SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
organic consumers association
80 Groups Blast US Interference in Mexico's Phaseout of Glyphosate and GM Corn
"We call on Secretary Vilsack and Trade Representative Tai, as key leaders in the new administration, to respect Mexico's decision to protect both public health and the integrity of Mexican farming."
Apr 29, 2021
A coalition of 80 U.S. agricultural, consumer, environmental, public health, and worker groups sent a letter Thursday to key figures in the Biden administration calling for them to "respect Mexico's sovereignty and refrain from interfering with its right to enact health-protective policies"--specifically, the phaseout of the herbicide glyphosate and the cultivation of genetically modified corn.
"It is completely unacceptable for U.S. public agencies to be doing the bidding of pesticide corporations like Bayer."
--Kristin Schafer, PANNA
"Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador quietly rocked the agribusiness world with his New Year's Eve decree," Timothy A. Wise of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (ITAP) noted earlier this year. "His administration sent an even stronger aftershock two weeks later, clarifying that the government would also phase out GM corn imports in three years and the ban would include not just corn for human consumption but yellow corn destined primarily for livestock."
"Mexico imports about 30% of its corn each year, overwhelmingly from the United States," Wise added. "Almost all of that is yellow corn for animal feed and industrial uses. Lopez Obrador's commitment to reducing and, by 2024, eliminating such imports reflects his administration's plan to ramp up Mexican production as part of the campaign to increase self-sufficiency in corn and other key food crops."
The groups' letter on the Mexican policies and U.S. interference--published in English (pdf) and Spanish (pdf)--is addressed to recently confirmed U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai. Its lead author is Kristin Schafer, executive director of Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA).
"We call on Secretary Vilsack and Trade Representative Tai, as key leaders in the new administration, to respect Mexico's decision to protect both public health and the integrity of Mexican farming," Schafer said in a statement. "It is completely unacceptable for U.S. public agencies to be doing the bidding of pesticide corporations like Bayer, who are solely concerned with maintaining their bottom-line profits."
Fernando Bejarano, director of Pesticide Action Network in Mexico, explained that "we are part of the No Maize No Country Campaign, a broad coalition of peasant organizations, nonprofit NGOs, academics, and consumers which support the presidential decree and fight for food sovereignty with the agroecological transformation of agricultural systems that guarantee the right to produce and consume healthy, nutritious food, free of pesticides and transgenics."
"We reject the pressure from corporations such as Bayer-Monsanto--and their CropLife trade association--which are working in both the United States and Mexico to undermine the presidential decree that phases out the use of glyphosate and transgenic corn," Bejarano said.
The letter highlights Guardian reporting on U.S. government documents obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity through a Freedom of Information Act request. The documents revealed that CropLife America and Bayer AG--which acquired glyphosate-based herbicide developer Monsanto in 2018--worked with U.S. officials to lobby against Mexico's plans.
According to journalist Carey Gillam's mid-February report:
The emails reviewed by the Guardian come from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and other U.S. agencies. They detail worry and frustration with Mexico's position. One email makes a reference to staff within Lopez Obrador's administration as "vocal anti-biotechnology activists," and another email states that Mexico's health agency (Cofepris) is "becoming a big time problem."
Internal USTR communications lay out how the agrochemical industry is "pushing" for the U.S. to "fold this issue" into the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) trade deal that went into effect July 1. The records then show the USTR does exactly that, telling Mexico its actions on glyphosate and genetically engineered crops raise concerns "regarding compliance" with USMCA.
Citing discussions with CropLife, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) joined in the effort, discussing in an inter-agency email "how we could use USMCA to work through these issues."
The Guardian also noted correspondence involving the Foreign Agricultural Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
As the letter to Vilsack and Tai points out: "This interference and pressure from the agrochemical industry is continuing. On March 22nd, industry representatives sent a letter directed to your attention as leaders of USTR and USDA, identifying Mexico's planned phaseout of glyphosate and genetically modified corn as a 'leading concern' for agribusiness interests and the pesticide industry (represented by the pesticide industry's trade group, CropLife America)."
"We strongly object to any interference by U.S. government officials or agribusiness interests in a sovereign state's right to enact policy measures to protect the health and well-being of its people," the letter states. "We urge your agencies to resist and reject these ongoing efforts."
"We welcome the administration's stated commitment to listening to the science, improving public health, protecting the environment, and limiting exposure to dangerous chemicals and pesticides, while holding polluters accountable and prioritizing environmental justice, particularly for communities of color and low-income communities," it adds. "We trust that these stated commitments, as well as your dedication to 'fairness for farmers,' extend equally to other countries and include respect for other nations' and peoples' rights to self-determination."
Other signatories to the letter include the American Sustainable Business Council, Beyond Pesticides, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace USA, Indigenous Environmental Network, ITAP, and Organic Consumers Association.
Keep ReadingShow Less
33 Groups Urge Biden to Hold Big Tech Accountable and Keep Industry Allies Out of His Administration
"We believe that eliminating the decades-old revolving door between Silicon Valley and your administration will only help your cause."
Nov 29, 2020
Adding to the pressure that President-elect Joe Biden is under to avoid a "corporate Cabinet" and instead appoint progressives champions to his administration, Public Citizen spearheaded a letter on Monday urging the next U.S. president to steer clear of Big Tech executives, lobbyists, lawyers, and consultants.
"We believe that your administration must confront the threats posed by the monopolistic Big Tech companies that have exploited consumer privacy, threatened our democracy, stifled innovation, and profited from the pandemic."
--33 groups
The Biden administration "will need to tackle unprecedented challenges of combating Covid-19, providing economic recovery, promoting racial justice, and tackling the climate crisis," says the letter, signed by 33 groups. "Solving these challenges will require a team of advocates for working people--not the Big Tech companies that work to exploit them."
"With your historic election, and the groundbreaking mandate that Americans have thus entrusted you with, you are facing the challenge of not only rebuilding the country, but also rebuilding trust in government," the letter adds. "We believe that eliminating the decades-old revolving door between Silicon Valley and your administration will only help your cause."
The groups highlight a House Judiciary subcommittee's recent investigation of Silicon Valley, the antitrust lawsuit that the U.S. Justice Department filed against Google last month, and Pew Research Center polling that shows nearly half of Americans want to see Big Tech regulated in addition to taking aim at some companies:
Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft once promised innovation and opportunity, and while they continue to provide many remarkable products, they now represent serious threats to privacy, democracy, innovation, and Americans' economic well-being. Each of these companies have developed predatory business practices that harvest user data for profit. Over the last few years, we have seen how Facebook and Google irresponsibly wield immense influence over democratic elections, without oversight or accountability. Despite the myth that Silicon Valley is rife with entrepreneurs and small businesses capable of disrupting entire industries, these companies have killed, rather than fostered innovation. And during the worst health crisis in recent history, Amazon has taken advantage of Americans struggling with the pandemic, tripling their profit onprice gouged essential goods.
We believe that your administration must confront the threats posed by the monopolistic Big Tech companies that have exploited consumer privacy, threatened our democracy, stifled innovation, and profited from the pandemic. The time to hold these companies accountable and rein in their power is now. However, we can only bring these companies to account if you do not rely on affiliates of these very companies to make up your government.
The letter points out that the tech industry wields power in Washington, D.C. even without allies in government, noting how much companies such as Amazon and Facebook have spent on lobbying in recent years.
A Public Citizen report from last year cited in the letter found that the political action committees (PACs) of the "Big 4" technology firms--Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google--as well as their employees and lobbyists collectively spent $346 million on lobbying and campaign contributions to Congress from 2010 through 2018.
"While these companies pride themselves on being masters of innovation, they have relied on the old school approach when it comes to avoiding scrutiny and gaining influence in Washington--throw as much money at the place as they can," Public Citizen senior researcher and report author Michael Tanglis said at the time.
Along with Public Citizen, signatories of the letter to Biden include Demand Progress Education Fund, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Fight for the Future, Food & Water Watch, Jobs With Justice, Main Street Alliance, Make the Road New York, Open Markets Institute, Organic Consumers Association, and the Revolving Door Project.
Earlier this month, Demand Progress and the Revolving Door Project joined with a few other partners to launch the "No Corporate Cabinet" campaign, pushing Biden to exclude business insiders and industry lobbyists from his administration. The initiative's website includes a "Persons of Interest" page of potential or selected Biden appointees opposed by the organizations.
As Common Dreams reported last week, recent polling from Data for Progress, sponsored by Demand Progress, found that 68% of Americans want the U.S. Senate to block any corporate-linked nominees proposed by Biden. However, given that not all positions require congressional approval and control of the upper chamber remains uncertain, advocacy groups are maintaining pressure on the incoming president to staff his administration with those who will serve the public good.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Six Rules for Organizing a Grassroots Regeneration Revolution
We must think, act and organize locally, while simultaneously cultivating a global vision and global solidarity.
Mar 01, 2020
Over the past five decades, as a food, natural health and environmental campaigner, anti-war organizer, human rights activist and journalist, I've had the inspiring and at times depressing opportunity to work and travel across much of the world.
Perhaps the most important lesson I've learned through my work is that people respond best to a positive, solutions-oriented message. Gloom-and-doom thinking--the kind that offers no plausible solution--doesn't generally inspire people to get involved or take action.
That doesn't mean we should downplay the seriousness of our current situation. We face unprecedented life-or-death threats. We're up against formidable political, economic and cultural obstacles. We must continue to highlight and criticize, with passion, facts and concrete examples, the bad actors, practices and policies that have brought us to the brink of a global crisis.
That said, I believe that the main obstacle we must overcome, in the U.S. and worldwide, is that many (if not most) people are locked into disempowering situations that are causing them to suffer from a pervasive sense of hopelessness. It's not that they don't want to change. But unfortunately, most people don't really believe things can change.
I disagree. I believe we can shift the global conversation on food, farming, politics, health and climate from one of hopelessness to one of hope. I believe we can empower the grassroots to rise up and take action, both individually and collectively.
In my latest book, "Grassroots Rising: A Call to Action on Food, Farming, Climate and a Green New Deal," I outline what I call "Rules for Regenerators," a roadmap for positive change. I go into each rule in-depth in my book, but here are the basics.
Rule 1: Search Out and Emphasize the Positive
In the face of global ecosystem collapse and widespread corporate and political corruption, we need to think in terms of this: The darkest hour is right before dawn. That means not losing sight of the fact that the dawn is coming--so we should focus on, and prepare for it.
Instead of dwelling on the negative, we must seek, highlight and promote positive trends and practices. On the contemporary scene, there are many signs of change and powerful countervailing trends to the degenerative status quo, not only in the U.S., but across the world.
We need to focus on these world-changing trends--not dwell on the gloom and doom.
Rule 2: Link up with People's Primary Concerns and Connect the Dots
The world is full of different people, living in different situations, with differing perspectives, passions and priorities. That means we can't take a "one-size-fits-all" approach to problem-solving.
Instead, we must integrate our green justice and regeneration messages with the specific issues and concerns that are most important to grassroots constituencies. Then lay out, in everyday language, a strategy that helps people understand that we can actually solve the problems they care about most, while solving a host of other pressing problems at the same time.
Only by starting from where people are at, and then connecting the dots, can we capture the attention and imagination of a critical mass of the global grassroots and get them started thinking about how they can participate in our new movement and new economy.
Rule 3: Stop Organizing Around Limited Single Issues
Global campaigning and activism is plagued with single-issue thinking that routinely gives rise to divided movements and fractured constituencies.
To bring about true regeneration, or even to pass sweeping new regenerative legislation like the Green New Deal, we must not be divided and fractured, but united, inclusive and holistic in our understanding of the the global crisis we face, and in our approach to problem-solving.
Too often we hear that "My issue is more important than your issue," or "My constituency or community is more oppressed than yours," or "My solution is the only solution."
That type of thinking won't get us anywhere. Our global Regeneration Movement must be built on the principle that all grassroots issues and all constituencies are important. We have to help each other recognize that the burning issues bearing down on the global body politic--climate change, poverty, unemployment, declining health, political corruption, corporate control, war and more--are the interrelated symptoms of the diseased system of degeneration.
Rule 4: Stop Pretending that Partial Solutions or Reforms Will Bring About System Change
Activists often fall into the trap of malpractice when they project partial solutions or tactics as if they are systemic solutions. One of the most alarming examples of this is the notion that 100-percent renewable energy will, in and of itself, solve the climate crisis.
This theory is both misleadingly hopeful and dangerously flawed. Renewable energy will not get us to net-zero emissions by 2030 or even 2050 unless it is accompanied by a massive drawdown (of 250-plus billion tons) of excess carbon from the atmosphere through regenerative food, farming, land use and commerce.
Both of these things--renewable energy and carbon drawdown--need to be carried out simultaneously over the next 20 years.
Similarly naive, narrow-minded thinking might lead us to believe that campaign finance reform, or the election of this or that candidate, will solve the national and international crisis of elite domination and political corruption--or that in general, change in one community or country can solve what are essentially national and global problems.
Unless we can lift our heads, connect the dots and fight for unifying systemic changes, any changes that we do make won't be sufficiently effective.
Rule 5: Act and Organize Locally, but Cultivate a Global Vision and Solidarity
If civilization is to survive, we need to rebuild healthy, organic and relocalized systems of food and farming, and repair and restore our local environments.
To do this will require regenerators to put a priority on local and regional education, action and mobilization, in our personal lives and households, as well as in the marketplace and the political arena.
At the same time, we have to inject or integrate a national and global perspective into our local grassroots work and community building. The battle against severe climate change, environmental destruction, deteriorating public health, poverty, political corruption and societal alienation will be fought and won based on what billions of us--consumers, farmers, landscape managers, public officials, business owners, students and others--do (or don't do) in our million local communities as part of a global awakening and paradigm shift.
We must think, act and organize locally, while simultaneously cultivating a global vision and global solidarity.
Rule 6: Become a Positive Example of Regeneration
The personal is political. People hear not just the overt message of what we say or write, but also our subliminal message--that is, our presence, behavior and attitude.
Only by striving to embody the principles of regeneration--hope, solidarity, creativity, hard work, joy and optimism--in our everyday lives and practices (i.e. our work, food, clothes, lifestyle and how we treat others and the environment, how we vote, spend our money, invest our savings and spend our time--will we be able to inspire those around us.
In the 1960s, when I came of age as an activist, we had a saying: "There is only one reason for becoming a revolutionary: because it is the best way to live." I believe this slogan is as relevant now as it was then.
One of the wonderful things about regeneration is that it not only is our duty and our potential salvation, but it can actually become our pleasure as well. As the farmer-poet Wendell Berry once said:
"The care of the earth is our most ancient and most worthy and, after all, our most pleasing responsibility To cherish what remains of it, and to foster its renewal, is our only legitimate hope."
Keep ReadingShow Less
With Petition to Congress, 100,000+ People Demand Green New Deal 'That Fixes Our Food System'
"We can't solve the climate crisis without taking food & ag into account!"
Jul 19, 2019
A coalition of environmental, farmworker, public health, and food safety advocacy groups on Thursday delivered to Congress a petition signed by more than 100,000 people which calls for a Green New Deal "that fixes our food system" to combat the climate crisis.
The petition echoes a letter that more than 300 organizations sent to federal lawmakers in April on behalf of their millions of members. The letter came about two months after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced the historic Green New Deal resolution supported by a growing grassroots movement and dozens of Democrats in Congress.
"Supporting family farms, achieving universal access to healthy foods, and investing in sustainable farming and land-use practices that increase soil health are critical components of any comprehensive Green New Deal," declares the new petition, which notes that in addition to being a top generator of jobs, the U.S. food and farming sector is also a top generator of planet-heating emissions.
"To reduce emissions and bolster our nation's resilience in the face of the climate crisis, we must enact policies that transform unsustainable industrial agriculture, reduce food sector consolidation, as well as empower farmers and ranchers to adopt organic and agroecological practices," the petition says. "These policies must support diversified and ecologically regenerative farming techniques that reduce greenhouse gases and other pollution, boost soil health, and sequester carbon in soil--enhancing local and regional food security, economic well-being, and biodiversity."
