Home

Posts Tagged ‘direct action’

Why I Got Arrested on November 17th

Monday, November 21st, 2011 by Dan Apfel, Executive Director

One of the students that REC works closely with, Molly Gott, at Washington University in St. Louis, was arrested in St. Louis during the N17 day of action. Read about it here:

Around the time when the mainstream media began to cover Occupy Wall Street, one of my responsibilities at my internship included interviewing Marva, a 65 year-old African-American woman living on a fixed income in Ballwin, Missouri who had been fighting the foreclosure of her home for over two years. As we talked, a stack of paper several inches high sat on her kitchen table — all of the paperwork she had received and filled out in a so-far unsuccessful attempt to stop the foreclosure of her home. At some point during our conversation, Marva referred to herself as a “99 percent-er.” I was taken aback.

Sitting on bridge

Up until that moment, I hadn’t truly believed that Occupy Wall Street was anything other than a movement created by “radical leftists,” for “radical leftists.” But hearing Marva self-identify with the 99% changed my mind.

Since first hearing about it last summer, I had been skeptical of Occupy Wall Street. But despite my skepticism, I continued reading about the happenings in Zucotti Park. Although I was wary of the “movement,” Occupy Wall Street did resonate with me, simply because it was willing to say, “We have a problem.”

In fact, it was willing to say, “We have a lot of problems. And we haven’t figured them all out yet. The problems are big banks, capitalism, income inequality, unfair foreclosures, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, environmental degradation, unemployment, corporate greed, globalization, racism, a Congress controlled by corporate interests, and a lot of other very complicated things.” It was willing to say, “We’re angry, so let’s be angry together and figure out what we can do about it.”

Still, I was skeptical. There weren’t any clear-cut demands! Too many people were wearing Guy Fawkes masks! The high number of young, white people participating did not accurately reflect the composition of the 99%!

But after speaking with Marva my skepticism began to fade. I realized that, as someone who claims to be committed to “social justice,” it would be irresponsible and impossible for me not to participate in the Occupy movement to the best of my ability. For me, “participating to the best of my ability” meant engaging in civil disobedience at a rally at the Martin Luther King Jr. Bridge in St. Louis on Thursday, November 17 as part of Occupy Wall Street’s national Day of Action.

When I asked myself, “why should I participate in civil disobedience?” part of my answer was: because I can. For most people, such as Marva, voluntary arrest is not possible because of financial, health, and other concerns. But as a white, upper-middle class college student with the social and financial resources to be arrested with almost no subsequent consequences, I can strategically use my privilege to call attention to the injustice that pervades our country.

It is integral that students across the country become even more involved in the Occupy movement. We can carry on the legacy of student activism in our country by working to build a more just future in which we will live. Civil disobedience is one way that we can contribute.

In his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. writes, “We who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with.” To me, that is what the Occupy movement is about. That is what Thursday’s march was about. That is why I participated in civil disobedience: to force us all to see that something (even if we don’t know exactly what it is) is wrong, and then to come together to figure out how we can begin to fix it.

I only spent 11 hours in jail, but many of the things I experienced and observed affirmed again and again why the Occupy movement is necessary, and why change can’t wait. Injustice of all kinds was constantly on display. The other inmates (and even some of the police officers and other people who worked at the jail) expressed support of the Occupy movement’s messages.

I hope that the actions across the country on Thursday made it clear that the Occupy movement is not ending anytime soon and inspired more people — especially students — to participate. Now, Occupy can start having serious and difficult conversations about how to transition from symbolic victories to real victories, from social change to political change, and from a problematic present to a more just future.’

You can watch a video of the arrests here.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • del.icio.us
  • TwitThis
  • Google
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Print this article!

Time for Fresh Eyes on Occupy Wall Street?

Wednesday, October 26th, 2011 by admin

By Yinan Hu and Adrienn Szlapak

Occupy Wall Street, a completely leaderless movement that claims to represent 99% of the population against the greedy 1%, staked a claim on a small piece of New York real estate known as Zuccotti Park in September 17.

Employing a range of tactics for media publicity, the movement has gathered thousands of people to occupy Zuccotti Park (private) near in the Wall Street vicinity and staged protesters all over the Manhattan, inspiring solidarity movements globally in 71 cities and drawing disdain from those opposed to their political views.

