Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Accord Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future
- Eric Anders
- Apr 13
- 62 min read
Updated: Apr 24
Spaceship Earth in Peril
On Christmas Eve, 1968, Apollo 8 astronaut William "Bill" Anders looked back from his spacecraft in lunar orbit and captured what would become one of the most iconic images in human history: Earthrise—our planet emerging over the lifeless horizon of the Moon. Reflecting on that moment, Anders later remarked, “We went all that way to explore the Moon, and the most important thing was that we discovered the Earth” ("Apollo 8's Earthrise: The Shot Seen Round the World," The New York Times, 2018).
The Earthrise photograph revealed a delicate sphere of blue and white, isolated in a vast sea of black—a visual reminder that Earth is not just a place, but a shared vessel, a solitary spaceship adrift in an inhospitable cosmos, carrying all of us as crew.
That image pierced the illusion of geopolitical separation. From that vantage point, national borders vanish, and the distinctions we cling to—flags, ideologies, economies—recede into absurdity. The term "Accord" in Earthrise Accord captures precisely this vision of global unity—an urgent call for collective responsibility, solidarity, and coordinated action in the face of climate change, the existential threat that now endangers Earth's habitability and humanity’s shared future.
Earthrise as Sublime Art
The concept of the sublime in art, traditionally evoking overwhelming awe and terror at nature’s immensity and power, is often associated with works like those of painter J.M.W. Turner. Turner famously captured maritime disaster and nature's overwhelming force, creating scenes marked by swirling skies, intense contrasts, and chaotic movement. His canvases portray nature's often terrifying grandeur—storms, shipwrecks, and fiery destruction.
In contrast, the Earthrise photograph conveys a profound stillness and quietude. Yet precisely because of this stillness, Earthrise resonates deeply with the sublime—not through the immediate chaos of a storm, but through the existential terror evoked by the infinite void of space, whose silent vacuum represents a deadly violence, an absolute nothingness that threatens. It captures the awe that arises when confronting Earth's vulnerability—its precarious finitude suspended within an infinite expanse, its fragility starkly revealed against the vast indifference of the cosmos. Indeed, the quietude of space belies its ferocious deadliness and underscores the profound finitude of Earth, isolated within the immense cosmic void surrounding it. Earthrise evokes the sublime in its stark simplicity, silently communicating the vulnerability of humanity’s singular vessel. It is a quiet yet intense reminder of the terror inherent in recognizing that we alone are responsible for preserving or destroying our home.
Whereas Turner painted ships caught in storms or dashed against rocks, Earthrise shows a ship that is still intact, still afloat—but one whose crew has lit too many fires in its own hull, filling the vessel with smoke and making it increasingly uninhabitable. The ship is not foundering from external catastrophe; it is being undone by the very passengers it carries. It is a sublime image not because of natural chaos, but because of our radical interdependence and our moral failure to live in accordance with it.
Earthrise: Icon of Environmentalism
The Earthrise photograph quickly became an iconic emblem of environmental consciousness, galvanizing the global environmental movement through its stark portrayal of Earth's vulnerability and isolation in the vast darkness of space. This singular image reshaped humanity’s understanding of our relationship to the planet, emphasizing the fragile interconnectedness of global ecosystems and profoundly inspiring collective action toward ecological stewardship. Credited with helping to ignite landmark initiatives such as Earth Day and shaping influential environmental organizations, Earthrise powerfully symbolizes the imperative for global unity and collective responsibility—core values at the heart of Earthrise Accord’s mission for environmental justice and planetary health.
Yet, despite this powerful symbolism and decades of awareness, Spaceship Earth is in critical peril. The industries fueling modern civilization—oil, gas, and coal—have relentlessly polluted our planetary vessel, overheating the atmosphere, acidifying oceans, and contaminating land and water essential to life. For decades, fossil fuel corporations have pursued unchecked extraction, fully aware of the devastating consequences while actively denying and undermining safer, cleaner alternatives, notably nuclear energy.
As a result, our ship’s life-support systems—a stable climate, breathable air, drinkable water, and functioning ecosystems—are deteriorating. The Earth’s regulatory mechanisms, once resilient, now reel under the strain. And yet, the first to suffer are not the ones who caused the damage. It is the poorest, the most geographically and politically marginalized—especially indigenous communities in the Global South and in resource frontiers like the Amazon, the Arctic, and the Niger Delta—who bear the brunt of the crisis. These are people who have contributed almost nothing to global emissions but now face its gravest consequences: floods, fires, drought, disease, and displacement.
Meanwhile, the perpetrators—multinational fossil fuel corporations and complicit governments—continue to evade accountability. They make hollow promises at international summits while greenlighting new pipelines, rebranding themselves as environmentally responsible while expanding extraction, and pledging carbon reductions while systematically undermining the rapid deployment of nuclear power and other genuine clean-energy alternatives. Like privileged passengers aboard a burning vessel, they barricade themselves in luxurious isolation, indifferent to the flames consuming the ship around them.
This peril is neither abstract nor distant; it is our current reality. Earthrise’s sublime imagery no longer merely inspires—it indicts. We have seen our fragile planetary vessel from afar, recognized its vulnerability, yet failed collectively to protect it. Earthrise Accord emerges as an urgent, global response to this collective failure. Inspired by William Anders' visionary perspective and his passionate advocacy for nuclear power, Earthrise Accord demands accountability and justice, insisting on immediate international action to preserve our shared home.
This manifesto clearly articulates Earthrise Accord’s mission: to expose the fossil fuel industry's systematic deception, vigorously pursue legal accountability for environmental crimes, and promote genuinely sustainable energy solutions—chiefly advanced nuclear energy technologies, including small modular reactors (SMRs)—to achieve an equitable, survivable, and zero-carbon future.
Grounded in moral philosophy, rigorous scientific research, and inspired by the profound awe and urgency embodied in the Earthrise photograph, Earthrise Accord provides a clear and practical roadmap toward climate justice, harnessing international cooperation and transformative innovation. This is the legacy and promise of Earthrise: a united human response committed decisively to safeguarding our planetary home.
Three Lies that Fueled a Planetary Crisis
Central to the strategy employed by fossil fuel corporations and petrostate governments are three pervasive lies, propagated systematically through elaborate PR campaigns, lobbying efforts, political influence, and deceptive funding. Together, these lies have severely distorted global perceptions, obstructed urgent climate action, and perpetuated ecological devastation and human suffering.
Lie #1: No Harm Done
Extraction Crimes Ongoing and Historical
The first lie claims fossil fuel extraction and operations inflict no significant harm on the environment or local communities. This lie has justified decades of ecological devastation and human rights abuses, disproportionately affecting marginalized populations globally.
Crimes Against Populations in the Global South
Nigeria’s Niger Delta: Fossil giants Shell, Chevron, and Eni systematically devastated ecosystems through massive oil spills, water contamination, and gas flaring. They blamed local sabotage despite independent evidence revealing systemic negligence. Millions lost livelihoods, suffered chronic illnesses, and saw catastrophic economic collapses.
Ecuador’s Amazon: Chevron/Texaco deliberately dumped billions of gallons of toxic waste, causing severe health crises (cancers, miscarriages, birth defects) among Indigenous communities. Despite legal judgments demanding reparations, Chevron evaded accountability through aggressive litigation.
Indonesia (Aceh): ExxonMobil employed local military units, notorious for severe human rights abuses (torture, killings, sexual violence), against civilians protesting environmental destruction, prioritizing profit over lives.
Crimes Within Borders Against Indigenous and Marginalized Communities
U.S. Gulf Coast (Cancer Alley): Fossil-fuel pollution severely impacted predominantly Black and low-income communities, exacerbating cancer rates and vulnerabilities to climate disasters like flooding and hurricanes.
Canada’s Alberta Tar Sands: Massive ecological ruin and pollution have led to increased cancers and rare illnesses among Indigenous communities, worsened by aggressive fossil infrastructure expansion and disregard for Indigenous rights.
Australia’s Coal and Gas Extraction: Indigenous communities, including the Wangan and Jagalingou, faced forced displacement, water contamination, and destruction of sacred lands due to coal mining and fracking, while the government consistently downplayed environmental consequences.
Lie #2: Climate Change Isn’t Real (Climate Denial)
This lie systematically denies the human-driven causes of climate change, strategically targeting conservative and authoritarian audiences. Fossil companies spent billions embedding climate denial within political identities, especially in the U.S., severely delaying urgent climate action.
Catastrophic Climate Crimes Linked Directly to Climate Denial
U.S. Gulf Coast: Systematic denial worsened vulnerabilities in Louisiana’s Cancer Alley, amplifying catastrophic health outcomes from pollution and intensified climate disasters.
California Wildfires: Delayed climate adaptation due to fossil-funded denial intensified wildfires, devastating communities and ecosystems.
Global Hurricanes and Flooding (Puerto Rico, Bangladesh, Pakistan): Denialism hindered climate resilience efforts, disproportionately harming vulnerable populations through intensified disasters.
Russian Arctic Extraction: Climate denial facilitated destructive extraction in sensitive ecosystems, accelerating global climate threats.
Saudi Arabia and Gulf States: Petrostate denial obstructed international climate initiatives, perpetuating massive global emissions.
Critique of California v. Big Oil
California’s lawsuit correctly targets Big Oil’s deceit yet profoundly errs by excluding petrostates and relying solely on domestic courts, reinforcing American exceptionalism. Genuine accountability must implicate major state actors, including the historically prominent U.S., through comprehensive international legal frameworks, notably the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Lie #3: Nuclear Energy Is Dangerous and Unviable
This lie strategically demonizes nuclear energy—proven, scalable, and zero-carbon—to maintain fossil fuel dominance by dismissing realistic, immediate climate solutions under environmental pretenses.
Consequences of Anti-Nuclear Misinformation
Germany’s Energiewende: Aggressively anti-nuclear policies unintentionally increased dependence on coal and Russian natural gas, raising emissions and enriching petrostate and fossil corporations.
Norway’s Hypocrisy: While portraying itself as an environmental leader, Norway vigorously opposed nuclear power, simultaneously expanding fossil fuel extraction, thus sustaining global fossil dependency.
British Columbia, Canada: Anti-nuclear laws, influenced by decades of fossil-fueled misinformation, have kept the province reliant on natural gas, prolonging fossil fuel usage.
Global Environmental NGOs (Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth): Opposition to nuclear power inadvertently reinforced fossil fuel dependence, particularly natural gas as a “bridge fuel,” delaying meaningful decarbonization.
Earthrise Accord’s Call for Justice and Action
Earthrise Accord categorically condemns these lies as deliberate acts of ecological sabotage and crimes against humanity and the planet—ecocide. We demand accountability, prosecuting responsible corporate and petrostate leaders through comprehensive international mechanisms like the ICC. Immediate recognition and global adoption of nuclear energy and other proven zero-carbon solutions are imperative moral obligations.
Manufactured Doubt, Divided Politics: How Fossil Fuel Lies Shaped Left and Right
The fossil fuel industry employed two targeted lies:
No harm done (climate denial), primarily influencing conservative and authoritarian politics.
No viable alternatives, predominantly persuading progressives through anti-nuclear misinformation, creating resistance to nuclear solutions.
These lies critically distorted political unity, delaying essential global energy transitions and deepening ecological crises.
Smoke and Lies: The Criminal Legacy of Fossil Fuel Corporations and Petrostates
For over a century, corporations and petrostate governments knowingly sabotaged global ecosystems for profit, systematically poisoning air, water, and human health. Such acts must be prosecuted as ecocide under international law, recognizing fossil fuel culpability in global health crises, extensive climate disasters, and ecological ruin. Earthrise Accord supports comprehensive prosecution frameworks, including ICC amendments to criminalize ecocide.
