People & Groups Archives:

Visit the global archives for posts from all DGR sites.

The third meeting of the DGR Santa Barbara book club was held on Sunday, May 7th at the Eastside Library.  We discussed chapter 4 of Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save the Planet.  The following questions were posed to inspire discussion:

1) How did the “Alternative vs. Oppositional Culture” comparison affect your understanding of this distinction and your understanding of political action?
2) Do you believe that an alternative culture built around the project of an individualistic experience (whether spiritual or psychological) can create a resistance movement?
3) Where have you seen millenarianism in political movements? How does this affect the effectiveness of those movements, especially ones you have been a part of?
4) Do you see a culture of resistance forming in this country, in this state, in Santa Barbara? How could we help to encourage a culture of resistance here?
5) How does the dominant culture teach us to ignore the wisdom of our elders? Do you agree with the analysis presented in this chapter that resistance movements need both the young and the old to succeed?
6) What was your favorite part of the reading?

A couple people agreed that this is their favorite chapter in the entire book because it really clarifies the difference between the alternative culture of, for example, the hippies, and an oppositional culture.  Alternative cultures cannot create a true, effective resistance movement because they do not challenge the structures of power that maintain the status quo.  This distinction is really valuable, especially for young people exploring different groups and discovering what they want to do with their lives.

The discussion then turned to the concept of challenging monogamy as an integral part of certain alternative cultures.  In most cases, this is nothing more than a convenient, radical-sounding excuse for misogynistic men to share sexual access to women.  However, some women have also critiqued monogamy from a feminist perspective.  In their vision, relationships should be based on women’s and men’s wants being equally important.  Harmful, gendered socialization, which perpetuates the patriarchal idea of men owning women, would not exist.  This led to a few attendees sharing their views about how another, egalitarian society could look and how relationships in that culture would be different than those in the dominant culture today.

During the meeting, we did not have time to fully cover the discussion questions; a discussion about chapter 4 will be continued through email.  If you would like to be on that email list, please contact us at santabarbara@deepgreenresistance.org.

If you are interested in attending future book club meetings, subscribe to our local chapter news using the box on the right side of our website.  The book club is taking a break for the summer.  Our next meeting will be in late August.

The second meeting of the DGR Santa Barbara book club was held on Sunday, April 9th at the Eastside Library.  We discussed Chapters 2 and 3 of Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save the Planet.  The following questions were posed to inspire discussion:

1) Do you think civilization, industrial or otherwise, is redeemable? Why or why not?
2) How did the “Liberalism vs. Radicalism” comparison affect your understanding of this distinction and your understanding of political action?
3) How has your understanding of any of the four main categories of action discussed in Chapter 3 (legal remedies, direct action, withdrawal, and spirituality) changed?
4) Do you think an underground movement should mobilize to dismantle civilization?
5) Do you think it is ever appropriate to use violence as a political tool?
6) What was your favorite part of the reading?

After the DGR members present at the meeting described our definition of civilization, nobody agreed that it could be redeemable.  Civilization is inherently unsustainable, because cities–the defining features of a civilization–require the importation of resources.  This means that civilization is not synonymous with culture or community; for the majority of humanity’s history we did not live in cities, but we still had communities and various cultures.  The rise of civilization severed humans’ connection to the land and led to widespread cases of what are known as the “diseases of civilization:” cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc.

There was a lot of interest in understanding the difference between liberals and radicals.  One attendee pointed out that in the reading, Lierre Keith states that the left starts with a rejection of capitalism.  So the major political party that posits itself as on the “left,” the Democratic Party, is not really on the left at all.  During the meeting, we talked about how liberalism views the individual as the basic social unit, while radicalism views groups or classes as the basic social unit.  In the US, local communities cannot legally stop giant corporations from poisoning their water, soil, and air because an individual’s right to commerce is more important, and corporations are individuals under US law.  Radicals understand that corporations are generally a class of rich, white men exploiting others for power and that local communities should be able to protect themselves from exploitation and environmental disaster.  Liberals believe that racist, misogynistic, and other hateful & violent individuals should have their recruitment strategies protected because of “freedom of speech.”  However, radicals recognize that someone’s right to free speech should not supersede oppressed groups’ right to safety.

DGR members appreciate how the organization recognizes that legal remedies and some form of leadership can be very beneficial to resistance movements.  Many other leftist groups have a knee-jerk rejection of any authority and the pursuit of legal strategies, regardless of their effectiveness.  We believe there can be a difference between how our resistance movements are organized and how the new society that we want to replace civilization will be organized.

