On Wednesday the Burrillville Town Council will be discussing the proposed tax treaty with Invenergy, the company that wants to build a $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant in the town. The timing of this discussion could not be worse. Invenergy just successfully petitioned the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB), the governmental body tasked with with approving or rejecting the plant, for a 90 day extension on their application. Because Invenergy can’t find the water it needs to cool the plant, for the first time the company is on the ropes. Approving a tax treaty at this time will give the company a much needed win, and might turn the tide in their favor.
Invenergy is searching for the water they need. An Access to Public Records Act (APRA) request from RI Future has revealed that Woonsocket Mayor Lisa Badelli-Hunt’s office has had two meetings with Invenergy officials. On September 7 there was a 30 minute meeting and on September 20 there was a 60 minute meeting. Other meetings may have occurred since then. We know from statements made at the October 3 Woonsocket Town Council meeting that these discussions were not about siting the plant in Woonsocket. These discussions, assumed to be ongoing, are about water. Whatever bargaining position Invenergy has in their discussions with Woonsocket, or any other entity contemplating providing the water Invenergy needs, will be enhanced by the existence of an approved tax treaty.
Passing a tax treaty will send mixed signals to the rest of the state. On September 22 the Burrillville Town Council issued a strong statement in opposition to the proposed power plant. They sent out missives to cities and towns through Rhode Island, Connecticut and Massachusetts asking for other town and city councils to pass resolutions in solidarity with Burrillville. So far at least four municipalities have done so, Lincoln, Glocester, North Smithfield and Middletown. How foolish will these councils feel if Burrillville proceeds to negotiate with the company they’ve asked for support in opposing? How eager will other municipalities be to pass their own resolutions going forward?
Jerry Elmer, senior attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) believes that the Town of Burrillville “is under zero obligation to enter into a tax treaty,” adding, “By ‘zero obligation,’ I mean: zero legal obligation, zero ethical obligation, zero political obligation. The Town has tax laws on the books, and those existing tax laws will determine Invenergy’s tax obligation if there is no tax treaty.
“Invenergy can (and likely will) make all kinds of threats about what will or will not happen in the absence of a tax treaty, but the threats are empty,” continues Elmer, “The bottom line is that: (a) The Town can simply choose not to enter into a tax treaty. (b) If the Town chooses not to enter into a tax treaty there is nothing that Invenergy can do. (c) If the Town chooses not to enter into a tax treaty, it is virtually certain that Invenergy will go away.
“But can’t Invenergy sue the Town of Burrillville to try to force the Town to enter a tax treaty?” asks Elmer, before answering, “Technically, the answer is “yes,” Invenergy can sue the town – and, yes, the town would have to spend some money to defend such a lawsuit. But Invenergy could not win such a lawsuit. Remember what law school professors like to say: ‘You can always sue.’ I can sue you for wearing a blue suit (or for your taste in movies). But just because one can bring such a stupid, frivolous lawsuit does not mean that one can win such a stupid lawsuit.
“So, too, with Invenergy and a tax treaty. The Town of Burrillville can decline to enter into a tax treaty with Invenergy, and there is nothing Invenergy can do to force the issue.
“The message to each and every member of the Town Council is simple, so simple it can be put into a single sentence: ‘Vote down any tax treaty.’ Or: ‘Don’t even vote on a tax treaty.’ Or: ‘Don’t vote on a tax treaty, and don’t approve a tax treaty.’ None of those sentences is complicated; none of those involves weird, technical legal mumbo-jumbo. Everyone can understand the point.”
Attorney Alan Shoer, of Adler Pollock & Sheehan, has been representing Invenergy during their application process in front of the EFSB. A look at Shoer’s bio page on his law firm’s website runs down his skills and accomplishments. Shoer is presented as an expert in “all aspects of energy, environmental, and public utility law.” He has “experience in wind, solar, hydro and other renewable energy matters,” and “has represented developers, investors, contractors, utilities, and municipalities in several successful and innovative sustainable energy projects.”
Note what Shoer does not include in his online resumé: Anything at all to do with his strong advocacy for companies that want to expand Rhode Island’s dependence on fracked gas.
Like Governor Gina Raimondo, who never misses an opportunity to publicly champion wind and solar power but downplays her support of fracked gas, and like Senator Sheldon Whitehouse who humbly accepts the laurels heaped upon him for his environmental activism in the Senate but can’t find the time to publicly oppose fracked gas infrastructure in his own state, Alan Shoer seems to want his paid advocacy for fossil fuels companies like Invenergy to go unnoticed.
