Huizenga Plays Politics as Myanmar Burns

Take a moment to think back to your Christmas Eve last month here in West Michigan. Chances are you were either enjoying time with family, attending a Christmas service, or engaging in other holiday traditions.

Yet, half a world away in Myanmar (Burma), many Christians spent the holiday season fleeing for their lives. On Christmas Eve, the Myanmar military set fire to over 35 civilians in their vehicles, including women and children, leaving their bodies burned beyond recognition. Two of the victims of the attack in Kayah State were humanitarian aid workers providing lifesaving nutrition support on behalf of the aid organization Save the Children. Both victims were new fathers.

February 1^st marks one year since the Myanmar military overthrew the democratically elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi. In that time, nearly 1,500 innocent people have been killed and over 11,000 democracy activists have been arrested.

Myanmar’s economy has ground to a halt because of the country wide civil disobedience movement. To overcome economic and financial challenges, the military is now relying on oil and natural gas revenues to fund its repression. About 50% of Myanmar’s foreign currency comes from natural gas revenues, with the military government expected to earn $1.5 billion from offshore and pipeline projects in 2021-2022. These payments fuel the military’s barbaric atrocities and the continued operation of oil companies in Myanmar makes them complicit in human rights abuses.

Pressure from civil society organizations is an effective tool for identifying and exposing illicit flows of money that support tyrannical regimes like the one in Myanmar. Public disclosure of payment information allows activist groups to investigate and shame human rights abusing governments and the companies that support them.

Tragically, for the vulnerable people in Myanmar, Representative Bill Huizenga has led a decades-long effort on behalf of oil interests to get rid of a valuable anti-corruption tool, Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act. Section 1504 requires oil, gas, and mining companies to disclose the payments they make to foreign governments. The transparency law was a vital tool to expose backroom deals in a notoriously corrupt industry and enabled communities to sustainably manage their resources.

Section 1504 is critical to fighting the “resource curse,” the phenomena whereby people living in countries that are rich in natural resources are often among the world’s poorest. By gutting Section 1504, Huizenga has undermined anti-corruption efforts and peace processes around the world.

Ever the opportunistic politician, Bill Huizenga has conveniently ignored his past actions to stymie transparency in the extractive industry sector by voting for legislation like the Burma Act of 2021. The bill authorizes humanitarian assistance, support for the protection of human rights, and calls for transparency in Myanmar’s extractive industries.

I welcome Huizenga’s support for the Burma Act 2021, but does anyone else see the irony in a U.S. politician spending a decade shielding U.S. companies from transparency, while voting for legislation that tells an illegitimate military dictatorship that it must be transparent and address corruption?

In the political sphere there is often talk of “American Exceptionalism”, the idea that the U.S. is uniquely virtuous. This may comfort some Americans, but because of politicians like Bill Huizenga this ethical high ground is a myth.

It is exceptionally hypocritical that a U.S. politician’s decade of work on the House Financial Services Committee has allowed Chevron to withhold details of how much it pays to the military government in Myanmar. It egregiously took Chevron nearly a year to stop paying hundreds of millions of dollars into bank accounts that are controlled by the military junta. While Huizenga shields Chevron and other oil interests, Myanmar burns.

Huizenga’s actions epitomize why so many in middle-America hold a collective disdain for Washington politics. In December I received an email from Huizenga’s communications team highlighting his support for the Burma Act. The fact that Huizenga has spent a decade undermining resource transparency and then emails constituents to score political points on an issue that he has worked to undermine is politics at its worst.  

Many of my friends and former students in Myanmar are Chin, a predominantly Christian ethnic minority who live in western Myanmar. They have long faced repression, often having their churches destroyed and travel restrictions placed on preachers. If my friends in Myanmar are ever to have an opportunity to celebrate Christmas in peace, it will require that politicians like Bill Huizenga stop undoing critical anti-corruption and transparency legislation.

Huizenga’s Actions are Destroying the Climate

Last month, some of the world’s leading climate scientists confirmed, once again, that humans are making irreversible changes to our planet and extreme weather will become more severe. 

Also last month a UNICEF report included a Children’s Climate Risk Index that analyses the effects of climate change on children, ranking countries based on children’s exposure to excessive heat, air pollution, flooding, water scarcity, etc. According to the report almost every child on earth is exposed to at least one climate or environmental hazard and 850 million are exposed to at least four. 

Considering these recent climate reports that signal a “code red” for humanity and future generations, it is horrifying that so many politicians are opposed to any serious action to address the threat posed by climate destruction.

Here in West Michigan, Representative Bill Huizenga is furthering climate destruction by doing the dirty work for big oil companies and opposing any legislation that serves to facilitate a sustainable transition or protect future generation’s right to a stable climate. 

As part of his role on the Financial Services Committee, Rep. Huizenga has recently spoken out against companies disclosing the risks that they face from climate change and reporting their emissions. The Securities and Exchange Commission has issued guidelines suggesting that companies consider the effects of the climate crisis on company assets, but it has not mandated that public companies disclose their exposure to climate-related risks. As a result, investors lack access to basic information about the potential impact of the climate crisis on American companies, creating massive environmental and financial risks. Given his opposition to the Climate Risk Disclosure Act, Rep. Huizenga would prefer that investors, and the American public, not have the information necessary to hold corporations accountable for their role in the climate crisis.

For nearly a decade Rep. Huizenga has diligently served the interests of major oil companies by working to repeal Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act. Section 1504 requires oil, gas, and mining companies to disclose the payments they make to foreign governments as part of their financial reporting to the SEC. The bipartisan transparency law is a vital tool to expose and deter nefarious backroom deals in a notoriously corrupt industry, to protect investors, and to enable communities to sustainably manage their resources. Rep. Huizenga’s efforts to undo a landmark anti-corruption law has done nothing for his constituents, and nothing for the American people. It is simply serving the interests of lobbyists and the most environmentally destructive corporations who fund Huizenga’s campaigns.   Your stories live here.Fuel your hometown passion and plug into the stories that define it.

