The market price of oil has dipped below $50 a barrel – an event that few anticipated. So low is this price collapse, that it is endangering the profitability of the entire oil industry.

The immediate cause of the price collapse is the US-Saudi strategy of interfering in the oil market. The duo is using oil prices to wage economic warfare by sustaining unusually high levels of production.

With the global economy still limping along in the context of weak demand and slow growth, the supply glut has tumbled the market price of oil with the precise aim of undercutting the state revenues of US-Saudi mutual geopolitical rivals, especially Russia, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela.

Despite the apparent low price of oil on international markets, costs of production remain high. Since the peak of cheap, conventional oil around 2005, production has fluctuated on a plateau as the industry has turned increasingly to more expensive, dirtier and difficult-to-extract forms of unconventional oil and gas, especially shale.

That is why as levels of investment in production have dramatically increased in the last decade, the quantity of oil being produced has dramatically declined. As a result, oil companies are finding that the price is too low to cover their production costs, let alone maintain reasonable levels of profit.

Economy held hostage

The global economy, whose health is heavily tied to availability of cheap energy, is now caught between a rock and a hard place. With production costs approaching around $70 a barrel, the lower oil price makes the business models of the industry obsolete.

For this reason, majors like BP and Shell have been forced to cease new investments in production this year, simply to stave off the looming threat of bankruptcy.

But it would be a mistake to assume that the price collapse could continue indefinitely. As the industry cuts back production investments to avoid business failure, the scarcity of supply will eventually hit the forces of demand, pushing oil prices back up.

Higher oil prices might alleviate the strained business models of the industry, but they will also detrimentally impact the economy by ramping up cost of living and increasing the risk of debt defaults across housing, energy, retail and other sectors, as happened in 2008.

Though it has taken most observers by surprise, this new era of volatile, swinging oil prices was predicted – by Dr. Colin Campbell, a former long-time BP geologist who was one of the earliest to warn of the impact of peak conventional oil.

Decades ago he predicted that once cheap, conventional oil production peaks, the shift to dependence on more expensive unconventional energy forms would generate a new type of economy, featuring fluctuating production levels and, in turn, large oil price swings.

This can be quite easily understood: to satisfy demand for oil, supplies must be drawn from all producers, including those producing at $10 or less per barrel, and those producing at $100 or more per barrel. That means that according to the vagaries of supply and demand, the price at any moment can swing wildly between those extremes.

Post-peak era

Oil price volatility is, in other words, a direct consequence of the end of the age of cheap oil, and the transition to a new era where cheap oil is scarce, and expensive oil, though abundant, is more difficult and slower to extract, and too costly to permit the levels of economic growth we were used to seeing in the 1980s.

At some point, then, when the US-Saudi economic warfare engine runs out of steam or decides its objectives have been achieved, and as the dearth in investment slashes back supply, prices will have no choice to rebound.

In coming years, these factors could even generate a price spike – this might well provide temporary relief for the industry, but it would also encourage a reassertion of industry expansion into environmentally and politically problematic areas, and would act once again as a brake on economic growth.

There is, of course, a way out, and it lies in recognizing the growing efficacy and efficiency of renewable energy sources, especially solar, wind and geothermal, where combinations of these technologies combined with smart grids and battery storage innovation could meet our needs in more sustainable and less consumeristic communities.

But currently, the US and British governments are leading the way in attempting to use state power to interfere with the meteoric rise and potential of renewable energy markets, instead promoting legislation to defend the interests of traditional fossil fuel and nuclear sources.

Energy wars

The oil industry recognizes the imminent existential threat posed to its business model from renewables. By lobbying states to retain emphasis on fracking while curbing the capacity of communities to transition easily to renewable, the industry hopes that as the cycle of volatile oil prices continues along its swing trajectory, periodically and increasingly disrupting the global economy as it unfolds, it will come out on top.

Persistent slow growth, recession and austerity would accelerate poverty and widen inequality worldwide. But as oil prices creep higher in the long-term with renewable transition efforts dampened through state power, populations would be forced to rely on evermore expensive and volatile fossil fuel energy sources.

Meanwhile, continued flooding of credit into the economy through quantitative easing would keep the financial sector and industry afloat, at the expense of indebted consumers. In this scenario, the higher prices, the industry hopes, would sustain their profitability at the expense of the well-being and economic needs of the vast majority of indebted people on the planet.

The scenario of continued oil industry supremacy is nothing more than a tightening noose around the neck of Planet Earth.

New leadership

Now, more than ever, the world needs real leadership on our energy future. Unfortunately, that leadership is sorely lacking. Last week, the International Energy Agency (IEA) issued a new report calling for global nuclear energy capacity to be more than doubled by 2050, to meet the world’s projected energy needs, while keeping emissions reductions on target for 2 degree Celsius.

Yet this recommendation comes at a time when questions about the costs, competitiveness and safety of nuclear power compared to renewables are mounting. In fact, the pace of nuclear power development in recent years has been unable to keep up with the meteoric exponential growth, and cost reductions, in solar and wind power.

Last year’s World Nuclear Industry Status Report found that nuclear’s share of world power had fallen to its lowest in 30 years despite new plants coming online, and billion dollar government subsidies and loans.

It appears likely that nuclear power is now in terminal decline, having peaked around 1996 at 18% of global energy production, dropping steadily since then to 11%. Much of the reason is the massive costs of nuclear power, and the long lead-times for installations, compared to the diminishing costs of solar and wind.

Report lead author Mycle Schneider, a Paris-based nuclear energy consultant forecasted the inevitable decline of the nuclear industry in no uncertain terms:

“The nuclear industry, their product is basically a 1,000-megawatt plant, more or less, that takes 10 years to build. In 10 years, this energy world is going to be a radically different one. To propose today that model in a landscape which is small-scale, decentralized, super-efficient defies logic.”

So why is the IEA defying logic by proposing nuclear power as a viable solution for the world’s energy needs?

This is by no means the first time the IEA has appeared to remain beholden to the outmoded industry mindset of traditional energy utilities. For decades, according to IEA insiders, the agency has buckled under political and industry pressure to suppress conclusions confirming the peak of conventional oil, and its long-lasting economic fallout.

This year, the agency will appoint a new executive director replacing incumbent IEA chief Maria van der Hoeven. Who will fill that role may play a big role in determining the political direction of the global energy sector.