Consequences: Disproportionate Harm to Vulnerable Communities
Fossil fuel lies have disproportionately harmed marginalized populations worldwide, from Nigeria to Indigenous communities in Canada and Australia. Climate change, accelerated by industry misinformation, exacerbates global inequalities, primarily impacting those least responsible.
Naming the Guilty: Corporate and State Accountability
Earthrise Accord explicitly identifies guilty corporations (Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, TotalEnergies, Eni, Peabody Energy, Gazprom, Saudi Aramco) and complicit states (Norway, Netherlands, Canada, Australia) that perpetuate climate hypocrisy and ecocide, demanding international legal accountability.
International Momentum: Towards Recognizing Ecocide
France’s and Vanuatu’s recent actions towards recognizing ecocide as an international crime mark critical progress. Earthrise Accord fully endorses these efforts, emphasizing the moral and legal imperative to end impunity for environmental destruction globally.
Earthrise Accord thus calls unequivocally for global recognition of these truths, accountability for ecological crimes, and an immediate, decisive transition to sustainable, nuclear-powered energy systems. Justice and survival demand nothing less.
*************
Three Lies that Fueled a Planetary Crisis
Central to the fossil fuel industry's and petrostates’ strategy are three pervasive lies, each propagated systematically through PR campaigns, lobbying, political influence, and deceptive funding practices. These lies, taken together, have profoundly distorted global perception and politics, stalling urgent climate action and perpetuating ecological destruction and human suffering.
Lie #1: No Harm Done
("Extraction Crimes Ongoing and from the Past")
This first lie asserts that fossil fuel extraction and operations do not cause significant harm to the environment or to the people living near extraction sites. It serves to justify decades of environmental devastation and human rights abuses, particularly against vulnerable and marginalized populations.
Crimes Against the Global South
Nigeria’s Niger Delta: Shell, Chevron, and Eni systematically devastated ecosystems, contaminating water, destroying fisheries, farmland, and entire communities' health and economic stability. Corporate and petrostate complicity perpetuated claims of sabotage by locals, despite evidence showing systemic negligence.
Ecuador’s Amazon: Chevron/Texaco deliberately dumped toxic waste, causing unprecedented ecological damage, and refused accountability, leaving indigenous communities suffering severe health consequences.
Indonesia (Aceh): ExxonMobil supported severe human rights abuses by employing local military units against civilians protesting environmental harm, revealing the industry's willingness to prioritize profit over human life.
Crimes Against Indigenous or Poor Populations Within Wealthy Extraction Nations
U.S. Gulf Coast and Louisiana (Cancer Alley): Communities suffered catastrophic health outcomes due to fossil-fuel-driven pollution and extreme weather events exacerbated by climate change.
Canada’s Alberta Tar Sands: Indigenous communities experienced chronic illness, cancer, and ecological ruin due to massive contamination and pollution from tar sands operations, exacerbated by government complicity and aggressive fossil infrastructure expansions.
Australia’s Coal and Gas Extraction: Indigenous communities, such as the Wangan and Jagalingou, faced displacement, water contamination, and ecological destruction, with the Australian government persistently downplaying environmental impacts and prioritizing fossil exports.
Lie #2: Climate Change Isn’t Real (Climate Denial)
("All major environmental crises—wildfires, flooding, hurricanes—are unrelated to human fossil fuel emissions.")
This second lie strategically targets primarily conservative and authoritarian audiences, maintaining fossil fuel market dominance by systematically denying climate science. Fossil fuel companies spent billions funding misinformation, embedding climate denial within political identities—particularly in American conservative circles—stalling urgent climate action.
Catastrophic Climate Crimes Linked Directly to Climate Denial:
U.S. Gulf Coast and Louisiana (Cancer Alley): Communities suffered catastrophic health outcomes due to fossil-fuel-driven pollution and extreme weather events exacerbated by climate change.
California Wildfires: Fossil fuel denial delayed climate adaptation, exacerbating wildfires that devastated entire communities and ecosystems.
Hurricanes and Flooding Globally (Puerto Rico, Bangladesh, Pakistan): Climate denial delayed action and preparation for intensified storms, disproportionately impacting vulnerable populations.
Russian Arctic and Siberian Thaw: Denial facilitated expanded extraction in sensitive Arctic ecosystems, threatening global climate stability.
Saudi Arabia and Gulf States: Petrostate denial obstructed global climate initiatives, fueling global emissions and catastrophic climate impacts globally.
Critique of California v. Big Oil:California’s lawsuit appropriately targets Big Oil’s systematic deceit but fails profoundly by not implicating petrostates themselves. It also perpetuates American exceptionalism by relying exclusively on domestic courts instead of pushing for international accountability through mechanisms like the International Criminal Court (ICC). Given the United States' role as the largest historical extractor and second-largest emitter globally, any genuine accountability must position the U.S. itself prominently among primary culprits of climate crimes.
Lie #3: Nuclear Energy is Dangerous and Not a Viable Alternative
("The claim that no realistic clean energy alternatives have existed since the 1950s.")
This third lie, primarily influencing progressive and environmentally conscious audiences worldwide, strategically demonizes nuclear energy—the most scalable, proven, zero-carbon energy source—by falsely framing it as inherently unsafe and destructive. This misinformation campaign has effectively perpetuated global reliance on fossil fuels by dismissing viable and immediate climate solutions, under the pretense of environmental protection.
Examples of Harm from Anti-Nuclear Disinformation:
Germany’s Energiewende: Germany’s anti-nuclear stance, aggressively promoted as environmentally progressive, unintentionally increased dependency on coal and Russian natural gas, enriching petrostate and fossil fuel corporations, and ironically raising emissions.
Norway’s Greenwashing and Hypocrisy: While marketing itself as a global climate leader, Norway vigorously opposed nuclear power and simultaneously expanded oil and gas extraction, thus sustaining global fossil fuel reliance while publicly promoting renewables-only policies.
British Columbia, Canada: Despite a reputation for stringent environmentalism, British Columbia maintains laws banning nuclear power due to decades of fossil-fuel-driven anti-nuclear misinformation. The province consequently relies heavily on natural gas as backup for intermittent renewables, prolonging fossil fuel use and emissions.
Global Environmental NGOs (e.g., Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth): Many organizations inadvertently reinforced fossil fuel dependence by opposing nuclear, thereby perpetuating reliance on natural gas as a “bridge fuel,” effectively delaying meaningful decarbonization.
Earthrise Accord’s Call for Justice and Action
Earthrise Accord declares unequivocally that these three lies constitute deliberate sabotage of global ecological stability and justice, amounting to crimes against humanity and the planet—ecocide. We support global accountability efforts to prosecute both corporate executives and petrostate leaders responsible for these crimes. Accountability must extend beyond domestic courtrooms; it requires comprehensive prosecution at the International Criminal Court, explicitly targeting the United States and other prominent petrostate offenders.
We further call for immediate recognition and global adoption of proven zero-carbon solutions like nuclear energy. Ending the fossil fuel era decisively and swiftly is not only an environmental necessity—it is a profound moral imperative.
Justice demands confronting these lies head-on, holding accountable all responsible parties, and urgently accelerating a genuine transition to a clean, nuclear-powered global energy future.
Manufactured Doubt, Divided Politics: How Fossil Fuel Lies Shaped Left and Right
Central to the fossil fuel industry's and petrostates’ strategy are two pervasive lies, repeatedly propagated through coordinated PR, lobbying, and deceptive funding practices:
Lie #1: Our emissions and extractions are not really harming the Earth.
Lie #2: There are no viable clean alternatives—society must continue fossil fuel dependency.
Both lies have distorted public perception, delayed essential action, and enabled ongoing environmental destruction, but each lie strategically targeted different political spectrums, intensifying division and confusion.
Lie #1, the falsehood of no harm, primarily targeted conservative movements, particularly in America. Fossil fuel companies systematically funded think tanks, media campaigns, and political candidates who portrayed environmental warnings as exaggerated, alarmist, or part of an elitist conspiracy against economic freedom and personal liberty. By appealing to a deep-seated skepticism toward government intervention and regulation, these efforts entrenched climate denial as a defining feature of mainstream conservative politics in the U.S. Politicians backed by industry funding routinely dismissed mounting scientific evidence as uncertain or flawed, even as catastrophic events—intense hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, and heatwaves—intensified. Thus, climate denial became intertwined with political identity, paralyzing bipartisan climate action and entrenching fossil fuel dominance under a veil of manufactured doubt.
Internationally, this denialism was exported and adopted by authoritarian and petrostate regimes—Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others—which cited American conservative rhetoric as justification to dismiss international climate agreements, resist global pressure to cut emissions, and undermine efforts to establish accountability. Petrostates weaponized denial to maintain political legitimacy and market power, claiming environmental critiques were Western interference, thus extending the life of destructive extraction projects while their citizens suffered.
Conversely, Lie #2, the claim that society must remain dependent on fossil fuels because viable clean alternatives supposedly do not exist, has predominantly impacted left-leaning and progressive movements worldwide. While most progressives clearly recognize environmental harm, many have been persuaded by sophisticated anti-nuclear disinformation campaigns funded indirectly by fossil fuel interests. Through greenwashing and strategic funding of certain environmental groups, the fossil industry effectively demonized nuclear energy—the most scalable, zero-carbon alternative—as unsafe, inherently destructive, or tied to military and corporate interests. The result has been widespread ideological resistance to nuclear power, even in countries otherwise dedicated to climate action.
Germany’s anti-nuclear Energiewende ("energy turnaround") illustrates this phenomenon vividly. Promoted as a progressive climate measure, it inadvertently increased Germany’s dependence on coal and Russian natural gas, directly enriching petrostates and fossil fuel corporations. Similarly, in Canada, fossil lobbying shaped policies that paradoxically restricted nuclear development despite abundant uranium resources and nuclear expertise, locking in continued fossil reliance. Even environmental NGOs have unwittingly reinforced fossil dominance by advocating exclusively for intermittent renewable technologies, thereby indirectly supporting natural gas as a "bridge fuel."
Critically, progressive and ostensibly climate-forward petrostates such as Norway and Canadian provinces like British Columbia have exemplified this paradoxical perpetuation of Lie #2. Norway, globally admired for its electric-vehicle adoption and green initiatives, simultaneously remains one of the world’s largest fossil fuel exporters. Despite its substantial sovereign wealth derived entirely from oil extraction, Norway actively markets itself as a climate leader, advocating renewable-only strategies internationally, while explicitly downplaying or ignoring nuclear power—thus perpetuating reliance on fossil-derived natural gas as backup for renewables. This "greenwashing" is a strategic component of Lie #2: Norway profits handsomely from continued fossil fuel dependence elsewhere, even as it projects environmental virtue domestically and internationally.
Similarly, British Columbia, Canada, portrays itself as a global leader in climate action, primarily due to extensive hydroelectric resources and stringent environmental regulations. Yet, paradoxically, the province maintains legal prohibitions on nuclear power, influenced heavily by decades of fossil-fuel-funded anti-nuclear propaganda. While British Columbia proudly promotes its hydropower, its stubborn anti-nuclear stance indirectly sustains provincial reliance on natural gas for energy stability and export, undermining its stated climate ambitions. This policy effectively perpetuates fossil fuel infrastructure, enriches petrostate actors, and delays full decarbonization.
