Tar Sands and the Occupy Movement--relationship

Whew!  This has been quite a week in Oakland/San Francisco.  Let me tell what's been happening, and then what I think about it all.

Sunday night I stopped by Occupy Oakland in front of Oakland's City Hall to talk to people about having our group--the La Pena Community Chorus from Berkeley's La Pena Cultural Center--sing in support of Occupy Oakland on Tuesday night.  I signed us up at the information tent and spoke with one of the organizers.  He told me that we could always sing on the side of the plaza, but it was hard to say what would be happening in the main amphitheater.  They didn't really schedule things more than a day in advance since there was danger that the police would evict them at any time.

I did stay for the General Assembly and was impressed with the two facilitators and the way the meeting went.  There were a series of committee reports--sanitation, kitchen, finance, security, . . .  One report was from a committee that had met with Oakland public employee unions to discuss maintenance of the plaza and seeking union support.  There was a proposal to limit the General Assemblies to four times a week rather than every night, with open forums taking place on the other days.  I got to see how the process worked as there were questions about the proposal, then speakers pro and con, and finally a vote.  The vote required 90% approval, which it did receive.  It all seemed very orderly and democratic to me.  The feeling reminded me of Berkeley in 1970 when I first moved there--a zillion different points of view, all trying to stop the war and make a new world.

Occupy Oakland at City Hall, October 20

The Oakland Mayor's office said that the occupiers were unable to "maintain safe or sanitary conditions, or control the ongoing vandalism."  From what I saw, the most serious sanitation problem was the complaint that the toilet paper kept disappearing from the porta-potties.  I noticed that the huge old oak tree, which is the symbol of Oakland, was fenced off and was being well respected. 

Since during that visit I couldn't learn anything definitive about our chorus singing, I came back Monday to check out the situation.  This time there was some frustration expressed by a group who had planned to show a film about sexual harassment, because the projector did not show up.  Also I noticed that the sound system was not in place, so I wondered how they would conduct a General Assembly.  In talking to people, I was assured that our chorus, which sings songs of peace and social justice in Spanish and English would be well received.

So I spoke with our choral directors and we were set to sing Tuesday night.  However, I woke up Tuesday to the news that the tent city had been taken over by police.  I went down to City Hall and counted 100 police at the corner of 14th & Broadway.  The Occupy Oakland web site estimates 500 police from numerous jurisdictions were involved in the hostile take over.  See http://www.occupyoakland.org/ for more details.  Here's a photo I took Tuesday morning:

14th & Broadway, Tuesday October 25, 10 AM

But Tuesday was a busy day for those of us who have time to protest.  President Obama was in San Francisco for a fundraiser, and the Stop the Keystone XL pipeline demonstrators were there to demand that he say NO to the pipeline.  I joined about 1,000 protestors, some of whom were the 99%/Occupy movement folks, and some were for legalizing marijuana, but the great majority were there for the pipeline.  See photo below:

My favorite signs from the demonstration were:  "If the environment were a bank, we'd have already saved it."  and "Worse than crude--obscene"

So this was a hectic day, but the movements are just building steam.  Occupy Oakland is planning a major demonstration and a general strike on November 2, and the Tar Sands Action group is planning to surround the White House on November 6.  I'm planning to be at both of these events, so please stay tuned.

Now what is the relation of these two movements?  There are some clear similarities--both are mass movements with many members willing to commit civil disobedience to promote the causes of social justice and human survival.  Both are taking on the most powerful economic and political forces possible--Wall Street and Big Oil.  I think it is safe to say that most people in each movement are sympathetic with the other.  One chant I heard at the Keystone rally was "Yes you can, Mr. President, No pipeline for the one percent"

I also think each movement has at least a chance of succeeding.  The Occupy movement is not limited to any specific demands, but higher taxes for the rich are certainly part of their vision.  Such taxes were a fact of life not too long ago.  I believe the tax rate went as high as 90% back in the 1950s, although I'm not sure anyone actually paid that high a rate.  Similarly, there are many precedents for successful environmental actions--the world agreed to ban chloroflourocarbons when scientists found that they were destroying earth's protective ozone layer; lead was banned in gasoline; power plants have had to reduce sulphur dioxide to stop acid rain; nitrous oxides were reduced from autos by catalytic converters, which has dramatically reduced smog; . . .  In the case of global warming caused by CO2, there are many renewable energy sources, and the world can live without tar sands oil (or any oil for that matter).

However, the political system is stacked against each of these sensible solutions.  Thus, frustration has driven activists into the streets and into civil disobedience to make their point.

How are the two movements different?  The Occupy movement has a much bigger target--all of the rich.  But the fact is that the rich could easily pay more taxes without any great harm to themselves or society.  They are simply not willing, and will not do so unless forced by a mass movement.  In the case of global warming, the movement is only targeting the fossil fuel sector, and in the case of the XL Pipeline, only one part of that--the tar sands industry.  There are large sectors of wealthy corporations that could support the global warming movement--not just renewable energy companies, but also electric car manufacturers, public utilities, silicon valley technology companies, and many more.  In fact everyone is threatened by global warming, so even the fossil fuel industries should surrender in their self interest (don't hold your breath for that to happen).  The difference here is that the rich can afford to pay more to support society, but the oil companies need to be shut down, and they will not go down without a big fight.

So it's quite a moment in history--will corporate America continue its shameless destruction of social programs and living wages?  Will coal and big oil continue to block clean energy programs with disinformation and bought off legislators?

I urge everyone to join these movements and make a better world.  History is made by people who show up!

PS--There's room for fun in all of this.  After the police left Oakland's city hall plaza, some creative demonstrators made a sculpture out of the steel barricades: