EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced the first-ever Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) from Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, D.C. yesterday.  The long-awaited air pollution rule promises to prevent 34,000 deaths otherwise caused from toxic pollutants released from power plants including mercury, arsenic, cyanide, nickel, chromium, lead and more.

In making the announcement, Administrator Jackson focused on children’s health issues, including cases of asthma (which her own son is battling), birth defects and impaired brain development caused by mercury in the air.

The U.S. has been waiting a long time for this. It took more than two decades of negotiating and 900,000 public comments (20,000 from RAN activists), but the final MATS rule marks a great step forward for clean air in this country.

The Obama administration has yielded mixed news on the environmental front all year, so it was cheering to hear a strong, bold announcement like this one be issued forth by the EPA despite Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski’s attempts to instill fear in the heart of the public over the new standard’s effect on energy reliability.

Even after two decades of undulating process, Senator Murkowski called the pace of the EPA rulemaking “reckless” when in fact continuing to allow outdated coal plants to operate is much more so. EPA estimates show the new safeguards “will prevent as many as 11,000 premature deaths and 4,700 heart attacks a year. “ If the rule had been finalized ten years ago, would 111,000 people still be living, and 47,000 heart attacks prevented?

The finalized rule will likely affect the future of about 40 percent of coal-fired power plants in the U.S., which operate substandard to the rule’s particulate pollution requirements. The utility companies operating these plants are weighing up the economics of retiring plants versus investing hundreds of millions of dollars in life-extending retrofits for the aging plants.

We have a clear understanding of the negative impacts that burning coal has on our health, economy, and climate. With the solar and wind industries booming, we know how to produce electricity without endangering ourselves. As we head into 2012, it is well past time to phase out of coal entirely and transition to cleaner and renewable energy sources. If you’d like to be a part of that transition, joining RAN’s campaign to shift the biggest U.S. banks away from coal financing and towards clean energy is a great place to start.

Lisa Jackson concluded her press conference at the children’s hospital with some hurdles the EPA encounters,  “If we started hiring engineers instead of lobbyists and scientists instead of lawyers, we [the EPA] would be able to do our job much faster for the American people.” I absolutely agree.

Yesterday, in Charlotte, environmental activists showed up and were arrested at BoA’s Corporate HQ to demand the bank end their financing of coal – the primary driver of climate change.

Today, in San Francisco, thousands have shown up at Bank of America offices to demand a federal sales tax on Wall Street financial transactions which would fund affordable, equitable public education from pre-K through post doctoral.

We’re proud to stand side by side on bank doorsteps with the ReFund California Coalition because we share the same goals: a just and equitable future. The same corporate interests are standing in the way of our futures.

Bank of America is in the center of the Occupy Movement because of its reckless financial practices that put profit before people and planet. The social, economic, and environmental crises sweeping the planet are inter-related symptoms born of the same root causes.

The key to protecting our environment and protecting each other is the same. The key is us. By working together we can redefine the underlying values that govern our society and rebuild our economy based on long-term needs, not short-term greed. We are one movement.

Update 11/15/11 01:59PM All eight activists are now out of jail, in good spirits, and proud of the message they sent to Bank of America today. You can send one too: Tell Bank of America executives “Not with our money!” right now.

Update 11/15/11 12:19PM As authorities attempt to evict Occupy protesters from public spaces across the country, those protesters are going to start showing up at Bank of America’s doorstep more and more. Bank of America is in the center of the Occupy Movement because of its reckless financial practices that put profit before people and planet. To wit: “Bank of America is foreclosing on our neighbors and it’s foreclosing on our climate. To be honest, I’m embarrassed that I’m still a customer.” So says Jamie Trowbridge, an Appalachian State University student who was one of the two climbers arrested at today’s protest. “Coal is dirty at every stage in its lifecycle. No longer will Bank of America fund coal with my money. When I get back to school, I’m going to cut up my BoA debit card, and help other students do the same.”

Read more: BREAKING NEWS: Eight Arrested During Protest at Bank of America Headquarters

Update 11/15/11 11:52AM All four of the activists arrested for blockading the front door of BoA HQ have been released from jail. News crews on hand at jailhouse.

Update 11/15/11 11:35AM Some good photos and great coverage by Creative Loafing, Charlotte’s best alt weekly.

Update 11/15/11 11:26AM Lots more photos added to Flickr set, you can view them in the slideshow below.

Update 11/15/11 11:03AM #OccupyCharlotte protesters rallying outside of Bank of America HQ read out messages sent to BoA 1%ers via OccupytheBoardRoom.org!

Update 11/15/11 10:23AM Just a reminder that you don’t need to be in Charlotte at BoA HQ to send a message to BoA execs. Tell Bank of America executives “Not with our money!” right now.

