Thursday, May 28, 2009

Civil Disobedience - Thoreau and King on Tim De Christopher

Civil Disobedience simply put is described in the oxford dictionary as “the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes, as a political protest”, but does this simple definition do justice to the complex philosophy of civil disobedience? On December 2008, Tim De Christopher, a student of economics at the University of Utah recently made headlines when he posed as a bidder at a government auction to disrupt the sale of “150,000 acres of wilderness” that was being auctioned to oil and gas companies. Christopher stated that” his false bids on oil and gas parcels were acts of civil disobedience against the exploitation of public sites” (Goodman). What responses would he evoke from famous authors like Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. whose writings on civil disobedience are world famous? Thoreau and King would have been on agreement on many concepts if they had the opportunity to be born in the same era. To state two main concepts they would be in agreement of – one, a person should consult his/her conscience before taking out an action they consider unjust and two, while disobeying the law one should be ready to face the consequences. They both would have been pleased with the student from Utah as they believed in acting on what one considers morally right rather than go along with an unjust law. The student in Utah acted on what he thought was right. He disrupted the bidding process which ultimately resulted in twenty two thousand acres of land not being sold to oil companies. King and Thoreau both would have been very proud of the student in Utah.

Christopher justified his act of false bidding as something that needed to be done to protect the public land that would otherwise be auctioned off to oil and gas companies. Out of the 150,000 acres, 110,000 acres consisted of land near Arches and Canyon lands National Parks, Dinosaur National Monument, and Nine Mile Canyon (Lance). Some might ask “So what is the big deal if oil and gas companies get hold of the land and started to drill for oil?” The answer to that might be given in three parts, drilling for oil would add to global warming, it is unjust and wrong of the government to sell public land around national parks, and it destroys the natural beauty of the American terrain. These are moral issues that Americans stand divided against. Some believe that humans have speeded up the process of global warming while there are some who don’t believe in global warming at all. “I was looking at the consequences of acting and not acting,” De Christopher said. “I chose that going to prison was a better outcome than letting this destruction continue.” (McFall). De Christopher said he believes “the morality of his actions supersedes the charges”. His lawyer’s Patrick Shea and Ron Yengich said they plan to use this as an argument in their case, known as “the lesser of two evils defense.” De Christopher said his actions exposed the government bidding process as unjust.

De Christopher now faces two felonies, if charged he faces a combination of 10 years in prison and $750,000. The Obama administration nullified the auction. The parcels that De Christopher had purchased were under the parcels that were nullified. The bases of the nullification were that BLM (Bureau of Land Management) had not followed all the rules and that the sale was illegal and unjust. What comes as a surprise is that even after De Christopher managed to raise $45,000 for the first payment BLM did not accept it due to the nullification of the auction; nevertheless the charges were still maintained against him. He rightly states his surprise in an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now – “I saw that really as an official ruling that what I was standing against was something illegal and unjust, and so I was surprised that they still wanted to prosecute me for my opposition to that unjust procedure”(Goodman).

Americans stood divided in 1848 as well when Henry David Thoreau was put into jail for refusal of paying poll taxes. His “Civil Disobedience” inspired many across the world. He believed that the Mexican war and slavery was unjust and did not want to be part of the injustice by paying taxes. “Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why does every man have a conscience, then?” he asked in “Civil Disobedience” (Thoreau 301). He went on to ask his audience “what was the purpose of every man having a conscience?” The purpose that every man has a conscience was to decide for themselves what they thought as just or unjust and to act on behalf on that conscience versus obey the laws blindly. “Unjust laws exist”, stated Thoreau and what can citizens do to change that he asked “shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?” (Thoreau 306).He brought to attention the different scenarios that most citizens would contemplate when asked the question of how to deal with injustice. When men were faced with such a dilemma Thoreau believed that, most men would be content to wait till a majority stood up for an injustice rather than question the injustice single handedly. People are scared to stand up against the law and face the repercussions i.e. to be arrested and face injustice personally. Imploring people to not be scared of the repercussions and stand up to unjust laws he stated that if standing up for injustice means you have to stand against the government then it is justified. “If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machinery of government, let it go….…; but if it is of a nature that requires you to be an agent of injustice to another, then I say break the law” (Thoreau 306). Christopher clearly acted on what he thought was an unjust procedure. On the terms mentioned and discussed as above would Christopher’s act of civil disobedience qualify in Thoreau’s opinions? Absolutely.

