Illegal and Just: One way big oil stifles activism in the USA
Words by Alexi Barnstone
“Protest beyond the law is not a departure from democracy; it is absolutely essential to it.”
Howard Zinn
It has always been a point of contention. Where do we draw the line between activism and unlawfulness? When is it just for the state to stifle an activist movement in the name of stability? These are eternal questions.
Activism checks the power of the state, it is a tool to ensure that governance services the interests of the people. It is quintessential to democracy. Activism will always walk the line between the legal and the not, it is that grey that defines it. Activism pushes against the lawful and immoral. The legal and the wrong.
Countries exist imperfectly. It is the responsibility of the people to raise their voices and demand fixing.
Naturally, it is within some peoples’ interest to stifle that voice.
The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) are masters of this. Representing Exxonmobil, Valero Energy, Koch Industries, Chevro, and Marathon Petroleum the AFPM has fought for legislation mitigating the rights of environmental activists. It has been active in Keystone XL and was responsible for mobilising over 30 million USD to kill a carbon tax proposed in Washington State last year. The AFPM has worked closely with state legislatures to guarantee an easier path for the emission giants amongst growing climate change angst.
One hallmark of the AFPM is the ‘critical infrastructure protections act’, legislation that has been introduced to 22 states and adopted by 9 across the United States. The model bill allows for the prosecution of anyone willfully trespassing or entering property containing a critical infrastructure facility without permission by the owner of the property. It also extends reach to the organisations responsible for the activists being there. Under Oklahoma law, for example, the critical infrastructure protections act allows “conspiring” advocacy groups to be fined between $100,000 and $1 million USD. A crippling amount for any grassroots movement.
In Iowa the bill creates penalties from $85,000 to $100,000 for any protestors convicted of sabotaging critical infrastructure. Sabotage, under the new law, includes a broad variety of interruptions to a series of services.
The AFPM, with the backing of big oil and gas, is curtailing activism. In a time of rising environmentalist sentiment, it is forcing a regression. The laws are a deterrent. A threat to environmentalists fighting for change in a time of dire need. They are a mechanism through which corporations can bury advocacy groups in debt.
The AFPM is a poignant reminder of the eternal questions we must grapple with around activism. When governance is molded by the interests of corporate greed, when morality demands we address a pressing issue, activism may see its unlawfulness justified.