And this is for a good reason: Twenty years from now, no one will want their name to be attached to the moldering LNG monstrosities, brown fields and contaminated properties left in the wake of the coming fossil fuel collapse. Who wants to tell their children and their grandchildren that they helped destroy the environment when they knew the world was under threat and they knew that they were championing a dying and deadly industry? Carefully shaping their public image today is a way, hopes Raimondo, Whitehouse and Shoer, of shaping the way history will judge them.
But we won’t let the world forget their part in this, will we?
This is why Invenergy would be foolish in suing Burrillville. Not only can they not win, as Jerry Elmer points out above, but in doing so they will be exposing themselves as the villains they are. Burrillville may have to spend money defending themselves against such a lawsuit, but I will bet that most or all of the money Burrillville needs to defend themselves could come from something like an online GoFundMe effort. Fracked gas is enormously unpopular in New England, and becoming more unpopular by the day. Only those who continue to believe the lies of the fossil fuel companies, (and they’ve been lying for decades about climate change, as it turns out) that is, the most gullible or ideologically pathological, believe that fossil fuels are the future.
About 244 years ago, a group of Rhode Islanders in Warwick stood up against British tyranny and torched the Gaspee, starting a series of events that led to the American Revolution. Today, in Burrillville, a group of Rhode Islanders is standing up to the fossil fuel oligarchy and when they win, it will mark a turning point in the climate change battle, and the effects could be as significant as those at Gaspee Point in 1772. Rhode will become, in the words of Timmons Roberts, writing for the Brookings Institute, “a leader of a new energy age for the U.S.,” instead of “a middling actor locked into fossil fuel infrastructure for decades.”
The Burrillville Town Council has an opportunity Wednesday night to save the town, the state, and the world.
Be there.
]]>
Andrew Bacevich, a noted scholar, author, and critic of U.S. imperialism, will be speaking on U.S. policy, or lack thereof, in the Middle East on October 6 from 7-9 pm at the Westminster Unitarian Church, 24 Kenyon Street in East Greenwich, RI. This public presentation will be based largely on his most recent book: America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History. Among his eight other books is the important Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War. There will be a Q&A period.
Prior to a distinguished academic career, Bacevich served in the U.S. Army, retiring with the rank of Colonel. His son, Andrew Bacevich Jr., was also in the army but was killed in Iraq by an IED. Dr. Bacevich had expressed strong opposition to this disastrous war prior to his son’s death.
In addition to the books, Bacevich has written many articles that have been published in various magazines and journals and has appeared frequently on a variety of news shows. He is a Professor Emeritus of Boston University and also is an associate editor for Harper’s Magazine.
This event is being organized by the Rhode Island Anti-War Committee, Pax Christi Rhode Island, the American Friends Service Committee, and the Tuesday Interfaith Peace Group. Cosponsoring and hosting is the Social Responsibility Committee of Westminster Unitarian Church. Light refreshments will be available and attendees are encouraged, if possible, to bring cookies or some type of simple finger food to share. There is ample parking in the Church lot.
]]>
A march from Kennedy Plaza to the Providence Public Safety Complex, with a brief, tense stop in front of the Providence Place Mall was held in Providence Friday evening in solidarity with a National Prison Strike, on the 45th anniversary of the Attica Uprising.
After gathering in Kennedy Plaza, across from Providence City Hall, the march headed for the Providence Place Mall, where it came to a stop, blocking one direction of traffic. Providence Police, lead by Lt. Oscar Perez, had until this time been clearing traffic ahead of the march, but here, with traffic stopped, there was a tense five minutes where a threat of arrest seemed imminent. No arrests took place.
Still, many of the participants felt the police showed their hand in front of the mall. At the Providence Public Safety Complex, after the march, a speaker maintained that though the police were saying that they were “trying to keep us all safe… the second we stopped at the mall… we were threatened with arrest… Safety goes out the window when it comes to capital. They’re here to protect and serve, just not us. They’re here to protect fucking capital.”
On my way back to Kennedy Plaza after the event Lt. Perez told me, half jokingly, that “those kids kind of hurt my feelings.”
The problems with capitalism, though, is one of the points this strike and the supportve march is trying to make. As the march organizers say on their event page, “Slavery is legal in America. Written into the 13th Amendment, it is legal to work someone that is incarcerated for free or almost free. Since the Civil War, tens of millions of people – most arrested for non-violent offenses – have been used as slaves for the sake of generating massive profits for multi-national corporations and the US government. Today, prison labor is a multi-billion dollar industry which helps generate enormous wealth for key industries such as fossil fuels, fast food, telecommunications, technology, the US military, and everyday house hold products…
“This is not just a prison strike for better wages or conditions, it is a strike against white supremacy, capitalism, and slavery itself.”