What about one of the most famous civil rights leaders of our times, Martin Luther King, why would he give Christopher a thumb up? To come to the answer we have to first analyze King’s approach to Civil Disobedience. What better way than to analyze his response to the letter that was written by “Eight White Clergymen”, when he was in jail in Birmingham. King believed that it was the right of every American to stand up for an injustice even if did not affect your immediate community and that an injustice to any American was an injustice to all Americas. On being called an outsider when protesting in Birmingham King stated “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (King 194). Just like King, Christopher believed in “Direct Action” when he realized that negotiation was not working. King believed that direct action was required to highlight an issue when negotiation had failed. The seriousness of the issue would be noticed by practicing direct action and this he stated ever so eloquently, “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue”(King 195). Christopher seems to be inspired by direct action and that’s what he deemed as appropriate action to stop oil and gas companies from bidding for public land. King goes on to define the difference between unjust law and just law. He answers the question of “When it is okay to break some laws while still obeying other laws?” (King 197). His answer states that it is okay to break the law when “an unjust law is out of harmony with the moral law”. King gave importance to being a moral human rather than follow a law that was immoral and “degrades human personality” (King 197). He regarded the moral law in the same vein as “the law of God”, not a man made law.

Christopher admitted that he realized what had to be done to disrupt the bidding process. He realized that the implications of his actions would mean going against the law and possible jail time, nevertheless he was willing to accept the repercussions of his direct action. To draw a parallelism between Christopher’s action and King’s letter would be most appropriate at this point. King stated “One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly ….. , and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law”(King 198). In his letter, King advocates the need to respect the law even while disagreeing with it, and accepting the consequences. By accepting the consequences a greater awareness would be brought to the people and the law would be respected at the same time. In my opinion, this is like killing two birds with one stone. King believed that by practicing direct action it would bring to the community’s attention the tension that lied beneath and had to come to the top. I like to relate it to the fat in milk, for example we all know that there is fat in milk but to prove it we have to boil the milk and subject it to heat in order for the fat to float on top.

Although King would be in agreement with Christopher’s direct action, he might not be impressed with the fact that Christopher worked by himself and not in a group. The four steps/criteria in Kings Non-violence campaign were not entirely met by Christopher since he did not follow the necessary steps but jumped straight into direct action. Kings four basic criteria’s for a non-violent campaign to be launched on an issue was “(1) collection of the facts to determine whether injustices were alive, (2) negotiation, (3) self-purification, and (4) direct action” (King 194). Although Christopher’s actions had a hint of some of the basic steps involved, his actions were not well thought out. He mentions that he was not sure where exactly the land was that he was bidding for. It was after the false bidding that he found out that some of the land he won was around the same parameters of national parks. While Christopher’s motives are not in question his unorganized planning is. King mobilized the youth to stand up against segregation by launched the non-violent campaign. His campaign was well thought out and well planned in advance. Facts of an injustice were collected and then analyzed to determine if the injustice in fact did exist, after which a negotiation was set up with the involved parties. If the negotiation did not reap the fruits it deserved then the campaigners were trained in self purification to determine if they were ready to undergo physical abuse. The last stage was the stage of direct action, physically protesting in a peaceful manner without any retaliation. King’s preparation strategies as compared to Christopher’s action would be doing injustice to King’s campaign of non-violent. Had King being alive when Christopher decided to act on what he considered as an injustice he would have asked him to show his passion of the cause by identifying the four stages which Christopher clearly would not be able to do justice to.

