shopify traffic stats
Quantcast

Sustainable vs renewable and why ecosystems have rights

One cannot support Jordan Cove LNG without also supporting hydraulic fracturing and eminent domain

Sustainable vs renewable and why ecosystems have rights
image_pdfimage_print

The community rights discussion hosted by the Coos Commons Protection Council appears to have helped rally more troops to the cause of asserting local self governance. The community room at the Coos Bay Fire Hall was full to capacity and except for four pro-gas boosters everyone wanted to stop the Jordan Cove LNG project. Reasons for not wanting Jordan Cove are myriad, ranging from safety to environmental issues as well as fear of having their land taken for the pipeline via eminent domain. A story published in The World illustrates the other very real worry of depending too heavily upon one industry totally subject to market forces completely beyond our control.

After an initial introduction to “working outside the box” of the standard regulatory constraints and reclaiming our right to “say no” to unsustainable development, Kai Huschke of CELDF opened the meeting up to what turned out to be a very lively discussion. One of the main topics, naturally, is the citizen initiative The Coos County Right to a Sustainable Energy Future Ordinance.”

What the Ordinance will do.
The ordinance will secure the right of the people of Coos County to be the decision makers about its energy future. The ordinance will protect the rights of people and ecosystems in Coos County from non-sustainable energy projects, including current corporate and government attempts to push through the pipeline and Jordan Cove LNG export terminal. It would not only prohibit the siting of such projects but also the use of eminent domain – the taking of private property – on behalf of foreign and domestic oil and gas corporations.

What the Ordinance will NOT do.

The Ordinance will not affect the transportation of fossil fuels intended for residential, commercial, or industrial use for on-site power, heat consumption and vehicle refueling.

Sustainable vs Renewable

One of the pro-gas attendees raised questions about two components of the ordinance. The first stems from the following clause taken from Section 2 – Definitions

(d) Non-sustainable energy systems means those systems that are controlled by state and federal energy policies, rather than community controlled energy policies; hydroelectric power and industrial scale wind power when it is not locally or municipally owned and operated; energy systems using fossil fuels, including but not limited to coal, natural gas, petroleum products, nuclear and radioactive materials and other fuel sources that are non-renewable, or which produce toxins and substances that cause injury to humans or natural communities and ecosystems, or that are in violation of resident’s right to a sustainable energy future.

Concerns were raised that the ordinance would prohibit the continued import of hydroelectric energy from Bonneville Dam, from which most of our current energy is derived. The ordinance will not prohibit these sources of electricity when used for on-site power for residential, commercial or industrial use. Defining centralized industrial or utility scale wind and hydro is simply differentiating between sustainable  and unsustainable use of renewable energy. Massive wind farms like Shepherd’s Flat in Eastern Oregon that gobble up local ranches using eminent domain and ship power to California may be considered a renewable resource but isn’t necessarily a sustainable practice. The same can be said for hydroelectric dams.  In retrospect, the ordinance should also have included centralized solar systems under this section.

The ordinance does not prohibit the sustainable use of renewable energy, quite the contrary. Local wind farms and decentralized wind, solar and hydro installations are fully embraced as long as the power is locally controlled and power/profits distributed within the county.

The other concern was about giving nature rights.

Rights of Nature

All too few people object to conveying human rights or “personhood” status to legal creatures like corporations. Too many submissively acquiesce to elevating corporate rights above those of the individual and community so much so that a Canadian company may force US landowners to give up their land using the power of eminent domain. Nonetheless, Jordan Cove proponents attending the discussion and even some opponents of the project have balked at the concept of acceding rights to nature despite our very dependence on nature to survive.

Under our current system of law nature is regarded as “property” that only has value if and when its resources are extracted even if that extraction destroys an entire ecosystem and diminishes our quality of life. Section 3.  Statements of Law – Community Bill of Rights of the proposed ordinance addresses this issue by acknowledging nature is not property, at least when it comes to non-sustainable energy systems.

(c) Rights of Natural Communities and Ecosystems to Thrive. Natural communities and ecosystems within Coos County, including but not limited to, forests, rivers, streams, wetlands,aquifers, near shore habitats, and intertidal zones possess the right to exist, flourish, and naturally evolve unaffected by the construction, siting, or operation of non-sustainable energy systems.

This ordinance does not allow a herd of elk to obtain legal counsel to seek an injunction against hunters or grant civil liberties to your backyard trees. It simply acknowledges that nature existed long before the man made construct of “property” ever came into our collective consciousness.  It means “…that nature in all its life forms has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles.  The ecosystem itself can be named as a rights bearing subject with standing in a court of law.”

Nature’s right to thrive as described within this ordinance provides another layer of legal protection only against unwanted non-sustainable energy systems.

Layers

In closing, it is worth pointing out a couple of observations. Interestingly, one staunch proponent of LNG claimed he opposes hydraulic fracturing. Similarly, another Jordan Cove supporter I know opposes the use of eminent domain for purposes of building the pipeline. Unfortunately, Jordan Cove will be fed by “fracked” natural gas from the Rocky Mountain States and the supporting Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline cannot be built without using eminent domain to obtain easements from unwilling landowners. One cannot support Jordan Cove LNG without also supporting these other practices.

Print Friendly

About magix

When my oldest son, a Marine, left for war and crossed the border from Kuwait into Iraq in March 2003 I started writing my conscience. After two tours that young combat veteran’s mother is now an ardent peace activist and advocate for social, environmental and economic justice. MGx has matured since those early vents and ramblings and now covers relevant and important local and regional matters in addition to national and global affairs.

Connect

Follow on Twitter View all Posts

9 Responses to "Sustainable vs renewable and why ecosystems have rights"

  1. Fred  February 2, 2015 at 9:31 AM

    The (eight years experience in economic development of which six were spent employed by a New Zealand ladies spa and a physicians office) SCDC queen; Ms. (I make potato vodka with my pal Cribbins) Ruby Red Shoes; Timmie Slater; and contributor to the community yellow cab man Dick Lashley.

    Reply
    • magix  February 2, 2015 at 9:50 AM

      I see. The ‘usual suspects’…;)

      Reply
  2. fred  February 1, 2015 at 9:10 PM

    Speaking of four people – how about that page 2 full page ad in this weekend World paper best of 2014 magazine. What a crockacrap! Four unbiased (youbetcha), with name only, affiliations not stated, citizens supporting JCEP with the worst reasons listed below their mug shots. The full page ad compliments of grass roots BS Oregon – of course funded by, and paid for by, JCEP.

    Reply
    • magix  February 2, 2015 at 12:54 AM

      I haven’t seen it. Who were they?

      Reply
  3. Themguys  February 1, 2015 at 11:53 AM

    Too damn bad not one of our elected officials showed the interest to attend this meeting full of THEIR constituents, isn’t it??? Not one bothered. So much for representative government. Why is that? And they continue to bleat their need for “input” from We The People? Bob? Sweetpants? Miss Not Nice? To hell with all these voters? Shame on you. How many Chamber of Consorts chose to attend? They want the best for Coos County, right? Where were they? Not interested, not at all. I find that surprising, I would have thought at least a couple would have made an attempt to listen to their neighbors. I was wrong. Thank you to everyone who made this possible. It CAN work.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.