The pulp and paper and palm oil industries are causing species extinction left, right, and center in one of the planet’s most important biological hotspots—Indonesia.

Giraffe via Flickr by Durotriges

Scientists have identified 25 “hotspots” of biological diversity, comprising a mere 1.4% of the earth’s surface, that contain an astounding 44% of vascular plants and 35% of vertebrates.  Hotspots are chosen based on their high species richness (number of species), high level of endemism (how many species occur nowhere else in the world), and high threat from human activity.  Why is it that a mere 1.4% of our earth’s surface, including hotspots rich in biodiversity like Indonesia, cannot be issued full protection at this time?

Our current solution to the incredible loss of species is protected areas, which are critical in an attempt to conserve our world’s biodiversity.  However, a recent scientific paper published in the Marine Ecology Progress Series by scientists Mora and Sale explores whether protected areas are enough to preserve a significant amount of biodiversity.  Their conclusion: definitely not.

The word “protection” is often used too loosely, as an incredible amount of land is only “protected” on paper.  A large part of the conservation battle lies in increasing and solidifying these protected areas, but this alone is not enough to save even a fraction of our world’s precious biota. Consider the case of rainforest-destroying industry giant Asia Pulp & Paper: APP protects one small plot of land here, and destroys an entire forest over there.  This is certainly not an effective way to protect areas deemed critical hotspots by leading scientists.

Image via Flickr by Arenamontanus

In theory, protected areas such as reserves and national parks are useful because they allow little to no resource extraction and minimize or prohibit development.  In practice, however, protected areas tell a different story.  Look at the Indonesia Moratorium, for example.  Sixty four million hectares of tropical forest are supposedly preserved, but the actual picture on the ground is very different as forests continue to be logged and peatlands drained.

It’s clear that protected areas are too small and too few.  We are currently protecting a very small percentage of the earth’s surface.  Since we do not have the resources or means to protect all of the land on our planet, scientists suggest we must first place priority on biodiversity hotspots, areas of utmost importance to global biodiversity.

Indonesia is a one such priority area, the protection of which scientists consider critical to not only preserve species, but also to mitigate severe climate change.   Indonesia contains some of the oldest and most valuable forest in the world, and its high species richness, endemism, and severe threat has recently led to its listing as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in Danger.

Biodiversity Hotspots highlighted in red. Photo: Conservation International 2004

Another huge challenge with protected areas is poor enforcement.  National parks with which we are most familiar in the United States tend to have fairly strict protection, but those in developing nations, particularly Southeast Asia, are overwhelmingly what we might call “paper parks.”  Many areas issued protection are drawn on maps as reserves, but little to no enforcement exists.  Corruption and unmonitored practices such as illegal logging and extraction of wildlife for the pet trade occur all too frequently.

At the current rate of population expansion, protected areas will collapse in the near future as we struggle as a species to extract enough resources to survive and will be forced to expand onto protected lands.  Not only is curbing population growth paramount to conserving our resources, but lowering the egregious consumption rate per person, especially in developed nations such as the United States, is just as crucial.  We live in a society that measures success by growth, and growth is measured by an increase in the appetite of consumers.  Our current model is conducive to destroying the planet and its resources, and this must change in order for our planet to be sustained in its current form for future generations.  Just like any individual population, the earth itself has a carrying capacity, and we are nearing the tipping point after which many biota will no longer be able to survive, and neither will we.

“If A Tree Falls” examines the story of a group of environmental activists who were based in Oregon in the late 90s. It offers a history of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), and asks why it was classified by the FBI in 2001 as the nation’s “Top Domestic Terrorist Threat”?

The story is told to us through the perspective of Daniel McGowan, who is currently serving seven years in Federal prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy and arson charges. We first meet him at his home in New York, where he is preparing for his trial. Daniel comes across as articulate, compassionate and devoted to his family, a very likeable guy.

Daniel’s preparations are illustrated with 10-15 year old footage from Oregon, including non-violent direct actions blockading old growth logging in Oregon, tree sits in Eugene, and confrontational policing. One of the most distressing scenes shows police officers rubbing pepper spray directly into the eyes of protestors who are locked to the ground and unable to move. The narrative implies that it was the failure of peaceful actions like these and the violent response of the police that motivated individuals like Daniel to take more extreme action.

Other footage shows the fires that were set by the ELF: logging company offices and a university research facility razed to the ground. While these fires were clearly economically destructive, do activities where no one is killed or injured really constitute the label of ‘terrorism’? Since Daniel lives in New York, there’s a convenient juxtaposition with 9/11.

There are interviews with a broad cast including loggers, police and many other activists. The success of this film, a winner at Sundance, owes much to the balance it provides.

One of the threads linking “If A Tree Falls” with “Just Do It” (JDI) is the heavy-handed police response to peaceful activism.

In JDI we are introduced to Marina. In the opening scenes Marina is asked why the British police have classified her as a “Domestic Extremist”. The extremist label seems absurd. Marina’s main activity at protests is making copious quantities of tea and offering cups to activists, police, workers and security guards. These cups of tea help Marina to connect with others in a calming manner. Also, she says, it’s “much better to save the alcohol for the after-party”.

JDI is an “embedded documentary.” Director Emily James spent two years following English climate activists as they planned and executed nonviolent direct action on airport runways, at coal-fired power stations, at banks, and at the Copenhagen climate summit.

I’ve never seen the planning of a direct action filmed like this before (apparently James went to lengths to hide all the footage until the actions were over to ensure security for the folks involved) and this makes it very educational. We learn about different action techniques: lock-ons, affinity groups, consensus-decision making and, somewhat ironically, security protocol.

I’m struck by the incredible energy of the activists. They all speak to the fact that time is running out to halt climate change and that they feel utterly let down by policy makers. With comments such as “I want to feel like I’m doing something, rather than nothing and not just watching the world go to shit.” The focus is very much on the actions and the motivations and politics are either glossed over or simplified.

That said, it’s fast-paced and nicely shot. After watching “If A Tree Falls” I felt despair about the implosion of a peaceful environmental movement. JDI reminds me that it’s very much alive and thriving. I recommend watching them both.

JDI is raising funds to bring their film to the U.S. You can find out more and support “Just Do It” here.

A RAN investigative study shows rainforest destruction in Indonesia. Will Sarawak follow this trend?