The petition outlines specific food and farming policies that signatories believe should be prioritized in the Green New Deal:
- Carbon reduction, sequestration, and climate resilience;
- Fair prices for farmers, ranchers, and fishers; antitrust measures that help reverse food sector consolidation; and healthy working conditions with family-sustaining living wages for workers;
- Diversified, resilient local, and regional food economies anchored by family farmers; ranchers and fishers that ensure healthy, sustainable food for all to combat consolidation in the food and farming sector; and reverse the rapid loss of farmers and deterioration of farmland;
- Avoid "false solutions" and agribusiness-sponsored proposals that do nothing to address the systemic causes of our climate crisis and delay progress;
- Protection for workers, rural communities, consumer health and soil productivity through the transition away from harmful agrochemical use in agricultural practices and production;
- Ensure that those most affected by the exploitation of people and the environment of the current agricultural system and who have experience and knowledge to contribute have a seat at the table in decisions and negotiations.
The petition is a collaborative project between the Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth, the HEAL Food Alliance, the Farmworker Association of Florida, PANNA, 198 Methods, the Daily Kos, and the Organic Consumers Association, which tweeted about the key demands with the hashtag #GreenNewFoodDeal.
"If we are to address the climate crisis, we must transform our food system," Lisa Archer, food and agriculture director for Friends of the Earth, said in a statement Thursday. "We have no time to waste."
Jeannie Economos, Pesticide Safety and Environmental Health Project coordinator of the Farmworker Association of Florida, pointed out that "agriculture--and the farmworker families on which it depends--are some of the first victims of a changing global climate."
"We need a Green New Deal that centers family farmers, farm workers, and food workers," said Navina Khanna, director of the HEAL Food Alliance. "Making fundamental changes to our food and farming system is urgent and central to stabilizing our climate, and ensuring food security for current and future generations, and making sure that all people working in the system do so with meaning and dignity."
The alliance shared a link to the petition--which is still available online for additional signatures--in a tweet Thursday:
Keep ReadingShow Less
EPA Urged to Put Public Health Over Monsanto Profits by Banning Cancer-Linked Glyphosate
"This dangerous herbicide causes serious health risks, including cancer, and threatens our environment."
Jun 26, 2019
As the Environmental Protection Agency moves to greenlight the continued use of glyphosate in the United States for another 15 years, a coalition of environmental and consumer advocacy groups on Wednesday delivered nearly 150,000 petitions urging the agency to ban the cancer-linked herbicide.
The coalition's call comes ahead of the July 5 deadline for public comment on the EPA's interim registration review of glyphosate, which says the herbicide poses no health risks to humans.
"It's time for the EPA to stand up to Monsanto-Bayer and protect farmers, farm workers, lawn care workers, and consumers."
--Alexis Baden-Mayer
Jason Davidson, food and agriculture campaign associate at Friends of the Earth, said in a statement that the scientific evidence contradicts the EPA's assessment of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup.
"The science is clear about glyphosate," Davidson said. "This dangerous herbicide causes serious health risks, including cancer, and threatens our environment. EPA must do its job and ban this toxic pesticide instead of prioritizing corporate profits."
In a press release, Friends of the Earth said the EPA cited "Monsanto-funded studies in its evaluation" of glyphosate.
Drew Toher, community resource and policy director at Beyond Pesticides, said the EPA is "getting the science wrong... and needs to listen to international agencies and peer-reviewed literature on the dangers posed by widespread use of this herbicide."
"While continuing to pressure EPA, we encourage advocates to get active in their community," Toher said, "and work with their local elected officials towards organic policies that stop glyphosate and other toxic pesticides like it."
As Common Dreams reported last month, a California jury ordered Monsanto--which was acquired by German pharmaceutical giant Bayer last year--to pay a record $2 billion in damages to a couple that was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) after using Roundup for years.
The jury's May verdict was the third time in less than a year that Monsanto was found liable for cancer.
"It's time for the EPA to stand up to Monsanto-Bayer and protect farmers, farm workers, lawn care workers, and consumers," said Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director of the Organic Consumers Association. "If Trump's EPA chooses to ignore the science, Congress should step in."
Zen Honeycutt, executive director of Moms Across America, warned in a statement Wednesday that, if reapproved, glyphosate will continue to "contaminate our tap water, breast milk, baby food, formulas, cereals, thousands of food types, and cotton products."
"It will continue to destroy soil quality, which contributes to climate change, the decline of marine and wildlife and the environment," said Honeycutt. "In short, the only way the EPA can do its job is to revoke its license."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Now Is the Time to Be Bold and Unapologetic': Progressives Building 'Unprecedented Political Coalition' Around Green New Deal
"The only solution that matches the scale of our multiple crises, including global warming, corporate control of our food system, income inequality, and the general decline of our environment and our democracy"
Feb 10, 2019
Progressive organizers are mobilizing behind the Green New Deal resolution--unveiled last week by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)--with renewed energy to build "an unprecedented political coalition" to radically transform the nation's energy system and address the climate crisis while also facilitating a just transition to a new, greener economy.
Since initial backers hailed the introduction of the historic resolution as a huge accomplishment on Thursday, a growing number of labor, economic justice, racial justice, indigenous, environmental, and community organizations have lined up behind the bold proposal and vowed to pressure lawmakers to pass it. The youth-led Sunrise Movement, which has spearheaded grassroots organizing in favor of the deal, is planning more than 600 congressional office visits this week to garner support.
Thanks to the tireless work of young people who have fought to shift political conversations about climate and the economy, Sunrise Movement co-founder and executive director Varshini Prakash pointed out in a statement, the Green New Deal is now "on the national agenda" and endorsed by many Democrats running for president in 2020.
"The Green New Deal is now a litmus test for progressive leadership in 2019," Prakash said. "Any politician who wants to be taken seriously on climate and earn the support of young people needs to support Ocasio-Cortez and Markey's resolution."
"The Green New Deal is now a litmus test for progressive leadership in 2019."
--Varshini Prakash, Sunrise Movement
Justice Democrats executive director Alex Rojas agreed, declaring that "Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal represents an earthquake in the Democratic Party and American politics where a working class Latina bartender from the Bronx is now proposing and leading the most serious solution to rewrite America's social contract and stave off climate disaster."
Capturing a sentiment often expressed by those who want to see the resolution passed, Organic Consumers Association international director Ronnie Cummins described it as "the only solution that matches the scale of our multiple crises, including global warming, corporate control of our food system, income inequality, and the general decline of our environment and our democracy."
While the resolution, as co-sponsor Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) explained in a video on Friday, is intentionally written as a broad prescription rather than detailed legislation, its demands for transforming the U.S. economy and energy system away from fossil fuels are unequivocal, as is its call to "promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth."
That attention to "frontline and vulnerable communities" has rallied backers such as Jennifer Epps-Addison, president and co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy Network.
Celebrating that the deal "helps build climate resilience in communities of color who have been most impacted by climate change, and ensures that Black and Latinx people will have direct access to good, family-supporting jobs in the new green economy," Epps-Addison declared, "now is the time to be bold and unapologetic in our demand for solutions to rampant economic insecurity and the climate crisis."
"Now is the time to be bold and unapologetic in our demand for solutions to rampant economic insecurity and the climate crisis."
--Jennifer Epps-Addison, Center for Popular Democracy Network
Pointing to exploding inequality and increasingly terrifying warnings from the global scientific community about the human-caused climate crisis, George Goehl of People's Action also welcomed it as a chance to "ensure that these same communities are first in line to reap the benefits of the economic opportunities harnessed by a game-changing commitment to ending all extraction and dirty energy."
May Boeve, 350.org's executive director, called it "a critical opportunity to stand up to fossil fuel billionaires while kickstarting a just transition to renewable energy and creating millions of family-sustaining jobs," and added that "for too long, we've seen legislative action fail to live up to the scale and scope of the climate crisis."
Organizers have praised Ocasio-Cortez and Markey for putting forth the Green New Deal resolution, but they also continue to emphasize that, in the words of Dream Corps president Vien Truong, "we need immediate action and bold leadership."