Stooge number one: tar sands emissions ‘extremely low’

Created in the 1970s, the IEA’s purpose was to provide global leadership and planning for energy contingencies, especially the risk of energy crisis. Yet it has largely failed in this task, as demonstrated by the 2008 economic crash, which was linked to a massive debt crisis, as well as the plateauing of cheap, conventional oil.

At a time of increasing energy volatility, a change in IEA leadership could have ripple effects across the energy world. We need a new director who understands the new energy landscape, and recognizes that clinging onto the outmoded utility model of the conventional fossil fuel and nuclear industries is a recipe for catastrophe.

One of the big names tipped to replace van der Hoeven is Fatih Birol, currently IEA chief economist. But while Birol’s candidacy is strong, questions remain about his connections to industry, given that he previously worked in various senior roles at the Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

Late last year, under his watch, the IEA forecasted a rise in Canadian tar sands production of 3 million barrels over the next 25 years, but downplayed associated carbon emissions, which Birol described as “extremely low”. He went on to urge that policy decisions be made on the basis of “scientific analysis”.

Yet the IEA’s support for tar sands exploitation is thoroughly devoid of scientific integrity. The greenhouse gas emissions of mining and upgrading tar sands is about 79 kilograms per barrel of oil, but melting out the bitumen in place also requires large inputs of natural gas. This boosts emissions to over 116 kilograms per barrel.

Consequently, as Scientific American reports, “producing and processing tar sands oil results in 14 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than the average oil used in the US.”

And as tar sands production is increasingly deploying melting-in-place projects which have larger carbon footprints, emissions are now increasing. “Emissions have doubled since 1990 and will double again by 2020”, said Jennifer Grant, director of oil sands research at environmental group Pembina Institute in Canada.

Another potential candidate is Konstantinos Mathioudakis, who was Greece’s secretary-general for energy and climate change at the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change.

Yet while Greece has immense renewable energy potential, especially in solar, it has largely squandered this opportunity due to a combination of abiding by failed IMF-World Bank macro-economic reforms, and disarray in domestic renewable energy policies.

Although during Mathioudakis’ tenure, the Greek government did aim for 100% renewable energy by 2050, it failed to move toward this. His connection with a, literally, bankrupt government that paved the way for the rise of the Syriza party, does not evoke confidence.

Shilling for the corporate empire?

There is reportedly a third potential contender, Vicente Lopez Ibor Mayor, who is the former commissioner of Spain’s National Energy Commission. Although Mayor denied rumours linking him to the IEA candidacy, credible sources told me that he privately intends to contend, but has not yet formally declared this.

If the rumours transpire to be correct, his candidacy could be intriguing. Mayor is currently chairman Lightsource Renewables, Britain’s largest solar energy generator, as well as a founding partner of a global law firm, Estudio Juridico International, specialising in energy. Previously, he was a special advisor to UNESCO’s energy program, where he also sat on the Organizing Committee for UNESCO’s World Solar Summit.

He went on to serve various roles on energy and infrastructure in the European Commission. This unique combination of industry and government experience, along with his personal and professional support for renewables, stands him out from the competition.

The bad news is that Mayor still parrots the myth of shale gas as a ‘clean bridge fuel’, and goes so far as to promote the widely criticized TTIP proposal – the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership – as being a positive force for economies and the renewable energy sector.

The fundamental problem with TTIP, a so-called free trade agreement being negotiated in secret by US and European governments, is that by aiming to reduce regulatory barriers to trade for big business, the agreement aims to fundamentally erode the power of elected governments to enact legislation on food safety, environmental protection, banking and finance, that would in some way undermine corporations from rampaging across the US and EU without concern for people or planet.

One of the most obvious counter-democratic components of TTIP is its aim to introduce Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS), which would effectively allow corporations to sue governments if their policies cause a loss of profits.

In his Atlantic Council paper, Mayor advocates the TTIP as a way of shifting “energy’s centre of gravity toward the Atlantic Basin” and away from “the traditional energy-exporting world of Central Asia, the Middle East and Russia.” He calls for efforts to produce “better public understanding” of the agreement’s benefits, when what is needed is more public accountability and transparency for the entire process.

The last thing the world needs is an IEA chief ideologically beholden to the US-UK centred broken economic and energy model, that has accelerated global instability over the last decade.

The poor prospects for the new leadership of the IEA reinforce the idea that solutions to our energy woes will not come from above, but must be pioneered from below, by ordinary people and communities around the world.

Dr. Nafeez Ahmed is an investigative journalist, bestselling author, and international security scholar. He is a regular contributor to The Ecologist where he writes about the geopolitics of interconnected environmental, energy and economic crises. He has also written for the Guardian, The Independent, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Scotsman, Foreign Policy, Prospect, New Statesman, Le Monde diplomatique, among many others. His new novel of the near future is ZERO POINT.

Follow him on Twitter @nafeezahmed and Facebook.

Website: www.nafeezahmed.com

As many were predicting towards the end of the year, 2014 has proved to be the hottest year on record, according to datasets released by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

But the record was broken by a slim margin: after consolidating leading international datasets, WMO noted that the difference in temperature between the warmest years is only a few hundredths of a degree.

The next hottest years were 2010 and 2005, and these were only 0.02C and 0.03C cooler – less than the margin of uncertainty.

“The overall warming trend is more important than the ranking of an individual year”, said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “Analysis of the datasets indicates that 2014 was nominally the warmest on record, although there is very little difference between the three hottest years.”

More significant, he says, is the longer term picture that has developed post-2000: “Fourteen of the fifteen hottest years have all been this century. We expect global warming to continue, given that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the increasing heat content of the oceans are committing us to a warmer future.”

WMO released the global temperature analysis in advance of climate change negotiations to be held in Geneva from 8 to 13 February. These talks will help to pave the way for an agreement on action to be adopted by the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change next December in Paris.

The oceans are the main climate drivers

Around 93% of the excess energy trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and other human activities ends up in the oceans. Therefore, the heat content of the oceans is key to understanding the climate system. Global sea-surface temperatures reached record levels in 2014.

“It is notable that the high 2014 temperatures occurred in the absence of a fully developed El Niño”, says WMO, noting that El Niño is a meteorological condition that occurs when warmer than average sea-surface temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific combine, in a self-reinforcing loop, with atmospheric pressure systems.