Update 11/15/11 10:00AM Taking a cue from the protesters who were willing to put it all on the line and were forcibly evicted from Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Oakland, and Occupy Portland, two teams of courageous Charlotteans locked down entrances to BoA’s headquarters today in an attempt to bring business as usual to a halt. Seems they don’t want BoA funding the companies that are poisoning their communities with dirty coal any longer. Eight have been arrested.

Update 11/15/11 09:23AM Our action team has been arrested, but a contingent from Occupy Charlotte has marched down to BoA HQ to keep the protest going. Several activists arrested trying to blockade the entrances. Avram from Canary Coalition is addressing the crowd, speaking about fighting coal plant pollution in North Carolina.

Update 11/15/11 09:08AM Confirmed four arrested: both climbers and two support personnel.

Update 11/15/11 08:36AM Climbers are down and have been arrested.

Update 11/15/11 08:03AM Overheard Bank of America employee watching the climbers hang the banner: “They want Robin Hood to come back and get their money for them.” At least he admits that banks like BoA have stolen our money, and someone needs to get it back for us.

Update 11/15/11 07:56AM Fire Dept. just arrived with a cherry picker.

Update 11/15/11 07:52AM Passerby discussing our banner: “I mean I can understand that they are upset, but why don’t they just go to a local bank, that’s what I did.” Couldn’t agree more! MoveYourMoneyProject.org.

Original post: Two climbers have just hung a banner reading “Not with our money” outside Bank of America’s corporate headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Why Bank of America? Because we live in a time when the twin opportunities of job creation and the transition to a green economy are not only within reach, but desperately needed. Yet Bank of America, more than any other bank, continues to prop up coal, a dirty, 19th-century energy source.

But not with our money. Not any more.

You can get in on the action too: Tell Bank of America executives “Not with our money!” right now.

We’ve just issued a new campaign briefing — “Bank of America: Risking Public Health and the Climate” — showing that, despite claims that it considers the impacts of its investments on the environment and the climate, Bank of America is the largest underwriter of the U.S. coal industry, contributing $4.3 billion to the coal sector over the past two years.

That’s why we’ve dubbed Bank of America the Bank of Coal. BoA invests in every dirty aspect of the coal industry, including loans to Arch Coal and Peabody Energy, two of the biggest coal mining companies in the Powder River Basin that are trying to turn the pristine Pacific Northwest coastline into a major hub for exporting coal around the world. BoA is also invested in companies like Edison International, which owns the old, dirty Fisk and Crawford Plants in urban Chicago. Pollution from coal plants like Fisk and Crawford cause health problems that kill 24,000 Americans every year.

Bank of America puts profits ahead of people and the planet. The bank is investing in dirty coal companies that are polluting our communities and cooking our climate while also foreclosing on Americans’ homes and laying off thousands of workers. The same short-sighted thinking that led to our global economic crisis is being applied to BoA’s investments that impact the environment.

Write to BoA now to say “Not with our money.”

We’ll be updating this blog post with photos, video, and developments in this ongoing action throughout the day.

We’re working side by side with economic justice and democracy groups who are also pushing for the biggest banks to change their behavior. Whether the issue is environmental pollution, home foreclosures, or predatory lending, we can all agree on the root cause: Corporate profits being prioritized ahead of human dignity.

This was at the front of my mind on Saturday when I joined with many friends and allies and the mighty ranks of #OccupySF to mark “Bank Transfer Day” and take our message directly to the banks.

A full 3,000 of us marched through the streets of the city’s financial district, stopping along the way at the Chase West Coast HQ, the Wells Fargo HQ, and Bank of America Plaza. At each corporate office we sat down and blocked the streets and then staged “foreclosures” at these buildings.

Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment home defender Brenda Reed spoke about Chase trying to foreclose her home and shared Jamie Dimon’s office phone number with the crowd. Iraq Veterans Against the War spoke about Wells Fargo underwriting military operations. And I spoke at BoA about its bankrolling of the coal industry.

Then the Chinese Progressive Association spoke to us about the economic situation of immigrants in our city and taught us how to chant “We are the 99%” in Cantonese. As we marched back to #OccupySF through Chinatown, we kept the chant going strong.

This event illustrated the power we have when we act together. That power is not only strong in the streets, it’s an economic force to be reckoned with. The thousands of RAN supporters who are closing their BoA accounts, are a part of the 650,000 people who have moved billions of dollars from big banks to credit unions this past month. That’s a significant shift, demonstrating clearly that our movement is ready to abandon the banks that don’t reflect our values.

