NEW WEST FEATURE
After Conviction in Utah, DeChristopher Bemoans ‘One-Click Activism’
Will Bidder 70 spur more civil disobedience? He hopes so. Will the environmental movement embrace it? He doubts it.By David Frey, 3-10-11
![]() |
|
| Tim DeChristopher thanks his supporters on March 3 outside the federal courthouse in Salt Lake City where he was found guilty of two felonies for disrupting a Utah BLM oil and gas lease auction in 2009. Photo ©2011 by Ed Kosmicki. | |
When Tim DeChristopher stepped out from the federal courthouse after hearing the guilty verdict against him, he walked among the crowd of supporters who had rallied around him since before his trial began. He raised his fist in the air, and they raised theirs.
They had just heard the news: The Salt Lake City jury found the climate activist guilty on two counts after he admittedly sought to disrupt a controversial oil and gas auction by posing as a bidder.
“Many before me have gone to jail for justice,” he told the crowd, “and if we are going to achieve our vision, many after me will have to join me as well.”
“I will,” someone in the crowd shouted.
It’s still not known how long DeChristopher will spend in jail. The charges carry a 10-year maximum. His sentencing is set for June 23. But while DeChristopher sits behind bars, he imagines a movement of civil disobedience rising, made of citizen activists like him willing to risk jail time.
“There will have to be real sacrifices,” DeChristopher told New West this week. “I think a lot of the environmental movement has approached it from the standpoint of, how can we have a sharp enough message that we can achieve this change without taking any personal risks or sacrifice?”
DeChristopher sees a growing rift between the traditional environmental movement, which he sees as becoming too cozy with the status quo, and a climate justice movement willing to challenge the system with more audacious actions.
“It’s evolved into this kind of one-click activism that tries to make it really easy for people,” he said. “The reality of the situation is, this isn’t going to be easy and there’s no witty message in the world that’s going to win this for us. We have very real opponents: the fossil fuels industry. They’re very powerful and they’re not going to give up.”
DeChristopher became a star among environmentalists when he disrupted an auction of oil and gas leases on Utah public lands, many of them close to national parks and pristine landscapes, by becoming a bidder.
He picked up the paddle for Bidder 70 and purchased 12 leases he had no intention of drilling on, worth about $1.8 million.
The Obama administration has since overturned the auction, saying many of the parcels never should have been put to bid in the first place, but it didn’t stop the administration from pursuing charges against DeChristopher. “He alone chose to cross the boundary of the rule of law and impact the lives of others and the government of the United States,” lead prosecutor John Huber would later tell jurors.
DeChristopher rejected plea deals, he said, to bring the case to light and put it in front of a jury. After a federal judge refused to allow him to make his case, that he was disrupting an auction that shouldn’t have been allowed in the first place, DeChristopher said, “I knew I was most likely going to be convicted.”
Two of DeChristopher’s key arguments, that the auction was later overturned and that he came up with the money to pay for the leases, were never heard.
“It was very frustrating to be in the courtroom because Tim and his attorneys were not really able to get his whole story out,” said Beth Gage, of Telluride, Colo., who with her husband George are making Bidder 70, a nonprofit documentary about DeChristopher’s story. They hope to screen the film at Utah’s Sundance film festival after a sneak peak at Telluride MountainFilm.
While George Gage was outside with the protesters, Beth Gage was inside the courtroom, feeling frustrated that jurors could learn little about the man she and her husband had spent more than two years following. They heard little about his environmental motivations.
“He was doing something that was fighting the greater atrocity, which was climate change and drilling around national parks,” Beth Gage said.
Outside, it was a different story. Supporters were singing protest songs and holding signs. Their songs turned to tears when word of DeChristopher’s verdict came out, George Gage said.
“If we can get this kind of movement in Salt Lake City, maybe we can start the same movement in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York,” he said. “If he gets an outrageous sentence, which I think is a very strong possibility, I think there will be outrage across the United States.”
Outrage is already growing. Supporter Robert Redford said DeChristopher’s prosecution “borders on absurd.” Another, author Bill McKibben, took the verdict as a call to action.
“If the feds think this prosecution/persecution will deter us from working for a livable planet, they couldn’t be more wrong,” he wrote. “Tim was brave and alone. We will be brave in quantity.”
That’s the sort of commitment DeChristopher says is needed.
His action, he said, has sent a message to his supporters that the system is broken and they can work to fix it. He plans to spend his last weeks of freedom on the activist trail.