This has an overall warming impact on the climate: blocking the upwelling of cold, nutrient-rich deep ocean waters along the South American Pacific coast; bringing heavy rains to normally arid coastal regions; and bringing drought conditions to much of southeast Asia. High temperatures in 1998 – the hottest year before the 21st century – occurred during a strong El-Niño year.

“In 2014, record-breaking heat combined with torrential rainfall and floods in many countries and drought in some others – consistent with the expectation of a changing climate”, said Mr Jarraud.

“Strong weather and climate services are now more necessary than ever before to increase resilience to disasters and help countries and communities adapt to a fast changing and, in many places, less hospitable climate.”

A synthesis of multiple datasets

Average global air temperatures over land and sea surface in 2014 were 0.57 °C above the long-term average of 14.00°C (57.2 °F) for the 1961-1990 reference period.

By comparison, temperatures were 0.55 °C (1.00°F) above average in 2010 and 0.54°C (0.98°F) above average in 2005,  according to WMO calculations. The estimated margin of uncertainty was 0.10°C (0.18°F).

Global average temperatures are also estimated using reanalysis systems, which use the most advanced weather forecasting systems to combine many sources of data to provide a complementary analysis approaches.

WMO in particular uses data from the reanalysis produced by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, which also ranks 2014 as among the four warmest.

The WMO analysis is based, amongst others,  on three complementary datasets maintained by the Hadley Centre of the UK’s Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom (combined); the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Centre; and the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) operated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

The final report on the Status of the Climate in 2014, with full details of regional trends and extreme events, will be available in March 2015.

The sounds of the boisterous rally crowd faded behind me in the distance as I walked toward building A of Monsanto Headquarters in St. Louis Missouri for the shareholder meeting.

The security stationed on the perimeter of the property, without a word between us, relayed my pending arrival to the headquarters, “Ms. Honeycutt approaching building A.” The staff inside also knew me by name and greeted me cordially.

After a thorough security check and receiving my ‘Shareowner’ sticker, I was escorted to a conference room where Lisa from SumofUs was also sitting. Why I was being sequestered in a room instead of being brought to the conference room?

As if reading my mind, the security person explained that the conference room wasn’t ready yet. Still I thought it odd that I was not able to be in a hallway or near other shareholders.

Several minutes later, a woman walked in and said “I am Zen’s host”, looking right at me. I soon learned that “handler” would have been a better term for her. The staff were prepared.

Around 12:50, we were joined by a few other shareholders, (apparently the room really was not ready). There was another “host” for Lisa who made sure to steer the conversation cheerily to where people are from.

My host was a Mom of a 14 and 10 year old boys, a 19 year employee and a ‘Monsanto brat’. Her father worked at Monsanto for 35 years. At 1:00 we were escorted to the conference room and along the way she made a concerted effort to engage in conversation.

Do you buy organic? Yes, if there’s no GMO product available …

As we passed the cafeteria however, I stopped the chit chat about our son’s sports and asked her if the cafeteria serves organic food. She seemed to expect the question and immediately answered,

“Only if no other source is available. For instance sometimes the only mixed greens or spinach available is organic. Otherwise it is all conventional, and when Sweet Corn is in season we have GMO Sweet Corn and it is fabulous.” As much as I wanted to, I did not comment.

We had entered the shareholder meeting room. It was a huge room with a small stage at front, columns along the edges, media along the sides and refreshments in the back. Approximately 800 people were in the room and when it came time to start, every seat was filled.

I was brought to the middle of the room where there was a wide aisle. I chose to sit directly in line with Hugh Grant’s chair on the stage and behind the microphone. I was assuming she would leave me there with Lisa but no, she sat down beside me, and as she did so, my hopes of leaving my phone on and turning on the recording or video disappeared.

We had received a notice as we drove in explaining exactly what would be allowed and not allowed in the room and that recording, including with our cell phones, was forbidden. I was reminded again before the meeting and again as the meeting started.

So as much as I wanted to share this experience with our supporters, I chose not to invite a lawsuit or further trouble later. Later, with great disappointment, I turned my phone off when requested and I could sense my handler relax beside me.

As we waited, Dan a pediatrician, introduced himself to me. He shared he has left comments on my Facebook page and we had a lively exchange about how glyphosate being a chelator is not of concern to him. He even insisted that glyphosate does not harm us because we don’t have a shikimate pathway.

I replied, “but our gut bacteria does, and without our gut bacteria we don’t have an immune system.” He said something about having plenty of gut bacteria … and then said we had to agree to disagree.

Another gentleman, who ended up being the only other person on stage with Hugh Grant, introduced himself. I noticed that these men were curious and seemed to be looking for some sort of fear from me. I would not comply. I was clear and glad to be there.

Meeting Hugh Grant (no – the other one)

Before the meeting began my host let me know that Hugh Grant would likely come introduce himself to me. He did. I stood and automatically reached my hand out to shake the hand of the CEO of the ‘Most Evil Company in the World’ and said “Nice to meet you” with a small smile.

The look in my eye however said something completely different. My eyes said, “I am not afraid of you. I am here to do business and you will listen to me. Bring it on!”

I felt a shift of energy in the room and I sensed many of the eyes in the room were watching us. They knew who I was and they were wondering what we were saying This is how it feels, I thought, when two generals meet in the center of field and talk before battle.

He was slightly taller than I, staunch stature, not very good skin (a clear sign of compromised health) and of calm but commanding presence. He said, “Thank you for coming, we are glad you are here.” The look in his eye was very distant and cool, almost nonexistent, but I read his gaze as, “I am putting up with you.”

I said “I am glad to be here, and I am thankful for the opportunity, especially to John Harrington.” He said “You know after all these years I have never met Mr. Harrington.” Interesting, I thought … enough of the small talk. I will not be charmed by your heavy Scottish accent.

I said, “You know Mr. Grant, I look forward to the future where Monsanto moves in a new direction, one that does not involve toxic chemicals and hurting our children.” He said something like “Well, we will take strides to move forward and it will always be based on science. And I think we have done a good job in engaging in conversation.”

Ha! I thought, you mean your TV commercials about having a conversation that invaded my living room and made me want to punch the TV? I looked him straight in the eye and said firmly, “We have science to show that Monsanto’s products are hurting our children, sound science. If you are wrong, think about the consequences, they are huge.”

He said “And if you are wrong you are scaring an awful lot of people.” I responded: “And the consequences for them are that they are eating organic, like food used to be. There was nothing wrong with how food used to be.”

