Read The Dirt

The Story of Broadview Heights, Ohio

Mothers Against Drilling In Our Neighborhoods — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 08:58:34 +0000

Editor’s Note: Broadview Heights, OH has introduced the novel community rights to pure water, clean air, peaceful enjoyment of home, a sustainable energy future, self-government, and natural communities’ right to exist and flourish into its municipal charter. Oil and gas injection wells, which violate these legal rights, have been banned in the city. Written by Tish O’Dell, resident of Broadview Heights. This is the story of my hometown, Broadview Heights, Ohio. It is a small, residential suburb just 11 miles south of Cleveland. We’ve got 20,000 residents and span 13 square miles, but new neighbors are moving in; 90 gas/oil wells now dot our town. My parents moved our family to Broadview Heights when I was 3, so it’s the only home I’ve ever known. They bought a house with several acres and felt like it was a slice of heaven. The woods were a great place to explore and get lost in as a child. We picked fresh blackberries and ate them without washing. My parents had a big garden and grew all our vegetables and also planted many fruit trees. I had such fond memories that after I married, my husband and I wanted to start a family of our own in Broadview Heights. However, in 30 years my hometown has changed drastically. Besides the obvious growth and many more residential developments, around 2006 oil/gas drilling companies started appearing. They did it slowly and under most people’s radar. They first went to churches, schools, and our city hall to get leases signed. After all, churches, schools, and cities always need more revenue. After they had drilled wells next to our playgrounds, picnic pavilions and baseball fields, they started infiltrating our quiet neighborhoods. They dangled the promise of unlimited money and free gas in front of homeowner’s. The brochures showed green and lush farms with a wellhead in the middle. There was no mention or photos of industrial size trucks and tanks, trees getting mowed down, hazardous chemicals or waste pits filled with sludge and dirty liquid. If a resident did seem wary and asked if it was safe, the oil/gas companies landman immediately sited that the school, church, and city hall would not have allowed wells to go in on their properties if it wasn’t safe! Besides, he or she would point out, the industry is closely monitored by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). So lease after lease got signed and if a skeptical resident refused to sign, the oil/gas company simply mandatory pooled that resident’s land into the drilling unit. The local papers were not reporting on the changes taking place in our neighborhoods and nothing was discussed at city meetings. Then in 2007, they went too far. A drilling company, a greedy resident, and local officials put three wells just 75 to 100 feet from the home of a mother and her two small children. She woke up one morning to find her wooded backyard being ripped apart by bulldozers and heavy equipment. When she discovered what was happening to her home and her backyard, she became enraged. She contacted every media contact she could think of. Word started spreading throughout the community about the dirty secret that was in some people’s backyards. When drilling began on one of the three wells, some type of leak occurred. The mother and grandmother started feeling faint and lightheaded. They had the sense to grab the children and get away from the house. This mom and family began a very long and painful process that just recently ended with the sale of the home. It was finally sold for almost half of what it was worth prior to the wells going in. This mom and family, without even realizing it, started a movement in Broadview Heights to regain control of our community. Somewhere along the line we had stopped paying attention and with the lack of attention we lost our rights as citizens of the community to decide what we wanted in our neighborhoods. I met this mom at a city council meeting in 2010. My life has never been the same. It took me a while to grasp what had happened to my hometown and how dire the situation was. When I realized that the elected officials were part of the problem, I naively decided that I had to run for mayor of Broadview Heights to try to change the