This is the context for the stop at the mall. The mall sells products made by prison labor. Not paying prisoners wages for the work they do, or paying them a fraction of what workers outside prisons make, depress the wages of everyone. The slavery system of prison labor has real consequences for everyone, especially the poor and marginalized, who are often only one bad day away from being in prison themselves.
Nationally, the strike is being led by groups such as the Free Alabama Movement, Free Texas Movement, Free Ohio Movement, Free Virginia Movement, Free Mississippi Movement, and many more. Locally, the march was organized by the Providence chapter of the IWW Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee [IWOC].
The strike is certainly not a one day event. Today, at the Adult Correctional
For more information:
Let the Crops Rot in the Field
Incarcerated Workers Take the Lead
Here’s video from the speak out:
On the day the Rhode Island Senate Finance committee passed the legislation that would establish the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB), Robert L Bendick Jr, the director of the RI Department of Environmental Management (DEM) asked, “I just wonder what’s going on here. What’s the driving force behind this?” [Providence Journal, April 11, 1986; pg A-15]
The question Bendick asked on April 9, 1986 strongly resonates today. Jerry Elmer, of the Conservation Law Foundation, said the EFSB “was designed to take the power to stop a proposal like Invenergy’s out of the hands of the local people… and put it into the hands of the EFSB.”
Governor Gina Raimondo refers to EFSB decision making as “the process” and asks us all to trust in it, but how are we to trust if we can’t tell if the intent of the process is to serve Rhode Islanders or to serve the energy industry?
What is going on here? Here’s some historical context.
Back in 1986, Ward Pimley, writing for the ProJo, wrote, “Sen. Victoria Lederberg, D-Providence, the sponsor, said the [EFSB] bill streamlines the approval process required for obtaining licenses to build major energy facilities for generation of electricity, treatment of liquefied natural gas, oil refineries and the like…”
Victoria Lederberg was an impressive woman and public servant. A judge, she “served as state representative from 1975-1983 ,representing the East Side of Providence, and state senator from 1985-1991… Lederberg was a trailblazer, becoming the first woman of Italian heritage to serve in the Rhode Island legislature.”
Pimley continues, “In previous testimony, Lederberg called the siting board concept ‘one-stop shopping,’ where interested developers could learn what they must do to obtain licenses and fulfill obligations to build. She said it removes jurisdictional overlapping among regulatory agencies.
“She said the bill recognizes the state’s need for ‘reasonably priced, reliable sources of energy’ and balances that with issues affecting public health and environmental impact.”
Nine years earlier, in his January 1977 inaugural address, Governor J Joseph Garahy outlined his ideas for the state’s energy objectives. Siting of energy projects heretofore had been haphazard, and based solely on the whims of industry. Garahy had a vision “to site energy facilities in light of state plans, rather than private industry decisions.” He was governor of a Rhode Island that was suffering from environmental mismanagement, and the new governor was hoping for a different approach. The EFSB, at its best, would be a realization of Garahy’s vision, but in an effort to please industry rather than regulate it, Garahy’s vision may have been compromised.
Public Utilities Commission] Chairman Edward F Burke, Pimley wrote, “testified earlier that the legislation is important because there are eight or nine potential applications for energy-generating facilities that could be built in some other state unless the licensing procedure were streamlined.
“He cited a $300-million facility proposed for Burrillville that should provide electricity by 1989 on property owned by Narragansett Electric as an example of the type of facility that can be built.”
This $300-million facility is the Ocean State Power plant, which currently uses 4 million gallons of water a day to cool its turbines.
Recognizing that the EFSB would allow industry to override the environmental concerns of the state, Sen. William C. O’Neill, today more famous as a South County bike path than a Democratic senator from Narragansett, objected. Here’s Pimley’s play-by-play of what he called a ‘hot debate’:
“You feel DEM is an obstacle,” O’Neill said. “You removed that obstacle, and you know it.”
“You’re absolutely incorrect,” Lederberg shot back.
“I’m concerned that you’re allowing other agencies to override DEM,” O’Neill said.
“I totally disagree,” Lederberg said. “This shares decision-making. DEM has an important role. That’s why we’ve made them one of the board members. It does not weaken the permit-granting power by DEM.”
Lederberg said DEM does not have veto authority to stop any project it wants, but it still is involved in the planning process.