Then I lowered my voice just a bit and looked deeper into his eyes. “You know it takes a big man to make such a big and powerful company but it takes and even bigger man to acknowledge when it is not working and change direction.”

He looked taken aback for the tiniest moment. I said, “I implore you, mothers implore you to change direction.” He shifted his eyes away from me. “We appreciate you being here” and he nodded at his assistant who was beckoning him away.

Naive? Perhaps …

Many will call me naïve for thinking that speaking with him will change anything. Many might be outright angered. But I was raised by a mother who chooses to see the good in everything. Now I am not saying there is good in Hugh Grant, but there is a desire to appear good.

He is extremely brilliant and strategic and he knows it does not look good to appear to not care about doing good. So if one can speak to him on the level of finding a way to appear to be doing good, he will be interested. In fact people can be compelled to do good simply because it looks bad to not do good and they never have to actually be interested in doing good.

So, if you follow me, please know that I intended to appeal to the concept of goodness being done. I do not expect Hugh Grant to be good. I do expect him to do what is right for the sake of the future of his company and their profits.

I planned to share with the shareholders a myriad of ways in which Monsanto’s products were hurting children and people and therefore were not a method of business which should continue. The goodness in the shareholders will pressure Monsanto to change ways. I am sure of this in my bones.

The meeting started at 1:30 with the expected video about how great Monsanto is. “Working with farmers to provide sustainable agriculture, helping to nourish an ever growing world … “. It took everything I had not to stand up and yell “YOU LIE!”

As I listened to Hugh Grant introduce several farmers from the Midwest that they had flown in for a visit, I wished I could talk to each and everyone of them personally and share what I know. Then I realized I would be able to.

This was an opportunity to speak directly to some of the largest farmers in the country, not just shareholders, and my excitement increased ten fold. I could not believe I had actually made it in the room and was going to speak. I was so grateful to John Harrington!

Before I spoke there was other business to attend to. They’re elected the same board of directors, they discussed electing Deloitte and Touche as their accounting firm and someone talked about how great Monsanto was doing, then it was time to address the referendums.

Lisa from SumOfUs got up and asked a question about conflict of interest. Hugh Grant is on the board of PG&E and members of PG&E are on the committee that helps to decide his salary. Surely this is a conflict of interest? He replied that the salaries are recommended by a third party of professionals and so no there was no conflict.

Next, a ninety something year old woman with stark white hair and a red suit spoke on behalf of a referendum to disclose Monsanto’s lobbying efforts. I admired her commitment. There were no comments after she spoke and Hugh Grant advised the shareholders to vote no because “we are leaders of transparency in the field.” I imagined a chorus of laughter from our supporters. He told them which page to turn to vote and they did.

I was next. Hugh Grant introduced me. This is it, I thought. I went to the microphone took a breath and began:

Under the spotlight

“My name is Zen Honeycutt and I am representing John Harrington of Harrington Investments. We are asking for shareholder support for Item No. 5, Shareowner Proxy Access-an essential mechanism for accountability supported by institutional investors and the SEC.

“As the founder of Moms Across America, I speak on behalf of millions of mothers.

“One out of two children in America today have a chronic illness such as asthma, allergies, autism, autoimmune disease, cancer, obesity and diabetes. All of these conditions and more can be directly linked to GMOs and Glyphosate – to Monsanto’s products.

“I am here to say on behalf of struggling parents, STOP POISONING our children! Glyphosate – a patented antibiotic-has been detected in the air, water, food, our children’s urine, our breast milk, Fruit Loops and in nutrients fed to children with cancer, at levels THOUSANDS of times higher than what has been shown to destroy GUT BACTERIA – where 70% of the immune system lies.

“Shareholders must know that: Without proper gut bacteria our bodies cannot make Tryptophan, Melatonin or Serotonin. Serotonin regulates insulin-and therefore diabetes, which is on course to bankrupt US Healthcare in 13 years.

“Without serotonin and melatonin, our bodies cannot prevent insomnia, depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder. 57.7 million American have mental illness today.

“When the gut bacteria is destroyed, food particles and pathogens escape through the intestines, causing allergies and autoimmune diseases. Allergy ER visits have increased 265% since GMOs. Glyphosate is

• A DNA mutagen and cell disintegrator allowing toxins into the brain,
• A chelator, causing mineral deficiency and the inability to fight cancer,
• An endocrine disruptor, causing infertility, sterility, miscarriages and birth defects.

“I am submitting hundreds of testimonials from mothers describing what Monsanto products are doing to their children and showing our children get better when they get off GMOs and glyphosate.

“I submit studies and papers today showing how glyphosate impacts the gut brain connection, leading to Parkinson’s, Non Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, Alzheimer’s, Celiac’s and Autism and more. Based on our current diagnosis, we can expect that in 20 years, 50% of our children born will get autism.

“I understand no one wants to believe this is true, but has anyone on this Board seen and read the newest studies and reports?

“What if the very investments shareholders are making to BUILD a foundation of security for our children and grandchildren are the same investments which are DESTROYING their future? What if instead of creating health and prosperity, you are causing ECONOMIC RUIN?

“What if instead trying to help feed millions of people with GMOs, you are in fact hurting GENERATIONS TO COME? Mothers say, STOP IT. STOP IT NOW!

“You can make a difference that will alter the future of YOUR family and OUR Country. Access and vote a pediatrician onto this board. Have the courage to create a new future for Monsanto and America. Thank you.”

The sweet smell of victory!

As I turned to sit I looked around. I felt all eyes on me. I felt my face looked serious and maybe slightly angry, slightly emotional.

I was aware that other presentors might be able to look cool and detached. I was not. I was in it full throttle. I am passionate. I will allow my concern and commitment to show. I think it is one of my greatest strengths. I love my kids and I want all kids to be able to be well. My emotion fuels me.

Hugh Grant said exactly what I thought he would say, that the issues I raised were not actually pertaining to the Shareholder Access Proxy and that the shareholders would be advised to turn to the proxy description and vote according to the topic of the referendum.

He said that he would address my concerns later in the Q&A. He advised the shareholders to vote no, because basically things are fine as they are, everyone voted and we moved on. I did not expect it to pass.

Tracy from Harrington Investment had shared that it had support and it had a chance of passing, but I have to admit I didn’t expect that it would pass at all. My body was buzzing with energy as I wondered what I would ask next. I knew this was my one chance to cover some topics that I had not covered in the previous three minutes.