situation. After a very long eight months of raising money, walking neighborhoods, and talking with residents, the election was done and the current mayor was re-elected for another 4 years. One of the events I held during my campaign was a screening of Josh Fox’s GASLAND at our local library. It was at this event that I met another mom, Michelle Aini, who had just found out that a well was going to be drilled 300 feet from her home. After many conversations, Mothers Against Drilling In Our Neighborhoods (MADION) was born! We regularly attended council meetings and debates together. We traveled to Columbus and Youngstown and we spoke at rallies. Along the way we met other concerned citizens and at a Youngstown rally, we met Doug Shields and his wife from Pittsburgh. They spoke of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) and how communities are reclaiming their rights to self-government through the passage of Community Bills of Rights. Nothing else seemed to be working, so after a lot of discussion we decided to pursue the idea of a Community Bill of Rights too. We organized a conference call for our mayor and City Council to speak directly with Ben Price of CELDF. We invited Doug Shields to Broadview Heights to speak directly to our City Council. We thought for sure that the logic of Doug and Ben’s arguments would be well received. Again, naïve! All the city Law Director had to say was, “you can’t stop drilling, it goes against state law” and all our elected officials backed down. However, MADION kept gaining more supporters at each meeting and we continued to get as much media coverage as we could. With every leak and every spill came a call to every television station and every newspaper in the area. We had local TV stations and even the CBS Evening News in Broadview Heights do stories about us. The more attention we got, the more educated our residents became. Since our local government refused to protect us in any way, we had to do it ourselves. Our City Council gave us the impression that they were going to pass a Community Bill of Rights as an ordinance, but in the 9^th hour (June 2012), they voted it down. Quickly we scrambled to find out our options to get something on the November 2012 ballot for residents to vote on. After many calls to CELDF and the County Board of Elections, we discovered that we had about 30 days to gather over 1,300 valid voter signatures. We hustled every evening in 90 degree heat walking door to door. We stood at the library and at our 4-day city festival. We were asked to not petition in front of the grocery store and other retail locations because we were controversial. Since when did democracy become controversial? We were only gathering signatures on an initiative petition to place the Bill of Rights on the ballot! It was shocking to me that people found this offensive. In 30 days, right up to the deadline, MADION delivered over 1,700 signatures to our City Clerk of Council. Over 1,500 signatures were verified and the Bill of Rights Charter Amendment was going on the ballot. The Bill of Rights was a proposed amendment to our city charter. Between August and November the work continued. We designed information fliers, solicited donations to help with printing and distributing and we ran ads supporting the Bill of Rights in our local newspaper. All the hard work and sweat paid off. On November 6, 2012, the residents and voters of Broadview Heights decided by a 3-1 margin (67% in favor) to pass the Community Bill of Rights and add it to our city charter. The Bill of Rights states that we have the right to pure water, clean air, peaceful enjoyment of home, a sustainable energy future, and self-government, that natural communities have the right to exist and flourish within the City of Broadview Heights, and that the rights within the Bill of Rights are self-executing. It also bans injection wells and the spreading of drilling waste on our city streets as violations of these rights. And now, we wait. We have heard rumors that landmen are still going door to door. Our mayor has stated that the city will be sued. We don’t know what the future holds for Broadview Heights, but we do know that we fought for our rights over corporate domination and control and that we loudly and clearly stated that we don’t want any more drilling here! I have never been so proud of my neighbors and my hometown!

