3469. Report: It’s Up To Us! Sonoma County Climate Summit

By Sonoma County Climate Activist Network, January 19, 2020

On January 10, 2021, almost 300 people gathered together for It’s Up To Us! Sonoma County Climate Activists Community Summit (Climate Summit) held on Zoom. In the minutes before the Climate Summit, participants were inspired by Alice Mayne-Ashworth’s renderings of Sunrise Movement songs. The Climate Summit Master of Ceremonies, Doron Amiran, EV Program Manager at the Climate Center, introduced us and kept us on track. Presenters excelled in bringing us together to connect, to pay attention, to transform through action – and to keep to the time provided!

Our first presenter, Dr. Brenda Flyswithhawks, spoke eloquently about the much-needed intersection of indigenous traditional practices and western science. Elizabeth Kaiser spoke about the value of regenerative agriculture practiced on small farms, their sheer productivity and positive impacts on soil health. Cory O’Gorman elaborated on his studies of fire, cultural burns and the great value of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) systems, and shared writing about his experiences. Writer and biologist Maya Khosla spoke of the value of natural wildfire in unlogged forests that regenerate naturally and beautifully. Wildfires are much misunderstood, post-fire forests are heavily logged. The dangerous emissions associated with biomass emit more carbon dioxide than burning coal (for an equal amount of power generated). There is a misguided notion that biomass is renewable energy. Sonoma Clean Power is currently exploring the possibility of biomass use as an option. Using forest-based products for generating energy is at least 1.5 times worse than coal.

Environmental educators Fabiola Maya and Vincent Tavani shared their poem, inspired by their recent travels through forests and other wild places, and reached out to reconnect us with what we love about our relationship with nature. Sunrise Movement youth members Christine Byrne and Janina Turner shared the origins and the power of the new Youth Movement, working toward stopping climate change, securing a Green New Deal, and creating a livable future for all. Greenbelt Alliance Advocacy Director, Teri Shore explained how Greenbelts can protect our communities and create climate resilience. Jenny Blaker and Woody Hastings explained CONGAS (Coalition Opposing New Gas Stations), a powerful new movement aimed at stopping the construction of new gas stations in Sonoma County. David Warrender discussed CCL (Citizens’ Climate Lobby); ways that people in our community can bring about a bold new climate policy. June Brashares and Woody Hastings described a prospective Sonoma County ballot proposition to establish a Progressive Wealth Tax for Climate Action – given the massive amount of wealth, and the associated carbon footprint, in the hands of the few who have the most. 

Frequent chats and questions indicated that participants were inspired by the strong messages of activism. Participants established a strong common ground; themes including a sense of faith in wild lands that regenerate on their own terms or in response to traditional fire treatments, the importance of producing local foods, of gathering to oppose large-scale projects that exacerbate climate change, the importance of being in conversation with our leaders: these prevailing themes were nurtured throughout the summit. Indigenous peoples kept ancient traditions that fostered balance and harmony between humans and nature. Green spaces are a vital part of that balance. Careful planning can limit urban growth, chemicals, monocrops, toxins and concrete. Growing food can be part of the balance when we build the soil instead of deplete it. A system that ignores people of color and over-extracts for profit ignores the wisdom that kept our land healthy for thousands of years. Wildfires can grow worse with large-scale logging projects. Biomass is decimating our forests while taking necessary funds away from real renewable energy like wind, solar and geothermal.  

It’s Up To Us! to preserve our ecosystem, locally and globally. When we come together we can hold wealthy exploiters accountable, and put an end to destructive projects. Even during the pandemic, we can gather, sit in virtual circles inspired by art, wisdom and nature, and find strength in sharing.    

Perhaps it was fortunate our March 2020 Summit was cancelled. Our event rose like a phoenix at the beginning of 2021. Long-standing activism combined with digital technology brought our event to life – and a short film served as a follow-up. ###

Contact: SonomaCountyCAN@gmail.com or call 707-595-0320

--------------------------------------------

The Sonoma County Climate Activist Network (SoCoCAN!) is a strong and active network of 50+ local climate change groups and over 200 individuals working together to address and reverse climate change. We meet in months with a 5th Monday, 7-9 PM. Currently we meet on Zoom. Next meeting is on March 29. Join our listserv for lively discussion and information sharing. Contact us at SonomaCountyCAN@gmail.com. Sonoma County Climate Activist Network (SoCoCAN!) https://www.SonomaCountyCAN.org SonomaCountyCAN@gmail.com 

707-595-0320 

3357. A Note on the Controversy About "Planet of the Humans"

By Kamran Nayeri, May 3, 2020

There has been much controversy surrounding “Planet of the Humans” (director Jeff Gibbs, producer Michael Moore, 2020) within the climate justice movement in the United States (For a sample, see, the Wikipedia entry for the film).  The reason is obvious.  The documentary takes a critical look at the leadership of this movement, in particular 350.org and its founder Bill McKibben, who thanks to the mass media has become the poster child of the climate justice movement, and some of the policies and practices they have supported.  In other words, Moore and Gibbs whose film is now seen by millions of viewers have brought to light an inconvenient truth: The climate justice movement which has a narrow technological view of the crisis hence its solution—replacing dirty fuels with “clean, renewable energy”—has become enslaved to a fictional vision of Green Capitalism that would never rid us of a catastrophic climate change.  That is the central message of the documentary which the critics do not like and would not discuss.