Lisa from SumOfUs got up and made her presentation about separating the position of CEO and Chairman of the Board as two separate people, not one, not Hugh Grant as both. It was of course totally rational and clearly should be adopted. Hugh Grant advised the shareholders not pass the referendum, because basically things are fine as they are. The shareholders voted.

Next an employee shared about how great Monsanto is doing. He and Hugh Grant repeatedly mentioned their commitment to feed people and I knew that I needed to address that in the form of a question.

I had not prepared questions because my husband said I had a habit of over preparing. “Be in the moment”, he said. “Your preparation for that part should be to not prepare. Listen to what is being said and ask questions based on what needs to be put in.”

Before Q&A however it was time to hear the results of the vote. Hugh Grant read the results of the referendums … the accounting referendum passed with 97% yes, the lobbying one only had 24% yes and did not pass. Then … the Shareholder Access Proxy got a 53% yes – and therefore passed.

I felt an actual pat on my back and I turned and saw smiling faces. The shareholders had passed it! And they were smiling at me. Amazing! Astounding. I felt myself choke up and tears welled up in my eyes. I put my face in my hands and took a deep breath. I was overwhelmed with emotion. I did not hear the results of the Chairman/CEO referendum, but it did not pass.

I looked at Lisa and she said “Great Job!” I knew the credit primarily belonged to the investment group, John Harrington and especially Tracy Geraghty’s work. She made sure it was approved by the SEC and investment institutions To be a small part of the process, to be able to feel like I made a difference, was pure joy in the face of great adversity.

Now Monsanto’s patenting GMO soil microbes!

Then it was Q&A time. I rose to my feet as soon as he invited people to come to the microphone. I was nervous. I didn’t know exactly what I would say and I didn’t have a plan for the whole three minutes, but I had to bring up the ‘feeding the world’ issue.

So I asked, from what I can remember, “You have said many times that you are committed to feeding the world. It is a noble cause, I understand that. But there are wonderful farmers like Will Allen in Wisconsin who grows 1 million pounds of food on three acres every year, through Aquaponics, (fish and veggies) both a protein and vegetables. Without toxic chemicals and without hurting the soil. If Monsanto is truly committed to feeding the world, why aren’t you supporting programs like this?

He responded, basically that Monsanto is implementing all kinds of methods and that they are continually innovating etc. He said that they are also not the only agriculture company, that there are many other systems and we need all of them. He mentioned the soil and their newest research is in microbes in the soil and their benefits. I was aware that they bought a company in 2013 called Novozymes, which focus on soil microbes.

This was bad, and I felt it in my gut. Here is a corporation that had damaged the soil with their toxic chemicals and they were now going to try to profit from repairing it. I had heard this was true and wanted to hear it from him. So I asked him “Are you planning on patenting microbes in the soil?”

Without actually saying yes, he basically described that yes, they were researching the soil microbes and how they can alter them to enhance the performance of the soil to benefit the farmers. My head was spinning.

I remember him saying something about how many companies have patented the bacteria for instance, in yogurt, that it was quite common and widely accepted. I was so mad I didn’t have an immediate question or comment and he rambled on about my previous comments during the proxy statement about children.

Roundup: ‘not one link to harm’!

He declared that Roundup has been used for 40 years and there is not one link to harm. I interrupted and said: “That’s what they said about DDT and PCB’s!”

He looked at me firmly, obviously annoyed. I had broken the rule stated on the agenda not to interrupt. He continued without commenting on my comment. He talked about Germany and how they have continually conducted reviews and reapproved glyphosate for 40 years. He claimed over and over again that Roundup was safe.

I said, “Actually the EPA does not have one single safety study showing the safety of Roundup.Not one. It only has 40 year old studies of glyphosate, not of ALL of the chemical ingredients showing harm.”

He interjected that I had jumped topics and that we were addressing the children and that other people needed to ask questions. I could come back and ask another question after we gave them a turn.

I was frustrated, there was so much more I could say about the Seralini study that did test for Roundup and showed sex hormone changes, liver and kidney damage at 0.1ppb of Roundup, the fact that all the studies were done by Monsanto, there were no studies funded by independent sources …

I silently (and I hope not too obviously) fumed as I sat down. I want to remain in the room and not get hauled off by security, so I contained myself.

Holding Monsanto to account

The next person at the podium was so obviously a plant I wanted to laugh out loud. He rambled on and on about how Monsanto has saved him money and time and all the benefits has helped his family tremendously. He sounded flat, like a robot. It didn’t sound authentic at all.

He got a huge round of applause though, and the next person did basically the same thing. A Jesuit from South America complemented Monsanto for the benefits they brought but also stated that the spraying of Roundup has had a huge detrimental impact to their farmers. Could they “please stop the aerial spraying over the farms? And thank you for the good work.”

There were so many thoughts buzzing around in my head, I do not remember if Hugh Grant responded to him or not.

Lisa from Sumofus got up and addressed the Shareholder Access Proxy that had passed. She pointed out that it was an advisory, not a compulsory proxy and asked if Monsanto planned on actually implementing it. Hugh Grant looked extra thoughtful for a moment and then the baloney rolled off his tongue.

He rambled on about how they are always engaged in discussion and increasing the dialogue between shareholders and the board. He said that of course he expected to see Lisa back next year and by then he expected that there would be some modifications.

This was brilliant that she asked that question because he was suddenly being held accountable for whether or not he was going to acknowledge the majority vote of the shareholders.

If this is what Roundup does to oysters …

I was in line again. Then it was my turn. I chose to focus on the studies this time. I said,

“I want to address the studies you mentioned early showing safety, but first I want to share with you why I personally am here. I have three sons, 12, 9 and 6 and they all have food allergies and my husband and I never did.

“Two have life threatening nut allergies and one son we almost lost twice, I held his hand in the hospital and prayed to God for his life. But when we went organic his allergies went from a 19 down to a .2. He no longer has life threatening allergies.”

I addressed the shareholders and looked into their eyes.

“And my other son at 8 years old, had a rash around his mouth, a sudden onset of autism symptoms, his grades dropped from A’s to D’s, he was hitting and had erratic behavior. I got him tested and he had c.diff, fungus, clostridia, leaky gut, 19 different food intolerances and gut dysbiosis. These are all things cows have when they are exposed to glyphosate.