Lie #2 has thus subtly constrained progressive ambitions for truly rapid decarbonization, perpetuating fossil fuel dependency by promoting unrealistic renewable-only solutions, undermining political unity on climate action, and effectively extending the life of fossil infrastructure under the guise of pragmatic environmentalism.
Together, these two lies have critically distorted global politics around climate change: Lie #1 embedding climate denial firmly into conservative politics, and Lie #2 convincing progressives worldwide—including those in ostensibly green petrostates—that nuclear, the one viable scalable clean-energy alternative, must be rejected. This two-front manipulation by fossil fuel companies and complicit petrostates has profoundly delayed the necessary and urgent global energy transition, further imperiling the planet.
Smoke and Lies: The Criminal Legacy of Fossil Fuel Corporations and Complicit Petrostates
In the metaphor of Spaceship Earth, fossil fuel corporations and complicit petrostate governments have operated like rogue crew members who broke into the engine room and deliberately set it ablaze to enrich themselves, even as their actions endangered everyone onboard. For well over a century, these oil, gas, and coal interests—including major multinationals such as ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, and state-owned fossil enterprises in petrostates like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Norway, and others—have relentlessly pumped billions of tons of toxic smoke (CO₂ and deadly pollutants) into our shared atmosphere. All the while, they were acutely aware of the catastrophic damage their products and practices would inflict upon the planet and human health.
This prolonged, systematic assault amounts to deliberate ecological sabotage—an intentional poisoning of Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, freshwater systems, and entire ecosystems. Far from being mere accidents or unintended consequences, these acts represent a calculated betrayal of global public trust, a betrayal facilitated through massive disinformation campaigns, deceptive lobbying, and political manipulation at all levels of governance. Leading jurists, human rights experts, and international advocates now assert unequivocally that these sustained and conscious acts of environmental destruction must be formally recognized and prosecuted as crimes under international law, specifically as crimes of ecocide.
In March 2024, underscoring the growing global recognition of this reality, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced the unprecedented development of formal policies explicitly targeting environmental crimes. In doing so, the ICC openly acknowledged the widespread "impunity" enjoyed by fossil fuel corporations and their petrostate allies, who continue evading responsibility despite overwhelming evidence of their guilt. International movements—from vulnerable island nations already losing territory to rising seas, to communities devastated by intensified storms, heatwaves, and droughts—are increasingly united around the principle that deliberate climate sabotage fundamentally violates basic human rights and must trigger robust legal accountability.
Consider the scale of this harm. According to the World Health Organization, approximately seven million people worldwide die each year from illnesses directly linked to fossil fuel combustion and the resulting air pollution. These fatalities, dispersed quietly across continents, represent a tragedy of monumental proportions—a slow, invisible holocaust in the atmosphere. By contrast, nuclear power—routinely demonized by fossil-funded misinformation campaigns—accounts for only a minuscule fraction of those fatalities, even when considering notorious incidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima. This comparison is crucial: highlighting this stark disparity reveals not only the extraordinary hypocrisy of fossil fuel interests but also the moral clarity urgently needed in global energy policy discussions.
Executives at companies such as ExxonMobil knew the catastrophic consequences of their products decades ago—internal scientific research from as early as 1977 accurately predicted the climate disruption we see today. Yet these corporations deliberately chose deception, investing millions in disinformation campaigns that systematically confused the public, delayed regulatory action, and sabotaged international efforts to address the climate crisis. Their actions echo the infamous campaigns by the tobacco industry, prioritizing short-term profits over the health and survival of billions.
While millions suffered from climate-fueled disasters, fossil fuel corporations and petrostates profited immensely. In just the first three quarters of 2022, Shell alone reaped profits exceeding $30 billion, even while attempting to evade accountability for catastrophic environmental destruction in regions such as Nigeria’s Niger Delta. Similar scenarios of exploitation, deceit, and denial unfolded worldwide, from the rainforests of Ecuador devastated by Chevron, to Alberta’s tar sands poisoning Indigenous communities, to Norway’s paradoxical promotion of environmental virtue despite its vast fossil fuel exports.
This global pattern—profit extracted through ecological devastation, political manipulation, and systematic denial of harm—constitutes nothing less than a moral and legal crime against humanity and the biosphere itself. Earthrise Accord categorically declares that this reckless endangerment and deliberate sabotage constitute ecocide. The era of impunity must end; international law must swiftly evolve to label these acts appropriately, enabling prosecution of corporate and governmental perpetrators.
To fully understand how these actors maintained their deadly status quo, it is essential to thoroughly examine the two pervasive lies they propagated—lies strategically deployed to divide public opinion, distort political discourse, and delay necessary global action.
Extraction Crimes of the Past
Crimes Against Populations in the Global South
Nigeria’s Niger DeltaFor more than six decades, the Niger Delta region has been one of the starkest examples of extraction crimes against populations in the Global South. Fossil fuel giants such as Shell, Eni, and Chevron have systematically devastated local ecosystems through repeated oil spills and toxic gas flaring. Since the 1950s, over 13 million barrels of oil have spilled into rivers, wetlands, and farmlands, effectively destroying the livelihoods and health of millions. Despite overwhelming evidence of corporate negligence and systemic abuse, these companies—with explicit complicity from corrupt Nigerian petrostate officials benefiting financially—have consistently denied accountability, blaming local communities for acts of sabotage. Independent investigations repeatedly contradict these corporate narratives, confirming massive environmental and human rights abuses. Entire communities have suffered from chronic health crises, catastrophic economic collapse, and escalating mortality rates, particularly among infants and children.
Indonesia and EcuadorIn Indonesia’s Aceh province, ExxonMobil compounded environmental destruction with severe human rights violations, hiring Indonesian military units notorious for torture, sexual violence, and extrajudicial killings against local villagers protesting pollution and extraction. Similarly, Ecuador’s Amazon rainforest witnessed Texaco (now Chevron) deliberately dumping billions of gallons of toxic wastewater directly into waterways between 1964 and 1990. The resulting contamination—dubbed a “Rainforest Chernobyl”—left indigenous communities facing epidemics of cancer, birth defects, and miscarriages. Despite Ecuadorian courts ordering Chevron to pay billions in reparations, the corporation withdrew assets and waged aggressive legal battles, evading responsibility entirely.
Crimes Within Borders Against Indigenous Peoples
Canada and AustraliaExtraction crimes within national borders targeting indigenous populations have occurred extensively in wealthy, developed democracies such as Canada and Australia. In Canada’s Alberta province, extraction from tar sands has left vast toxic tailings lakes visible from space, poisoning surrounding waters and lands traditionally inhabited by Indigenous communities. Cancer rates and rare illnesses have surged downstream in Fort Chipewyan and other affected communities, clearly linked to tar sands contaminants. Despite environmental rhetoric, the Canadian government aggressively pursued fossil-fuel infrastructure expansions, like the Trans Mountain pipeline, dismissing indigenous protests and legal challenges.
Australia, similarly, has undermined Indigenous communities through fossil-fuel extraction, notably coal mining and gas fracking. Indigenous peoples like the Wangan and Jagalingou have been forced into prolonged legal battles to protect ancestral lands and water sources from projects like the Carmichael coal mine operated by Adani. The Australian government, while projecting a progressive global environmental image, routinely minimizes the environmental damage from coal extraction and export, perpetuating the fossil economy at the direct expense of Indigenous rights and environmental health.
Lie #1: "No Harm Done" and the Crime of Climate Denial
The fossil fuel industry and petrostate governments systematically propagated Lie #1—denying that emissions and extractions significantly harm the Earth—to shield themselves from accountability and continue profitable extraction and pollution. This strategy has not only devastated specific regions through direct contamination but has also fostered the gravest global crime: the deliberate and knowing acceleration of climate catastrophe.
The Crime of Filling Our Spaceship with SmokeIn the metaphor of Spaceship Earth, fossil fuel entities acted like rogue crew members who deliberately set the engine room ablaze, choking everyone aboard. Oil, gas, and coal industries, fully aware of their impact on global climate systems, knowingly emitted billions of tons of CO₂ and deadly pollutants into our closed atmospheric system. Despite internal evidence—as early as 1977 ExxonMobil scientists accurately predicted severe climate disruption—these corporations spent decades funding misinformation campaigns that confused the public and delayed meaningful climate action.
This deliberate misinformation and deceit culminated in a global ecological disaster. The WHO estimates that seven million people die annually from air pollution directly linked to fossil fuel combustion. These emissions have fueled intensifying climate disasters—heatwaves, wildfires, hurricanes, flooding, and drought—disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations least responsible for the climate crisis.
Critiquing California vs. Big OilRecent efforts like the landmark California v. Big Oil lawsuit illustrate a growing recognition of fossil industry culpability. The case correctly challenges major American fossil corporations for systematic deceit regarding climate harms, but it notably stops short of targeting petrostate actors themselves—significantly weakening its impact. This limited scope is a profound flaw, reflecting a distinctly American bias: using domestic courts instead of advocating for comprehensive international accountability at the ICC. Such an approach is critically limited, as it excludes major state-driven actors like Saudi Arabia, Russia, Norway, Venezuela, and critically, the United States itself.
Indeed, the U.S., as the world’s largest historical extractor and the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, must be understood as the preeminent perpetrator of climate crime. California’s lawsuit, though groundbreaking, risks perpetuating American exceptionalism by isolating blame to corporate entities alone and neglecting the broader governmental and petrostate accountability urgently needed.
Most Egregious Climate Change Crimes Linked to Lie #1Several events exemplify how Lie #1 enabled the most egregious climate crimes globally:
U.S. Gulf Coast: Decades of oil extraction, refining, and chemical emissions caused catastrophic health outcomes, flooding, and pollution in communities like Cancer Alley in Louisiana, predominantly affecting Black and lower-income residents.
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States: Aggressive expansion of fossil infrastructure, funded by immense oil wealth, directly enabled decades of escalating global emissions. The massive emissions from these states remain largely unchallenged legally and politically, despite their critical role in global warming.
Russia’s Arctic Extraction: Aggressive Arctic drilling by Russia, enabled by climate denialism and petrostate power, has devastated fragile Arctic ecosystems, threatening global climate tipping points.
Norway’s Climate Hypocrisy: Norway aggressively markets itself internationally as an environmental leader while simultaneously expanding Arctic drilling and oil exports, profiting immensely from fossil fuels and actively perpetuating climate harm.
Venezuela’s Orinoco Belt Extraction: Heavy crude extraction from Venezuela’s vast Orinoco reserves caused severe local pollution and contributed significantly to global carbon emissions, bolstered by petrostate-driven misinformation minimizing climate impacts.
These climate crimes were enabled and sustained by the systematic denial embedded in Lie #1, directly facilitating catastrophic ecological damage globally.
Earthrise Accord’s Position and AdvocacyEarthrise Accord firmly asserts that such climate sabotage constitutes an international crime—ecocide—demanding prosecution beyond domestic courts. We advocate for comprehensive international legal frameworks at institutions like the ICC, targeting both corporate and petrostate actors who systematically perpetuated Lie #1 to delay global action. Frontline communities worldwide, from the Niger Delta to Indigenous territories in Canada and Australia, must receive support and justice, explicitly naming petrostate complicity and corporate deceit in fueling climate catastrophe.
It is imperative now to clearly reject these fossil-driven lies and urgently accelerate the global transition toward truly zero-carbon alternatives such as nuclear power. Rejecting these harmful narratives is a moral and ecological necessity, essential to repairing our damaged planetary ecosystem and safeguarding humanity’s future aboard Spaceship Earth.