Opponents of action to address climate change have always relied on multiple lines of defense: if one argument for doing nothing becomes useless, they will find another. We have all heard the deceitful and trite statements like: “global warming is fake news” or “doing anything about climate change would destroy the economy.”

Rep. Huizenga is no different in his shameful attempts to sow doubt in established climate science. In response to a 2019 BBC article about natural methane releases from wetlands in South Sudan, he tweeted: “Hey! I thought it was just US power plants and cars that are to blame for global warming … oops.” Climate denialism is sadly mainstream for U.S. politicians but using an example from an impoverished country like South Sudan that is suffering bouts of food insecurity from a warming world, yet has done nothing to contribute to climate destruction, is disgraceful politics. 

We need citizens, businesses, and governments working together to address the climate crisis. Working together can result in policy solutions like national standards for renewable energy, the elimination of legacy subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, and strict auto emission regulations. 

These policy approaches threaten the business model of big oil and would help to slow the warming of the planet. But Rep. Huizenga has consistently argued in bad faith that climate regulations will hurt the economy, which is a lie. Claims that taking on climate change would be an economic disaster are as much at odds with the evidence as claims that the climate isn’t changing.

It is painfully obvious that Rep. Huizenga’s statements opposing climate action are not being argued in good faith; he has consistently obstructed all measures to mitigate climate disaster and will use whatever excuses he can find to justify his position, like methane from wetlands in South Sudan. 

West Michigan and the rights of future generations to a stable climate deserve better than Rep. Huizenga’s disingenuous actions to support big oil and destroy our collective environment. 

Natural gas in West Michigan: A bridge to nowhere

Energy is fundamental to the functioning of modern societies. Without energy, our globalized economy would cease to function. Unfortunately, the energy source we have used to develop and industrialize — fossil fuels — has a dirty secret: It is destroying the stable climate that is fundamental for a healthy society.

West Michigan has recently seen the closure of the James De Young and the Grand Haven Sims (Harbor Island) coal power plants. Local officials have touted the environmental benefits and emissions reduction of transitioning from coal to natural gas (methane).

Yet, people who in good faith believe that natural gas generation is a cleaner alternative than coal have been deceived for decades. Conveying misleading information about how natural gas is an environmentally friendly energy source is simply “greenwashing” the issue.

When methane that leaks during drilling or transport is taken into consideration, it is worse than coal energy generation from a climate perspective, as it is a more destructive greenhouse gas.

Supporting natural gas as a “greener” alternative is a false choice between two bad options that ignores the environmental and economic benefits of renewable energy, especially since the health and environmental costs from fossil fuels in the U.S. alone amounts to $650 billion annually!

I commend the Holland Board of Public Works (HBPW) for its efforts to study methods for reducing the city’s carbon dioxide emissions. However, neglecting to consider the full lifecycle emission of methane from natural gas drilling and transport activities is a gaping hole in the city’s Community Energy Plan. The plan’s goals for 2025 must consider the full climate impact of natural gas generation.

While the Grand Haven Board of Light and Power (GHBLP) and HBPW view gas as a bridge fuel, given high methane leakage rates, this power source is a costly bridge to nowhere. There is no time for a bridge. Clean alternatives are ready.

The cost of methane generated power coincides with the commodity price of gas, which is inherently volatile and cannot stay low forever. The price of controllable, storable renewable energy is connected only to technology costs, which are dropping rapidly.

Recent forecasts show that it is cheaper to build new renewables, plus storage (batteries), than to operate natural gas plants. Fossil fuel plants built today will quickly be rendered uncompetitive “stranded assets,” burdening ratepayers with unnecessary and prohibitive costs for decades.

Though Holland has already sunk $200 million into a fossil fuel dominated future, Grand Haven can make a sustainable transition by rejecting a proposed natural gas plant on Harbor Island. Not only is the proposed methane project in Grand Haven uneconomical, it is also inefficient. The plant will only be in use 5-10% of the time to meet peak demand, though bond and interest payments will continue to accrue.

Considering the pace of innovation in the energy sector, this plant will be a “White Elephant,” along the scenic downtown waterfront.

Instead of committing $16-25 million to an uneconomical and inefficient gas project, the GHBLP could invest in sustainable energy infrastructure, including storage and energy efficiency. Not only would these investments set Grand Haven on a path to a sustainable future, they would also create jobs and boost economic growth.

Luckily, HBPW and GHBLP do not have to look far for a case study in sustainable and innovative energy generation and storage. Ludington is already at the forefront of a renewable energy transition with the Lake Winds Energy Park. In addition, the recently renovated turbines at the Ludington Pumped Storage Plant, which act as a giant battery, will allow for the provision of energy at a moment’s notice and support the further integration of variable renewable energy.

Adaptation is rooted deep within our human condition. Continued growth is predicated on reassessing norms and wisely using natural systems that surround us. If we as a region can embrace innovative ideas, then we can ensure an equitable and sustainable energy future for generations to come.

Wind and solar are finally cost competitive when compared to fossil fuels. Cities like Holland and Grand Haven must be policy leaders, solving the climate crisis.

The owners of public electricity utilities, which is the rate paying public, must demand that their electricity is sustainable and respects the rights of future generations. As a 31 year old resident of West Michigan, a person looking to the future, I urge the board members of the GHBLP and HBPW to think of their legacy and future generations in embracing a truly clean energy future.

The fossil fuel era must end.

Huizenga’s Efforts Benefit Unethical Corporations, Prince

It is not often that the actions of my elected representative intersect with my work as a community organizer in Southeast Asia.

After writing a guest column in late 2017 highlighting U.S. Rep. Bill Huizenga’s deceitful efforts to undermine a key anti-corruption law, Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, I assumed that it would be my swansong of commenting on West Michigan politics. I was wrong.

