green unionism

By Ella Gilbert MSc - IWW Environmental Unionism Caucus, January 30, 2016

Last week thirteen members of UK direct action group Plane Stupid were found guilty of aggravated trespass and unlawfully entering a restricted area of an aerodrome for their part in an action last July. The #Heathrow13 occupied Heathrow airport’s northern runway for a record-breaking 6 hours, preventing hundreds, if not thousands, of tonnes of CO2 from being emitted. The action took place shortly after the release of the Davies Report, a government-commissioned report on airport expansion in the Southeast that recommended a third runway be built at Heathrow.

There are many issues here: for one thing, the Prime Minister David Cameron promised in a pre-election manifesto not to build a third runway, “no ifs, no buts”. The recommendation for a third runway therefore represents another massive U-turn on the part of the Conservative government, who also once claimed to be part of the ‘greenest government ever’. Meanwhile, the Tories have scrapped subsidies for wind energy, removed feed-in tariffs and support for small-scale community energy projects and given the go-ahead to grant fracking licenses. All of their actions are in direct opposition to the Climate Change Act 2008, a radical piece of legislation that requires the UK to reduce emissions by 80% relative to 1990 by 2050. If we are to meet these (legally binding) targets, aviation cannot be allowed to continue to emit as it does. 

Yet Heathrow is just part of the problem. Building a runway anywhere in the UK will be massively damaging to the environment. Indeed, the Davies Commission investigated three options for expansion, none of which was not to expand at all. This is revealing of the government’s priorities: they would rather lock up peaceful activists and profit from human suffering than lose out on the £7bn a year that Heathrow apparently contributes to the UK economy.

Aviation cannot be readily decarbonised, and is one of the most polluting industries around. The emission of pollutants at cruising altitude makes their effects more pronounced and contributes considerably to climate change. On the ground, emissions of air pollutants like particulate matter and NOx cause severe respiratory illnesses and deaths in the local area. Within the 32km surrounding Heathrow, 31 deaths per year are directly attributable to emissions of NOx from aircraft.

Flying is also a preserve of the wealthy – in the UK, 70% of flights are taken by 15% of people, and only 5% of people globally have ever flown at all. This is a clear demonstration of global and national inequality. The whims of rich leisure flyers are prioritised over the lives and livelihoods of poor people who have to breathe toxic pollutants and lose their homes to rising seas. Aviation also enjoys a privileged status – aviation is not included in any climate negotiations or legislation and aircraft fuel and tickets are exempt from VAT. Imagine that – we live in a country where tampons are considered a luxury item and taxed as such, while a flight to a ski resort is not. The cost of meeting climate targets is never passed on, and airlines continue to get a free ride for exploiting us.

Exploitation is big business. Exploitation of the environment, of resources and of workers. Corporations like Heathrow Airport Ltd. are making billions from an industry that is contributing to premature deaths in the local area and around the world. And of course, it is the poorest people who get hit the hardest, and hit first.

In a capitalist society, a few people control the means of production, and they use this to exert their influence on the majority of people, profiting from their labour. This is a story of inequalities: Heathrow has the power and clout of the judicial system, financial backing, and a PR company behind them, whereas ordinary people have nothing but their bodies and their intellect at their disposal. Direct action is one way of redressing this vast imbalance and wresting back some control.

It scares those in power to think that people might begin to take things into their own hands and make change. That is why an example is being made here. The #Heathrow13 may soon be the first UK climate prisoners, but they certainly won’t be the last. To paraphrase Howard Zinn - action outside the law is essential to democracy. You’ll never change outdated laws without breaking them. We must challenge the capitalist status quo that abuses natural resources and people in equal and devastating measure with what means we have. It will take the sacrifices of thousands of normal people to break oppressive structures that exploit people and the environment, but the tide is turning.

By Plane Stupid - Dorsett IWW, January 27, 2016

Among thirteen defendants threatened with incarceration are two members of our One Big Union. Fellow Workers  Ella Gilbert from Norwich and Bec Sanderson from Machynlleth. We express our solidarity and admiration for their courage. An injury to one is an injury to all!

Read Ella Glibert's account of the trial:

• Day 1
• Day 2
• Day 3

More information at Plane Stupid

#Heathrow13 Trial Verdict

Monday, January 20th, 2016, London – Today in Willesden Magistrates Court, the thirteen Plane Stupid activists who occupied Heathrow’s north runway for six hours on the 13th of July last year were all convicted of aggravated trespass and being airside without lawful authority. The Judge has asked them all to return in 3 weeks on the 24th February for sentencing and has advised all defendants to prepare for immediate custodial sentences.