BTD is a highly popular Facebook event (over 70,000 are attending) initiated by Kristen Christian, a young woman from California who decided she’d had enough of corporate greed. Her feelings resonated with tens of thousands of others, and the big banks will be taking a whopping hit this week as people rush to close their Big Bank accounts in favor of local community banks and credit unions.

One anecdote from a friend of mine who works in a small California-based credit union: “In an average month we hope for 400 new accounts, this past month we’ve gained 1100 new customers.”

People’s motivations for choosing to close their accounts do vary: bank fee hikes, predatory lending, failure to support small businesses, environmentally destructive lending. And much like the reasons that have brought so many people into the streets for #OccupyWallStreet, these are all symptoms of banks that are too big to care, that prioritize profits over people and the environment. And we’ve had enough of that mentality.

Some of our friends and allies, like us, are coordinating Move Your Money pushes this week. Here’s a selection:

• Rainforest Action Network (our own): “Bank of America: Not One More Dollar“
• New Bottom Line: “Move Our Money“
• MoveOn / Rebuild The Dream: “Move Your Money“
• The Huffington Post: (The original) “Move Your Money“
• Progressive Change Campaign Committee: “Hold Bank of America Accountable: Move Your Money“

And if moving your money isn’t quite enough for you, how about this idea for a creative, easy — and free — method of directly communicating with the big banks?

Thousands of protesters have been occupying Wall Street for the past several weeks to take their demands for social and economic justice directly to the richest 1% of Americans — the very folks who are benefiting most from the inequality in our system while the other 99% of us face endless layoffs, fee hikes, stagnant wages, and climate change bankrolled by Wall Street.

We can’t all be camped out in Zuccotti Park, but now we can all send messages directly to the CEOs and board members of the top financial institutions in the world. RAN has teamed up with a variety of labor and economic justice groups, including Rebuild The Dream and Jobs With Justice, to give you a tool to send your message directly to the 1%.

Help #OccupytheBoardRoom by sending your message to the 1% now.

Fed up with Bank of America and other big Wall Street banks underwriting dirty coal and wrecking our climate? Fed up with the inordinate political influence exerted by the richest of the rich? Fed up with the lack of decent jobs for the 99% while fat cats get massive bonuses?

#OcuppytheBoardRoom is your chance to express exactly what you’re feeling directly to the 1%ers responsible for these injustices.

Now more than ever, the people at the top of the world’s biggest corporations need to feel the full force of the 99% of us who speak for what is right and what our communities need.

Need some ideas for your message? We put together this collage of some of our favorite signs from #OccupyWallStreet to get you inspired:

I’ve been having some wonderful conversations and plotting sessions with a new crew of allies here on Wall Street. RAN has been focused on banks, demanding social and environmental justice, for many years. But now it finally feels like we’re part of a large and growing movement. It’s very exciting. I could say so much more, but Adrienne Maree Brown already said it so well in her blog post, “from liberty plaza.”

I had the honor of addressing Occupy Wall Street last night. Just thought I’d share the video with you so you could see the communal spirit and passion that is keeping this occupation going strong:

(If you’re ready to stop doing business with Bank of America, sign the Not One More Dollar pledge now.)

I was particularly struck by the creativity in all the handmade signs. Here are three that spoke to me.

“#Occupy Earth” – Makes a link between taking back our own communities, wherever we may live, and taking back our natural resources from corporate control.

“Obama Stop Milking the Bull” – A reference to the famous Bull sculpture that lives on Wall Street. Right now, none of us can get anywhere close to this bull, as it stands surrounded by an army of NYPD and their barricades. These public servants appear to be deployed to protect the private interests, rather than the taxpayers.

“Too Big to Fail is Too Big to Allow” – A heartfelt cry for a serious overhaul of the financial system that has allowed such a small number of oversized banks to seize control of our economy — and trash it.

That’s right, when 45,000 runners join the Bank of America-funded Chicago marathon this weekend, the route will take them past one of the city’s dirtiest coal plants, the Midwest Generation Fisk plant. Which, as it happens, is also financed Bank of America.

Aren’t you tired of Wall Street banks thinking that sponsorships, fancy ads and commercial gimmicks can buy our favor at the same time that they raise fees, foreclose on homes and fund air pollution?

You’re not alone. We’ve met with many folks at this event who agree and are eager to send a strong message to Bank of America that they want to see the bank quit underwriting the coal industry. Many have signed cards pledging that they will close their BoA bank accounts and boycott BoA’s ATMs if the bank doesn’t act swiftly.

These people fall into three main categories:

Residents of Chicago who are already concerned about their local, dirty coal plants. Chicago is the only major metropolitan area with not only one, but two polluting coal plants within the city limits. The impact of these toxic coal plants is very real. Coal-fired power plants kill between 13,000 and 34,000 people a year — that’s one person every 15 minutes. That staggering figure includes the 42 Chicagoans who die as a result of pollution from the city’s two coal plants.

