Month: February, 2015
Walkout at 9 refineries largest since 1980
| February 13, 2015 | 7:05 am | Labor, Local/State, National, USW | Comments closed

Militant/Danielle London

Workers Feb. 3 picket office of LyondellBasell, owner of one of refineries in national strike.
BY BOB SAMSON
Source: The Militant

HOUSTON — Some 3,800 oil workers at nine refineries in Texas, California, Kentucky and Washington went on strike, or were involved in shutdown procedures in preparation to walk out, Feb. 1 after the United Steelworkers union and oil companies failed to reach a contract agreement. This is the first nationwide strike since 1980.
The union represents 30,000 members at 230 refineries, oil terminals, pipelines and petrochemical plants. The union-organized refineries produce 64 percent of oil in the U.S. The refineries not on strike are operating under a day-to-day contract extension. All but one of the struck refineries are being operated by management and in some cases strikebreaking contractors.

Safety is a central issue in the dispute.

“The company wants to take away union safety representatives and replace them with people of their choice,” pipefitter Jimmy Bear told the Militant at the picket in front of Marathon’s Texas City refinery Feb. 1. Workers picketing at LyondellBasell in Houston said the company wants to increase their already costly health insurance. Others pointed out that the company wants to substantially reduce overtime pay when they work their off days.

Hundreds came to the union headquarters in Texas City the morning the strike started to sign up for picket duty. Days before the walkout, hundreds of oil workers joined protests in front of refineries.

“We’re trying to keep our wages up,” Joshua Lege, who works at the LyondellBasell refinery in Houston, told the Militant. He was helping lead chants at the Jan. 28 rally in front of the plant. “We’re trying to hold the line. The cost of everything is going up. With the loss of benefits and pensions, who can afford to retire?”

“This work stoppage is about onerous overtime; unsafe staffing levels; dangerous conditions the industry continues to ignore; the daily occurrences of fires, emissions, leaks and explosions that threaten local communities,” said Steelworkers International Vice President Gary Beevers, head of the union’s Oil Bargaining council, in a Feb. 1 statement.

The strike comes as oil prices have plunged and layoffs have risen. Baker-Hughes, an oil field service company, announced it was laying off 7,000 workers.

Even with the fall in oil prices, Royal Dutch Shell, the lead employer in talks with the union, announced 2014 profits of $14.87 billion Jan. 30.
Can Texas get any crazier?
| February 12, 2015 | 9:30 pm | Analysis, humor, political struggle, Texas "Open Carry" | Comments closed

By James Thompson

 

Many people in the world are beginning to wonder if something bad got into the water in Texas. Texas is known for its outrageous right wing politicians such as George W. Bush, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry and many others.

 

In the last election cycle, Texas elected Greg Abbott as the successor to Rick Perry for the governor’s office. Mr. Abbott is well known to be a pal of Ted Nugent who is a nutcase, right wing, neo-Nazi rocker. Dan Patrick was elected lieutenant governor. Mr. Patrick has distinguished himself in the past for his admissions to a psychiatric hospital.

 

The Texas legislature has been predominantly right wing for many years now.

 

The legislative struggle would be predictable given this political background. Texas legislators have mired themselves in a senseless struggle over “unlicensed open carry” legislation. If passed, such legislation would legalize the open carrying of handguns. If passed, this legislation would put cowboys back on the streets of Texas. No one seems to be bothered by the fact that a two-year-old shot and killed his mother in a store in Idaho just a few weeks ago. Perhaps Texas legislators should include in the new law a provision which would allow two-year-olds to openly carry handguns.

 

It should be noted that crazed advocates of open carry are now openly harassing legislators who oppose the open carry legislation.

 

In a country where many African-Americans and Muslims have been recently shot and killed in hate crimes, legislation legalizing the open carry of handguns should be disgusting to all people of conscience.

 

Another major legislative focus in Texas is to replace Texas’ “Confederate Heroes Day” holiday with a “Civil War Remembrance Day” to honor all who fought in the Civil War.

 

Many Texas snakes are crawling out from under rocks hissing at any possibility that the Confederate soldiers who fought for slavery might not receive total honor and recognition for their dastardly deeds.

 

If justice is to be served in Texas, someone should propose legislation to establish a day of remembrance for the slaves who contributed so much to Texas history and suffered so much at the hands of the Confederate Texas snakes.

 

Response to: “An opening for Elizabeth Warren if she wants it”
| February 12, 2015 | 8:28 pm | Analysis, Bernie Sanders, political struggle | Comments closed
By A. Shaw
DP Pollster Douglas Schoen writes:
Telephone interviews with 400 likely caucusgoers in Iowa and 400 likely primary voters in New Hampshire, conducted Jan. 13-15, suggest that Ms. Warren is already considerably more competitive than national polls suggest. In a head-to-head Clinton-Warren matchup in Iowa, Mrs. Clinton ran 15 points ahead of Ms. Warren, at 51%-36%. Surprisingly, caucus-voting Iowa Democrats already appear to be thoroughly familiar with the Massachusetts senator, and well-disposed toward her, with a 75%-7% favorability rating. Mrs. Clinton has great favorables, too: 93%-6%.But Mrs. Clinton’s favorables don’t appear to make her invulnerable to a populist challenge from the left, as a Warren campaign would almost certainly be.”
A drop in  Clinton’s frontrunner status  makes all of the top contenders — Biden (15%), Warren (7%), and Sanders (5%) –  “more competitive.”
Warren says she isn’t a contender or even a future candidate. So, who — either Biden -or Sanders — gets her seven points? Sanders is a lot more similar to Warren than Biden. So, most likely, Warren’s seven points should be imputed to Sanders until the contenders announce their candidacy in March.
The results of Douglas Schoen’s “head-to-head” matchup between Clinton and Warren don’t demonstrate Warren caused Clinton’s developing crack-up.
Most likely, Clinton’s cracking-up mainly results from either Clinton herself with something like 38% in Iowa or Biden with 15% or Warren with 7% or Sanders with 5%. or a mix of these.