Section 1504 required oil, gas and mining companies to disclose the payments they make to foreign governments. The landmark transparency law was a vital tool to expose and deter backroom deals in a notoriously corrupt industry, to protect investors, and to enable communities to sustainably manage their resources. The law had bipartisan support and the backing of national security experts, investors, and faith-based development groups.

By repealing Section 1504, Huizenga successfully undermined anti-corruption efforts and peace processes around the world (H.R. 4519). He has also compromised global security, as growing evidence indicates that financial secrecy facilitates corruption and corrupt money funds violent extremism.

Then in September 2019 via the Burma Act (H.R. 3190), Huizenga voted to approve legislation holding senior Myanmar military officers accountable for committing genocide against the Rohyinga and a litany of other human rights abuses. I applaud Huizenga for his common sense vote, but ultimately, it is too little and too late.

This vote of approval is proof that Huizenga acknowledges there is a problem in Myanmar. As someone who witnesses the real life impacts of U.S. foreign policy decisions on vulnerable communities, I am perplexed as to why Huizenga’s past voting record does not align with his most recent decision on the Burma Act.

As a native of West Michigan dedicated to serving communities devastated by the actions of irresponsible governments and companies, I continue to be embarrassed by Huizenga’s duplicity. But after seeing Huizenga’s vote on the Burma Act, I feel angry. Angry at the hypocrisy of a politician who undermines an anti-corruption law and then votes for legislation that requires accountability mechanisms like Section 1504 to be effective.

The Burma Act instructs the Myanmar government to reform natural resource governance, increase accountability in government institutions, transparently regulate the mining sector, and disclose the ownership and revenues of mining projects. Sounds familiar, right? Huizenga’s repeal of Section 1504 undermined all of these objectives.

U.S. companies have a long history of unethical business practices in Myanmar. In the 1990s, UNOCAL (merged with Chevron in 2005) partnered with the Burmese military, a known human rights abuser, to construct a natural gas pipeline. The military displaced villagers and forced them to labor in support of the Yadana gas pipeline project, while committing rape and murder.

Perhaps more than anywhere else, anti-corruption measures are critically important for Myanmar. In 2014, experts estimated that the total value of the gemstone jade in Myanmar was over $31 billion. As much as 80 percent of the mineral is smuggled out of Myanmar. This illegal trafficking deprives the people and government of Myanmar of critical revenue, instead benefitting military-linked enterprises, transnational criminal networks, and Chinese businesses.

Huizenga’s success in destroying the Section 1504 anti-corruption law has resulted in two winners: corrupt foreign regimes like the one in Myanmar and companies willing to exploit corruption to defeat honest competitors. Repealing Section 1504 has done nothing for West Michigan, and nothing for the American people. Rather, it serves the interests of powerful corporations and individuals funding Huizenga’s campaigns.

😦

One such individual is West Michigan native Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater, the private mercenary company that was banned from Iraq after contractors killed unarmed civilians. Prince currently serves as the executive director of Frontier Services Group (FSG), a security firm active in Myanmar since June 2018 that has been associated with senior Myanmar military officials.

Unfortunately, good business for Prince typically implies suffering for the vulnerable. As Phil Robertson, a deputy director for the non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch, stated, “In a country like Myanmar, where rights abuses by security forces are all too common, Erik Prince and FSG will sadly fit right in.”

West Michigan takes pride in members of its community humbly serving the world’s most vulnerable populations. But Huizenga’s inconsistent voting record, as made clear by his success in repealing Section 1504 and subsequent vote for the Burma Act, makes his moral and ethical proclamations falsely imply that he is more virtuous than is the truth.

I implore Huizenga to continue to align his votes with REAL West Michigan values; not the corrupt interests of unethical corporations and Erik Prince.

Returning Home to Representative Huizenga’s Year of Deceit

Though I will always consider Grand Haven home, my career over the past six years has carried me to remote areas in rural Southeast Asia. In that time, I’ve seen firsthand how government corruption, particularly when it comes to deals to extract valuable natural resources, falls the hardest on the most vulnerable communities. Bribery and other corrupt acts by officials to line their own pockets too often keep essential revenue from flowing into public services, perpetuating extreme poverty and fueling conflict and the spread extremism. This phenomena, where so many people living in countries rich in natural resources remain deeply impoverished is known as the “resource-curse.”

But while I collaborated on environmental governance reform projects in Cambodia, it turns out Representative Bill Huizenga was busy doing the bidding of powerful oil and mining corporations and the foreign regimes they do business with by undermining an anti-corruption law that is key to combatting the resource-curse. Even worse, he’s relied on half-truths and outright lies to try to convince his constituents that his efforts to eliminate transparency somehow in their interest. Western Michigan is better than this.

In 2010, Congress enacted a bipartisan measure, Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, to require oil, gas and mining companies to disclose the payments they make to foreign governments and the U.S. government as part of the regular financial reporting to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) required each year. The landmark transparency law is a vital tool to expose and deter corrupt backroom deals in a notoriously corrupt industry, to protect investors, and to enable communities to ensure they are getting a fair shake from the resources extracted in their backyards.

The law has long been supported on both sides of the aisle, by anti-corruption watchdogs, U.S. national security experts, investors, and faith-based and development groups, among others. Pretty much the only people who didn’t like it were the few companies that wanted to keep their dealings with corrupt foreign dictators secret. In January 2017, Representative Huizenga showed where his priorities lie by introducing H.J. Res. 41, a bill of “disapproval” that effectively undid all the work that the SEC had done to implement the transparency law, and buying companies more time to be able to keep their payments secret while the SEC started over. President Trump signed the bill into law in February.

Now, Representative Huizenga is taking his efforts a step further. In December, he introduced a new bill, H.R. 4519, that would fully repeal Section 1504 permanently. As a native of West Michigan dedicated to serving communities devastated by the actions of corrupt governments and the companies willing to exploit that corruption to increase their profits, I am embarrassed by this effort, which will only further enable corrupt extractive deals around the world. But I’m even more embarrassed by how Representative Huizenga has tried to sell both measures to his constituents.