It appears the Malaysian government has decided to allow its drive for industrialization to trump the preservation of some of the world’s most important natural resources. Do the two really have to be at odds in the 21^st century?

The county of Sarawak, in Malaysian Borneo, contains one of the oldest and most diverse rainforests in the tropics. It is home to thousands of species (many of them found nowhere else in the world), hundreds of potential pharmaceuticals, and a large portion of the world’s carbon stores. Why would anyone give up these unlimited benefits to make way for factories and heavy industry? Ask Malaysia.

A recent BBC article from Mike Williams, entitled Malaysia Picks Industrialisation Over Natural Treasures, details Malaysia’s choice to chase short-term goals of economic development in Sarawak while sacrificing its ancient forest resources.

Malaysia certainly didn’t do its math right. Developing steel, aluminum, palm oil, and various other industries in Sarawak may be economically effective at this moment, but it will cause long-term devastation that cannot be reversed as well as destroying potential revenue from natural sources.

In a report entitled the Economic Value of Biodiversity, The World Conservation Union (IUCN) stated: “We know that many biological resources do have significant economic value. We also know that many of the destructive activities themselves have very low economic value; therefore something is wrong with the way actual economic decisions are made.” Industries such as the palm oil industry continue to destroy rainforest at an alarming rate in order to provide product to consumers, and are blind to the grave consequences of their actions, particularly the destruction of valuable biological resources.

In my opinion, Malaysia failed to incorporate “ecosystem services” into revenue calculations. An “ecosystem service” is any benefit provided to humans from a natural system, ranging from natural water filtration to pharmaceuticals found in nature to eco-tourism. One important “service” of tropical rainforests is the storage of carbon. It is estimated that the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere has increased by 30% since the advent of industrialization, which will only continue to increase with Sarawak’s industrialization. The cost of reversing the carbon emissions released into our atmosphere from deforestation, the cost of restoring species on the brink of extinction, the cost of cleaning up polluted water supplies, and the lost revenue from potential bioprospecting and ecotourism are just some of the risks Malaysia faces, risks that will far outweigh any profit Sarawak will gain in its planned rapid development of such industries as logging, food processing, and petrochemical production.

The decision to develop Sarawak at the expense of the forest reveals a distressing lack of care and understanding of the rainforest as well as an outdated model of ‘development’ at the expense of the environment. When asked whether trees are treasured in Borneo, Adie Abad, from the Bintulu Development Authority, simply responded: “We will plant those trees later on — alongside the road, no problem. But we have to give way to the industry to come in.” Planting new trees simply cannot replace a primary dense rainforest that took thousands of years to develop into the biodiversity hotspot we see today.  Science tells us that primary forests are healthier, livelier, and contain more biodiversity than secondary stands, and are additionally an important carbon sink.

Adie Abad also demonstrated “concern” for local people, insisting that industry development in Sarawak will create jobs and benefit locals. RAN’s work with Long Teran Kenan, a local Sarawak community struggling with Indigenous rights violations against a palm oil developer in the area, IOI Group, has shown that development in Sarawak has thus far only hurt local people.

Have we not learned our lesson from history?  Western Europe, and even the East Coast of the United States, are today left with only secondary forest stands as the result of a model of industrialization that did not value environmental resources. As the wise conservation biologist E.O. Wilson once said, “Destroying the rainforest for economic gain is like burning a Renaissance painting to cook a meal.” The Western World has already made its mistakes. It is up to Malaysia to look at history and science, and find a new development pathway that values its rich natural resources.

I’m talking about Indonesia’s Ministry of Forestry and their potential role in the country’s anticipated moratorium on deforestation.

A presidential decree outlining the scope, administration and content of the moratorium was supposed to come out on January 1, 2011, but Indonesia’s president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, is caught in the middle of a fight over several versions of the text. One version has been drafted by the country’s REDD+ Taskforce and looks to be considerably more effective in helping reduce deforestation and linked emissions. Several other versions have been drafted by the Ministry of Forestry and others, such as the Coordinating Minister for the Economy, and would do little for the forests, climate and communities that depend on these areas for their livelihoods.

A recent investigation by the Indonesian government in Central Kalimantan sheds some light on potential problems associated with enlisting the Ministry of Forestry to lead a moratorium on deforestation.

Here’s the investigation details from the Jakarta Post: Out of 967 plantation and mining farms in the province, 891 companies were found to be operating without proper permits — that is, illegally. The 1999 Forestry Law stipulates that permits to use forests for business purposes should be issued by the Forestry Ministry in Jakarta. The task force investigation found that out of 325 plantation companies with a total area of 4.6 million hectares, only 67 obtained permits from the Forestry Ministry. In the mining sector, of 615 registered companies in the province, only nine hold permits to convert forests in an area of 30,000 hectares. Potential losses were estimated to be 158.5 trillion rupiah ($17.6 billion US dollars) in the province alone.

As the President debates the various versions of the moratorium, no doubt with a lot of political pressure weighing upon him, I would put one question to him: “Are logging interests — who run the Ministry of Forestry — ready to take the lead in stopping deforestation?” Their track record suggests not. It would be a shame to squander this opportunity for Indonesia to continue its leadership in reducing climate pollution from deforestation and creating the foundation for green and just “low carbon” development.

But in the case of Indonesia, are we waiting for a moratorium that the bulldozers will blow right by?

The jury is still out on whether the moratorium on natural forest and peat conversion in Indonesia will matter. As Reuters reported, the moratorium announced by Indonesia’s President Yudhoyono months ago missed the January 1 deadline for having important details sorted out and signed into law. Unsurprisingly the sticking point appears to be two competing drafts — one from the Presidential task force, one from the Ministry of Forestry. At stake is not just where the stop signs should be placed but even whether or not there should be any stop signs at all.

According to Reuters, which was given access to the draft plans:

The forestry ministry wants the ban only on new permits to clear primary forests and peatlands for two years, while the presidential delivery unit wants it to include secondary forests, to review existing permits and consider extending the timeframe.

Translated for the rest of us, this means that if the forestry ministry prevails we could see a moratorium that, among other shortcomings, doesn’t protect forests, peatlands, or orangutans. Nor would it provide a sound basis for low-carbon development opportunities or the emissions reductions targets called for by the president.

In Indonesia we see many overlapping land claims and massive swaths of natural tropical forest that are still undeveloped but already licensed for corporate exploitation and conversion. Excluding existing permits from the moratorium is a bulldozer-sized loophole.