The thirteen defendants released the following statement, in response to their convictions:

Today’s judgement demonstrates that the legal system does not yet recognise that climate defence is not an offence. We took action because we saw that it was sorely needed. When the democratic, legislative and processes have failed, it takes the actions of ordinary people to change them.

We are very grateful for all the messages of support and solidarity we have received from all over the world, and are immensely proud of the action we took to combat emissions from aviation. Climate change and air pollution from Heathrow are killing people now, and the government’s response is to spend millions making the problem bigger. As long as airport expansion is on the agenda, Plane Stupid will be here. We’re in it for the long haul.

Most of the defence’s witness evidence was not heard in court, and none of the witnesses were allowed to appear in court. John McDonnell was not heard in full due to the Judge having already accepted the points he was addressing, and therefore ruling the statement irrelevant.

• Her ruling on John McDonnell’s evidence is available here
• And John McDonnell’s full statement is available here

Statements from three local residents from the Heathrow area were read out, detailing the debilitating and life-threatening medical conditions they were suffering from as a consequence of living near to the airport.

Character references for the defendants were also read out in court, from a variety of public figures including High Court Judge Peter Jackson and a long list of barristers and solicitors.

Alice Bowes-Larkin, one of the UK’s leading climate scientists, and a specialist in the climate impacts of aviation, submitted a statement which was read to the court. It mentioned that Heathrow “is the airport with the highest CO2 contribution in the world in terms of combined international and domestic flights” and “this puts Heathrow expansion at odds with the UK Government’s commitment to avoiding a ‘well below’ 2’C target, unless a major programme of efficiency and biofuel development are delivered in tandem.”

• Sian Berry, the Green Party’s candidate for the London mayoral elections, came to court to support the defendants, despite her evidence having been ruled as inadmissible by the judge. Her statement is available here
• George Monbiot’s statement was also ruled inadmissible, and is available here
• Writing on how the activists will be seen in the future, he said:

They will be regarded not as outlaws and subversives, but as democratic heroes. Succeeding generations, struggling with the impacts that our government’s failures to take action on climate change bequeathed them, are likely to be amazed that they could have been seen in any other light.

In all, of the ten defence witnesses, only four had their evidence allowed, and none were permitted to appear in court.

The runway occupation, under the banner of anti-aviation expansion group Plane Stupid and the first on a Heathrow runway, lasted six hours and delayed or cancelled dozens of flights. The activists, who are all pleading not guilty, are accused of aggravated trespass and trespassing airside without authority.

By x344543 - IWW Environmental Unionism Caucus, January 22, 2016

By now, dear readers, you may have heard about the victory of the Delta 5, but in case you hadn't, here's a short review: In September 2014 five activists, Patrick Mazza, Mike LaPoint, Abby Brockway, Liz Spoerri and Jackie Minchew, entered the BNSF Delta railyard in Everett, Washington, and blocked an oil train with a tripod of steel rods to which they locked themselves. Motivated by frustration about the climate, workers safety and public health from the recklessness of the oil and railroad industries, they stayed on the tracks for eight hours before BNSF police arrested and charged them with trespassing and obstructing a train.

At their trial, during the first half of January 2016, they introduced the "necessity defense." They argued that their actions were not a crime because they were necessary to prevent a much greater harm, climate disruption and the immediate threat of oil train derailments, spills, and explosions.

To establish the necessity of their action the defense brought in expert witnesses to testify about the urgency of climate disruption, the danger from oil trains, railroad industry’s disregard for worker safety and the fact that pollution from trains is already killing people. Their testimony went largely unchallenged by the prosecution. Judge Anthony E Howard, who presided over the case, even expressed some sympathy for the activists, but at the end of the trial ruled that the jury would have to disregard these arguments because the defense had not sufficiently demonstrated that there was no other legal alternative to achieve the same ends. "Frankly the court is convinced that the defendants are far from the problem and are part of the solution to the problem of climate change," Howard said from the bench. But, he added: "I am bound by legal precedent, no matter what my personal beliefs might be." With those very narrow set of instructions, the jury returned with their verdict -- finding the Delta 5 guilty of trespassing, but not guilty of obstructing a train. The obstructing a train charge carried a potentially much more serious penalty.

After the trial was over and the Delta 5 and jury were released three of the six jurors came back into the courthouse, hugged the defendants, and sat with them and their supporters while they were sentenced by the judge.

While the ruling can still be appealed by BNSF, for now climate justice activists are celebrating the ruling as a partial victory, though not a resounding victory, because Judge Howard ruled out the possibility of using the "Neccessity Defense".