DGR is a strictly aboveground organization, and so we have no knowledge about underground movements that is not already public information.  We are outspoken that an underground movement is needed to dismantle industrial civilization for the sake of life on Earth.  One potential danger of an underground movement is that destroying infrastructure in one place could allow civilized people elsewhere to ramp up their destruction.  That is why any underground strategy must target key points that will result in global, cascading systems failure.  The examples of Chernobyl and the Northeast blackout of 2003 were brought up.  Even after the vast nuclear fallout at Chernobyl, the region has began to recover and now there are even packs of wolves in the area.  Just hours after the 2003 blackout, air (and light) pollution had significantly diminished.  Both of these cases resulted from operator error, not a targeted attack.

The meeting went very well and we were having such a great conversation that we ran out of time to talk about the last 2 questions!  A discussion about chapters 2 and 3 will be continued through email.  If you would like to be on that email list, please contact us at santabarbara@deepgreenresistance.org.

If you are interested in attending future book club meetings, subscribe to our local chapter news using the box on the right side of our website.

     by Kyle Lee / Deep Green Resistance Santa Barbara

Santa Barbara is in a housing crisis, like many other cities in the United States. However, conditions are unique here because Santa Barbara is a popular vacation destination for people from all over the world, and it operates under a controlled growth scheme that puts a strain on the housing market, particularly on renters, who make up 60.2% of the residential population. Furthermore, the gross lack of regulation and accountability of rental property owners and minimal protections for tenants allows for the exploitation and manipulation of renters, particularly non-white families with children. In 2014, the number of homeless children in Santa Barbara’s K-12 school system was 2,215. The gentrification of the city and surrounding areas is evident in recurring mass evictions of predominantly Latino families being replaced with younger, white middle-class tenants who can more easily cope with the volatile housing market that has only a 0.5% vacancy rate. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development considers a 5% vacancy rate sufficient to provide choice and mobility.

Ivy Apartment Homes, owned by Ventura Investment Co., a Camarillo-based real estate company, has been aggressively acquiring properties on the Westside, evicting many working-class immigrant families who have lived there for decades, and remodeling and remarketing the properties to attract “students and executives” to these now “upscale”, “premium” apartments. Barton Stern, the president of Ventura Investment Co., has been profiting off targeted gentrification since the 1990s. Another big name many local residents are familiar with is the slumlord Dario Pini, who is currently facing another series of investigations into the appalling conditions in which his tenants, half of whom are children, have to live. After local police and City Attorney, Ariel Colonne, issued Judge Jean Dandona’s warrant to search hundreds of units owned by Pini, Colonne had this to say, “When the public sees what the inspectors saw it will shock the conscience of the community.” If the local governments are unwilling to acknowledge tenants’ voices and produce material gains for tenants’ rights, it is time for the community to collectively stand together and demand positive change.

Ivy Apartment Homes is just the newest iteration in a history of mass evictions in Santa Barbara where predominantly working-class immigrant families are pushed to the side to make way for a bigger bottom line. Photo by Paul Wellman at The Independent.

The current housing market is heavily in favor of property owners at the increasing expense of tenants: over the last decade, the average cost of rent has risen by 30% while income has increased by only 1%. This quote from a November 2016 investigation was included by the City Attorney’s Office in a staff report just released on March 21, 2017 titled Potential Strategies For Residential Tenant Protection Measures: “With Santa Barbara’s vacancy rate hovering at a historically low 0.5 percent, rent prices —already some of the highest in the country—have spiked another 20 percent. Over the past year, the average Santa Barbara studio rent increased from $1,090 to $1,391, the average one-bedroom jumped from $1,500 to $1,728, and the average two-bedroom went from $2,000 to $2,373, according to Steve Golis at the annual Radius Real Estate and Economic Forecast gathering late last month.”

The average price of rent for a two bedroom apartment is about 47% of the median household income. While it is often advised that no more than 30% of a household’s income should be spent on rent, over half of all Santa Barbara renters have to pay more than that, with 30% of local residents spending over half of their income on rent alone. Even if Santa Barbara had tenant protection laws criminalizing the eviction of tenants without just cause—called “no cause” evictions—the lack of regulation to control rent increases allows property owners to effectively choose when they want to evict their current residents and replace them with someone willing to pay more.

Also, because property owners don’t have to offer one-year leases or lease renewals to their tenants, many tenants have to worry every month if they are going to be evicted for any unjust reason—for example, the landlord wants to find a tenant who won’t complain about habitability issues in the apartment. Many people, including families with children who are in K-12 and younger, have to live in their cars, motels, or with friends or family while they try to figure out a very difficult situation that has suddenly been forced upon them. There is not enough subsidized housing; thousands of people on a waiting list that is often an estimated wait of up to 12 years. Obviously, this needs to be addressed a lot sooner than the current pace of affairs.