As Presente.org executive director Matt Nelson charged: "Families across the country deserve to live in safe communities, free from climate devastation and harmful fossil fuel production; and we deserve a Congress who is not afraid to protect our climate and all the people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Study Confirms: Degenerative Food & Farming System Poses Mortal Threat
By transitioning to regenerative food, farming and land-use practices, we can reverse global warming and produce healthier food
Jan 27, 2019
A new study calling for a "radical rethink" of the relationship between policymakers and corporations reinforces what Organic Consumers Association and other public interest groups have been saying for years: Our triple global health crises of deteriorating public health, world hunger and global warming share common root causes--and that the best way to address these crises is to address what they all have in common: an unhealthy, inequitable food system perpetuated by a political and economic system largely driven by corporate profit.
The study, the result of three years of work by 26 commissioners from several countries, was released this week by the Lancet Commission on Obesity. Boyd Swinburn, a University of Auckland professor and co-chair of the commission, as reported by Channel News Asia, said:
"Until now, undernutrition and obesity have been seen as polar opposites of either too few or too many calories. In reality, they are both driven by the same unhealthy, inequitable food systems, underpinned by the same political economy."
According to the report, nearly a billion people are hungry and another 2 billion are eating too much of the wrong foods, causing epidemics of obesity, heart disease and diabetes.
Boyd said that malnutrition in all its forms, including undernutrition and obesity, is by far the biggest cause of ill health and premature death globally, and that both are expected to be made "significantly worse" by climate change.
A familiar, but welcome call for reform
We have long called for the reform of our degenerative industrial agriculture system. We've drawn attention to the impact of industrial agriculture on global warming and deteriorating health. And we've highlighted the remarkable potential for organic regenerative agriculture to naturally draw down and sequester carbon, through nature's own photosynthesis.
We've also called on global policymakers to connect the dots between degenerative agriculture, poor health and climate change.
We've said all along that the influence of self-serving corporations over policy is largely to blame for U.S. and global policymakers' collective failure to address our degenerative food and farming system, and the devastation that system has wrought on human health and the environment.
This latest study comes at a time when climate scientists have sounded their most urgent and alarming warnings to date. It also comes at a time of keen interest in a Green New Deal, whose backers are calling for nothing less than radical solutions to the most pressing issues of our time.
Degeneration Nation: the frightening truth
Welcome to Degeneration Nation, where the frightening truth is this: Big Food companies, fast food chains, chemical and seed giants such as Bayer/Monsanto, and corporate agribusiness, aided and abetted by indentured politicians in both the Republican and Democratic parties, are slowly but surely poisoning us with unhealthy, nutrient-deficient, contaminated food.
The pesticides, GMOs, hormone disruptors and antibiotic residues in non-organic produce, grains and meat, coupled with the excessive sugar, salt and bad fats in the processed foods and beverages that make up the majority of the American diet, have supersized and degenerated the body politic. An epidemic of chronic diseases directly related to our toxic food and environment has spread across the U.S. and much of the world.
The overwhelming evidence is that human health is seriously deteriorating, and that the underlying causes of this health crisis are directly related not only to our highly toxic industrial practices, but also to our degenerate food, farming and land-management practices.
In the agricultural sector alone, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identifies more than 1,400 pesticides and 1,800 so-called "inerts" chemicals in use, in addition to a toxic stew of animal drugs, antibiotics, synthetic fertilizers and GMOs. Few of these have been properly tested, singly or in combination, for safety.
The public health and economic consequences of our degraded environment and food system are alarming. A recent Rand Corporation study found that 60 percent of Americans suffer from at least one chronic health condition, such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity and arthritis; 42 percent have two or more; and that these chronic diseases now account for more than 40 percent of the entire U.S. health care spending of $3.5 trillion.
One out of every two Americans will get cancer at least once in their lifetime. According to recent research, U.S. men born in 1960 have a lifetime cancer risk of 53.5 percent. For women, it's 47.5 percent.
Seventy percent of U.S. drinking water is contaminated with Monsanto's top-selling herbicide, Roundup, while 93 percent of consumers now have traces of this toxic poison (active ingredient glyphosate) in our urine.
The authors of "What's Making Our Children Sick?" report that one in 13 U.S. children have serious food allergies; 6 - 24 percent have serious intestinal problems; 20 percent are obese; 60 percent have chronic headaches; 20 percent suffer from mental disorders and depression. One in every 41 boys and one in every 68 girls are now diagnosed with autism.
Beyond destroying our health, chemical and fossil fuel-intensive factory farms and GMO monocultures are polluting our water and air, degrading our soils, forests and wetlands, killing off biodiversity and heating up the planet.
The delicate rhythms of nature--the Earth's carbon cycle circulating between the atmosphere, oceans, soils and forests, the water or hydrological cycle and the climate--are unraveling.
Cook organic, not the planet
The Lancet Obesity Commission study is clear: Climate change, obesity and poor nutrition can all be linked in some way to the mass production of processed, nutrient-poor food. This is an idea that doesn't get as much attention as it should.
When most people think about climate-destabilizing greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, the first thing that usually comes to mind is the impact of fossil fuels--our non-renewable fossil fuel-based energy system for transportation and for utilities and manufacturing, including the construction and the heating and cooling of our homes, offices and buildings.
What few people understand is that a full 44-57 percent of all global GHG emissions are generated by chemical- and fossil fuel-intensive industrial farm production, food processing, packaging, refrigeration, transportation and destructive land-use practices, such as deforestation, heavy plowing, lack of cover crops and wetlands destruction.
Let's take a closer look at the 44-57 percent of human GHG emissions coming from our industrial, GMO, factory farm food system, and compare how transitioning to regenerative food, farming and land-management practices would not only drastically reduce these emissions, but actually draw down excess atmospheric carbon and sequester it in our soils, trees and wetlands--and in the process, produce more nutrient-dense, chemical-free food.
Direct use of oil and gas in farming: 11 to 15 percent
Most climate analysts agree that fossil fuel use on farms and ranches, including chemical farm inputs (fertilizers and pesticides), is responsible for at least 11-15 percent of all global CO2, methane and nitrous oxide emissions. Most of these emissions come from the use of fossil fuel-powered farm and irrigation equipment and petroleum-derived chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
In addition, the excess manure generated by factory farms, or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) as the industry calls them, releases significant quantities of methane and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere and the oceans.
How can we reduce these on-farm emissions? By converting chemical- and energy-intensive farms to organic and regenerative crop production and planned rotational grazing and free range livestock production. This will require a combination of conscious consumers and farmers working together, on a local-to-global scale to reject factory farm, GMO, chemically tainted, highly processed food, and radical changes in public policy and investment practices.
Food- and farming-derived deforestation: 15 to 18 percent
Global "land use change" or deforestation is generally recognized as contributing to approximately 20 percent of all GHG emissions over the past 200 years.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization says that expansion of agriculture, especially for export crops such as GMO soybeans (primarily for animal feed) in Latin America, or palm oil (for biofuels and processed food) in Asia, accounts for 70-90 percent of global deforestation.
Worldwide, industrial agriculture is pushing into grasslands, wetlands and forests, destroying what were previously carbon-sequestering forests and grasslands. Food and farming's contribution to deforestation thus accounts for 15-18 percent of global GHG emissions.
Over the next 50 years we need to preserve the forests we have left, and plant and nurture a trillion or more new trees. Since the areas of tropical forest deforestation are also the areas of greatest poverty and unemployment, reforestation and forest restoration can provide several hundred million jobs to those local residents and forest dwellers who need them most.
Food transport/food miles: 5 to 6 percent
Globally it is generally agreed that transportation accounts for 20-25 percent of all GHG emissions. According to the ETC group, "we can conservatively estimate that the transportation of food accounts for a quarter of global GHG emissions linked to transportation, or 5-6 percent of all global GHG emissions." In the U.S. it is commonly estimated that the average food item in your grocery store or restaurant has travelled 1,500 miles before it reaches its final destination. Multi-ingredient processed foods, burn up even more food miles.
