1,229 more words

Open letter from UK academics: The harsh sentencing of anti-fracking campaigners sets a dangerous precedent

An open letter has been initiated by Andrea Brock, Lecturer in International Relations, Dr. Amber Huff, Research Fellow, and Dr Judith Verweijen, Lecturer in International Relations, at the Institute of Development Studies, expressing their serious concerns and condemning the prison sentences for three anti-fracking protectors in the UK.

The Independent has written about the letter, and this is what some people had to say about it:

“This harsh sentencing of environmental protestors suggests that civic space is closing. This is really worrying as non-violent protest is essential for democracy and sustainability” Professor Ian Sccones, Institute for Development Studies

“This ruling is part of a wider trend of criminalisation of protest in the UK, reducing the scope to protest to mere symbolism. The ruling, by a judge with links to the oil and gas industry, lays bare the government’s unconditional and unapologetic support of the fracking industry, at immense social and ecological costs. We are very worried about these trends, and call upon academics and everyone else who shares these concerns to speak out.” (Andrea Brock, Lecturer in International Relations, and Dr. Amber Huff, Research Fellow, Institute of Development Studies  (and initiators of the open letter))

“Fracking is unpopular and controversial around Europe and north America. Using draconian measures and imprisonment to curb peaceful protest is an infringement of basic rights and a blot on UK democracy” Professor Lyla Mehta, Institute for Development Studies

The letter can be found below and here:

[This letter was originally titled ‘Open letter from University of Sussex academics: The harsh sentencing of anti-fracking campaigners sets a dangerous precedent’. Although signers from other organisations have always been welcome, given the overwhelming support, we have officially opened it up to academics from across the country (and international allies) who wish to express their concern]

We the undersigned are writing to express our growing concern about the shrinking space for communities and environmental defenders to engage in civil opposition to fracking developments in the UK.

This week three non-violent campaigners opposing fracking were jailed for 15 to 16 months simply for ‘causing a public nuisance’ and for not expressing regret. Although others have received jail sentences in more recent times, this is the first time since 1932 that environmental defenders have been imprisoned for such long periods of time for staging a protest in the UK. It is also the first time ever that activists have been jailed for anti-fracking actions.

With fracking companies increasingly granted civil injunctions to prevent protest, the scope of protest is becoming more and more restricted, representing a threat to fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly.

Fracking is controversial in the UK. According to government surveys conducted in 2017, only 16% of people support fracking development. Given the grave environmental consequences of hydraulic fracturing and growing concerns about climate change, this is not surprising.

The ruling sets a worrying precedent, curtailing opportunities for the kind of public protests that have historically been effective in instituting the legal and policy changes that defend our environment for our future generations. We need more, not less, space for action to confront unsustainable industrial practices that harm our communities and perpetuate our reliance on fossil fuels.

We oppose this absurdly harsh sentence and join calls for an inquiry into the declining space for civil society protest that it represents.

Sincerely,

[For an up-to-date list of signers, and to sign this letter, please click here]

The battle of Hambacher Forest

Activists have occupied Hambacher Forest for six years to prevent the area being destroyed and mined for coal. State violence, police brutality and corporate power are combining to try and oust them for good, writes Andrea Brock

In one of the largest policing operations in the history of the German state, police forces are currently evicting hundreds of forest protectors from the Hambacher Forest occupation in the German Rhineland. With water cannons, tanks, thousands of police officers and brute force, the government is clearing the ancient forest, determined to facilitate the continuation of logging operations – scheduled to start mid-October – for the mining of lignite coal.

Continue reading on red pepper

Can Recognition be Decolonised?

by James Fraser on August 16, 2018

Europe’s colonial encounter with the Americas has profoundly influenced modern conceptualisations of the political subject. As argued in an article ‘Amazonian Struggles for Recognition’ in  Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Europeans started from a point of non-recognition of Native Americans – they were either too innocent or too evil, too degenerate or too weak to be considered human and civilised. Renaissance travelers such as Jean de Léry (1536–1613) saw them as innocently Prelapsarian (before fall of Man), representing a lost Eden. Comte de Buffon (1707–1788), conversely, saw only savagery, degradation and moral and biological corruption. Early in the colonisation of the Americas, debates raged over the status of Native Americans, whether they should be recognised, and if so, as what kind of being? Bartolomé de las Casas (1484-1566) was famously the first European to assert that Native Americans had a soul and were therefore human. These reports and debates influenced Enlightenment philosophers, from Kant (who advanced a hierarchy of races) to Rosseau (the noble savage) and Locke (only European plantation agroecologies produce value). All elaborated their thought in relation to the Others of the New World (and elsewhere in what is today called the ‘global south’).

View original post on Progress in Political Economy