Nurses, doctors and other people health-sector workers. This community has firsthand experience responding to respiratory illnesses. In fact, many participants in this race are running to raise awareness about lung conditions and thanked us for raising awareness with them.

People who are fed up with bank-fee-hikes. Many have come to our booth to communicate that they are already considering cancelling their BoA accounts because of the bank’s exorbitant charges. Learning about bank-financed pollution gives them one more reason.

We’ve had a few double-takers: folks approaching our booth wondering if we are Bank of America…? And then giving us a smile when they realize that we’re actually here because we care about how Bank of America uses all of our money.

Sponsoring marathons is no substitute for actually being a responsible corporate citizen. Now more than ever, we need banks to show leadership. Bank of America can start right now by ending its financing of Chicago’s coal plants — helping to protect the health of our communities and our climate. We will settle for nothing less.

Why are people occupying Wall Street? And can this protest lead to real change in how banks treat people?

Over the last two weeks I’ve watched momentum build in lower Manhattan as growing numbers of people are physically drawn together to express their deep frustration with the financial system.

The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) demonstrators camped out at Zuccotti Park (renamed Liberty Plaza) and marching across Brooklyn Bridge are a diverse set, with many different priorities. But there are some clear, underlying concerns that are bringing everyone together to protest the influence of Wall Street over our nation’s policies. For me, these are some of the very same principles that underline RAN’s campaigns to stop the banking sector from underwriting the destruction of our planet and the poisoning of our communities. For example:

Fraud. Whether it’s Ponzi schemes, rogue traders or sub-prime lending, we’re fed up with banks committing fraud in pursuit of profits. Time after time we’re exposed to a systemic disregard for the law in this sector. It therefore no longer shocks me when banks happily lend billions of dollars to industries like the coal mining industry, which repeatedly flouts safety and environmental laws to maximize profits.

Income gap. Exorbitant CEO bonuses, salaries and golden parachutes are a place to direct frustration about he fact that the U.S. has the widest (and still widening) inequality gap of any industrialized nation. The top .01 percent makes an average of $27 million per household, as the average income of the bottom 90 percent makes an average of $31,244. (There’s a useful explanation of how this happens here.)

Personal impact. Those profits and salaries for the .01 percent come at the expense of foreclosed homes, lost jobs, and skyrocketing student debts coupled with diminishing prospects of employment. Add to that list: the personal and community impacts of oil spills, polluting coal plants, and mining disasters. Again, these impacts are hitting hardest on those who have the least.

So where does RAN’s bank campaign fit into protests like OWS? Matt Taibbi, writing in Rolling Stone, says it well:

“The end game of any movement against Wall Street corruption is going to involve some very elaborate organization. There are going to have to be consumer and investor boycotts, shareholder revolts, criminal prosecutions, new laws passed, and other moves.”

Right now Occupy Wall Street is making people aware of the battle lines. RAN supports the occupiers and is committed to the longterm organizing that Taibbi speaks of. Ready to get organized and take action on Wall Street banks? Stand with us and get active in our campaigns and those of our allies to revoke the charters of the worst corporations, to pressure the biggest banks to stop propping up the most polluting industries, and to demand a new bottom line.

Image via PNC Financial Services Group

PNC recently released their 2011 Corporate Responsibility Report. Documents like this  provide a window into how a bank thinks about its environmental and social impact. RAN has been paying close attention to PNC Bank and its approach to the energy industry for a couple of years, so I was eager to get my hands on the new report and see whether PNC is strengthening its commitment to communities and the environment.

The most eye-catching announcement in the introduction is the announcement that PNC will be building the “World’s Greenest Skyscraper” right in the heart of Pittsburgh. Avid readers of the Understory might recall that, in 2009, PNC built the “largest green wall in North America.” This is a commendable step-up in ambition. Extrapolating this trend, I look forward to PNC building the greenest city in the U.S. in 2013 and, before the decade concludes, PNC might just transform this nation to become the greenest on the planet.

But seriously, RAN has been saying for years that, while we like to see corporations green-up their buildings and their operational practices, the true test of a “sustainable” bank is where it puts its money.

If you compare this report to PNC’s first, released in 2010, there is a striking shift in the language used. Whereas previously PNC spoke of “Lending in support of economic growth,” now the message is “Lending to drive growth responsibly.” I’m hearing an acknowledgement of both the tough times we are living in and the role that the unchecked pursuit of profit has played to get us into this unsustainable economic crisis.

