Things feel pretty weird right now to Americans.
Since we celebrated the New Year, we have seen President Obama’s executive action with rudimentary gun control measures met with widespread backlash from the gun lobby and its political supporters, a state of emergency in California due to a methane leak and Virginia’s GOP launched a pledge that would make it harder for minorities and the poor to vote. One thing we still have not seen, though, is a single Republican presidential candidate acknowledge climate change in the debates despite the historic climate deal in Paris just before the holidays.
The country will hear from President Obama tomorrow night during his the State of the Union address. As for the state of our democracy, we have serious work to do. The good news is that the American people have never been more determined to claim a democracy that represents the people and the issues that matter to us. From issue to issue, people power is winning, and claiming our democracy will be no different.
Today, Bernie Sanders became the first presidential candidate to sign a pledge launched by Greenpeace and partners asking all candidates to support a people-powered democracy and reject campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry. This is the first step in a historic journey to restore power to the people in this country.
To understand the state of our democracy and what’s fueling the growing democracy movement today here are three important realities we must face.
Reality 1: Money in Politics
Let’s start with out-of-control money in politics and its inflated influence on our government.
Private money, from industries like oil and gas, is manipulating our democracy so egregiously that it is has almost ceased to be a real democracy at all. The passage of Citizens United in 2010 unleashed unlimited spending and corporate influence. Individuals can now donate millions to the candidate of their choice.
We have seen the consequences of this. For instance, not one question about climate change was asked during either the Republican or Democratic presidential debates just days after the world reached a historic climate deal in Paris.
In a #DemDebate ostensibly focused on the economy, health, and nat'l security, @ABC failed to ask about #climatechange—essential to all 3.— Greenpeace USA (@Greenpeace USA)1450582584.0
Despite her recent comments on fossil fuels and climate change recently, even Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton receives money connected to the fossil fuel industry via industry lobbyists who have bundled contributions to the campaign.
We experience the impacts of excessive corporate influence on our politicians on a daily basis—from access to clean water and air to healthcare reform to student loans to gun control. The New York Times reported this fall that just 158 families have contributed half of the campaign money on the 2016 campaign trail. Where did all that money come from? Primarily the finance and energy industries, particularly oil and gas.
These contributors are not interested in protecting the environment, advocating for social justice or ending gun violence. They are only interested in protecting their sky-high profits.
The one percent is buying their candidates, while making it harder for the 99 percent to even vote in the first place.
Reality 2: Voting Rights
The right to vote is the foundation of democracy. Sadly, certain lawmakers have taken such major steps backwards in voting rights that it is harder for certain groups to vote in 2016 than in it was in 1965.
This will be the first presidential election year in which 15 states have new voting restrictions. These include photo identification requirements, cuts to early voting, and more registration restrictions including the elimination of same day voting registration. Who does this impact? Minorities, the elderly, the poor and students, primarily.
How did all this happen? The catalyst was the gutting of the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court in 2013. The Court voted to reverse parts of a crucial 1965 law that required lawmakers in state with a history of discrimination to receive federal permission before changing voting laws. What followed immediately were laws making it harder for underprivileged communities to vote, including birth certificate requirements and lack of voting booths near public transportation.
Congress’s failure to restore voting rights since that decision means means that a huge chunk of people in America—those most impacted by things like climate change and social injustice—are finding it hard to cast their votes at all.
Reality 3: People Power is Changing Everything
If there is anything to take from 2015, it’s that people-power is winning.
From protecting the Arctic from Shell’s offshore drilling plans to the Black Lives Matter movement, people are becoming more active on the issues that they care about. And that is manifesting into real change- albeit sometimes slow given the political realities.
Both Maine and Seattle voters recently made historic strides in passing initiatives that put more power in the hands of the people. Tallahassee, Florida, voters overwhelmingly supported a sweeping set of ethics and campaign finance laws. There have been major victories in voting rights in 16 states, including Maryland, Delaware and Vermont.
No matter where they currently stand, all of the presidential candidates are getting the message from thousands of supporters and nearly 20 organizations that it is time they support a people-powered democracy by saying “no” to fossil fuel money and supporting people’s right to vote.
2016 just became the year we declare a democracy for the people of the 21st century.
Tell the presidential candidates to just say no to fossil fuel money.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
History Will Be Made Today as the Delta 5 Head to Court
Super PAC Credits Hillary Clinton for Selling Fracking to the World
Marco Rubio Calls Exxon Scandal ‘Nothing But a Left-Wing Effort to Demonize Industry’
EPA Scientists Call Foul on Fracking Study, Say Findings ‘Inconsistent With Data Presented’
Though made in large part of plastic, glass, ceramics, gold and copper, they also contain critical resources. The gallium used for LEDs and the camera flash, the tantalum in capacitors and indium that powers the display were all pulled from the ground — at a price for nature and people.
"Mining raw materials is always problematic, both with regard to human rights and ecology," said Melanie Müller, raw materials expert of the German think tank SWP. "Their production process is pretty toxic."
The gallium and indium in many phones comes from China or South Korea, the tantalum from the Democratic Republic of Congo or Rwanda. All in, such materials comprise less than ten grams of a phone's weight. But these grams finance an international mining industry that causes radioactive earth dumps, poisoned groundwater and Indigenous population displacement.