What a Difference a Degree Makes

Voters Taking Action on Climate Change — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 02:27:49 +0000

Editor’s Note: Learn about the latest with regard to coal exportation in British Columbia, Canada, and why the surrounding region is up in arms about the lack of a democratic decision-making mechanism. Is such a mechanism a community right? By Kevin Washbrook, Director of Voters Taking Action on Climate Change For people living on opposite sides of the 49^th Parallel, it's like night and day when it comes to public consultation over coal exports. In the US, more than 100,000 people submitted comments, through an open consultation process, to determine the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Cherry Point coal terminal. In British Columbia, a handful of unaccountable staff from the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority will decide, in private, whether two coal export proposals will go ahead in Metro Vancouver. If approved, these proposals would make Metro Vancouver the largest exporter of coal in North America. The Port Authority will accept comments from the regional public on these proposals. However, it has no obligation to provide notice to anyone beyond immediate neighbours of the port facilities, it has no obligation to publicly share comments received, and it has no obligation to act on the content of those comments. The Port is willing to engage in this pro-forma exercise in public relations, just as it is willing to send its plush mascot Salty the Seagull out to hug our children at community events, because it likes to maintain the facade of being a “good neighbour.” When challenged, however, the costume comes off and the Port pushes back. After learning about these two coal export proposals, Voters Taking Action on Climate Change poured all our energy into informing the public and coordinating a response. We delivered an open letter to the Port from the world's top climate scientists and activists, leading local academics, and NGO's, urging the Port to delay decisions until it had consulted more broadly. Regional Mayors called on the Port to do the same. We organized a second open letter from health leaders, which called on the Port to delay a decision until the health impacts of increased coal train traffic could be assessed. We encouraged the delivery of hundreds of personal letters to the Port. We organized a powerful silent demonstration outside the Port headquarters to show our determination to be consulted. All of these actions and resulting media coverage meant that an unknown issue in November, 2012 was the “coal export controversy” by late December. Our demand throughout – for a delay until the public could be properly consulted – was reasonable and fair. We thought, because the Port's mandate requires it to operate “with broad public support in the best interests of Canadians,” that we had a good argument. In mid January 2013 the Port announced its approval of the first of two coal export facilities. In its rationale for the decision, the Port did not once mention climate change. It shrugged off calls for broad regional consultation. It ignored concerns about potential regional health impacts. It said, in essence, that its only obligation was to keep the trains running on time and the ships leaving port on schedule. It was a disappointing outcome, with one positive result: the Port's response made the public aware that we have an arrogant, unaccountable organization in our midst that wields unchecked power over our future. Lots of people care about coal exports. Many, many more care about fairness, transparency, and inclusion of public interests in decision-making processes. The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is an agent of the federal government of Canada; it is governed by an eleven-member board of directors appointed by the federal government. Seven directors are nominated by port users, one by the federal government, one by the Prairie Provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba), and one by the BC government. Port users include grain terminals, container ports, bulk terminals (coal, sulphur). A single seat is nominated by regional municipalities. The Port Authority does not represent the interests of our region. The public, opposed to the lack of consultation over coal exports, has the moral high ground on this issue. We have initiated a legal review of the coal export approval, and have formally requested all documents related to the decision. We will continue to fight this approval, and to push for a radical overhaul in the way the Port Authority makes decisions to increase accountability and public input. The Port Authority has yet to decide on a second coal export proposal, one which would see 8 million tonnes of Powder River Basin coal shipped via BNSF into Canada each year for export to Asia. All the same arguments apply against this proposal, and we are working with our allies south of the 49^th to kill this plan. Of course there is another degree difference that we need to worry about, and this one is indifferent to imaginary lines on the ground. If we don't keep North America's coal from being mined and shipped out of our ports, it increases the chance we'll see temperatures rise and global warming slip completely out of our control. If that happens, it won't make much difference which jurisdiction hosted the better consultation process. Stopping coal exports is a challenge that we need to face together. Visit Voters Taking Action on Climate Change

Middle School Elevates its Rights above Corporations’

Sunnyside Environmental School — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 21:56:43 +0000

Editor’s Note: We were invited to Sunnyside Environmental School of Southeast Portland, OR to speak to middle schoolers about citizen law making. They taught us a lesson. The students declare that humans come before corporations. Eli, a middle schooler, said, "It's more powerful for people to know that kids care about this issue—without kids, the corporations wouldn't even be there." Read The Sunnyside Declaration below. Photo: Sunnyside Environmental School Student Signature Gatherers

The Sunnyside Declaration

We, the undersigned students and staff of Sunnyside Environmental School of Southeast Portland, OR declare: That our rights, listed below, which are required for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, are inherently superior to corporations’ constitutional rights and protections as persons, and any government policy that tries to elevate corporations’ rights above the rights in this Declaration. Those rights include: -The Right to have and assert rights -The Right to publically owned, clean water -The Right to clean air -The Right to a sustainable food source and healthy affordable food -The Right to shelter and education -Our constitutional rights as citizens -Nature’s Rights to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution -The Right to democratically make decisions that affect our lives -The Right to democratically decide what happens in our community -The Right to abolish any corporate activity within our jurisdiction that violates the rights in this declaration -The Right to democratically determine our public transportation -The Right to democratically close legal loopholes -The Right to medical assistance and healthcare -The Right to full disclosure of corporate activity -The Right to energy -The Right to clean natural resources and a healthy uncontaminated environment -The Right to gender equality -The Right to not be discriminated against based on age -The Right to decide what happens above and below our land -The Right to personal space and a clean home -The Right to a clean habitat and neighborhood -The Right to freedom of thought and creativity -The Right to choose what enters our bodies -The Right to life -The Right to free speech -The Right to bring a lawsuit to court -The Right to happiness -The Right to relinquish rights -The Right to equal protection under the law -The Right to play in a clean environment -The Right to sleep -The Right to self-defense -The Right to equal protection regardless of sexual orientation -The Right to decide what happens on our property -The Right to a healthy future -The Right to free information and access to the Internet -The Right to a clean learning environment -The Right to a tranquil learning environment -The Right to participate in amending our government Signed,