On page two, PNC gives an interesting trend analysis of energy sources. While the report doesn’t specifically say that PNC will be moving away from financing coal and oil, it does note that fossil fuels (except natural gas of course) are becoming less attractive as energy sources. I would like to see PNC disclose how its portfolio of energy investments compares to the national energy trends. The bank sounds enthusiastic about “deepening and broadening relationships” with those seeking to develop solar and other energy-efficient projects. However, there is no target stated indicating the level of financing that PNC is aspiring to provide.

Photo by Doug Bardwell

On page three, a new “supplemental due diligence criteria” is outlined that appears to apply to all companies in extractive industries. There is specific mention of “horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing methods.” I suspect these are being addressed because of the bank head office being located in Pittsburgh, where hydrofracking has been banned. I like the broad category of “extractive industries,” but there isn’t much here about what this criteria looks like, and no mention of reporting.

PNC has restated its policy on mountaintop removal (MTR) mining. There is no change here and I have the same criticism as before: This policy has an identified performance standard — “coal producers who receive a majority of their production from MTR mining” — and it is unclear whether this refers to a company’s performance in Appalachia or across the United States. Prior to adopting this policy, PNC had substantial exposure to MTR companies and I would like to see PNC publicly report on the impact of the policy, as its competitors Citi and Morgan Stanley are now doing.

In summary, the 2011 PNC Corporate Responsibility Report demonstrates that this bank’s approach to energy is evolving. But there is still plenty of room to improve transparency around targets and reporting on implementation, and for PNC to be as ambitious with energy underwriting as it is with building green skyscrapers.

Last week, French banking giant BNP Paribas released its new corporate social responsibility (CSR) policy on coal power. (Those of you who enjoy reading bank statements can check out the policy in full here.) BNP is the 4^th European bank to issue a policy on the issue of coal power, following in the footsteps of WestLB, HSBC and Société Générale. Here are RAN’s key take-away points:

Context: The policy statement begins with a lengthy preamble about coal playing a significant role in the global energy mix and a key contributor to climate change. Crucially, the bank states that “it is essential that any country/company developing its coal fired power generation capacity meets essential requirements regarding safety, security and protection of the environment for future generations”. I fully agree.

The scope of BNP’s policy is worldwide construction, including expansion and upgrading of all Coal-Fired Power Plants (CFPPs). Additionally, the policy applies to CFPP companies, defined as “utility companies for which coal accounts for >30% of their total power generation”. This goes above and beyond the Carbon Principles (a document endorsed by six U.S. and Swiss banks) which apply only to new CFPP construction and only to project financing. I am pleased to see that this policy applies to all financing activities offered by the bank  (lending, debt and equity capital markets, guarantees and advisory work, etc).

The policy states expected compliance with all existing national and international laws and regulations, plus BNP’s additional criteria. This includes the commitment that BNP will evaluate the coal project to establish whether a national commitment to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions exists. This is not a mandatory requirement however, so there is nothing here that would prevent BNP from financing a CFPP in a country without such a commitment, for example, the U.S.

Carbon Intensity Standard: HSBC was the first bank to include a carbon intensity standard in its coal policy. BNP matches HSBC’s commitment by stating that it will only finance CFPP projects with a CO2 intensity standard below 550 gCO2/kWh for High Income countries, and goes beyond HSBC’s commitment by stating below 660 gCO2/kWh for other countries. These policies both fall far short of the UK’s White Paper on Electricity Market Reform published in July 2011, which proposes an EPS of equivalent to 450g CO2/kWh (at base load) for all new fossil fuel plants.

Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS): It is currently fashionable for coal plants to be described as “CCS Ready,” which is a somewhat confusing label for a technology that has yet to be proven at the scale of coal plant this policy refers to. BNP thinks this should include: A CCS-Ready study, estimated costs, potential for a pipeline, and storage areas. This definition comes from the Global CCS Institute, a body that exists to promote the expansion of CCS, which explains why that definition is so vague and “catch-all”.

CFPP Companies: The BNP policy stipulates that it will only lend to companies that have good track records on safety, that disclose emissions data, that are not involved with severe controversy, and that have a Co2 emission reduction plan, evidencing a decreasing trend over a 5-year period. This section of the policy is a giant loophole. Instead, BNP Paribas should, at a minimum, require CFPP companies follow the same standards for updating and retrofitting their existing coal fleet as those that are stipulated in this policy for project finance.

Disclosure and Follow-Up: BNP has made this policy publicly available on its website and states a commitment to regularly review and update it. The bank also welcomes constructive feedback but has no commitment to report on the implementation of its policy.