Instead, Moore and Gibbs have become subject of attacks by some in the climate justice movement.  Josh Fox, another liberal filmmaker, who attacks Moore and Gibbs as “the new flack for oil and gas” industry offers a typical response. He argues that Moore and Gibbs instead should have celebrated the “stunning” “achievements” of the climate justice movement. 

“The codification and structuring of the Green New Deal, the Fossil Free movement championed by Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein, which has led to universities, pension funds, and foundations to commit to divesting trillions of dollars from fossil fuels, huge advances in renewable energy efficiency, the proliferation of 100 percent renewable energy plans put forward by Stanford University Professor Mark Jacobson and others, a burgeoning youth movement inspired by Fridays for Future and Greta Thunberg; the remarkable successes of the anti-fracking movement—which finally reached the mainstream, espoused by progressives like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez but also by moderates like Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg. And the incredible civil disobedience uprising at Standing Rock against the Dakota Access Pipeline. What a decade for the environmental movement! Those achievements deserve celebration on film.” (Fox, The Nation, April 30, 2020)

Somehow, Fox who suggests the documentary falls short of good scientific evidence finds it inconvenient to ask himself why despite such “stunning achievements” carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere continues to rise.  On May 1, 2020, CO2 concentration was 418.03 ppm compared to 414.88 ppm on May 1, 2019 (CO2 Daily, accessed May 2, 2020). 

I will return to Fox’s “stunning achievements” in a moment. But let’s note the important criticism the film makes of the climate justice movement and its leadership.    

Natural limits to growth

The documentary is typical of Moore movies.  It is not a film about science of climate change or any scientific assessment of “renewable” energy although it does allude to them (some of these issues are in dispute even among experts, see, for example, the important topic of “energy returned on energy invested” EROEI discussion in Wikipedia) .  

A central and critical message of the film is natural limits to growth: on a finite planet infinite economic growth including of human population and consumption is impossible.  In other words, even if “clean, renewable” energy can be had, its manufacturing and use may still exceed the natural limits of the planet if we do not substantially reduce the drive for ever-more energy consumption. The film does not discuss this but it is common knowledge that the bulk of GHGs emissions are by the U.S., China, and European Union (Chinese emissions are in part due to demand for manufactured goods from the U.S. and E.U.). At the same time 850 million people in the Global South lack access to energy (International Energy Association, World Outlook, 2019).

Of course, over-consumption in Global North and by some in Global South is also pressing against other natural limits to growth (example: oceans are running out of fish and most fish in the market these days are farmed fish which require energy to produce). This feeds into factors that have caused the Sixth Extinction which is considered an existential crisis as it will lead to the collapse of the web of life perhaps by the end of this century (Wilson, 2016; see, also, Nayeri, 2017)

 A related important point the film makes is that “clean, renewable energy” is not entirely renewable or clean.  Construction of solar panel, wind turbines and related materials and infrastructure use fossil fuels and contribute to energy consumption and they have to be replaced on certain short intervals of time.  As someone who has installed solar panels for my home I know that I am still dependent on Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) for my power at night and when it did cut off power to northern California homes last fall because of wildfire, I too had not electricity. Thus, I am still dependent on fossil fuels and nuclear energy PG&E uses.  

Capitalism and the profit motive

Moore and Gibbs also go further than the climate justice movement and its leaderships in that in the documentary they holds “capitalism” responsible for the crisis and once refer to the “profit motive” as the source of quest for ever-more growth on a finite planet.  It was practically a conversation stopper in 350.org when I was briefly part of it and in much of the climate justice movement to speak of “capitalism,” not fossil fuels only, as the source of the crisis.  To put it differently, 350.org and all other prominent climate justice movement groups as well as all environmentalist groups refuse to consider that Our Way of Life, “capitalism,” has anything to do with the climate crisis or the broader ecological crisis. A very small current in the climate justice movement, including this author, has argued that the crisis is systemic and to overcome it we must work towards transcending capitalism.  

Green Capitalism 

Using these lenses, the documentary criticizes the leadership of the climate justice movement, especially 350.org and it founder Bill McKibben, as pursuing what is known as Green Capitalism, that is, some fictitious environmentally friendly capitalism.   The point Moore and Gibbs make is painfully clear: you cannot have capitalism and the pursuit of profit and infinite economic growth on a planet with finite resources.  Sooner or later, crises of all kinds will erupt.  The runaway climate change is the one most well-known.  But the Sixth Extinction is equally as important. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic is yet another facet of the same crisis. Even if the whole world transitions to "renewable energy" but capitalist growth continues, humanity may still go extinct. 