The Rental Housing Round Table (RHR) is a collective of many community organizations and individuals actively working to improve the material reality of the Santa Barbara community of renters. After mobilizing in 2008 to address the mass eviction of 37 families from Hillshore Gardens apartments, the group aided the passing of “County Wide Ordinance 4444, providing relocation assistance to tenants evicted due to renovation, rezoning, code violations and demolitions,” an ordinance that evicted families have successfully used to gain compensation. The RHR continues to “protect and encourage a diverse, inclusive and representative community of very-low to moderate income renters and the development of healthy and vital communities to ensure the expansion of the local and regional sustainable economy and improve the well-being of present and future generations.”

Learn more about the Rental Housing Round Table and sign their support card for tenants’ rights!

The RHR’s principles revolve around securing housing as a human right, protecting the diversity, economic stability, and health of the local and regional communities, building a vibrant collective of individuals, public entities, and private entities who are collectively responsible for their community, and seeking out the cooperation of government, landowners and property managers, major employers, educational institutions, and other entities to make it all a sustainable reality. From 2011-2012, the RHR had to help fight to keep the Rental Housing Mediation Task Force, which helps mediate issues between tenants and their landlords. According to the City Attorney’s staff report, “In Fiscal Year 2015-2016, the RHMP reported that it handled nearly 1,500 cases, 84% of which were initiated by tenants. Termination of tenancy was by far the predominant complaint, followed by habitability and repair, deposits and rent increases.” Between 2011 and 2015, the RHR developed a curriculum to educate tenants about their rights, which is continued by the Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy (CAUSE).

Starting in 2015, a spike of evictions, especially on the West Side, has reignited the RHR to action. The group hosted a renters’ rights forum on July 21, 2016 at the Santa Barbara Central Library, which is where I first heard of them. Members of Deep Green Resistance Santa Barbara, including myself, have attended several of the RHR meetings since then. They also organized an event on September 22nd, 2016 at De La Guerra Plaza in coordination with the National Renters Day of Action to try to garner support for a tenants’ rights ordinance. Just a few days ago, on March 21st, 2017, tenants rights were on the agenda at the 6PM City Council meeting.

Local organizers associated with RHR and their allies put a lot of work into informing, mobilizing, and organizing tenants to share their stories and voices of support, particularly those most vulnerable, and all that work materialized into a crowd of dozens of tenants. The Council Chamber was overflowing to the point where many supporters had to huddle close around an overhead speaker or a TV broadcast to observe the meeting, where we waited for our turn to speak. The City Attorney presented the report he prepared as a neutral insight to inform the City Council on the background of the housing crisis as well as 5 possible measures to protect tenants’ rights: enhanced mediation, mandatory leases, multi-family rental unit inspections, “just cause” eviction, and rent control. The floor was then opened for public comments before the City Council would make any decisions.

Supporters of a city tenants’ rights ordinance crowded around a TV in the lobby of City Hall to watch the City Council meeting. Photo by Charlie Mountain.

Enhanced mediation is basically just an option that enhances what already exists, but does little to proactively address any of the problems. Mandatory leases are when landlords are required to offer a one-year lease to tenants to offer stability, but without a fixed rent price over the course of that lease, this measure is an opportunity for landlords to entrap tenants. The inspection of multi-family homes is absolutely necessary to ensure that tenants don’t have to settle for unsanitary, unsafe living conditions, and would reduce the cases where tenants are evicted for speaking out about uninhabitable rental units. Although the inspections come at a price for landlords, the City Attorney estimated these costs at $2 to $5 per unit per month, a negligible amount compared to the sky-high rent these landlords receive every month. “Just cause” eviction is a regulation that limits the allowable reasons a landlord can evict a tenant to a list of “just causes.” This prevents landlords from evicting at will, as they currently do, but still allows landlords to evict tenants for reasons such as violating the lease, criminal activity, failure to pay rent, and other valid reasons, but “just cause” eviction without a limit on how high landlords can increase rent means tenants can still effectively, if not technically, face eviction by being priced out of their home. That issue would be regulated with rent control, placing a limit on how much a landlord can increase the cost of rent by a certain percentage. Currently, any rent control legislation has to abide by the California Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which, even though it is up for repeal, still actively limits the flexibility of local governments to pass effective rent control legislation for their particular needs.