Then Sen. David R. Carlin Jr, D-Newport, said the siting board can overrule decisions of other agencies.
“It seems it’s clearly overriding DEM,” he said.
O’Neill, seeing DEM Director Robert L Bendick Jr watching the proceedings, said he would vote for the bill if Bendick agreed that DEM’s interests would not be jeopardized by it, but committee chairman Donald R. Hickey, D-Providence, called for a vote.
“The bill was approved, 8 to 4.”
This is what prompted Bendick to ask, “What’s going on here?” adding, “If what they’re doing is overriding the department’s authority, I’m opposed to it.”
Months earlier, in an editorial, the ProJo had endorsed Lederberg’s proposal writing, “As a House member in 1979, Mrs. Lederberg sponsored a similar bill that died in the Senate. Former Gov. J. Joseph Garrahy, who supported the bill, issued an executive order embodying many of its details, but that wasn’t an adequate substitute for statutory enactment…
“Mrs. Lederberg says energy installations must be reviewed in terms of regional need and cost-effectiveness, not on the basis that Rhode Island must be totally self-sufficient in energy.” [Providence Journal February 17, 1986; page A-10] Note that Lederberg is not quoted as mentioning, and that the ProJo editorial seems uninterested in, environmental issues.
Pimley noted that the bill, as originally introduced by Lederberg, allowed the General Assembly to override an EFSB decision, but that provision was removed before passage because “it was no longer needed.”
Pimley also noted that “support for the legislation came from the Governor’s Office of Energy Assistance, the PUC and Narragansett Electric Co.”
Narragansett Electric is today a wholly owned sub-entity of National Grid.
Of special concern to all involved with the establishment of the EFSB was a proposal “to build twin natural-gas-fired plants in Burrillville. According to a plan disclosed Tuesday, the plants would be supplied by a new, 25-mile gas pipeline that would run from Sutton, Mass., to the Burrillville site and on to Cranston.” [Providence Journal, February 13, 1986; page A-14]
The very first application the EFSB took up was the Ocean State Power Plant in Burrillville.
]]>darkness; only light can do
that. Hate cannot drive out
hate; only love can do that.”
Dr. Martin Luther King
After 400 years of terror, isn’t it time for all Christians to speak out against ‘Radical Christian Extremism?’
Slavery was terrorism: Plantations were concentration camps. The Native American genocide was terrorism: The Trail of Tears was a death march. Hangings by slave patrols and the Ku Klux Klan were terrorism: These murders—often perpetrated or approved by white ‘Christians’—were intended to grieve, horrify and intimidate blacks.
Virtually all who committed these acts of terrorism claimed they were Christians.
This radical Christian extremism persists. Militant Christians still verbally and physically attack gays and blacks, Muslims and immigrants. They justify their hate by appealing to Jesus and the Bible.
Actually, the word ‘Christian’ may not apply to any who perpetrate these horrors. Should terrorists be called radical ‘Christian’ extremists? Their claims of following the tenets of Christianity are wholly false. More than a billion Christians should not be smeared by those committing acts of terrorism. Their crimes are perversions of Christianity.
The same is true of radical ‘Muslim’ extremists. Their claims of following the tenets of Islam are wholly false. More than a billion Muslims should not be smeared by those committing such acts. Their crimes are perversions of Islam.
Many Republican leaders, especially Donald Trump, disagree—along with many voters in the base of the Republican party. Why? Must all Muslims bear responsibility for those claiming acts of terrorism are a legitimate expression of Islam?
This political blame is based on fear and hatred. These are not Christian motives. As stated in I John 4:18, “There is no fear in love. Perfect love drives out all fear.” Also, Jesus insisted Christians must love, not hate, their enemies. He modeled this love throughout his life and even during his crucifixion.
We must contend with our fears: our fears of blacks; our fears of gays; our fears of Muslims; our fears of immigrants. Unchallenged fears result in misplaced rage and scapegoating of ‘the other.’ This leads to verbal attacks and violence against hated groups.
Racism and homophobia are repulsive. Islamophobia and xenophobia are abhorrent.
Insisting all Americans oppose Muslim immigration or be castigated as purveyors of politically correctness is obscene. Yes, we must seek to be correct—politically and morally—but we can only do so, as the Apostle Paul states, by “speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15).
What is the truth? Muslims are our neighbors. Muslims are soldiers serving our country. Muslims are patriotic citizens. And Muslims are no more deserving of prejudice than Christians.
What does love require? We must treat the vast majority of Muslims as neighbors, not enemies. We must respond with compassion to the extraordinary hardships of refugees, including Muslims. We must see Muslims as human beings—people who have far more in common with us than differences.