Which way forward for the climate justice movement?

While supporting every mass mobilization of the movement, I have been an outspoken critic of the reformist Green Capitalism politics of its leadership as the list of essays below written over a number of years show.

My criticism of the movement’s leadership has never focused on their relationship with the various capitalist groups or their sources of funding. But is it not troubling that major environmentalist groups like Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense Fund, and the Natural Resources Defense Council have had a cozy relationship with the major capitalist groups with an interest in environmentalist policy? Isn’t it a conflict of interest? Isn’t it troubling to Mr. Fox and others who are attacking Moore and Gibbs as oil and gas flake that Bill McKibben when asked on camera to disclose the funding sources of 350.org draws a blank? 

Still, my criticism of McKibben is based on his misunderstanding of why we have climate crisis and who is responsible for it and how we can resolve the crisis.  

In an April 2016 interview with an Australian website, McKibben candidly recounts the evolution of his own strategic thinking: “I spent a lot of years getting it wrong…I thought we were engaged in an argument” with the fossil fuel industry. “We waited far too long to realise what a fight it was, and that there was an adversary on the other side.” 

At that time McKibben appeared to argue that politicians are “pawns” in the hands of the fossil fuel industry and he decided to go after the “real bosses” (the fossil fuel industry).  But isn't he still "getting it wrong?" Isn't the problem capitalism and not just oili and gas industries that serve industrial capitalism? 

Not only McKibben wasted “a lot of years” unable to form a critical conception of the fossil fuel industry and the dynamics of the capitalist economy, he also has never ever took the trouble to find out. By narrowly defining the problem that the climate justice movement faces, he continued to come up with a deficient strategy.  

As he was granting that interview in Australia, 350.org  was preparing for its failed “Break Free from Fossil Fuels” campaign which used a series of civil disobedience actions targeting the “worse polluters” by a small group of activists. At the same time, McKibben was favoring Senator Sanders campaign in the 2016 elections to reform the Democratic Party, that is a capitalist electoral strategy. When Sanders lost in part due to the machinations of the Democratic Party bosses, McKibben and 350.org threw their support behind the establishment's Hillary Clinton’s bid for presidency even though she openly embraced natural gas and fracking (Fox and current critics of Moore and Gibbs seem to have forgotten that episode). Read McKibben's own account of this experience in his New Republic essay. The electoralist illusion is not unique to 350.org but is widely shared in the climate justice movement, the ecology movement, and social justice movement.  Why that is can only be explained by a lack of critical thinking. Just consider the balance sheet of other once mighty movements such as the labor movement, the movement to defend abortion right, and the African American movement who relied on a similar electoral policy and the Democratic Party who have been reduced to small mariginalized groups.  

In summary, McKibben and 350.org and all other climate justice groups such as The Climate Mobilization have no other strategy.  Thus, they help initiate, fund, or promote various other groups such as the Sunrise Movement and Justice Democrats to elect “climate friendly” (typically) Democratic Party politicians. After Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was elected to Congress in 2018 with help from Justice Democrats and proposed a non-binding Green New Deal Resolution it caused widespread jubilation in the climate justice movement and some even envisioned a a rapid transition to a fossil fuel free economy through a massive U.S. government devised and funded plan.  

Of course, nothing of the kind ever happened. The non-binding GND Resolution is largely forgotten and the most significant action Ocasio-Cortez has been to endorse Sanders’ bid for nomination by the Democratic Party in this primary season.  When Sanders's bid became highly unlikely to succeed, he ended his campaign and endorsed Biden’s nomination. It was a Déjà vu of the 2016 experience. It is an understatement that the climate justice movement has become disoriented.  There is little doubt that 350.org and other prominent climate justice and ecology group will support the Biden bid for presidency as a matter of the lesser evil politics.  Biden does not seem to have any campaign program of his own but promises a return to the "Golden Age" of Obama administration policies. We know how effective the Obama presidency was in addressing the existential climate change crisis. 

The interested reader can find my detailed critique of the Green New Deal and its proponents (Nayeri, March 2019; Nayeri, January 2019).  But let me point out one aspect of both the Sanders’ program and the GND of Ocasio-Cortez that is relevant to the movie's central message: They are both Keynesian vision of some Green Capitalist future with the promise of prosperity to the U.S. working people when in fact what is unfolding is the systemic existential crisis of capitalism.  In his 2016 campaign, Sanders promised a 5% a year GDP growth, a really fast rate of economic growth for a mature capitalist economy.  If Sanders were elected president in 2020 and his program adopted and implemented it would certainly have cause a similarly fast rate of economic growth. Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed GND is also a Green Keynesian program that would cause rapid economic growth. 