Marisol Hosty, grade 6 Henry Mong, grade 8 Truman Cowan, grade 6 Lucia Grant, grade 8 Ben Green, grade 7 Roisin Prestopino, grade 8 Eliot Martin, grade 6 Savannah Chapman, grade 6 Silvia Rosa Palleroni, grade 6 Madeleine Chesal, grade 6 Frank Webb, grade 7 Jackson Racuso, grade 8 Andreas DePass, grade 7 Cate Hislope, grade 7 Holden Fox, grade 7 Aiden Dummigan, grade 8 Sierra Cleary, grade 8 Julian Santos, grade 7 Samson Oeding, grade 6 Cellina Grimm, grade 7 Shelton Bowmen, grade 6 Emerald, grade 8 Sorrel Uchida, grade 8 Jada Hillman, grade 7 Hunter Burk, grade 6 Anna Rollins, grade 8 Henry Schechter, grade 7 LaSayany Van, grade 6 Mia Stanley, grade 6 Cheyenne Vanderveer, grade 8 Emma Keppler, grade 8 Oliver Garber, grade 6 Mia Bray, grade 6 Olivia Yee, grade 7 Rosie Allison-Brown, grade 7 Audrey Schwing, grade 6 Kyzen Pemberton, grade 7 Tasja Drahveen, grade 8 Micheal Lovett, grade 7 Gavin “Eddie” Griswold, grade 6 Tarquin Perce, grade 6 Tex Walker, grade 8 Avery Williams, grade 7 Max Weisenbloom, grade 7 Caleb Ohryn, grade 6 Rebecca Miller-Rondthaler, grade 6 Michael Schurdt Kincaid Davis, grade 8 Ally Schade, grade 7 Rosemary Elliot, grade 8 Sophia Smith, grade 7 Zora Enders, grade 7 Erik Martinez, grade 8 Jackson Baker, grade 6 Kamil Tez, grade 7 Jasper Hamilton, grade 8 Rico Cabrera Orlando, grade 6 Zakiah Schaefle, grade 7 Madeline Yee, grade 8 Devin Stirnkorb, grade 7 Cedar Pearson, grade 6 Indy Lyon-Myrick, grade 7 Isabella Senatori, grade 6 Maeve Nagel-Frazel, grade 7 Emma Skow, grade 6 Allia Service, grade 7 Tylor Hulbrock, grade 6 Sydney Spencer, grade 7 Nick Leonard, grade 8 Elijah Barto, grade 8 Ioane Ruatake, grade 8 Noah Brown, grade 6 Emily Willard-Herr, grade 8 Anna Hawking, grade 6 Ehman Tanneholz, grade 7 Marisol Hosty, grade 6 Shelton Bowman, grade 6 Ellis Ransdell, grade 7 Sophia Smith, grade 7 Luz Mery Ventura, grade 7 Cellina Grimm, grade 7 Alexander Caughman, grade 8 Jackson Ramsey, grade 8 Emerald Seale, grade 8 Ella Kohn-Brown, grade 6 Eli Hiton, grade 6 Maurice Lee, grade 6 Wren Helzer-Florer, grade 6 Sam Oeding, grade 6 Wyatt Freda-Cowie, grade 8 Arion R.Longstreet, grade 6 Madi Welch, grade 7 Amaya, grade 7 Max H., grade 6 Isabele McTighe, grade 8 Connor Elliot Nickerson, grade 8 Jasper Hamilton, grade 8 Tom Tandberg, grade 7 Simon Barbarasch, grade 7 Logan William Taylor Watkins, grade 8 Sierra Rae Cleary, grade 8 Jayne Frost, grade 