The unorthodox approach of the Occupy movement—deliberately avoiding sharp, limited demands in favor of a democratic-cum-anarchic call for change—has prompted speculation on the movement’s potential success.

In spite of the vagueness of its message, this amorphous structure has proven successful. The undefined mission and intentional disorganization have allowed the movement to be inclusive, drawing people from all different walks of life –from former Wall Street traders to union organizers to professional left-wing activists.

While no one can deny that Occupy Wall Street (OWS) has been quite successful in drawing media attention and attracting solidarity movements worldwide, the ultimate effectiveness of its media strategy remains uncertain, due to the lack of defined message and an apparent absence of internal consensus.

The widespread media coverage won by the movement is so far regarded as one of the biggest successes, something that even the initiators did not expect.

“No one knows what’s going to happen the next day,” admitted Throine Peace, one of the media coordinators on the #OWS Media Team, an internal working group based in the middle of the park. “We are carefully letting people grow; now you can’t take it down,” he added during an interview, “the movement is meant to redefine itself everyday with the changes” and indeed no one has predicted the wild attention they have raised so far.

Another member of the Media and the Press Teams, Jason Ahmadi, believes their communications strategy has succeeded particularly well on the Internet.

“We are attacking all fronts” he said. He considers the movement’s website and the relationship it has developed with LiveStream as their biggest success, a place where anyone who is interested can follow what is happening even if they cannot be there.

The spread of “Occupy” protests nationwide triggered also attests to this success; the #Occupy movement in Seattle and Washington D.C. are prime examples of this. In addition, numerous organizations plan to incorporate the idea of #Occupy movement into their own campaign causes. Recently, the idea of bringing Occupy Wall Street together with the Tea Party even surfaced briefly. No matter criticism or support, cooperation or skepticism, the attention #Occupy achieved in just four weeks far outstrips the track record of recent such movements.

Turning this success of media attention into real changes, however, remains a challenge. #Occupy has yet to define a consistent message that can be condensed down to pragmatic political changes. Though everyone in the movement wants a fairer economy and to live a better life, their suggestions for changes vary widely. There are people asking for stricter governmental regulations, while others are urging for smaller government, if not an anarchic society. Some protest against job outsourcing to developing countries, while others hold signs for a truly globalized planet. The only common idea all protesters seem to share is solidarity in belonging to the “99 percent”.

People came to the Park to voice their opinions through the existing publicity, become part of the movement and help expanding the spread with their own outreach efforts. In this case, to reach a consensus among people holding conflicting opinions, if at all possible, and come down to certain specific policy options means to block out a certain group of people, who are part of and have been helping to expand the movement. If Wall Street is facing a protest, the protest is facing a dilemma.

Not surprisingly, this dilemma has caught attention from media, NGOs, scholars and politicians, including former US President Bill Clinton. In a Chicago talk show last Wednesday night, Clinton, who has sympathized with OWS, urged the protesters to come down to more specific political goals and work with people who have the knowledge and power to implement these changes.

“To make the change, eventually what it is you’re advocating has to be clear enough and focused enough that either there’s a new political movement which embraces it or people in one of the two parties embrace it,” Clinton said.

Though it is hard to predict what OWS is heading towards, a growing number of case studies in campaign, advocacy movements or NGO management have discussed lessons learned from the movement. Most of these articles focus on its successful strategy in outreach, while warning future movements to develop a more defined message.

Responding to this debate, Throine argued that a more open approach amplified the movement’s appeal. “If you say this is about one thing at the beginning, lots of people would not have come,” he said. #Occupy is a progressing movement.

Two clear but conflicting efforts to redefine OWS are in the air: one to address their weakness and, as Clinton suggested, “work with a political party” or “form their own.” This allows OWS more space to come down to real changes from the top down. The other would seek to maximize the advantages of an undefined message, or even broaden it. To make any real changes this way, #Occupy would need to influence individuals spiritually from the bottom up.

Still, some common ideas exist in either of these directions: they all recognized #Occupy’s inclusiveness as comparing to the previous protests or revolutionary movements, while at the same time even #Occupy admitted that it is not the same as those organized and targeted campaigns in many ways. This comparison of #Occupy with something it is fundamentally different from reveals a stereotype in the understanding of the movement.