What's less talked about, however, is that this case represents another small victory, in this case (no pun intended) a victory for Green Unionism. During the blockade, Abby Brockway (shown in the accompanying image) sat atop a tripod which bore a sign which read: "Cut Oil Trains, Not Conductors - #Greens4Rails" which was in reference to a concurrent rank and file BNSF railroad workers' struggle (aided in large part by the organizers of Railroad Workers United (RWU)) to beat-back a concessionary contract proposal (detailed on ecology.iww.org) which would have allowed for the reduction in train-crew size from two to one employee. This was directly relevant to the Delta 5's blockade, because the latter were concerned about stopping any future disasters like the crude-by-rail train derailment which killed 47 people and devastated the Canadian town of Lac-Mégantic, in which an overworked and poorly trained Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railway engineer, Tom Harding, had been the single employee on the train in question.

The rank and file railroad workers' fight against concessions succeeded. The Delta 5's soldiarity with railroad workers (in addition to support from many other enviornmental activists) sent a clear message that these climate justice activists do not blame railroad workers for the careless profiteering of the fossil fuel corporations or the railroad bosses, and see the workers as potential allies. Indeed, partly as a result of such overtures, BNSF whistleblower and railroad worker, Mike Elliot, testified at the trial of the Delta 5 on behalf of the defendants, and though his testimony was ultimately not allowed by the judge to be used as evidence, it still offers a glimpse of the potential strength that both the labor and environmental movements can bring to each other.

There's still much to be worked out in the case of railroad workers and climate justice activists opposed to crude-by-rail, including matters of railroad workers' working conditions and just transition. And far too many railroad workers believe the lies their bosses tell them about environmentalists being responsible for the current downturn in railroad work (which is primarily due to the crash of the shale oil boom and the economic meltdown currently unfolding in China, both of which are typical busts in the boom-bust cycle of the capitalist market). Some initial groundwork took place during three conferences organized by RWU and others last year, called "Railroad Safety: Workers, Community & the Environment". On the heels of the Delta 5 victory, there's no better time to think about continuing that work. An Injury to One is an Injury to All!

Whereas, Phil Tagami, President of California Capital & Investment Group (CCIG), and their partner Terminal Logistics Solutions are proposing to transport coal through a bulk export terminal now under construction at the former Oakland Army Base, despite previous statements that they would keep the terminal coal free, and

Whereas, Oakland's Port Commission voted unanimously to reject Bowie Resource Partners' prior proposal to export coal from the city-owned Charles P. Howard Terminal, and

Whereas, in July of 2014, the Oakland City Council passed a resolution opposing the transport of fossil fuels, including coal, by rail through the City of Oakland, and

Whereas, in 2012, Joint Assembly Resolution 35 of the California state legislature stated opposition to coal being exported from the United States to countries with less stringent environmental regulations, and

Whereas, coal is the most carbon-intensive of all the fossil fuels, and is the largest single contributor to global climate disruption, and

Whereas, while California is setting aggressive carbon-reduction targets, this terminal would allow this most carbon-polluting fuel to be brought to market, with devastating consequences, and

Whereas, coal dust and particulate matter pose significant threats to Bay Area air and water quality, and would exacerbate the air pollution problems already plaguing West Oakland, where residents are already twice as likely to visit the emergency room for asthma as the average Alameda County resident, and are also more likely to die of cancer and heart and lung disease, and

Whereas, terminals that ship coal provide far fewer jobs than terminals that ship containers or general cargo, and
Whereas, the coal that is proposed to be shipped through the bulk export terminal in Oakland is to be mined by the nonunion Bowie Resources in Utah, a "right-to-work" state, and

Whereas, there are numerous alternative commodities, other than coal, which could be shipped through the bulk export terminal that are neither detrimental to the global climate or the environment, and

Whereas, at least seventeen union locals and or councils, including at least three Bay Area ILWU locals have joined in opposition to the proposal to ship coal through the Port of Oakland,

Therefore Be it Resolved that the San Francisco Region of the Inland Boatmen's Union (IBU) also opposes the shipment of coal through the Port of Oakland, and

Be it Further Resolved that the Bay Area Region of the IBU shall add its signature to the [No Coal in Oakland] letter to Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf and City Council. 

Adopted, Saturday, January 16, 2016

By Environmental Justice League of RI - RI Future, January 15, 2016

The Environmental Justice League of Rhode Island (EJLRI) has created a brilliant position paper, “National Grid’s Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Liquefaction Facility: Toxic Hazards in the Port Providence: Proposals for a Just Transition” that eviscerates National Grid‘s plans to build a new liquefaction facility for fracked LNG at Fields Point in South Providence. Over the next few days RI Future will be presenting the EJLRI’s position paper in its entirety.

Solutions and Alternatives

The information presented in the previous posts show that in addition to not being necessary, National Grid’s proposed LNG Liquefaction Facility would be dangerous and would contribute to existing environmental racism. LNG Liquefaction is not needed in Rhode Island in general, and it certainly should not be placed in the most toxic and most impoverished part of the state.