 

An Opening for Elizabeth Warren If She Wants It
| February 12, 2015 | 8:22 pm | Analysis, political struggle | Comments closed
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren told Fortune magazine this month that she won’t run for president in 2016, deepening the sense that the Democratic nomination is Hillary Clinton’s for the asking. Yet in contemporary politics the landscape can change dramatically, seemingly overnight. Before 2008 Barack Obama said repeatedly that he wasn’t running for president.
If Elizabeth Warren doesn’t change her mind, it could be because of intimidating national polls showing Mrs. Clinton with an overwhelming lead. Most recently, a CNN/ORC poll had the former secretary of state with a 66%-9% advantage over Ms. Warren.
 But these numbers don’t tell the whole story, and if Ms. Warren eventually does get into the race, it could be because the numbers in the crucial primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire are not nearly so scary.In my own recent polling there, I found a much more competitive landscape.
Telephone interviews with 400 likely caucusgoers in Iowa and 400 likely primary voters in New Hampshire, conducted Jan. 13-15, suggest that Ms. Warren is already considerably more competitive than national polls suggest. In a head-to-head Clinton-Warren matchup in Iowa, Mrs. Clinton ran 15 points ahead of Ms. Warren, at 51%-36%. Surprisingly, caucus-voting Iowa Democrats already appear to be thoroughly familiar with the Massachusetts senator, and well-disposed toward her, with a 75%-7% favorability rating. Mrs. Clinton has great favorables, too: 93%-6%.But Mrs. Clinton’s favorables don’t appear to make her invulnerable to a populist challenge from the left, as a Warren campaign would almost certainly be.
My polling shows that there is a significant opening with Democratic primary voters who are extremely liberal in ideology and populist in orientation.I also tested Mrs. Clinton’s message, based on her public statements, of charting a new direction and standing up for working people against Ms. Warren’s more explicitly populist direction in which government addresses fundamental unfairness in American society through more oversight of Wall Street and policies to reduce income inequality.
In that message comparison, Ms. Warren polled a mere four points behind Mrs. Clinton, at 31% to 35%.Ms. Warren could find similar encouragement in New Hampshire, the nation’s first primary state and neighbor of the senator’s state of Massachusetts. Among likely Democratic primary voters, Mrs. Clinton led Ms. Warren by only nine points, 51%-42%. The two had virtually identical favorable ratings at 89%-5% for Ms. Warren, 90%-5% for Mrs. Clinton.Ms. Warren’s populist message resonates more strongly in New Hampshire than in Iowa. New Hampshire residents, when polled on the specific Clinton and Warren messages, had Ms. Warren within hailing distance of Mrs. Clinton, at 38%-31%. When respondents were asked the sort of question that a campaign might pose—whether they’d vote for Mrs. Clinton, described as close to Wall Street and a supporter of the Iraq war, versus Ms. Warren as a true progressive who stands up to Wall Street—Ms. Warren polled ahead of Mrs. Clinton, at 47% to 42%.
Given that front-runners in primaries typically draw their highest poll numbers at the start of a race, when their name-recognition advantage is most pronounced, Mrs. Clinton’s best hope would be to solidify her current support. Worst case: She suffers the same slippage she did in Iowa in 2008 when she finished a poor third after showing a resounding lead of 58%-12% over then-Sen. Obama.
The implications are clear. Hillary Clinton is vulnerable in the Democratic primaries, something her new adviser Joel Benenson (currently an Obama pollster who previously worked for me) is presumably in the process of finding out. The results from my polling also suggest that potential candidates who would offer populist messages—former Sen. Jim Webb from Virginia and Sen.
Bernie Sanders from Vermont—also have the potential to narrow significantly Mrs. Clinton’s current lead.
If either Mr. Webb or Mr. Sanders gets into the race, Ms. Warren might have second thoughts—a split of the populist vote could pave the way for Mrs. Clinton. The former secretary of state could further complicate matters for potential challengers from the left by developing her own theme to appeal to an electorate that sees American society as fundamentally unfair.
Tom Donahue, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, last week attacked Ms. Warren’s “economic populism” and charged that she stands for more regulation and government control of business. That’s music to the ears of many Democratic primary voters, who seem ready to embrace candidates who take on big business, the banks and Wall Street—some of Ms. Warren’s favorite targets. In other words, the Democratic presidential contest could go very quickly from a foregone conclusion to a fierce contest.
Mr. Schoen served as a political adviser and pollster for President Bill Clinton from 1994 to 2000.

 

Africa/Global: Archbishop Tutu on Fossil-Fuel Divestment
| February 11, 2015 | 8:18 pm | Africa, Analysis, International | Comments closed

AfricaFocus Bulletin
February 11, 2015 (150211)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor’s Note

“The destruction of the earth’s environment is the human rights
challenge of our time. … The most devastating effects are visited
on the poor, those with no involvement in creating the problem. A
deep injustice. Just as we argued in the 1980s that those who
conducted business with apartheid South Africa were aiding and
abetting an immoral system, today we say nobody should profit from
the rising temperatures, seas and human suffering caused by the
burning of fossil fuels.” Archbishop Desmond Tutu

For a version of this Bulletin in html format, more suitable for
printing, go to http://www.africafocus.org/docs15/clim1502.php, and
click on “format for print or mobile.”

To share this on Facebook, click on
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://www.africafocus.org/docs15/clim1502.php

Please view and distribute widely this powerful short video by
Archbishop Desmond Tutu: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlh_ptOljkg

While the actual impact and potential threat of climate change
threaten the entire planet, Archbishop Tutu’s remarks reiterate the
further truth that while some profit from causing the destruction,
it is the most vulnerable countries and the most vulnerable within
each country who bear the disproportionate burdens.

As noted in the articles by Deirdre Smith and Naomi Klein cited with
links immediately below the transcript of Tutu’s remarks, that is
why the hashtags #divest and #BlackLivesMatter must be linked.

