I just got this article from my friend, and amazing author and activist Jeff Conant. Got environmental health issues? Think some corporations and climate chaos might just give you some? Want to learn about how communities are fighting back? Check it out…

Hesperian’s New Book Supports the Struggle for Environmental Rights and Justice

By Jeff Conant

Aside from the damage to ecosystems, drilling, spilling, and burning oil cause an array of health problems, such as asthma, cancers, skin disease, and nerve damage. This is one of the reasons why the environmental justice movement tries to clean up and shut down refineries, why we campaign to protect the Amazon and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and why OilWatch and others call for a moratorium on oil drilling and a transition to just, clean energy alternatives.

Few resources exist to help community-based activists focus on oil’s immediate health impacts. Hesperian’s Community Guide to Environmental Health changes that. A popular education manual in the style of their widely used book, Where There Is No Doctor, the new Community Guide… provides an approach to health from the perspective of underlying social and ecological injustice.

Early in the book’s development, Ecuador’s Acción Ecológica shared with Hesperian a study of the health impacts of oil in the Amazon conducted ten years previously by lay health workers using the kind of popular methodologies that Hesperian promotes. Acción Ecológica, wanted to conduct a follow-up study to show the changes in health in the affected region in the intervening decade.

Hesperian accompanied a team of local researchers on a two-week trek through the misery of the oil-drilling zones from Lago Agrio south to Sucumbios and across the Cononaco River. What we witnessed was horrifying: one in three people with some form of cancer, household wells clogged with crude oil, livestock dead and swollen from toxics, and thousands of hectares of watershed and rainforest hopelessly destroyed. The native people of the area and the colonists who had migrated to the region were suffering from malnutrition, heavy metal poisoning, nervous exhaustion, reproductive health problems ranging from infertility to stillbirths to birth defects, and a deepening, inescapable poverty.

That experience became the chapter Oil, Illness and Human Rights. It discusses specific health impacts of oil development, the threats posed to people by oil from exploration through combustion, and the methodology used to conduct a health study (essential to the lawsuit against Chevron-Texaco, for which Luis Yanza and Pablo Fajardo recently won the Goldman Environmental Prize.

Early drafts of the chapter were sent for review to groundWork in South Africa and Environmental Rights Action in Nigeria. Their input further improved the material. Nnimmo Bassey, director of Environmental Rights Action, says about the Community Guide…:

“The community guide is more than just a book, it is a tool for change . . . and I say this from my experience testing the chapter on oil in local communities. By the time we concluded going through all the issues and exercises, the community people suddenly realized that the things they took for granted, things they thought were safe, were no longer safe. What they understood is that their entire body was filled with crude oil. They were so scared and so alarmed and they realized that, ‘look, we cannot just allow the companies to continue on as usual. They have to be responsible, they have to attend to the environmental safety, they have to do things in a way that is acceptable, that is transparent, they have to do things to the very best and highest standards.’ I think the book is a great inspiration for mobilizing communities to defend their environment.”

Activists need tools and information to combat damage caused by oil development, deforestation, resource abuse, and degradation of human rights and the environment. As you work to bring about change, be inspired by Acción Ecológica, Environmental Rights Action, and a host of other groups on the front lines whose stories and advice you’ll find in A Community Guide to Environmental Health.

Nissan recently announced plans to produce electric vehicles for the U.S. market by 2010. This upstages announcements from both GM and Toyota, which have also announced plans for plug-in production. Nissan’s commitment will make it the first automaker to sell zero emission vehicles in the U.S. Well, the first in the second wave anyway. (See “Who Killed the Electric Car“).

Nissan’s chief exec sites high gas prices and environmental concerns as central to the announcement. The first model will go 100 miles on a charge and is targeted primarily at city drivers. Other models will have a combustion back-up for extended range (PHEV). Nissan plans to go global with zero emission vehicles by 2012.

Thanks to the persistence of Freedom From Oil activists, electric vehicle advocates and clean transportation proponents, companies like Nissan are doing an about face where gasoline vehicles are concerned. This announcement is a welcomed (albeit overdue) departure from the company leader’s former opinion. In a 2005 speech he called gas-electric hybrids “niche products” useful only to meet strict fuel-economy and emission standards in states like California.

So, GM and Toyota, who’s the industry leader now? Nissan?