Environmental Damage: 'Nature Has Been Overexploited'
The problem is that modern technologies don't work without what are known as critical raw materials. Collectively, solar panels, drones, 3D printers and smartphone contain as many as 30 of these different elements sourced from around the globe. A prime example is lithium from Chile, which is essential in the manufacture of batteries for electric vehicles.
"No one, not even within the industry, would deny that mining lithium causes enormous environmental damage," Müller explained, in reference to the artificial lakes companies create when flushing the metal out of underground brine reservoirs. "The process uses vast amounts of water, so you end up with these huge flooded areas where the lithium settles."
This means of extraction results in the destruction and contamination of the natural water system. Unique plants and animals lose access to groundwater and watering holes. There have also been reports of freshwater becoming salinated due to extensive acidic waste water during lithium mining.
But lithium is not the only raw material that causes damage. Securing just one ton of rare earth elements produces 2,000 tons of toxic waste, and has devastated large regions of China, said Günther Hilpert, head of the Asia Research Division of the German think tank SWP.
He says companies there have adopted a process of spraying acid over the mining areas in order to separate the rare earths from other ores, and that mined areas are often abandoned after excavation.
"They are no longer viable for agricultural use," Hilpert said. "Nature has been overexploited."
China is not the only country with low environmental mining standards and poor resource governance. In Madagascar, for example, a thriving illegal gem and metal mining sector has been linked to rainforest depletion and destruction of natural lemur habitats.
States like Madagascar, Rwanda and the DRC score poorly on the Environmental Performance Index that ranks 180 countries for their effort on factors including conservation, air quality, waste management and emissions. Environmentalists are therefore particularly concerned that these countries are mining highly toxic materials like beryllium, tantalum and cobalt.
But it is not only nature that suffers from the extraction of high-demand critical raw materials.
"It is a dirty, toxic, partly radioactive industry," Hilpert said. "China, for example, has never really cared about human rights when it comes to achieving production targets."
Dirty, Toxic, Radioactive: Working in the Mining Sector
One of the most extreme examples is Baotou, a Chinese city in Inner Mongolia, where rare earth mining poisoned surrounding farms and nearby villages, causing thousands of people to leave the area.
In 2012, The Guardian described a toxic lake created in conjunction with rare earth mining as "a murky expanse of water, in which no fish or algae can survive. The shore is coated with a black crust, so thick you can walk on it. Into this huge, 10 sq km tailings pond nearby factories discharge water loaded with chemicals used to process the 17 most sought after minerals in the world."
Local residents reported health issues including aching legs, diabetes, osteoporosis and chest problems, The Guardian wrote.
South Africa has also been held up for turning a blind eye to the health impacts of mining.
"The platinum sector in South Africa has been criticized for performing very poorly on human rights — even within the raw materials sector," Müller said.
In 2012, security forces killed 34 miners who had been protesting poor working conditions and low wages at a mine owned by the British company Lonmin. What became known as the "Marikana massacre" triggered several spontaneous strikes across the country's mining sector.
Müller says miners can still face exposure to acid drainage — a frequent byproduct of platinum mining — that can cause chemical burns and severe lung damage. Though this can be prevented by a careful waste system.
Some progress was made in 2016 when the South African government announced plans to make mining companies pay $800 million (€679 million) for recycling acid mine water. But they didn't all comply. In 2020, activists sued Australian-owned mining company Mintails and the government to cover the cost of environmental cleanup.
Another massive issue around mining is water consumption. Since the extraction of critical raw materials is very water intensive, drought prone countries such as South Africa, have witnessed an increase in conflicts over supply.
For years, industry, government and the South African public debated – without a clear agreement – whether companies should get privileged access to water and how much the population may suffer from shortages.
Mining in Brazil: Replacing Nature, People, Land Rights
Beyond the direct health and environmental impact of mining toxic substances, quarrying critical raw materials destroys livelihoods, as developments in Brazil demonstrate.
"Brazil is the major worldwide niobium producer and reserves in [the state of] Minas Gerais would last more than 200 years [at the current rate of demand]," said Juliana Siqueira-Gay, environmental engineer and Ph.D. student at the University of São Paulo.
While the overall number of niobium mining requests is stagnating, the share of claims for Indigenous land has skyrocketed from 3 to 36 percent within one year. If granted, 23 percent of the Amazon forest and the homeland of 222 Indigenous groups could fall victim to deforestation in the name of mining, a study by Siqueira-Gay finds.
In early 2020, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro signed a bill which would allow corporations to develop areas populated by Indigenous communities in the future. The law has not yet entered into force, but "this policy could have long-lasting negative effects on Brazil's socio-biodiversity," said Siqueira-Gay.
One example are the niobium reserves in Seis Lagos, in Brazil's northeast, which could be quarried to build electrolytic capacitors for smartphones.
"They overlap the Balaio Indigenous land and it would cause major impacts in Indigenous communities by clearing forests responsible for providing food, raw materials and regulating the local climate," Siqueira-Gay explained.
She says scientific good practice guidelines offer a blueprint for sustainable mining that adheres to human rights and protects forests. Quarries in South America — and especially Brazil — funded by multilaterial banks like the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank Group have to follow these guidelines, Siqueira-Gay said.
They force companies to develop sustainable water supply, minimize acid exposure and re-vegetate mined surfaces. "First, negative impacts must be avoided, then minimized and at last compensated — not the other way around."
Reposted with permission from DW.