The differential value given to different lives, by race and place,
matches the hierarchy of economic and political power in today’s
world. That reality, established over centuries, is not new. But
while one may or may not agree with Naomi Klein that climate change
can be the essential catalyst for new urgency in resolving these
interlinked crises, the linkage cannot be denied. Nor can anyone
safely ignore Archbishop Tutu’s reminder that “time is running out.”

The divestment movement is only part of the campaign for climate
justice, just as it was only part of the struggle to end apartheid.
But the momentum is growing, and contributes to the pressure for
governments to act and for investors to turn their attention to
clean energy. On February 13 and 14, groups around the world will be
participating in “Global Divestment Day” calling for full divestment
from fossil fuels and investment in a clean energy future (See
http://gofossilfree.org/divestment-day/ for details).

See below for summary talking points from AfricaFocus, links to
other relevant climate justice groups (including the Pan African
Climate Justice Alliance), recent news articles on renewable energy,
and previous AfricaFocus Bulletins on related issues.

++++++++++++++++++++++end editor’s note+++++++++++++++++

Archbishop Desmond Tutu on Climate Change

Sep 22, 2014

Video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlh_ptOljkg

Transcript of Archbishop Tutu’s remarks on climate change:

“The destruction of the earth’s environment is the human rights
challenge of our time.

Over the 25 years that climate change has been on the world’s agenda
global emissions have risen unchecked while real world impacts have
taken hold in earnest.

Time is running out.

We are already experiencing loss of life and livelihood due to
intensified storms, shortage of fresh water, spread of disease,
rising food prices, and the creation of climate refugees.

The most devastating effects are visited on the poor, those with no
involvement in creating the problem. A deep injustice.

Just as we argued in the 1980s that those who conducted business
with apartheid South Africa were aiding and abetting an immoral
system, today we say nobody should profit from the rising
temperatures, seas and human suffering caused by the burning of
fossil fuels.

We can no longer continue feeding our addiction to fossil fuels as
if there is no tomorrow. For there will be no tomorrow.

We are on the cusp of a global transition to a new safe energy
economy. We must support our leaders to make the correct, moral
choices.

* Freeze further exploration for new fossil sources. We cannot
maintain a livable temperature and climate for humanity if we burn
more than a fraction of the fossil fuels already discovered.

* Hold those responsible for climate damages accountable. Change the
profit incentive by demanding legal liability for unsustainable
environmental practices.

* Encourage governments to stop accepting funding from the fossil
fuel industry that blocks action on climate change.

* Divest from fossil fuels and invest in a clean energy future. Move
your money out of the problem and into solutions.

There is a word we use in South Africa that describes human
relationships: Ubuntu. It says: I am because you are. My success and
my failures are bound up in yours. We are made for each other, part
of one family, the human family, with one shared earth.

God bless you.”

************************************************************

Key articles on the link between #divest and #BlackLivesMatter

* “Why the Climate Movement Must Stand with Ferguson,” by Deirdre
Smith, August 20, 2014

http://350.org/ / direct URL: http://tinyurl.com/m8focoy

It was not hard for me to make the connection between the tragedy in
Ferguson, Missouri, and the catalyst for my work to stop the climate
crisis.

It’s all over the news: images of police in military gear pointing
war zone weapons at unarmed black people with their hands in the
air. These scenes made my heart race in an all-to-familiar way. I
was devastated for Mike Brown, his family and the people of
Ferguson. Almost immediately, I closed my eyes and remembered the
same fear for my own family that pangs many times over a given year.

In the wake of the climate disaster that was Hurricane Katrina
almost ten years ago, I saw the same images of police, pointing
warzone weapons at unarmed black people with their hands in the air.
In the name of ‘restoring order,’ my family and their community were
demonized as ‘looters’ and ‘dangerous.’ When crisis hits, the
underlying racism in our society comes to the surface in very clear
ways. Climate change is bringing nothing if not clarity to the
persistent and overlapping crises of our time.

* “Why #BlackLivesMatter Should Transform the Climate Debate,” by
Naomi Klein, December 12, 2014

http://www.thenation.com/ / direct URL: http://tinyurl.com/ojojt4f

Taken together, the picture is clear. Thinly veiled notions of
racial superiority have informed every aspect of the non-response to
climate change so far. Racism is what has made it possible to
systematically look away from the climate threat for more than two
decades. It is also what has allowed the worst health impacts of
digging up, processing and burning fossil fuels–from cancer
clusters to asthma–to be systematically dumped on indigenous
communities and on the neighborhoods where people of colour live,
work and play. The South Bronx, to cite just one example, has
notoriously high asthma rates–and according to one study, a
staggering 21.8 percent of children living in New York City public
housing have asthma, three times higher than the rate for private
housing. The choking of those children is not as immediately lethal
as the kind of choking that stole Eric Garner’s life, but it is very
real nonetheless.

If we refuse to speak frankly about the intersection of race and
climate change, we can be sure that racism will continue to inform
how the governments of industrialized countries respond to this
existential crisis. It will manifest in the continued refusal to
provide serious climate financing to poor countries so they can
protect themselves from heavy weather. It will manifest in the
fortressing of wealthy continents as they attempt to lock out the
growing numbers of people whose homes will become unlivable.

******************************************************

AfricaFocus Summary Talking Points

* Global warming and environmental damage from the fossil-fuel
industry already affect all of us, although responsibility lies
primarily with the rich industrialized countries and the newly
industrializing powers. Africa is the most vulnerable continent, but
extreme weather and sea-level rise have hit New Orleans and New
Jersey as well as Lagos.

* When industries make decisions based on short-term profits,
encouraged by government subsidies to established industries, they
systematically discount damages from “externalities.” Visible
results include the devastation of oil-producing areas in the Niger
Delta and of coal-producing areas, whether in South Africa or West
Virginia. The longer-term consequences in rising temperatures and
more extreme weather will be even more devastating.