7 Amelia Hillery, grade 7 Kirin Furre, grade 6 Blake Hulbrock, grade 8 Cole Grant, grade 6 Matt Sisco, grade 6 Maya Baeckel, grade 8 Devin Stirnkorb, grade 7 Lorelei Millund, grade 8 Davis Le, grade 6 Andreas DePass, grade 7 Mia Bray, grade 6 Olivia M. Yee, grade 7 Sydney Yelton, grade 7 Mia Barnes, grade 7 Nathan VanHorn, grade 7 Audrey Finley, grade 6 Jaxon Heorst, grade 6 Easton Spring, grade 8 Silvan Yang, grade 7 Deva Gaynor, grade 8 Mikah Wahlstrom, grade 8 Maggie McBride, grade 6 Lucinda Drake, grade 6 Arturo Flores, grade 8 Caleb Ohryn, grade 6 Rebecca Miller-Rondthaler, grade 6 Mia Stanley, grade 6 Chloe F., grade 6 Indy Lyon-Myrick, grade 7 Celia Mellow, grade 7 Colton Jelsema, grade 7 Liam McBride, grade 6 Matt Adams, grade 8 Christopher Schetter, grade 8 Sloan Nickerson, grade 6 Ayler Louviere, grade 8 Issaiah Petrasy, grade 6 Poppy Gormen, grade 8 Max Anderson, grade 7 Cate Hislope, grade 6 Indigo Keohane, grade 7 Micah Tyson, grade 8 Lara Tucker, grade 8 Gavin Moore, grade 6 Miette LeFebvre, grade 8 Otis Tucker, grade 6 Clay Friedman, grade 8 Emma S., grade 6 Emmett Morris, grade 6 Aidan Lynn, grade 6 Barbara Sutton, grade 8 Ben Alvi, grade 7 Sofia Ben-Zaken, grade 7 Evan Wallace, grade 7 Vatin Ponglong, grade 8 Alijah Sefchick, grade 6 Dillon Wells, grade 8 Yoneysi Ibanez, grade 6 Isaella McHenery Galligues, grade 6 Arkain, grade 7 Thomas Irvan, grade 7 Mallach Fishman Kelly, grade 7 Noah Dorr, grade 8 Grace Shetterly, grade 7 Isabella Senatori, grade 6 Fred Kerr, grade 7 Finn Vega, grade 7 Oliver Aguirre, grade 8 Anna Williams, grade 8 Stephanie Taylor, grade 8 Sophia Weir, grade 6 Claire Hery, grade 6 Milena Ben-Zaken, grade 7 Sophia Weir, grade 6 Sara Baker, grade 6 Sage McBee, grade 7 Colleen Whalen, grade 8 Terrel Irvan, grade 8 Kayla Albright-Deeley, grade 7 Francis Floyd, grade 8 Riley Read, grade 8 Katryna Ohryn, grade 8 Michael Stapleton, grade 6 Annika Mayne, grade 6 Asa Hack, grade 8 Mya Anderson, grade 7 Raven W., grade 6 Sarah Rose Ezelle, grade 8 Sophia Cardiel, grade 8 Emi Berklovich, grade 6 Lucy Strobel, grade 6 Hannah Dugo, grade 6 Simone Holmes, grade 7 Jan Zuckerman, teacher Michael Jansa, teacher Cori Longstreet, teacher Karen Shay, teacher Tara Branham, teacher Cybelle Corwin, grade 8 Ethan Hughes, grade 8 Vincent Prat, grade 8 Nora Pearson, grade 8 Skyler Nichols, grade 8 Cole Grant, grade 6, Josh Stirnkorb, grade 8