If we are to significantly reduce global emissions we will need to drastically reduce the food miles and carbon footprint of our food purchases and focus on fresh non-processed or minimally processed and packaged food produced locally and regionally, including food produced through urban agriculture. Before the second World War most food consumed in the U.S. and other industrialized nations came from a 100-mile radius of where people lived. During the Second World War, 40-50 percent of all food consumed by Americans came from urban "Victory Gardens," while 30 percent of all food in Great Britain similarly came from urban gardens.
Food processing/packaging: 8 to 10 percent
Food processing has become a major part of the industrial food chain. In the U.S. , the overwhelming majority of food purchased in grocery stores or restaurants (70 percent) is processed food.
ETC group states that the " . . . transformation of foods into ready-made meals, snacks and beverages requires an enormous amount of energy, mostly in the form of carbon. So does the packaging and canning of these foods. Processing and packaging enables the food industry to stack the shelves of supermarkets and convenience stores with hundreds of different formats and brands, but it also generates a huge amount of greenhouse gas emissions--some 8 to 10 percent of the global total."
More and more consumers are recognizing that highly processed food, whether served at home or in fast food restaurants is bad for our health, and that wasteful packaging, misleading advertising and plastic bags and packages are harmful both to our health (especially children's health) and to our environment, including the oceans.
This awareness has caused a boom in sales of fresh organic produce and animal products in natural and organic food stores and farmer's markets. Many cities and even entire nations are now moving toward banning plastic bags. Unfortunately, U.S. consumers still spend almost half of their food dollars eating in restaurants and fast food outlets where highly processed, packaged foods dominate the menu. Similarly, in schools and cafeterias pre-cooked processed foods delivered by food service conglomerates have displayed hand-cooked meals prepared from fresh ingredients.
If we are to reduce the 8-10 percent of global fossil fuel emissions coming from food processing and packaging we will need to get back to healthy, organic, regionally produced foods, cooked from scratch with natural ingredients. This will not only benefit our health but will also be better for the health of the climate and the environment.
Food refrigeration & retail: 2 to 4 percent
Approximately 15 percent of all global electricity consumption is for cooling and refrigeration. Of course global food sourcing depends upon keeping fresh produce and animal products cold.
As ETC group says: "Considering that cooling is responsible for 15 percent of all electricity consumption worldwide, and that leaks of chemical refrigerants are a major source of GHGs, we can safely say that the refrigeration of foods accounts for some 1-2 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions. The retailing of foods accounts for another 1-2 percent."
Again, reducing our food miles, buying locally and regionally--this is not only good for the planet, but good for our health and the economic well-being of our local farmers and ranchers as well. Until the electricity grid is converted over to renewable energy, food refrigeration, and refrigeration in general (especially air conditioning), will continue to belch out an unsustainable amount of greenhouse gases.
In the meantime we can all do our part, not only by turning down our thermostats, but by buying fresh foods produced locally and regionally, pressuring politicians to require local purchasing for schools and institutions, or better yet, by growing some of our own.
Throwing food into landfills instead of composting 3 to 4 percent
Our industrial food and farming system currently discards 30-50 percent of all the crops and the food that is produced. Not only is this a prodigious waste of the fossil fuel energy and labor involved in producing this food, but the food waste itself generally ends up in garbage dumps and landfills, (rather than being converted into compost) releasing substantial amounts of methane and other GHGs.
Quoting again from ETC Group: "Between 3.5-4.5 percent of global GHG emissions come from waste, and over 90 percent of these are produced by materials originating within the food system."
Our planet has five pools or repositories where greenhouse gases are absorbed and stored: the oceans, the atmosphere, the soils, vegetation (plants, especially perennial plants, grasses, and forests) and hydrocarbon deposits.
Our global challenge over the next 25 years is to stop putting more carbon into the atmosphere and the oceans, leave the remaining fossil fuels (oil, coal, uranium, and natural gas) in the ground, and move a critical mass of excess atmospheric carbon (250 billion tons of carbon) back into the soil, by transitioning to regenerative food, farming and land-use practices. By doing this we will not only be able to reverse global warming--we'll also produce healthier food and healthier people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Call for the Food Movement to Get Behind the Green New Deal
"In the next decade we must facilitate a just transition away from climate-destabilizing factory farms and fossil fuel-intensive agriculture, at the same time as we switch, as rapidly possible, to 100-percent renewable energy."
Jan 13, 2019
"The Green New Deal we are proposing will be similar in scale to the mobilization efforts seen in World War II or the Marshall Plan... Half measures will not work... The time for slow and incremental efforts has long past [sic]." - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, then-candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives, Huffington Post, June 26, 2018
"Regenerative Agriculture can change agriculture from being a major contributor to climate change to becoming a major solution."
"Just transitioning 10 percent of agricultural production to best-practice regenerative systems will sequester enough CO2 to reverse climate change and restore the global climate. Regenerative Agriculture can change agriculture from being a major contributor to climate change to becoming a major solution." - Andre Leu, international director, Regeneration International, "Reversing Climate Change with Regenerative Agriculture," October 9, 2018
The 'Great Climate Awakening' of 2018
The final months of 2018 will likely be remembered as the decisive moment when the global grassroots awakened to the life-or-death threat posed by global warming. With violent weather and climate disasters becoming the norm, and international scientists finally shedding their customary caution to report that we must drastically slash (by at least 45 percent) global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, hundreds of millions of ordinary people across the world seemed to simultaneously wake up.
Young climate activists under the banner of the Sunrise Movement in the U.S. and the Extinction Rebellion in the UK and other countries, sat in at politicians' offices. They blocked streets and roadways. They emanded immediate and bold action.
The Green New Deal is born
In the U.S., an insurgent slate of newly elected members of Congress, inspired by the Sunrise Movement and led by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have generated headlines and popular support by calling for a Green New Deal (GND), a 21st Century upgrade of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal carried out during the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Given the severity of the climate crisis, and the deterioration of the U.S. and global status quo (economic, political, health and environment), it's no exaggeration to state that the GND is perhaps the most significant blueprint for system change in 100 years.
The GND's call for a mass conversion to renewable energy and zero emissions of greenhouse gases in the U.S. by 2030, is in line with what most scientists say is necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change.
The GND's call for a mass conversion to renewable energy and zero emissions of greenhouse gases in the U.S. by 2030, is in line with what most scientists say is necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change.
But what's new, and long overdue in this evolving manifesto is that the GND also calls for the greening, "just transition" and elimination of greenhouse gas emissions from our multi-trillion-dollar food and farming system as well. That call is long overdue, especially given that our degenerative food system generates 44-57 percent of all global greenhouse gases.
The GND draft statement calls for "eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries, including by investing in local-scale agriculture in communities across the country." It also calls for funding "massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases."
Beyond offering comprehensive energy and agricultural solutions for our climate emergency, what is truly game-changing and revolutionary about the GND is that it calls for system-wide economic regeneration as well: full employment, $15/hr. minimum wage, universal health care, free public education, and economic justice for all--policies extremely popular with the overwhelming majority of the body politic, including students, working class communities and low-income groups.
By bringing together the concerns of youth, food, farmer, environmental and climate activists, with the bread-and-butter concerns of workers and frontline communities, the GND offers nothing less than a contemporary roadmap for survival and regeneration.
As Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director of the Organic Consumers Association, pointed out in a recent email urging groups to sign on to the GND, it is economic injustice, the lack of money in the pockets of workers and consumers, the 80 percent of ordinary people who live from paycheck to paycheck, that has, in large part, held back the greening of America:
Who wouldn't drive a Tesla, put up solar panels, or buy an energy efficient home in a walkable neighborhood with great public transportation? Everyone wants these things. We all want to enjoy good health, breathe clean air and drink pure water. There aren't many families who would have to be convinced to eat locally grown organic health food if it were available and they could afford it. The problem is we've got student debt. Our mortgages are under water. We've got medical bills and childcare to pay for. And many of us have been too poor to go to college, buy a house or start a family. Our country's struggling family farmers have the same problem. Sure, they'd love to go organic and pay their workers fairly. They want to do what's best for their families, their communities and their environment. They just have to figure out how to avoid foreclosure and bankruptcy first.