Lie #2: “No Alternatives” – Suppressing Clean Solutions
The second lie that has paralyzed progress is the claim that “there are no viable clean alternatives to fossil fuels”, or its variant: “we can’t meet our energy needs without oil, gas, and coal.” This assertion is as false as Lie #1, and arguably even more insidious, because it shackles our collective imagination. It is a lie told by those who fear losing their grip on the world’s energy systems – a lie that has been reinforced by actively undermining the very alternatives it dismisses.
The Truth: We Have the Technology to Replace Fossil Fuels
First, let’s state clearly: viable alternatives to fossil fuels exist here and now. Renewable sources like solar and wind have seen explosive growth and plummeting costs in the past two decades. In many regions, new wind or solar power is cheaper per kilowatt-hour than new coal or gas plants. Energy efficiency can dramatically cut demand. But most crucially – and ILT emphasizes this – nuclear power is a proven, scalable, and clean alternative that can provide the steady, large-scale energy modern societies need. France is a shining example: by investing heavily in nuclear energy starting in the 1970s, France now gets about 70% of its electricity from nuclear reactors, enabling the country to source over 90% of its electricity from zero-carbon energy (nuclear plus hydro) (Why I changed my mind about nuclear power: Transcript of Michael Shellenberger's TEDx Berlin 2017 — Environmental Progress). As a result, French per-capita CO₂ emissions from electricity are a fraction of those in comparable nations, and France enjoys some of Europe’s cheapest electricity. In contrast, countries that bought into the fossil lie and even shut down existing nuclear plants – like Germany – ended up with higher emissions and higher costs. Germany, despite massive expansion of wind and solar, found its power sector emissions stagnating when it closed nuclear plants and had to burn more coal and gas; by 2022, German electricity was twice as carbon-intensive as France’s and about double the price for consumers (Why I changed my mind about nuclear power: Transcript of Michael Shellenberger's TEDx Berlin 2017 — Environmental Progress) (Why I changed my mind about nuclear power: Transcript of Michael Shellenberger's TEDx Berlin 2017 — Environmental Progress). The lesson is clear: clean alternatives can work, if we choose to deploy them.
Second, the notion that alternatives are too small or too “future” is belied by history. Hydroelectric dams have powered countries for a century (Norway gets ~88% of its power from hydro (OPINION: Canada Must Model Norway's Balanced Energy Sector - Canadian Energy News, Top Headlines, Commentaries, Features & Events - EnergyNow)). Geothermal energy lights up Iceland. Solar panels and wind turbines are now mainstream – in 2022, renewables (excluding big hydro) generated over 30% of the EU’s electricity, surpassing fossil fuels for the first time. And yet, it’s true that renewables like wind and solar alone face challenges: they are intermittent and diffuse. This is where the lie of “no alternatives” intersects with the suppression of one particular alternative: nuclear fission. The fossil fuel establishment has long viewed nuclear power as a mortal threat to its business. Why? Because nuclear energy offers a carbon-free, pollution-free source of reliable baseload power that can directly displace coal, oil, and gas at large scale. If the world had embraced nuclear in the 1970s as strongly as France did, we could have dramatically cut greenhouse emissions and air pollution by now. Instead, influenced by fossil-fueled propaganda (as we detail shortly), many countries stalled or abandoned their nuclear programs. The result is that coal and gas plants kept running to “keep the lights on,” entrenching fossil dependence.
Let us consider nuclear energy’s safety and waste record, since those are often cited as concerns – frequently by those with a vested interest in fossil fuels. According to comprehensive studies (including one by the Lancet medical journal), nuclear is the safest way to produce reliable electricity when measured by deaths per unit of energy produced (Health and Safety — Environmental Progress). In fact, over 95% of energy-related deaths worldwide are caused by air pollution from burning fossil fuels, whereas nuclear energy’s share of that toll is minuscule (Health and Safety — Environmental Progress). Even when we include rare accidents, the death rate from nuclear power (per terawatt-hour) is orders of magnitude lower than that from coal or oil (Health and Safety — Environmental Progress) (Health and Safety — Environmental Progress). The worst nuclear accident, Chernobyl (1986), caused at most a few thousand eventual cancer deaths (WHO estimates up to 9,000) (Health and Safety — Environmental Progress); by contrast, fossil air pollution kills on the order of 7 million people every year (Health and Safety — Environmental Progress). The 2011 Fukushima accident, despite the fear it generated, caused no observed increase in radiation-related health effects among the public (Health and Safety — Environmental Progress) – the evacuated communities suffered more from fear and displacement than from the radiation itself. This is not to gloss over any accident, but to put risk in perspective: a coal plant operating normally kills far more people via pollution each year than a nuclear plant does even in its worst year.
What about nuclear waste? The toxic waste lie has been a cornerstone of anti-nuclear messaging. The truth is that nuclear waste is actually the easiest energy waste to manage because it is small in volume and contained. All the used fuel ever produced by U.S. nuclear power plants over decades would fit on a single football field to a depth of less than 10 meters (Health and Safety — Environmental Progress). Spent nuclear fuel is solid, stored securely in casks; it does not spill into the atmosphere or water unless gravely mishandled, which has not happened in commercial use. As Environmental Progress succinctly notes: “Nuclear waste is the best kind of waste from any form of electricity production. First, there is very little of it, and it is easy to manage.” (Health and Safety — Environmental Progress) Indeed, all of France’s high-level nuclear waste from 50+ years of operation fits in one hall at La Hague reprocessing facility. Contrast that with fossil fuels: the “waste” CO₂ from a single gas plant can fill billions of cubic meters of the atmosphere, changing the climate; the ash from coal plants forms toxic lagoons; the uncontained waste of fossil fuels is altering the chemistry of the entire planet. That is the deadly waste problem we should be talking about.
Fossil Interests Versus Nuclear – A Sabotage Campaign
If nuclear energy is so promising, why has its growth stalled in some countries? Part of the answer is political sabotage by fossil fuel interests, who recognized early on that widespread adoption of nuclear power would severely undercut demand for coal, oil, and gas. The manifesto would be incomplete without unmasking this facet of Lie #2: not only did fossil companies claim “no alternatives,” but they actively worked to ensure alternatives (especially nuclear) were stymied. Declassified documents and investigative reporting have revealed that since the 1960s, oil executives quietly funded anti-nuclear campaigns.
One infamous example: Robert O. Anderson, the CEO of Atlantic Richfield (ARCO) – an oil baron – provided the seed money in 1969–1970 to launch Friends of the Earth (FOE), an environmental group that from its inception took a fiercely anti-nuclear stance (The Fossil fuel industry's war on nuclear energy - Foreningen Atomkraft Ja Tak). Anderson donated around $200,000 (equivalent to half a million today) to David Brower to found FOE (The Fossil fuel industry's war on nuclear energy - Foreningen Atomkraft Ja Tak). This is not a conspiracy theory; it’s recorded history: “Aspen Institute’s Chairman, Robert O. Anderson, also Chairman of Atlantic Richfield, helped finance the 1970 Earth Day and provided seed money for the creation of Friends of the Earth” (Smoking gun: Robert Anderson provided initial funds to form Friends of the Earth - Atomic Insights). Why would an oil executive bankroll an environmental NGO? Because FOE and similar groups campaigned hard against nuclear power, advocating that oil and gas were preferable. It was a cynical ploy to co-opt the burgeoning green movement to serve fossil fuel’s agenda.
Over the ensuing decades, many prominent environmental organizations received covert or overt funding from fossil fuel and related interests tied to renewables that couldn’t replace fossil baseload. A summary by researchers at Environmental Progress found, for instance, that the Sierra Club took $136 million from natural gas and renewable energy investors – industries that benefited from shuttering nuclear plants (The War on Nuclear — Environmental Progress) (The War on Nuclear — Environmental Progress). The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) had at least $70 million invested in oil and gas interests while it campaigned against nuclear (The War on Nuclear — Environmental Progress). Groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth refuse to disclose their donors, but relentlessly work to “kill nuclear power around the world” (The War on Nuclear — Environmental Progress) (The War on Nuclear — Environmental Progress). This doesn’t absolve these NGOs of responsibility – but it shows how fossil fuel money quietly infiltrated environmental advocacy, nudging it away from true clean alternatives. The result was policies that ironically increased reliance on fossil fuels. For example, Greenpeace spearheaded efforts to shut down nuclear plants in countries like South Korea and Germany, often suggesting wind and solar could do it all. What filled the gap when nuclear plants closed? More coal and gas. Greenpeace’s own 2011 internal “Battle of the Grids” plan envisioned gas power plants as a “flexible backup” for renewables after nuclear was eliminated (The Fossil fuel industry's war on nuclear energy - Foreningen Atomkraft Ja Tak) – effectively conceding that their anti-nuclear stance favored the fossil gas industry’s expansion. Oil giants like Shell and Statoil (now Equinor) happily launched PR campaigns calling their product, natural gas, the “perfect partner” to intermittent wind and solar (The Fossil fuel industry's war on nuclear energy - Foreningen Atomkraft Ja Tak) (The Fossil fuel industry's war on nuclear energy - Foreningen Atomkraft Ja Tak). They knew that without nuclear, renewables alone would keep the world hooked on gas. In sum, the fossil industry’s claim that there were “no alternatives” was a self-fulfilling lie – they helped undermine the very alternative (nuclear) that proved most threatening to their dominance.
Consequences of the Lies – Burden on the Most Vulnerable
Lies beget suffering. The twin lies of harmlessness and necessity have caused disproportionate harm to the poorest and most vulnerable communities on the planet. It is the people of the Niger Delta, the Indigenous tribes of the Amazon, the villagers in rural Indonesia, the First Nations in Canada’s north, and the low-lying islanders who had no role in industrialization that are paying the highest price for these deceptions.
When fossil fuel executives insisted their activities were benign and indispensable, policymakers delayed transitioning away from them, and often laxly regulated their local operations. This delay and negligence translated into more toxic spills in Nigeria and Ecuador, more flaring in Angola and Indonesia, more climate-driven disasters everywhere. Climate change, accelerated by decades of inaction, is itself an engine of global inequality: the countries least responsible (many in the Global South) are hit hardest by droughts, storms, and rising seas. Drought, worsened by warming, exacerbates hunger in sub-Saharan Africa; intensifying cyclones devastate communities from Mozambique to the Philippines. Small island nations from the Maldives to Kiribati face existential threats from sea-level rise. In a very real sense, the lies of fossil fuel companies have become lethal to entire nations. Every year of delay in climate action – won by fossil-fuel lobbying – is measured in thousands of lives lost to heatwaves, floods, and famine that could have been prevented.
Within countries, the burdens fall unevenly as well. Poor and marginalized communities are often situated closer to refineries, pipelines, and power plants, and thus inhale more pollution. In the United States, for instance, low-income neighborhoods and communities of color have long been environmental sacrifice zones (think of “Cancer Alley” in Louisiana). Globally, it is the workers and villagers near extraction sites – often indigenous or minority groups – who suffer oil spills and mine blasts. We have highlighted Nigeria: there, the predominantly minority Niger Delta communities suffer asthma, cancer, and poverty under oil development, while the benefits flowed to distant elites. The Ogoni people’s nonviolent struggle against Shell’s devastation in the 1990s was met with brutal repression by Nigeria’s then-military regime, resulting in the execution of poet-activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and others – a human rights atrocity intertwined with oil (Shell was later sued for complicity and settled out of court). In Canada, First Nations downstream of the tar sands have faced mysterious upticks in rare bile duct cancers, and many feel their concerns were ignored because they lacked political clout compared to oil companies. Australia’s Aboriginal peoples in the Northern Territory have in some cases been approached as an afterthought or with token consultation when massive gas fracking projects are planned on their lands – projects that threaten sacred water sources and songlines. These communities have contributed least to greenhouse gas emissions or the demand for fossil energy, yet they are being asked to sacrifice their health, culture, and heritage.