Love also requires those of us judging others must first judge ourselves. Jesus was explicit: Before taking the speck out of our neighbor’s eye, we must remove the log from our own eye.
Those using a broad brush to paint all Muslims with the taint of terrorism imagine falsehoods. Let’s reject our biases and diligently seek truth.
Moreover, let’s ask to what degree our Christian community is responsible for historic acts of terrorism which executed and enslaved millions. Orlando, San Bernardino, Paris and even 9-11 are horrific singular acts of terror. Contrast these with the multitudes of ‘Christian’ atrocities spanning centuries.
Does evil and apathy prevail among American Christians? Could it be that we Christians really do need to account for the log in our eye?
We can choose to scapegoat those having nothing to do with perpetrating terror attacks. Or we can conscientiously oppose such evil massacres, come together, foster unity, and overcome our fears and hatred by speaking the truth in love.
]]>
What do Democratic Party Chair Joe McNamara, Justin Katz, the burning of the HMS Gaspee, and a concentration camp have in common? Quite a good deal!
There is a bit of a schoolyard tiff being had out in public today between Joe and Justin where they are trying to see who can be the most bloviating about colonial history in Rhode Island. Joe is having a fit because some outfit called the Gaspee Project is doing typical right wing think tank nonsense and Justin is posturing and preening about how this is all within the heritage of the Gaspee.
Joe is very involved with the annual Gaspee Days celebrations of these events, including marching in the parade every year. He is very dedicated to this image of civic engagement and the role the Gaspee plays in that image, ergo the use of that historical incident to go after him and/or his colleagues is a huge taboo.
As someone who spent five years researching every aspect of the Gaspee incident, I find this spectacle patently offensive and white supremacist, not to mention banal as all hell after communing with the soul of Hannah Arendt.
In 2010, with the help of Drs. Richard and Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban and Ray Rickman, I decided to make a film about the Gaspee and what really happened.
The Gaspee was a revolt by American colonists against English efforts to abolish slavery, plain and simple. The English Parliament had begun to levy a series of taxes on slave trade-related commodities, including rum, molasses, and sugar cane, and slave traders like Moses and John Brown did not like that. As such, they decided to launch a nighttime citizens militia attack against a government tax enforcement agency, the HMS Gaspee. Whereas Joe and thinkers like him look at the Gaspee and think red, white, and blue, I see the same iconography and think of Auschwitz.
The fact that Justin Katz, whose political movement to criminalize abortion uses American abolitionists as a rhetorical device sometimes, does not know this basic element of the history of the abolitionist movement in Rhode Island indicates just how preposterous such analogues truly are. The fact McNamara consistently calls the Gaspee raiders, who were engaging in a vanguard attack on behalf of the Triangle Trade genocide against Africans, patriots and heroes is indicative of what Frantz Fanon described as cognitive dissonance.
On behalf of this cognitive dissonance, in November 2014 Joe premiered a documentary created with the Gaspee Days Committee about the Gaspee, produced after he had seen my film about this topic, AARON BRIGGS AND THE HMS GASPEE, that totally leaves out the fact this whole incident was all about the enslavement of human beings and treating African people as if they were lower than pig droppings.
So, in closing, I hope we all learned something.
I hope Katz has learned to stop giving praise to slave traders and actually do some basic historical research that goes beyond the tawdry material offered by the Gaspee Days website. But then again, looking at the Gaspee Project’s website and ideology, perhaps he is actually correct, their mission is pretty much in line with the ideology of John Brown.
I hope the general readership has learned that, when the Tea Party does it over taxes that can unfairly target working class people while giving freebies to the rich, Joe and his fellow Democrats call it extremism, but when rich white men who trade in human slaves do it, they are “patriots”.
And I hope we all have understood that part of getting rid of white supremacy is beyond going after random personalities who say boo about people of color and gets into toppling structures such as our Disney-fied colonial history to show the ugly, racist, despicable nature of it all.
This country was founded on two genocides that are inter-connected. The first was the extermination of the Native Americans, begun here in Rhode Island when Roger Williams sold captives taken from the Pequot War out of Boston to Bermuda, which proves that his glory as some kind of freedom fighter is white supremacist garbage.
The second was the genocide against Africa, which was enacted because the refugees from the Pequot War escaped inland and told their fellows to migrate West to escape the wrath and wickedness of the white man. That migration reduced the number of Natives the colonists could enslave, therefore they looked across the Atlantic to the Gold Coast for a fresh supply of human beings.