“I think a lot of people have taken this as a reminder that we can be incredibly powerful in creating the world we want to see,” he said.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.





Comments
“It’s evolved into this kind of one-click activism that tries to make it really easy for people,” he said. “The reality of the situation is, this isn’t going to be easy and there’s no witty message in the world that’s going to win this for us. We have very real opponents: the fossil fuels industry. They’re very powerful and they’re not going to give up.”
Amen to that, bro. One way to get around the one-click syndrome is lawsuits. Drumming up people willing to put up bucks and finding public interest law firms. Just yesterday, those of us fighting the megaload menace on Rt 12--which is backed by oil companies--were delighted to hear that Idaho Rivers United sued the Forest Service in federal court for not fulfilling the legal requirements of their agency to protect the rivers and the wild life in this area. Their public interest law firm is Advocates for the West, in Boise.
People like being economically secure, at the very least. And don't like pickpockets, robbers, or thieves -- for-profit, or non-profit, governmental, or non.
The Wisconsin clustersit should be a signal for everyone. Fact is, that was, and is, a really bloody fight about economic security.
So I won't be in the least surprised to see everyone else react by voting in legislators that change the laws that enable the lawsuits.
Here is a write-up that analyzes this matter: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/11/it-was-the-worst-of-the-times/#more-35774
===quote===
Look, I have no problem with Mr. DeChristopher’s actions. As I mentioned, I did the same myself, and I did time for it. As we said then, if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. However, I never heard the New York Times opining that the judge should have considered my motives in deciding my guilt or innocence. It didn’t matter. I was guilty. As is DeChristopher.
What I have a problem with is when this kind of thinking slops over into the scientific arena. You see, if a scientist thinks it is ethical to break the laws of civil society in the name of saving the planet, I have absolutely no confidence that the same man will not break the laws of honest, transparent, ethical science in the name of saving the planet. As we have seen, sadly, this more than a thoretical threat.
When this occurs in science, it is called “noble cause corruption”. It occurs when a scientist thinks that their cause (saving the world from Thermageddon) is so important and so noble that it transcends plebeian concerns. Their cause is much more critical and vital and important than, you know, mundane boring things like transparency, and scientific integrity, and archiving data that may not agree with your hypothesis, and revealing adverse results. For scientists like that, those are petty scientific concerns, things that only apply to people who are not engaged on a mission from Gaia.
===end quote===
Every day it seems we are advised that such and such scientist has announced that probably such and such will happen.
By the next day there will be half a dozen grass roots experts remarking that such and such cannot be true. Usually their reasoning is based on economics or ideology; but, usually also, the scientist is never heard from again, either.
Egoism is certainly replacing intellect on the internet. And corporatism is absolutely willing to shill against science with grass roots experts--especially when scientists play fast and loose in order gain fame and/or notoriety.
Concerning his motives that the court wouldn't allow:
1. Global warming is an inexact science, at best. One example is that when they began to measure glaciers in the Arctic regions the overeducated scientists recorded GPS readings and measued the thickness of the ice. It took years for them to realize that the ice is moving and they should have marked the location with a stake.
2. We all use fossil fuels for energy and we need to use domestic natural resources to become energy independant.
3. The media will show a photo of a drilling rig near a National Park. I have never seen this and live in Utah. You don't suppose the media pasted the rig in, do you?
Just some ideas. BTW how many of you out there drove to work today?
warm and safe. I put my butt on the line over and over to protect our National Parks and Forests. I get so sick of reading the drivel you "Conservationists" trot out as fact. I recommend that you never, ever study anything about the science of Forestry- it would really ruin your Latte sessions at Starbucks after your Heroic Demonstrations.
Cannon Fodder? What? I really don't get it. We have had injuries and even a few fatalities over the 72 years since the project began, but- for what we do- our safety record has been almost unbelieveably good. Cannon Fodder suggests masses of conscripts being sacrificed in Combat. You don't simply have to volunteer to be a Smokejumper. The selection process selects a few candidates from a vast pool of qualified applicants. These candidates undergo rigorous training. Those who complete the training are still Candidates until they make their first Fire Jump- then they may call themselves Smokejumpers. If their performance warrants, they may return for the following season.
So, Jedediah, not only do you have to want to be a Smokejumper- you really have to want it a lot more than you want the GS-5 Salary of a a Rookie Jumper. I would be interested in any enlightenment you could give me on the "Cannon Fodder" comment.
Sorry, herbie. To do so would stretch my poor powers beyond their limit, I'm afraid.