December 11, 1980 President Jimmy Carter signed legislation creating a $1.6 billion environmental “Superfund” to pay for cleaning up chemical spills and toxic waste dumps. This legislation came out of a grassroots fight in Niagara Falls, NY at Love Canal.
This is not just another anniversary date, it is a reminder of what can be accomplished when people come together, speak with one voice and demand change. Recently the divisions, among people who often want the same things, has been so orchestrated by those who want to keep the status quo. It’s become difficult for everyday people to figure out what’s what. But if you think about what you really want and ignore the other side’s game of what can be done, what’s possible we can win. At Love Canal I was told you will never be evacuated so give it up. But 800 families were evacuated. We were told the Superfund legislation would never pass it was way too costly, but it did.
When you look back at least in our environmental health and justice movement you’ll see how labor and communities came together, even in the belly of the beast in Louisiana, to pass the Right-To-Know legislation. Recycling is now a staple in our society where someone throwing away a can in the garbage is frowned upon. The public came together to use their power as consumers to stop many toxic products from being sold on the market. Young people today are speaking out and speaking loudly about Climate Change and using their power and their votes to move candidates.
Today marks the anniversary of what a grassroots movement can do. Let us celebrate that victory and work to achieve more. Let’s not be influenced by those who want to keep us apart, rather find the ways we can join together to win justice for all living things.
Tag: organizing
Categories
Stepping Out of Your Comfort Zone
It has been almost 40 years since the residents at Love Canal felt frustrated and angry that the newest scientific study found families had abnormal chromosome breakage, “a very rare observation in any population,” according to scientists. Not only does abnormal chromosome breakage indicate a higher risk of cancer, but also genetic damage in adults and children. However, the White House didn’t feel as though these anomalies were significant enough to warrant resident relocation.
That’s when residents decided to really step out of their comfort zone. They invited two EPA officials into their office building and closed the door. “You cannot leave until the White House evacuates us,” they told the officials.
Hundreds of people encircled the building (an abandoned home) and sat down: a non-violent action that received massive media attention. The media defined the action as the first domestic hostage taking, but the residents considered it to be detaining the EPA representatives to protect them from the angry crowd outside. Residents of Love Canal detained the EPA representatives for five hours before letting them go. An ultimatum was sent to the White House – “relocate residents by noon Wednesday or what we did here today will look like a Sesame Street picnic.
Precisely at noon on Wednesday the White House announced that everyone who wished to be moved could leave with federal government funding. Later the polluter Occidental Chemical reimbursed the government. No criminal charges were filed. One of the “hostages” sent a telegram saying, “I miss your oatmeal cookies, best wishes from your friendly hostage, Frank Napal.”
I am sharing this story to say sometimes you must do things outside of your comfort zone. No, I am not suggesting anyone ever detain federal officials. What I am saying is that all too often, leaders are not willing to do things that raise the bar and are risky. Even carrying signs in front of city hall or an EPA hearing is considered to be too risky for them. However, if you play by the rules, you are almost guaranteed to lose.
Why? Because the rules are defined by those in power to control everyday people. There is nothing, for example in a state or our country’s constitution, that says citizens can only speak for three minutes at a public hearing while their opponents generally get plenty of time, loosely disguised as explaining the project/plan.
Today, there is a big push by corporate power to make it a felony to protest even in a nonviolent, peaceful manner. In Texas, some legislature members are trying to push a measure that would subject those who trespass, damage or destroy a facility, or impair or interrupt operations to a third-degree felony including two to ten years in prison. Organizations found guilty of breaking the law would face a fine of up to $500,000 under another provision in the bill.
Finding creative ways around the “rules” is often the only way to make your voice heard, along with applying pressure to those you need to move to resolve the problem. But most of the time, that involves stepping out of your comfort zone. Here are some examples.
- One strategy you can implement is to hold a news conference ½ hour before a public hearing at the same place (or sidewalk nearby). Explain to reporters your objections to the format, the solution/problem the hearing is about and provide the reporters with questions they can ask of elected representatives, the corporation that benefits and offer community people to provide the “human impact” side of the story. Reporters are better prepared when interviewing people with real, targeted questions.