As we lose primary natural forests at an alarming rate, many orangutans are pushed into forests that were logged years ago but have grown back. These are natural forests, but they’re now known as “secondary forests.” These secondary forests are still inhabited by the Indigenous communities that have lived there for generations, and have also become critical habitat for dwindling orangutan populations. Not including natural secondary forests means goodbye local rights, goodbye local economies, goodbye orangutan habitat. Ask our friend above if she feels better about the destruction of her home because it is considered “secondary” forest. Are we really ready to kiss the orangutan goodbye?

And hang on a minute, wasn’t it already against the law to issue permits to clear primary forests and deep peatlands? Hadi Daryanto, a member of the Indonesian task force, claimed during a Voice of America interview that existing law has already stopped the national government from issuing permits for primary forests. If this is true, it starts to feel like we’re trying to place that stop sign in quicksand.

Unless the Ministry of Forestry is willing to align its plans with the President’s task force, Indonesia may have debated for months only to end up with a moratorium that doesn’t matter.

Would you give these little guys up for a bar of soap?

Most of us practice personal hygiene at least every couple of days, and because many contain synthetic chemicals, a portion of those end up in our bodies and in our earth.  For the last few months, I’ve been trying to green-up my beauty routine.  If I wouldn’t put something in my body, why would I want to put it on my body?  Standing in the body care aisle at the local Whole Foods, however, I ran into a problem.

Palm Oil.  It is literally in every single soap on the shelf, and because it doesn’t always have to be labeled as such, even “vegetable oil” makes me nervous. Palm Oil is the number one cause of deforestation in Indonesia, where giant swathes of forest are cleared for plantations.  Endangered species like the Orangutan and the Sumatran Tiger (of which there are less than 500 in the wild) are losing their habitats at a terrifying rate, and if it isn’t stopped, the only place we’ll be able to find them will be zoos.  Until palm oil production is sustainable and destruction-free, I’ll be purchasing products without it.

After scouring the Bay Area for palm oil free soap, my search finally paid off. While wandering aimlessly at GreenFest in San Francisco, I came across Diggin’ Livin’ Farm and Apiary‘s booth and was drawn in by the promise of palm oil free soap.  Jackpot! I bought a bar of the Bioregional Mint” for $6, as much as I’d been paying anywhere else.

After using the product and doing some research on Diggin’ Livin’ Farms, I’m excited to say that I have found my rainforest-safe soap! The soap smells great and keeps skin soft, which is really all I was looking for.  The makers, the McEwen family, are dedicated to getting the word out about palm oil and rainforest destruction, even going so far as to sponsor an “adopted” orangutan, Kesi.  Kesi, who lost her mother and her left hand on a palm oil plantation, lives at the BOS Nyaru Menteng Orangutan Rescue Center and is funded partially by the purchase of Diggin’ Livin’ products.

What better time to make greener shopping choices than the Holiday season?  These destruction-free soaps can be purchased online and will make a great eco-and-orangutan-friendly stocking-stuffer.  I know a few lucky people who will be getting soap from me!

The goal of the RSPO is to promote the growth, production, distribution, and use of sustainable palm oil in the global marketplace. But after spending several long days with the world’s largest palm oil industry leaders, I’m feeling very critical of the RSPO’s ability to move fast enough to protect Indonesia’s incredibly fragile and threatened remaining forests from being converted into oil palm plantations.

The RSPO came to a close with the 7th General Assembly (GA7), the official gathering of the RSPO Executive Board where they vote on new resolutions. As an observer at the GA7, I watched as the Indonesian palm oil growers association (GAPKI) and Malaysian Palm Oil Council (MPOC) tried to gut the RSPO and undermine its code of conduct. Specifically, they tried to pass a resolution that “35% of members with voting rights in the RSPO organization constitute the quorum” rather than the 50% + 1 always needed in a democratic process. This was an attempt by producer companies such as Sime Darby and Wilmar to strong-arm the political process of the RSPO.

However, once the producers realized they would be breaking the code of ethics, they decided to withdraw their proposal. How embarrassing.

Another resolution that the producer block brought forward was to delay the implementation of the New Planting Procedure, a resolution adopted last year that makes it harder for companies clearing land for new palm plantations to violate community land rights, operate without all necessary permits, or overlook the importance of High Conservation Value (HCV) forests.

It was yet another clear example of large producer companies undermining the respectable attempts of other RSPO members by trying to weaken RSPO Principles and Criteria in order to continue business as usual.

Other power plays were rebuffed as well. For instance, Cargill tried to win a seat on the RSPO Executive Board, but lost the vote. Shucks, nice try guys.

The lack of progress by the RSPO Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Working Group to figure out how to really curb the GHG emissions that have made Indonesia the third largest emitter of GHG pollution globally was especially disappointing, as was the omission of carbon storage from High Conservation Value (HCV) definitions of forest lands within palm oil plantations (no joke).

I’ve now got serious doubts about the sincerity of some of the RSPO members. Why were most of the proposals this year and last year brought forward by the grower/producer block? Why did I not hear any mention of rainforest destruction, the draining of peatlands, or the critical state of the endangered orangutan even once in four days of meetings? And why is it that companies like Sinar Mas who grossly violate the RSPO Principles and Criteria are still allowed to be members, thereby casting doubt on the whole organization and muddying its credibility?

On September 9th, at the Forest Industry Development Conference at Melbourne, Gunns announced that it will shift to a plantation-based business. Mr. L’Estrange, the new chief executive of Gunns, said “the vast support of the Australian population is with the environmental non-government organisations” and “native forest is not part of our future.” He continued, “we see that the conflict largely has to end. Our employees and the communities we operate in have been collateral damage to this process.”

This decision comes after years of campaigning by environmental organizations, and a directive earlier this year from the  Tasmanian government to Gunns Ltd. and Forestry Tasmania to seek certification under the Forest Stewardship Council.

Rainforest Action Network worked with international allies to pressure Gunns starting in 2005, just after Gunns brought 17 individuals and 3 organizations to court for publicly criticizing their destruction of Tasmania’s old growth forests. Japanese customers demanded the woodchips for FSC certified papers as RAN requested, and this demand, in combination with pressure from other international allies, helped shift the paradigm, leading to the latest announcements by Gunns Ltd.