I think the first time I ever heard the word ‘greenwashing’ was in the late ’80s or maybe early ’90s after I saw a flier from McDonald’s about how they didn’t use beef from the Amazon. I brought the flier home to show my mother, an environmentalist, because I was so proud to show her that even big giant companies were doing good things and that her work was really making a difference.

She looked at it for about three seconds and told me “that’s greenwashing.” She explained the word to me and although I was sad to see my evidence of the mainstream adoption of environmentalism debunked, I realized for the first time that in a lot of ways claiming to “go green” when you’re not can be worse than just doing bad stuff in the first place.

Well, I’ve obviously come a long way since then and you may have already seen one of our “Greenwash of the Week” posts.

You’d think I would be pretty aware of the scope and quantity of greenwashing out there. I thought I was too.

More »

Yesterday, on March 15th, 2008, nearly 1,000 people gathered in Richmond, California - as part of a series of non-violent direct actions leading up to the 5th anniversary of the Iraq War. After 5 years, $2.8 trillion dollars wasted, 600,000 Iraqi’s dead, nearly 4,000 US soldiers dead, and opposition to the war at an all-time high - it’s time to say enough is enough. Our government’s priorities are way out of line, and the corporate influence from war profiteers and oil companies is clear. NO WAR! NO WARMING!

A few months ago, a group of us revived Direct Action To Stop The War (which organized tens of thousands of people to shut down San Francisco 5 years ago when the war started), and worked in conjunction with local Richmond community groups mobilize a diverse, multi-generational, multi-issue coalition to non-violently shut down one of Chevron’s largest oil refineries in the nation.

The demonstration was endorsed by Direct Action to Stop The War, Greenaction, West County Toxics Coalition, Amazon Watch, Richmond Progressive Alliance, Richmond Greens, Community Health Initiative, Communities for a Better Environment, Global Exchange, and Rainforest Action Network. The purpose of this action was to shut the Chevron refinery down for the day - to do our best to prevent oil from entering or leaving the refinery. By boat, by bike, and by foot - we mobilized a broad coalition of groups working on climate change, environmental justice, and anti-war efforts. This action is supporting ongoing community efforts to stop Chevron from expanding its refinery, which will increase pollution and further increase asthma, cancer and rising death rates in surrounding communities. Chevron is driving the war and occupation in Iraq, refining over a million barrels of stolen Iraqi oil in Richmond a month, and actively lobbying for the privatization of Iraq’s oil fields to further increase profits for the oil industry, and maintaining our addiction to climate-destroying fossil fuels.

No War! No Warming! No Pollution!

More »

It has been an amazing few weeks for media about palm oil. Three articles, from the Sacramento Bee, the NYTimes, and CNN.com highlighted the problems with the expansion of palm oil in Indonesia and Malaysia.

The Sacramento Bee article highlighted the role of palm oil in habitat destruction in Indonesia– underlining the threat to orangutans and other endangered species, as well as to local communities. Our own Rainforest Ag campaign director, Leila Salazar-Lopez, was quoted as saying “How can (palm oil) be sustainable if it’s causing so much destruction?”. Too true.

The front page, above the fold, New York Times article covered the effect that the rising price of palm oil– driven by consumption both of frying oil and biodiesel– has had for the food security of poor communities around the world. Palm oil is used every day for frying in many developing countries, and families are forced to forgo buying meat and vegetables in order to pay for the oil. Its an important problem, and it is good to see that the problems of palm oil are getting the prominent placement that they deserve!

Last but not least, CNN.com reported on the environmental effect of palm oil plantations, and how the expansion of palm oil plantations for biofuels threatens community land rights, remaining intact forests, and worsens water shortages. They also draw the connection to global warming, acknowledging that biofuels do more harm than good in terms of carbon emissions.

Great to see that the media has begun to pick up on all the many, many problems with palm oil, and that they are spreading the world. Lets hope ADM, Bunge, and Cargill are reading.

Every now and then the Wall Street Journal provides some proverbial food for thought that exceeds its mandate of invisible hand ideology.

In a recent piece – Oils Hits $100, Jolting Markets, the authors provide some insight into the current power dynamics of big oil and international markets.

Beyond highlighting downstream impacts to big oil’s commercial customer base and the economies of various nation states, the article mentions how peaking oil prices have been driving a massive investment in unconventional and dirty oil sources such as the Alberta tar sands. For those unaware of this juggernaut, the tar sands are the number one source of US oil imports today, the largest untapped oil reserves in the world, as well as the most greenhouse gas intensive source of crude oil currently in use.