Crude Oil Trains Proposed for Grays Harbor, WA: Citizens Challenge Permitting Process

Donna Albert — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:29:11 +0000

Editor’s Note: Proposals to bring crude oil terminals to Grays Harbor are making local citizens ask questions. What rights do communities have to reject proposals that threaten their quality of life? Our current laws, our author states, “[subjugate] the rights of local communities to the rights of corporations.” She continues, “No legal process that permits destruction of ecosystem services that human life depends upon is legitimate.” By Donna Albert, Citizen of Grays Harbor, Washington, Civil Engineer Photo: Marc Sterling at Sterling Digital, Port of Grays Harbor For many people in Grays Harbor County in Washington State, the coal train issue was clear. A coal train terminal at the Port of Grays Harbor was obviously wrong. The coal dust could not be controlled to prevent contamination of oyster beds and a priceless pearl of the Pacific Flyway—the Grays Harbor National Wildlife refuge. The proposals for a coal train terminal at the Port of Grays Harbor are not moving forward. The coal the federal government has released from the Powder River Basin continues to search for a way to Asia, but it will not flow through the Port of Grays Harbor. But now the oil that the federal government has released from the Bakken formation in the northern Midwest is also searching for a route to Asia. The people in Grays Harbor face three new proposals for crude oil train terminals, complete with tanks, long heavy trains, and the risk of huge oil spills in local streams and rivers, near the oyster beds, and adjacent to the wildlife refuge. At a community meeting on February 13, 2013, R. D. Grunbaum and Arnie Martin of Citizens for a Clean Harbor presented a long and detailed explanation of the proposals and the potential problems they would bring:

The Westway Terminals project would add four tanks, with a total capacity of 33,600,000 gallons of crude oil. One unit train of 120 tank cars would arrive every three days.
The US Development proposal would include a group of tanks with a total capacity of 42,000,000 gallons of crude oil. Train frequency is undetermined. Possibly one unit train would arrive per day.
An existing biofuel plant, Imperium, would add as many as nine crude oil tanks in two phases, for a total capacity of 30,240,000 gallons of crude oil. About one unit train may arrive per day when fully built out.

The oil would be transferred from the tanks to oil tankers for shipment to California and Port Angeles. Although it is not legal to export American crude oil, it is likely that the oil will find a way to fill increasing demand in Asia. After the community meeting there was a question and answer period. People asked, what if there is an earthquake? Aren’t the proposed tanks in the tsunami zone? The tracks cross many rivers and streams. What about a spill on the tracks? Isn’t a spill inevitable given enough time? Why would we want to take that risk? The trains are a mile and a half long, won’t they block traffic and emergency services? Won’t burning this fossil fuel add to global warming? Shouldn’t we be moving away from fossil fuels to renewables? For these projects, the Department of Ecology and the city of Hoquiam share lead responsibilities under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). At the meeting representatives of Ecology and the city of Hoquiam explained SEPA, the meaning of industrial zoning, and the permitting process for such a proposal. A concerned citizen asked why we would allow such projects to be built if they are not in the best interest of the community? Doesn’t the community have the right to reject proposals that bring risks of toxic spills, and threats to water quality and wildlife, since if these things happen they will affect us? The city of Hoquiam representative pointed out allowed uses for the industrial zone. The implication made was that the community has already accepted these conditions. The Department of Ecology representative pointed out that there are oil tanks and terminals on the water in other places in our State. We were told that because it is regulated, it is allowed. A farmer said that because of Department of Ecology regulations, he cannot cut a tree down within 200 feet of the river on his farm. He asked, isn’t transporting oil much more of a threat to the river than cutting down a tree? If the river and estuary are protected from the removal of trees on farms, how can this much oil be allowed right on the water? The local people asking these questions appeared to be frustrated at the focus on process and paperwork, and the disregard for the scale of the disaster that a spill would bring. Our current laws and permitting system are blinded by fossil fuels, accepting the disproportionate risks associated with transporting and burning them, and subjugating the rights of local communities to the rights of corporations pursuing business opportunities. There is another, bigger threat hidden in these coal train and oil train proposals—the threat of an economic system that commits us to more and more fossil fuel infrastructure and the growing markets for our coal, oil and gas in developing countries. The World Energy Outlook report of the International Energy Agency said in 2011 and again in 2012 that to have a good chance of avoiding catastrophic global warming, we have only a few years to begin the transition away from fossil fuels. It warned that each new investment in fossil fuel infrastructure such as pipelines and terminals commits us to many years of greenhouse gas emissions, and that there is very little room left in the atmosphere for any more. Unfortunately, this analysis is based on optimistic International Panel on Climate Change conclusions that neglect dynamic processes such as melting ice caps and methane release from permafrost. Our current laws, permitting processes, and economic system are throwing us headlong into a future drenched in fossil fuels. Like the local environmental risks brought by the coal trains and oil trains, the problems created by greenhouse gas emissions are effectively disregarded by the current SEPA, zoning and permitting processes. These legal processes are broken. They are not protecting the local environment, the physical limits of the atmosphere and climate, or the people who will be impacted by these projects. The current government and legal system are presiding over the unthinkable. The burning of fossil fuels is destabilizing the climate, compromising earth’s life support systems, and causing species extinction and loss of biodiversity that has evolved over millions of years. Ultimately, the loss of agricultural regions, drought, floods, climate refugees, and resulting political destabilization may threaten civilization itself, creating conditions which, as former Tyndall Centre director Kevin Anderson says, are “incompatible with an organized global community.” No legal process that permits destruction of ecosystem services that human life depends upon is legitimate. The coal train issue was so clear, so easy to define. A coal train terminal at the Port of Grays Harbor was so obviously wrong. The insidious hidden danger in these oil train terminal proposals—the threat of an economic system committing us to more and more fossil fuel infrastructure—is harder to define, more difficult to explain, and harder to fight. At the heart of this fossil fuel infrastructure decision is something new—an unprecedented intergenerational rights issue. For the first time in history, one generation will determine what kind of earth the generations that follow will live in. If we are human and moral and courageous, we will stop building fossil fuel infrastructure now, and begin the transition to renewables. At stake are the rights of our grandchildren to civilization and an undiminished earth.