Presumably, both Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez plans would have redistributed income from the super rich to the working people and would have tied to enact programs that would have benefited them in the short run.  But their proposals would also contribute to the ecological crisis by pressing against the limits to growth while they would also increase the gap between the rich United States and the global poor who currently constitute almost half the world population— more than 3 billion people — who live on less than $2.50 a day.  Surely, the prosperity Green Capitalist politicians like Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders promise the American working people could not ever be extended to the poor regions of the world as it will certainly amount to suicide for humanity as catastrophic climate change and the collapse of the web of life will result.

Thus, Moore and Gibbs are correct to point to natural limits to growth and to the problem of unceasing capitalist economic growth fueled by ceaseless pursuit of profits as the cause for climate crisis.  To fault them for pointing out the fact that United States cannot solve the climate crisis simply by transitioning to “clean renewable” energy sources while continuing to produce and consume ever more energy and all other stuff of the American ways of life is at best ignorant. 

A culture of being, not a culture of having  

Humanity’s salvation lays only in whether billions of us can undertake a course to transcend the anthropocentric industrial capitalist civilization in the direction of an Ecocentric Socialist future where a culture of being will replace the present culture of having, when humanity will finally undo all power relations on which the current civilization rests by disempowering those who hold power.  For the past five thousand years, all civilizations have been class societies in which the ruling classes have dominated and exploited the working masses to extract wealth from nature.  This has been the root cause of ecological and social crises that have resulted in the collapse of many civilizations.  It would be foolish to disregard the fact that the anthropocentric industrial capitalist civilization is an exception. We must end the paradigm of wealth generation, radically reduce the human population over a number of generations democratically through empowerment of women, and radically reduce the size of our economies by refocusing on local economies geared to production of basic necessities of a life consistent with human development in harmony among ourselves and with the rest of nature.

To be sure, Planet of the Humans has shortcomings. But the central message it communicates deserve the full attention of and discussion by the climate and ecological movements.  Likewise, I would appreciate any critical discussion of this commentary. 

A list of my earlier writings on climate change follows:

“Challenges Posed by the ‘Green New Deal’” January 16, 2019.

“Opportunities and Challenges Posed by the Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vests) Protests and the Sunrise Movement” January 3, 2019.

“Can Divestment from Fossil Fuels Stop the Climate Crisis and Save the World?”  March 12, 2018.

“Who Can Stop the Climate Crisis?” June 27, 2017.

“To Be or Not to Be: Ecocentric Ecological Socialism as the Solution to the World Social and Planetary Crisis” May 26, 2017.

“Reformism or Radicalism: Which Strategy for the Climate Justice Movement?" October 6, 2017.

“Making Progress: A Critical Assessment of Climate Action Plans by Bill McKibben and The Climate Mobilization” September 3, 2016.

“Strategy and Tactics for the Climate Justice Movement: A Critique of 350.org “Break Free from Fossil Fuels” Campaign”March 31, 2016.

“After Paris: To Succeed the Climate Justice Movement Must Lead,” January 4, 2016.

“Emissions Tax, The Climate Movement, and Radical Social Change,” July 3, 2015.

“The Climate Movement Should Demand: "Tax Greenhouse Gases Emissions With Subsidies for Low-Income People” June 26, 2015.

“Why the San Francisco Bay Area 350.org's Call for "Getting Out the Vote" for Democrats Is a Grave Mistake” October 26, 2014.

‘People’s Climate March Was a Huge Success; What to Do Next? October 1, 2014.

“Join the March for Climate Justice on September 21” August 12, 2014

References

Nayeri, Kamran. “How to Stop the Sixth Extinction: A Critical Assessment of E. O. Wilson’s Half-Earth.” Our Place in the World: A Journal of Ecosocialism. May 14, 2017.

————————. “Challenges Posed by the ‘Green New Deal’.”  Our Place in the World: A Journal of Ecosocialism. January 16, 2019. 

————————. “A Future for American Capitalism or The Future of Life on Earth?: An Ecosocialist Critique of the ‘Green New Deal’.” Our Place in the World: A Journal of Ecosocialism. March 25, 2019.

Wilson, E. O. Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life, 2016.

Acknowledgement: Thanks to David McDonald for his suggestions on a draft of this commentarry. 

3285. Gerta Thunberg's Speech at the UN Climate Action Summit

By Gerta Thunberg, September 24, 2019

3284. Photojournalism: Climate Strike Rally at Santa Rosa, California

By Kamran Nayeri, September 20, 2019

About 1,000 people, mostly college and high school-age attended the Climate Strike rally in Santa Rosa, California. 

3114. Puthuvypeen: How an Oil Company Could Turn a Kerala Village Into a Deathtrap

By Sajai Jose, The Wire, November 27, 2017

Indian Oil’s Puthuvypeen LPG Import Terminal, which can store up to 15,400 metric tons of gas, is scheduled to be built next to two petrochemicals facilities that already operate in the area. Photo: Reuters

Kochi: The state of Kerala is unusually mindful of the hazards posed by pigs. According to the state Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) rules, pig farms fall under the ‘Red’ category, reserved for the most hazardous group of industries. “The shed housing the pigs should be a minimum of 100 metres from the nearest house. If the distance is even one metre less, permission won’t be granted,” a board official said.

The board’s dedication to ensuring safety is laudable, even if its ideas about what makes an industry hazardous are a little odd. In 2013, it granted the Indian Oil Corporation – the public-sector oil behemoth and India’s largest corporation – permission to build a liquid petroleum gas (LPG) storage terminal in Puthuvypeen village near Kochi under the ‘Orange’ or ‘relatively less hazardous’ category.

Under this clearance, the company is free to build tanks designed to store industrial-scale quantities of LPG – the equivalent of over one million domestic gas cylinders – just 40 metres from the nearest house. Incredible as it sounds, a shed full of pigs in the same location would have to be built a good 60 metres further, for it to get the agency’s approval.

The residents of Puthuvypeen, though, are not impressed by the nuances of environmental regulation which allow an LPG Terminal to be built a stone’s throw away from their homes. They have been up in arms about the project from its inception eight years ago. The agitation reached a crescendo this June, when a series of brutal police actions targeted the agitators, including children and the elderly. Caught live on camera by TV crews, the action left many hospitalised with severe injuries and broken bones.

Maglin Philomena of the Puthuvype LPG Terminal Virudha Janakeeya Samara Samiti, which is spearheading the agitation, is one of its many leaders who were injured in the police action. She recalls what happened after she was arrested along with several other women, when there were no cameras watching them:

“The police had put down the shutters and were driving us at a speed even faster than an ambulance. Many women, including 80-year old grandmothers, who had no experience of being arrested before, fainted under the strain, and we shouted out to the police, begging for water, but they refused. At the station, they detained us for hours, refusing to let us even use the toilets. All this happened in Kerala, where a Left government is in power.”

The severity with which even children were assaulted by the police sparked widespread public anger, prompting the State Human Rights Commission and child rights panel to intervene. After taking a defensive stance initially, the state government, led by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), was forced to temporarily stop construction at the site and set up a panel to look into the issue.

In the shadow of a petrochemical SEZ

Puthuvypeen is located on the southern end of Vypeen island, which faces Kochi harbour, the proximity making it an ideal location for port-related infrastructure. Except that Vypeen is among the most densely populated islands in the world, home to more than two lakh people. A large part of Vypeen consists of marshes and agricultural land, with the population packed into many dense peri-urban settlements and villages such as Puthuvypeen.

Indian Oil’s Puthuvypeen LPG Import Terminal, which can store up to 15,400 metric tons of gas, is scheduled to be built next to two petrochemicals facilities that already operate in the area: Petronet’s 3,10,000 m3 capacity LNG Terminal, and Bharath Petroleum’s ‘tank farm,’ with a capacity of 3,30,000 m3 of crude oil. All three facilities are located in the Cochin Port Trust’s Puthuvypeen Special Economic Zone (SEZ), and are part of the port’s Rs 2,200 crore multi-user liquid terminal (MULT) for large-scale import of petroleum products.

Owing to their sheer scale and proximity to each other – the projects lie in a row, with only a few hundred metres between them – an accident at any one of the three high-risk facilities in the SEZ would pose a grave risk to the village of Puthuvypeen and beyond. In fact, the SEZ is not more than 5-6 kilometres (as the crow flies) from the heart of Kochi, Kerala’s commercial capital and its most thickly populated urban centre.

Google map view of the project site, clearly revealing its extreme proximity to both the village and the sea. The old seawall runs alongside the road built for the project.

The people of Puthuvypeen, part of a dense settlement of 65,000, have rejected the project outright. It’s easy to see why; it’s being built literally outside their doors. Startlingly for a high-risk facility, the terminal’s perimeter wall is just 30 metres away from the village – the two separated only by a new road constructed by the company. If the project gets built, some 500 tanker trucks carrying gas will pass through this road every day.

Her voice tinged with outrage, Maglin asks, “Our question to Indian Oil is, why build it here? We are not opposed to the project itself, like the company claims; we just don’t want it here. This is not their first project, so let them tell us – where else have they built such a dangerous facility so close to a heavily populated place?”

Hazard: the company version 

When The Wire put Maglin’s question to C.N. Rajendra Kumar, deputy general manager (LPG) at Indian Oil, his first response was that the project site was not the company’s choice at all, but allotted to them by the Cochin Port Trust, which owns the SEZ.

However, Kumar affirmed that safety concerns about the facility were not valid in this case, since the project will employ ‘mounded vessel’ technology, which was the safest available worldwide. The term refers to bullet-shaped metal tanks that are partially buried and encased in a covered concrete bunker. The proposed Indian Oil Terminal plans to have eight such tanks, enclosed in two clusters or ‘mounds’. The gas, unloaded from ships at the port, will reach the terminal via a 2.8 km long refrigerated pipeline. The gas is stored in its raw, odourless form, and any leakage must necessarily be detected by sensors.

According to Kumar, “The terminal will be equipped with the latest technologies, and the storage vessels will be constantly monitored with sensors. Our technical assessment shows that the possibility of hazard to be only one in a million.” Kumar then ventured to make an even more startling assertion: “Even if an accident were to happen, we have the capability to contain it within the boundary wall.”

‘It would incinerate everything in a 1 km radius’

Sagar Dhara, a veteran risk analyst based in Hyderabad, went through the company’s risk analysis report for The Wire. An environmental engineer and former safety trainer for petrochemicals industry personnel, he said that the company’s claim about the safety of the tanks tell only half of the story. “Tank safety is far from the only risk with LPG. For example, what about the pipes that would bring the gas to the terminal from the ships? A rupture there could result in a leak of several hundred tons of gas. What if the sensors don’t work? Any number of such things is possible,” he says, dismissing the company’s ‘one-in-a-million’ claim as “absurd.”

Dhara then proceeds to make a grim assessment, “For a facility of this size, an explosion resulting from a gas leak would incinerate everything in a 1 kilometre radius. The vulnerable zone won’t be less than 4 kms. If you consider the distance at which the impact could break glass – a standard criterion, since this causes injury – it could go up to a 6 km radius. But the company has not taken into account the worst case scenarios – which are fundamental to any risk analysis.”

In 2015, a team of researchers from the Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) conducted a ‘Population Vulnerability Assessment study’ of an existing LPG storage and bottling facility owned by Indian Oil in Udayamperoor, Kochi. The study found that people living within a 500m radius faced “potentially lethal risk,” while those living as far as 1300m may experience severe pain.” Remarkably, these estimates are for a single tank with a 150 ton capacity, less than one-hundredth of the total capacity of the Puthuvypeen Terminal.

The threat zone of Indian Oil’s Udayamperoor LPG storage facility, overlaid on a Google Earth map. From a study by Cochin University of Science and Technology.

In the scale and level of impact it predicts, the CUSAT assessment broadly matches the estimate made by Dhara, who warns, “They can forget about containing it within the boundary wall; they should be talking about a vulnerable zone in terms of kilometres, not metres.”

To illustrate the gravity of what’s at stake, Dhara cites the example of the September 1997 Vishakhapatnam disaster, an accident he has studied for the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board. The worst-ever LPG-related disaster in Indian history, it claimed more than 80 lives after an explosion ripped through Hindustan Petroleum’s port-based import storage terminal, a facility similar to Puthuvypeen.

A news report quoted eyewitnesses, one of whom said, “the impact of the blast was so great that the refinery’s administrative building, its canteen and some other buildings came crashing down like a pack of cards.” According one industry expert, “Even an earthquake measuring eight on the Richter scale might not have caused so much damage.”

“The storage capacity of the facility was 400 tons (nearly one-fortieth of the Puthuvypeen Terminal), and the most vulnerable zone was a 1 km radius, where there was 100% mortality. We found that there was partial damage to buildings etc as far as 3.5 kms away,” Dhara says. Importantly, his study showed that “The fatalities would have been ten times more had the incident not happened on a Sunday morning, when staff presence was at its minimum. On a working day, the admin building alone would have had 300 people in it.”

Dhara has a stark view of why industrial accidents keep happening with alarming regularity in India (it’s only weeks ago that an explosion at NTPC’s Rae Bareli plant left 32 dead and a 100 more injured), “In India, life is so cheap that we simply do not consider the risk to populations while planning projects, which adds to the project cost. People have to die every time for us to change our approach even slightly. And it’s always the poor who does.”

However, safety is not the only factor that makes Puthuvypeen a questionable proposition. What compounds the risk factor manifold is the island’s unique geography and infrastructure.

A planned disaster

Puthuvypeen got linked to the city just over a decade ago, by the ‘Goshree’ bridge, which connects to the southern tip of the island. As the single point of road connectivity to Kochi, the bridge is literally Puthuvypeen’s lifeline. But, it’s highly likely that it would be out of bounds for residents fleeing the area in the event of an accident, because all three high-risk facilities in the SEZ fall in the same direction as the Goshree, and would fall in the most vulnerable zone.

However, even in the unlikely scenario of the bridge being accessible, the Goshree may still be a non-option. Sunil Joseph, a resident, recalls what happened on December 26, 2004, when the tsunami hit Puthuvypeen. “All of us rushed to the Goshree bridge. But when we reached the bridge, we found it was completely jammed with vehicles escaping from the area. We didn’t want to get stuck, so we turned back, and headed towards the Cherai bridge instead.”

Google map image showing the layout of Vypeen island, and the two bridges connecting it to mainland, which are nearly 20 kms apart.

Given the ribbon-like layout of Vypeen (the island is 27 kms long and up to 2.5 kms wide), the next closest exit point – the bridge at Cherai that Sunil refers to – is a good 20 kms away, and in the opposite direction. What this implies is that, in the event of an emergency, both the residents trying to escape the vulnerable zone – as well as any firefighting, rescue or medical teams trying to get to it – will be forced to negotiate a narrow, poorly maintained village road to the north of Puthuvypeen, and the old bridge at Cherai that connects to the mainland. It would mean a 40 km round trip to the city of Kochi, which is just 5-6 kms away via the Goshree.

The conclusion is stark: In the event of a major accident, unlike any other hazardous site, Puthuvypeen will be like a sealed box with only one way in and out: quite literally, a deathtrap. Yet, these highly probable scenarios do not even figure in the company’s or the port’s disaster management plan. Instead, the documents make confident assertions about emergency operations carried out through ‘multiple modes of transport.’

Mohamed Nisai, a Vypeen native who spent several years in the Persian Gulf region as a safety manager in the petrochemical industry, raises some related concerns. “Plant safety itself is only one aspect; it’s also the unique nature of the location and the emergency response it can support that determine the risk posed by any such facility. How can a place that is virtually inaccessible support large-scale emergency response? On every count, this location is unsuitable,” he says.

He goes on to describe what an emergency scenario would be like in Puthuvypeen: “Imagine an accident that happens at night. The alarm rings, and thousands of people have just been startled awake. They are frightened, but expected to follow safety instructions. They can’t switch on the lights because it will ignite the gas, which they cannot see or smell. They have to flee the area instantly, but cannot use any vehicles; again because the ignition would lead to an explosion. Nor can they simply get out and run; they must first ascertain the wind direction, else it can be deadly. How realistic is it to expect people in panic to do things by the book? Locating the project here is a recipe for disaster.”

Questioning the government experts

The three-member expert panel tasked by the government to look into the Puthuvypeen issue, has made 15 recommendations in its report, now with the government. Of these, only one directly addresses the question of population vulnerability. When The Wire asked N. Purnachandra Rao, director, National Centre for Earth Science Studies, and the head of the panel, about this, he said, “We did find that a part of the vulnerable area was inhabited and has recommended some steps, if necessary including rehabilitation of the residents in that area.”

This draws a sharp retort from Maglin of the people’s council: “If the panel’s purpose was to address our concerns, then it should have concentrated on the risk to people’s lives. After all, this is our primary concern, not whether the company has violated this rule or that. Instead, their recommendation is to evict people from here, and move them to ‘better housing’ at the company’s cost!”

Comprising of two coastal scientists and a town planner, the panel clearly lacked the expertise to consider the question of population vulnerability. When asked about this, Rao said, “The panel members did not make recommendations by themselves – we have consulted several experts before coming up with them.” But Maglin rejects this, saying, “If the panel did not have the required expertise, then it should have been expanded to include such experts. In any case, who were the people they consulted? Let them name names, for their own credibility.”

She explains further, “This is a unique place with a fragile ecosystem, which the local people depend on for livelihood. From the start, our fight has been to protect its integrity. But, the panel’s report does not see it this way at all. For them, the project is the primary reality, even if it hasn’t been built, not the people who are actually living in the area, and the natural environment they depend on. It seems to us the very purpose of the panel was to push through the project with some cosmetic changes. So, we have no choice but to reject this report.”

‘Safe from the vagaries of the sea’

Indian Oil is presently facing a lawsuit for violating coastal norms, after two residents, K.U. Radhakrishnan and K.S. Murali, filed a petition before the Chennai bench of the National Green Tribunal. The company claims that their project does not violate any norms, and is located 50 metres from the High Tide Line (HTL), or the highest watermark. Given these claims, it comes as a shock when a visit to the site shows the project’s sea-facing wall jutting out into the water, with the waves crashing against it.

Photographs taken by residents show that things are much worse during the rough monsoon months. At this time the water enters the site by passing under the wall, where the sand has eroded, leaving the pillars exposed. The residents attribute the area’s accelerating erosion to the deepening of the Port’s shipping channel, and the constant dredging this requires.

Left: Seawater inside the project site. Right: The sidewall of the project, which the company claims is located 50 m from the High Tide Line.

To its credit, the government-appointed panel confirmed the company’s violation of coastal regulation norms, euphemistically referring to it as “a mismatch in the distance from the HTL to the project site”.  However, the company did not answer The Wire’s pointed query on this ‘mismatch’, and instead sent portions of a technical document on the project. The relevant bit reads thus: “The foundation of the vessels is designed to withstand seismic shocks as per requirements. Hence, it is safe from tsunami, earthquakes and vagaries of the sea.”

Another expert committee, a ‘people’s panel’ headed by V.S. Vijayan, a former chairperson of the state’s Biodiversity Board, has some alarming news for the project. “We found that the sea has come in up to 40 metres in the last eight years in Puthuvypeen. This implies the water could advance another 40 metres or more in the next eight years; which puts a question mark on the future of the project and the SEZ.” Vijayan told The Wire. The panel ascertained this by comparing satellite data from 2009, recorded in the company’s original project documents, with the present. The people’s panel also found traces of sea algae up to 35 metres on the project’s southern sidewall – widely at variance with the company’s claim that the site is located 50 m from high watermark.