The stereotype about protest movements is that they should have a central message and an organized, effective structure; therefore, when there is no defined consensus within, people think there is something wrong. The premature self-comparison with the Arab Spring may have made the situation even worse as people constantly refer back to it, while forgetting about the progressive redefinition and adaptation of the movement.

What if it is not meant to be a unified movement? What if it is not meant to carry one channeled message? What if it is just “an open resource project”, as they like to call themselves, which hosts an amalgam of ideas from everybody who is willing to contribute, but which has no defined message as a whole? Rather than asking whether this could be the third direction #Occupy could turn towards, it appears “a platform for voices” is what really defines the movement right now.

In this case, debates on #Occupy’s problem based on the ground of “campaign theory” do not shed much light on the future of the movement. If they need to make a decision for their future, it seems they already had made one. The question is, how should the world view OWS from a different perspective. Just as software programmers need to maintain the server, how can OWS keep their momentum and advantage of existing publicity and turn that to the advantage of people and groups who need a place to speak their mind.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • del.icio.us
  • TwitThis
  • Google
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Print this article!

New developments at WashU

Monday, September 27th, 2010 by Martin Bourqui, National Organizer

by Dave Warnock, Midwest Student Organizer

I feel lucky that something really interesting on campus fell into my lap, so my first blog post will be somewhat more interesting than “people came to the meeting.”  The upcoming event will be a great opportunity for spreading awareness about endowment issues at WashU.  We were planning to do an education and networking activity at about this time in the semester, so we are excited about this turn of events.

But I suppose, I should tell you what’s going on, rather than continue to babble.  WashU’s local environmental group, Green Action, is putting on the Climate Solutions Forum, and they have invited Students for Endowment Transparency to participate.  The impetus came when, last semester, two new board members were chosen.  And they are (get ready for this) the CEOs of Peabody Coal and Arch Coal!  A less than savory duo to say the least.  Peabody is the nation’s largest coal company, and Arch is not for behind.  Both make extensive use of the destructive Mountaintop Removal process in Appalachia, and then ship it into Missouri on a daily basis (despite the fact that the northern Plains of Missouri are a great place to put Wind Turbines that are closer to home).  At the same time, WashU decided to create the Clean Coal Consortium.  This made it clear that WashU administrators did not hold Green Energy in high esteem, and would cling to Fossil Fuels.  It was also dressed up in the marketing term “Clean Coal”, to protect their image.  This creation, in conjunction with the new Coal Execs on the Board, spurred Green Action toward protest.  Our campaign has been allied with that movement from the get go.

So the Climate Solutions Forum is the latest development in Green Action’s campaign for WashU to abandon Fossil Fuels, and become a leader in renewable energy.  It was planned to match with the coming of the Coal Execs to campus and the latest development of the Clean Coal Consortium (October 2nd-4th).  They’re trying to push Carbon Sequestration as “the way of the future”.

The Forum, however, will show where the future really lies.  First, we are going to show up at their main event, a big fancy dinner in which an Obama administration official will be addressing personnel from WashU, Peabody, Arch, Ameren UE (our local electrical provider) and several other St. Louis corporations.  We will wearing T-shirts and carrying signs that say “Stop Ignoring Our Climate Future” and other statements along those line.  Mind you, we plan to be quiet and undisruptive (even CEO’s have free speech rights), but we will be noticed.

Part Two will come on the heels of this attendance.  Green Actions is planning a series of workshops at WashU, at which students, faculty, and even the administration and CEO’s may attend, where they will hear all about the many simple paths we have available toward making a Green Energy future.  It is to lay out for all to see, it isn’t that the corporations can’t do it.  It’s that the won’t do it. Hence the theme, “Stop Ignoring”.

Anyway, Students for Endowment Transparency is going to giving a workshop/teach-in (whatever you would call it) on the Endowment Process and Socially Responsible Investment.  We look forward to showing the environmental benefits of establishing a Committee on Investor Responsibility.  The teach-in will show that Green Action could use the Endowment to further WashU’s environmental commitments, by voting proxies on corporate sustainability, screening for solar panel companies and away from oil, and the like, giving them another prong upon which to lead their efforts.  All of the progressives at WashU, myself included, are looking forward to the Climate Solutions Forum.  And I must say, all in all, WashU is clearly becoming a much more exciting place than when I started.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • del.icio.us
  • TwitThis
  • Google
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Print this article!