While Gunns’ announcements are reason to celebrate, challenges still remain. There is evidence that Gunns is still engaged in old growth logging at this time. Support from people all across the world is still required to hold Gunns and the Australian government accountable for all the positive commitments that have been made in recent months for Tasmania’s forests.

Thanks to all of you who supported this campaign over the years and may it be a reminder of the power of people working together internationally to protect the world’s remaining ancient forests.

Posted on behalf of Toyo Kawakami, RAN Japan, Forest Campaigner

General Mills Moves Away from Rainforest Destruction!

It is with much gratitude, excitement and hope for our world’s remaining forests that I announce the end to Rainforest Action Network’s General Mills palm oil campaign. Our Rainforest Agribusiness Campaign has come a long way in 2010 with your help. Check out some campaign “best moments.”

Eight months ago, 42 activists braved the freezing cold weather of January to unfurl a massive banner reading “Warning: General Mills Destroys Rainforests!” on top of the frozen lake in front of General Mills’ Minneapolis Headquarters. At the time, not a single U.S. food company had a comprehensive palm oil policy.

Kids Thank General Mills: "We Can Eat Cheerios Again!"

Today, America’s favorite food company took a crucial step to protect rainforests.  General Mills (GIS) released a new palm oil policy that limits the company’s exposure to an increasingly controversial commodity. The company’s new policy, along with previous actions to eliminate problematic suppliers like Sinar Mas Group, puts them in the front of efforts by the U.S. food sector to address deforestation resulting from palm oil. Kraft and Burger King have also announced initial steps to ensure that they are not sourcing ingredients that damage the rainforest.

The new palm oil procurement policy includes specific commitments on critical issues including respect for the rights of Indigenous communities, prevention of further destruction of endangered rainforests and protection of peatlands, a major source of climate change causing emissions from palm oil production. In addition, General Mills has set a goal of “sourcing 100 percent responsible and sustainable palm oil” by 2015, setting a new bar for the American food industry.

See General Mills’ new palm oil policy in it’s entirety.

We hope that General Mills’ actions will serve as a wake-up call for others in the food industry, especially Cargill. America’s largest importer of palm oil, Cargill, has yet to take sufficient action to meet this demand or to clean up its own palm oil supply chain. Although the agribusiness giant has taken initial steps to do so in Europe, it has failed to bring RSPO certified segregated palm oil to the United States, and it continues to source palm oil from some of the worst suppliers in the business.

Today General Mills Sets Forward on the Right Path, Away from Rainforest Destruction; Now It's Cargill's Turn. Photo: David Gilbert

As a company with some of the most beloved brands in the nation, including Cheerios, Betty Crocker and Hamburger Helper, General Mills’ decision to address deforestation in its supply chain is a major industry signal that unsustainable palm oil expansion practices are a problem that can and should be addressed. RAN will continue working with General Mills on the ongoing implementation of the new policy.

Read General Mills’ press statement here.

Sago is a starch extracted from the pith of sago palm stems. These palms grow in tropical lowland forest and freshwater swamps across Southeast Asia and serve as a major food staple for people in the region. In Tebing Tinggi, their sago farm is owned and run by hundreds of families and provides both food and a good source of income to the community.

Tebing Tinggi’s sago farm is being threatened by Indonesia’s pulp and paper industry.

The village head told us that their community’s sago farm was under threat by Indonesia’s second largest pulp and paper company, Asia Pacific Resources International Holdings Limited (APRIL). He told us that APRIL had received a cutting permit from the Indonesian government to clear the forest where their sago palms grow. With this permit, APRIL had entered the area with bulldozers and logging machinery and started cutting. However, the community had not agreed to this. In fact, the community actively opposes APRIL’s presence, and they have declared their opposition to the government, the company, and through banners hung on their main streets.

The people of Tebing Tinggi continue to fight to keep APRIL out of their forests and to keep their sago farm productive. But they need our support to tell companies in the U.S. that we also oppose pulp and paper companies’ expansion into Indonesian forests and on community lands. APRIL and their competitor Asia Pulp and Paper (APP) produce paper from Indonesian rainforest destruction for books, copy paper, and toilet paper being sold in the U.S. and elsewhere.

In line with the government’s election campaign promise of a better Ghana Agenda, licences are given to multinational companies to mine in our forest reserves without proper consideration of its consequences after submitting a signed “Statement of Policies on Natural Resource and Environment,’’ to the European Commission.

These multinational mining companies use their money and power to deceive our leaders to allow them mine in our forest reserve after they have destroyed the off reserves areas in the country by polluting water bodies, violating human rights, and intimidating communities.

Many of our forest reserves across the country are home to endangered species of plants and animals, in addition to containing precious minerals like gold, diamond and bauxites which the mining companies have targeted for their activities. Examples include Sawla-Tuna-Kalba District where a mining company from Australia has started their operation, Agyenuapepo Forest Reserve in the Birim North area of the Eastern Region, and Newmont Limited who want to mine royal cemeteries in the Akyem Kotoku Traditional area.

The mining companies intimidate communities by using violence that results in death of  Indigenous youth. In this year, at least seven or more death of community people have being recorded. Newmont Limited polluted several communities’ water bodies and kept it secret from the communities and the government until a local NGO raised the issue.

These mining corporations are ready to pay their way out to have whatever they want, however we cannot rule out the payment of bribery by these mining companies to our leaders,  since they protect their interest.  These mining companies falsified documents claiming that the Indigenous communities have agreed with the mining activities in their area.

RAN Ghana would challenge any mining corporations that destroy the environment and violate human rights of Indigenous mining communities especially the youth who end being killed. We would also subject for advocacy in this direction to ensure that human rights of mining communities are not trampled on.

Finally, I would like to call on the government to stop granting mining concessions to these mining companies particularly in forest reserve.

Copper Mesa, until last year, was the owner of a two mining concessions in the Intag. But the company ran into a strong, organized opposition from communities, local government and, eventually even the national government, which eventually stripped Copper Mesa of its concessions in the country.

Now the Toronto Stock Exchange, which had been sued by 3 Intag activists, has delisted Copper Mesa from the exchange.

DECOIN organizer Carlos Zorrilla wrote in an email to Intag community supporters:

“This is a key victory in Intag’s very long and exhausting battle against mining interests. So big in fact, that I still find it difficult to believe. After all, this has been a dream of ours and something we’ve been working on for almost six years.”

Copper Mesa’s shares lost about 60% of their value in the 48 hours after the TSX delisting.

Since the colonial time, the Indigenous people of Pokuase have depended on their Forest reserve, more than any other Indigenous group in Ghana. Everything about the Pokuase, including their cultural, rituals and portable drinking water, had been influenced by the rainforest. However, in the last years since corporate developers first moved to the area, the Indigenous people of Pokuase had suffered from various diseases through the contamination of their stream, forceful repression for trying to protect their forest reserve and lack of support in their struggle.

In the past, the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) recognized the unique value of Pokuase culture and the Gua Koo forest reserve by declaring that the Pokuase “have long rich history of their natural environment, as evidenced by their strong tie with the Sunkwa stream.”

RAN Ghana members with Pokuase youth

The survival of the Pokuase hinges on their ability to gain control of and sustainably manage their own traditional territory. To support the Pokuase’s struggle for Gua Koo Forest reserve and Sunkwa stream, RAN Ghana carried out an assessment, met with the traditional authority and the Indigenous people and also educated the community at a forum. RAN Ghana is also strategizing campaigns to organize with the Pokuase to keep encroachers away, build the capacity of the traditional authority and youth to protect the forest, institute environmentally friendly alternative projects and demarcation of the forest reserve.

RAN Ghana members visit a portion of the destroyed and cleared Pokuase forest reserve that the Indigenous people are struggling to protect

RAN Ghana's John F. Akwetey speaks at the Pokuase forum

Too bad it’s such a disappointing day for climate in the US. Today Senators Boxer and Kerry released their first draft of the Senate climate bill, a companion to the House ACES bill passed this past June. It calls for the US to reduce emissions by 20% of 2005 levels by 2020. By comparison, island nations and the world’s least developed countries are calling for 45% emissions reduction from 1990 levels by 2020.

And it gets worse. The Boxer-Kerry draft bill subsidizes carbon capture and storage, a massive, scientifically uncertain boondoggle for coal fired electricity generators. The draft also repeats the most perverse problem in the House ACES bill by authorizing 2 billion tons of CO2 reductions to be achieved through offsets, instead of real emissions reductions.

Part of those offsets will come from a new, dangerous forest carbon market. The sellers of forest offsets will be tenure holders who are not required to operate with the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous peoples. In fact, the forest offsets may not even guarantee the protection of the forest from future logging. The bill would create from scratch a new, risky
commodities market for carbon that could quickly become the largest market in the world, yet offers few specifics on how that market would be regulated.

To be fair, there are some safeguards for forests as well, requiring an increase in carbon stocks for forest offsets. And the ‘Supplemental Emissions Reduction Fund’ is also in the billp; this was the bright spot in the House ACES bill. If executed effectively, the fund could create a marketplace firewall between forest carbon and fossil carbon emissions reductions, and help forest countries to overcome their deep governance problems. The Boxer-Kerry draft bill also offers important incentives to plug in vehicles, renewable energy, and energy efficiency – tackling head on some the US’s lowest hanging fruit in addressing climate change.

But unfortunately, that won’t be enough to stop climate change. While the world is waiting for the US to step up to the plate, the US is still at home wrestling with its coal and oil demons.

Too many forest fires to even participate in climate talks? It is not looking promising for those in Bangkok that want to use the current momentum behind climate negotiations to curtail deforestation and deforestation’s associated carbon emmissions.

The dreaded climate fluxuation El Nino has officially descended upon Indonesia this year. Memories of the 1997 El Nino fire season remain fresh in Indonesian’s minds as a disaster for their forests, the global climate, and Indonesia’s national pride.

Some see this year’s already horrible fires in South Sumatra as a sign of climate change itself.  Widely cited projections for Indonesia done by the WWF show that Sumatra will have much more intense dry seasons under future climate scenarios, leading to greater intensity and  extent of forest fires. South Sumatra, ground zero for Indonesia’s pulp-and-paper and timber operations, run by industry giants Sinar Mas and Raja Garuda Mas (now officially pontificated as ‘Royal Golden Eagle’), has been struggling with widespread fires the past few months.

Many experts point to changes in land use – associated with the logging and palm oil industries – that increase forest landscapes propensity to burn as a key factor in these fires. In the Sumatran province of Riau alone, 1.6 million hectares of peat and forests are expected to burn this year. These kinds of massive fires are what place Indonesia as the world’s third largest contributor to climate change. Peat lands are the world’s most carbon rich organic material,  when they burn the climate suffers.

Conservationists on the ground say that many of the 2,500 fires spotted this year by NASA have been set illegally by oil palm and pulp and paper companies. This is deforestation in its most damaging form, bad for ecosystems, forest peoples, and the climate. The smoke is so thick, and visibility so curtailed, that the Jambi and Riau airports have been repeatedly shut down this year.

South Sumatra Forest Fires in 2009

RAN’s own Margaret Swink is at the Bangkok meetings, and artfully shows just how high the stakes are for Sumatra’s forests leading up to a post-Kyoto climate treaty in 2012. As climate change makes South Sumatra region even drier during the dry season, and multinational industrial agribusiness makes forests more likely to burn, the negotiators at Bangkok can not even come up with an acceptable definition of ‘forest’.  Yikes.

David Gilbert is a RAN research fellow. He has lived and worked in the rainforests of the Amazon and Indonesia. David has a special interest in how conservation and indigenous right activities can be mutually reinforcing.

I didn’t have a clue.

Well, maybe that’s unfair.

I knew what was going on in the mountains of Appalachia, I knew that people were fighting a powerful company that is extracting coal and destroying mountains and communities, and I knew that Climate Ground Zero refers to where the main battle for our global climate is going on – here in the heart of Coal Country, in the US where we produce the lion’s share, per capita, of the world’s greenhouse gases and half of that comes from coal. I knew that this battle is seriously heating up. But I didn’t know how serious.

From Google Earth

Of course it’s serious that a company is mining coal with machines bigger than office buildings and tremendous amounts of explosives, carried daily in tankers that rip along these narrow two lane highways.

And of course it’s serious when people’s families are endangered, their homes destroyed by floods caused by the mining, and the mountains that sustain so much life, so much diversity, are being wiped out for corporate profit. In this area that is stunningly beautiful, terrible things are indeed happening.

Since 1991 Massey Energy has led the pack in the race to take all the coal available from the once-hallowed mountains of Appalachia. They have systematically led the charge and taken the lion’s share of profit in the most efficient form of coal mining available, Mountaintop Removal.