* Action to combat climate change depends in part on decisions made
in international conferences, where the primary obstacles to action
are the rich countries and the newly industrializing powers. But
efforts at many other levels are also of decisive importance.
Fossil-fuel divestment campaigns, as they grow and multiply, can
affect investment choices. So can technological innovation. Notably,
clean energy can already be more cost-effective than large-scale
fossil fuel plants in supplying distributed energy access to Africa.

For more from AfricaFocus on Climate Change and the Environment,
visit http://www.africafocus.org/intro-env.php

********************************************************

Key Organizational Contacts on Climate Change and Fossil-Fuel
Divestment

Divestment Student Network (USA)
http://studentsdivest.org/

Climate Justice Alliance (USA)
http://www.ourpowercampaign.org/cja/

Go Fossil Free
http://gofossilfree.org

350.org Africa
http://350africa.org/

Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA)
http://www.pacja.org

*************************************************************

Notable recent reports on economics of renewable energy

* “Renewable energy costs to drop 40 percent in next two years”
02/02/15, new report on worldwide develoopment from International
Renewable Energy Agency
http://tinyurl.com/kvoo34c

* “Africa’s quiet solar revolution,” survey by Christian Science
Monitor, Jan 25, 2015
http://tinyurl.com/mnf5mtz

* “Africa’s Largest Wind Farm,” Dec. 24, 2014, construction
beginning at Lake Turkana
http://tinyurl.com/pau6fyv

* South Africa’s Eskom in crisis over high costs and low efficiency,
renewable projects offer new options.
http://tinyurl.com/qbjgpg5 (Jan 16 article on Eskom) and
http://allafrica.com/stories/201501211312.html (new study on savings
from
renewable energy in South Africa)

* Slow start for renewable energy in Niger Delta, Feb 2, 2015
http://tinyurl.com/mqzd5ao

**************************************************************

Recent AfricaFocus Bulletins on Climate Change

(1) Fossil-Fuel Divestment

November 11, 2014  Africa/Global: Fossil-Fuel Divestment Growing
http://www.africafocus.org/docs14/cc1411b.php

The latest international scientific statement on the disastrous and
potentially irreversible damage from climate change is unambiguous,
as is the imperative for drastic action to curb greenhouse gas
emissions. But political obstacles to moving from rhetoric to action
are virtually unchanged, despite massive demonstrations coinciding
with the UN climate summit in late September. The dispersed fossil-
fuel divestment movement, however, although still too small to curb
the industry, is growing rapidly.

Mar 10, 2013  Africa/Global: Fossil-Fuel Divestment
http://www.africafocus.org/docs13/div1303.php

The fossil-fuel divestment movement now gaining momentum on college
campuses to fight climate change frequently evokes the precedent of
the anti-apartheid divestment campaigns of the 1970s and 1980s. But
there are other Africa connections that are also beginning to be
made. Africa is the continent most vulnerable to climate change and
extreme weather events. American and other multinational companies
have a long history of environmental destruction in areas such as
the Niger Delta. And while many African countries look to fossil-
fuel exploitation to fund their development, the experience of the
“resource curse” shows that the profits may fuel gross inequality
and capital flight rather than development.

(2) Renewable Energy Prospects

September 22, 2014  Africa: Climate Action & Economic Growth
http://www.africafocus.org/docs14/clim1409.php

It is still conventional wisdom to pit action to curb climate change
against economic growth. But the evidence is rapidly accumulating
that this is a false dilemma, buttressed by vested interests in the
fossil fuel industry and a simplistic concept of economic growth.
According to a report just released by the Global Commission on the
Economy and Climate, falling prices for renewable energy and careful
analysis of both costs and benefits of low-carbon vs. high-carbon
investment strategies point to a clear conclusion: saving the planet
and saving the economy go hand in hand.

August 18, 2014  Africa: From Kerosene to Solar
http://www.africafocus.org/docs14/sol1408.php

The largest marketer of solar lamps in Africa, which recently passed
the one million mark in lamps sold, has set an ambitious target for
the industry. “”Our mission is to eradicate the kerosene lamp from
Africa by the end of this decade,” proclaims Solar Aid. Although
achieving this goal would require the pico-solar market to emulate
mobile phone industry’s exponential growth path, it may not be as
utopian as it sounds. According to market research company Navigant
Research, “Off-grid solar lighting for base of the pyramid (BOP)
markets, the leading solar PV consumer product segment, is
transitioning from a humanitarian aspiration to big business.”

June 30, 2014  Africa: Clean Energy Most Cost-Effective
http://www.africafocus.org/docs14/ces1406.php

“From off-grid LED lighting to ‘Skinny Grids,’ we can now provide
energy access with a fraction of the amount of power we used to
need. More importantly, we can unlock affordable initial
interventions — like lighting, mobile phone charging, fans, and TVs
plus a small amount of agro processing — to help people get onto
the energy ladder today rather than forcing them to wait decades for
a grid extension that may never come. … It’s important to
understand that we aren’t just imagining this clean energy market
growth — it’s already happening.” — Justin Guay, Sierra Club

January 21, 2014  South Africa: Renewables Rising, Coal Still King
http://www.africafocus.org/docs14/coal1401.php

“South Africa [is] the world’s sixth-largest coal exporter, seventh-
largest coal producer, and thirteenth-largest CO2 emitter, with per-
capita emissions twice the global average. Ninety-four percent of
the country’s electricity comes from coal … The country’s abundant
solar and wind resources offer a promising renewable energy
alternative. But entrenched political interests connected to the
ruling party are fighting to expand coal’s role in the national
economy.” – Adam Welz, “The Future of Coal”

(3) Destructive Impact of Fossil-Fuel Production

February 26, 2014  Africa: Tracking Toxic Pollution
http://www.africafocus.org/docs14/env1402.php

The damages produced by modern economies, termed “externalities” by
economists, most often do not figure in the market signals shaping
corporate profits and therefore corporate decision-making. The
result, both in advanced economies or around the world, includes not
only the massive threat to our common future through global warming,
but also extraordinary levels of toxic pollution disproportionately
affecting the most vulnerable. Of the top ten toxic threats around
the world identified in a new report, three are in Africa: the
Agbogbloshie Dumpsite for e-waste in Ghana, the entire Niger Delta
region in Nigeria, and the now-closed but still deadly lead mining
site in Kabwe, Zambia.