“I got him tested for glyphosate and he had 8.7 ppb in his urine, 8 x higher than was found in anyone in Europe. So we went all organic to avoid glyphosate and within 6 weeks, we tested him again and his levels of glyphosate were undetectable. His autism symptoms were also gone and he has not had a single autism symptom since.

“And I am not the only one, we have hundreds of testimonials. We see our kids get better from autism, allergies, asthma, autoimmune disorders.” Then I turned back to Hugh Grant.

“I want to address the EPA studies now. You mentioned there are studies going back for 40 years. Well, I have seen those studies and they don’t all show safety. For instance, one study on oysters, showed that after 4 days the oysters were closed and not feeding. Well, what happened on the fifth day? And closed and not feeding…isn’t that akin to a coma? How is that supposed to prove safety?”

You cannot ignore this!

I turn back to look at the shareholders. I am making eye contact and addressing them personally. I want them to get my authenticity. I want them to get that I am not just an angry mother. I am an informed citizen.

“Another study showed that white shrimp died after 4 days at levels that were below what is allowed on our food. A study out this past week showed that glyphosate does not biodegrade as the company once claimed. In fact, it remains viable in dark salt water for 351 days. What is in our womb? Dark salty water. How big is a six week old fetus? The size of a shrimp.” I paused.

I saw the gears turning in their heads, I saw faces change with the realization that I might be saying something relevant. I shared how the pig study in Denmark by Ib Pedersen with 3,000 pigs clearly showed how when pigs were fed glyphosate sprayed grains their miscarriages increased to 30%, when they did not eat glyphosate, miscarriages went down to 3%, then back up to 30% with glyphosate sprayed grains … at levels BELOW what we eat on our food. I said that we currently have the highest rate of infertility and sterility in recorded history, 30%.

I turned to Hugh Grant and said “You cannot ignore this. With the widespread contamination of our water, urine, breast milk, Fruit Loops and feeding tube liquid, you must be responsible for ways to cut back exposure to our children. Roundup use increased in 2013 by 73%. Why? Because it’s not working. Farmers are using more to kill the same weeds!

“Some farmers get it though, one for instance, Amish Farmer John Kempf, said that at his farmers conference of 150 farmers, two years ago when asked if they use Roundup, every single one raised their hands. This year only eight did. They understand that Roundup is not working for their soil. It’s destroys the microbes.

“Can you not see the correlation between destroying the microbes in the soil and the good bacteria in the gut? Without healthy soil we don’t have healthy plants or gut bacteria or healthy people. In addition, the use of Roundup has increased because of the encouragement to spray Roundup as a drying agent at harvest!”

It was flowing out of my mouth almost without thought. I have spoken so many times about this topic that it was automatic. I was passionately making my case. I felt unstoppable.

Is Roundup recommended as a pre-harvest dessicant? Yes or no?

“Wheat, peas, dry beans/legumes, sugar and more crops are reportedly being sprayed with glyphosate upon harvest to speed up harvest. So it’s not being sprayed just on GMOs.

“Unless you are eating organic you are likely exposing yourself and your children to levels of glyphosate far above what has been shown to destroy gut bacteria. So considering the widespread contamination, would you at least advise farmers to stop spraying Roundup as a drying agent?”

To my best recollection he said something about how Roundup has the function of being useful in wet areas where fungus or pathogens grow in the crops when they are damp. But then I heard him say that Roundup is recommended to be used as a weed killer on crops before harvest.

Interesting. “So Roundup is NOT recommended as a drying agent to be sprayed before harvest?”

Grant: “As legal would say, the question has been answered. Roundup is recommended be used as a weed killer on crops before harvest.”

I wanted him to say it. “So Roundup is NOT recommended as a drying agent?” I asked again.

He replied that this was the third time we had addressed this and that it was time to move on to the next person who had a question. He said I could of course come back in line after others had a turn. I sat down and two more people got in line. Apparently a nun got up and spoke about the reduction of water and thanks Monsanto. I don’t remember.

Am I too pushy?

I do remember when a pediatrician who is an employee of Monsanto, Dan, the pediatrician who introduced himself to me, got up to speak. He declared all his credentials and how he reviews the studies and knows full well how glyphosate works. He sees not one shred of evidence that glyphosate is harmful.

He was emphatic and somewhat angry and I couldn’t help but think, completely brainwashed and or extremely well paid. It is impossible to read the studies I have read and not see harm from glyphosate! Birth defects, miscarriages, tumors, sex hormone changes, allergies, etc … I could go on and on.

I was incredulous that this doctor was saying what he was saying, really stupendous. I was compelled and I stood up and got back in line. This time some people chuckled in the crowd. There she goes again they probably thought … and it would not be the first time. I have been told “There goes Zen again about the parades … you’re too pushy … “ and it is that very same quality in me that had me stand again.

I could not let the moms struggling with health issues down. I could not let this doctor alter the minds of the shareholders and reassure them to continue to support this toxic farming. I could not let this opportunity go without giving it everything I had.

“Of course, I would not expect a pediatrician who works for Monsanto to say that Monsanto’s products are harmful”, I said when I was once again in front of the microphone. Several people laughed. I could tell they appreciated my willingness to say what needed to be said.

“The fact is, however, that even the American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that pesticide exposure is harmful to children and that children should avoid pesticides.”

I don’t remember what else I said that that turn at the microphone. I do remember that a farmer got up between one of my turns and he was practically shaking and crying. He was very upset. He said

“I cannot sit here and be attacked while Ms. Honeycutt says that wheat is being sprayed with Roundup as a drying agent. I am the Director of the Wheat Growers association in Texas and I assure you that wheat is NOT being sprayed with Roundup as a drying agent. And as far as labor goes … I cannot find labor. If you want to come work on my farm I will give you my card and you can come work on my farm.”

He got a round of laughter and some applause. He continued to talk about how many people cannot afford organic, and how they need food on the table. He handed me his card and I was glad to take it.

I was especially glad that he was upset that someone would suggest that Roundup is being sprayed as a drying agent … he must see that as an undesirable practice … I wonder why?

Another farmer got up and after discussing how useful Roundup has been how he feeds 6,000 families with his corn crops … and then said “but the thing is, if not Roundup what then?” My heart leapt with joy! They were wondering what else they could use! They were starting the inquiry! My mission had been accomplished.

‘Food is Love’ – how dare they?