Conclusion: I’m encouraged to see another major European bank start to take the issue of existing Coal Fired Power Plants seriously beyond the scope of project financing, but this policy contains loopholes big enough to drive a bulldozer through. The stronger criteria in the CFPP Project section is undermined by real lack of substance in the section concerning CFPP Companies.

Nonetheless, this policy is years ahead of anything an American bank has published. Get with the times, U.S. banks!

The delegation included West Virginia community members Lorelei Scarbro and Betty Harrah. Betty is the sister of Steven Harrah, one of the 29 coal miners killed in the Upper Big Branch mine disaster on April 5, 2010. Lorelei is the granddaughter, daughter, and widow of coal miners, and has family who currently work at the Upper Big Branch mine. Scarbro has been an advocate for the Coal River Mountain project, a campaign to stop mountaintop removal mining on Coal River mountain and instead install a 328-megawatt wind farm on its ridges.

Lorelei and Betty were joined by representatives from a coalition of public interest groups who are leading the call for Massey’s petition to be revoked, including RAN, Free Speech for People, Appalachian Voices and CREDO.

“Having a corporate charter is a privilege, not a right,” says Jeff Clements, Free Speech for People’s general counsel. “Delaware, as with other states, reserves the right to revoke or forfeit state corporate charters when they are abused or misused, as in cases of repeated unlawful conduct. Massey Energy has repeatedly demonstrated that it should not be entrusted with a corporation charter.”

General Biden’s office received the petition and responded that he will review the matter.

You can listen to the accompanying press conference here, including comments from Lorelei, Betty and Robert F.Kennedy Junior.

I had hoped for better than this. The ozone standard is one of approximately 15 rules due to be finalized between now and 2012 that, in combination, could force the retirement of almost half of the aging U.S. coal power fleet.

This abandonment means we won’t see a new Ozone Standard until 2013 at the earliest (when it should have been this summer), a date that just happens to be after the next election.

What does this mean for our prospects of retiring the nation’s filthiest power plants? That remains to be seen. We did get some good news earlier this summer on the Transport Rule. I’ve played “wait and see” with this administration before and would not be surprised if we end up getting a rotation of good news-bad news, as we saw with the EPA’s mountaintop removal mining permit announcements last year.

Meanwhile, this sly act of “burying” bad news on a day when it won’t be noticed is not just sneaky, it’s downright insulting. It’s insulting to the people living in neighborhoods close to coal plants who are adversely exposed to respiratory illnesses. The EPA had estimated that their new rule would save 12,000 lives each year. A transition to cleaner, less polluting power sources cannot come quickly enough for these communities.

It’s insulting to the EPA, which, under the leadership of Lisa Jackson, has been working to enforce the Clean Air Act to its original intent based on scientific findings. Ms Jackson has persisted with her mandate, despite repeated attack from the Republicans. Why on earth would the President side with polluting industries against one of his most loyal Administrators?

It’s insulting to the 1,200+ environmental activists who spent the week outside the White House getting arrested in protest of the administration’s plans to approve the hugely polluting Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport half a million barrels a day of carbon-intensive crude from oil-sands developments in western Canada. Those arrested included landowners, scientists, celebrities and people who had worked on Obama’s election campaign. Does the President actually think that industry dollars will get him re-elected without the presence of hard-working activists to do the door-to-door footwork?

Image courtesy of SouthWings

A new poll released yesterday of likely voters in Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia shows widespread opposition to mountaintop removal (MTR) coal mining and overwhelming support for enforcement of the Clean Water Act to better protect rivers and streams from the impacts of MTR.

In a statement that accompanies the release, the pollsters said:

“Voters across Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Virginia solidly oppose mountaintop removal coal mining, by wide margins and across a host of demographic and political divides. Three-quarters support fully enforcing—and even increasing protections in—the Clean Water Act to safeguard streams, rivers, and lakes in their states from mountaintop removal coal mining. Fully 76% of voters across these four states support this proposal, including a 62% majority who feel that way strongly. Just 8% of voters oppose it. Support for this proposal is far-reaching, encompassing solid majorities of Democrats (86%), independents (76%), Republicans (71%), and Tea Party supporters (67%).”

Senator Joe Manchin

Representative Nick Rahall

Someone needs to pass this on to West Virginia’s elected representatives Senator Joe Manchin and Congressman Nick Rahall. These two have been leading the charge in the attack on the Environmental Protection Agency’s attempts to strengthen enforcement of the Clean Water Act. We’ve long-known that neither politician cares about their voters’ best interests, but for how much longer will they be able to ignore their wishes?

The poll was conducted by Lake Research Partners and Bellwether Research & Consulting and commissioned by Appalachian Mountain Advocates, Earthjustice and the Sierra Club.