Depending on who you ask, Santa Barbara has very different needs. During the March 21st City Council meeting, Council Members asked and this is what Santa Barbara had to say:

The rental property owners all claimed to be “one of the good landlords” who never does anything wrong, yet furiously demanded less government regulation that inhibits them of doing such things as evicting tenants for whatever reason they choose, maintaining their units to whatever condition of habitability they please, and raising rent every month without limit, because government getting in the way of the “equal,” “symbiotic” tenant-landlord relationship “destroys communities” and is “unconstitutional.” Property owners said such things as, “keep your hands off my property,” and, “I don’t like to be told what to do,” even refusing to give up the microphone, and repeatedly being told to leave the podium. I was shocked and disgusted at this behavior, which gave a clear depiction of the entitlement and greed these property owners have, as you would expect from wealthy capitalists. They also claimed the data included in the City Attorney’s report that showed the need for legislation of tenants’ rights was incorrect, “it can’t be true,” and continued to make bold, unchecked claims and lies in self-defense. One landlord seriously expected the City Council to believe that she got into the rental business “not for money,” but because she “just loves houses.” The childish reactions and disingenuous rhetoric espoused by many of the landlords who showed up solidified my knowledge that there are far too many incapable, unethical, selfish landlords in Santa Barbara.

The realtors, investors and developers also used fear-mongering rhetoric to attack the proposals, spread disinformation, and said we need less regulation getting in the way of the “free market” and housing expansion because the only problem with housing in Santa Barbara is with supply. Lawyers and economists claimed the cost of city inspections at “$2 to $5 per unit per month, or more,” to be outrageous, the probable cost associated with tenants suing landlords after these ordinances give them more protections unreasonable, and of course that the “free market” to be fully capable of solving these problems on its own, even though minimally regulating the housing market is exactly what got us here. The good conduct of a few does not excuse the absence of accountability for all. Also, by their reasoning, if raw sewage went untreated and dumped in our waterways or poisoned water comes out the tap instead of potable water because the water treatment system had no regulations, I guess we should just let the market fix it and not let government get in the way of the private sector. Housing is a human right. Shelter is a basic need. The economy is not more important than our quality of life.

The Santa Barbara City College Board of Trustees declared their support for the tenants’ rights ordinance, particularly the “just cause” eviction ordinance, because they acknowledged their experience witnessing the mass evictions of tenants on the West Side by rental property owners who seek to replace them with higher paying, higher density housing marketed to students. The Santa Barbara League of Women Voters commended the City Attorney for putting the report together in order to better protect tenants’ rights and declared their support for all 5 options in the report. Representatives from other local organizations like the California Democratic Party and United Way spoke in support of all 5 options and gave specific reasons why they would benefit Santa Barbara, especially the working-class communities who are being pushed out of their homes. Local residents who work in public service spoke of the difficulties the disabled community has securing rental properties.

Many tenants spoke of their particular experiences living in Santa Barbara, which varied from atrocious to alright. One single father described having to live in an apartment where the manager refused to do anything about black mold in his bathroom except paint over it. A single mother described her experience having to move 6 times in 10 years while putting her daughter through school; through her work with released prisoners in recovery, she knows people who would rather go back to jail than be homeless in Santa Barbara because they cannot afford to live anywhere. Unfortunately, because the meeting lasted late into the night, many of the tenants who showed up did not have a chance to speak because they had to leave before it was their turn.

Although most of the few tenants who disapproved of the proposed ordinances were also landlords themselves, there were a couple who were not landlords that either said they did not like the inspection ordinance for privacy reasons or did not approve of any of the ordinances because they did not personally feel at risk and have no sense of collective responsibility as part of a community. There were, however, multiple tenants who admitted that while they themselves are not facing a difficult housing situation, they empathize with those that are struggling, and that is why they support tenants’ rights. One man acknowledged the fact that even though he faces hardship, as a white man, his hardship is different from that of a Latino person in Santa Barbara, and though it isn’t his position to speak for them, brown people in Santa Barbara face a struggle that white people do not. On the other hand, many landlords became outraged and overly self-defensive when a tenants’ rights supporter in the audience held up a sign that read: “Stop Racism in the Housing Market.”

Our communities are being ripped apart and suppressed by our landlords, and many families are being forced into homelessness or pushed out of Santa Barbara altogether, yet the landlords who attended the meeting spoke as if we are one big happy family. There is already a clear split on this issue despite the words of realtors, rental property owners, and other capitalists that Santa Barbara is at risk of being polarized on this issue due to tenants seeking legislative protections. The polarization is already present because of the inherent disparity in the relationship between landlord and tenant, not because of people demanding to be treated like full human beings worthy of respect. The critical differences between landlords and tenants are an issue of property, financial independence, accountability, and privilege in many forms. One of the first discernible differences between the landlords and tenants that spoke during the meeting was that most of the landlords and other anti-tenants’ rights advocates spoke first because they either don’t have a day job or can get off early whereas most of the tenants could only sign up to speak after they got off work and therefore had to wait hours for their turn. Quite a few who did sign up had to wait so long they had to leave for various reasons before it was their turn, and many more didn’t even have the time to come and show their support, even though they desperately need these sort of protections against being exploited by their landlords.