Aug 12, 2011  Nigeria: Past Time for Oil Cleanup, 1
http://www.africafocus.org/docs11/nig1108a.php

The fact that the environment of the Niger Delta, and that portion
of it known as Ogoniland, has been devastated by oil pollution for
decades should not be news. It has been repeatedly exposed by
Nigerian and international activists in print, court testimony,
photographs, and films, and punctuated by the 1995 martyrdom of Ken
Saro-Wiwa and his fellow Ogoni activists. But this month, for the
first time, a comprehensive scientific survey of oil pollution in
Ogoniland has concluded that the pollution is even more pervasive
than many previously assumed. Simultaneously, in response to a
class-action suit in London, Shell Oil has accepted responsibility
for two massive oil spills in Ogoniland in 1998.

Aug 12, 2011  Nigeria: Past Time for Oil Cleanup, 2
http://www.africafocus.org/docs11/nig1108b.php

“Shell faces a bill of hundreds of millions of dollars after
accepting full liability for two massive oil spills that devastated
a Nigerian community of 69,000 people and may take at least 20 years
to clean up. Experts who studied video footage of the spills at Bodo
in Ogoniland say they could together be as large as the 1989 Exxon
Valdez disaster in Alaska, when 10m gallons of oil destroyed the
remote coastline.” – Guardian

(4) Other Recent AfricaFocus Bulletins On Climate Change

November 11, 2014  Africa/Global: Climate Change Summary Report
http://www.africafocus.org/docs14/cc1411a.php

“The world’s top scientists and governments have issued their
bluntest plea yet to the world: Slash carbon pollution now (at a
very low cost) or risk ‘severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts
for people and ecosystems.’ Scientists have ‘high confidence’ these
devastating impacts occur ‘even with adaptation’ — if we keep doing
little or nothing.” – Joe Romm, Editor, Climate Progress

December 15, 2014  Africa/Global: Postponing Climate Decisions
http://www.africafocus.org/docs14/clim1412.php

“It was not hard for me to make the connection between the tragedy
in Ferguson, Missouri, and the catalyst for my work to stop the
climate crisis. … In the wake of the climate disaster that was
Hurricane Katrina almost ten years ago, I saw the same images of
police, pointing war-zone weapons at unarmed black people with their
hands in the air. … When crisis hits, the underlying racism in our
society comes to the surface in very clear ways.” – Deirdre Smith,
350.org, August 20, 2014

November 18, 2013  Africa: Time to Pay for Climate “Loss and Damage”
http://www.africafocus.org/docs13/clim1311.php

“The U.S. delegation negotiating at the U.N. international climate
change conference in Poland is pushing an agenda of minimising the
role of “Loss and Damage” in the UNFCCC framework, prioritising
private finance in the Green Climate Fund, and delaying the deadline
for post-2020 emission reduction commitments, according to a State
Department negotiating strategy which IPS has seen.” Inter Press
Service

Dec 13, 2012  Africa: Time for Climate Justice
http://www.africafocus.org/docs12/cl1212.php

The latest international conference on climate change has concluded
in Doha, with the predictable “low-ambition” results. Meanwhile,
reports proliferate on the disastrous consequences for Africa and
the entire planet if governments do not begin to overcome their
lethargy in slowing carbon emissions and preparing for adaptation to
the changes from global warming already built into the global
system.

Oct 3, 2012  Southern Africa: Climate Threat to Zambezi Basin
http://www.africafocus.org/docs12/zam1210.php

According to a new study released in September, “There will be a
significant reduction in the amount of water flowing through the
[Zambezi] river system, affecting all eight countries it passes
through. The water that feeds the river is expected to decrease by
between 26 percent and 40 percent in another four decades. But when
the rains do fall, they will be more intense, triggering more
extreme floods.” Nevertheless, says the author of the study,
planning for existing and new dams does not yet take account of the
impact of climate change in reducing power generation and capacity
for flood control.

*****************************************************

AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with a
particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.

AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see
http://www.africafocus.org

Statement by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka on the USW Oil Workers’ Unfair Labor Practice Strike
| February 11, 2015 | 8:07 pm | Labor, National | Comments closed

 

February 11, 2015

 

“The AFL-CIO stands in full support of our brothers and sisters in this strike against unfair labor practices. We are in solidarity with the more than 5,200 oil refinery workers who are currently on the picket lines demanding safe working environments and an end to dangerous and abusive industry practices. No one should go to work each day wondering if it will be their last. No one should be asked by a supervisor to labor at unsafe staffing levels.

This strike is about protecting workers and their families, and it’s about protecting the communities where these facilities are located. The workers are protesting the oil companies’ serious unfair labor practices, including their refusal to negotiate over mandatory subjects, undue delays in providing information, impeded bargaining, and threats issued to workers if they joined the ULP strike. We call on the oil companies to end their bad faith bargaining and immediately work with the union to solve these problems.”