For example, regurgitating industry talking points, Rep. Huizenga has made demonstrably false statements to suggest this will benefit West Michigan workers. In a February op-ed, Huizenga claimed the law hurt the economy in West Michigan and “has left our nation with less opportunity.” The jobs rationale is dishonest political pandering at its worst. This legislation has nothing to do with jobs. Requiring companies to simply disclose the payments they make – which they already track in the regular course of business – does nothing to harm the economy or jobs in Michigan, or anywhere else. In fact, major unions representing oil and gas workers, like the United Steelworkers, have strongly condemned Representative Huizenga’s efforts to undermine the law, explaining how important this type of transparency is to promoting conditions that keep workers safe.

Rep. Huizenga also dishonestly argues that Section 1504 would require U.S. companies to “reveal sensitive business information” to their competitors. That’s not true either. The law does not require the disclosure of any contractual details, trade secrets or strategies for competitive bidding; it simply required disclosure of how much these companies pay foreign governments. But most of their competitors already regularly disclose this information. After the law was enacted in 2010, more than 30 countries around the world, including the European Union and Canada, followed the lead of the U.S. and implemented similar transparency laws, and major oil, gas and mining companies in those countries have been reporting their payment information under those laws for years. Many of these companies have in fact emphasized the business benefits of transparency. But delay in implementing the U.S. transparency law means U.S. companies are now lagging behind the industry standard – even state-owned Russian and Chinese companies are currently more transparent than U.S. companies.

Rep. Huizenga, despite being a member of the House Financial Services Committee, also ignored the interests of investors, dubiously claiming that disclosures under the law “fails to provide investors with useful information.” However, investors representing $10-trillion in assets under management have fervently disagreed, and repeatedly supported rigorous implementation of the transparency law as key to better evaluating investment risk. Who should we trust to know what benefits investors—investors or Huizenga?

Rep. Huizenga has also claimed the law wasn’t necessary to fight corruption, because paying bribes is already illegal under U.S. law. But that misses the point. The public and civil society are the most effective tools for identifying and exposing corruption, and public disclosure of payment information allows other governments and civil society groups to investigate and hold their own governments accountable so the U.S. isn’t in the position of having to play international policeman. This power of information is a cost-effective ways of deterring companies from making illicit payments, and corrupt officials from lining their pockets with money intended for healthcare, education and other public services.

In truth, if Representative Huizenga succeeds in his mission to destroy this anticorruption law there will be only two winners: corrupt foreign regimes and the few companies that are willing to exploit that corruption to get an edge on their more transparent competitors. H.R. 4519 does nothing for his constituents, and nothing for the American people, it is simply serving the interests of D.C. lobbyists and the powerful corporations who fund Rep. Huizenga’s campaigns.

Every winter, despite the lengthy return flights from Southeast Asia, I eagerly look forward to returning to Western Michigan. In past years I have returned home with a deep sense of pride because of the work of the community and faith-based groups that humbly serve the world’s poorest. This year, it feels different. I pray that Representative Huizenga will remember who his constituents are and stop promoting policies that harm the world’s most vulnerable communities.

An Ode To Cambodia

I wrote this before I departed from Cambodia and Vishnu Law Group in March. Though it was a bittersweet goodbye, I am stoked to be returning to Cambodia once again this June…

—

Another transition is upon me. After spending two years working in western China, along the Mekong, and throughout Cambodia, I’m headed home. It is bittersweet to say farewell to this semi-nomadic life, but I feel that it is right to put down roots in my home country and work there to spread as much compassion as I possibly can. But before I depart Cambodia, I composed a note on why I love this country…

When I think of you I feel the adrenaline fueled smirk spread across my face from hopping curbs and pulling off “oh that was too close” maneuvers on my bike through your chaotic traffic. You are anything but shy in announcing your presence through the smoke of charcoal barbeques, selling “bai set chrouk” to the masses. The joyous and playful sounds of tuk-tuk and moto-dop drivers squatting and gambling around a table of cards, sipping beers at all to inappropriate hours. There is nothing that I would rather wake up next to than the daily yells and echo of street hawkers shouting “nnnoomme bang” or “bong mawn ang” that fill the pre-dawn glow of my room. The vibrant color of market women wearing pajamas all day, everyday. You overwhelm my senses.

You always know what is best for me. Your seasonal fruit and coconut vendors have kept me healthy and hydrated. Your running bongs community motivates me to continue to run in a brutally hot and humid climate, through narrow alleys that provide a rapid-fire glimpse into your diversity and resilient ingenuity. The activity and amalgamation of static filled dance music that surrounds your Olympic Stadium, instills excitement before dreaded interval workouts.

You always interact and speak to me with “sohk-sabaay” smiles and laughter. Even through discussions of your troubled past and political crises, you brim with optimism for future generations. Though your obsession and overuse of Facebook can annoy, I begrudgingly grin at your selfie shenanigans and indulge in emoticon filled conversations .

I remember when we first met in 2013, my immature self, rushing towards the next destination and experience to be had. Yet you kept pulling me back with the red and orange illumination of your twilight hours, urging me to slow down and be present. The hours spent embraced in hammocks, your rural touch, has brought us closer and for which I will surely find myself reminiscing and savoring with times passing. You are truly “sa’at”, Cambodia. I’ll miss you dearly…

Parting Thoughts After 3-Months Along the Mekong

It has been over 150-years since French explorers Ernest Doudard de Lagrée and Francis Garnier began their journey from Saigon to assess the Mekong River’s navigability for trade purposes. At the time of their expedition Garnier claimed that “The Mekong was not yet a river to be tamed”, and that the river, “Simply would not cooperate”. The body of water that our group traversed this past fall would have been scarcely recognizable to Lagrée and Garnier. These explorers would be particularly nonplussed in China, where a cascade of dams has transformed a once turbulent river into a series of massive reservoirs. Our travels along the Mekong provided us the opportunity to witness the ecological change wrought by the development of large-scale hydropower, its consequent impact on upstream and downstream populations, and the exacerbating effect that climate change has on the vulnerable populations that are dependent on the Mekong River for their livelihoods.