The immediate solution is to stop this facility from being built. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) needs to deny National Grid LNG LLC’s application, and the RI Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) and RI Coastal Resources Management Council (RI CRMC) need to deny the state level permits.

That being said, ­ the proposed liquefaction facility is not the only problem outlined in this position paper. Even without the added significant risks of the liquefaction facility, the existing LNG storage tank, the Motiva oil terminal, the Univar chemical plant, the Enterprise LPG terminal, and other facilities in the area all pose significant environmental health hazards, and create the overall context of environmental racism. Toxic and hazardous facilities are dangerous for communities and dangerous for workers. Yet families are dependent on them for jobs, municipalities are dependent on them for tax income, and the way our socio­economic system is set up we are all collectively dependent on the products they produce. Regardless of our dependency, the reality of climate science is that the fossil fuel / petrochemical industry is rapidly pushing our planet past its limits, producing present and future catastrophic impacts, and making people sick, ­especially front-line communities of color and indigenous communities. Our dependency on these industries is literally killing us.

As an organization, the EJ League is interested in big­ picture, long­ term, real solutions to interlocking crises that impact communities of color, marginalized communities, and planetary ecosystems. We are members of three national coalitions of grassroots, membership ­based organizations: Right to the City, Grassroots Global Justice, and Climate Justice Alliance. Together, and lead by our members and our communities, we are developing and sharing solutions that address these intersecting crises from the grassroots. These community­ based solutions are in opposition to the corporate top­ down false solutions that pretend to address a single symptom while reinforcing the underlying root causes of the problems.

True solutions are rooted in the work of grassroots internationalism, and using the framework of a “Just Transition”. We are collectively building a different context and a different system, an economy for people and the planet. The Just Transition framework emerged from partnerships between environmental justice and labor organizations. In the words of the Just Transition Alliance, “together with front-line workers, and community members who live along the fence ­line of polluting industries, we create healthy workplaces and communities. We focus on contaminated sites that should be cleaned up, and on the transition to clean production and sustainable economies.”

By Martin Empson - International Socialism, January 6, 2016

A review of Paul Hampton, Workers and Trade Unions for Climate Solidarity: Tackling Climate Change in a Neoliberal World (Routledge Studies in Climate, Work and Society, 2015), £90

The complete and utter failure of the world’s governments to take meaningful action on climate change was once again apparent at the COP21 talks in Paris in December 2015. In Britain, the Conservative government was barely into its new term before it announced policies that undermined even the minimal commitments its predecessors had made. Their policies favoured fracking and other fossil fuels over renewable energy, airport and road expansion over public transport, and introduced reductions in funding that should have helped insulate homes.

Discussions about how we get a sustainable society—reduce emissions and force action upon unwilling governments—are ever more important. For socialists one key aspect of this debate in recent years has been the question of climate jobs and the role of trade unions.

Paul Hampton is head of research and policy for the Fire Brigades Union. His new book begins by locating the source of the climate crisis with capitalism. While noting that capitalism is a system based on the accumulation of wealth for the sake of accumulation, with inevitable environmental impacts, he also points out that the increased use of machinery to increase relative surplus value in the exploitative ­relationship between capital and worker also has an environmental aspect. Thus, the ­“technological revolution”, powered by the burning of fossil fuels for energy, is part of what Hampton calls the “subsumption of climate to capital”. The importance of fossil fuels lies in their “flexibility, fitting capitalist society’s particular relationship to nature” and their centrality to the capitalist economy is the outcome of the development of capitalism, rather than “market forces or pluralistic decision-making”. Thus Hampton argues climate change cannot be seen as a result of “market failure”, as mainstream economists like Nicolas Stern argue, but as a result of how capitalism works. To avoid runaway climate change a “critique of capitalism…is the logical starting point”.

How does this fit in with the role of trade unions—which tend not to be revolutionary anti-capitalist organisations? The first point that Hampton makes is that unions, and by extension, workers have mostly been overlooked in “mainstream social science”. Bosses are often discussed as “climate actors”, those with the potential to enact changes such as reduction of emissions. But the people they employ are often ignored.

This is a mistake for two reasons. The first is that, as Hampton points out, workers have a vested interest in dealing with climate change because they are not only “likely to be among those most vulnerable to the physical impacts of climate change and to have fewer resources to adapt” but they are “also likely to be the victims of government policies designed to tackle climate change, especially those that shift the costs of mitigation and adaption from capital onto labour” (p39). It is for the latter reason that socialists and environmental activists must argue for a “just transition”, so that those who face losing jobs because of action on climate change, such as the closure of a highly polluting factory or the transition from fossil fuel generation to renewable energy, do not lose out.