Although renters make up the majority of residents, our voices pale in comparison to those with much more free time and money: the rental property owners, realtors, developers, economists and others who profit most from a system that inherently requires a hierarchical system of ownership and tenancy, of privilege and necessity, of power and homelessness. The intersecting class distinctions between landlords and tenants became clear throughout the public comment period: the landlords were mainly older, richer, white property owners who own multiple properties, who never once proposed a solution to hold their disgraceful peers accountable for what they are doing to communities in Santa Barbara, and who spent their wealth of free time to deny tenants their rights by reiterating inflammatory rhetoric and praising the sanctity of the “free market.” The tenants were mostly younger, poorer people predominantly of color who continue the struggle to find a safe, long-term place to live without fear of uninhabitable living conditions, being priced out of their homes, or being evicted outright. These tenants shared many different perspectives, including why the proposed ordinances are necessary to improve the housing situation they deal with firsthand, how and in what ways other cities have dealt with similar struggles, and why still more needs to be done in addition to these ordinances.

At around 11pm, the City Council shared their thoughts and passed two motions. The first motion was to start a staff investigation into the enhanced mediation option. The second motion, proposed by Gregg Hart, eliminated rent control as an option and put forward plans to create a task force comprised of property owners, tenants, and possibly a City Council Member to investigate the possible outcomes of a mandatory lease ordinance, “just cause” ordinance, and a multi-family unit inspection ordinance. I doubt that the task force will accurately represent the interests of those involved because of the constant “equality” rhetoric that got thrown around. The City Council Members, except for Cathy Murillo and Mayor Helene Schneider, stated that they are most concerned with the lack of housing supply and questioned whether local government should really get involved with the private sector. Murillo expressed disappointment with the removal of rent control from the discussion and the reluctance of the other Council Members to do anything besides put this issue off for later. For me, the most disappointing thing about the meeting is the fact that just getting the City Council to discuss these issues and address material solutions is actually considered a victory. It took a lot of hard work by community organizers to achieve it, but as it stands, our fate rests in the hands of 7 people, the majority of whom are just like most of the rental property owners: old, white men who have better things to do than to listen to your problems, talk about real solutions, and least of all interfere with their sacred “free market.”

At the meeting on March 21st, City Council Member Cathy Murillo called her colleagues to action saying, “Right here, right now is our chance.” But they did not share her expedience. “It seemed like we were right on the edge of doing the right thing.” Photo by Paul Wellman at The Independent.

Sources:

https://sites.google.com/a/causenow.org/rhr/the-sb-tenant-story

https://sites.google.com/a/causenow.org/rhr/home-1

https://sites.google.com/a/causenow.org/rhr/ivy-apartments

https://www.noozhawk.com/article/santa_barbara_city_council_task_force_tenant_protection_measures

http://services.santabarbaraca.gov/CAP/MG138508/AS138548/AS138554/AS138556/AI141741/DO141742/DO_141742.pdf

http://www.independent.com/news/2016/dec/15/dario-pini-slumlord-or-savior/

http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/gov/cityhall/council/meetings/videos.asp

     by Charlie Mountain / Deep Green Resistance Santa Barbara

The Environmental Status Quo

Mainstream environmental organizations have largely praised the Obama administration as environmentally friendly.  Ed Chen, the national communications director for the National Resources Defense Council, described Obama as “the greatest climate change-fighting president in history.”  The Environmental Defense Fund hailed Obama as “a leader committed to clean energy, climate progress, and protecting our natural heritage” who “leaves a better, cleaner, more sustainable world for all of our kids.”

Examples of Obama’s environmental legacy include: the Clean Power Plan, Paris Agreement, the promotion of “renewable energy,” and enhanced fuel efficiency standards for vehicles.  Most people already know that the Clean Power Plan is not ambitious enough to keep total planetary warming below even the alarming 2 °C mark.  The Paris Climate Agreement has the same shortfall, in addition to the fact that the emissions reductions outlined in the document are not legally binding.