Societal and ecological change is inevitable, especially in a region like Southeast Asia where the average economy is growing at over 5% per-year. This change is the undeniable byproduct of living in a globalized and interconnected world. Yet the alterations that economic development activity and our society’s thirst for energy is having on a trans-boundary water resource like the Mekong River is occurring at such a rapid pace that we, as global citizens, are failing to consider the long-term impact of these developments on the environment and future generations.

In a similar manner to how rapid economic development and societal change was a major theme throughout the entirety of the Mekong region, the impacts of climate change were also brazenly obvious. Observing the impact of climate change was perhaps the defining aspect of our entire journey. At the Mekong’s headwaters, elderly Tibetan grassroots environmental activists pointed up into cloud-shrouded mountains to remark that the glaciers around the holy Kawagarbo Mountain have receded by over 50 meters. Elsewhere in Yunnan Province (云南省) locals recounted the adverse impacts of increased rain and subsequent flooding that has not occurred for several generations, resulting in failed crops and other devastation. In Laos, while living on a Mekong island, we witnessed the impact of erratic and late arriving monsoon rains on villager’s rice paddies. Several families remarked that, “the rice is not beautiful this year”, meaning that harvest yields for some families are below 50% of their normal output.

While drifting between floating villages on Cambodia’s Tonle Sap Lake we were exposed to communities struggling to cope with a changing climate. The Tonle Sap, often referred to as a ‘beating heart’ because of its contraction during the dry season and massive expansion to six-times its dry season level during the wet season, directly provides a livelihood for over 1-million people and is an inextricable component of Cambodian culture. Partly a consequence of upstream damming withholding wet season flood waters, but mainly due to climate change induced regional drought, the Tonle Sap this past November was five-meters lower than its usual level. A reduction in the expansion of the lake during the wet season constrains the available spawning area for the fish that comprise the world’s most productive fishery and subsequently results in diminished catches.

Declining fish stocks are proving disastrous for the communities that depend on the Tonle Sap’s aquatic resources for their livelihood, especially because fish makes up over two-thirds of the Cambodian population’s protein consumption. This is particularly troubling given the fact that Cambodia is already afflicted by malnutrition. In Cambodia almost 40% of children under 5 are chronically malnourished (stunted), over 28 percent are underweight, and 10.9 percent are acutely malnourished (wasted). The suffering and damage inflicted by malnutrition will continue to be exacerbated across Cambodia as climate change worsens. One family that we met commented that this has been the worst fishing season in 30+ years. A separate household, that appeared to include more than eight children, told us that they have been limited to two meals per-day because the income from selling their fish catch has been substantially reduced.

The severity with which those that are dependent on the Mekong River for their livelihood are impacted by climate change differs immensely by region, as does their subsequent resiliency and ability to successfully adapt. While the Mekong embodies significant spiritual significance to Tibetans, their livelihoods and ability to survive are not directly dependent on the river. Tibetans are much more at risk of suffering from Chinese development projects or government persecution. The Mekong island villagers that we lived with in Laos have a much greater degree of resiliency to climate change and potentially reduced agricultural yields because of their geographical proximity to Thailand. Access to Thai markets allows these villagers to reap profits from import-export exchanges because of the cheaper goods on the Thai side of border. In addition, their favorable location provides the ability to seek employment across the border during the agricultural off-season and supplement their diminished income from farming activities.

As the climate and ecological stability of the Mekong changes, so will the livelihoods of those that have relied on the river for decades. For some, changing occupations or moving may not entail overwhelming hardship, but for those living on the Tonle Sap, they are confronted with immediate threats to their survival and an uncertain future. While all of those dependent on the Tonle Sap are at risk of impending climatic changes, the Vietnamese fisherman that we met on the Tonle Sap are particularly at risk. Vietnam will not accept their return since they have not lived in the country for generations and the Cambodian government does not recognize them because they are not Cambodian citizens. Where will these individuals in political limbo and dire economic conditions turn when ecological disaster strikes? They do not have the luxury of a state safety net, albeit a corrupt and often times aloof one that there neighbors, in theory, have access to. Who do these Vietnamese fishermen turn to for their survival? Several NGOs are doing their part, but the scale of this impending ecological and societal calamity is far too great for their limited budgets and the scale of their projects to adequately address. Sadly, we live in a world where one of the richest nations, the United States, spends far less than 1% of its budget on international development assistance and the amount allocated for water and sanitation, $192 million, is roughly the cost of a single F-22 fighter jet, yet worldwide 1.1 billion people lack access to safe drinking water and 2.6 billion people lack adequate sanitation.

At the recent climate negotiations in Paris, Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) were discussed, a climate agreement was formulated, and billions of dollars were pledged by developed countries to help with climate change adaptation in the developing world. Perhaps funding will be allocated to the people currently suffering from climate change induced ecological stress on Cambodia’s Tonle Sap Lake and elsewhere, which is sorely needed and should help, but when it comes to hydropower and sustainably managing the world’s hydro-resources, the climate negotiations in Paris were an abject failure. Hydropower projects posing as “clean and green energy” have become the beneficiaries of climate funding through credit schemes like the World Bank’s Climate Investment Funds. What is worse is that in many countries INDC’s, hydropower is included in the emissions reduction strategy, when in fact hydropower is a methane bomb that will intensify global warming.

While there were aspects of this course that inspired optimism and hope, the overwhelming theme was still that of a disturbing climate change induced concern for our collective ecological future. Throughout this journey I kept coming back to an old Aldous Huxley quote, “That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach”. When will we learn the lesson that the negative impacts of large-scale hydropower are unavoidable? Why cant we grasp the monumental implications of not considering the long-term impacts of our development decisions on future generations? We have to act on the lessons that history has provided for us. We can do better, we know better! T.S. Eliot knew better…

…the river…

Keeping his seasons and rages, destroyer, reminder

Of what men choose to forget. Unhonored, unpropitiated

By worshippers of the machine, but waiting, watching and waiting.