- In Georgia, in the black belt region, the community wanted to speak out against a proposed facility that threatened their air, water and land. However, every time someone did speak out in opposition, their car tires or personal property were vandalized. The message was clear: if you speak up, there will be retaliation. The solution to this problem is to stop speaking out as individuals; instead, speak as a group. At the next public hearing, 250 African American residents filled the auditorium. That alone frightened the corporation because they had never had so many local residents attend. Then, when the first speaker from the residents group went to the podium to speak, he broke into a church hymn. All 250 residents stood up and sang along with him. When the second person went to the podium, she sang a church hymn as well and everyone stood up and sang with her. The tables were turned as the local people began to take back their power and started feeling strong.
There are many ways to take back our democracy and have our voices heard, but simply writing letters, signing petitions, and playing by the rules is not enough. To make real, tangible change, you need to step out of your comfort zone and do something creative, together, and always non-violent.
As I was cleaning out my drawer I found an old photo from Love Canal that reminded me of an extraordinary 
relationship that kept all Love Canal families working together. It was a picture of Sarah, from the Love Canal Renters Association with me at the 20th Anniversary celebration of Love Canal. The Love Canal community was made up of 240 rental apartments (called Griffin Manor) and 800 individual homes. The rental units were designed for families with four to five children and were subsidized by the government.
After the first evacuation in 1978 of the two rows of homes that encircle the canal, the rest of the neighborhood was declared safe. On one side were individual homes and on the other side was Griffon Manor. As we began to organize to expand the evacuation area one of the core leaders from Griffin Manor and I held a meeting with our neighbors at Griffon Manor to explore what to do. We agreed that the more families involved the more power we would have. The state recognized that potential power as well and the afternoon before our meeting a state representative working on relocation approached me with a warning. He said, “Those people are dangerous. Look at the rap sheet on just one of the residents. You will get attacked if you go there. Cancel the meeting.”
My experience was quite different as I knew a few of the families whose children attended school with mine. They seemed like nice families to me. So, despite the warning a friend and I went to the meeting and talked about what we knew of the actions taking place and encouraged residents to join together to fight for our health and children. It was a great meeting, not threatening at all.
As we moved forward together the state began an active campaign to keep us apart. For example, news releases would talk in detail about what they were doing for the homeowners and never would mention the Griffon Manor families. Sarah the leader of the Griffon Manor residents would tell me stories about how the state was telling her neighbors to separate from the larger group because the homeowners don’t really care about them.
The friction was mounting and nourished weekly by the state personnel. Sarah and I decided we needed to do something to keep people together. We met and decided that we would continue to work together but with parallel groups. Sarah and I would meet often and coordinate the two group’s activities but would not let the state or even our own members know this was happening for fear they would continue to interfere with our collaborations. It wasn’t ideal, but we thought there weren’t many other options as you can only focus on so many fights at a time. Sarah and I representing the Homeowners’ Association told the state that we demanded a seat at the table for the Griffin Manor families and recognition of the Concerned Renters as an individual entity. The state agreed.
Why am I telling this story now? Because as I listen to the political comments from presidential candidates it so reminds me of the unfair and untrue characteristics of families in Griffin Manor, by state representatives. The state’s objective was to divide and conquer, in order to do as little as possible for ordinary people, victims of the man made disaster. This is the case today as well in some of this political rhetoric.
Because the Homeowners Association didn’t allow ourselves to be pitted against the Renters Association everyone won relocation with associated financial assistance. It’s a lesson that others can learn from. Don’t let the powers divide us base on color, class or religion. We are stronger together and working together we can obtain equal rights and benefits.
A few weeks ago, Pepsi Co. announced that it would remove aspartame from its diet product lineup and replace it with sucralose. Previously, other companies followed similar decisions to phase out ingredients from their product lineups. General Mills announced that it would phase out the preservative butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) from their cereals, Kraft Inc. announced the removal of artificial dyes and preservatives form their Mac & Cheese products, and Chipotle stated that it would remove all genetically modified foods (GMO) from it’s products.
The question for all this now becomes, why? Why are these huge corporations going through the trouble of removing these ingredients?
Could it be that they figured out they are dangerous? Nope. In the case of Pepsi, although aspartame has been linked to cancer, developmental problems and nervous system effects, the overwhelming majority of the literature has found no significant association between its consumption and any detrimental health effects. In the case of Kraft, the artificial dyes being phased out have been linked to hyperactivity disorders in children, but again these studies have been inconclusive. So, clearly, these corporations did not make the changes out of the goodness of their hearts and out of concern for their customers’ health.