The EPA continues to grant the permits that allow this company to employ far fewer workers than ever before in the history of coal mining. An underground mine used to employ as many as 500 workers. Now these operations can employ as few as 19.

The West Va Department of Environmental Protection, the DEP or “Don’t Expect Protection” as they are known euphamistically, continues to allow this company to clearcut the forests in this incredibly rich biome, an area that has been identified as the oldest deciduous forest in North America and the literal source of the great diversity of forests North America once supported. The EPA continues to grant permits that allow the mountaintops to be pulverized with explosives, the coal seams gouged out and processed, and the remaining rubble to be pushed into the valleys, or “hollers”, which has so far led to the utter annihilation of 2000 miles of streams and waterways and countless plants and animals. Of the estimated 900 mountaintops in Appalachia, over half of them have been “dropped” and destroyed for the “cheap” coal that lies beneath.

Massive MTR Operation - thanks to Southwings for taking us up

It has also led to the deaths of residents through uncontrollable flooding as well as the tragic death of 3-year old Jeremy Davidson when a massive boulder dislodged during operations and crushed him to death when it rolled though his bed while he slept. http://www.ohvec.org/newsletters/woc_2005_02/article_15.html

As a parent this tragedy has extra meaning for me. As a citizen, one would expect greater accountability and protection. Not here and not now at least. Business continues as usual, although there is a case filed by the parents who hope their son’s tragic loss may amount to something more that will provide protection for residents.

Why is mining allowed so near residents? Because state and federal laws allow it. Laws prohibit surface mining within 300 feet of an occupied dwelling and within 100 feet of a public road. Otherwise, go for it.

Opposition has been growing, slowly over time, but that’s often how it goes with wars. And make no mistake, there is a war brewing in Appalachia’s mountains, and so far those who are stepping up do so to defend their homes, their families and the mountains that in many cases have been home to many generations of their families. This is a war that has the classic elements of a deeply oppressed people and a powerful overlord that has outright contempt for the people who have every right to continue making their homes here. And that contempt shows itself in many ways.

Clean, carbon neutral coal?

Depopulation, common here, is a practice that promotes an exodus of residents from an area by making life so hard, so dangerous, and so frightening, that they simply have no choice but to accept whatever offers they can manage on their properties, pack up and make way for the fences and the gates that follow them, constantly expanding the area under control of King Coal.

The “mining” operations bear the names of the communities that they displace: Twilight, Lindytown, Marsh Fork and others. Once the people are out of the way there is less threat of opposition, less risk of damage that could lead to lawsuits or other troubles, however unlikely. And once the people are gone there is no one to witness the filling of the “hollers”, the blackening of the streams, the absolute removal of mountains – no one to stand in the way or risk liability.

Climate Ground Zero is a name that has been given to a resistance movement of people who may not be displaced, for many of them aren’t from here, but they don’t have as much to lose as the locals and can operate more freely. People have come from local areas, yes, but also from all over the country in response to the pleas for assistance from some of the locals who have chosen to stay and fight for what is right, what is theirs, and what should be inviolate. Some have just come because they see the injustice and they feel they must do something. And so they come.

And it’s a good thing they have. Those who grow up in this area know that laws that apply in the rest of the country don’t apply here. Justice in the Appalachian sense implies that the company will get what it wants, and that those who resist will be made to suffer, and that eventually fighting will only hurt them and those they love. And when the economies that once supported thriving communities that bore the names of the operations I mentioned above have dried up because of lack of work, poor wages, ill health, and the stress of living with constant explosions and continual heavy machinery traffic, then there really is no reason to stick around.

I wish I could convey how very real this difference is between these beautiful mountains and the rest of the country, but honestly, you need to see it for yourself.

This helps: Check out the reality of MTR with this handy layer in Google Earth.

But there is every reason for those of us with the means and the passion for justice to come from without to help those who remain, and to stand up for the mountains and the voiceless life they support.

Under the direction, however casual but always effective, of RAN co-founder Mike Roselle, a staging area has been created that has seen a series of actions executed against the tyranny of King Coal’s reign. Non-Violent Direct Action has driven tyrants out all over the world; bringing peace and self-determination, gaining women the right to vote, saving species from commercial hunting, and so on. We have great leaders upon whose shoulders we stand; Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Mother Theresa and others.

James McGuinness and Mike Roselle of Climate Ground Zero were arrested on February 25, 2009, at Performance Coal's Edwight Mountaintop Removal site in southern West Virginia. The protesters chose to focus on the active mountaintop removal site above Marsh Fork Elementary School in Sundial, WV on the eve of the 37th year anniversary of the Buffalo Creek Disaster. photograph by Antrim Caskey

And it will save these mountains and these communities. An action in Wise County on September 7th drew attention to the construction of an unnecessary coal-fired power plant with 11 arrests and led to the revocation of that building permit. A subsequent action that stopped work at the Twilight Mine saw 14 activists arrested and made national headlines. Following that a rally – unheard of in this area and bolstered by the participation of celebrities and scientists and saw dozens arrested and gained national attention for an elementary school that lies directly under a massive removal operation.

And most recently a couple of tree-sitters kept a mountain safe from Massey Energy for six days, increasing awareness of this issue. They endured significant abuse by mining company employees – sleep deprivation, threatened with chainsaws, verbally abused, etc. And when they came down, finally, for fear for their safety, they were arrested and held on $25,000 bail – a ludicrous amount for a non-federal charge that amounted to trespassing and littering. Here where the media is 95% controlled by King Coal, as is 98% of the law this is what one begins to expect – though I’ll never get used to it. Fortunately those figures were adjusted down to a rational $1000 each – a small blessing in a sea of darkness.

The treatment of the activists by Massey was so abusive that two security guards walked off the job, unwilling to be a party to such inhuman, criminal behavior. Check out this video of the guards talking about their experience.

And when the actions are over, the activists gather again to share knowledge gained and plan for the next peaceful salvo that will help grow this resistance until finally the mountains are safe, the communities can get back to living again, and King Coal fades into a past that should have been history long ago.

We are witnessing the death of a dinosaur and the birth of a new era, and it’s happening at Climate Ground Zero. Be a part of it – and do so with your support of the folks at CGZ and with your support of RAN. Strength in numbers, creativity and courage.