What makes this especially tragic is that many of these same frontline communities could be major beneficiaries of clean energy alternatives if given the chance. For instance, rural villages in energy-poor African or Asian nations could leapfrog straight to solar micro-grids or advanced nuclear microreactors for reliable power, bypassing the polluting phase. The fossil lie that “nothing else will work” has too often been used to justify continued flaring of gas in Nigeria instead of electrifying local communities, or to push coal plants in India instead of financing cleaner options. Lie #2 has stifled investment in life-saving energy innovation in the developing world, effectively trapping vulnerable populations between energy poverty and pollution.
In summary, ILT recognizes that the victims of the fossil fuel lies are primarily the world’s poor, the indigenous, and future generations who will inherit a destabilized planet. Our mission is rooted in justice for these groups. We echo the calls of climate justice movements: those who have profited from planetary destruction owe a debt to its victims. And part of that debt must be paid as Reparations for Energy and Climate – a theme we will develop in our proposal for “Energy Reparations” through clean technology deployment in harmed regions.
Naming the Guilty: Corporate and State Offenders
This manifesto does not shy away from naming names. The scale of the crisis demands accountability. While climate change and ecological destruction have systemic causes, they were accelerated and perpetuated by identifiable actors – corporations and governments that chose short-term profits over the common good. ILT will work to ensure these actors are publicly identified and, where possible, brought to justice.
Among corporations, the roster of offenders includes the oil “supermajors” and coal giants that led the charge in extraction, denial, and delay. Royal Dutch Shell (now Shell Plc) stands condemned for its long record in the Niger Delta, its central role in early climate denial, and its continued high-carbon business model even as it markets itself as “green.” ExxonMobil (and predecessor Exxon) not only contributed enormously to emissions but also orchestrated a sophisticated denial campaign in the 1990s and 2000s, despite knowing the truth (Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago | Scientific American) (Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago | Scientific American). BP (British Petroleum) cultivated a veneer of environmentalism with a “Beyond Petroleum” rebranding even as it expanded fossil production; its negligence caused the Deepwater Horizon blowout in 2010, killing 11 workers and spilling 5 million barrels into the Gulf of Mexico – a visceral example of harm. Chevron acquired Texaco’s toxic legacy in Ecuador and then chose to litigate victims into the ground rather than clean up, spending hundreds of millions on legal fees to avoid paying for remediation (Chevron-Texaco and the environmental disaster in the Amazon). TotalEnergies of France and Eni of Italy have likewise plundered resources in Africa and beyond – Eni, as noted, averaging four oil spills a week in Nigeria in recent years (Oil: Arctic explorer Eni averages four spills a week in the Niger Delta). Coal behemoths like Peabody Energy and Adani Group have stripped mountains and deforested lands for coal mines while funding climate skepticism (Peabody even paid lobbyists to push the absurd narrative that CO₂ is “beneficial” to the planet). These companies and others (Rio Tinto, Gazprom, Saudi Aramco, etc.) form a pantheon of polluters that ILT will monitor and expose in our reports and campaigns.
We also call out states and their leaders. Nations that portray themselves as climate champions but continue to expand fossil fuel extraction are committing a form of climate hypocrisy that must be challenged. The Kingdom of the Netherlands, for instance, hosts the International Criminal Court in The Hague and prides itself on supporting international law, yet for decades it profited from the Groningen gas field – Europe’s largest – even as gas drilling there caused over a thousand earthquakes, damaging 85,000 buildings and forcing the demolition of 3,000 homes in the region (Earthquake hits northern Groningen, shaking homes - DutchNews.nl) (Groningen gas field: A dangerous place to live - Euronews.com). Only recently, under public pressure, did the Dutch government move to shut Groningen and acknowledge the trauma caused to its own citizens. Moreover, the Netherlands is home to Shell and historically to other trading companies that gained from colonial extraction; Dutch pension funds and banks still invest heavily in fossil projects globally. We label the Netherlands a “hypocritical petro-state” – green in rhetoric, complicit in practice.
Norway provides an even starker paradox. Often held up as a model of sustainability for its electric vehicles and hydroelectric power, Norway is simultaneously a major exporter of oil and gas. In 2023, fossil fuel exports made up 63% of Norway’s total export value, and Norway ranks as the world’s 4th largest natural gas exporter (OPINION: Canada Must Model Norway's Balanced Energy Sector - Canadian Energy News, Top Headlines, Commentaries, Features & Events - EnergyNow). The country’s sovereign wealth fund, while now screening out some coal investments, was built on decades of oil profits. Norwegian leaders speak passionately about climate change in international fora, even as Equinor (formerly Statoil) pushes into new offshore fields and Arctic exploration. To its credit, Norway has begun funding forest conservation abroad (perhaps to offset its own emissions) and is exploring carbon capture and storage. But one glaring inconsistency is Norway’s stance on nuclear power – it has none. In fact, Norway long banned civilian nuclear energy and only in 2024 commissioned a study to reconsider nuclear options (Norway: a commission to evaluate the nuclear option - energynews). At home and abroad (such as in politically influencing allied nations), Norway’s elites often tout renewables-to-gas solutions that favor its gas exports, effectively undermining nuclear development elsewhere. For instance, British Columbia in Canada – a province with close cultural and economic ties to the Nordics – banned nuclear power development in 2010 and remains opposed (OPINION: Canada Must Model Norway's Balanced Energy Sector - Canadian Energy News, Top Headlines, Commentaries, Features & Events - EnergyNow) (OPINION: Canada Must Model Norway's Balanced Energy Sector - Canadian Energy News, Top Headlines, Commentaries, Features & Events - EnergyNow), aligning with an anti-nuclear stance even as it imports power and struggles with rising demand. Norway’s combination of climate advocacy, ICC support (yes, Norway is a strong supporter of the ICC’s mission), and fossil expansion is a troubling contradiction. One cannot sincerely champion human rights and international justice while financing and profiting from activities that may ultimately put millions of lives at risk through climate catastrophe.
Canada, too, must be held to account. Canada often wears the mantle of a progressive climate actor – it signed the Paris Agreement enthusiastically, has a carbon tax, and positions itself as a defender of a rules-based international order (including the ICC). Yet Canada is among the world’s top fossil fuel producers. The Alberta tar sands are a carbon bomb; pipelines like Trans Mountain and Keystone XL (the latter fortunately canceled) were pushed to export heavy oil. Canadian officials frequently assert that the country needs to develop its oil and gas to fund the transition or that its hydrocarbons are produced more “ethically” – but this rings hollow to Indigenous communities whose lands are traversed by leaking pipelines without consent, or to the global community watching Canada’s emissions per capita remain among the highest. A stark illustration: while introducing a national carbon price, the Canadian government bought an oil pipeline (Trans Mountain) for C$4.5 billion to ensure it gets built, essentially subsidizing long-term carbon infrastructure even as it talks of peaking emissions. And in the realm of alternatives, Canada’s largest province (Ontario) successfully decarbonized a lot of its grid with nuclear and hydro, but other provinces like British Columbia and Quebec legally forbid nuclear power, bowing perhaps to decades of activism influenced by fossil and hydro interests (OPINION: Canada Must Model Norway's Balanced Energy Sector - Canadian Energy News, Top Headlines, Commentaries, Features & Events - EnergyNow). Meanwhile, coal exports through Canadian ports and expanding fracking for LNG in BC continue apace. Canada cannot have it both ways – applauding the ICC for prosecuting war crimes in Africa, for example, while ignoring the slow violence its own corporations (like Suncor, Enbridge, and Imperial Oil) inflict on ecosystems and indigenous rights.
Finally, Australia: a signatory to the ICC and the Paris Agreement, and vocal about a “rules-based order,” Australia nonetheless has been one of the world’s largest coal and LNG exporters. Past Australian governments even lobbied to keep coal off the agenda in international climate talks. Only very recently has Australia committed to net-zero by 2050, but it still plans to export coal and gas for decades, betting on vague future technologies to offset emissions. Australia, like Canada, also prohibits nuclear power by law, leaving it heavily reliant on fossil fuels for domestic energy when its coal plants age out. This policy landscape conveniently protects its coal industry from a domestic nuclear competitor and ensures continued use of Australian coal and gas at home and abroad. All the while, Australian officials decry the loss of coral in the Great Barrier Reef due to warming seas, a loss driven in part by the very fuels Australia sells. And tragically, Australia’s First Nations suffer too: for example, Aboriginal communities near the McArthur River mine have seen their sacred waters polluted by heavy metals from zinc mining (another fossil-powered venture); in the Hunter Valley, coal mining has damaged ancestral lands.
These state and corporate hypocrisies matter because they highlight a moral and legal inconsistency: many of these actors support the International Criminal Court and other mechanisms to punish gross injustice, yet they fail to recognize that their own actions or complicity in environmental destruction may warrant similar scrutiny. It is a core principle of justice that no one should be above the law. If we accept that knowingly causing widespread death or suffering is criminal, then knowingly destabilizing the climate and poisoning populations ought to be criminal too. ILT will thus push for applying existing international law (like human rights and potentially the rubric of crimes against humanity for the worst cases of environmental harm) to these scenarios, while also advocating for new legal definitions such as an international crime of “Ecocide.” Encouragingly, momentum is building: the French President Emmanuel Macron in 2020 became the first G7 leader to endorse making ecocide a crime under international law, explicitly so that leaders and corporate chiefs can be held “accountable before the International Criminal Court” for environmental destruction (President Macron “shares ambition” to establish international crime of ecocide — Stop Ecocide International ). In 2021, France enshrined an “ecocide” offense in its domestic law (albeit with penalties many felt were too mild) and pledged to champion an ICC ecocide amendment (President Macron “shares ambition” to establish international crime of ecocide — Stop Ecocide International ) (President Macron “shares ambition” to establish international crime of ecocide — Stop Ecocide International ). In September 2024, the island nation of Vanuatu took the historic step of formally proposing an amendment to the Rome Statute of the ICC to include Ecocide (About us – End Ecocide on Earth). This signifies that at least some sovereign states are ready to elevate environmental crimes to the same level as genocide and war crimes. ILT will support these efforts fully. We name the guilty not to punish for punishment’s sake, but to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done, and to deter future “would-be” offenders. The era of consequence-free ecocide must end.
France – The Home of ILT and a Beacon of Hope
Why France as the base for Initiatives Lever de Terre? Because France, despite having its own complexities, stands out today as a nation aligning more closely with ILT’s values: pro-nuclear, ICC-aligned, and relatively untainted by major fossil fuel crimes. We choose France to embody the Earthrise ethos for several reasons:
Leadership in Nuclear Energy: France dared to break the “no alternatives” lie decades ago. In response to the 1970s oil shocks, France launched Plan Messmer, building a fleet of nuclear reactors at remarkable speed. Consequently, roughly 70% of France’s electricity comes from nuclear fission, and about 93% of it from low-carbon sources overall (Why I changed my mind about nuclear power: Transcript of Michael Shellenberger's TEDx Berlin 2017 — Environmental Progress). This has given France one of the smallest carbon footprints per unit of electricity in the industrialized world. It proves that an advanced society can be powered with minimal fossil fuels. France’s nuclear program also cultivated world-class expertise in reactor engineering, safety, and waste management. By largely decarbonizing its power, France has avoided untold air pollution deaths and billions of tons of CO₂ emissions. French nuclear plants produce waste, yes – but all the high-level waste ever produced fits in a single building, and France recycles nuclear fuel to reduce waste volume. French innovations (like EPR reactors and potentially new small modular reactors) are paving the way for the next generation of safe reactors. ILT sees France’s experience as critical for powering developing regions with clean baseload power – we envision French reactors or successor designs lighting up parts of Africa or Southeast Asia that currently rely on diesel generators. France can export not just technology, but a philosophy: that embracing science and engineering is key to solving the climate crisis. Moreover, France has not suffered a serious nuclear accident in the 50+ years of plant operation, highlighting the robust safety culture (in stark contrast to the negligence we see in fossil operations globally). In short, France demonstrates that the alternative exists – and it works.