Even increased energy production from renewable technologies and higher fuel efficiency standards, which may sound like positive achievements, are not all they’re cracked up to be.  There’s a phenomenon known as the Jevons Paradox, which explains why increased energy efficiency paradoxically does not lead to lower emissions, because the higher efficiency is offset by an increased usage of energy due to the lower cost of energy.  Renewable energy technologies can also lead to the same kind of situation where a larger total amount of energy means that all the energy is consumed, rather than renewable energy displacing energy produced by fossil fuels.  The worst effect of producing renewable technologies is the pollution that comes from mining, manufacturing, and discarding of the hazardous waste, which is so harmful that no sane person can argue these technologies are beneficial to the planet.  On the contrary, mainstream “environmentalists” view renewable energy as the means by which we will be able to continue this destructive way of life.

Obama’s true legacy is one of imperialism, capitalism, and extractivismHe boasted that “more oil [was] produced at home than we buy from the rest of world” in 2014, “the first time that’s happened in nearly twenty years,” while opening up more US land for oil and gas drilling.  Any of the Obama administration’s “claimed [greenhouse gas emissions] reductions are attributable mostly to a weak economy.”  And the fact remains that the United States had its biggest increase in oil production in history during Obama’s terms.  While many liberals’ rallying cry under the new administration is to “protect Obama’s legacy,” radical environmentalists are opposed to all ecocidal policies, regardless of who is behind them.  Obama’s policies would lead to a planet no less dead than if Trump’s agenda is enacted.

 

Liberals’ Responses to Trump

As many other leftists have stated, Obama’s threat to the planet (and human rights) was largely ignored by liberals, likely because of his “feel-good rhetoric.”  In stark contrast, Trump is openly ecocidal (and misogynistic, racist, and so on) which makes it easier for large numbers of Americans to realize how insane his policies are.  Trump’s all-around vileness has led to increased resistance from the general public to the new administration, taking the form of the Women’s Marches on January 21st, demonstrations at airports, protests against cabinet picks, and more.

Mainstream environmental organizations openly hold Trump in contempt and vow to fight him.  I’ve received emails from Sierra Club California with tips to “help the resistance to Trump’s policies,” which include how to contact your representatives and get involved in local protests & other events.  After the election, the Center for Biological Diversity launched a nationwide #Earth2Trump campaign demonstrating the extent of the country’s resistance to Trump’s agenda.  They plan to participate in a variety of legal methods to fight environmental destruction and uphold the rights of oppressed groups.  The People’s Climate Movement is organizing a “march for jobs, justice and the climate” on April 29th in DC.

 

Radical Environmental Organizing in the Era of Trump

In many ways, Trump is continuing Obama’s legacy of extractivism—one important example is the Dakota Access Pipeline.  Construction of the pipeline began under Obama’s watch, and water protectors were being attacked with tear gas and water cannons in freezing temperatures before Trump took office.  The most Obama did to stop the construction was ordering an environmental review, which probably wouldn’t have made a difference even if Trump hadn’t allowed construction to continue without the review.

Photo from Veterans For Standing Rock showing the militarized police forces invading Standing Rock.

Because the opposition to Trump is so large and widespread, it is easy for radicals to find groups and individuals to ally with in the fight against his policies, unlike how it was under the Obama administration.  It’s very important for us to take advantage of this fact.  In a general sense, mainstream liberal activists are fighting on the same side as us—and we should be building alliances where we can, for there is strength in numbers.  We must also show that Democrats are just as threatening to life on this planet as Republicans are, and encourage others to fight against Trump outside the paradigm of the two-party system.

Leftist organizations like the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) are opposing Trump in this way by protesting his policies directly and presenting an alternative to the dominant system of capitalism.  Refuse Fascism also calls for mass resistance against the Trump administration’s agenda “for the future of humanity and the planet,” without encouraging collaboration with the Democratic Party.

Kshama Sawant, who sits on Seattle’s city council and is a member of Socialist Alternative, recently helped to pass a bill in Seattle that would completely divest the city from Wells Fargo, one of the banks financing the Dakota Access Pipeline.  Following Seattle’s legislation, the City of Davis also voted unanimously to move their banking services from Wells Fargo elsewhere by the end of the year.  Santa Monica made the same decision last month.

The unique political and environmental analysis put forward by Deep Green Resistance (DGR) is resonating with more people in these scary times, with the organization seeing an influx of new member and volunteer applications.  When asked how she found DGR, one volunteer wrote that she “searched what I can do to stop Trump from hurting the environment.”  The silver lining in Trump’s rise to power can certainly be to radicalize people who could not see the ecocidal state for what it is until such a deplorable man was elected to rule it.  DGR’s apt response to the November election was that “we’re left with direct action.  Those of us serious about protecting present and future life on the planet must leverage our small numbers to shut down fossil fuels, polluting industries, and nature-destroying machines.”