Quote

The Dirt — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:39:54 +0000

"You participate in a society by your existence." -Marcus Aurelius

Quote

The Dirt — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:45:29 +0000

"One of the great liabilities of history is that all too many people fail to remain awake through great periods of social change." -Martin Luther King, Jr.

Quote

The Dirt — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:49:56 +0000

"For one species to mourn the death of another is a new thing under the sun." -Aldo Leopold

Quote

The Dirt — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 06:20:24 +0000

"But really listening to someone--without trying to sell them something, pick them up, recruit them, or get some kind of status in return--how often do we get this anymore?" -Mitch Albom, Tuesdays with Morrie

Read the Dirt: Changes on the Way

The Dirt — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:06:58 +0000

Changes are on the horizon for Read the Dirt and its website readthedirt.org. We are revamping the website while simultaneously becoming a monthly publication. Rather than our weekly Article of the Week we will be publishing a month’s worth of material on the 8th of every month, starting April 2013. Each month’s articles will be published with an Editor’s Introduction featuring links to and summaries of that month’s reading. April’s edition will feature a look at this past month’s content. We are going monthly for a few reasons. These changes will give us more flexibility with our publishing. The Editor’s Introduction will help us stay in touch with our readers, highlight articles worth highlighting, provide an additional filter for our readers, and allow us to feature complimentary musings and content that would previously not get the attention of an Article of the Week. Publishing all at once, as opposed to the weekly trickle, allows us to publish articles as a group, rather than as separate pieces. This will hopefully add a cohesiveness and predictability to Read the Dirt that has hitherto been in short supply. As always, all of our articles will be published online and archived within the website for you to read at your leisure. As for the website updates, these will include stylistic alterations, an expanded front page with new sections, a Community Rights section with more resources and external news items, and more. It is our sincere hope that these changes improve your experience with us. Thanks for reading. Photo: Simon Davis-Cohen

Quote

The Dirt — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:25:22 +0000

"A plant on the edge of a desert is said to struggle for life against the drought, though more properly it should be said to be dependent on the moisture." -Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species

Quote

The Dirt — Sat, 30 Mar 2013 06:40:38 +0000

"Men [and women] cannot engender new forces, but only unite and direct existing ones." -Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On The Social Contract

Big or Small: Who Will Grow Washington's Cannabis Crop?

Keep It Cottage — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 01:49:34 +0000