Take Pepsi for example. It’s clear that safety is not the reason for their switch, as most of the literature found that no health effects can be directly attributed to aspartame. The answer may be more simplistic. The declining sales of diet Pepsi products and the poor public perception of aspartame, reported by Beverage Digest, seem less like mere coincidence and more like cause and effect. Pepsi, in all likelihood, made the switch because consumers demanded it.
All this highlights the power that people have over companies. Now, if you ask these companies they will fervently tell you that making these changes was their plan all along. However, it’s easy to see that the threat of losing consumers drove their actions.
So, what does all this mean? What can we learn from Pepsi removing aspartame? I’d sum it up like this: the people hold power. Not just with food companies, but with ANY company. People who are informed act, and their actions matter to corporations. Because although they have the power of money, you have the power of the masses. That’s why CHEJ’s new Leadership Training Academy is going to be invaluable to people from all over the country in the coming years. The ability for young emerging leaders in the environmental justice field to pushing for corporate change will be crucial. With Lois leading the academy, the new generation of leaders can be sure to learn from the best.
Truer words have never been spoken. In CHEJ’s recent training on Lessons Learned
from New York State, which recently banned fracking until it can be proven safe, Eric Weltman from Food and Water Watch told the group to demand what you want not what is feasible.
I find it frustrating and a bit troubling when I visit communities who are struggling to protect their health and environment from environmental threats and they ask for less than they deserve and need. When I ask leaders, “why short change themselves,” they often respond saying they don’t want to sound unreasonable or worse because their opponents said it’s too expensive. Leaders and community members are often bullied into believing that they must take less or they won’t get anything. This is just not true.
At Love Canal in 1978, our community was told that government does not evacuate families and purchase homes because of toxic pollution. If we didn’t stick to our goal we would never had been evacuated. When the environmental health and justice movement demanded that no more commercial landfills be built, we were all told it must go somewhere. Several years later up until today no new commercial hazardous wastes landfills have been built, although it is still legal to do so.
In one of CHEJ’s consumer campaigns around a multinational corporation, we were demanding they take certain products off their shelves. The corporations response was, we won’t be bullied by radical environmental group. Yet a short time later they did exactly what we and consumers across the country asked.
No one should ask or accept as the final decision, what is not right and fair. However, winning the big ask is more difficult and demands serious discipline. Everyone needs to be on the same page and demand the same goal. Yes, there are always those few who will say out loud and even in the media that they would be wiling to accept less. Yet if the loud vocal people, the base of the majority, the framers of the campaign stick with their larger goal for justice, they will dominate the campaign. Those with smaller goals will be essential drowned out by the voices and actions of this larger group.
This was the case in New York State around fracking. There were good people who would have accepted better regulations or only drilling in certain parts of the state. In every issue those working from various groups often have different goals. Sometimes their efforts help build toward the larger goal and other times they may be an irritation. The key to win it all is to build larger stronger, more visible opposition and demand for the larger goals. In this way you can win your goals without publicly fighting with others.
As Eric told us, “we were relentless. With op-eds, press events, using the public participation/comment period to submit a hundred thousands of “comments” that said Ban Fracking Now –not detailed line by line comments about regulations that were proposed. Hundreds of groups participated in bird dogging the governor who couldn’t go anywhere without a group, small or large in his face demanding he ban fracking.”
Secondly, Eric was clear that you need a single target, in NYS it was the governor. “You need to find the person who has the power to give you what you are demanding,” he said. I would add that it always needs to be a person not an entity, like regulatory agency or corporation. You need a human face on your opponent and your messengers to make it all work.
This is a time tested strategy and if you follow it you are more likely to receive a higher level of justice not a compromising solution.
Guest blog by Ann M. Nau, Vice President, Myersville Citizens for a Rural Community
In talking about ‘fracking’, oftentimes the industry tries to limit the discussion to the actual process of injecting liquid at high pressure into rock formations to extract gas. However, there is a broad network of infrastructure that is required to support that process, including storage facilities, compressor stations, metering stations, processing facilities, gathering lines, and intrastate and interstate pipelines. And regulatory oversight of those components falls to various local and federal agencies, if it is regulated at all. Very generally speaking, activities related to drilling fall under state authority while the federal government has oversight of interstate pipelines and associated facilities. And what that means for towns like Myersville is that while there is currently no fracking in Maryland, the natural gas boom has already negatively affected our community.