The Gaspee incident was our Warsaw ghetto uprising. Aaron Briggs, who I profile in my documentary, was the Afro-Indian youth who tried to rebel against the slavery system by trying to testify against the Gaspee raiders in the trial the British set up to figure out what happened.
And the Gaspee raiders were the Nazis who suppressed the uprising and continued the murder.
Some would perhaps say that using an analogue between the Shoah and American slavery is problematic for any number of reasons. Ah, but here’s the rub, Adolf Hitler said in Mein Kampf that his plans for the Final Solution were modeled on the American treatment of people of color.
Those who are curious about further elements of this story can find a good deal of scholarship in Dr. Gerald Horne’s excellent monograph The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America or my film AARON BRIGGS AND THE HMS GASPEE.
If ever the history of a nation deserved our respect and awe, it is Haiti, whose history reads like a superhero epic. Haiti is the first and only nation in the world to be liberated by slaves. Unlike the United States, which rebelled against England with the help of France, Haiti found itself fighting for independence against France, England and Spain. Unlike the United States, who paid lip service to freedom and equality, Haiti banished slavery outright, showing the world how to eradicate one of the most evil institutions in human history.
At the RI State House New Bridges for Haitian Success held their Haitian Independence Day Awards. Several public officials were in attendance, including Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea, Lt. Governor Daniel McKee and State Senator Juan Pichardo. Dr. Mark Lentz, Professor of Latin American History at Brown University gave an excellent short lecture on the historical importance of Haiti’s revolution.
New Bridges for Haitian success was founded by Bernard Georges.
Keynote Speaker Jean-Claude Sanon, a Boston area politician and radio personality born in Haiti, said, “Free yourself completely and continue to fight for the freedom of the entire world. Wherever there is injustice it is my obligation, as well as yours, to fight it.”
Romie Bois kicked things off with an amazing rendition of the United States National Anthem, and the event ended with a beautiful song in French.
Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) announced at a press conference today that it has served formal notice of a lawsuit against ExxonMobil for its decades-long campaign to discredit climate change and knowingly endanger people and communities. An exposé last September by InsideClimate News revealed that ExxonMobil has engaged in a deliberate cover-up of sound climate science for more than thirty years, prompting CLF to launch its own investigation. CLF’s work revealed that the corporation’s deceit spilled onto New England soil and is subjecting local communities to undisclosed and potentially catastrophic risks in violation of both the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
“ExxonMobil’s strategy of publicly denying the very risks its scientists have known for decades has direct impact on Greater Boston communities,” said CLF President Brad Campbell. “ExxonMobil knowingly and unlawfully misled regulators about whether its Everett facility can withstand rising seas, more intense precipitation, and other climate impacts without spewing oil and other toxic pollutants into adjoining neighborhoods, the Mystic River, and the Boston Harbor. Today’s lawsuit – the first of its kind – aims to hold ExxonMobil accountable for decades of dishonesty and require that the Everett facility meet the legal standards for climate-readiness.”
At today’s press conference on the shores of the Mystic River, Campbell stood with numerous local leaders and activists in declaring that ExxonMobil’s irresponsible and illegal actions would no longer be allowed to go unanswered.
Roseann Bongiovanni, Chelsea Green Space environmental justice advocate, commented, “I’ve lived in Chelsea my entire life, and for all that time there’s been imbalance between community members who desperately want waterfront access and the industries that dominate the water’s edge. A decade ago, ExxonMobil spilled thousands of gallons of oil into our river and denied its wrongdoing for months until confronted and forced to pay by the Department of Justice. Today, we have a greater understanding of the full extent of ExxonMobil’s climate denial and we have another opportunity to show the world that we won’t stand for it.”
In March of this year, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey joined a coalition of 17 attorneys general seeking to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for campaigns to deceive customers, shareholders, and the public about climate risk. While CLF is the first organization officially to begin a civil lawsuit against ExxonMobil for this deceit, many other legal actions are likely to follow.
EkOngKar Singh (EK) Khalsa, President of the Mystic River Watershed Association, added, “The Mystic is one of our state’s great treasures, where hundreds of thousands of fish spawn, wildlife seek refuge and eagles fly overhead. Unfortunately, we continuously battle against a history of industrial contamination. It is time for ExxonMobil to step up to the plate and take responsibility for the ongoing harm it is causing our river and our community.”
CLF’s trial team for the case will include nationally renowned attorney Allan Kanner of the Louisiana-based Kanner & Whitely, whose firm has represented states and other plaintiffs in landmark cases against major oil companies, including claims arising from BP’s Deepwater Horizon spill.