Christopher’s action did bring a great awareness to the immoral auction of public land to oil and gas companies which is commendable, but on the other hand the impact could have been bigger if he would have taken the time to really learn about the issues, the land that was being sold, and how better to engage his fellow campaigners of the cause. Who is to say that if he had a well thought of plan he would have not been in the current situation he is in, fighting the system against the two felonies he has been charged with. However, let’s look at the positive aspect of De Christopher’s current ordeal who is to say that “this too shall pass” for him and all charges against him would be dismissed. Who is to say that the youth of today shall unite against unjust laws inspired by Christopher’s action and his name would go down in history, after all, all great leaders of Civil Disobedience have been to jail from Martin Luther King Jr, to Thoreau, from Mahatma Gandhi to Socrates. Christopher believed that inaction was like taking part in an act of injustice and he took action to show that he was not part of that injustice; this is a feather in his cap.


Works Cited
Associated Press. “Student is charged with obstructing Utah land auction.” Los Angeles Times (2009): April 2, 2009 <http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-na-drilling2-2009apr02,0,380776.story?track=rss>

Goodman, Amy. “Utah Student Who Prevented Bush Admin Sell-Off of Public Land Charged for Disrupting Auction.” Democracy Now. (2009) April 6, 2009. <http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/3/utah_student_who_prevented_bush_admin>

King, Martin Luther. “Letter from Birmingham Jail”: Elements of Argument, 2009

Lance, Jennifer. “College Student Faces Felony Charges for Disrupting Auction of Public Land.” Planet Thoughts. (2009): April 5,2009 <http://www.planetthoughts.org/?pg=pt/Whole&qid=2842>

McFall, Michael. “DeChristopher indicted.” The Daily Utah Chronicle. (2009): April 5,2009
<http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/news/dechristopher-indicted-1.1639933>

Thoreau, Henry David. “Civil Disobedience”: Elements of Argument, 2009

Is Nuclear Energy Our Lifeline or Should We Just Say No?

Nuclear energy – what is your first reaction when you hear those words as a lay person who has no idea what nuclear energy is? Most of us probably have images of a nuclear attack such as Pearl Harbor or Hiroshima, (although those were nuclear weapons that were used and not nuclear energy) or tragedies in nuclear power plants such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Those are the images that pop up in my conscience when I heard the term and started to read the articles that were assigned in our English 101C class, but when I had finished reading the articles my mind opened up to new possibilities and changed my perception of nuclear energy. The topic of Nuclear Energy has stirred up quite a controversy between scientists and the “greens”, some who oppose nuclear energy as an option for clean fuel technology versus those who are pro-nuclear energy.

James Lovelock, an environmentalist and scientist whose “electron capture detector, proved to be an important development in the study of environmental awareness” (Lovelock 1) has published many scientific papers and even inventions that have been adopted by NASA. Lovelock with his innumerable impressive credentials in his article, “Our Nuclear Lifeline” states that nuclear energy is the answer we are looking to save the world from global warming. In “Just Say No “published on Soapbox, Steven Cohen, who is “executive director of Columbia University's Earth Institute and director of its Master of Public Administration Program in Environmental Science and Policy at the School of International and Public Affairs” (Grist.com), writes based on his option on how dangerous Nuclear energy could be.

Lovelock brings to attention that “nuclear energy is safe and inexpensive and can be bought by countries that are stable versus oil, coal and natural gas which are unsafe. The carbon emissions produced by oil, coal and natural gases are of a highly polluting nature and are bought from unstable countries” (Lovelock 4). Lovelock shuns sources of energy such as wind farms, solar energy, and energy generated from “waves and tidal currents”, proposed by Europe as inefficient, he states “Wind farms are monstrously inefficient and still need fossil-fuel back-up for the three days in four when the wind doesn’t blow. Solar energy is a ridiculous dream for northern Europe. Energy on a large scale from waves and tidal currents are far off” (Lovelock 6). He further strengthens his points by stating that nuclear power is safer than gas, and the radiation that is emitted by nuclear energy is in no way harmful to humans in fact he argues that “Radiation is part of our natural environment and we can live with it” (Lovelock 6); Humans are exposed to more radio activity by chest X-rays and by sleeping next to another human. “The radiation bombarding us goes up 10 percent when we sleep next to another human…X-rays account for 14 percent…”(Lovelock 6). In other words Lovelock brings to attention that everyday mundane activities like drinking coffee and spending a day at the beach exposes us to radio activity radiation hence we should not be worried about the energy that is omitted by generation of nuclear energy.