A wonderful example of this kind of direct action is the Valve Turners, part of “the biggest coordinated move on US energy infrastructure ever undertaken by environmental protesters.”  Five activists shut down pipelines carrying tar sands oil into the US in Washington, Minnesota, Montana, and North Dakota in October 2016.  The first trial for one of the valve turners, Ken Ward, was recently declared a mistrial, a surprising victory in the age of Trump.  Ward encourages others to participate in similar actions: “it is the obligation of every thinking person to find a way to stave off climate cataclysm, and there is no effective, legal alternative to personal direct action.”  Successes from groups like the Movement for the Emancipation for the Niger Delta (MEND) and the Indian Naxalites show Ward’s words to be true.

Photo of a PSL protest sign reading “Trump is the symptom Capitalism is the disease Socialism is the cure.”

I agree with PSL’s assertion of Trump as just a symptom of the larger problem.  This is exactly what liberals have yet to understand, and we need to help them get there.  Capitalism, industrialism, racism, and misogyny are all diseases than can only be cured by a global revolution.  Radical environmentalists must do the work of bringing in activists from all across the political spectrum to fight for a common goal—a living planet.

Trump’s election has sabotaged any prospect of reigning in the global warming crisis

by Max Wilbert / Deep Green Resistance

On Tuesday night, the American people decided to elect Donald J. Trump, a billionaire business mogul and reality TV star who has been accused of raping or otherwise sexually assaulting twenty-three women, who has called for banning immigration to the United States, and who has built a campaign on virulent racism.

He received more than 60 million votes.

There is a lot to process. Those conversations, about the growing tide of white supremacy, about Trump’s pending sexual assault cases, about the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, about the left’s failure to engage with the white community on issues of race, and about the gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement that characterizes the American system, are already taking place.

I want to focus here on one specific issue: global warming. As I’m writing this, I’m sitting in the sun outside my home. It’s November, and temperatures are more than 20 degrees above the typical average here. This year, 2016, is predicted to be the hottest year on record, beating out last year, which beat out the previous year, which beat out the previous year, each of the last five setting a new mark.

Records are being smashed aside like bowling pins. We are in the midst of a global catastrophe, and it is even worse than previously thought. On the day after the election, news broke that the climate is more sensitive to global warming than most calculations had suspected.

The study in question predicted nearly double the warming that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had previously expected. The new data predicts between 9 and 14 °F warming by 2100, enough to potentially lead to the extinction of the human species and flip the Earth into a completely new regime more similar to Venus than Earth. Michael Mann, one of the most well-known climate scientists in the world, says these findings and the changing political situation may mean “game over for the climate.”

Into this mess strides Donald Trump, who has said that if elected, he would “immediately approve” the Keystone XL pipeline, roll back environmental regulations, further subsidize the fossil fuel industry, and back out of the Paris climate agreement. Coal and oil stocks, as well as shares of equipment companies and railroads, jumped in price after news of his victory hit.

Right now, thousands of native people and allies are gathering on the cold plains of North Dakota in an attempt to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline. Under President Obama, such popular movements had a chance—a small chance, but a chance—of success. Under Trump, there won’t be so much leniency, and the road to victory will be much harder.

History is clear; social movements have generally flourished under slightly more progressive administrations, and waned under right wing leadership. What does this mean for our strategy?

I would like to have a peaceful transition to a sane and sustainable world, but it seems increasingly impossible. The American people have shown themselves to be a reactionary force, clinging to their privilege as if it can shield them against the arrows that originate in American foreign policy. Immigrants come here because their lands have been destroyed for American capitalism, and groups like ISIS have emerged from a slurry of war, oil, racism, and fundamentalism.

Perhaps, then, we need a different type of change. When it comes to protecting the planet, stopping pipelines needs to be one of our first priorities. And like other Earth-destroying machinery, pipelines are very vulnerable. They stretch on for miles with no guards, no fences, and no protection.

Recently, a number of activists, including some who I know, were able to approach and shut down all five pipelines that carry tar sands oil into the United States in a coordinated act of non-violent civil disobedience. Their action was brave, but its long-term efficacy depends on whether courts will agree with them that their action was necessary and create a precedent to normalize actions of this type. With another Antonin Scalia on the way to the Supreme Court, a positive outcome is in doubt.

Coordinated action of another type could be more effective in protecting the planet. In plain language, I speak of sabotage. Individuals or networks of people conducting coordinated, small-scale sabotage over a widespread area could cripple the fossil fuel system with a minimum of expense, technical expertise, personnel, and risk. It is simple to disappear into the night, and with proper security culture the possibility of capture is remote. We’ve seen how vulnerable this network is; anyone could do this.