Big Banks Finance Mountaintop Removal; Devastate Communities and the Environment

Tuesday, April 6th, 2010 by Mary Schellentrager, Mid-Atlantic Student Organizer

I have dreamed on this mountain
Since first I was my mother’s daughter
And you can’t just take my dreams away – not with me watching.
You may drive a big machine
But I was born a great big woman
And you can’t just take my dreams away – not with me fighting!
–Holly Near, Mountain Song

Mountaintop removal (MTR) is an incredibly destructive process that clearcuts forests, decimates mountains, and ruins ecosystems. Communities around MTR sites have experienced severe health consequences from the processes’ waste materials – toxic metals and chemicals that coal companies dump into surrounding streambeds. People in these areas experience high flood risks, have lost access to clean and safe drinking water, and have astonishingly high rates of lung cancer, chronic heart, lung, and kidney diseases, and even death. For more information on how companies extract coal from thin seams in the mountains, and how MTR destroys communities and ecosystems, check out Mountain Justice’s explanation of the process.

There’s no question that mountaintop removal is bad for the environment, contributing 25-30% of greenhouse gas emissions each year despite providing only 7% of the United States’ coal. Surface mining has leveled 7% of all Appalachian forests since 1992. Proponents of mountaintop removal will argue that it creates jobs and generates revenue for low-income communities. This claim is true, as investigated in a 2009 report by West Virginia University. The researchers found that the coal industry generates $8 billion per year for Appalachia. However, the estimated cost of deaths attributed to MTR mining totals $42 billion per year, which outweighs the economic benefit five times over. And this is only the cost of deaths, not accounting for cancers and other diseases caused by the process.

This is a mountaintop removal site in WV that sits next to Marsh Fork Elementary.  Coal dust contaminates the school and endangers the students' and overall community's health.

The Role of the US Government in MTR

President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has the power to end this destructive process but refuses to take a tough stand against mountaintop removal, preferring to try to make the process more environmentally friendly. On April 1, the EPA announced it would strengthen environmental permitting requirements for MTR, clarify how the agency uses the Clean Water Act to reduce water pollution and the resultant human health impacts, and increase transparency in the process of granting mining permits. This is a step in the right direction, but the EPA’s focus on making surface mining safer is problematic in its impossibility. The MTR process inherently violates the Clean Water Act and will continue to be devastating to people and communities even if some aspects of it are changed. The Obama Administration must start caring about Appalachian communities more than corporate campaign donations. This priority shift would surely motivate the EPA to bring an end to the practice of mountaintop removal altogether.

The Corporate Offenders Who Engage in MTR

Massey Energy is the largest producer of coal in Appalachia, having extracted more than 21 million tons from mountains in 2008. They violated the Clean Water Act over 4,500 times (environmental activists estimate closer to 12,000) between 2000 and 2006 by dumping toxic sediment from their 12 surface mines into rivers. The EPA filed suit against Massey and they were ultimately fined $20 million. This case calls attention to the process of mountaintop removal and how its impossible not to violate provisions of the Clean Water Act as surface mining is currently practiced.

Peabody Coal is the world’s largest coal mining company, operating in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, New Mexico, Tennessee and Wyoming. For four decades the US Government has assisted Peabody in attempts to force Navajo families off their ancestral homelands on Big Mountain and the surrounding communities around Black Mesa in Arizona. The communities continue to resist the forced relocation and construction of the Kayenta Mine.

Arch Coal is the second largest supplier of coal in the US and owner of the controversial Spruce Mine, the largest permitted site yet for MTR, in West Virginia. The mine was originally proposed in 1998 as a 3,100 acre expansion of another site that would have buried 10 miles of streams. Arch’s revised proposal from 2007 scaled the project back to encompassing 2,300 acres and 7 miles of streams. The company did obtain a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers three years ago, which environmental groups have been fighting since. The EPA is considering shutting down the entire mine for “unacceptable adverse impact,” which it has the power to do under the Clean Water Act but has only done 12 times since 1970 and never when the mine has had a permit. In response, Arch Coal is suing the EPA .