The company, on its part, has always reassured those who have pointed to their crumbling project site by referring to a project report prepared by IIT Madras, which recommends building a Rs 15 crore seawall, using the ‘latest technology’ to ensure the terminal’s safety. But, doesn’t the need to build such expensive fortifications itself show that the site is not suitable? Again, the company has no answer.

The last word on the matter must go to Jacob George, former harbour master of the port, the owner of the SEZ: “There’s no doubt that dredging for the shipping channel has affected the adjacent coast. This not only makes Puthuvypeen a bad choice of site for the SEZ, its costs are bound to outrun the benefits in the long run. If you have money to waste, you can do anything – you could even build a channel to take ships to Delhi. But, would it be worth the trouble?”

Every trick in the book

The island of Vypeen is part of the fragile Vembanad wetland ecosystem, home to the longest lake in India and an area under intense developmental pressure post Kerala’s tourism and real estate boom. In Puthuvypeen, the Cochin port’s SEZ has almost swallowed whole the mangrove forests and the beachfront; all 6 kms of it. The exception is a tiny (180 m wide) stretch it has left open as a ‘fishermen’s corridor’. Once a popular getaway for couples from the city, and the venue for the village carnival, the ‘beach’ now plays host to a new kind of visitor: armed Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) guards patrolling the SEZ boundaries.

Murali, convener of the people’s council, explains how severely the SEZ has disrupted livelihoods: “Fishermen living along the entire 6 km stretch must now come to the ‘corridor’ to go to work. Since they cannot keep their boats here, these are brought in and out on trolleys. They also face constant harassment from the CISF guards on patrol. Incidentally, the corridor is still owned by the port, and they could shut it anytime.”

Skirmishes with the CISF personnel have become a part of the daily routine for Puthuvypeen’s fishermen. One of them, who prefers to be anonymous, told The Wire, “The guards keep holding us up for no reason. People have been held hostage for hours, even forced to strip at gunpoint and stand in the sun. They humiliate us for no reason.”

According to Murali, such incidents go unreported because the fishermen depend on their daily earnings, and can’t afford the expense or the hassle of court cases. “Besides, they have to go back to the same area to earn their living. In fact, many of them have now left the trade, and work as wage labourers in the city or in the SEZ itself. They have no choice but to work for the very projects that destroyed their livelihoods.”

Contract workers employed in the SEZ are required to get a ‘clearance card’ from the local police station, certifying that they face no criminal charges. Some residents allege the police has been using this rule to deny work permits to those who participated in the protests.

The women far outnumber the men in the residents’ agitation against the project. Many of those shown in the picture were injured during police actions against the protestors.

In 2010, when the port had initiated work on the SEZ site, Reema Narendran, a journalist on a fellowship to study the area, reported on the ghostly sight she encountered in the area: “It is a scene of absolute destruction. Acres and acres of tree stumps that look as if ravaged by a massive fire.” The report, worth reading in full, traces how the mangroves were poisoned with high concentrations of a herbicide to effect a slow death; a diabolic environmental crime that literally helped pave the way for the SEZ.

Using the ‘ecosystem services’ concept, Vijayan’s panel has calculated in monetary terms the ecological losses resulting from the destruction of the wetlands. “We estimate that losses from the SEZ development – including its impact on livelihoods – amount to Rs 198 crore per annum, of which Rs 19 crore would be from the Indian Oil site alone,” he told The Wire.

Looking ahead

At the moment, the Left front-led state government headed by Pinarayi Vijayan, is sitting on a fresh set of reports on the Puthuvypeen project – including one by the expert panel it appointed. If the chief minister decides to back the project, he can support his case with any number of reports and studies prepared by an entire army of experts, almost none of whom would be held accountable if things turn out different.

The government, which came to power in 2016, has shown itself to be an enthusiastic champion of big ticket projects, many of which are facing stiff resistance on the ground. But, in every single case – be it Adani’s mega port project in Vizhinjam, GAIL’s cross-country pipeline, or one of the state’s many grand highway projects – Vijayan has consistently taken a hard, ‘pro-development’ line.

In this, the government’s policies and Vijayan’s persona increasingly resemble their foremost political and ideological opponent, the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Central government under Narendra Modi. Recently, Vijayan even got dragged into an  almost comical tug-of-war with BJP national president Amit Shah over who was the bigger champion of ‘vikas’ – Shah’s party, or his own.

The question remains: will a ‘people’s government’ address the fears of the public and prevent a violation of its own laws – and common sense? Or would it rather use the project as an image-building exercise, an opportunity to score a political point over its rivals? Either way, the people of Puthuvypeen are not exactly waiting for an answer; they are getting ready to intensify their protest.