Cohen on the other hand, attacks the environmentalists with his observation of how dangerous and complicated detoxifying nuclear waste is and how we should not waste our time and effort on a so called solution. He starts his article by stating/attacking “…nuclear power is the new green-energy option being embraced by environmentalists.” (Cohen 1). He states that in order to reduce carbon emissions we cannot subject the world to a greater risk - a potential attack by terrorists on a nuclear plant, the risk of a nuclear power plant mal-functioning and hurting the environment and people. Cohen refers to a statement releasing by John Deutch and Ernest Moniz, two MIT professors, called “The Future of Nuclear Power”, in which they advocate for nuclear power as a “…viable alternative…”(Cohen 1). Cohen writes that he is all for reducing carbon emissions but does not consider that nuclear energy is the answer. To persuade his audience he instills in us the emotional appeal to safety, by stating the dangers of nuclear energy. He brings to attention the incidents of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and asks the question “Do we really want to see what happens if a terrorist attacks a nuclear power plant?”(Cohen 1). He argues his points against nuclear energy in well organized paragraphs in his article. Cohen mentions that nuclear energy is dangerous and complicated, which leads us into the problems of detoxifying the waste and the politics involved in hosting the nuclear plants. He elaborates the complications of detoxifying the waste “that remains toxic for thousands of years” (Cohen 1). Cohen brings forward the political issue of how no city wants to host a Nuclear Power plant or nuclear waste repository.

Digging deep into the articles some points were crystal clear on both sides while some were not so clear. It almost seems like the two authors are in conversation with each other. Lovelock refers to the greens throughout his article, and Cohen refers to the environmentalists. Cohen brings up the issue of the nuclear waste being “…toxic for thousands of years.” (Cohen 1), to which Lovelock responds “It does indeed take a long time to decay but the radioactivity of some of its waste is lost within a few years, rather than the hundreds of thousands of year claimed by the Greens” (Lovelock 8). The discrepancy between both the authors statement is huge in regards to the number of years it takes for the nuclear waste to remain toxic, Cohen insists its thousands of years while Lovelock mentions it’s just a few years. Lovelock and Cohen both agree on the fact that money is not an issue for nuclear energy. Lovelock implies that the use of nuclear energy has a larger return on investment and gives more bang for the money as compared to other sources of energy throughout his article and Cohen states “Money is not an issue” (Cohen 2) and goes on further to explain how “under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act” (Cohen 1) money has been collected. As for the storage and detoxification of nuclear waste, Cohen states that “no power plant can be made risk-free” (Cohen 2). Cohen mentions the differences of a local crash and the effects of the immense damage that might be caused by a power plant, he does not provide the reader with any factual evidence to back up his claim but simply states “Just ask the people who survived Chernobyl” (Cohen 2). Lovelock tackles the issue by explaining the process of handling nuclear waste he states that nuclear waste is handled with care and stored safely, it is simple and lacks complication, and “Greens who fight nuclear energy on these grounds are not being sensible” (Lovelock 8). In other words nuclear waste is something that is tangible and the disposal is handled with care and is safe. The emission caused by burning of fossil fuel is not tangible and out of our control once it goes out into the atmosphere. Cohen asks the question “Do we really want to see what happens if a terrorist attacks a nuclear power plant?”(Cohen 1), to which Lovelock replies “Tests have shown that no aircraft could penetrate the concrete cladding of a modern reactor” (Lovelock 9). Basically Lovelock refutes Cohen’s fear that a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant would have any implications as the power plants are built to withstand an attack.