Alignment with International Justice: France was a founding member of the ICC and remains a staunch supporter of international law. It has incorporated ICC statutes into domestic law and has even prosecuted foreign war criminals in its courts using the principle of universal jurisdiction. Crucially, as noted above, France under President Macron has emerged as a champion for adding environmental crimes to the international justice framework (President Macron “shares ambition” to establish international crime of ecocide — Stop Ecocide International ) (President Macron “shares ambition” to establish international crime of ecocide — Stop Ecocide International ). Macron explicitly said in 2020, “I share the ambition […] to ensure that [ecocide] is enshrined in international law so that leaders … are accountable before the International Criminal Court.” (President Macron “shares ambition” to establish international crime of ecocide — Stop Ecocide International ) This high-level endorsement makes France an ideal incubator for ILT’s legal mission. We anticipate collaborating with French jurists, institutions like La Cour de Cassation or human rights NGOs, and international law scholars to develop cases and advocacy at The Hague. France’s commitment to multilateral solutions and its diplomatic weight in the EU and UN can help ILT’s proposals gain traction. We also note that French civil society has been active on climate litigation – e.g., the landmark Affaire du Siècle in which French NGOs (including Notre Affaire à Tous and Greenpeace France) successfully sued the French state for insufficient climate action, with a court recognizing the state’s duty to act. This shows a legal openness in France to connecting environmental protection with duty of care and human rights, a perspective ILT will build upon.
Relatively Untainted by Fossil Megacrimes: Unlike, say, the United States or Russia, France’s economy is not built on fossil fuel extraction. France has no equivalent of Exxon or Gazprom; it has one major oil company, TotalEnergies, which is indeed a global player but whose footprint and infamy are somewhat less than the Exxon/Shell/BP cohort (Total has had controversies – e.g., in Myanmar and Africa – but France’s domestic trajectory is less marred by petro-state dynamics). France also never had a significant coal mining industry compared to Germany or the UK, and what it had is long closed. This matters because ILT’s moral voice should ideally come from a place less compromised by the very behaviors we criticize. It is easier to demand climate justice when one’s own house is relatively clean. That said, ILT will not ignore France’s own responsibilities: TotalEnergies is currently involved in oil projects in Uganda (Tilenga pipeline) that risk displacing communities and impacting Lake Victoria – ILT would push France to rein in such projects consistent with its ICC stance. However, the French Republic has largely decoupled its prosperity from fossil fuels, and that gives it credibility. Additionally, France has a strong environmental ethos in its populace – a legacy of figures like Jacques Cousteau and movements that gave rise to the Green party. This public consciousness ensures support for bold initiatives like ILT.
French Nuclear-Proliferation of Knowledge (Not Weapons): It’s worth noting that Bill Anders himself, after Apollo 8, served as US ambassador to Norway (1976–77) and as the first Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1975–76) (William Anders - Wikipedia) (William Anders - Wikipedia). He also led General Electric’s Nuclear Products Division in the 1980s (William Anders - Wikipedia). Anders’ later contributions to nuclear development resonate with France’s path. There is a symbolic symmetry in anchoring ILT in France, where Anders’ pro-nuclear legacy and Earthrise legacy meet. France, like Anders, straddles the line between respecting the Earth (through climate efforts) and embracing advanced technology (through nuclear power) to secure the Earth’s future. As we seek to honor Anders’ legacy – from photographing Earthrise to promoting nuclear energy – France provides fertile ground.
In establishing our base in France, ILT will collaborate with French partners such as Environmental Progress France (the local chapter of Michael Shellenberger’s pro-nuclear NGO, which has provided data debunking nuclear myths), Stop Ecocide France (which has been advocating for ecocide recognition), and perhaps French legal NGOs like Sherpa (known for using law against corporate abuses abroad) or Fondation Nicolas Hulot if they align with our aims. We will also learn from France’s Citizen’s Climate Convention model – recall that a French Citizens’ Assembly in 2020 voted 99.3% in favor of making ecocide a crime (President Macron “shares ambition” to establish international crime of ecocide — Stop Ecocide International ), leading Macron to promise action (President Macron “shares ambition” to establish international crime of ecocide — Stop Ecocide International ). We intend to help fulfill that citizen mandate by pushing ecocide at the ICC.
France gives ILT a home with integrity. From here, we can shine a spotlight on the crimes of fossil fuels without fear or favor, and champion the solutions (like nuclear) without undue obstruction. As the world’s eyes were once riveted by the Earthrise photo – published in LIFE magazine and inspiring millions – we hope the world will now look to France and ILT for an Earthrise of action: a turning of humanity’s collective face toward the light of justice and sustainability.
Uniting Philosophy, Law, and Technology for Earth
ILT’s approach is holistic, bridging the philosophical (our view of Earth and humanity’s role), the legal (accountability and rights), and the technological (practical solutions like energy systems). We recognize that solving the planetary crisis is not just an engineering project, nor just a legal battle, nor just a moral awakening – it is all of these at once. In this section, we outline how ILT will integrate these dimensions in its work, functioning as a sort of “Crew Handbook” for Spaceship Earth’s rescue mission.
Philosophical Foundation: Earth as Commons, Humanity as Crew
At its core, ILT is guided by the philosophy encapsulated in Earthrise: that our planet is a shared oasis in space, borderless in reality, and infinitely precious. We promote the concept of the Earth as a Commons, meaning the planet’s life-support systems belong to everyone – no corporation or nation has the right to destroy the atmosphere, the oceans, or the climate system for private gain. This idea harkens back to ancestral indigenous teachings (like the “Seventh Generation” principle of the Haudenosaunee, considering the impact on those yet unborn) and also forward to modern frameworks like the proposed Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth. But ILT adds the Spaceship Earth twist: if Earth is a spacecraft, we are all crew, each with responsibility, and the fossil fuel barons setting fires are mutineers against the human family.
This worldview leads to several guiding values:
Interdependence: Every being on Earth is connected; pollution in one place harms people in another. Thus, Nigerian farmers, Amazonian tribes, Arctic villagers, and European urbanites are all crew mates – solidarity is rational, not just idealistic.
Stewardship: We have a duty of care to maintain the life systems of our ship. Dumping waste (CO₂, toxins) into the shared air or water is a violation of that duty – effectively an aggression against all other passengers.
Equity: The benefits and burdens on Spaceship Earth must be fairly distributed. It is intolerable that some have consumed vastly more resources (the Global North, elites) while others bear the brunt of the resulting damage (the Global South, the poor). Equity demands both emissions responsibility (the rich cut more, faster) and adaptation aid (help those affected), as well as the energy reparations we propose.
Evidence and Truth: A functioning crew responds to real dangers with clear-headed analysis; ideology and propaganda have no place when the ship is leaking. Thus, ILT is committed to scientific truth – whether it’s acknowledging climate science or nuclear science. We will counter lies with data and citations (as this manifesto has done throughout). Anders’ training as an engineer and nuclear commissioner, and his awe at Earthrise, both exemplify this blending of rationality and reverence.
Courage: The Earthrise generation (the 1960s) believed in bold actions – going to the Moon, passing the Civil Rights Act, halting nuclear tests. We need the same courage to break fossil fuel addiction and implement novel solutions. Fear-mongering (e.g., about nuclear energy or about economic ruin if we abandon oil) must be met with bravery and creativity.
Legal Mission: Representing Earth and Victims in Courts of Law
On the legal front, ILT will function as an advocate for the planet and its most harmed communities in the halls of justice. We envision a multi-pronged legal strategy:
Pursuing Cases at the International Criminal Court (ICC): While the ICC’s current statute (the Rome Statute) does not explicitly include environmental destruction in peacetime as a crime, ILT will work with sympathetic states to push the boundaries. We will support efforts to use existing categories – for example, “crimes against humanity” – to prosecute the worst climate crimes. A crime against humanity involves widespread or systematic acts knowingly committed against civilian populations. One could argue that knowingly causing life-threatening environmental conditions for large populations (e.g. through massive pollution that poisons water, or through climate change impacts that drive famine) could meet that threshold, especially if done with knowledge and recklessness. Perhaps an oil CEO might not be tried for climate change per se (yet), but what about a government minister who violently suppresses environmental protests and facilitates deadly pollution? Or a case like Shell’s alleged complicity in the 1995 execution of activists in Nigeria – that kind of collusion between company and state to silence communities might already fit existing ICC crimes (persecution or murder as a crime against humanity). ILT will identify potential test cases. We will also encourage countries to refer situations to the ICC Prosecutor for investigation – for instance, a country heavily harmed by climate change could refer the activities of foreign fossil fuel companies on its territory as contributing to severe deprivation of its citizens’ rights (admittedly novel, but we must try creative legal theories).
Ecocide Amendment and Prosecutions: ILT will join the coalition lobbying for an Amendment to the Rome Statute to add Ecocide. As noted, Vanuatu and others have started this process (About us – End Ecocide on Earth). We will provide research and moral pressure to get the required two-thirds of ICC member states to vote for it. In the interim, we will encourage states to adopt ecocide into their domestic law, as Belgium did in 2023 (becoming the first EU country to recognize ecocide in its national penal code) (About us – End Ecocide on Earth). Once ecocide is on the books in various jurisdictions, universal jurisdiction could potentially be invoked to arrest offenders when they travel. Imagine a scenario where a CEO responsible for a devastating oil spill that ruined an indigenous community’s livelihood is arrested upon landing in Paris or Brussels under an ecocide charge – that would send shockwaves and finally place legal risk on the decision-makers of these companies.
Supporting Civil Litigation and Investigations: Beyond criminal law, ILT will assist in civil suits and investigations in any jurisdiction that can hold fossil perpetrators accountable. For example:
In the Netherlands, a court in 2021 in a human rights-based climate case ordered Shell to cut its CO₂ emissions 45% by 2030, recognizing a duty of care to prevent climate harm. ILT could file amicus briefs to uphold such judgments on appeal and encourage similar suits against other companies.
In Nigeria, ILT could support communities (like Ogale and Bille) who are suing Shell in British courts for oil spills (Nearly 14,000 Nigerians take Shell to court over devastating impact of pollution | Nigeria | The Guardian), by providing expert testimony or funding for scientific analysis of health impacts (Nearly 14,000 Nigerians take Shell to court over devastating impact of pollution | Nigeria | The Guardian).
In Canada or Australia, ILT might partner with indigenous groups bringing claims against governments or companies for violating treaty rights or failing fiduciary duty by promoting projects that exacerbate climate change (e.g., a case arguing that tar sands development violates the right to a stable climate of future First Nations generations – a novel but powerful claim).
ILT will also monitor emerging legal concepts like climate change litigation under human rights law (e.g., cases at the European Court of Human Rights against governments for climate inaction). Success in those arenas will bolster the argument that massive climate polluters are violating human rights.