Campbell added, “A generation ago, the nation was appalled by the indifference to public safety and the environment that resulted in a drunk ship captain grounding the Exxon Valdez on Alaska’s Bligh Reef, spilling millions of gallons of crude oil into the Prince William Sound. Today in Everett, we must hold ExxonMobil accountable once again for its indifference to the public in the face of potential catastrophe.”
An interview with Roseann Bongiovanni, Chelsea Green Space environmental justice advocate, about a previous oil spill by ExxonMobil in the Mystic, the corporation’s denial of any wrongdoing, and the enormous cost to the Chelsea community and economy.
Another interview with Roseann Bongiovanni speaking about the respiratory problems and other serious health issues caused by air quality levels that far exceed the EPA’s standards for safety.
An interview with EkOngKar Singh (EK) Khalsa, President of the Mystic River Watershed Association, talking about the importance of the Mystic River to the local communities and the neighborhood impacts from continued pollution.
This video from 2007 shows polluted water flowing from a large pipe into the Island End River after a rain event. ExxonMobil discharges polluted water through this pipe every day of the year— up to 280 gallons per minute during dry weather and much more during rain events. The pollutants ExxonMobil is discharging are extremely hazardous, and ExxonMobil’s discharges often grossly exceed the waste limits set out in its discharge permit. The Island End River is water quality impaired, as is the Mystic River into which it flows, and ExxonMobil is contributing to those impairments by discharging toxic pollutants on a daily basis.
]]>
Haitian Heritage Month will be held Wednesday, from 11am to 1pm at the Rhode Island State House, Capitol Hill, 2nd Floor on Wednesday, May 18th at 11:00am-1:00pm. Organizers will be bringing together the Haitian community and allies into a community event serendipitously on the day of Haitian Independence. We want to recognize the courageous efforts of revolutionaries Toussaint L’Ouverture and Jean Jacques Dessaline in creating the country of Haiti as the first and only free nation in history to be liberated by slaves. Local leaders will partner with official representation from Haiti will recognize historical efforts and courage and will inspire and celebrate the strength of the Haitian people within the United States.
The event is sponsored by the New Bridges for Haitian Success, Inc, in Providence, in partnership with Happy RI and Transform Credit. There will be a delegation from Boston will be attending and local and state local government official in RI.
Keynote speakers are Jean Claude Sinon from Massachusetts and Dr. Mark Lentz.
Guest speaker Senator Juan Pichardo from District 2. For further information contact Bernard Georges, founder and executive of New Bridges for Haitian Success,Inc.
[From a press release]
]]>
My friend Dan Berrigan – Jesuit priest, poet, and peace activist – died yesterday, April 30, at age 94. April 30 was, of course, the anniversary of the end of the Vietnam war, a fact that had been much on my mind yesterday.
I first met Dan in September 1969, when he performed the christening of Peter Daniel Mayer, the new-born son of my friend Paul Mayer. (In fact, Peter Daniel was named for Dan, a close friend of Paul’s.) And the last time I saw Dan was in New York in January 2014 – at Paul Mayer’s memorial service: a sad symmetry. In between those times, Dan’s life and my life intertwined in a number of ways. Most obviously, we were both involved in draft-file destruction. But there were other ways, as well.
On January 12, 1971, a grand jury in Harrisburg, PA., handed up an indictment charging several people with a supposed conspiracy to kidnap then-National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger and blow up underground heating tunnels in Washington, DC. The indictment was big news at the time and appeared on the front page of the New York Times. The indictment listed Dan as an unindicted co-conspirator; and the bill of particulars specified that I was supposed to have recruited people for the supposed plot. (Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark represented the defendants, and the jury deadlocked 10-2 in favor of acquittal.)
In 1979, Dan and I did a speaking tour of college campuses together called “Power Plants and Weapons: The Nuclear Connection.” Dan talked about nuclear weapons and I discussed the link between power plants and proliferation of weapons-grade nuclear material. See here. Those of you who have been in my office may remember that there is a photo of me and Dan above my desk; that photo was taken during that tour.
Although Dan had been a public figure for close to 50 years, he was seriously misunderstood in at least two important ways.
First, many people did not realize that although Dan was certainly radical politically, he was theologically quite conservative. While Dan was an outspoken critic of much official U.S. foreign policy, he was not an outspoken critic of Catholic Church policy, theology, or doctrinal teachings. In the autumn of 1965, when his Jesuit superiors exiled Dan to South America in response to his early criticism of the Vietnam War, Dan meekly went to South America. Dan’s superiors had told Dan what to do, so he just did it.