Activists shut down a dragline at the Twilight Mine, Boone County, West Virginia

Earth Balance’s parent company Ventura Foods is one of Cargill’s biggest customers. And Cargill is the largest importer of rainforest-destroying palm oil into the U.S. More than 300 activists signed a petition urging Ventura Foods to stop purchasing palm oil from Cargill until that company makes a commitment to end rainforest destruction for palm oil plantations. Let’s hope Ventura Foods listens and puts some pressure on Cargill to shape up!

Check out the pictures of 100 or so of these activists sending a message to Earth Balance!

Activists at Animal Rights 2009 send a message to Earth Balance

The Carbon Logic Problem Statement | Grist. by Ken Ward

An acclaimed mountaineer, a Baptist minister and a distinguished economist were stuck in a pit. The mountain climber said, “Stand back boys, I’ll have us out in a jiffy,” but the walls of the pit were loose shale and she couldn’t gain purchase. Then the minster raised his arms high and in a deep sonorous voice called for deliverance but after an hour of prayer he too admitted defeat. Finally, the economist stood, brushed dirt of a shabby Harris tweed jacket and said, “This is easy. First, assume a ladder.”

Environmentalists are trying to get out of a deep pit too, and in our push for Waxman-Markey we are acting like the mountaineer, minister and economist. We support ACES because, well, it’s there, and we are accustomed to moving doggedly forward for the best we can get. We also hope for deliverance via a gentle greening, where fossil fuels wither away and a sustainable future of vegetable gardens, strong local communities and good jobs blossoms. Finally, we have invested in what may be termed serial delusional assumptions.

• In the beginning, we thought that Enron and others aiming to cash in on carbon trading (as they did in the sulphur market) would out-muscle fossil fuel giants.
• We believed that techno-policy crafted by tuned-in elites could be quietly slipped into place, avoiding a flat-out messy and risky political slug-fest.
• We were convinced that major corporations like BP, GE and WAL*Mart were honest in their pledge to shift away from fossil fuels and had both the means and will to do so.
• We had faith that a solid majority of the American public, properly educated, would support effective climate action, so long as we did not offend sensibilities with Chicken Little predictions.
• Finally, we now assume we can fix broken policy somewhere down the line, so anything is better than nothing.

The basic question before us, “how bad does it have to be before we pull out?” ought to excite a passionate and principled debate, but we’ve traveled so far from environmentalist fundamentals that we can manage only flaccid, enervating exchanges. As our major organizations ready themselves to swallow nuclear power in a Boxer-engineered Senate compromise, the few points of eco-logic in this drab, grey landscape are lit by leaders and organizations mostly outside mainstream environmentalism. MoveOn.org campaigns against gutting the Clean Air Act, Green Party leaders and community health advocates offer an articulate challenge to Waxman-Markey, and the wave of support building behind 350.org puts organizations in my home state, like the Mass Council of Churches and Sustainable Business Network, far out in advance of mainline green groups. Rainforest Action Network and Greenpeace are the only nationally known environmental organizations honest enough to acknowledge that the king has no clothes.

It seemed clear from the get-go that U.S. environmentalists would eventually find ourselves in such a jam, where the imperatives of pragmatic politics and seductions of techno-solutions would warp our better judgement, unless we stuck to a very clear interpretation of the precautionary principle. Bill McKibben recently remarked that, having already lost the arctic, we’re past the point of precaution; it’s now a stark matter of survival. True enough, but the core logic of the precautionary approach is valid and stands in counterpoint to our present pathway – a fundamental cognitive clash between scientific realism and political pragmatism.

There is no simple answer, but the Faustian Senate bargain before us is so antithetical to environmentalist principles that it ought to cause even the most hardened Hill advocate to pause. In such quiet, personal moments of uncertainty, I suggest it is worthwhile to consider what those trained in the Nader/PIRG tradition call the “problem/solution statement.” The point of the exercise is to maintain an absolute standard of reference for the immensity of the challenge before us and scale of the solution it demands.

Problem Statement. Differences in opinion on the bright line for averting cataclysm (1.5º vs. 2.0ºC limit on temperature increase and 275 vs. 300-350 ppm cap on carbon concentrations) are relatively small in light of overall trends, and our institutional support for the nominal CASE 450 ppm target is a concession we would not make left to our own devices.

The conceptual divergence in taking the next step from temperature/carbon concentration, however, is significant. Our entire enterprise is based on a single metric—emissions. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger are absolutely correct in identifying the pollution prevention mindset as a roadblock to understanding the problem. If we conceive climate in terms of smokestacks and tailpipes, we are dealing with the last step in a long series of choices and the solutions we contemplate are thereby cramped. It is seldom acknowledged that fossil fuel interests also promote the pollution prevention paradigm as a fall-back to denial (with the apogee in our simpatico thinking reached when environmentalists agreed to measure oil companies by their success in cutting plant emissions, while ignoring their main business). Relative investment in fossil fuels vs. renewables, as Ted and Michael suggest, is a better method of understanding the problem because it takes in the long lead time in capital investment (and, in their view, pits a positive green future head-to-head against a dirty, inefficient and regressive society of the past).

The better measure, I think, was conceived by Greenpeace International climate campaign Bill Hare and presented in his brilliant, prescient 1989 paper, The Carbon Logic.  Hare, who remains an adviser to Greenpeace, and co-author Malte Meinshausen, both researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, published an updated analysis of the Carbon Logic in the April 30, 2009 edition of Nature, Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2°C, which concludes that “less than a quarter of the proven fossil fuel reserves can be burnt and emitted between now and 2050, if global warming is to be limited to two degrees Celsius (2°C).”

An upcoming post will present a solution statement commensurate with this definition of the problem, but that analysis is not necessary to conclude that Waxman-Markey, with its explicit promotion of fossil fuels, stands in flat contradiction to the imperative before us, which is to halt exploration for new fossil fuel deposits and cap extractions at 1/4 of known reserves. If environmentalists do not acknowledge this reality, we are doing nothing but dreaming up imaginary ladders.

Call it a case of fact following fiction.

Moviegoers may remember that the plot of the latest James Bond film, Quantum
of Solace, pivoted on a scheme by a global crime cartel to use a fake
eco-organization as a front for buying up the world’s precious resources and
then re-selling them at exorbitant prices. Just a case of Hollywood
storytelling, you say?