“If A Tree Falls” examines the story of a group of environmental activists who were based in Oregon in the late 90s. It offers a history of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), and asks why it was classified by the FBI in 2001 as the nation’s “Top Domestic Terrorist Threat”?

The story is told to us through the perspective of Daniel McGowan, who is currently serving seven years in Federal prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy and arson charges. We first meet him at his home in New York, where he is preparing for his trial. Daniel comes across as articulate, compassionate and devoted to his family, a very likeable guy.

Daniel’s preparations are illustrated with 10-15 year old footage from Oregon, including non-violent direct actions blockading old growth logging in Oregon, tree sits in Eugene, and confrontational policing. One of the most distressing scenes shows police officers rubbing pepper spray directly into the eyes of protestors who are locked to the ground and unable to move. The narrative implies that it was the failure of peaceful actions like these and the violent response of the police that motivated individuals like Daniel to take more extreme action.

Other footage shows the fires that were set by the ELF: logging company offices and a university research facility razed to the ground. While these fires were clearly economically destructive, do activities where no one is killed or injured really constitute the label of ‘terrorism’? Since Daniel lives in New York, there’s a convenient juxtaposition with 9/11.

There are interviews with a broad cast including loggers, police and many other activists. The success of this film, a winner at Sundance, owes much to the balance it provides.

One of the threads linking “If A Tree Falls” with “Just Do It” (JDI) is the heavy-handed police response to peaceful activism.

In JDI we are introduced to Marina. In the opening scenes Marina is asked why the British police have classified her as a “Domestic Extremist”. The extremist label seems absurd. Marina’s main activity at protests is making copious quantities of tea and offering cups to activists, police, workers and security guards. These cups of tea help Marina to connect with others in a calming manner. Also, she says, it’s “much better to save the alcohol for the after-party”.

JDI is an “embedded documentary.” Director Emily James spent two years following English climate activists as they planned and executed nonviolent direct action on airport runways, at coal-fired power stations, at banks, and at the Copenhagen climate summit.

I’ve never seen the planning of a direct action filmed like this before (apparently James went to lengths to hide all the footage until the actions were over to ensure security for the folks involved) and this makes it very educational. We learn about different action techniques: lock-ons, affinity groups, consensus-decision making and, somewhat ironically, security protocol.

I’m struck by the incredible energy of the activists. They all speak to the fact that time is running out to halt climate change and that they feel utterly let down by policy makers. With comments such as “I want to feel like I’m doing something, rather than nothing and not just watching the world go to shit.” The focus is very much on the actions and the motivations and politics are either glossed over or simplified.

That said, it’s fast-paced and nicely shot. After watching “If A Tree Falls” I felt despair about the implosion of a peaceful environmental movement. JDI reminds me that it’s very much alive and thriving. I recommend watching them both.

JDI is raising funds to bring their film to the U.S. You can find out more and support “Just Do It” here.

In the words of the EPA, this rule “will protect communities that are home to 240 million Americans from smog and soot pollution, preventing up to 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 19,000 cases of acute bronchitis, 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 1.8 million sick days a year beginning in 2014 — achieving up to $280 billion in annual health benefits.”

Utility companies like AEP have been protesting loudly about the impacts that rules like this will have on their business — and that’s because they are going to be required to invest significant dollars if they want to keep their aging coal-powered fleet operating. But these figures pale into insignificance (by a factor of 350!) when compared to the money that is directly spent on the human health problems caused by dirty air.

However, installing smog and soot pollution controls onto coal plants still does not address many of the risks of relying on coal power, such as climate emissions or the health and environmental impacts associated with strip mining and coal transportation.

The economics of coal power simply do not add up: demand is eroding, construction and retrofit costs are too high and coal prices are risky. There are questions being raised about the true extent of U.S. coal reserves, leading one U.S.G.S. official to acknowledge “we really can’t say we’re the Saudi Arabia of coal anymore”.

Rather than invest in keeping these coal plants open, now is the perfect moment to switch to cheaper, cleaner sources of energy instead.

My friend Erica was in the room with me. Erica lives in the Kentucky mountains, and her community is not being protected — she illustrated this by recounting the horror she felt on discovering that the water that she had bathed her small child in for years contained arsenic levels many times above the ‘safe’ level. It had been contaminated by surface coal mining.

A mountaintop removal mine above a community in Appalachia

Stories like these are shamefully too common in Appalachia. Yet, while they draw concerned expressions and sympathy from congressional staffers, too often they are dismissed as anecdotal and emotive.

Well, here’s some hard science to back it up.