Another pediatrician employee of Monsanto got up, a mother, and claimed that all of the studies she saw showed safety. She was very stern and very clear and decided right then and there that she was the one who needed to get my binder. I got my host’s attention silently and pointed to my binder and to the doctor and my host nodded in consent.

Another woman emphatically declared that “I want people to know there are good people here in this company and with your leadership Hugh Grant we have been able to provide for our families. There are GOOD people here.” It was interesting that now the people getting up to speak at the microphone were almost all essentially speaking to me.

I got up again and replied. “No one is saying that there aren’t good people here. And there are people who love people who are sick in this room too. I bet if I asked you all to raise your hands if you know someone who has autism, allergies, asthma, autoimmune disease and cancer, every single person’s hand would go up. These are people you love.

“I am imploring Monsanto to go in a new direction. You have the resources. I am asking you, the shareholders, to challenge the Board to go in a new direction. Why not? We need waste management and for the oceans to be cleaned up. We need solar and wind power, areas that do not contaminate our children and pollute the planet.

“I ask you to try going organic and see for yourselves how you feel. Go all organic for three weeks at least, add raw organic sauerkraut every day to your diet to restore your gut bacteria. See how you feel … “

I turned to the front, “You too Mr, Grant, I invite you to try it. You know, all food used to be organic. We have faith in our farmers to farm as has been done for thousands of years to farm without toxic chemicals. Farmers are ingenious. We are asking you farmers to use your ingenuity. I want to thank everyone for your time and just ask you to please try it, go organic and see how you feel and take Monsanto in a new direction.”

I knew it was time for me to sit down. It was after 3:00 pm. I had stated my case. Although I could have talked for hours it was time. Hugh Grant thanks everyone very graciously as he should, for attending, especially emphatically thanking the people who got up to ask questions, all of us. He said we have had a very lively afternoon and that it was the first time ever that employees got up to speak.

We watched not one, but two commercials for Monsanto at the end. I shook my head with disgust when I saw the second commercial. They actually said “Food is Love” stealing the line from the Prop 37 ad which connected food to our families and nurturing them.

Children are still dying …

Before leaving the meeting room, my host asked me if I wanted to give the binder of studies to the pediatrician mom. I said yes. Before we got to her, a serious looking, heavy set woman with black hair stepped in between my host and the pediatrician, obviously trying to circumvent communication.

My host explained that we were giving her the studies and the woman in black hair pointed out that she probably would not be able to hold it, so my host should probably hang on to it. I sensed the woman with black hair intensely wanted me out of the room.

I stayed, looked the doctor in the eye and asked her to please study the report from Cordoba and birth defects. She said that she specialized in teratogenic effects and so this would be of great interest to her. The way she said it was like a display. It was acting.

My host steered me out of the room and on my way out several people caught my eye and smiled. I was acutely aware of being herded. I told my host I needed to use the restroom. In the restroom a woman immediately stopped me and said quietly, “Thank you for your courage. There are many, many, of us that are with you. Thank you so much for doing what you are doing.”

I couldn’t help it. I started crying from joy. The intensity of the day overflowed. It felt so good to hear someone say that, for her to look me in the eye and to know it makes a difference. I thank her repeatedly and hugged her and she left.

Before I left I requested the card of my host so I could follow up and she instructed a security guard in not so many words to keep an eye on me. I realized they didn’t want me running off into their offices and seeing evidence of God knows what.

I actually considered it for a moment when the security guard turned away, but decided not to get arrested today. I wanted to go tell the supporters what happened. I felt like I was going to burst. I asked my host before I left, would the shareholders be able to see these studies?

“I don’t know what will happen to these studies”, she answered honestly … neither did I. For all we know they are sitting on shelf gathering dust or in an incinerator. I worked for days assembling that binder, testimonials and images.

A mom supporter Nanette worked for a week gathering the studies, and the scientists have worked for life times on the work in the binder. Lives have been lost while those studies were being researched.

Children have died from cancer in Cordoba and here in the US. mother have lost babies. People exposing the truth have been beaten, threatened and they have lost their jobs. I have lost a life growing inside me and I have feared for the life of my eldest son from a nut allergy. I have faced my greatest loss and worst fear. Nothing will deter me.

I had done my job of speaking up for the moms, who cannot be fired, and who will not stop, who will not give up, because the love for our children will never end.

Zen Honeycutt is founder of Moms Across America.

Author’s Note: The following account and conversations are conveyed to my best recollection without a recording or transcript. When either are made available any inaccuracies will be corrected in a timely manner.

This article was originally published on the Moms Across America blog. It will form part of from the book Unstoppable Love by Zen Honeycutt to be released in 2015.

Scientific studies can be found here.

Facebook: Moms Across America.

This month, a powerful article in Nature highlighted yet again that most of the world’s oil, coal and gas needs to stay in the ground, if we want to prevent dangerous climate change.

This is the ‘unburnable carbon’ analysis that President Obama and Bank of England Governor Mark Carney have both made mainstream in recent months.

Related, over the last 6 months the world oil price has crashed, catching almost all economists and analysts by surprise. As well as profound economic effects, this crash affects ‘unburnable carbon’ in two broad and opposite ways.

It’s leading to cancellations of potential fossil fuel projects, as they become less or non-profitable. Great for stopping colossally dirty projects like Arctic oil and Canadian tar sands. And in the opposite direction, it makes oil cheaper, meaning people use it more. Bad for climate, though good for people’s pockets.

How should Governments react to this? A Government who genuinely thought climate change was a global priority would not sit passively by and let these conflicting effects of the oil price crash on climate sweep over us. It would act. Government surveys show the British public want more action on climate change.

Instead, we’re going all out for oil and fracking

Despite this, the sole response to the oil price crash from the UK Government is do the opposite! It announced detailed plans for tax cuts for oil companies to drill another 11-21 billion barrels of oil from the ground – way more than even the three billion barrels in the Government’s Wood Review on offshore oil and gas. Climate change impacts got one sentence of dismissal.

Then last week, it drove through a clause in the Infrastructure Bill – with almost no debate – requiring the UK to “maximise economic recovery” of North Sea oil.

These are crystal-clear examples of how Governments do not yet grasp that climate change requires a comprehensive plan. We can’t just do a little bit on renewable energy and energy efficiency, and think that this means we don’t need to do anything about fossil fuels.

And yet, for every announcement of a new wind-farm, or homes insulated, or rail investment, there is a corresponding – and often larger – Government announcement which makes climate change worse.

For example: £15 billion for new roads; whopping cuts in taxes on profits for North Sea oil drillers; consultations on which new airport to open; tax breaks for new fracking industries. High-carbon infrastructure has recently over-taken low-carbon infrastructure in the Government’s ‘infrastructure pipeline’.

After decades of subsidy, high-carbon industry shouldn’t need any more help. Colossally rich oil corporations know the global oil price yo-yos – they should have saved for this moment in the years when oil prices were over $100 a barrel and their profits were sky-high. But like the banks, they want their bail-out, and they know they will get it.

It’s shameful – that we have leaders who say climate change is desperately urgent, who call for more ambition, and yet who are still so deep in the pockets of fossil fuel companies they will not act and treat climate change as the emergency it is.

They are up-front about it too – the Government’s North Sea oil tax cut consultation is clear on three things – it’s derived in discussion with the oil barons; it’s being fast-tracked at their request; and the consultation primarily wants to hear from them.

Leaked letter shows the real agenda

They’re also not so up-front about it – you can see just how deeply the fracking industry is embedded in Government in this leaked-letter from George Osborne here.

The letter was from George Osborne, sent last September, to colleagues in the Cabinet’s Economic Affairs Committee, setting out how he wanted them to prioritise implementing the recommendations of a Cabinet Office report on how to get the shale gas industry going.

Of real interest here are the agreed plans between Government and fracking company Cuadrilla if their planning permission for fracking is turned down – which is exactly what Lancashire’s planners have recommended councillors to do.

According to the letter It is agreed that “if permission turned down … Cuadrilla to respond to concerns and appeal asap.” When that has happened, the Government will “Prepare PINS to respond promptly to appeal or SoS recovery if appropriate.”

In layperson’s terms, that means the Government will make sure the Planning Inspectorate fast-tracks the appeal or that Communities Secretary Eric Pickles intervenes. This stands in stark contrast to the line taken by the Prime Minister’s official spokesman that such decisions “should be up to local authorities“.

And how were these ‘asks’ made? Has Cuadrilla been meeting Ministers and officials, or has it been a few quiet words in the right ears? For let’s not forget that Cuadrilla’s chairman Lord Browne works in the Cabinet Office as a Non-Executive Director.

Moving to ‘full exploration’

The letter is also very revealing about longer-term plans for “moving to full exploration”. The Government clearly knows it’s losing the argument at the local level. Two recommendations stand out here:

• “A cross-Government and industry group should be established … to assess the value and viability of focusing on a small number of sites in less contentious locations.”
• “Public sector land (particularly MoD owned) should be mapped to potential sites and explored for possible concept testing.”

And the Government seems to accept that the bribes – sorry, benefits – it is offering top local communities to accept fracking aren’t working. The solution: it looks like offer them more. They plan to: “examine the nature of benefits to be offered to local communities where shale developments take place.”

They know they’re not winning the wider battle for hearts and minds either, so the Government is going to carry on doing the industry’s PR job and “build on existing network of neutral academic experts available to provide credible evidence-based views of matters of public concern”, and “develop a national communications plan on shale exploration.”

This isn’t the first evidence of collusion. Lord Browne has already intervened with the then chair of the Environment Agency, Lord Smith, to try to exempt Cuadrilla from compliance with drilling waste regulations.

On another occasion, after a separate personal intervention by Lord Browne, Lord Smith “offered to halve the consultation time for a waste permit”, and “agreed to intervene with a county council over Cuadrilla’s planning permission and to identify further risks to Cuadrilla’s plans.”

Here’s how the government should be acting!

Instead of colluding with the fossil fuel industry to increase production, a Government genuinely committed to action on climate change would treat the oil price crash as an opportunity to protect the climate, help consumers and protect jobs. It would say:

• We need a ‘just transition’ plan to get jobs and growth and industry out of North Sea Oil, and into North Sea Renewables like off-shore wind. There will be no economic devastation as when the coal mines closed. But we need to move away from oil, not prop it up. We will do all we can to help people and businesses build new, clean industries in the North Sea.
• We will put in place a plan to keep demand for oil low, to help keep prices low, and ensure undrilled oil stays in the ground. We’ll put in place a proper strategy to make public transport, walking and cycling decent alternatives to motoring. We’ll drive far stronger standards on car and lorry energy efficiency. We’ll invest in a national electric vehicle network. We’ll act at EU and International level to persuade our fellow nations to do the same.
• We will make sure the oil and gas price falls don’t damage the growing renewables industry. We’ll reassure investors by setting a clear 2030 power decarbonisation target, with policies to ensure we meet it.
• We will reverse our fossil-fuel strategy to “maximise recovery” and focus instead on ‘minimising demand’ – in every part of the economy.
• We will treat climate change as an emergency, and make tackling it a priority across all departments of Government.

People want more action from Government on climate change. Not less. Not a botched half-plan, and half-truths about their commitment to action.

The inadequate, partial, feeble responses on climate change are yet another expression of why so many people feel alienated from Westminster governments – they do not act on their promises, or sufficiently in the public interest.

It’s election time soon. Which parties will put people’s interests ahead of propping up fossil fuel companies, and put in place a proper plan to tackle climate change?

In short, who will step up and show they are a party worth voting for?

More information on the impact of the oil price crash on climate change: Friends of the Earth briefing.

Simon Bullock is Senior Campaigner, Policy and Research Co-ordinator for Friends of the Earth UK.

Tony Bosworth is Energy Campaigner at Friends of the Earth UK.

This article is a synthesis of two articles published on the Friends of the Earth Policy & Politics blog:

• ‘The oil price crash and climate change‘ by Simon Bullock;
• ‘Revealed: secret Government-Industry plans to circumvent fracking opposition‘ by Tony Bosworth.

It was said of Rockefeller as he built his prolific infrastructure empire of trains, pipelines, and refineries, that he would enter a community first with a promises of money, and if his kindness was refused, he would resort to other means.

His oft-cited quotation speaks for itself, “the way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets.”

Update this position to today, and you have the model for contemporary counterinsurgency (COIN) that plunges a growing pipeline and oil train network through dissenting communities.

As Warren Buffet, owner of Burlington Santa Fe Railroad, once stated, “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

But with militant labor strikes shocking the oil industry and blockades halting oil trains throughout the Pacific Northwest and Canada, it would appear that the class war is finally starting to even out.