Editor’s Note: Washington State recently legalized cannabis. We hear from a man who urges us to recognize this opportunity to create a market of small independent cannabis producers. In the minds of many voters in Washington State, a yes vote for I-502 represented a chance to make a statement about the failed drug war, the overburdened judicial system and the faltering state of our economy. Along with voters in Colorado, these messages have been heard around the world. However, it is less known to voters that I-502 also provides an opportunity for small-scale agriculture to assert itself as the primary source of Washington State’s cannabis in this post-prohibition marketplace. Before discussing the important decisions facing Washingtonians regarding the implementation of I-502 it is extremely important to point out that the I-502 marketplace has no guarantee for success. The Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) is currently presiding over the future of I-502 while taking public comments into consideration. The big question is, when they build it, will they come? Most of the people that would really like to see the I-502 experiment fail are those who are currently profiting off the black market or the medical market. For those of us who would like to see the I-502 economy thrive there are many significant choices to make over the next few weeks and months. The wording of I-502 is much like that of a driver’s manual who’s only instructions read: get a car and drive it safely. Basically, the law states that cannabis must be grown, processed, tested, taxed and sold to adults with very little detail of how to accomplish any of this. Left to conventional thinking, big-business and its vast capital resources could industrialize, homogenize, out-produce and out-compete all other producers. The folks at KeepItCottage.org believe that I-502 can instead be used to limit the advantages of big business and prove that cannabis demand can be supplied by a network of small to medium-sized horticulturalists. This is where I-502 becomes interesting for those in the agricultural community that are not interested in cannabis per se. As there was no formal marijuana market before its prohibition in 1937, the methods of cannabis production have remained largely unaffected by the tendency of large-scale agriculture to homogenize crop diversity and diminish product quality. In the 76-years since marijuana’s prohibition, nearly all other agricultural sectors have experienced radical changes through mechanization, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. On the other hand, cannabis production has developed in a clandestine manner by people willing to risk their freedoms, motivated by profits and/or a passion for the cannabis plant itself. Since beer and cannabis both have the distinction of being recreational intoxicants, it is interesting to note the effects that both industrialization and prohibition had on the quality and quantity of beer sold in the U.S. The recent history of domestic beer production illustrates a set of circumstances that can be avoided when establishing rules for the newly legalized cannabis market. Prior to alcohol’s prohibition in 1920, there were more than 4,000 beer breweries in the United States, each producing an average of over 2,100 barrels a year. Within a year of repealing prohibition in 1933, there were more than 750 breweries back in operation, which dropped to around 400 following World War II. By the 1960’s there were 230 breweries in operation with only 60% of those being independently owned and operated. Homebrewing wasn’t made federally legal until 1978, with the first brew pub since prohibition opening its doors in 1982. The low point for beer quality and diversity in the 20^th century was in 1983 when 51 brewing companies operated a total of 80 breweries nationwide. This industrial homogeneity has sparked an upsurge in the number of micro-breweries where there are now more than 1,500 such breweries supplying almost 6% of the total U.S. beer market. The product diversity and quality of the emerging cannabis market doesn’t have to experience this cycle of events. Currently it seems that the WSLCB is considering the recommendations presented in the Office of Fiscal Management’s impact statement, where the OFM suggests that 100 licensees can be expected to produce an estimated 190,000 pounds of dried cannabis annually. That means that each producer will have to grow at least 2,000 plants annually through the use of large-scale production methods. Regardless of whether Washington’s cannabis is grown indoors or outdoors (decisions yet-to-be-made), industrial-scale production would certainly create a race to the bottom where those who can afford to produce a consistent product which meets minimum safety and quality standards will exclude all small business opportunities from even entering this new agricultural sector. This is why we want the rules to be written so big producers are excluded by having plant counts limited to 200. If you are interested in showing the world that Washington State’s cannabis demand can be supplied through a network of small artisan cannabis growers rather than an exclusive conglomerate of industrial cannabis factories please join others at www.keepitcottage.org. Since I-502 is an experiment on many levels it would be naive to think that the WSLCB will get everything right initially but at least we can persuade them to codify into law a situation that evens the playing field between those who would sacrifice quality for quantity and those small to medium-sized growers who are already prioritizing quality. Developing a system of small producers rather than a highly mechanized industrial system will undoubtedly employ more Washingtonians and improve local economies, not only in the form of jobs growing and processing cannabis, but also in the form of WSLCB jobs, and the potential to improve business at horticulture and related supply shops. Please sign the online petition that is being submitted to the WSLCB prior to the closing of public comments sometime in April. The petition calls for the issuance of at least 2,000 producer/processor licenses while limiting the number of plants any one licensee can grow at one time to 200. These two simple regulations would exclude all industrial-scale agriculture from the I-502 marketplace. Photo: Keep it Cottage