Cohen and Lovelock write about the Chernobyl incidents but Cohen fails to mention that it was human error or what exactly took place at Chernobyl he simply states that it was due to “obvious problems” (Cohen 1) what are the obvious problems, he fails to address. Searching for the evidence that Cohen brings forward was not an easy task, reason being that there was no factual evidence; he states that an error at a nuclear power plant can be fatal and he backs his statement with “Just ask the people who survived Chernobyl” (Cohen 2). Lovelock cleared my doubts on using Nuclear energy by providing information on the Chernobyl incident by bringing to attention that it was due to a human error that the reactor blew up, also the fact that “no evidence have been found of birth defects with the exception of one”(Lovelock 6). Lovelock uses lots of factual evidence and does not base his article on emotional appeals such as Cohen does in his article. In Lovelock’s article there are a lot of facts that can be verified like his statistics on the different means by which energy is created, coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear. Among the many things he mentions his article covers the effectiveness and limitations of wind farms, solar energy, waves and tidal currents, not to mention the table that shows how different countries are using nuclear energy. Cohen on the other hand does not use facts that can be verified rather he plays on our emotions to feel safe. He asks a lot of questions that play up the fear in our minds such as if we want to see what would happen if there is a terror attack on a nuclear power plant. The individual patterns remain the same for each of the articles – one based on appeals and the other on factual evidences that can be checked.

Studying the “The Nuclear Generation Game” (Lovelock 7) chart and realizing that USA is at the bottom of the list of countries that are already developing Nuclear plants rings a bell in my head, if USA does not act right now then we will lose the competitive edge just like how we lost out on the development of producing energy efficient cars to countries in Asia. The chart lists the different countries of the world and the percentage of nuclear electricity generation in the year 2003, and also the numbers of reactors that are currently operable versus the reactors under construction. The nuclear waste that will be produced will emit zero carbon emission and the waste is minimal and also tangible that can be handled well to not harm living things versus carbon emissions that are not tangible and cannot be stored.

There is one fact that is disturbing - there is currently no technology that can completely detoxify the nuclear waste produced by Nuclear power plants. Cohen argues a good point on why the United States should not promote nuclear energy when they have not developed a method to detoxify nuclear waste. He advocates for channeling our focus on research that will provide other methods of energy without the carbon emissions. Although he admits that something must be done he does not propose a way out of the carbon emission population that we are. His points and even his article seem to lose the essence due to his conclusion and lack of factual evidence. To back up his article he should have given other alternative methods of clean energy rather that rebut Nuclear energy and argue why the other methods would be better rather that just conclude that something had to be done. The disappointment in his article is that he does not propose a method or even hint at one. Lovelock on the other hand answers all the questions that Cohen brings up in his article and I am compelled to lean towards nuclear energy and Lovelocks article as my favorite of the two.

As a lay person who had no idea of what Nuclear energy was, I can now deduce my own opinion after reading numerous articles about the topic. From all the methods that have been brought into focus Nuclear energy seems like a clean and safe way to save our environment for further damage. But methods have to be developed to detoxify the waste that is produced as a result. Also the government will have to take responsibility on the protection on these plants and access granted as well. Nuclear energy seems to the one energy source that is clean, efficient, attainable, and one that can keep up with our energy demands versus solar and wind technologies that cannot meet our energy demands. The only drawback is that there is no technology to detoxify the waste. I am all for Nuclear energy if - and I reiterate – if our scientists can develop a method to detoxify the waste.



Works Cited
Cohen, Steven. “Just Say No.” Grist (2006): 3. 2 Feb. 2009
< http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2006/08/08/cohen/index.html>

Cohen, Steven. Victor, Jacob. “Congestion Pricing saves more than it Costs.” GristMill.com (2007): 3. 2 Feb. 2009. <http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/7/27/104635/242>
Comby, Bruno. “Detailed biography of James Lovelock.” Ecolo.com. 2 Feb. 2009
< http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/lovedeten.htm>

Lovelock, James. “Our Nuclear Lifeline.” Mar. 2005: 9.