-T.S. Eliot, Four Quartets, 1941

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This I Believe: Mekong Edition

I believe in the unseen. That two atoms of hydrodgen, bonded to an atom of oxygen, comprise this substance that we call water.

I believe in the turbulent force of water. The power to shape a landscape, roar, and influence a regions weather patterns.

I believe in stripping down to ones undergarments and running though holy waterfalls while Tibetan children, screaming at the top of their little lungs, are precariously carried like awkwardly shaped footballs through glacial melt water by their fathers.

I beleive that one person’s efforts can make a significant and lasting impact. That in the case of Sinoduji the Tibetan hunter, we as humans often must know evil before we are able to rectify our wrongs and work to improve the human and environmental conitions under which we exist.

I believe in devotion. I do not yet know what I will devote my life’s work and efforts towards, but when I do, I hope that I will have the courage to devote myself entirely to the endeavor, just as Tibetans devote themselves to their religious and cultural practices.

I believe that rural China is a place where traditional values and livelihoods that have changed little over the course of centuries can instill a humbling respect for the country’s past and all that has changed throughout the last three decades of breakneck growth.

I beleive that even though the rural areas of China are often regarded as a backwards afterthought, much can be learned about living off the land in a sustainable manner, in comparison to the imbalance between development and environment in China’s mega-cities that leaves its populations under a dome of pollution.

I believe that China’s attempts to control water and engineer its way around environmental constraints are fundamentally flawed and that its large-scale hydropower and water diversion projects will have irreversibly negative environmental and social impacts.

I believe that the paranoia of the Chinese Communist Party will be its undoing. The suppression of human rights, grossly unethical social-engineering experiments, and attempts to dilute traditional minority cultures will have extremely harmful repercussions that will continue to tarnish China’s international reputation.

—

I believe that for many Laotians the concept of time and the idea that the efficient use of time as having an inherent economic value is eroneous. Like the Mekong, for many Laotians, time is something that just flows by and is not to be troubled over.

I beleive that the Mekong River has been instrumental in the development of Laotian culture and is as vital of a resource to the country, economically speaking, as oil is to many Persian Gulf states.

I beleive that the impact of water and its role in people’s lives is all too often taken for granted.

I beleive that water is so much more than its every day practical uses, water is spiritual. But I believe that the spiritual powers of water extend well beyond religion. Floating in the Mekong’s current, bouncing along the river bottom as if you were a clump of sediment, and watching a sunset’s orange rays and red hues as water buffalo take an evening bath is beyond spiritual, the sublime beauty is overwhelming.

I believe in the healing powers of water. That a day of frustration and stress can be alleviated by the total submersion and subsequent weightlessness that water provides.

I absolutely believe in the necessity of regular adrenaline rushes. Finding naturally occuring objects, the higher the better, to jump off of into water’s embrace. Swinging like a monkey and falling from the trees surrounding the Blue Lagoon allows one to revert to a childhood state of adrenaline fueled joy.

I believe that water is an intricate part of defining who I am. Growing up along the shores of Lake Michigan has instilled in me a deep respect for water. This reverence for water will hopefully see a major portion of my life’s work be devoted to preserving this resource and ensuring that all humans have access to sustainable and improved sources of water.

Yet, I belive that Laos, in its quest to become the battery of Southeast Asia through its mainstream dams on the Mekong River, is commoditizing the river’s resources at the expense of transboundary fisheries and the ecological stability that provides a livelihood for millions of downstream users.

—

I believe in the increasingly adverse impact that climate change is inflicting on vulnerable populations. That because of a more volatile climate, the Tonle Sap Lake’s low water-level is resulting in decreased fish catches and an inability of the floating villages on the Lake’s periphery to support and feed themselves.

I believe in resiliency. From Cambodia’s troubled history and many personal stories of extreme suffering comes great inspiration and strength. Cambodians have a wonderfully indomitable human spirit.

I believe in potential. That Cambodia’s dynamic and young population has the potential to build a better nation that will not succumb to previous pitfalls.

Lastly, I beleive in the campassionate actions and wise words of the deceased Cambodian Buddhist leader and peace activist Maha Ghosananda:

“Cambodia has suffered deeply. From deep suffering comes deep compassion. From deep compassion comes a peaceful heart. From a peaceful heart comes a peaceful person. From a peaceful person comes a peaceful family and community. From peaceful communities comes a peaceful nation. From peaceful nations comes a peaceful world”.

After a journey lasting 80+ days and thousands of miles along the banks of the mighty Mekong, this is what I believe…

The Mekong River Commission: A Mandate to Spectate

Decisiveness, action, results. Like many other westerners, I prefer directness and a goal oriented approach. In Asia, I often find myself frustrated by the round-about way that relationships or status is adhered to and respects given before any attention is devoted to addressing the larger issue. I understand the importance of observing cultural traditions, yet the resulting inefficiency often leaves me frustrated. In many places it is impossible to get a firm “yes”, and as I found in China,”maybe”, always means no. While visiting the Mekong River Commission (MRC), I found myself contemplating various cultural aspects that could influence the MRC’s effectiveness, but ultimately arrived at the conclusion that culture is too diverse and vague to provide a convincing argument. If it is not culture that ultimately explains the MRC’s inability to slow down or prevent the potentially catastrophic mainstream dams that are being built along the lower Mekong, what is it then? What is hindering decisiveness, action, and constraining environmental conservation efforts? It is the MRC’s mandate to spectate.

Our stay in Vientiene, the “capital village” of Laos, saw our group delve into the environmental and geo-political implications of lower Mekong hydropower development. The foremost authority on the technical and political issues facing this region’s water resources and environment is the MRC. We were fortunate enough to secure a meeting at MRC headquarters with one of their representatives. Having already born witness to China’s impact on the Mekong through its wreckless and unchecked cascade of dams, our group was hoping  to hear a positive outlook for the Mekong’s future development. What we got was the representative’s effort to portray a prosperouse future for the Mekong and an active role for the MRC, but for those of us looking for greater talk of sustainable development commitments and a more cautious approach to large-scale hydropower development, we left extremely dissapointed.

When it comes to environmental protection and sustainable development, China is an easy and often times deserving target for criticism. Even though a significant portion of the Mekong River flows through China, it has refused to become a member of the MRC and is merely a “dialogue partner”. China, as part of what I like to call its practice of “International Collaboration with Chinese Characteristics”, has again chosen one-sided selfishness by refusing to disclose water data, reservoir levels, and other development information with downstream countries. Our group experienced China’s oversensitive paranoia with regards to its hydropower projects first hand. After much effort and inquiry as to whether it was even possible for our group to get close to the Jing Hong Dam, we were bluntly told that, “muslims and/or foreigners are not allowed to visit or approach the dam complex”. At least the Chinese authorities were direct…

The MRC representative that we met with also refused to say anything negative with regards to China and its impact on the lower Mekong countries. We were always left with the ambiguous answer, “relations with China are evolving and stalled by a complicated domestic political situation”. This answer was an easy and effective way of deflecting China related questions. By blaming China’s obstinance and refusal to partake as a full MRC member on the country’s internal politics, the representative successfully avoided attributing any blame on China for inadequate dialouge or any other shortcomings.

Only after several students asked about the negative environmental and social impacts of mainstream Mekong dams, like the Xayaburi and Don Sahong projects, did we fully begin to understand the source of the MRC’s inability to influence the regions development, it’s mandate. Time and again we were given the answer, “the MRC cannot (insert any type of action here)…because the MRC is an advisory body, not a regulatory agency. If it is not in our mandate, then we cannot do it”. The MRC has become an organization that provides technical cooperation and acts as a platform for dialogue on water resource management issues. Technical assistance and dialogue are important and certainly needed when it comes to complicated transboundary water resources issues, but is research and discussion enough? Is this enough to slow down damaging projects with irreversible impacts that will do more harm than good? It isn’t.

The MRC representative proudly discussed a $400-million dollar redesign of the Xayburi Dam as proof that MRC facilitated dialouge is leading to positive outcomes. The Vientiene Times, a state run newspaper, has gone so far as to start referrinig to the Xayaburi Dam as a “run of river” hydropower project. A “run of river” dam is one that does not impede the flow of the river, and therefore, does not create a massive reservoir that damages the environment and displaces people. If this redesign has indeed prevented the creation of a reservoir and avoided irreversible environmental damage I will be thoroughly impressed, but I highly doubt that this is the case. The Thai investors in Xayaburi need to recoup their money, the Lao government needs to have this project completed on time, and the other clauses written in the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) need to be met. Accomplishing all of this with a truly “run of river” design and maintaining the ability to generate the specified amount of energy, to my knowledge, is not possible. The words “run of river” and a large-scale hydropower project like Xayaburi, are anything but synonymous.

When it comes to Xayaburi and the MRC, what has actually happened is far from the story that the representative attempted to portray. International law and the Mekong Agreement prohibit MRC member governments from implementing a project while the other national governments are still discussing it—this is part of the obligation to negotiate “in good faith.” However, Laos and Thai developers started implementing the Xayaburi Dam in late 2010 before the Mekong governments met to discuss the project and before further studies requested by Cambodia and Vietnam to determine the transboundary impact of the project even commenced. Laos has violated the Mekong Agreement, made false claims that Xayaburi is environmentally sustainable, and ignored the general consensus amongst fishery experts that its proposed mitigation measures for fishery impacts are unlikely to work. Despite continued calls for further research and dialogue, the same story is now repeatinig itself with the Don Sahong Dam, a mere 3km up from the Laos border with Cambodia. All of this is happening while the MRC adheres to its mandate to spectate.

So if the MRC is bound by its mandate as an “advisory body”, what should its future role be if it is unable to slow down or stop damaging large-scale hydropower development? The chances of MRC member countries sacrificing any semblence of sovereignty to give the MRC a stronger mandate are slim to none. The MRC will certainly continue its technical assistance and dialogue, but going forward I hope that the MRC will devote greater effort and resources towards helping the most vulnerable and impoverished people along the Mekong. These are individuals that desperately need help adapting to an array of climatic changes, threats to their livelihoods, and the other impacts of large-scale hydropower development. The MRC is by no means an implementer of development projects, yet they must work to find a role for themselves within this community that is working to ensure a better future for those impacted by a changing Mekong River.

As the meeting with MRC came to a close I found myself thinking of the saying, “the ends justify the means”. This expression, a favorite of many U.S. politicians, serves to explain large-scale hydropower developers platform: that thousands of mega-watts (the ends) justifies projects that have negative environmental and social externalities (the means). Similar to how the United Nations (UN) rarely breaks its various peace keeping agreements, the MRC would never violate its mandate and do what is ultimately necessary to protect the Mekong River. But how many Rawandans, Darfurians, and Bosnians would be alive today if the UN had considered whether “the ends” of saving lives, justified “the means” of breaking a mandate to do so? Can we stand idly by and watch while the last remaining segments of untamed river are turned into reservoirs?

I do not claim to have a solution for the sustainable development of Mekong River water resources. Given our current economic model, the various systems of governance in place in this region, and China’s refusal to cooperate in the existing dialogue processes, I do not believe that there is a viable solution that will be able to deliver anything close to a future Mekong River that is ecologically healthy and resembles the turbulent river that it once was. Unfortunately, like the MRC, we all have a mandate to spectate the impending destruction of the Mekong River…

 

The Transformation of the Mekong

Transformation. A word that is usually associated with the development or changes occuring within a city, culture, individual, or country. Throughout my travels I have witnessed how landscapes can be transformed by large-scale agricultural development, mining, deforestation, or other natural processes. Yet I had not previously considered it possible to dramatically transform a major body of water. Growing up along the shores of Lake Michigan I have always held a spiritual reverence for water and assumed that the sheer resilience and power of water can overcome man-made influences. As was made evident during the first several weeks of our course along the upper Mekong River, China’s hydropower development and cascade of dams is resulting in irreparable transformations to the Mekong’s natural state.

The Tibetan Mekong, that we joyously bathed in hot springs along, is a turbulent river with roaring rapids that carries a significant amount of sediment. Leaving the spiritual oasis and purity of Tibet we proceeded to travel further south along the Mekong, where we encountered the first of several hydropower construction sites that comprise the upper cascade of dams. By the time we passed south of Dali, inbetween the massive XiaoWan and ManWan dams, the Mekong had been tamed. What was once an unrestrained rush of water, has been transformed into a lifeless reservoir. It is estimated that by the time 8 of the largest dams are completed along the cascade, not even the entirety of the 28 projects that are planned, the total surface area of water will be 7x larger than the pre-dam natural size of the river.

As we took a break from our travels to inspect the unfamiliar body of water below us, a local man appraoched Gong and myself to inquire as to whether we would like to take a boat ride to the ManWan dam, another 30km downstream. Declining his request, we instead inquired as to whether we could talk to him about the impact of the hydropower development on his community and personal livelihood. Under the scorching mid-day sun James, Gong, and myself sat down under the shade of a tattered tarupuline, along the banks of the reservoir formed by the ManWan dam.

After the usual practice of offering and exchanging cigarettes, the local started discussing how the hydropower development has served to increase his income. His livelihood consists of ferrying tourists to the dam site, transporting supplies downriver, engaging in some small-scale fishing, and tending to a farm with pigs and sheep. The entire village and his current farming residence is entirely new as a result of being displaced by the rising river reservoir levels. He explained how villagers were compensated for their land, but that much of what they had demanded for prior agricultural input compensation was not met. Controversy over resettlement compensation, in a country where more than 23 million people have been displaced by hydropower development over the last 5 decades, is commonplace. Hydropower displacement in China is equivalent to the population of Australia being forcibly relocated. Of those that are forced off their land, it is estimated that 8 million are still living in poverty.

As part of his answer to James’ question about the environmental changes that he has witnessed, the local resident discussed what the Mekong used to look like before the construction of the ManWan and XiaoWan dams. He recounted that the water level has risen 70-80 meters from its natural level. Glancing over the reservoir, the local noted that it used to take an hour to walk from our current location down to the river, a walk that would now take less than a minute. The local also remarked how that before the hydropower development the dam was too rapid to cross by boat and that very little fishing could be done because of the rapid currents. Gong, James, and myself were forced to take a break from our questioning after this last comment by the local. None of us said a word to each other, we didn’t need to, as our eyes were transfixed on the lifeless reservoir in an effort to comprehend the transformation that this body of water has undergone.

Our disbelief and efforts to envision the Mekong’s once natural state, was intermitently broken and then exemplified by the local claiming that the hydropower development has had a positive impact on the surrounding environment. He based this upon the fact that a nearby conservation area has been established and that now people are able to catch or farm a greater number of fish in the reservoir. It is true that fish extraction levels have increased, but this misses the larger story of ecological destruction. The number of species in the Mekong has declined from a peak of 139 to a current level of 80 species. In addition, local aquaculture in reservoirs has introduced non-native and invasive fish species to the Mekong River. 12 kinds of non-native species were found in the ManWan reservoir as a result of aquaculture activities.

What I was most impressed by was this local gentlemans ability to recite the Chinese Communist Party’s official response to the question of whether unchecked hydropower development along the upper Mekong is adversely impacting downstream countries. He repeated the party line that the Chinese can continue damming the Mekong without detrimental impact because the portion of the Mekong in China only contributes 16% of the overall average of the Mekong’s River Basin flow. While true, China refuses to acknowledge the that suspended sediment being confined to the reservoirs of the upper Mekong can lead to increaesd incidence of saltwater intrusion downstream in the Mekong delta because the upstream sediment is no longer reaching the delta area in Vietnam, affecting agriculture and rice fields. These delta lands, without sediment, will start to sink and eventually be swallowed up by rising sea levels. China also withholds the vast majority of the hydrological and reservoir water release data from downstream countries and the Mekong River Commission, the body in charge of managing the Mekong’s development.

Ducking under the tarpuline and back out into the intense mid-day sun, I walked away from the interview angry, frustrated, and utterly impressed with the Chinese Communist Parties effectiveness in spreading misleading propoganda. Was I angry with the local that we had just interviewed? Absolutely not. How could I fault this individual’s thought process if all he hears about are the positive aspects of China’s hydropower development. Without access to transparent and unbiased information, how would he know that the entire river is in the process of being hijacked, strangled, and made into a lifeless reservoir?

I do not blame the Chinese locals in this small village one bit, they are extremely resourceful individuals that are making the best of what they are given, they would be foolish to act in any other manner. Instead, I am angry at the self-serving transformation that the Chinese government has imposed upon the Mekong River and countless other natural areas. I am sickened by the real mystery, which is how the hell is China getting away with this? As someone that has spent an inordinate amount of time looking out of bus, train, or plane windows at Chinese environmental destruction and short-sighted economic growth strategies, none of these transformations should surprise me. By this point I should be immune to caring or getting upset by these issues. Though I have seen this story played out before, it has never been on this scale and with the potential to impact so many vulnerable and impoverished people downstream.

As we pulled away in our bus and I looked back over the reservoir, I came to realize that this is just another example of something that I like to term “International Collaboration with Chinese Characteristics”: one sided selfishness, environmental destruction, and an uncertain future for vulnerable populations that live along the Mekong in Laos, the Tonle Sap in Cambodia, and in the delta regions of Vietnam.

—