Stephen Harper’s boys had good reason to stand firmly behind their liege lords at the Bali climate change negotiations. With every major western oil and gas company now engaged in the Alberta oil rush, over 100 billion USD is expected to be invested in tar sands oil extraction over the next couple of decades.

What the article fails to mention however, is the very direct and negative impact this trend is having on the Canadian economy and peoples as well as many downstream communities in the US .

Whether it’s indigenous communities in Alberta dealing with the destruction of their traditional lands and health - at the source of extraction, Canadian workers dealing with the economic fallout of “Dutch disease” syndrome, or US communities impacted by new pipelines and increased refinery emissions, peaking oil prices appear to leave no room for the development of clean energy markets.

Contrary to the WSJ authors’ notion of big oil’s dwindling political influence and market share, the oiligopoly’s determination and ability to stand in the way of renewable energy innovation and climate change mitigation is underscored by their relentless pursuit of the last drops of dirty crude.

The big question for us wide-eyed activists at the start of 2008 remains: can we stop them in time?

In what is being hailed a landmark deal for California - California Attorney General Jerry Brown announced ConocoPhillips has agreed to pay $10 million to offset emissions from its proposed expansion of an oil refinery near San Francisco.

The money is supposed to offset 500,000 tons of C02 that the expansion would release every year, once operating in 2009. The money will be used on various offset projects, including:

• $7 million to start a fund that will finance projects to cut carbon dioxide in the Bay Area operated under guidelines to be developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
• $2.8 million to grow trees in mature forests that absorb carbon dioxide.
• $200,000 would help restore wetlands on San Pablo Bay.
• 70,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions would be cut from a ConocoPhillips facility in Santa Barbara County.

You can read the CNN story, the SF Chronicle story, or my critical take on it below. More »

Thanks to the good ole San Francisco Chronicle for once again calling my attention to an oil company just begging to win our Greenwash of the Week award. Alright, Chevron, your new online video game Energyville is our big winner.

The basic idea is that they give you city and you get to decide how to provide the energy for all of the essential products we need every day, our cars, and our homes and businesses.

Your choices include solar, wind, petroleum, coal, and nuclear power among others and your choices are evaluated on their impact on the economy, the environment, and security. Sounds good right? Most greenwash campaigns do . . . at first.

The biggest catch here is that you must include petroleum in your plan. In fact, it is the only fuel source we can’t do without according to Chevron. Well, I guess that shouldn’t come as too much a surprise considering the source. Plus, at some level the basic idea that we can’t simply stop using petroleum tomorrow is correct. But this game doesn’t stop there.

More »

My father and I carry on a regular exchange of periodicals. For some reason my housemate has an unwanted subscription to Rolling Stone. I don’t read it, but my dad is a huge fan (it’s a generational thing). So I mail him every issue of Rolling Stone in exchange for his old issues of The Economist (their viewpoint aside, it’s an essential publication). So we each save some money and even a little bit of paper on the magazines we want to read.

When I saw the cover of the most recent issue, however, I actually had to stop and crack open the magazine before stuffing it into the envelope—to read this:

Ethanol Scam: Ethanol Hurts the Environment And Is One of America’s Biggest Political Boondoggles

The article isn’t news to us here at RAN, but it might be to a lot of people like my father who might never have heard about the downside of agrifuels. Good on you, Rolling Stone. But, with all due respect, I’ll still take my sharp British economic analysis over stories about washed-up hair bands.

Oh, and don’t miss this post over at R-Squared Energy Blog (the author, an energy insider, was quoted in the article).

Today is my third day as RAN’s new online organizer. My job is to figure out how we can all use the internet to organize and push for crucial environmental change. Luckily, looks like we’re already doing something right.

Toyota unveiled a plug-in Prius today and they’re going to start public road testing soon.

While I’m excited about the fact that Toyota is coming to its senses, I’ve even more excited because less than a month ago RAN launched an online petition asking Toyota to “add a plug to the Prius.”

I’m not saying that our petition was the sole cause of Toyota’s announcement, but I have to say that I’m feeling pretty good about seeing a big company take exactly the action that our supporters demanded.

My big hope here is that this is just the tip of the iceberg for both plug in hybrids and for RAN’s online activism.