Myersville is a picturesque rural community of approximately 1,600, nestled in the Middletown Valley of Frederick County, MD about 40 miles north of Washington, DC. It is a place where families have lived for generations and where newcomers have settled, seeking the serenity and closeness a small town offers.
And it is here, approximately 1 mile from our only elementary school that Dominion Transmission (DTI), a subsidiary of Virginia-based power giant Dominion, sought to build and operate a 16 thousand horsepower natural gas compressor station to move gas along its interstate pipeline. This station would annually release 23.5 tons per year of Nitrogen Oxides in addition to particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, and green houses gases.
The citizens of Myersville were overwhelming opposed to this plan. We held rallies, wrote over 600 opposition letters, hired an attorney, and formed a community group.
In August of 2012, the Town Council unanimously voted against Dominion’s application to amend the Town Master Plan, finding among others things that the project posed a risk to the citizens. And by doing so, the Town denied Dominion the necessary local zoning approval required by Maryland Department of the Environment to issue an air permit. Despite all of this, in December of 2012, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or FERC authorized the project. Armed with that certificate, DTI sued both the Town of Myersville and MDE, using the power of federal preemption granted in the Natural Gas Act to override local and state zoning.
FERC is an independent regulatory agency within the US Department of Energy with jurisdiction over interstate electricity sales, natural gas pricing, and oil pipeline rates. It also reviews and authorizes liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, interstate natural gas pipelines and hydropower projects. The Commission is composed of five embers, or Commissioners, who are appointed by the President and
In spite of our best efforts, as you enter Myersville, you are greeted by Dominion’s toxic-emission spewing gas compressor station. And while Myersville may be one of the first communities in Maryland impacted by build out from fracking, I can assure you it will not be the last. Already, our friends in Cove Point, MD are battling the LNG export plant and Williams Transco seeks approval to increase compression capabilities in Howard County. In fact, an industry group states that to support natural gas drilling nationally, they will need PER YEAR for the next 25 years1:
• 850 miles of new natural gas transmission mainlines,
• Over 800 miles of new laterals to and from power plants, processing facilities and storage fields
• 14,000 miles of new gas gathering lines
• More than 580,000 hp for pipelines and gathering compression
To put that into perspective, here is a 2008 map of natural gas pipelines and compressor stations.
So when we discuss fracking, we need to consider all the impacts associated with it– from drilling rigs, compressor stations, pipelines, processing plants, storage facilities and export plants. We must not allow separate regulatory schemes to divide and conquer us. Because what happens to our neighbors in West Virginia, in Pennsylvania, in Ohio, in Western MD, in Myersville, in Howard County, in Lusby, affects all us.
1http://www.ingaa.org/file.aspx?id=21498
Ann M. Nau is the Vice President of the Myersville Citizens for a Rural Community, http://mcrcmd.org/.
Right before Christmas, the Washington Post ran an interesting article you may have missed. It laid out the conundrum of two states coming to very different conclusions about fracking within its boundaries. Both sta
tes, New York and Maryland, had moratoriums in place and were evaluating pretty much the same technical and scientific information, yet they came to very different conclusions.
In New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo chose to ban the practice of hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” in New York State. Fracking is the process of injecting a chemical/water mixture under extreme pressure deep into the earth in order to “fracture” rock and release natural gas (or oil). Cuomo’s decision followed a report from the New York Department of Health that found “significant public health risks” associated with fracking including concerns about water contamination and air pollution. In a press statement, the state health commissioner stated that there was “insufficient scientific evidence to affirm the safety of fracking.”
On the other hand, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley decided to allow fracking go forward in the western part of the state. This decision was based on a joint report from the Maryland Departments of the Environment and Natural Resources, which concluded that with adequate regulation, “the risks of Marcellus Shale development can be managed to an acceptable level.” Both reports acknowledged that there are risks from fracking, due primarily to groundwater and air contamination, but also that there is a great deal that is not known about the extent of these risks, or the long term effects.
The articles concludes “that these two decisions on fracking, while draped in scientific language, were — in fact — probably not really scientific decisions at all.” Thank you Washington Post for pointing out what grassroots activists have known for years – that most decisions about environmental risks are based on political, economic and other factors, and not on available science, no matter what anyone tells you.