Well, in a similar real life case, Reuters reports that officials at
Interpol, the world’s largest international police agency, are warning that
organized crime syndicates may be eyeing carbon offsets as a way to commit
fraud and smuggle illegally cut forest products.

Government negotiators seeking to create an international agreement to
replace the Kyoto Protocol have proposed a plan known as Reduced Emissions
from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD). Each year, about 20 percent of
global greenhouse gas emissions are caused by deforestation — an amount
roughly equivalent to the emissions of the US or China. Preserving forest
ecosystems will help absorb all the carbon emitted by industry.

Under REDD, heavily forested countries such as Brazil, Indonesia, or Congo
could place a monetary value on the amount of carbon they save by not
cutting down their trees. They could sell those carbon credits to big
polluters looking to offset their emissions.

Environmental organizations have cautioned that turning trees into carbon
credits won’t really reduce industrial emissions, and that it could hinder
the overall effort to address climate change by devaluing the cost of
polluting. “You’d have rich countries basically paying the poorer countries
in the world to reduce emissions for them,” Greenpeace climate campaigner
Paul Wynn told AFP recently.

Friends of the Earth warns in a recent report that “the simple fact that
forests are becoming an increasingly valuable commodity means that they are
more likely to be wrested away from local people.”

Wrested away, for example, by Mafioso strongmen. Peter Younger, an
environmental crimes specialist at Interpol, says that with any valuable
commodity, there comes a chance for fraud.

“If you are going to trade any commodity on the open market, you are
creating a profit and loss situation,” Younger told Reuters. “There will be
fraudulent trading of carbon credits.”

Younger says that the fraud could consist of claiming credits for forests
that do not exist or were taken in land grabs. “Absolutely, organized crime
we will involved,” he says. “It starts with bribery or intimidation of
officials that can impede your business. If there are Indigenous people
involved, there’s threats and violence against those people. There’s forged
documents.”

According to Interpol’s Younger, organized crime groups are already using
the networks they set up for smuggling children, women, drugs, and firearms
for the illegal trade of forest products and wildlife. There is also
evidence that revenue from wood smuggling has funded armed conflicts.

Dealing with the situation will take more than your typical public interest
group lobbying, letter-writing, and protest tactics. “You say you want to
strike up partnerships to address illegal logging — who with?” Young
wonders. “Consider law enforcement efforts and not just relying on NGOs and
other nice people to do it for you.”

Motion to reconsider
U.S. groups desert precautionary principle, 53 to 6
Posted by Ken Ward (Guest Contributor) at 11:05 AM on 19 Mar 2009

Grist – http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/3/18/23559/2600

After ducking the matter for a decade, U.S. environmental organizations finally pulled together a climate policy, but the National Call to Action on Global Warming issued by 53 organizations on March 5 is a mistake and should be reconsidered.

The National Call contains key elements that have been startlingly absent from our efforts to date — an assessment of climate risk, bright-line definition of solution, and a platform — but in attempting to thread a path between fundamentally irreconcilable political worldviews, the groups have fashioned a pushmepullyou compromise that will not gain us the traction we now require and squanders moral capital won at cost.

The National Call was hurried into place when it became clear that the irredeemably flawed cap-and-trade agenda of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership would otherwise be adopted by default. Yet, instead of coming down emphatically, if belatedly, behind Jim Hansen’s precautionary analysis and focusing on the central questions facing humanity — “how bad is it?” how much time do we have left?” and “what do we have to do to avert cataclysm?” — our major organizations choose to fudge the science and aim for something much smaller then the reordering of civics, economy, and society required to avert cataclysm.

What could and should be an illuminating, spirited civic debate between two sharply defined and fundamentally contradictory worldviews is now muddied by the introduction of a confused and confusing middle road position advanced by respected climate leaders. Split into three camps, we are further than ever from sharpening our story and worse off then before the National Call was issued.

No attempt was made to hide the illogic of the National Call, which claims to stand on “climate science” yet recommends inadequate, lower-end IPCC targets based on essentially antique science which does not fully encompass the risk of abrupt climate change. A bland statement acknowledging this fact (“more recent findings since the publication of the latest IPCC assessment suggest that even more urgent action may be needed”) is included in the Call without clarification or conclusion.

This throwaway statement, however, is the nub of the matter, because all recent evidence on factors affecting the pace and scale of ice shelf break-up in Antarctica and Greenland — the climate change “world killer” — is very, very grim, and all projections of fossil fuel use and GHG emissions continue to rise steeply. It could not be clearer that we are running the last lap and there will be no opportunity for “do-overs.”

What’s going on here? None of our organizations and leaders truly disagree with the precautionary position as a matter of science, so why did 53 sign on to an statement calling for less than we know is now necessary to avert catastrophe?

Six organizations — 350.org, Rainforest Action Network (RAN), Friends of the Earth (FOE), International Rivers Network (IRN), GlobalWarmingSolution.org and, contrary to original reports, Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection — did not endorse the National Call and there are indications that the decision does not sit comfortably with every group which did. People should be worried, because the National Call puts the majority of our organizations on the same slippery track that compromised the integrity of EDF and NRDC.

I have a half-formed idea that the critical factor for leadership and organizations is no longer whether one accepts the reality of abrupt climate change, as it was for the last 10 years, but whether one believes in the possibility of abrupt political change and is willing to work for it. If so, then there is no reason at this stage to support inadequate compromises that cannot avert cataclysm and will merely run out the clock. We’re playing winner take all now.

If one cannot imagine a new American revolution, or shudders at the thought, then I suppose there is appeal in cutting the best deal going and hoping that Hansen et al. are wrong, but as a matter of strategy, it’s still the bad move. Whether or not “non-linear” social change is thought likely or desirable, driving toward it improves the outcome either way.

Environmentalist power is proportional to our moral authority, not our facility at brokering, and our moral authority is diminished when we speak less then the truth. The National Call to Action on Global Warming, relying on out of date IPCC science, is knowingly built on a foundation of sand. It reduces our moral authority (and we ought to start thinking about our members, donors, and staff in this regard) and should be reconsidered.

Having won consensus for joint action — a tremendous step forward — we must assert the new power that can and should have flowed from the achievement, and the best way to do so is by endorsing Jim Hansen’s call for a 300-350 ppm bright line. If we do this, then we act as a responsible movement, coalescing behind two opposed visions of political change and measures of appropriate precautionary behavior. If we do not do this, we churn already muddy waters and are worse off then if we had done nothing.