Alpha Natural Resources recently merged with US mining company Foundation Coal to become the third-largest coal producer in the US. They now operate 40 surface mines and 14 coal preparation plants in Colorado, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

The Banks that Finance Coal Companies & Make MTR Possible

Citibank has lent billions to companies seeking to build new coal-fired power plants and companies that engage in mountaintop removal, such as Massey Energy, Foundation Coal, and Alpha Natural Resources. They recently released a policy for environmental due diligence regarding MTR. Other banks have less extensive ties, such as Wells Fargo who recently stopped investing in Massey Energy.

Bank of America used to be the biggest bank funder of mountaintop removal, helping finance $6 billion for Peabody Coal and $175 million for Massey Energy in 2006. They single-handedly invested $835 million in Foundation Coal in 2006, $700 million in Arch Coal over five years starting in 2006, and over $500 million in Alpha Natural Resources in 2005. Bank of America has since changed their coal policy to “phase out financing of companies whose predominant method of extracting coal is through mountain top removal.” Their use of “predominant” means their policy only applies to companies that engage in surface mine extraction as at least 50% of their overall operations. It has led them to decline deals with an estimated three companies so far, information about which has not been publicly released by the bank. Many claim that Bank of America has stopped financing MTR, which is false. They still falsely believe that the process “can be conducted in a way that minimizes environmental impacts.”

Activists protest Bank of America's funding of mountaintop removal, eventually pressuring them to stop investing in companies whose primarily business is MTR.

JP Morgan Chase has recently become the largest financier of mountaintop removal. Over the past 17 years they have helped underwrite nearly 20 bond or loan deals worth a combined $8.5 trillion. In 2009 they invested $600 million in Arch Coal, which mined 4.7 million tons of coal from mountaintops that year. In 2008 they acted as the lead manager on a $690 million bond offering to Massey Energy. They are the only mega bank that has not scaled down its investment in MTR in the past few years.

Activist zombies (because coal kills!) protest JP Morgan Chase for it's financing of huge coal companies' MTR projects.

None of these banks have changed their policies willingly. Every victory for mountain communities and ecosystems represents years of struggle by social justice, environmental, and community groups. Shareholder resolutions have been a successful tactic to change coal companies’ policies. The Shareholder Advocacy Committee at Loyola University in Chicago filed a resolution with JP Morgan Chase after students traveled to Appalachia and witnessed the devastation of mountaintop removal firsthand. The resolution asks the bank to publicly report on the impact of MTR mining by clients and the financial impact on the bank if it were to ban MTR financing. Boston Common Asset Management has filed another resolution that demands that Chase adhere to their signature on the 2008 Carbon Principles Agreement, which would improve environmental impact disclosure and ultimately shift more funding into sustainable energy projects. If your school is invested in JP Morgan Chase you could get them to file a resolution to increase public pressure on the company. If you’d like to find out if you are invested, or for more information on filing a resolution, REC can help! Email us at info@endowmentethics.org. If you’re not part of an institution, think about where you keep your money and how you might be supporting MTR through your bank account. If you have an account with JP Morgan Chase, or another of the big banks who finance MTR, consider moving your money to a local credit union or community development bank and tell your old bank you switched because of their investments in mountaintop removal.

In addition to utilizing shareholder resolutions, justice groups have put pressure on JP Morgan Chase and other banks that invest in MTR through protests and direct actions. Coal River Mountain Watch is a grassroots Appalachian group that works to end MTR and rebuild sustainable communities, the Rainforest Action Network is running a campaign against Chase, the Sierra Club is running a Beyond Coal campaign, and Mountain Justice brings young activists to Appalachia during the spring and summer to engage in direct actions such as sit-ins in the West Virginia Governor’s office and pickets at Massey Energy headquarters. Recently the Church of Life After Shopping dumped toxic dirt from MTR sites in West Virginia outside JP Morgan Chase’s New York headquarters and other branches throughout the city. You could plan a similar action against Chase (or another financier) in your community by handing our fliers to customers, holding a sit-in inside a branch, or organizing a speaker or a rally to educate those around you about the devastation caused by mountaintop removal.

The Church of Life After Shopping dumps toxic dirt from a WV mountaintop removal site outside Chase's New York headquarters.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • del.icio.us
  • TwitThis
  • Google
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Print this article!