Support grows quickly for the GND, but so do attacks
With unprecedented speed, Ocasio-Cortez, insurgent Democrats and the Sunrise Movement have stimulated massive media coverage and generated significant public support for the GND, putting radical change on the national agenda. More than 45 members of Congress, five U.S. Senators, leading 2020 presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, hundreds of local officials, and over 600 activist organizations have already endorsed the GND.
In late-2018, polls indicated that 81 percent of Americans support full employment, economic justice and renewable energy, as outlined in the GND.
Yet despite initial strong support for the GND among activists and the general public, establishment politicians (both Democrats and Republicans) and the corporate media have launched a massive counter-attack, denouncing the GND (and Ocasio-Cortez and her allies) as "utopian," "radical," "impractical" and even "dangerous."
The unfortunate truth is that Congress and the mass media are infected and dominated by powerful climate emergency deniers and establishment politicians taking money from fossil fuel companies, climate-destructive industrial agribusiness and Wall Street.
The unfortunate truth is that Congress and the mass media are infected and dominated by powerful climate emergency deniers and establishment politicians taking money from fossil fuel companies, climate-destructive industrial agribusiness and Wall Street. Yet with global scientists sounding the alarm that the onset of runaway global warming (with atmospheric CO2 levels of 450 ppm or higher) is not 80 years away or even 50 years away, but more like a dozen years away unless we drastically change course, it can hardly be called "utopian" to organize around a bold emissions-reduction, drawdown and economic development plan that can avert catastrophe, and improve the lives of everyday people at the same time.
Painting Ocasio-Cortez and the Sunrise Movement as "radical" is not likely to derail the growing insurgency. Because a radical emergency more serious than anything humans have ever faced in our 200,000-year evolution demands a radical solution. As Cortez said in an interview on "60 Minutes" on January 6 (watched by 11 million people), she admits to being a "radical"--not unlike previous "radicals" in American history, including Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt, who likewise confronted severe crises demanding radical solutions.
Is it possible to achieve zero emissions in the U.S. by 2030?
On the same "60 Minutes" show, Ocasio-Cortez was pressed on the practicality of zero fossil fuel emissions by 2030. The host tried to trip her up by asking if zero emissions meant that all of us would be driving electric cars within a decade. She responded by saying that there are technological breakthroughs on the horizon that we can't even imagine yet.
Although it's undoubtedly true that there are technical breakthroughs in renewable energy and electric cars on the horizon, I wasn't fully satisfied with Ocasio-Cortez's answer (even though I admit she's my favorite political leader of all time). Here's how I would have answered that question:
"Millions of Americans are going to be driving electric cars in 2030. But you're right, a lot of us will still be driving our old gasoline-powered vehicles. If you read the details of our proposed Green New Deal carefully, you'll see that we're not just talking about rapid reductions in fossil fuel emissions, the CO2 and other greenhouse gases we put up into the sky by burning fossil fuels. We're also talking about drawing down these same greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, utilizing climate-friendly farming practices that qualitatively increase plant photosynthesis, soil fertility and natural carbon sequestration. These regenerative practices include farming organically, holistic grazing, improving soil health, and restoring our forests, grasslands and wetlands. In other words, we can and must reach zero net emissions in 2030 by drawing down as much atmospheric carbon as we're still putting up.
"The Green New Deal aims to change not only our climate-destructive energy, manufacturing and transportation systems, but also our degenerative food and farming systems. The Green New Deal is designed to raise the living standards for all Americans, including low-income workers in both rural and urban communities, so that all of us can choose and afford healthier and more climate-friendly lifestyles. In the next decade we must facilitate a just transition away from climate-destabilizing factory farms and fossil fuel-intensive agriculture, at the same time as we switch, as rapidly possible, to 100-percent renewable energy. With renewable energy and regenerative food, farming and land use working in synergy, there is no doubt that we can reach zero net emissions by 2030, significant negative net emissions by 2050, and literally, along with the rest of the world, reverse global warming and avert climate catastrophe."
We know what to do. The best practices and practitioners in alternative energy, infrastructure rebuilding and regenerative food and farming are already visible in or near our local communities. We simply need to mobilize politically to scale up these practices utilizing the power of a GND. But we're running out of time unless we can quickly build a massive united front, elect new GND supporters to Congress and the White House in 2020, and pass federal legislation for a GND starting in 2021, as Ocasio-Cortez puts it, "similar in scale to the mobilization efforts seen in World War II or the Marshall Plan."
The time to join the GND Revolution is now. On February 5, hubs and homes across the country will host parties to tune into a Sunrise Movement livestream detailing the 2019 GND strategy. Anyone can host a party to grow the movement. These house parties will unite communities to build the people power we need to make the GND happen. To host a party click here.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'As World Teeters on Brink of Climate Catastrophe,' 600+ Groups Demand Congress Back Visionary Green New Deal
"We need action on climate that ends our dependence on dirty energy, puts power in the hands of communities, and provides good jobs."
Jan 09, 2019
On behalf of their millions of members and supporters, 626 environmental organizations on Thursday demanded that U.S. policymakers "pursue visionary and affirmative legislative action" such as a Green New Deal to combat the "urgent threat" of the global climate crisis.
"Americans want a livable future for their children, and that requires keeping fossil fuels in the ground while greening the economy on a wartime footing."
--Bill Snape, CBD
"As the world teeters on the brink of climate catastrophe, we're calling on Congress to take large-scale action," said Bill Snape of the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), which signed the letter (pdf) to lawmakers. "Americans want a livable future for their children, and that requires keeping fossil fuels in the ground while greening the economy on a wartime footing."
Angela Adrar of Climate Justice Alliance, another signatory, emphasized that "such a new, green economy needs to be guided by the leadership and knowledge of those most burdened by pollution, poverty, and other forms of institutional violence waged by the corporations causing this global ecological crisis."
To achieve a transition to 100 percent renewable energy by 2035 or sooner, according to the letter, federal lawmakers must:
- Halt all fossil fuel leasing, phase out all fossil fuel extraction, and end fossil fuel and other dirty energy subsidies;
- Transition power generation to 100 percent renewable energy;
- Expand public transportation and phase out fossil fuel vehicles;
- Harness the full power of the Clean Air Act;
- Ensure a just transition led by impacted communities and workers; and
- Uphold Indigenous rights.
"The disproportionate impacts of climate change and dirty energy development in the traditional territories and lands of American Indian and Alaska Natives must be taken into account, to ensure the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples are fully recognized in the just transition to a new green economy," asserted Tom BK Goldtooth of the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN).
"The disproportionate impacts of climate change and dirty energy development in the traditional territories and lands of American Indian and Alaska Natives must be taken into account."
--Tom BK Goldtooth, IEN
Specifically, the letter pushes lawmakers to abide by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) along with other treaties and international law regarding any proposed policies or projects that would impact "lands, territories, and/or natural resources, cultural properties and heritage, and other interests" of native communities.
Additionally, the groups "vigorously oppose" any efforts to slash existing environmental and public health protections, prevent dirty energy polluters from liability, or promote "corporate schemes that place profits over community burdens and benefits." Their letter further charges that "fossil fuel companies should pay their fair share for damages caused by climate change, rather than shifting those costs to taxpayers."
Pointing to recent warnings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) about the necessity of rapid and aggressive climate action, it also notes the growing popularity of a Green New Deal--backed by the Sunrise Movement and other organizations as well as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and several other Democratic lawmakers--that would couple bold climate policies with efforts to create a more just economy.
As Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter concluded, "The excitement around the Green New Deal should energize Congress to take bold, transformative action on climate change."
"At precisely the time that we need our energy policy to swiftly move us into a managed decline of fossil fuel production, the Trump administration is working with the fossil fuel industry to tear down policies and dangerously expand our fossil fuel extraction."
--David Turnbull, Oil Change USA
Friends of the Earth's Nicole Ghio added: "We cannot stop climate change and rising inequality with the half-solutions of the past. We need action on climate that ends our dependence on dirty energy, puts power in the hands of communities and provides good jobs. If candidates and elected officials say they are committed to climate solutions, this is the litmus test."