The Catonsville Nine Action on May 17, 1968 – the action that solidified Dan’s public image as a political radical – is an interesting exemplar of the religiously traditional side of Dan. By no means all the draft board raids were carried out by religious Catholics. (For example, when I burglarized four draft boards in Providence in June 1970, it was with a group of young, Jewish, recent high school graduates from a predominately Jewish suburb of New York. When I burglarized six draft boards in Rochester in September 1970, it was with a group of mostly Quaker-leaning agnostics and atheists.) But the Catonsville Action, in which Dan participated, gave rise to the (incorrect) idea of draft board raids being part of what was widely referred to at the time as “the Catholic Left.” This was because the Catonsville group was entirely made up of observant Catholics, including three priests (Dan, his brother Phil, and Tom Melville), an ex-nun (Marj Melville), and a Christian Brother (David Darst). Their public statement – that explained why they had acted – said, “We are Catholic Christians who take the gospel of our faith seriously.”
And, most remarkably, fully five out of fifteen paragraphs of that same public statement were quotations from a (then-recent) papal encyclical.
By way of contrast, today it would be almost unthinkable for a group committing radical civil disobedience to explain their action by saying, in effect, “We are doing this because we are Catholics,” and then explain further by reciting lengthy portions of a papal encyclical! But that is exactly what happened at Catonsville.
In a sense, Dan really was an exemplar of a wider phenomenon – a religiously conservative Catholic whose traditional theology led him or her to radical politics. This is a fair description of much of the broader Catholic Worker movement, including Dorothy Day, Tom Cornell, and Jim Forest. Of course, if the mainstream Catholic Church operated in greater fidelity to the teachings of Jesus, it, too (like our friends at the Catholic Worker), would be more concerned with ending war and poverty than with opposing condoms and gay marriage.
The second way in which Dan was widely misunderstood is that it was he, not his younger brother Phil, that was often seen as the “leader” of the Catholic Left. This stands history on its head. It was Phil who “invented” draft board raids when he (and Tom Lewis, Dave Eberhardt, and Jim Mengel) poured blood on draft files in Baltimore on October 27, 1967. It was Phil who organized the Catonsville Action (which took place after Phil had been convicted of the Baltimore blood-pouring, but before his sentencing). Dan had been deeply reluctant to participate in Catonsville, but Phil had successfully cajoled him.
To its credit, the obituary in today’s New York Times (on line, not hard copy) gets both of these points mostly right. What the Times got wrong is this: “Many faulted him for not criticizing repressive Communist regimes.” In fact, the opposite is true; he had actually leveled unfounded criticism against the post-war government of Vietnam. Dan was a signer of the notorious public statements in 1977-1979 organized by Joan Baez and Jim Forest accusing Vietnam of widespread human rights violations – including holding hundreds of thousands of political prisoners. The charges were factually incorrect (and deeply divisive). Dan even signed Joan’s full-page ad in the Times on May 30, 1979. To his credit, Dan later tried to undo some of that damage by signing a more factually accurate and nuanced statement about post-war developments in Vietnam that Noam Chomsky, Dave McReynolds, and I organized.
There is a famous photo of Dan that was taken here in Providence on August 12, 1969, outside the Federal Building on Kennedy Plaza. The picture shows Dan in the custody of two of our local FBI agents, including Tom Lardner (left, in silly hat). Dan (and Phil) were supposed to have started serving their prison terms for the Catonsville Action in April 1969. Instead of surrendering, they went underground. Phil was arrested a few days later (hiding in the closet at a Manhattan church rectory). But Dan eluded capture for four months. During that time, he led the FBI on a merry chase, meeting with friends up and down the east coast, appearing in church pulpits to preach, speaking to a crowd of thousands at an anti-war colloquium on the Cornell campus, being interviewed on network television and by a New York Times reporter. Finally, Dan was arrested visiting his friend Bill Stringfellow on Block Island. The photo I am describing shows Dan on the mainland after his arrest on Block Island.
Almost exactly a year after Tom Lardner arrested Dan for destroying draft files in Catonsville, Tom arrested me for destroying draft files in Providence.
The second photo that appears in the New York Times obituary (on line) this morning is another famous photo. It shows Dan and Phil at Catonsville, match in hand, burning draft files. The same photo appears in my book on page 68. The difference is the cropping. The cropping in the Times is the familiar one, showing only the two celebrity priests. The cropping in my book is the original one, and includes a third priest, Tom Melville.
It is sad to think that Dan is now gone.
]]>