The article goes on to attribute the different decisions to four factors – politics, who did the studies for each state, the amount of land affected and the use of the precautionary principle by one state (NY) and not the other. All these factors liked came into play, but there‘s another factor not mentioned that likely played an even larger role, and that is the role of grassroots activism. In New York, grassroots activists were overwhelmingly opposed to fracking and this position was repeatedly made known to Cuomo and other state decision-makers. Since being elected in 2010 Cuomo could not go anywhere in the state without seeing signs asking him to ban fracking. This message was delivered time after time by numerous groups in New York as well as by celebrities, scientists and others.
The lesson here isn’t that reasonable agencies and state governors came to different decisions based on different evidence and information. It’s that the grassroots activism in New York made a huge difference and helped convince Cuomo and other decision makers in the state that there was enough known about the risks posed by fracking not to move forward and that the unknown risks were too serious to ignore.
How can you get protective action from regulatory agencies or corporation? The answer has always been through organized people. It is not new news that corporations and powerful rich people can and will control what is or is not done as it relates to public health and the environment. However, what most people fail to realize is that people united in action can influence decision and yes can even win. CHEJ has been working with communities for over thirty years and we’ve seen the power of people in communities.
It was Mississippi citizens, opposed to a hazardous waste incinerator that stopped the facility in its tracks. The groups lawyers had no legal avenues and the scientists were outnumbered by the corporate or “cigarette scientists” by four to one. Local leaders could have just thrown up their hands and walked away in frustration but they didn’t. In a small room people gathered to brainstorm what they could do to stop the proposal and came up with a brilliant idea. An idea by the way that might just work for your fight.
Since there was only one road for trucks to travel when dropping off waste and returning home they needed to think about that road. There is a school, childcare center, church, store and more along that roadway, which would place a large number of families especially children at risk. So the local road is the focus, what can they do?
Since it’s a locally controlled road they asked their local government to place restrictions on the road. The group came up with a list of restrictions that the local government fully supported. Here’s the restrictions that were passed into local law: no trucks could travel on the road during the hours children enter or leave school; all trucks will be inspected before entering the populated area by a skilled inspector; the trucking company will pay a fee for that inspection; a police escort will travel with all trucks arriving during normal working hours and when there are evening school activities; the trucking company will pay a fee to cover the costs of the additional police officers needed to escort; and more.
The result of this was the company decided not to build near that community because of the costs associated with the local requirements. A victory that came from the people and their local representatives and worked within the existing laws.
Another example where people took control, refused to work within the confines or rules of the federal agency is in a small African American community in Florida. The group was looking for a proper clean up of their toxic dump site ask the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to come and hold an open meeting with local citizens to talk about the clean up. EPA said no to an open meeting and insisted on have a meeting where information would be shared through tables set up around the room where people can meet in small groups with the EPA representative discussing a part or segment of their efforts. This of course is a divide and concur technique that was developed to suppress community voices.
Local leaders opposed this staging of issue tables around the room by EPA because it doesn’t allow for community members to learn about issues and problems from other community members. In a large group setting everyone hears the same thing, people benefit from other community members questions and the associated responses from the agency. A large inclusive meeting also allow those who are shy to obtain information because they would never had asked.
So how did the community get what they wanted? Community leaders said yes to the small group tables in the basement of their church. Leaders also requested that the public availability be open in the morning and later in the evening. EPA agreed and set up their tables in the morning and spoke with some community members. When EPA left for lunch the local leader locked the church. When it was time for the evening session on the door of the church hung a sign that said the EPA informational meeting is being held a few doors down. Needless to say when EPA saw this they were angry they couldn’t get back in the church and sit at their little stations to talk with folks. With no slides, posters or other tools EPA walked down to the other meeting hall filled with over 100 people and took their place in front of the room. People we all able to hear and react with questions and comments about the plan to clean up their toxic site.
Community members were so glad that they all meet together. “I would have any idea about how to start the conversation with EPA about the toxic’s,” said one woman. “I am still learning. My neighbors and our community leaders really helped me with their comments and questions to understand the issues. I am so glad they did this even if it was a little radical.”
It is citizens across the country who have almost completely stopped the commercial land filling of hazardous wastes. Our laws and regulations still allow commercial land filling of hazardous chemicals, there are no laws prohibiting it, but the people refuse to allow such a facility to be built in their community, since 1982. When the people stand together we can accomplish more than what we can win in the regulatory arena.
So the track record is clear, more collective action and more thinking out of the box – not just asking ourselves what can we do within “their defined rules and systems,” will win a safe, clean environment for us all.