Energy Reparations and Just Remedies: When legal actions succeed – whether it’s a judgment, a settlement, or a policy change – ILT will advocate for remedies that go beyond monetary compensation to include forward-looking solutions. Specifically, we propose the concept of “Energy Reparations.” This means that as part of making amends, fossil fuel corporations (or complicit governments) should be required to finance and deploy clean energy infrastructure for the communities they harmed. For example, as reparations for decades of flaring and spills, oil majors operating in the Niger Delta could be compelled to pay for and install a certain number of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) to provide reliable electricity to Nigerian communities that currently lack power (Nigeria ironically suffers electricity shortages, despite its oil wealth). These SMRs – modern, factory-built nuclear reactors that are inherently safe – could sustainably power industries and homes, creating jobs and enabling clean development where diesel generators and blackouts are the norm. Additionally, companies could be ordered to fund Near-Zero Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage powered by Fission (NDACSF) – essentially, direct air capture machines that suck CO₂ from the atmosphere, powered by nuclear energy (so the process itself is emissions-free), with the CO₂ then sequestered deep underground or mineralized. This addresses the climate damage at its root. Such a remedy serves a dual purpose: it helps restore the environment (by removing carbon) and provides green energy to the affected region, which can drive economic growth. It is a form of technological reparative justice: using the tools of the future to redress wrongs of the past. ILT will commission feasibility studies to show courts that these remedies are practical. We already have instances of courts ordering non-traditional remedies (like reforestation or pollution controls) – energy reparations would be in that spirit but grander. Imagine, in Ecuador, instead of Chevron paying cash (which it refuses to), it is mandated to build and hand over to the communities a set of solar farms, wind turbines, and perhaps advanced nuclear battery units, along with funding for maintenance. This would both compensate and empower. ILT’s legal team will incorporate such asks into lawsuits and negotiations.
Indigenous Jurisprudence and Rights of Nature: ILT will also explore legal avenues that draw from indigenous law and the emerging “Rights of Nature” movement. Some countries (Ecuador, Bolivia) have recognized Nature or Pachamama as a legal entity with rights. If rivers and forests can have legal standing, ILT could act as a guardian ad litem for such ecosystems in court, suing on behalf of the Amazon or a specific river system damaged by oil. Similarly, ILT will uphold indigenous peoples’ rights – supporting, for example, the legal enforcement of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. If a fossil project proceeds without genuine consent on indigenous land, that is a legal violation we can target, thereby stopping the project and setting precedent.
Technological Path: Embracing Nuclear and Other Clean Innovations
While ILT’s pursuit of justice addresses the past and present damages, we also look to the future: what must be done to truly repair our ship and set it on course? We assert that nuclear energy is central to any viable solution at planetary scale. We don’t hold this position out of ideological bias, but from sober analysis of the numbers: to replace fossil fuels entirely (not just in electricity but potentially in industrial heat, desalination, etc.), nuclear power offers unmatched energy density, reliability, and scalability. As Environmental Progress notes, exaggerating fears of nuclear has had dire consequences: when nations shut nuclear plants, emissions rise because fossil fuels fill the void (The War on Nuclear — Environmental Progress). On the other hand, each nuclear reactor displaces millions of tons of CO₂ annually and runs 24/7 regardless of weather.
ILT will thus advocate for a global nuclear acceleration as part of the climate justice narrative. This includes:
Modernizing Regulations to allow faster approval and deployment of advanced reactors (SMRs, molten salt reactors, etc.), without compromising safety. We will point out that regulatory over-caution on nuclear (in part a reaction to inflated public fears) has made nuclear plants unnecessarily expensive in the West. Streamlining this can be done while maintaining high safety, as demonstrated by the excellent safety record so far.
Financing and Knowledge Transfer so that developing countries can leap to nuclear. It is unacceptable that many African nations with energy poverty are told to stick with dirty diesel or intermittent solar because nuclear is “too hard” or “too dangerous” for them. If anything, many developing nations are eager for nuclear – e.g., Kenya, Ghana, and Indonesia have expressed interest. ILT will push international institutions (World Bank, etc.) to drop bans on financing nuclear projects (currently WB and others avoid nuclear – a bias that ironically forces nations to choose coal or gas). We will highlight data: e.g., a single uranium fuel pellet (the size of a fingertip) produces as much energy as 1 ton of coal or 149 gallons of oil – which means a tiny amount of mined material can give a village power for months. For resource-constrained economies, that’s a boon.
Public Education campaigns to undo decades of anti-nuclear scaremongering. People’s legitimate concerns (safety, waste, proliferation) will be addressed with facts. ILT will disseminate materials like “Isn’t nuclear energy dangerous? – Nuclear is the safest way of producing reliable electricity, according to every major scientific review” (Health and Safety — Environmental Progress) and highlight success stories (e.g., how naval nuclear reactors operate safely in aircraft carriers and submarines around the world, or how nuclear medicine saves lives daily).
Innovation in Waste Management and Fusion: While fission is available now, ILT will also support R&D into fusion – but with a realistic lens. Fusion holds long-term promise (clean, virtually limitless energy), but the recent fusion ignition breakthroughs, though laudable, are not a climate solution for today. Experts agree fusion won’t be commercial before 2040s at earliest (What the Nuclear Fusion Breakthrough Means for Climate Change | The New Republic) (What the Nuclear Fusion Breakthrough Means for Climate Change | The New Republic), and it “won’t come in time to change the dynamics of the current climate crisis.” (What the Nuclear Fusion Breakthrough Means for Climate Change | The New Republic). Therefore, ILT will not tolerate fusion being used as a distraction to delay fission deployment – we’ll counter any “let’s wait for fusion” excuse (often espoused by those who actually just want to keep using fossil fuels in the meantime) with the imperative to build proven fission now. At the same time, we endorse continued fusion research (e.g., ITER in France, private startups) because solving climate isn’t just about 2050, it’s about 2100 and beyond. We can walk and chew gum: ramp up fission to tackle 2020–2050, and develop fusion for the second half of the century.
Apart from nuclear, ILT supports a rapid scale-up of renewables and storage where they make sense. Wind and solar will be important pieces of the puzzle, especially in countries with abundant sun or wind. But as Shellenberger’s analysis shows, over-reliance on them without firm power backup leads to issues (Why I changed my mind about nuclear power: Transcript of Michael Shellenberger's TEDx Berlin 2017 — Environmental Progress) (Why I changed my mind about nuclear power: Transcript of Michael Shellenberger's TEDx Berlin 2017 — Environmental Progress). Therefore, ILT advocates for an “all-carbon-free-of-the-above” strategy: renewables, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, energy efficiency, and emerging tech like Green Hydrogen for certain industrial uses. We must electrify as much as possible (transport, heating) with clean power and use hydrogen or synthetic fuels made from clean power for the rest. Fossil fuel companies often claim there’s no alternative for things like aviation or steel production – but pilot projects for hydrogen-based steelmaking are underway, and sustainable aviation fuels or electric planes for short hops are in development. Again, the barrier is not technology but will and scaling. ILT’s role will be to showcase these solutions in our communications and urge governments to create policies (e.g., a carbon price or mandates) to drive them forward.
Near-Zero Direct Air Carbon Capture with Nuclear (NDACSF)
A novel concept ILT champions is NDACSF – Near-Zero Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage, with Fission. It sounds technical, but the idea is simple: use the heat or electricity from advanced nuclear reactors to power machines that draw CO₂ from ambient air and securely lock it away. Direct Air Capture (DAC) requires significant energy; doing it with fossil energy defeats the purpose, so nuclear DAC is ideal. If scaled up, this could actually remove past emissions from the atmosphere, buying us back some of the margin we lost. Think of it as a planetary repair device – akin to an air filter for the entire Earth. While DAC is still expensive and nascent, a few pilot plants exist (Climeworks in Switzerland uses geothermal energy, for instance). Marrying it with nuclear could push costs down through continuous operation and high energy output.
ILT will promote pilot programs for NDACSF in areas that need both clean energy and climate remediation. A visionary example: deploy a set of small modular reactors in the Alberta oil sands region to both decarbonize the local grid (so they stop burning natural gas to process bitumen) and to power DAC units that start sucking up the carbon that was emitted from past operations. Similarly, in the Middle East, oil states could employ their considerable capital to build nuclear-powered DAC farms in desert areas – turning oil wealth into climate repair. ILT can serve as a convener to get tech companies, governments, and financiers to explore this seriously. As part of legal settlements, maybe a company like Exxon could be required to fund a demonstration NDACSF project, converting an agent of pollution into an agent of mitigation.
Indigenous Engagement – The Amazon Watch Model and Beyond
Technical fixes alone are insufficient; solutions must be rooted in communities, respecting indigenous knowledge and sovereignty. Amazon Watch has shown how powerful it is to partner with indigenous peoples to protect forests and hold polluters accountable. For over 25 years, Amazon Watch has worked in solidarity with Amazonian tribes, helping amplify their voices on the international stage (Indigenous land rights now: Amazon Watch is protecting the rainforest) (Ask an Advocate Anything: Leila Salazar-López, Amazon Watch). They have supported Indigenous lawsuits, organized delegations of Indigenous leaders to speak at shareholder meetings and UN forums, and exposed corporate misdeeds in Amazonia. Their campaigns (like the effort to hold Chevron accountable for the “Amazon Chernobyl” or to stop new drilling in Yasuni, Ecuador) have been potent exactly because they center the people who have the most moral authority – those who live with the land and suffer first-hand.
ILT draws inspiration from Amazon Watch’s approach and will apply similar principles in other regions:
Indigenous Leadership: ILT will have indigenous advisors and board members from communities affected by fossil fuel exploitation – whether Ogoni or Ijaw from Nigeria, Diné (Navajo) from the uranium mining scarred lands of the U.S. Southwest, Sámi from the Arctic region facing mining and drilling, or Aboriginal Australians from the Outback. They will help guide our priorities and messaging. We will ensure they are not just token voices but have real decision-making power in ILT’s campaigns that concern their regions.
Consent and Consultation: When proposing solutions like energy reparations projects, ILT will follow the principle of Free, Prior, Informed Consent. For example, if we propose installing an SMR in a community, it will only be after the local people approve it and are involved in its planning and will benefit directly from it (jobs, revenue, electricity). Clean energy must not become a new form of colonialism; it must be a liberation technology.
Cultural Preservation: Many indigenous cultures have deep cosmologies about living in balance with nature. ILT will uplift these narratives as they align with the Earthrise ethos. We’ll quote leaders like Chief Raoni (Kayapo) on protecting the Amazon, or the late Nobel laureate Wangari Maathai of Kenya who said, “The earth is suffering. It’s up to us to speak for the trees, for the rivers.” Legal mechanisms like Rights of Nature often stem from indigenous worldviews (e.g., the Whanganui River in NZ being personified per Maori vision). We will support these as complementary to Western law approaches.
Amazon Watch in Canada and Australia: While Amazon Watch’s focus is the Amazon Basin, we can extend the model to, say, the boreal forests of Canada (home to many First Nations and threatened by tar sands and pipelines) and the outback and coastal regions of Australia (where Aboriginal land rights clashes with mining). ILT might partner with groups like Indigenous Climate Action (ICA) in Canada or the First Nations Climate Council, and in Australia with SEED Indigenous Youth Climate Network or organizations fighting fracking in the Northern Territory. We will share tactics: e.g., how to use shareholder activism, how to campaign globally while empowering local protests. By connecting these struggles, we strengthen all – an indigenous alliance from the Amazon to the Arctic, from the Niger Delta to the South Pacific, united in defense of Mother Earth.