It isn’t idle speculation that such attacks would have a substantial impact. Its actually been done before, most notably in Nigeria, where indigenous people in the Niger River Delta have risen against polluting oil companies many times over the past several decades. Most recently, attacks on oil pipelines earlier this year shut down some 40 percent of Nigeria’s oil processing. Months later, the oil industry still hasn’t recovered.

To many people, this plan will sound insane. Modern life is dependent upon oil in so many ways. But when oil is killing the planet and those in power will not respond to rational argumentation or peaceful protest, and when sixty million people are willing to vote a climate-denying sexual abuser into office, what options are we left with? It is time for serious escalation.

Max Wilbert is a writer, activist, and organizer with the group Deep Green Resistance. He lives on occupied Kalapuya Territory in Oregon.

Reposted from Deep Green Resistance News Service.

On Sunday, November 6th, the Santa Barbara chapter of Deep Green Resistance hosted the first stop of the Women’s Resistance Tour in Los Angeles, CA.  There were approximately 25 attendees, traveling all the way from Sacramento in the north to San Diego in the south.

 

smash

The focus of the Women’s Resistance Tour stop in LA was to give attendees the tools to engage in effective radical feminist activism to end patriarchy.

 

There were two presentations in the morning:

1. “Radical Feminist Resistance” discussed the distinction between liberals and radicals, described the categories of patriarchal control & examples of ways to respond, outlined the difference between alternative and oppositional cultures, and presented some examples of effective resistance movements.

2. “Misogyny and Ecocide” discussed the link between our woman-hating culture and the devaluation of the natural world, including the fact that the advent of agriculture & civilization contributed to both the formation of patriarchy & militaries as well as marking the beginning of widespread ecocide & the severing of humankind’s connection to nature.

 

The afternoon consisted of different workshops for the female and male attendees.  The women’s group started off with a kickass presentation from Warrior Sisters, an organization that provides free self-defense classes to women in order to combat the high rates of violence against women in our culture.

img_8052

Warrior Sisters gave a presentation about their organization. You can learn more here: http://warrior-sisters.org/.

 

The two representatives from Warrior Sisters demonstrated some helpful techniques in setting boundaries and, when necessary, physically stopping perpetrators.

WS

Two Warrior Sisters trainers showed us how to break free of a wrist grab.

 

Next, the women heard from a Board member of the Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF), a radical feminist organization dedicated to the total liberation of women.  WoLF is currently in the process of suing the United States federal government over the recent joint DOJ/DOE guidance that redefines “sex” to mean “gender identity” under Title IX.  This sets a dangerous precedent for the rights of women & girls in the United States, as Title IX is the only piece of federal legislation which protects females as a historically oppressed class.  Redefining Title IX to erase biological sex, the basis of the oppression of women & girls under patriarchy, will eliminate a multitude of protections for women & girls, such as: certain scholarships in STEM fields, separate locker rooms and showers for females in public schools, anti-discrimination laws in the workplace, and much more.

wolf

WoLF is suing the U.S. federal government to protect the rights of women and girls.  You can donate to the legal fundraiser here: https://womensliberationfront.nationbuilder.com/.

 

The women’s group concluded with a discussion of how to strategize when organizing radical feminist actions, inspired by this video by Zoe Blunt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vS4dJ2WWLE.  The end of the workshop consisted of a discussion on a topic that the women attendees chose: ending sexual exploitation of women & girls (i.e., pornography and prostitution).  I was so inspired by the group’s passion about this topic and look forward to working with them on this issue in the future.

 

The men’s group participated in two discussion-oriented presentations entitled “Male Violence: A Men’s Problem” and “How to Be a Better Pro-Feminist Ally,” led by two male members of DGR, Kyle and Dillon.  “Our discussions went very well.  It was nice to sit down and talk in a group of similarly-minded men about how to improve our activism, especially when we shared and critiqued each others’ stories of what to do and what not to do in relation to bystander intervention,” said Kyle.

Men are not feminists, but they can ally themselves with feminists to help fight patriarchy.  You can read DGR’s Feminist Solidarity Guidelines here: http://deepgreenresistance.org/en/what-we-do/deep-green-resistance-feminist-solidarity-guidelines/.

 

It was great seeing all the attendees talking to each other and getting excited about the activities throughout the day.  I really felt like we were coming together as a radical feminist community, and this was an essential part of creating a resistance movement against patriarchy here in southern California.

 

If you are interested in seeing the presentations from this event, or want to be involved with organizing events like this in the future, please email us at santabarbara@deepgreenresistance.org.