Despite growing momentum for a Green New Deal and other initiatives, as David Turnbull of Oil Change USA pointed out, "at precisely the time that we need our energy policy to swiftly move us into a managed decline of fossil fuel production, the Trump administration is working with the fossil fuel industry to tear down policies and dangerously expand our fossil fuel extraction."
As President Donald Trump and his appointees work to dismantle various climate and environmental regulations, these hundreds of groups want members of Congress to fight back and work to curb the global crisis. Organizations that signed on to the letter include Greenpeace, Amazon Watch, CODEPINK, Credo Action, Indivisible, the Organic Consumers Association, People's Action, Public Citizen, and several chapters of 350.org.
Read the full letter:
Dear Representative:
On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, we are writing today to urge you to consider the following principles as the 116th Congress debates climate change legislation and momentum around the country builds for a Green New Deal. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently warned, if we are to keep global warming below 1.5degC, we must act aggressively and quickly. At a minimum, reaching that target requires visionary and affirmative legislative action in the following areas:
Halt all fossil fuel leasing, phase out all fossil fuel extraction, and end fossil fuel and other dirty energy subsidies.
The science is clear that fossil fuels must be kept in the ground. Pursuing new fossil fuel projects at this moment in history is folly. Most immediately, the federal government must stop selling off or leasing publicly owned lands, water, and mineral rights for development to fossil fuel producers. The government must also stop approving fossil fuel power plants and infrastructure projects. We must reverse recent legislation that ended the 40-year ban on the export of crude oil, end the export of all other fossil fuels, and overhaul relevant statutes that govern fossil fuel extraction in order to pursue a managed decline of fossil fuel production. Further, the federal government must immediately end the massive, irrational subsidies and other financial support that fossil fuel, and other dirty energy companies (such as nuclear, waste incineration and biomass energy) continue to receive both domestically and overseas.
Transition power generation to 100% renewable energy.
As the United States shifts away from fossil fuels, we must simultaneously ramp up energy efficiency and transition to clean, renewable energy to power the nation's economy where, in addition to excluding fossil fuels, any definition of renewable energy must also exclude all combustion-based power generation, nuclear, biomass energy, large scale hydro and waste-to-energy technologies. To achieve this, the United States must shift to 100 percent renewable power generation by 2035 or earlier. This shift will necessitate upgrading our electricity grid to be smart, efficient, and decentralized, with the ability to incorporate battery storage and distributed energy systems that are democratically governed. In addition, Congress must bring the outdated regulation of electricity into the twenty-first century, encouraging public and community ownership over power infrastructure and electricity choice, as well as permitting distributed energy sources, including rooftop and community solar programs to supply the grid.
Expand public transportation and phase out fossil fuel vehicles.
As the transition away from fossil fuels occurs, our transportation system must also undergo 100 percent decarbonization. To accomplish a fossil-fuel-free reality, Congress must require and fund greater investment in renewable-energy-powered public transportation that serves the people who need it most. The United States must also phase out the sale of automobiles and trucks with internal fossil fuel combustion engines as quickly as possible and phase out all existing fossil fuel mobile sources by 2040 or earlier. Federal credits for electric vehicles must be expanded.
Harness the full power of the Clean Air Act.
The Clean Air Act provides powerful tools that have proven successful in protecting the air we breathe and reducing greenhouse pollution. It can also serve as an important backstop to ensure climate targets are met. Congress should harness the full power of the statute by setting strict deadlines and providing adequate funding for EPA to carry out all its duties under all applicable sections of the Act, including implementing greenhouse pollution reduction requirements for cars, trucks, aircraft, ships, smokestacks and other sources, as well as a science-based national pollution cap. The Act has successfully reduced many air pollutants and can do the same for greenhouse pollution.
Ensure a Just Transition led by impacted communities and workers.
In effectuating this energy transformation, it is critical to prioritize support for communities who have historically been harmed first and most by the dirty energy economy and workers in the energy sector and related industries. We support a comprehensive economic plan to drive job growth and invest in a new green economy that is designed, built and governed by communities and workers. Building new energy, waste, transportation and housing infrastructure, designed to serve climate resilience and human needs; retrofitting millions of buildings to conserve energy and other resources; and, actively restoring natural ecosystems to protect communities from climate change, are but a few ways to build a sustainable, low carbon economy where no one is left behind during this change.
Uphold Indigenous Rights
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) must be upheld and implemented, along with treaties, instruments and decisions of international law that recognize that Indigenous Peoples have the right to give or withhold "free, prior and informed consent" to legislation and development of their lands, territories and/or natural resources, cultural properties and heritage, and other interests, and to receive remedies of losses and damages of property taken without consent.
Further, we will vigorously oppose any legislation that: (1) rolls back existing environmental, health, and other protections, (2) protects fossil fuel and other dirty energy polluters from liability, or (3) promotes corporate schemes that place profits over community burdens and benefits, including market-based mechanisms and technology options such as carbon and emissions trading and offsets, carbon capture and storage, nuclear power, waste-to-energy and biomass energy. Fossil fuel companies should pay their fair share for damages caused by climate change, rather than shifting those costs to taxpayers.
We look forward to working with you to address the gravest environmental crisis humanity has ever faced, to protect all present and future generations around the world, while centering the rights of those communities and workers most impacted.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Center for Science in the Public Interest: Greg Jaffe, Cornell, and GMOs
Greg Jaffe, the head CSPI’s Biotechnology Project, has publically aligned himself with one of the most pro-GMO groups in the country—the Cornell Alliance for Science.
Jan 06, 2019
The Center for Science in the Public Interest is known in public interest circles as one of the premiere food safety public interest groups in Washington, D.C.
But that reputation has suffered over the years because of the group's stance on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) - including its opposition to mandatory labeling of GMO foods.
That GMO stance aligns CSPI with pro-GMO organizations and against other consumer groups - including Center for Food Safety, Consumers Union and US Right to Know.
In 2015, CSPI refused to debate Consumers Union's Michael Hansen on the question of mandatory labeling of GMO foods.
"Why is CSPI defending a technology that has health and environmental risks but nearly no consumer benefits?" asked Gary Ruskin of US Right to Know at the time. "CSPI has done a lot of good work over the years. But on the issue of GMOs, they have lost their way."
Now, Greg Jaffe, the head CSPI's Biotechnology Project, has publically aligned himself with one of the most pro-GMO groups in the country - the Cornell Alliance for Science.
Jaffe works part time as the Cornell Alliance for Science associate director of legal affairs.
"CSPI contracts with Cornell for part of his salary to have Greg provide expert technical assistance to the Alliance for Science," said CSPI's Jeff Cronin. "The Alliance for Science, like CSPI, takes no donations from corporations and discloses its donors on its website."
Cronin would not say how much Cornell is paying Jaffe.
(The Cornell Alliance for Science primary donor is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. But the Alliance does list as one of its funders a corporation - Blue Mountain Capital, a hedge fund with $21 billion under management.)
The public interest community sees Jaffe's move to Cornell as a step too far.
"For decades, the Center for Science in the Public Interest has done great work on integrity in science, and exposing corporate front groups," Ruskin told Corporate Crime Reporter. "It is regrettable that their standards have sunk so low that one of their staff, Greg Jaffe, now serves as the associate director of legal affairs for the Cornell Alliance for Science, a public relations shop that parrots agrichemical industry propaganda, partners with industry front groups, and works closely with many of the industry's leading messengers."
"We hope that CSPI will come to its senses, and stop supporting front group activities it has honorably decried for so long," Ruskin said.
US Right to Know put out a report in October 2018 titled Cornell Alliance for Science is a PR Campaign for the Agrichemical Industry.
US Right to Know put out a report in October 2018 titled Cornell Alliance for Science is a PR Campaign for the Agrichemical Industry.
The Gates Foundation helped launch the Cornell Alliance for Science in 2014 as an effort to "depolarize the charged debate" around genetically modified foods (GMOs).
"The Gates Foundation Deputy Director Rob Horsch, who worked for Monsanto Company for 25 years, leads the foundation's agricultural research and development strategies, which have drawn criticism for relentlessly promoting GMOs and agrichemicals in Africa over the opposition of Africa-based groups and social movements, and despite many concerns and doubts about genetically engineered crops across Africa," according to the report.