Finally, ILT believes that incorporating traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) can improve modern solutions. For instance, indigenous fire management practices in Australia (cool burns) could mitigate bushfires aggravated by climate change. Or traditional water conservation methods could inform new agricultural policies. We will encourage a synthesis of old wisdom and new science.
Conclusion – Earthrise to Earthbound Justice
(“Earthrise” by NASA Astronaut Bill Anders - NASA) The “Earthrise” view that inspired ILT: a fragile oasis rising above a barren moonscape, captured by Bill Anders. It reminds us that we have only one home and must unite to protect it, by embracing truth and innovation over fear and destruction.
William Anders’ Earthrise photo forever changed our perspective on ourselves. It compelled us to realize that there is no “Planet B”, no escape from the responsibility to care for our singular world. In the decades since, humanity has made great strides – we abolished CFCs to heal the ozone layer, saved some species from extinction, and recently, many have risen to demand climate action. Yet, we have also stumbled gravely, allowing the reckless burning of fossil fuels to endanger all that was seen in that photo: the blue oceans, the life-giving atmosphere, the green forests and the human communities they nurture.
This manifesto has laid bare how the fossil fuel industry’s lies and crimes have brought us to the brink. It has also illuminated a path forward – one of accountability, reparations, and technological revolution. The Initiatives Lever de Terre (ILT) stands as a rallying banner at the intersection of those paths. We call on all who read this to join us as crew members determined to set our ship aright.
In practical terms, ILT will move immediately to implement the vision herein:
Convening an Earth Assembly in Paris of jurists, scientists, indigenous leaders, and activists to formally launch a draft “Earthrise Pact” – a commitment by individuals, cities, and nations to pursue the actions outlined, from ecocide law to nuclear deployment.
Launching an Investigation Dossier to the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor, compiling evidence on a select few egregious cases (for example, the Niger Delta or Amazon crimes) and legal arguments for why they merit ICC attention under existing law. We will invite former ICC officials and human rights luminaries to endorse it.
Establishing a Legal Defense Fund for Communities, so that when the Ogoni farmers or the Cofán tribe of Ecuador or the Torres Strait Islanders go to court, they have top lawyers and expert witnesses at their side (and we will be those experts when needed).
Partnering with nuclear energy pioneers (like France’s EDF, Canada’s CNL, or innovative companies like TerraPower and Rolls-Royce SMR) to create a blueprint for “Reparation Reactors” – nuclear plants gifted or subsidized for afflicted regions. We will aim to announce the first pilot project within a year, perhaps an SMR to power a large desalination plant in a drought-stricken area as restitution for climate damage.
Engaging the public with an Earthrise Media Campaign: screening the original Apollo 8 footage, sharing testimonials of those hurt by fossil fuels, and highlighting the courage of Anders and others who turned to solutions (Anders didn’t just photograph Earth, he then chaired the NRC to ensure nuclear energy was safely regulated (William Anders - Wikipedia) – a legacy of action).
We conclude where we began: with William “Bill” Anders. After leaving NASA, Anders devoted himself to public service in energy and technology. As the first chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, he helped lay the groundwork for harnessing the atom for peace (William Anders - Wikipedia). It is profoundly fitting – the man who helped us appreciate our planet from afar also worked to provide a clean energy source here at home. Earthrise and Nuclear Rise – both have Bill Anders’ fingerprint, and both are key to ILT’s mission.
In honoring Bill Anders’ legacy, we invoke the spirit of exploration and courage. Anders once said seeing Earth from the Moon made him realize “rather than a giant, [Earth] should be thought of as the fragile Christmas-tree ball which we should handle with considerable care.” (William Anders - Wikipedia) We have not handled Earth with sufficient care these past decades. But it is not too late to change.
Let this manifesto be a manifest – a list of intentions and passengers on this journey. We invite nations like France to carry this torch at the United Nations, to propose an Ecocide amendment and champion it as “the mother of all battles” for our planet’s future (President Macron “shares ambition” to establish international crime of ecocide — Stop Ecocide International ). We urge climate activists to broaden their focus to include the nuclear solution, dispelling old fears for the greater good. We call on environmental organizations to examine their funding and purify their agendas – the enemy is the greenhouse gas, not the reactor. We demand fossil fuel executives to step up: acknowledge what you’ve done, support the transition wholeheartedly (some oil companies are rebranding as “energy companies” – now prove it by massively investing in renewables, nuclear, and carbon removal, not by greenwashing). And to the youth of the world, who will live to see the mid-century: claim your right to a livable planet in courts and on the streets, and welcome the tools (from solar panels to advanced reactors to tree-planting drones) that can secure that livable planet.
The crew of Apollo 8 went farther from Earth than any humans before, only to tell us how precious Earth was. We now must go deep into Earth’s problems to solve them, and reach high into our ingenuity to implement solutions. Earth is a ship that comes with no instruction manual – we write the manual by our actions. Initiatives Lever de Terre seeks to write a new chapter in that manual, one defined by truth, justice, and hope.
There is an old proverb: “Society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” The old energy regime planted smokestacks and pipelines whose toxic shadow we all sit in now. But we can choose differently. We can plant the seeds of a clean energy future, build the legal frameworks of accountability, and foster a culture that values life over profit. In doing so, we create a legacy that will shade and shelter generations to come.
On December 24, 1968, as the crew of Apollo 8 signed off their broadcast, they wished the world a Merry Christmas and said, “God bless all of you, all of you on the good Earth.” Today, regardless of one’s faith or creed, we all can agree Earth needs a blessing – though perhaps in the form of our concerted action rather than divine intervention. Let us bless the Earth by healing it. Let us vindicate those who have suffered and prevent future harm. Let us ensure that when our descendants look at the Earth – whether from space or from their villages – they see a thriving, beautiful planet, not a charred wreck.
From Earthrise to Earth Guardianship, from fossil folly to nuclear opportunity, from impunity to accountability – this is our journey. Like the Apollo mission, it will require the best of science and the best of humanity’s spirit. We set forth today, guided by Anders’ gaze and powered by the conviction that Spaceship Earth can and must be steered back on course.
The next time mankind sees Earth rise over another world – perhaps when we set foot on Mars – let it be with pride that we kept our first world, our home, sustainable and just. Initiatives Lever de Terre commits to this mission. The time to act is now, together, for we are all crew.
Sources:
Anders, William (Apollo 8 astronaut). Reflections on Earthrise photograph and fragility of Earth (William Anders - Wikipedia) (William Anders - Wikipedia).
Anders’ career: First Chairman of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1975–1976) (William Anders - Wikipedia).
World Health Organization – fossil fuel air pollution causes ~7 million premature deaths per year (Health and Safety — Environmental Progress).
Scientific American – Exxon knew about climate change since 1977, yet funded misinformation for decades (Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago | Scientific American) (Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago | Scientific American).
Reuters (Dzirutwe, 2023) – Bayelsa commission: $12bn needed to clean oil spills; Shell/Eni responsible for most pollution; toxins found far above safe limits in soil, water, air, and locals’ blood (Nigeria needs $12 billion to clean up Bayelsa oil spills - report | Reuters) (Nigeria needs $12 billion to clean up Bayelsa oil spills - report | Reuters).
The Guardian (2023) – Study: infants in Niger Delta twice as likely to die in first month if mother lived near an oil spill; ~11,000 infant deaths/year linked to spills (Nearly 14,000 Nigerians take Shell to court over devastating impact of pollution | Nigeria | The Guardian).
Leigh Day (UK law firm) – Bodo spills 2008: Shell admitted responsibility; experts say volume rivaled Exxon Valdez; largest loss of mangrove habitat in history (International case study - Shell) (International case study - Shell). Bodo, 50,000 subsistence fishers/farmers, one of world’s poorest communities, devastated; Shell’s initial relief was token food aid (International case study - Shell) (International case study - Shell).
ChevronToxico (Amazon Watch) – Texaco/Chevron dumped 16B gallons toxic waste, spilled 17M gallons oil in Ecuador Amazon (1964–1990) to save $3/barrel; caused cancers, birth defects; Chevron found liable for $9.5B but evades payment (ChevronToxico | The Campaign for Justice in Ecuador) (ChevronToxico | The Campaign for Justice in Ecuador).
Al Jazeera (2023) – ExxonMobil settled Aceh villagers’ lawsuit alleging murder, torture, and sexual assault by soldiers hired to guard its gas plant (Oil giant ExxonMobil settles long-running Indonesia torture case | Human Rights News | Al Jazeera) (Oil giant ExxonMobil settles long-running Indonesia torture case | Human Rights News | Al Jazeera).
Environmental Progress – Nuclear is the safest form of reliable power: over 95% of energy-production deaths are from fossil pollution (Health and Safety — Environmental Progress). Chernobyl’s projected death toll (~9,000) is dwarfed by 7 million annual deaths from fossil air pollution (Health and Safety — Environmental Progress) (Health and Safety — Environmental Progress).
Environmental Progress – “Nuclear waste is the best kind of waste.” Volume is small and contained; all U.S. spent fuel could fit on one football field stacked 50 ft high (Health and Safety — Environmental Progress).
Environmental Progress – Sierra Club took $136 million from natural gas/renewables interests to push anti-nuclear agenda (The War on Nuclear — Environmental Progress) (The War on Nuclear — Environmental Progress); NRDC $70M invested in oil/gas; EDF $60M from fossil/renewables donors (The War on Nuclear — Environmental Progress). Greenpeace & FOE refuse to disclose donors while fighting nuclear (The War on Nuclear — Environmental Progress) (The War on Nuclear — Environmental Progress).
RPMA Networks – Fossil fuel industry has supported anti-nuclear green groups since the 1950s; e.g., Atlantic Richfield’s Robert Anderson gave founding $80k in 1969 to start Friends of the Earth (anti-nuclear from the start) (The Fossil fuel industry's war on nuclear energy - Foreningen Atomkraft Ja Tak) (The Fossil fuel industry's war on nuclear energy - Foreningen Atomkraft Ja Tak). Greenpeace 2011 strategy recommended replacing nuclear with fossil gas as backup for renewables (The Fossil fuel industry's war on nuclear energy - Foreningen Atomkraft Ja Tak) (The Fossil fuel industry's war on nuclear energy - Foreningen Atomkraft Ja Tak).
EnergyNow (2024) – Norway: world’s 4th-largest gas exporter; fossil fuels = 63% of export value in 2023 (OPINION: Canada Must Model Norway's Balanced Energy Sector - Canadian Energy News, Top Headlines, Commentaries, Features & Events - EnergyNow). British Columbia, Canada: banned nuclear power development since 2010 (OPINION: Canada Must Model Norway's Balanced Energy Sector - Canadian Energy News, Top Headlines, Commentaries, Features & Events - EnergyNow) (OPINION: Canada Must Model Norway's Balanced Energy Sector - Canadian Energy News, Top Headlines, Commentaries, Features & Events - EnergyNow) despite clean energy needs.
Stop Ecocide International – French President Macron in June 2020 promised to champion an international crime of ecocide, to hold leaders accountable at the ICC (President Macron “shares ambition” to establish international crime of ecocide — Stop Ecocide International ) (President Macron “shares ambition” to establish international crime of ecocide — Stop Ecocide International ).
The New Republic (2022) – Fusion breakthrough is exciting but won’t contribute in time to address current climate crisis, likely not viable at scale until 2040s or later (What the Nuclear Fusion Breakthrough Means for Climate Change | The New Republic) (What the Nuclear Fusion Breakthrough Means for Climate Change | The New Republic).
Comentários