A new study in the upcoming Environmental Research Journal concludes that children born in Appalachian mountaintop removal counties are at increased risk of suffering birth defects — the leading cause of infant deaths. The study, by Michael Hendryx and Melissa Ahern, examines two million births between 1996 and 2003 and disturbingly concludes that children born near mountaintop removal mines have a 26% higher risk of suffering birth defects, compared to ones born in non-mining regions.

We already know that MTR is destroying jobs and communities. Now we have evidence that it’s destroying human health.

Folks like Erica should be able to raise children without these threats. I’m sending this study direct to Pelosi’s office.

Deutsche Bank’s words are in italics, my ‘translations’ are in bold.

Deutsche Bank regards the responsible treatment of the environment as an integral part of its corporate identity. Within the framework of our certified sustainability management system we take environmental, social and governance issues very seriously, and we therefore take your concerns equally seriously. We have carefully studied your letter and consulted internally with the relevant business units.

Deutsche Bank thinks it is important to be environmentally-friendly, and so we have read and discussed your letter.

Please note that we only do business with companies that fully comply with national and local laws and standards. In 2010, we welcomed the US Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to announce a set of actions to further clarify and strengthen environmental permitting requirements. We believe that these new requirements will help to reduce the environmental impacts of mining activities in the US.

We only do business with companies that obey the law and we think that the EPA will make mining more eco-friendly.

Being aware of the possible implications of our business activities, we have integrated environmental, social, and governance aspects in Deutsche Bank’s risk management principles and guidelines. We use a systematic due diligence process, starting at the relevant business unit and involving internal control functions such as Compliance, Legal, Credit Risk Management, and Group Sustainability, to assess new clients as well as the engagement in potential business deals. If a case is especially complex and entails substantial risks, the case is escalated to senior management.

Deutsche Bank has a process to examine the environmental, social and legal impacts of new clients and business deals. And, if we spot these risks, then it is up to senior management to judge whether / how we do business.

Deutsche Bank only participates in financing, when the transaction complies with all the Bank’s relevant internal standards and when it fulfils legal and regulatory requirements. We have also integrated a “Green Filter” into our Group Reputational Risk Management Program policy, in order to evaluate whether a transaction is in line with the Bank’s objective to contribute towards a low carbon society. This approach is particularly relevant in carbon-intensive industries.

Deutsche Bank has a goal to help society reduce carbon emissions and so we look at new clients and deals to see whether this helps us get to that goal.

Business relationships with companies involved in potentially controversial environmental or social practices, are carefully considered and reviewed in depth and a company’s environmental, social and governance risks will be assessed against external standards and internal requirements. If gaps are identified, Deutsche Bank will aim to work with the company to improve such practices or policies, or may indeed define conditions which the company must meet before the Bank will enter into a client relationship.

When we spot a company who is not being as environmentally friendly as the law or as Deutsche Bank would like to see, we will try to work with them to improve. We might set a standard for the company to meet before we will do business with them.

We are constantly working towards further enhancing our due diligence process and expertise, and we therefore appreciate your input.

We would like our process to go further, thank you for your comments.

—

Whichever version you read, the bank avoids any mention of mountaintop removal (MTR). But if Deutsche Bank is true to its word, then they should not do business with any MTR company, as they all systematically break the law (see today’s article by Ken Ward in the West Virginia Gazette that demonstrates legal compliance is getting worse, not better, in Kentucky).

What do you think of Deutsche Bank’s response?

No, this isn’t another attempt by the coal industry to re-brand their egregious mining practices. It was Stephen Colbert’s response to Robert Kennedy Jr’s call for an end to the coal industry’s systematic destruction of Appalachia.

Bobby Kennedy was on the Colbert Report last night to talk about his new documentary – the Last Mountain, which features West Virginia activists (and RAN friends) Maria Gunnoe and Bo Webb and the tireless work that they – and thousands of others – have been doing to end mountaintop removal and transition their economy to clean, renewable energy,

Check out that interview here (starts at minute 15) and go see the Last Mountain, it opens in theaters across the U.S. this weekend.

“Mercury’s a neuro-toxin, it destroys our children’s brains, oftentimes before they’re born. These standards are estimated to prevent 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks each year.”

Serious stuff, but TDS host John Stewart still managed to crack a joke about the intense political pressure Ms Jackson faces from corporate-funded Republicans who are fighting “an epic battle… preventing these type of rules going into effect.” Jackson has been called to answer to Congress more times than any other public servant, prompting Stewart to ask if she’s ever been threatened with a tuna head in her bed.

Lisa responded that she sometimes calls Washington the “Fact-Free Zone,” that 95% of the American people see one of the roles of Government as protecting their air and water, and she’s committed to doing that.

It’s good to hear that health is the priority, and the obvious way to deliver on this priority in the U.S. is to retire those dirty coal plant and transition to clean, renewable energy sources instead.