Jaydee Hanson of the Center for Food Safety said that Jaffe's work with the Alliance "certainly makes Jaffe look way more partisan."
"In taking a position with the Alliance, Jaffe went a step too far," Hanson said. "It totally undermines whatever neutrality he had cultivated."
Doug Gurian-Sherman was present at the creation of the Biotechnology Project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest in 2001.
He was soon joined by Greg Jaffe as a co-director.
Jaffe is now the sole director of the Biotechnology Project at CSPI and Gurian-Sherman has his own consulting firm in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Jaffe is more pro-GMO, Gurian-Sherman - not so much.
Gurian-Sherman studied plant pathology and genetic engineering at the University of California Berkeley. He ended up working at the Environmental Protection Agency.
"I left EPA at the end of 2000 when the Bush administration came in," Gurian-Sherman told Corporate Crime Reporter in an interview last year. "I was also disillusioned with the way the EPA was handling genetic engineering. And I was disillusioned with the bureaucracy."
How long were you at the EPA?
"About five years. I started in 1995 and left in 2001 to go to the Center for Science in the Public Interest. One of my goals was to work as a scientist with a public interest group. Michael Jacobson at CSPI was just starting a new program on biotechnology and he contacted me to see if I was interested in directing the program. I jumped on it. I knew a bit about CSPI's reputation and the work they did."
Were you the head of the new group from the beginning?
"I was the initial director. And then Greg Jaffe joined. And he was brought on as my co-director very shortly after, within a couple of months. That was in early 2001. Jaffe came in soon thereafter."
"For myself that I was optimistic about what we might do. It was over a period of several years that I grew unhappy and disillusioned with the direction it was taking."
"Part of the question was a matter of degree. Can this be regulated safely? What would be required to do that? And over time, not only how can it be regulated safely but how can it best be developed in ways that might be best for society."
"My initial thinking was - I was not convinced that it would be an important beneficial technology for society. But I was cautiously optimistic that with the right kind of regulatory regime, at least the harmful manifestations of the technology could be weeded out and prevented from reaching the market. We were not anywhere near that and still are not anywhere near that in terms of our regulatory system."
"That was my initial perspective. And it was largely in line with CSPI."
Was it your perspective at that time that GMOs were just a handmaiden to industrial agriculture and thus wouldn't benefit society?
"No. I wasn't thinking as much initially about those broader social implications. I certainly was thinking about the corporate use of the technology at the time. Some of the same players - Monsanto, DuPont, Dow - were clearly dominating the technology. And I certainly was concerned about that. Going back to my Science for the People days, if not before, I have been concerned about corporate power and corporate consolidation. That aspect of it was certainly on my mind. And it was a major concern. At that point, my analysis had not reached conclusions that the technology had an inherent tendency to be controlled and dominated by the industry. Or as you put it, it was often a handmaiden of the industry."
"At the initial stages, I had not done the analysis or thought deeply enough about whether the technology was capable of being developed independent of the big corporations and whether the corporate influence could be adequately tamped down and controlled to allow public aspects to be developed. That came over time and came later."
At what point in time at CSPI did you start thinking - this is going in a direction I'm not comfortable with?
"CSPI has not been a partner with the other progressive public interest groups in the United States and around the world on genetic engineering."
What groups are you talking about?
"It has changed over time. At the time, one of the major groups in the United States was the Union of Concerned Scientists, who I eventually ended up working for. Their position was similar to mine - genetic engineering maybe had some promise but was causing many more problems than it was solving. It was mainly detrimental, the regulations were drastically inadequate, we needed more sustainable farming and conventional crop breeding rather than genetic engineering."
"Their program was led at the time by Margaret Mellon and Jane Rissler. Environmental Defense Fund was a major player with Rebecca Goldberg. They had positions similar to the Union of Concerned Scientists. Consumers Union has a research arm. Michael Hansen and others there played a big role. And this goes back into the late 1980s. Friends of the Earth had some involvement at the time."
"Another group that started around that time was the Center for Food Safety. I also worked with them for a time. They have done a lot of the legal work, filing lawsuits against particular applications of the technology, especially the herbicide resistant crops. Andrew Kimbrell was an acolyte of Jeremy Rifkin. His first lawsuit was against the lab in Berkeley where I was doing my PhD."
"The Union of Concerned Scientists changed directions in 2014 under a new director. Margaret Mellon and I left the program at that time. They are no longer working on genetic engineering."
Then the current groups are Consumers Union, Center for Food Safety, US Right to Know, Greenpeace, and Organic Consumers Association and others.
"Yes. They are still involved. But it's interesting because the groups critical have changed somewhat and dispersed. There are smaller groups like Food Democracy Now. And many of the groups are working to get mandatory labeling."
Why did CSPI move in the other direction?
"I don't know. It's a good question to ask. CSPI has certainly been associating themselves with positions similar to the GMO pesticide industry despite some criticisms of the technology. And that differs from the positions of the liberal and progressive public interest community, which on the whole has been opposed or skeptical of genetic engineering."
"I'm sure I am forgetting other groups. But these groups worked together. There was communication, strategy, among these groups. And CSPI has never been a part of that coalition. And not only nationally, but internationally."
What about Jaffe signing on with Cornell?
"That is not the only pro-GMO group he is aligned with. And I am not questioning his motives. But it does raise questions as to why they are comfortable to collaborate with organizations that are highly pro-GMO. From my understanding, CSPI's position is they are pro-GMO with some reservations."
"Jaffe was also very involved with the Program for Biosafety Systems, which is associated with the green revolution centers, in particular the International Food Policy Research Institute. And he has had associations with the US Agency for International Development, which is pro-GMO. It's an interesting mix of bedfellows supporting the GMO project. He helps third world countries develop regulatory systems that allow the countries to choose GMOs. But many of civil society groups in these African and other countries say these regulations facilitate large pesticide/GMO corporations to penetrate those countries."
"CSPI has said it wants to position itself between industry and the civil society sector, which they see as both having extreme positions on genetic engineering - again paraphrasing. They see civil society as hyping the risks and industry as minimizing those risks. But in fact, CSPI has eschewed civil society groups which oppose GMOs on safety and other grounds. But CSPI is comfortable associating itself widely with groups that are highly pro-GMO and have positions similar to the industry. CSPI's talking points are mostly in line with industry talking points."
"It raises the question, which I don't have the answer to, as to why they are often found associated with these groups that are pro-GMO, and reluctant to be involved with civil society groups."
Cornell is funded by the pro-GMO Gates Foundation.
"The Gates Foundation, the Cornell Alliance for Science, industry, academics associated with the GMO technology, the US government - they all want to open up markets in developing countries in Southeast Asia and Africa. In all of these cases, policy supporters of genetic engineering recognize the importance those countries having social systems, regulatory systems, intellectual property systems that facilitate the private sector commodification or use of genetic engineering in those countries. And Jaffe's expertise is as a legal expert on the regulation of genetic engineering."
They would argue that as part of the green revolution - we are going to feed the world.
"Where I have a major philosophical difference with CSPI goes back to my early days in biology as part of a social system. I see these technologies as being embedded in a political and economic context that is not neutral. CSPI has said and Jaffe has said that they take an incrementalist approach to solving these problems."
"They can defend that by saying the broader system based approaches are just unrealistic while an incrementalist approach does some real good in preventing or stopping some harmful applications of various technologies. It's been a good thing to get trans fats off the market. That kind of approach can have a lot of merit in a sane society that basically does the right thing and is egalitarian and broadly democratic."
"But in a society that has a broken democracy, dominated by corporate interests and powerful economic interests, that kind of approach can be misleading and like a bandaid. What you have in the case of genetic engineering is CSPI touting the reduction of chemical pesticides in Bt crops, which I agree is a good thing."
"But what they don't talk about is the nature of industrial agriculture, which this is a part of and remains highly dependent on those pesticides. What has happened with insecticides in major Bt crops like corn or cotton, sprayed insecticides have been reduced, but seed coating insecticides, neonicotinoids, are more widely used now than the sprayed insecticides. And these are the very insecticides that are associated with killing off bees and other pollinators. There is a tremendous amount of research on that."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy