Resource Coming Soon

Every summer, we are reminded of the ways the world looks after us. When we need food, the bushes ripen their berries. When we need shade, the trees unfurl their leaves. Yet, every summer, we are also reminded of the ways the world is suffering at our hands. Extreme temperatures, wildfires, and natural disasters strain global infrastructure and the natural world’s capabilities. Climate activists have recognized the disparity between the way the world cares for us, and the way we care for the world. In their refusal to sacrifice environmental and public health in the name of fossil fuels, climate activists like the Standing Rock water protectors have channeled a worldwide call to action. Even so, the planet continues to get hotter, and now, efforts to suppress the voices of climate activists are heating up, too. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is an organization backed by conservative state legislators and funded by large corporations, including fossil fuel companies. According to our allies at the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL), ALEC and its fossil-fuel-funders have created model legislation that specifically targets climate activists for protesting on or near critical infrastructure. Traditionally, critical infrastructure included “systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.” ALEC and the fossil fuel industry have vastly expanded the definition of “critical infrastructure” to include fossil fuel-related infrastructure like oil pipelines, electrical utilities, railroads, and more. Model critical infrastructure laws drafted by ALEC are problematic for several reasons. First, it is inappropriate to include fossil fuel infrastructure under the national critical infrastructure umbrella. Traditionally, in protecting critical infrastructure from destruction, governments sought to preserve public health and safety. This goal becomes pretextual when critical infrastructure is expanded to fossil fuel infrastructure. Fossil fuel infrastructure doesn’t need to be destroyed to pose a risk to public health and safety – it already does so on its own. For example, during its construction the Mountain Valley Pipeline received hundreds of clean water law violations for placing rivers, streams, and other waterways at risk. Including fossil fuel infrastructure under the critical infrastructure umbrella is further inappropriate because the United States does not rely on fossil fuel infrastructure for national economic security. While it is true that the United States and the fossil fuel industry are economically tied to one another, that link is not inevitable. After all, alternative energy solutions that are economically viable and capable of meeting energy demands have been available for years. Fossil fuel infrastructure is not a necessity, but treating it as such has led to increased persecution of those who advocate against it. It is the continued exorbitant profits off the destruction of the planet that billionaires and their lackeys see as the necessity. Second, critical infrastructure laws create expansive and ambiguous liability as well as severe penalties for climate activists who trespass on or interfere with critical infrastructure or its construction, in what they sincerely view as the public interest. It is not difficult to trigger these severe penalties. For example, anyone who trespasses on a utility company’s right of way could be susceptible to both lengthy jail/prison sentences and large fines. According to the ICNL, there are over 2,000,000 miles of fossil fuel pipelines across the United States. These pipelines commonly run across public parks, streets, and private property, as well as under rivers and waterways. Some critical infrastructure laws require signage or fencing to put potential trespassers on notice of their presence on critical infrastructure. However, statutes like Louisiana Revised Statute 14:61 (LRS 14:61) create liability (potentially with “hard labor”) for those trespassing on or interfering with critical infrastructure without any notice at all. Some critical infrastructure laws even create guilt by association, imposing the same harsh penalties on individuals and/or organizations that organize a constitutionally protected protest as they do on people who actually trespass or interfere with critical infrastructure. Third, critical infrastructure statutes discourage speech and protest that would otherwise be protected by state and federal constitutional free speech/association provisions. Although statutes like LRS 14:61 claim to preserve the right to protest, their provisions scare and discourage climate activism by threatening increased criminal penalties and introducing new charges. Before LRS 14:61 was amended to target climate activists, those charged under the statute faced up to six years imprisonment with a $1,000 fine for unauthorized entry. After the statute was amended to target climate activism near fossil fuel infrastructure, those charged now face penalties of up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. As an example, a march that briefly halts oil pipeline construction could be interpreted as interfering with critical infrastructure, with those who participate potentially facing fines of up to $10,000 and/or 15 years in prison. The amendments to LRS 14:61 have significantly raised the legal stakes for protest near critical infrastructure, inherently reducing protections for climate activists. Egregious critical infrastructure laws are most pervasive in places that economically rely on fossil fuel infrastructure, like Louisiana. Where there is money to be made in oil, gas, or coal, there are likely critical infrastructure laws being introduced and enacted at the financial behest of the industry. In West Virginia, activists like Rachel Berkrot and Jerome Wagner faced draconian critical infrastructure charges for protesting the devastating Mountain Valley Pipeline, but both accepted plea deals for lesser offenses. This pattern suggests that prosecutors are more likely to leverage critical infrastructure crimes than seek punishment under them, with the true intent of these laws being to chill the actions of climate defenders. While the majority of activists have been avoiding harsh critical infrastructure punishments, they often still face lengthy probation periods and fines, and sometimes incarceration even under reduced charges. The United States’ dependence on fossil fuels has created a status quo that prioritizes corporate pockets over the health of its people and land. Climate activism naturally disrupts this status quo and must continue to do so. Though critical infrastructure laws will likely persist where they have been enacted, the United States’ reliance on fossil fuels doesn’t have to. By continuing to advocate for a future divorced from fossil fuels, climate activists can render both fossil fuels and critical infrastructure laws obsolete. Only 22 states have enacted critical infrastructure statutes, indicating that other states remain protective of both environmental health and protest. As you continue to advocate for the world that looks after us so well, it’s important to research the legal ramifications you may face. CLDC’s upcoming Climate Primer will provide an overview of the criminalization of climate activism to supplement your research! Obstacles may arise, but they are not impassible – remember, WE’VE GOT YOUR BACK!