 

###

 

 

Keri A. Shanks, Senior Secretary

AFL-CIO Communications Department

(202) 637-5389

kshanks@aflcio.org

www.aflcio.org

The Warmongering Record of Hillary Clinton
| February 11, 2015 | 7:54 pm | Analysis, International, National, political struggle | Comments closed

February 11, 2015

“I urged him to bomb…”

by GARY LEUPP

SOURCE: Counterpunch
If reason and justice prevailed in this country, you’d think that the recent series of articles in the Washington Times concerning the U.S.-NATO attack on Libya in 2011 would torpedo Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects.
Clinton as U.S. Secretary of State at that time knew that Libya was no threat to the U.S. She knew that Muammar Gadhafi had been closely cooperating with the U.S. in combating Islamist extremism. She probably realized that Gadhafi had a certain social base due in part to what by Middle Eastern standards was the relatively equitable distribution of oil income in Libya.
But she wanted to topple Gadhafi. Over the objections of Secretary of “Defense” Robert Gates but responding to the urgings of British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicholas Sarkozy, she advocated war. Why? Not for the reason advertised at the time. (Does this sound familiar?) Not because Gadhafy was preparing a massacre of the innocents in Benghazi, as had occurred in Rwanda in 1994. (That episode, and the charge that the “international community” had failed to intervene, was repeatedly referenced by Clinton and other top officials, as a shameful precedent that must not be repeated. It had also been deployed by Bill Clinton in 1999, when he waged war on Serbia, grossly exaggerating the extent of carnage in Kosovo and positing the immanent prospect of “genocide” to whip up public support. Such uses of the Rwandan case reflect gross cynicism.)
No, genocide was not the issue, in Libya any more than in Kosovo. According to the Washington Times, high-ranking U.S. officials indeed questioned whether there was evidence for such a scenario in Libya. The Defense Intelligence Agency estimated that a mere 2,000 Libyan troops armed with 12 tanks were heading to Benghazi, and had killed about 400 rebels by the time the U.S. and NATO attacked. It found evidence for troops firing on unarmed protestors but no evidence of mass killing. It did not have a good estimate on the number of civilians in Benghazi but had strong evidence that most had fled. It had intelligence that Gadhafy had ordered that troops not fire on civilians but only on armed rebels.
The Pentagon doubted that Gadhafi would risk world outrage by ordering a massacre. One intelligence officer told the Washington Times that the decision to bomb was made on the basis of “light intelligence.” Which is to say, lies, cherry-picked information such as a single statement by Gadhafi (relentlessly repeated in the corporate press echoing State Department proclamations) that he would “sanitize Libya one inch at a time” to “clear [the country] of these rats.” (Similar language, it was said, had been used by Hutu leaders in Rwanda.) Now that the rats in their innumerable rival militias control practically every square inch of Libya, preventing the emergence of an effective pro-western government, many at the Pentagon must be thinking how stupid Hillary was.
No, the attack was not about preventing a Rwanda-like genocide. Rather, it was launched because the Arab Spring, beginning with the overthrow of the two dictators, President Ben Ali of Tunisia and President Mubarak of Egypt, had taken the west by surprise and presented it with a dilemma: to retain longstanding friendships (including that with Gadhafi, who’d been a partner since 2003) in the face of mass protests, or throw in its lot with the opposition movements, who seemed to be riding an inevitable historical trend, hoping to co-opt them?
Recall how Obama had declined up to the last minute to order Mubarak to step down, and how Vice President Joe Biden had pointedly declined to describe Mubarak as a dictator. Only when millions rallied against the regime did Obama shift gears, praise the youth of Egypt for their inspiring mass movement, and withdraw support for the dictatorship. After that Obama pontificated that Ali Saleh in Yemen (a key ally of the U.S. since 2001) had to step down in deference to protesters. Saleh complied, turning power to another U.S. lackey (who has since resigned). Obama also declared that Assad in Syria had “lost legitimacy,” commanded him to step down, and began funding the “moderate” armed opposition in Syria. (The latter have at this point mostly disappeared or joined al-Qaeda and its spin-offs. Some have turned coat and created the “Loyalists’ Army” backing Assad versus the Islamist crazies.)
Hillary, that supposedly astute stateswoman, believed that the Arab Spring was going to topple all the current dictators of the Middle East and that, given that, the U.S. needed to position itself as the friend of the opposition movements. Gadhafy was a goner, she reasoned, so shouldn’t the U.S. help those working towards his overthrow?
Of course the U.S. (or the combination of the U.S. and NATO) couldn’t just attack a sovereign state to impose regime change. It would, at any rate, have been politically damaging after the regime change in Iraq that had been justified on the basis of now well discredited lies. So the U.S. arm-twisted UNSC members to approve a mission to protect civilians in Libya against state violence. China and Russia declined to use their veto power (although as western duplicity and real motives became apparent, they came to regret this). The Libya campaign soon shifted from “peace-keeping” actions such as the imposition of a “no-fly” zone to overt acts of war against the Gadhafy regime, which for its part consistently insisted that the opposition was aligned with al-Qaeda.
The results of “Operation Unified Protector” have of course been absolutely disastrous. Just as the U,S. and some of its allies wrecked Iraq, producing a situation far worse than that under Saddam Hussein, so they have inflicted horrors on Libya unknown during the Gadhafi years. These include the persecution of black Africans and Tuaregs, the collapse of any semblance of central government, the division of the country between hundreds of warring militias, the destabilization of neighboring Mali producing French imperialist intervention, the emergence of Benghazi as an al-Qaeda stronghold, and the proliferation of looted arms among rebel groups. The “humanitarian intervention” was in fact a grotesque farce and huge war crime.
But the political class and punditry in this country do not attack Hillary for war crimes, or for promoting lies to validate a war of aggression. Rather, they charge her and the State Department with failure to protect U.S. ambassador to Libya John Christopher Stevens and other U.S. nationals from the attack that occurred in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. And they fault her for promoting the State Department’s initial “talking point” that the attack had been a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim YouTube film rather than a calculated terrorist attack. They pan her for sniping at a senator during a hearing, “What difference does it make (whether the attack had been launched by protestors spontaneously, or was a terrorist action planned by forces unleashed by the fall of the Gadhafi regime)”?
In other words: Hillary’s mainstream critics are less concerned with the bombing of Libya in 2011 that killed over 1100 civilians, and produced the power vacuum exploited by murderous jihadis, than by Hillary’s alleged concealment of evidence that might show the State Department inadequately protected U.S. diplomats from the consequences of the U.S.-orchestrated regime change itself. In their view, the former First Lady might have blood on her hands—but not that, mind you, of Libyan civilians, or Libyan military forces going about their normal business, or of Gadhafi who was sodomized with a knife while being murdered as Washington applauded.
No, she’s held accountable for the blood of these glorified, decent upstanding Americans who’d been complicit in the ruin of Libya.
This version of events is easy to challenge. It’s easy to show that Clinton skillfully—in full neocon mode, spewing disinformation to a clueless public—steered an attack on Libya that has produced enormous blowback and ongoing suffering for the Libyan people. If a right-wing paper like Washington Times can expose this, how much more the more “mainstream” press? Could they at least not raise for discussion whether what Rand Paul calls “Hillary’s war” was, like the Iraq War (and many others) based on lies? Shouldn’t Hillary be hammered with the facts of her history, and her vaunted “toughness” be exposed as callous indifference to human life?
* * *
While championing the rights of women and children, arguing that “it takes a village” to raise a child, Clinton has endorsed the bombing of villages throughout her public life. Here are some talking points for those appalled by the prospects of a Hillary Clinton presidency.
*She has always been a warmonger. As First Lady from January 1993, she encouraged her husband Bill and his secretary of state Madeleine Albright to attack Serbian forces in the disintegrating Yugoslavia—in Bosnia in 1994 and Serbia in 1999. She’s stated that in 1999 she phoned her husband from Africa. “I urged him to bomb,” she boasts. These Serbs were (as usual) forces that did not threaten the U.S. in any way. The complex conflicts and tussles over territory between ethnic groups in the Balkans, and the collapse of the Russian economy following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, gave Bill Clinton an excuse to posture as the world’s savior and to use NATO to impose order. Only the United States, he asserted, could restore order in Yugoslavia, which had been a proudly neutral country outside NATO and the Warsaw Pact throughout the Cold War. President Clinton and Albright also claimed that only NATO—designed in 1949 to counter a supposed Soviet threat to Western Europe, but never yet deployed in battle—should deal with the Balkan crises.
The Bosnian intervention resulted in the imposition of the “Dayton Accord” on the parties involved and the creation of the dysfunctional state of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Kosovo intervention five years later (justified by the scaremongering, subsequently disproven reports of a Serbian genocidal campaign against Kosovars) involved the NATO bombing of Belgrade and resulted in the dismemberment of Serbia. Kosovo, now recognized by the U.S. and many of its allies as an independent state, is the center of Europe’s heroin trafficking and the host of the U.S.’s largest army base abroad. The Kosovo war, lacking UN support and following Albright’s outrageous demand for Serbian acquiescence—designed, as she gleefully conceded, “to set the bar too high” for Belgrade and Moscow’s acceptance—of NATO occupation of all of Serbia, was an extraordinary provocation to Serbia’s traditional ally Russia. “They need some bombing, and that’s what they are going to get,” Albright said at the time, as NATO prepared to bomb a European capital for the first time since 1945.
*Clinton has been a keen advocate for the expansion of an antiquated Cold War military alliance that persists in provoking Russia. In the same year that NATO bombed Belgrade (1999), the alliance expanded to include Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. But Clinton’s predecessor George H. W. Bush had promised Russia in 1989 that NATO would not expand eastward. And since the Warsaw Pact had been dissolved in 1991, and since Russia under Boris Yeltsin hardly threatened any western countries, this expansion has understandably been viewed in Russia as a hostile move. George Kennan, a former U.S. ambassador to the USSR and a father of the “containment” doctrine, in 1998 pronounced the expansion a “tragic mistake” with “no reason whatsoever.” But the expansion continued under George W. Bush and has continued under Obama. Russia is now surrounded by an anti-Russian military alliance from its borders with the Baltic states to the north to Romania and Bulgaria. U.S.-backed “color revolutions” have been designed to draw more countries into the NATO camp. Hillary as secretary of state was a big proponent of such expansion, and under her watch, two more countries (Albania and Croatia) joined the U.S.-dominated alliance.
(To understand what this means to Russia, imagine how Washington would respond to a Russia-centered “defensive” military alliance requiring its members to spend 2% of their GDPs on military spending and coordinate military plans with Moscow incorporating Canada and all the Caribbean countries, surrounding the continental U.S., and now moving to include Mexico. Would this not be a big deal for U.S. leaders?)
*As New York senator Clinton endorsed the murderous ongoing sanctions against Iraq, imposed by the UN in 1990 and continued until 2003. Initially applied to force Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, the sanctions were sustained at U.S. insistence (and over the protests of other Security Council members) up to and even beyond the U.S. invasion in 2003. Bill Clinton demanded their continuance, insisting that Saddam Hussein’s (non-existent) secret WMD programs justified them. In 1996, three years into the Clinton presidency, Albright was asked whether the death of half a million Iraq children as a result of the sanctions was justified, and famously replied in a television interview, “We think it was worth it.” Surely Hillary agreed with her friend and predecessor as the first woman secretary of state. She also endorsed the 1998 “Operation Desert Fox” (based on lies, most notably the charge that Iraq had expelled UN inspectors) designed to further destroy Iraq’s military infrastructure and make future attacks even easier.
*She was a strident supporter of the Iraq War. As a New York senator from 2001 to 2009, Hillary aligned herself with the neoconservatives in the Bush administration, earning a reputation as a hawk. She was a fervent supportive of the attack on Iraq, based on lies, in 2003. On the floor of the Senate she echoed all the fictions about Saddam Hussein’s “chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.” She declared, “He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.” She suggested that her decision to support war was “influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation.” (Presumably by the latter she meant the threats posed by Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo.) Her loss to Obama in the Democratic primary in 2008 was due largely to Obama’s (supposed) antiwar position contrasting with her consistently pro-war position. She has only vaguely conceded that her support for the invasion was something of a mistake. But she blames her vote on others, echoing Dick Cheney’s bland suggestion that the problem was “intelligence failures.” “If we knew know then what we know now,” she stated as she began her presidential campaign in late 2006, “I certainly wouldn’t have voted” for the war.
*She actively pursued anti-democratic regime change in Ukraine. As secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, Clinton as noted above endorsed NATO’s relentless expansion. She selected to serve as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs the neocon Victoria Nuland, who had been the principal deputy foreign advisor to Cheney when he was vice president. The wife of neocon pundit Robert Kagan, Nuland is a war hawk whose current mission in life is the full encirclement of Russia with the integration of Ukraine into the EU and then into NATO. The ultimate goal was the expulsion of the Russian Black Sea Fleet from the Crimean Peninsula (where it has been stationed since 1783). She has boasted of the fact that the U.S. has invested five billion dollars in supporting what she depicts as the Ukrainian people’s “European aspirations.” What this really means is that the U.S. exploited political divisions in Ukraine to topple an elected leader and replace him with Nuland’s handpicked prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyev, deploying neo-Nazi shock troops in the process and generating a civil war that has killed over 5000 people.
Clinton has increasingly vilified Vladimir Putin, the popular Russian president, absurdly comparing the Russian re-annexation of the Crimean Peninsula following a popular referendum with Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland. She is totally on board the program of producing a new Cold War, and forcing European allies to cooperate in isolating the former superpower.
*She wanted to provide military assistance to the “moderate” armed opposition in Syria, to effect regime change, and after leaving office criticized Obama for not supplying more than he did. In 2011 Clinton wanted the U.S. to arm rebels who quickly became aligned with the al-Nusra Front (an al-Qaeda affiliate) and other extreme Islamists, in order to bring down a secular regime that respects religious rights, rejects the implementation of Sharia law, and promotes the education of women. The U.S. indeed has supplied arms to anti-Assad forces from at least January 2014, But as it happens the bulk of U.S. aid to the “moderate rebels” has been appropriated by Islamists, and some of it is deployed against U.S. allies in Iraq. It is now widely understood that the bulk of “moderate” rebels are either in Turkish exile or directed by CIA agents, while the U.S. plans to train some 5000 new recruits in Jordan. Meanwhile Assad has won election (as fair as any held in a U.S. client state like Afghanistan or Iraq) and gained the upper hand in the civil war. U.S. meddling in Syria has empowered the Islamic State that now controls much of Syria and Iraq.
*She has been an unremitting supporter of Israeli aggression, whenever it occurs. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz described her last year as “Israel’s new lawyer” given her sympathetic view of Binyamin Netanyahu’s 2014 bombardment of Gaza and even his desire to maintain “security” throughout the occupied West Bank. She postured as an opponent of Israel’s unrelenting, illegal settlements of Palestinian territory in 2009, but backed down when Netanyahu simply refused to heed U.S. calls for a freeze. In her memoir she notes “our early, hard line on settlements didn’t work”—as though she’s apologizing for it.
In 1999 as First Lady, Hillary Clinton hugged and kissed Yassir Arafat’s wife Suha during a trip to the West Bank. She advocated the establishment of a Palestinian state. She changed her tune when she ran for the New York Senate seat. When it comes to the Middle East, she is a total, unprincipled opportunist.
*Hillary tacitly endorsed the military coup against elected Honduran president Manuel Zelaya in 2009, refusing to call it such (even though Obama did). She made common cause with those who feared his effort to poll the people about constitutional reform would weaken their positions, made nice with the ensuing regime and made sure Zelaya would not return to office.
*She provoked China by siding with Japan in the Senkaku/ Daioyutai dispute. Departing from the State Department’s traditional stance that “we take no position” on the Sino-Japanese dispute about sovereignty over the Senkaku/ Daioyutai islands in the East China Sea, seized by Japan in 1895, Clinton as secretary of state emphasized that the islands fall within the defense perimeters of the U.S.-Japanese alliance. The warmongering neocon National Review in a piece entitled “In Praise of Hillary Clinton” praised her for “driving the Chinese slightly up a wall.”
*She helped bring down a Japanese prime minister who heeded the feelings of the people of Okinawa, who opposed the Futenma Marine Corps Air Force Station on the island. The new prime minister Yukio Hatoyama, whose Democratic Party of Japan defeated the slavishly pro-U.S. Liberal Democratic Party in the general election of 2009, had promised to move the hated U.S. base in the heart of Ginowan city for the noise, air pollution and public safety hazards it causes. Clinton met with him, listened sympathetically, and said “no.” Hatoyama was obliged to apologize to the people of Okinawa, essentially conceding that Japan remains an occupied nation that doesn’t enjoy sovereignty. Nationwide his public support ratings fell from 70 to 17% and he was obliged to resign in shame after eight months in office.
*She made countless trips to India, signing bilateral economic and nuclear cooperation agreements with a country her husband had placed under sanctions for its nuclear tests in 1998. While castigating North Korea for its nuclear weapons program, and taking what a CIA analyst called a “more hard line, more conditional, more neoconservative [approach] than Bush during the last four years of his term,” she signaled that India’s nukes were no longer an issue for the U.S. India is, after all, a counterweight to China.
What can those who revere her point to in this record that in any way betters the planet or this country? Clinton’s record of her tenure in the State Department is entitled Hard Choices, but it has never been hard for Hillary to choose brute force in the service of U.S. imperialism and its controlling 1%.
This is a country of 323 million people. 88% of those over 25 have graduated high school. The world respects U.S. culture, science, and technology. Why is it that out of our well-educated, creative masses the best that the those who decide these things—the secretive cliques within the two official, indistinguishable political parties who answer to the 1% and who decide how to market electoral products—can come up with is the likely plate of candidates for the presidential election next year? Why is it that, while we all find it ridiculous that North Korea’s ruled by its third Kim, Syria by its second Assad, and Cuba by its second Castro, the U.S. electorate may well be offered a choice between another Clinton and another Bush? As though their predecessors of those surnames were anything other than long-discredited warmongering thugs?
GARY LEUPP is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, (AK Press). He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu