Walking in the streets with these people was powerful and achingly painful at the same time – almost all of them are living without access to clean drinking water and many of them can’t afford to buy bottled water. I watched as an elderly indigenous woman drank deeply from a plastic water bottle that had been handed to her by one of the Frente (the coalition of groups working to fight Chevron and represent the affected peoples), wondering when the last time was that she had quenched her thirst without poisoning her body. It sounds dramatic, but it is no word of exaggeration to say that these people are dying. The indigenous groups are losing the last of their land and livelihoods and the peasant farmers are barely surviving on land that is growing more and more toxic as oil from the waste pits leaches out into streams and rivers.

Is there any doubt about this? I don’t think so. Just two nights earlier, I was sitting in the lounge of our hotel in Quito when a clean-cut American man came into the room and began to work on his computer. I asked him what his business in Ecuador was and he replied that he was just here for a visit to the Galapagos Islands. But as it turns out, Rick is a biophysical chemist, specializing in cancer research. So I inquired without telling him why I wanted to know: “is there any way that there is NO connection between long-term exposure to crude oil and cancer”. I expected to get some scientific prevarication, but Rick didn’t even pause, not for a second. “No way at all” he said.

Are you listening Chevron? These people need something very simple – clean water, free from crude oil residue. Or they will die.

But I’d like to use this year’s World Rainforest Week to talk about a little-known threat that tar sands development poses to temperate (i.e. cold, not hot & sweaty) rainforests in British Columbia.

The areas marked in green are existing mature rainforest; the areas marked in red have been deforested.

“Rainforests – in British Columbia??” you might say. (Well, actually, if you’re savvy enough to be reading this blog, then you may well know that rainforests don’t just exist in the tropics.) That’s right: BC is home to the Great Bear Rainforest, an area of spectacular natural beauty and biodiversity, home to many species – like the “spirit” bear – that exist nowhere else in the world.

But this spectacular rainforest is facing an urgent threat: the proposed construction of an oil pipeline that would run from the tar sands of Alberta to Kitimat, a town at the end of a long, narrow sea inlet that passes through some of the most spectacular parts of the Great Bear Rainforest.

This pipeline, the Northern Gateway, is proposed by Enbridge – the same company that is building the Alberta Clipper pipeline from the tar sands to the Midwest that was recently approved by the U.S. State Department (and opposed by a coalition of environmentalists and First Nations communities). Apparently, the Alberta Clipper – with its capacity of 800,000 barrels per day – won’t be big enough to pump out all the oil from rapidly-expanding tar sands strip mining in Alberta. So, Enbridge is proposing to build this new 720-mile pipeline, which would carry 525,000 barrels of tar sands oil per day to the sleepy little town of Kitimat, nestled at the end of an inlet that is surrounded by beautiful mountains and pristine temperate rainforests.

Spills along the pipeline route are certainly a concern: the pipeline will run across several fault lines, and Enbridge hardly has a great safety record – its existing pipelines had 65 “reportable spills” of a total of 13,777 barrels in 2007 alone. But the really scary threat to BC’s rainforests is the shipping route that will carry tar sands oil by tanker, through 70 miles of narrow inlets, on its way to ports on the U.S. West Coast and in East Asia.

In March 2006, the Queen of the North ferry ran aground and sank, killing two people, along the shipping route that these oil tankers would be taking (see the green arrow on the map below; Kitimat is in the upper right corner). In fact, just over a week ago, on Sept. 25, a pulp freighter ran aground near Kitimat and needed to be towed to Vancouver for repairs. And under Enbridge’s Northern Gateway proposal, 225 oil tankers would need to make the trip through these challenging channels to Kitimat and back each year. Four or five of these ships each month would be supertankers – which are over 1,000 feet long and carry 2 million barrels of oil, eight times the amount spilled by Exxon Valdez.

Enbridge reassures us that “all vessels using the Kitimat terminal will be required to be double-hulled.” But a section of the Exxon Valdez that ran aground was double-hulled – and that didn’t prevent hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil from spilling. In fact, a detailed 2006 study by an industry expert at tanker construction argued that double hulls do almost nothing to prevent major oil spills – due to the fact that any grounding or impact large enough to cause a major spill is easily large enough to rip through two hulls.

And as the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska and the 2002 Prestige spill in Spain have shown, all it takes is one screw-up to cause unimaginable damage to a coastal ecosystem. After Exxon Valdez spilled 265,000 barrels of oil into the Prince William Sound in Alaska, 1,200 miles of coastline were polluted; within days of the spill, 250,000 seabirds, 1.9 million salmon, and 2,000 otters died. A 2003 study found that sequestered oil was still causing animal deaths, and that some shoreline habitats would likely not recover fully until after 2030.

And one of the things that is so amazing about the Great Bear Rainforest also makes it incredibly susceptible to oil spills: the forest and marine ecosystems are incredibly interdependent. Bears live off of the salmon and other fish runs; rainforest wolves, which swim from island to island, eat fish and barnacles; and animals carry salmon carcasses into the forest, where they provide vital nutrients to plants. If the marine ecosystem was devastated by a massive oil spill, the entire ecosystem of the Great Bear Rainforest would be tremendously affected.

And these salmon of BC aren’t just vital to the ecosystem of the Great Bear Rainforest – they’re also vital to the local economy.

The people of British Columbia – among the most progressive in Canada – recognize the dangers posed by the Kitimat pipeline: a July 2008 poll found that 72% of BC residents favored banning oil tanker traffic in BC’s Inside Passage, while only 19% supported allowing it. Furthermore, 77% agreed that the communities most affected by a potential oil spill should have first say in whether tankers should be allowed on BC’s North Coast.

And those First Nations communities that would be most affected by such a spill have made it very clear where they stand. In Dec. 2008, the Haida Nation stated that they “will certainly not accept tanker traffic where we would run the burden of risk an oil spills in our waters.” In March 2009, the Gitga’at First Nation stated that “there is nothing but risk in this whole process for the Gitga’at people.” And at a First Nations energy summit in June, the Chief of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation said bluntly of the pipeline: “We don’t want it.”

So why is this dangerous idea being pursued? Well, any RAN supporter could probably tell you the answer: because Big Oil supports it.

Freaked out by the potential for tar-sands-oil-killing climate legislation in the U.S., the tar sands industry is hedging their bets by planning the Northern Gateway pipeline, which would allow them to export oil to East Asia – especially to China, which has recently taken a much stronger interest in the tar sands. While the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (which would limit the use of tar sands oil in California) was being considered in March 2009, the head of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers stated that “the only realistic… alternative to the U.S. in the near term would be exports off the West Coast to the Far East.”

And to make it clear that it isn’t just Enbridge that stands to benefit from the Northern Gateway pipeline, Enbridge announced in July that outside oil companies (they wouldn’t say which) are contributing $100 million to the effort to win regulatory approval for the pipeline. (This could be part of the reason why Enbridge’s CEO, when asked about how he’s going to deal with environmentalists’ concerns about the potential damage to the Great Bear Rainforest, simply said, “I think those can be addressed.”) And then there’s also the huge question of the (as yet unclear) involvement of Chinese oil companies in funding and promoting the pipeline.

Plus, the government of Alberta – the Saudi Arabia of Canada – is taking the cue from their oil industry buddies, and throwing down for Northern Gateway. In May 2008, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach stated that “we will not only depend on the American market, we will expand markets. And if that means building a pipeline to the coast and selling oil to another country, we will.” (Note the use of the word “we” when describing the actions of oil companies – that says a lot.)

And, to top it all off: what bank do you think loaned Enbridge $1.1 billion in 2008 (and thus presumably stands to gain from the pipeline’s success)? None other than the biggest corporation in the country, Royal Bank of Canada.

So who’s going to win? Big Oil, or the Great Bear Rainforest? An alliance of the Alberta government, RBC, and the biggest oil companies in the world – or an alliance of environmentalists and First Nations, backed by the public opinion of the people of BC?

You can help the fight against Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline by signing this petition by the Dogwood Initiative, by sending a letter to Prime Minister Harper, or by joining the Dogwood Facebook group. (Or, if you’d like to do something a bit more interesting, click here for the office numbers and email addresses of top Enbridge executives.)

Before I arrived in Ecuador, I read about the terrible health problems that settlers and indigenous people living in the oil-affected area are experiencing. I knew about the toxic oil pits and the constant gas flaring. I knew that people were sick. But I wasn’t prepared for Fabiola. Fabiola was born with her heart on the wrong side of her body and doctors said that she would never walk. She proved them wrong on that count, but she is tiny for her age and she and her mother have had to make endless trips to doctors, sometimes traveling for days, to try and diagnose her many illnesses.

Fabiola’s grandmother moved to Taracoa twenty-three years ago, looking for land to farm. Texaco (now owned by Chevron) was already operating in the area, but the family didn’t know that the land they chose was right beside a toxic waste pit. The oil company didn’t advertise the whereabouts of its disposal sites, and hundreds of people moved into the area to set up home, not realizing that they were settling in an area that was so profoundly polluted. Oil from the open waste pits has been seeping into groundwater and streams for decades, gradually contaminating all the potable water in an area the size of Rhode Island. Animals started to die and over time, people started falling sick at unusually high rates.

Fabiola’s mother told us that she used to tend to the cows close by their house when she was pregnant with her daughter. Most days she would spend walking around the oil pit, and drinking water from the family’s well. It smelt like crude oil, and had a constant film of oil floating on the top, but it was their only source of water. Chevron/Texaco for their part assured residents of the area that the crude oil was actually good for them, encouraging people to rub it on their skin to treat arthritis. To this day Chevron claims that there is no connection between exposure to crude oil and human illness, an assertion that would be laughable if the effects were not so tragic.

Fabiola was born with severe birth defects just like many other children whose families live on the edge of Chevron’s oil sites. The company claims that they have cleaned up their mess, but one look at a ‘remediated site’ makes it abundantly clear that the so-called clean up is a cover up at best. There is very little that the residents of Taracoa can do to help the little ones like Fabiola who have already been so affected by Chevron’s legacy. Almost everyone buys their drinking and washing water these days, but money is scarce, and many can’t afford it. Their best hope of a long-terms solution lies in a court case that is being fought to hold the giant oil company accountable for cleaning up its mess once and for all, and for providing healthcare and clean water for all the many people who have suffered from Chevron/Texaco’s irresponsible waste dumping. The company has been fighting the case every step of the way. But I don’t think that any Chevron lawyer or executive who met Fabiola could fail to have a change of heart, and I hope with all of mine, that Chevron will ensure that hers is the last generation to suffer.

Still, the Senate political scene is heavily influenced by coal and agriculture states and even these modest targets face a major uphill battle. Instead of reducing emissions, big oil, king coal and the senators they support are looking to carbon offsets as a solution. ACES offers 2 billion tons of emissions reductions to be achieved through offsets, a significant chunk of these are REDD offsets, also known as reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation from tropical rainforests.

Yes, REDD is promising for protecting forests. But if the Senate bill is as bad as the House ACES bill was, then REDD is poised to do more harm than good. In order to actually protect forests, the Senate bill’s forest provisions should:

1) Ensure that REDD measures are not a substitute for aggressive domestic emissions reductions.
2) Prioritize biodiversity and conservation, instead of logging and plantations. The House bill doesn’t even define the term ‘forest’, meaning that REDD offset credits may be encouraging converting rainforests into monocultural paper or oil palm plantations.
3) Protect and enforce Indigenous Peoples’ rights to free, prior and informed consent, in accordance with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
4) Create an international fund for REDD instead of tradeable forest carbon offsets.
5) Build a firewall to keep REDD carbon emission reductions out of fossil fuel emissions markets. There should be no offsets trading between forest and fossil carbon.
6) Strengthen weak forest governance in tropical countries with high rates of corruption and poor law enforcement.

If the Senate climate bill’s REDD provisions fail to include these safeguards, than the US climate bill will be doing more harm than good for tropical rainforests. You can take action on the Senate climate bill today; go to the RAN action center and tell your Senators to fight for strong REDD provisions in the climate bill today!

“If the government makes these mistakes again the Indigenous communities will rise again,” she warned in Upstreamonline. Meanwhile, Alberto Pizanga, another respected Indigenous leader, remains in Nicaragua where he was granted political asylum at the height of the violent police crackdown that left at least 34 people dead.

Over the weekend, the UN envoy called for an independent, international investigation into the clash between police and Indigenous protestors. President Garcia’s approval rating has dropped to an appallingly low 19 percent, and according to Reuters, tensions are still running high. And as Amazon Watch points out, since 2006, the government has authorized oil and gas concessions covering over 70 percent of the Peruvian Amazon, much of it on Indigenous lands.

You can help by encouraging the US government to take a stand against violence in Peru at RAN’s action center.

UN envoy calls for investigation into Peru clash
06/20/2009 | 12:06 PM

LIMA, Peru — A U.N. envoy on indigenous rights called Friday for an impartial, internationally supported committee to be set up to investigate bloody clashes between Peruvian police and Amazonian Indian protesters that killed at least 33 people.

The comment by James Anaya came a day after a leader of Peru’s main Indian confederation urged members to end road and river blockades in the Amazon region after Congress revoked two land-use decrees that angered indigenous groups. Indians lifted blockades of several jungle highways Friday, but anti-government protests continued in several highland cities.

Anaya, the U.N. special envoy for Indians’ human rights and freedoms, said that during his visit to Peru he had heard what he called “worrisome” testimony from Indian protesters alleging abuses by security forces.

“I am calling for an exhaustive investigation by a special, independent commission so that these allegations can be investigated and taken seriously,” Anaya said.

Peru’s Amazonian Indians have been opposing 11 decrees since last year that they fear would make it easier for private oil, logging and biofuel companies to acquire their traditional lands. The government argued the decrees were needed to bring investment and development to Peru’s impoverished jungle.

Indians started blocking highways, rivers and a state oil pipeline in the Amazon beginning in early April, and violence erupted June 5 when police broke up one road blockade.

The government says 23 police officers and 10 civilians were killed in the clash, and one policeman was missing. Indian leaders say at least 30 civilians died.

Anaya said Indians who participated in protests are still missing, but added that he could not say how many and that he was not in a position to make conclusions about Indian allegations of more dead civilians.

He called for a committee, with participation from local Indian leaders and an international body like the U.N. or the International Labor Organization, to establish how the violence broke out and monitor efforts to locate missing Indians.

Many protesters went into hiding after the violence for fear of arrest. Anaya urged Peru’s government to review the charges levied against the president of the main Amazon Indian confederation, Alberto Pizango, and dozens of others as a measure “to create confidence and advance dialogue” with Indian groups.

Pizango left Peru for political asylum in Nicaragua on Wednesday after being charged with sedition and rebellion. – AP

Cattle graze in front of wind mills of the Spanish utility Endesa in the Eolico Park, Spain. SOURCE: AP/Javier Barbancho.

By Vanessa Cárdenas | May 20, 2009

Léalo en español

When so-called experts with little credibility and ties to the energy industry come out against renewable energy investments, you would think we would take their advice with a grain of salt.

Yet that’s not the case with media pundits, elected officials, and others who—egged on by the conservative Heritage Foundation—have latched on to a dubious study from Spain to scare lawmakers and the public into thinking that developing clean-energy technologies raises prices and costs jobs.

Spain is a global leader in renewable energy, but this study claimed that government subsidies for renewable energy projects such as windmills and solar panels cost the Spanish economy $8 billion and eliminate 2.2 jobs for every “green” job created. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The study, authored by the relatively unknown Gabriel Caldaza, estimates that renewable projects in Spain created only 50,000 jobs, yet U.N. estimates show those projects actually created 188,000 jobs.

Caldaza also claims that solar energy projects cost Spain 15,000 additional jobs last year. Yet Caldaza fails to disclose that these job losses in Spain were actually caused by the worldwide economic crisis, not government funding for clean-energy projects. In reality, government estimates show that the clean energy sector in Spain grew by 500 percent in the last three years, and it will likely create 270,000 more jobs by 2020.

Caldaza also inaccurately forecasts impending economic doom in the United States if the current administration keeps its sights set on renewable energy development. Caldaza asserts, without offering any analysis of the U.S. economic situation, that if the Obama administration continues to subsidize renewable energy projects, “the U.S. could lose 6.6 million to 11 million jobs while it creates three million largely temporary ëgreen jobs.’”

These dire projections have made Caldaza the darling of the American extreme right wing. Never mind that leading Spanish experts from Fundación Ideas para el Progreso in a letter to Congress decrying Caldaza’s study characterized his research as “not reliable or credible,” and further described the research institute he’s affiliated with as having “clear links to the energy industry.”

Investing in clean and renewable energy is not only beneficial to the environment and our health; it actually reduces household energy bills while creating jobs. A 2008 Center for American Progress study found that investing $100 billion over two years in green energy would generate 2 million jobs, creating four times more jobs than if the same amount were spent in the oil sector. And these jobs would be concentrated in manufacturing and construction—two of the worst affected sectors by the recession. Investing in green jobs could therefore act as an economic stimulus and help low skill workers such as construction workers, roofers, and assemblers.

Clean-energy companies have already over the last year invested in American manufacturing facilities and created needed employment in the United States. According to the American Wind Energy Association, or AWEA, the wind energy industry currently employs 85,000 people and generated over 35,000 jobs in 2008. Yet the AWEA warned in a letter to Congress that the United States could lose its wind energy industry—and the billions in investments and thousands of jobs that come with it—to other countries unless it adopts improved renewable energy standards. These standards, which would require at least 25 percent of electricity to come from renewable energy sources by 2025, are currently being debated by Congress and have already been adopted by states such as Colorado and New Mexico.

And what about prices? The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that American consumers will save $95.5 billion from lower energy costs by 2030 if the government adopts the national renewable electricity standard currently being debated in Congress. A national renewable electricity standard, a key piece of this legislation proposed by Representatives Waxman and Markey, would save households and businesses in every state billions of dollars in electricity and natural gas bills. This would correspond to more than $5 billion in savings each for California, Texas, and New York.

The bottom line is that it is in our best interest to make a serious investment in clean and renewable energy and follow Spain’s lead. To get there, we will have to focus on the facts and not on such tall tales.

For more information, see:

• Tall Tales from Spain, by James Heintz and Andrew Light
• The Real Spanish Experience, letter from Spanish thought leaders

Air Pollution Endangers Lives of Six in 10 Americans | Green Business | Reuters.

By Environment News Service - Environment News Service

WASHINGTON, DC, April 29, 2009 (ENS) – Six out of every 10 Americans – 186.1 million people – live in areas where air pollution endangers lives, according to the 10th annual American Lung Association State of the Air report released today.

Some of the biggest sources of air pollution – dirty power plants, dirty diesel engines and ocean-going vessels – also worsen global warming, the Lung Association says in State of the Air 2009.

As America deals with the linked challenges of air pollution, global warming and energy, the Lung Association urges Congress, the U.S. EPA and individuals to choose solutions that help solve all three challenges together.

Nearly every major American city is still burdened by air pollution, and the air in many cities became dirtier since last year, the report finds, despite “substantial progress” made against air pollution in many areas of the country and more attention paid to the environment by America’s growing green movement.

“This should be a wakeup call. We know that air pollution is a major threat to human health,” said Stephen Nolan, American Lung Association National Board Chair. “When 60 percent of Americans are left breathing air dirty enough to send people to the emergency room, to shape how kids’ lungs develop, and to kill, air pollution remains a serious problem.”

State of the Air 2009 includes a national air quality report card that assigns A-F grades to communities across the country and details trends for 900 counties over the past decade.

The report ranks cities and counties most affected by the three most widespread types of pollution – ozone, or smog; annual particle pollution; and 24-hour particle pollution levels.

The report finds that air pollution hovers at unhealthy levels in almost every major city, threatening people’s ability to breathe and placing lives at risk.

“The more we learn, the more urgent it becomes for us to take decisive action to make our air healthier,” said Nolan.

Many cities, like Los Angeles, New York, Atlanta, Charlotte, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, and Baltimore have made improvements in their air quality over the past decade.

Only one city, Fargo, North Dakota, ranked among the cleanest in all three air pollution categories.

Seventeen cities appeared on two of the three lists of cleanest cities: Billings, Montana; Bismarck and Sioux Falls, North Dakota; Cheyenne, Wyoming; Colorado Springs, Ft. Collins, and Pueblo, Colorado; Farmington and Santa Fe-Espanola, New Mexico; Honolulu, Hawaii; Lincoln, Nebraska; Midland-Odessa, Texas; Port St. Lucie, Florida; Redding, Salinas, and San Luis Obispo, California; and Tucson, Arizona.

The three cities most polluted by ozone are all in California – the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside metropolitan area; Bakersfield, a center of agriculture, petroleum extraction and refining, and manufacturing in the San Joaquin Valley; and Visalia-Porterville, a San Joaquin Valley agricultural community.

Pittsburgh-New Castle, Pennsylvania tops the list of cities most polluted by 24 hour fine particle pollution, while the three California cities that top the most polluted ozone list are close behind in this category and also for year-round particle pollution.

Ozone

In March 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency adopted a new, tighter standard for ozone pollution. The new standard showed that unhealthy ozone levels are more widespread and more severe than previously recognized.

Evaluating the most recent data against the new standard, the American Lung Association found that approximately 175.4 million Americans – 58 percent – live in counties where ozone monitors recorded too many days with unhealthy ozone levels, far more than the 92.5 million identified in the State of the Air 2008 report.

Sixteen cities making this year’s 25 most ozone-polluted list experienced worse smog problems than last year.

The Lung Association’s review found consistent improvements in ozone in some cities, such as Los Angeles, with its long-standing ozone problem.

But two cities, Dallas-Ft. Worth and Las Vegas, have higher ozone levels than 10 years ago.

Ozone is the most widespread form of air pollution. When inhaled, ozone irritates the lungs, resulting in something like a bad sunburn. The health effects of breathing ozone pollution can be immediate. Ozone can cause wheezing, coughing and asthma attacks. Breathing ozone pollution can even shorten lives.

“More than 175 million Americans live in areas with unhealthy smog levels, that’s 80 million more than we identified in last year’s report,” said Charles Connor, American Lung Association president and chief executive. “We at the American Lung Association believe that the new ozone standard is not yet strong enough to protect human health, an opinion nearly all scientific experts share.”

In March 2008, the EPA adopted a standard of .075 parts per million, ppm, after legal action by the American Lung Association forced the agency to complete a formal review. This standard is not as strict as the standard of .060 ppm recommended by the Lung Association.

The association, along with states, public health and environmental groups, has taken the EPA back to court in an attempt to force the agency to adopt the .060 ppm standard before its scheduled five-year review in 2013.

Particle Pollution

State of the Air 2009 grades counties for both 24-hour and year-round levels of particle pollution – a toxic mix of microscopic soot, diesel exhaust, chemicals, metals and aerosols.

“It is the most dangerous and deadly of the outdoor air pollutants that are widespread in America,” the Lung Association says in its report, warning that “breathing in particle pollution can increase the risk of early death, heart attacks, strokes and emergency room visits for asthma and cardiovascular disease.”

One in six people in the United States lives in an area with unhealthy year-round levels of fine particle pollution (termed annual average levels).

Nine cities in the list of the 25 most polluted by year-round particle pollution showed measurable improvement, including five cities that reported their best year-round levels since the Lung Association began tracking this pollutant: Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Atlanta, York and Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

The annual average level of particle pollution worsened in a dozen cities, including Bakersfield and Los Angeles, California and Houston, Texas.

Roughly three in 10 Americans live in counties with unhealthful spikes of particle pollution which can last from hours to days (termed 24-hour levels).

Thirteen cities had more days, or more severe days, of spikes than in last year’s report. Eleven cities have improved continually since the 2007 report.

New data show that women in their 50’s may be particularly threatened by air pollution and that diesel truck drivers and dockworkers who are forced to breathe exhaust on the job may face a greater risk of developing lung cancer or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

California researchers have tripled their estimate of the number of people that particle pollution kills each year in their state.

“The science is rock-solid. We now know that air pollution can impair the lung function of even the healthiest people,” said Norman Edelman, MD, American Lung Association chief medical officer. “Air pollution worsens asthma and is a direct cause of heart attacks, which makes people living with lung and heart disease especially vulnerable.”

Dr. Edelman suggests that people living in areas of high particle pollution “must recognize that this is the fact of their lives, and they must be more careful about other life factors – stop smoking, eat well, exercise.”

In addition, Dr. Edelman suggests, people who live with particle pollution “must take action help us and other organizations to change the EPA regulations. It’s personal, it’s affecting them and their neighbors.” In addition, he said, they can take local political action to change regulations such as engine idling, and clean up diesel-powered school buses.

Low income people and some racial and ethnic groups often face greater risk from pollutants. Pollution sources like factories and power plants may be closer to their homes, the Lung Association points out. Many live near areas with heavy highway traffic or have poor access to health care, which makes them even more vulnerable. Some racial and ethnic groups have a higher prevalence of diseases like asthma or diabetes, which compounds the ill effects of air pollution for these groups.

“We need to renew our commitment to providing healthy air for all our citizens a commitment the United States made almost 40 years ago when Congress passed the Clean Air Act,” Connor said. “After four decades, we still have much work to do.”

“America needs to cut emissions from big polluters like coal-fired power plants and ocean-going vessels,” Connor said. “We need to fix old dirty diesel engines to make them cleaner and strengthen the ozone standards to better protect our health. We also need to improve the decaying infrastructure of air monitors. America must now enforce the laws that help us improve our nation’s air quality.”

See the full lists of best and worst cities at ens-newswire.com

“Green is green as in the color of money”
- Brand director of General Electric, Brandweek, July 26, 2006

“Greenwashing” is the act of misleading the public regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product, service, or business line.  Due to the public’s increased awareness of environmental issues, including global warming, deforestation, and the loss of endangered species, greenwashing has become a staple of corporations marketing efforts.  All of the companies in this article have made some effort to address these concerns.  Some of them appear to be trying harder than others, and even a few of them have made legitimate efforts to become responsible corporate stewards of the environment.  Evidenced by the support of environmental groups and corporate responsibility professionals, many of these companies’ green initiatives have made a positive impact.

A majority of America’s largest companies have become part of the “green” movement. Some have fleets of hybrid trucks. Others install solar panels on their large buildings to consume energy more cost effectively with less of an impact on the environment.  Many give generously to environmental non-profit organizations.

The irony of the “green” movement of US companies is that many of the firms that spend the most money and public relations effort trying to show the government, the public, and their shareholders that they are trying to improve the environment are also among the most prolific polluters in the country.  Pollution does not mean that the companies are doing anything illegal.  Instead, it simply refers to natural consequence of the companies’ industrial efforts which result in contamination to the air, soil or water by the discharge of substances that are toxic to the environment.
24/7 Wall St. has put together a list of the Top Ten Greenwashers in America.  There may be some large companies that are greater polluters than these firms.  There may be other corporations that do more to promote their pro-environment credentials.  But those can be counted on two hands.

Every company on this list makes a substantial investment in creating a perception that they are friendlier to the environment than their peers are or that they are on the side of good or that saving the global ecosystem should be part of a corporation’s broad public responsibility–its good citizenship.  These firms often spend millions of dollars on advertising to support the way that their companies are perceived in the green world.  But, hidden behind these efforts, each corporation on this list is a Herculean polluter.  And, that fact points to a hypocrisy which is almost completely hidden from the public.

In the process of creating this list, 24/7 Wall St. examined hundreds of state and federal documents and interviewed experts in environmental law, and officials who review data for non-profit organizations which have charters to track environmental violations.  We also reviewed annual reports from companies on their environment efforts.  It was important to balance all of these.  Some sources had axes to grind, but that was weighed in the process.

A more complete description of our methodology runs at the end of the article.

1) General Electric (GE)

In May 2005 GE announced its $90 million “Ecomagination” advertising campaign. According to Jeff Immelt, the company’s CEO, “Ecomagination is GE’s commitment to address challenges such as the need for cleaner, more efficient sources of energy, reduced emissions and abundant sources of clean water.”  The company said that revenue from 70 Ecomagination products and services would be $17 billion in 2008.  Since its inception, Ecomagination has provided GE with countless opportunities to reflect its corporate concern over the environment.  Arguably the whole effort is greenwashing.

On Super Bowl Sunday GE debuted its ad campaign for Smart Grid Technologies.  The premise behind this technology is that IT systems and products can make power grids more efficient.  The ad explains that “Smart grid technology from GE will make the way we distribute electricity more efficient simply by making it more intelligent.”  This will benefit the environment.  The more efficient our energy grid, the less power we use.  The less power used, the less carbon dioxide is emitted.  That GE used Super Bowl Sunday to launch this initiative is important, not only because of the huge sums spent for the advertising time, but also because it marked the first time that GE has bought time during the Super Bowl.

GE also launched a website to further create buzz around its efforts.  The online videos and interactive features include significant coverage about how the technology can be employed to better use alternative energy by improving the ability of the grid to deliver locally generated wind, sun and biogas power across the country.  The technology will also facilitate the purchase of energy generated by the consumer from systems like wind turbines and solar panels.  The cumulative effect of promoting the benefits that the technology will have on alternative energy is that it appears to equate the two.

The reality is that smart grid technology in one form is already required by 42 states.  Although alternative energy may benefit from this new service, there are myriad ways that it will improve consumer spending and carbon emissions without adopting better alternative energy efforts.  Ecomagination’s stated goal is to “meet customer demand for more energy-efficient products” by investing in “innovative solutions to environmental challenges.”  The character of this statement is fair, but it belies the company’s larger corporate identity and its history as one of the country’s worst polluters.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), for the electrical equipment industry, GE was the fifth largest producer of chemicals with four facilities in the top 100 generating 332,336 pounds in waste in 2007.  In the miscellaneous manufacturing industry, GE’s GE Osmonics facility was the fourth highest producing facility of TRI production-related waste with 1,919,437 pounds. According to the University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), General Electric is the most toxic company when considering the amount of population exposed to its pollution and its toxicity level from its plants.

According to the EPA, “From approximately 1947 to 1977, the General Electric Company (GE) discharged as much as 1.3 million pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from its capacitor manufacturing plants” at two facilities on the Hudson River.  The EPA says that “The primary health risk associated with the site is the accumulation of PCBs in the human body through eating contaminated fish.”  The EPA has found that the cancer risk from eating fish from the Upper Hudson exceeds the EPA standard by 700 times.

On December 4, 2001, the EPA issued a “record of decision” calling for the dredging of 2.65 million cubic yards from the upper section of the Hudson River to remove approximately 150 thousand pounds of PCBs.  According to the company’s website, “From 1990 to 2007 GE has spent over $1 billion in addressing PCB-related issues, with the majority of those expenses (82%) coming from just three sites” including the Hudson River.  However, Riverkeeper and other non-for-profit organizations focused on the environment contend that GE has stymied the government’s efforts to clean up the river and enforce the dredging requirement.  In 2008, Alex Matthiessen, president of Riverkeeper, stated that CEO, Jeffery Immelt “continues to be, as is GE, very defensive about the Hudson River cleanup.”

Each year the League of Conservation Voters publishes the “Dirty Dozen,” a program targeting candidates for Congress “who consistently vote against clean energy and conservation.”  Out of this list, GE’s PAC has donated thousands of dollars to six of the dirty dozen.  Additionally, GE’s PAC donated to two leading deniers of global warming, Senator Jim Inhofe, included in the Dirty Dozen list, and Congressman Joe Barton.
2) American Electric Power (AEP)

According to the company, American Electric Power’s 2008 Sustainability Report is a “comprehensive report offering a frank discussion” about their environmental performance and their strategies for sustainability.  Michael G. Morris, the chairman, president, and CEO, says that sustainability is “Transparency and accountability, along with a close working relationship with our stakeholders, will grow our business, serve our shareholders’ interest and create a better world for our children and grandchildren.”

In an effort to be more energy efficient, the company adopted principals set forth by the Clinton Global Initiative, committing approximately $100 million over the next five years to build or update its facilities using the LEED green building rating system.  In 2008, construction was completed on a new facility for which the company is seeking LEED certification and which it claims “will use 15 percent less energy and 20 percent less water than comparable non-LEED building.”  Through another initiative the company will conform to the International Management System Standard ISO 14001, which outlines the requirements for organizations to operate in an environmentally sustainable manner.  The company further argues that is has “completed more than two-thirds of our $5.4 billion investment program to reduce airborne emissions from our coal-fired power plants,” in order to comply with the federal environmental regulations.

Although these investments are laudable, it appears that they were not entirely motivated by the company’s desire to be a good steward of the environment.  As the report sets forth, “AEP’s court-approved settlement of the New Source Review (NSR) litigation provides us with additional opportunities to reduce our power plant emissions.”  The complaint by the U.S. EPA and others alleged that AEP had made major modifications at some of its coal-fueled generating units without obtaining the necessary permits and without installing controls required by the Clean Air Act to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (“SO2”), nitrogen oxide (“NOx”) and particulate matter.  Despite the company’s eagerness to be a leader in environmental conservation, “AEP did not admit to wrongdoing by agreeing to this settlement.”

According to Frank O’Donnell, President of Clean Air Watch, an environmental policy group and whistleblower, “AEP is one of nation’s biggest polluters, now that GM is making fewer cars, and is one the key lobbyist against political interest on global warming.”  O’Donnell also says that the company “aggressively seeks to block legislation unless it receives a huge financial wind fall in the deal.”  The company’s corporate PAC donated to five members of the Dirty Dozen as well as Congressman Barton.

On October 9, 2007, the Department of Justice, eight states, and 13 citizen groups announced a settlement agreement with AEP under the Clean Air Act, obtaining caps on emissions of pollutants from 16 plants in five states.  According to the EPA, it is the single largest environmental enforcement settlement by several measures.  The EPA estimates that the company will spend more that $4.6 billion to achieve the emission caps.  The settlement also will have one of the greatest individual impacts on pollution, reducing it by 813,000 tons per year.  According to assistant administrator for EPA’s enforcement and compliance assurance program, Granta Nakayma, “Today’s settlement will save $32 billion in health costs per year for Americans.  Less air pollution from power plants means fewer cases of asthma and other respiratory illnesses.”
3) ExxonMobil (XOM)

Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the country’s largest oil spill.  As a result of the disaster, the ship spilled approximately 10.8 million gallons of crude oil into the Prince William Sound, Alaska.  Since that time, ExxonMobil has spent millions of dollars in an attempt to regain the public’s trust.  In an effort to continue to improve the way the company is perceived, it has begun to aggressively market its green initiatives.

ExxonMobil’s Corporate Citizen’s Report, published May 21, 2008, states that the company “is working on technologies with the potential for near-term impact on greenhouse gas emissions” including: investing $100 million improving natural gas technology, working with car makers to increase fuel economy by 30 percent, improving lithium-ion battery technology in order to enable lower-emission hybrid vehicles, and developing a hydrogen system that could improve driving efficiency by 80 percent.

In a commercial broadcast in 2008, the company sought to promote this perception further.  The ad features a series of ExxonMobil employees who share their thoughts on the need for greater energy efficiency and alternative fuels.  An engineer states that “With the increased demand for energy in the world there is a growing concern about the risk of climate change.”  Another engineer suggests “One of the best things we can do is be efficient with our energy.  The less energy we use the less impact there is on the environment.”  Finally, a research engineer says that efficient fuels, engines, and batteries for hybrid cars will be important because “energy has to be used in the most efficient way to meet the needs of our lives but also to minimize the impact on the environment.”

For some time, policy and research groups have worked to discredit the reality of global warming.  According to the U.K.’s Royals Society, a highly regarded scientific academy, these groups “misrepresent the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence.”  In 2007, The Guardian reported that academics were offered $10,000 each “by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.”  Research performed by ExxonMobil watchdog, ExxposeExxon, suggests that “Since at least 1998, ExxonMobil has spent $17 to $23 million to bankroll these groups.”

According to the company’s 2008 Corporate Citizen’s Report, ExxonMobil has finally admitted that its funding efforts to research groups that deny global warming has an adverse effect on the environment.  “In 2008 we will discontinue contributions to several public policy interest groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.”

On December 17, 2008, ExxonMobil settled an action with the EPA arising from Clean Air Act violations. As a result of the company’s failure to monitor sulfur content in some fuel gas streams between 2005 and 2007, EPA tests found sulfur levels in excess of regulatory limits. This was a violation of a 2005 agreement. The total fine for the two EPA actions was more than $20 million.

4) DuPont (DU)

In 2008 Dupont launched a marketing campaign called “Open Science.”  According to the company’s website, “DuPont Open Science uses the power of collaboration to do extraordinary things.  Explore how DuPont and its partners are helping the United States cultivates, taps new energies, and makes industries safer and eco-friendly.”  The site goes on to encourage the reader  to “Explore how DuPont and its partners are tackling the issues of our age: food shortages, dwindling petroleum, and global warming.”

Along with this initiative, the company debuted a TV advertisement.  The TV spot features a series of miniature cityscapes depicting scenes where conditions are improved by Open Science.  Among the changes that Open Science achieves are rebuilding cities “making them safer and more sustainable”; “it can bring solar power to remote villages”; “it makes materials lighter which saves fuel”; and“it can feed a growing planet.”  DuPont’s website provides perfect illustrations for each of these initiatives.  In one such example, DuPont explains its efforts to help Greensburg, Kansas recover from one of America’s worst tornados.  According to the piece, the company helped “rebuild Greensburg as a model sustainable community” by a financial gift and “eco-friendly” products.

DuPont’s efforts and partnerships are, in many cases, charitable works that have a positive impact on the environment. The ad and the campaign in general have an aggregate affect on all of DuPont’s detailed “eco-friendly” projects leaving the impression that DuPont is a good steward of the environment and believes in open science.  Open Science, before DuPont co-opted the name, refers to the concept in science of providing accurate accounts of methodology  that results in a transparent research process that encourages collaboration.  In reality, DuPont’s partners are in large part its customers.  And, as has been the case for DuPont for some time, its business practices are far from transparent and fall short of being friendly to the environment.

On December 12, 2005 the EPA reached a $16.5 million settlement with the DuPont arising from violations alleged by the agency that the company failed to report the possible health risks associated with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a chemical compound used to make Teflon.  The settlement included $10.25 million civil administrative penalty and $6.26 million for Supplemental Environmental Projects.  According to the EPA, “A SEP is an environmentally beneficial project that the violator agrees to undertake in exchange for mitigation of the penalty to be paid.”  At that time, the penalty was the largest in the agency’s history.

The violations alleged by the EPA included “multiple failures to report information to EPA about substantial risk of injury to human health or the environment that DuPont obtained about PFOA from as early as 1981 and as recently as 2004.”  The violations fell into three categories: human health information, environmental contamination, and animal toxicity studies.  The enforcement action arose from DuPont’s failure to disclose information that the company had obtained regarding the level of PFOA in 12 individuals who had been exposed to drinking water which contained the chemical.

According to DuPont’s Progress Report on PFOA Phase Out, in February 2007, former DuPont Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Charles O. Holliday went beyond the stated goal of the EPA program when he publicly announced the company’s commitment “to eliminate the need to make, buy or use PFOA by 2015.”  However, despite the fact that it has complied with the terms of the phase out, the company continues to deny PFOA’s harmful effects.  Although the EPA has not made any definitive conclusions regarding potential risks, including cancer, at this time, additional research is still being conducted to determine the cancer-causing risks of PFOA.   However, in 2005, the Science Advisory Board performed a formal peer review of the chemical that, while not conclusive, stated the PFOA cancer data was consistent with EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment Descriptor and “likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

On January 8, the Environmental Appeals Board granted EPA and DuPont’s joint motion seeking a three-year extension on its testing of PFOA.  Executive Director of the Environmental Working Group, Richard Wiles, said the data from DuPont tests is critical to determining whether consumer Teflon products are a major source of PFOA in the environment.  “As long as they can delay development of this data, that basically means that they don’t have to comply with the phase-out agreement,” Wiles said.
5) Archer Daniels Midland (ADM)

Biofuel, ethanol and biodiesel, have quickly become the darlings of the green economy.  They are heralded as renewable energy sources that some say can either reduce or entirely replace reliance on petroleum to fuel internal combustion engines.  According to the company’s site, “a world in need of clean, renewable fuels to meet growing energy demand and achieve greater energy security is turning to agriculture for answers.”  As one of the largest diversified agribusinesses in the world, the company maintains that it has the necessary scale and expertise to be a leader in the production of biofuels. Its mission is “to unlock the potential of nature to improve the quality of life.”

The company points out that biofuels have measurable benefits to the environment including a reduction in greenhouse emissions, by limiting cardon dioxide, carbon monoxide and particulate matter associated with petroleum-based diesel, while also serving as a renewable energy source.  Produced from corn and sugar cane, ethanol is blended with gasoline to produce a fuel that can improve engine performance and reduce pollution.  Produced from vegetable oil and alcohol, biodiesel is blended with gasoline, reducing greenhouse emissions from diesel engines.

The truth is that both ethanol and biodiesel emit less global warming pollution than burning petroleum-based gasoline.  Unfortunately, producing biofuels creates enormous amounts of global warming pollution, so much so that many argue that they offset the benefits gained when the fuel is used to power engines.  This is the sin of the hidden trade-off.  In this case, a company promotes the green attribute of a product without consideration for other environmental factors. ADM publicly touts biofuels’ green benefits, while failing to mention that the energy necessary to grow the corn requires significant amounts of fossil fuels, offsetting the environmental benefits.  According to the journal Science, “corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%.”

In 2006, Wilmar Holdings, the largest producer of palm oil, announced the proposed acquisition of “five plantation companies which have interests in land in Kalimantan province, Indonesia” in order to increase capacity for palm oil production. The planting of palm-oil producing plants requires land which is cleared of trees. The acquisition document proves that ADM Asia Pacific Limited, a subsidiary of ADM, acquired 30% interest in the companies.  According to Greenpeace, the enormous growth of the palm oil industry is due in part to increase demand for biofuels.  Although the problem is occurring across Southeast Asia, “the problem is particularly acute in Indonesia which has been named in the 2008 Guinness Book of Records as the country with fastest rate of deforestation. It is also the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases, largely due to deforestation,” environmental group said.

Since receiving increased attention from a number of environmental and political organizations, ADM has sought to distance itself from palm oil plantation efforts in Indonesia.  Following a series of public attacks ADM stated that it “affirmed our Company’s commitment to responsible palm oil through our membership in the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil,” an organization that encourages sustainable palm oil production.  On February 24, Wilmar International Limited entered into two separate acquisition agreements with Archer Daniels Midland Europe BV and Archer Daniels Midland Singapore Pte Ltd for the acquisition of all its interests in two jointly-held companies, Wilmar-ADM Investments Holding Pte Ltd & PT Karya Putrakreasi Nusantara.

6) Waste Management, Inc. (WMI)

In 2006, Waste Management introduced a new television advertising campaign focusing on environmental messages.  According to WM senior vice president of sales and marketing David Aardsma, “the goal of the Waste Management ad campaign is to link everyday collection to environmental protection in the minds of consumers.”  The campaign, titled “think green” was intended to inform the public that the company was the largest recycler in North America and that their landfill gas-to-energy project produced renewable energy,

The television spot featured cinematic shots of lush forests and woodland creatures interspersed with the company’s truck driving on a road past the trees.  A narrator is heard saying “This lush expanse of green does more than beautify our world.  Trees help clean the air of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas.  As North America’s largest recycler, last year alone, Waste Management recycled enough paper to save over one million trees.  From everyday collection to environmental protection, think green, think waste management.”

In 2008, WM launched greenopolis, a social networking site that encourages users, including individuals, organizations, schools and businesses, to learn about the environment and earn rewards by making a positive impact.  About the launch, Joe Vaillancourt, managing director of Waste Management said, “Waste Management is an environmental company that is committed to not only providing its comprehensive waste and environmental services, but also engaging customers and all of its various stakeholders to think about the environment.  We believe that by promoting and creating a dialogue about things such as conservation, recycling and renewable energy, that awareness about our environmental operations and our business offerings will increase.”  Techcrunch’s Michael Arrington thinks it has a more subversive purpose: “Greenopolis, I suspect, is designed to show that Waste Management cares about the environment more than anything else. So in a way, it’s like an advertisement.”  EarthFirst.com and others seem to take similarly skeptical position.

According to Elizabeth Royte, a journalist for the Natural Resources Defense Council’s onearth, since 2005, Waste Management has spent more than $90 million on TV commercials and print advertisements emphasizing the number of trees it saves through recycling, the amount of land it has set aside for wildlife habitats, and how much energy it generates through incineration.  However, what the ads fail to disclose is that burning trash doesn’t come without a price.  Although the technology continues to improve, incinerators still discharge small levels of mercury, lead, and dioxin into the atmosphere.  Royte also writes, “They also generate more carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of energy generated than do power plants, and their ash is toxic.”  An additional consequence of incineration is that it discourages using landfills.  Because power plants that use incinerators require a consistent flow of garbage, they are necessarily antagonistic to principles such as recycling, composting and reducing waste.

Waste Management’s corporate PAC has donated to two members of the dirty dozen, Mitch McConnel and Sam Graves.  The company also made a donation to Congressman Barton.

7) International Paper (IP)

In the early 1990s, following a series of reports issued by the United Nations on sustainable development and rainforest conservation, the forest products industry began to receive increased attention over its land-use strategies regarding logging.  Specifically, these companies, including International Paper, received negative publicity regarding their use of chemicals, clear-cutting, and inadequate conservation protection.  Informed by increased awareness of sustainable practices, third-party certification has become a critical tool for promoting ecologically responsible forestry practices.

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is an international non-profit founded in 1993 by environmental groups, the forestry profession, and community groups.  Its stated purpose “is to improve forest management worldwide” by providing “a model for environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial and economically viable forest stewardship.”

In 1994, International Paper, in collaboration with the American Forest & Paper Association (AFPA) – the national trade association for the forest, pulp, paper, paperboard, and wood products industry – founded the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI).  According to AFPA website, the association’s members “agreed to adhere to a set of forestry principles that would meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

According to an independent study commissioned by both FSC and SFI, although SFI was initially developed as an industry led self-improvement program, “it has evolved into a program that promotes third-party certification of forestry practices of member companies and licensees.”  However, contrary to this assessment, environmental groups, including The Sierra Club, The Nation Environmental Defense Fund and the Rainforest Action Network have published reports critical of what they characterize as weak standards for certification.  According to these groups, because SFI standards were developed by the same industry that requires certification, SFI certification provides a measurement for sustainability that is weak on oversight and contrary to its stated purpose.

The US Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System is a rating tool of the nonprofit for green building design and construction that seeks to provide measurable results for building owners and occupants.  The LEED green building certification program for new construction requirements are intended to “encourage environmentally responsible forest management.”  The most recent version of LEED, with a scheduled launch of April 27, requires that new construction seeking the LEED designation must “Use a minimum of 50% (based on cost) of wood-based materials and products that are certified in accordance with the Forest Stewardship Council’s principles and criteria, for wood building components.”

FSC is not without its critics. It may be that some groups find both acceptable.  However, despite this criticism, 24/7 Wall St is unaware of any environmental groups that have suggested that SFI is better than FSC.

According to International Paper’s 2008 “Sustainability Update,” FSC certification in the U.S. reflects a fraction of the certification used by the company’s businesses.  Of the company’s 16 domestic paper mills only one uses FSC certification.  Similarly, domestic container plants and wood procurement systems both use SFI certification in lieu of FSC.

According to TRI, for the paper industry, International Paper was the largest producer of chemicals with fifteen facilities in the top 100 generating 42,554,027 pounds in waste.  The company also had the second highest producing facility of TRI production-related waste with 43,320,612 pounds.  According to PERI, International Paper is the thirty-first most toxic company with a toxic score of 49,385.

In 2008, the Rainforest Action Network condemned a proposal by International Paper to build a pulp mill and establish 1.2 million acres of plantation forest in Indonesia’s rainforest.  This came as a surprise to RAN because the company had established an internal policy that it would not expand into Indonesia because it is a global warming and biodiversity hot spot.

Following the release, Thomas E. Gestrich, president of International Paper Asia, explained the company’s plans in Indonesia.  Mr.Gestrich said that he would prefer land that had already been cleared, but failed to explain how the company would secure hundreds of thousands of meters of forest without disturbing the natural habitat, waters or indigenous peoples.

Out of the LCV’s Dirty Dozen, International Paper’s PAC has donated thousands of dollars to 5 of the Dirty Dozen, including the leading denier of global warming, Senator Jim Inhofe.

BP (BP)

In 1998, British Petroleum and Amoco announced a merger into a single company called BP Amoco.  In 2000, according to the company’s website, BP, now a group of companies that included Amoco and others “unveiled a new global brand with a distinctive new mark, a sunburst of green, yellow and white.”  According to Sourcewatch, a project of the Center for Media and Democracy, “in late July 2000 BP launched a massive $200 million public relations and advertising campaign, introducing the company with a new slogan – ‘Beyond Petroleum.’”  According to an EPA press release, on July 25th, 2000 the company entered into a settlement with the EPA and agreed to spend more than “$500 million on up-to-date pollution-control technologies and work practices at nine refineries to reduce emissions from all sources – from stacks, leaking valves, wastewater vents and flares.”

In December of 2000, CorpWatch, a non-profit focused on corporate violations of environmental fraud, gave BP a “greenwash” award.  CorpWatch gives out the awards “to corporations that put more money, time and energy into slick PR campaigns aimed at promoting their eco-friendly images, than they do to actually protecting the environment.”  In a 2001 speech to shareholders, BP’s Chief Executive John Browne said “When we launched the brand we used the phrase beyond petroleum. Some people thought that meant we were giving up oil and gas. I’m sorry to disappoint our competitors. Beyond Petroleum means that what we’re giving up is the old mind set – the old thinking which assumed that oil companies had to be dirty and secretive and arrogant. I don’t believe we should be any of these things.”

“Beyond petroleum” is still the company’s motto today.  A commercial that played in 2008 suggested that alternative energies were important to BP.  Composed of a series of brief statements that appear to be the opinions of the average American, the comments state what BP’s energy policy should be with respect to alternative fuels.  “First we insure that we find all the oil that is avail to us in North American.  Natural gas is probably the cleanest and the most accessible fuel we have.  I’d love seeing more wind power. I think it would be in their best interest to continue to pursue things like solar energy.  I think biofuel is a very viable alternative.  Any business person that’s worth their salt is going to diversity as much as they can.”  The commercial closes by showing a series of icons depicting oil, natural gas, wind, solar, and biofuels, followed by the ad’s s tagline: “investing in America’s most diverse energy portfolio: bp. beyond petroleum.”

O’Donnell has a poor opinion of the company’s green initiatives saying “several years ago, BP, which probably spent as much as any company in the world to promote their green brand, was, at the same time, actively lobbying against efforts to limit global warming legislation – beyond petroleum and into the backrooms.”  In 2008, the company’s corporate PAC contributed to half of the Dirty Dozen and to Congressman Joe Barton.

According to environmental watchdogs, things have not changed a great deal since 2000.  A 2009 study published by Greenpeace reported that BP “allocated 93 percent ($20 billion) of its total investment fund for the development and extraction of oil, gas and other fossil fuels.  In contrast, solar power was allocated just 1.39 percent, and wind a paltry 2.79 percent.”  Along with its aggregate investment in alternative energy – including wave, tidal, and biofuels – this amount is only 6.8 percent of BP’s total investment.  Greenpeace claims that this information is from internal company documents which it obtained.

As recently as last month, BP entered into a settlement with the EPA stemming from charges related to violations of The Clean Air Act. According to Catherine R. McCabe, the acting assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, “BP failed to fulfill its obligations under the law, putting air quality and public health at risk.” She added, “Today’s settlement will improve air quality for the people living in and around Texas City, many of whom come from minority and low income backgrounds.” BP has agreed to invest at least $161 million on “pollution control, enhanced maintenance, and monitoring.” Furthermore, the company must spend a total of $18 million, $12 million in civil penalties, and $6 million for supplemental environmental projects in the community.
9) Dow Chemical (DOW)

In 2006, The Dow Chemical Company announced its new advertising campaign. Dubbed “The Human Element”, the accompanying press release stated that the campaign sought to reintroduce the company the company, announcing “its vision of addressing some of the most pressing economic, social and environmental concerns facing the global community in the coming decade.”  Dow vice president of global communications and reputation, Patti Temple Rocks,  explained that the initiative is more than an ad campaign, calling it a statement to the world “about the future direction of our business.”  She went on to say, “It will be our calling card to people around the world to people who care about the future relationship between business, society and the environment.”

In 2008 the company’s Human Element advertising won a national advertising award for the best overall television commercial.  The ad, “The Bond  Between Us All,” focused on climate change. The commercial beat out advertisement from brands including Altoids, Bud Light, IKEA, and Nike.  Another excellent commercial featured in 2008, is set to a string quartet and features picturesque scenes of nature and human creativity coupled with eloquent narration that describes how the company seeks to embrace life’s most important character, the human element.  The narration provides, “The human element is the element of change.  It gives us our footing to stand fearlessly and face the future.  It is a way of seeing that gives us a way of touching issues, ambitions, lives.”

In May of 2001, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry received a petition from Michigan-based environmental groups seeking public health assessment of dioxin contaminated in Midland, Michigan.  In a subsequent report by the agency it was recorded that “levels of dioxins detected in soil in the city of Midland and in the fish in the Tittabawassee River downstream of Midland exceed health-based comparison values.”  The report further stated that dioxin is believed to cause carcinogenic effects at extremely low levels of exposure.

In January of 2002, Michigan-based environmental organization, Lone Tree Council, issued a press release calling for “federal probe into major dioxin cover-up in Michigan.”  According to the release, documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act indicated that Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Director Russell Harding had suppressed state health assessments that revealed dioxin levels in the Tittabwassee Riber floodplain, which were downstream from the company’s plant in Midland 80 times Michigan’s cleanup standards.  In February of 2002, MDEQ announced the Tittabawassee/Saginaw River Flood Plain Dioxin Environmental Assessment Initiative.

In 2007, Dow agreed to three EPA orders issued under the Superfund Act for sediment cleanup on the Tittabawassee River.  However, despite this agreement, Dow Chemical has been slow to respond.  As recently as 2008, the company claimed that it needed to measure the amount of the pollution before it could establish a cleanup program.  Although the company removed contaminants from four environmental hotspots, particularly polluted areas, it has spent over $40 million on sediment sampling as well as other studies.  According to the EPA, these areas include some of the highest dioxin levels recorded in the Great Lakes region.  In July of 2008 an agreement was reached between Dow Chemical and the EPA to clean up dioxin contamination in the Riverside Boulevard neighborhood.

As of this year environmental groups and the EPA remain frustrated with the progress the company has made.  In a March 3 EPA press release, the agency stated that “Dow Chemical Co. has agreed to conduct another Superfund removal action to clean up dioxin contamination in the Tri-Cities area.”  The project, focusing on the Saginaw Township’s West Michigan Park, was scheduled to begin in mid-April and go through early June.  According to a 2003 work plan issued to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, the park “is essentially a level field with an open expanse of grass for ball sports.”  The park includes picnic tables and a play area for children.  According to the 2003 report issued by MDEQ on Dow’s sampling study the company found that the range of dioxin contamination in the soil in West Michigan Park was 140 to 670 ppt (parts per trillion) with an average of 413 ppt.  In 2002, MDEQ established the residential action standard for soil containing dioxin at 90 ppt.  According the company’s 2003 work plan, the planned interim measures included a hand-washing station and replacement of sand in children’s play area along with cosmetic measures.

On March 2, , Lisa P. Jackson, the new head of the EPA, sent a letter to community and environmental groups who had voiced concern over Dow’s slow progress, She said that she would stop negotiations with Dow until EPA had been given the opportunity to take the groups’ concerns into consideration.  “My goal is to ensure an expeditious and robust cleanup, and I will take steps to ensure that the dioxin contamination is addressed in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment and that the process is open and transparent,” she wrote. It has been a long time coming.

10) General Motors (GM)

On July 5, 2007 General Motors Chevrolet division launched its “gas-friendly to gas-free” campaign.  The branding effort seeks to reposition GM as an environmentally responsible car company.  The press release stated that Chevrolet will “launch a major ad campaign intended to let the world know about its far-reaching approach to reducing petroleum consumption.”  In 2007, GM began to run commercials for the Chevrolet Volt, an electric prototype car that was not scheduled for production for several years.

One such ad featured the car sitting on a grassy hill surrounded by children with their ears pressed against the hood.  The children ask why the car is humming and a man explains, “That’s the sound of the future, the extended range electric car powered by the miracle of the advanced lithium-ion battery pack.  And they expect you get to 40 miles without a drop of gas.”  The ad then shows a series of icons representing fuel economy, E85 ethanol, hybrid, electric, fuel cell.  It concludes with the motto, “Chevy, from gas friendly to gas free.  That’s an American revolution.”  According to its website, these efforts include fuel efficiency, biofuels, hybrid, electric, and hydrogen fuel cells.

On September 16, 2008 the company unveiled the Chevrolet Volt electric vehicle.  “The Volt symbolizes GM’s commitment to the future,” said Rick Wagoner, the company’s former chairman and CEO.  Unlike a traditional hybrid vehicle that is both battery and gas powered, the company claims that the Volt is entirely electric.  Although the battery can only go 40 miles on a single charge, a gasoline engine will turn on once needed that will power the electric motor.  The company justifies the fact that the car should be considered electric, because the gas engine powers the electric motor and doesn’t power the wheels.

In addition to electric cars, GM has begun advertising its cars that run on ethanol, biofuels and fuel cells.  According to a 2008 press release, “GM has been working on hydrogen-powered fuel-cell propulsion systems for 11 years.  Fuel cell vehicles use hydrogen which is converted onboard into electricity.  Powered by hydrogen, the consequence of using fuel cell technology is no emissions.  Although this kind of alternative energy would be a remarkable step forward, the company indicates that the technology is still very immature.” The press release adds that “under a carefully scripted development plan at General Motors that culminates in as many as one million affordable FCVs by 2020.”  That’s quite a ways a way to be marketing it now.

In 2008, GM vice chairman Bob Lutz appeared on the Colbert Report, a satirical news and comedy program..  Lutz, interviewed by show’s host, Steven Colbert, lauded the environmental benefits of the Volt.  Following up, Colbert said “that’s tantamount to admitting that we have to do something about global warming, sir.  You don’t believe global warming is real, you said so?” In response, Lutz stated “I accept that the planet is heated, but I, like many noted scientists, don’t believe in the CO2 theory . . . In the opinion of about 32,000 t of the world’s leading scientists” global warming is the result of sun spots.  He appeared to be very sincere.

O’Donnell says “GM has long been one of the most anti-environment companies in America’s history, dating back to its efforts to limit car emission standards.  Because of their lobbying efforts, they created a loophole to reduce the average fuel economy of a car-makers fleet.  GM had legislation passed that provided “if you make certain number of cars that are flex fuel – cars that can take both regular and biofuel – the average fuel economy of all of the company’s cars can go down below emission standards.  The loophole enables car companies to use ethanol as a pretext for reducing fuel economy.” The company’s corporate PAC donated to over seven of the Dirty Dozen and Congressman Barton.

In 2007, according to a study by Union of Concerned Scientists, General Motors ranked as the second worst polluter, just above DaimlerChrysler, out of eight major car companies.  In addition, GM manufactures the most cars that have 15 MPG  or worse in city driving.  In 2008 the numbers were not much better for GM.  According to greenercars.org, the American Council for Energy-Efficient Economy’s site for consumer research on the environment, GM’s numbers have not improved.  The company had the most car models on the list with four.  Not surprisingly, the Hummer H2, which is exempted from fuel economy regulations because it is considered heavy-duty, was rated number 1.
Methodology
24/7 Wall St. evaluated the public actions of a number of global companies in order to measure which were engaged in extensive greenwashing.  Environmental groups and public relations firms have enumerated several standards that can be used to evaluate whether a company is engaged in the practice.  However, at the heart of greenwashing is a company’s desire to represent its business as environmentally friendly at the expense of honestly portraying their environmental character.

Common methods used by corporations include advertising, press releases, and websites.  Less obvious methods that are equally pernicious include trade groups that lobby the public on the company’s behalf, touting the adoption of non-governmental standards serving environmental protection, and establishing endowments for green academic research.  A number of the companies that 24/7 Wall St. selected have been identified by environmental groups as greenwashers.

In order to demonstrate that greenwashing misrepresents the environmental character of the company, 24/7 Wall St. considered adverse environmental causes in several ways.  Chief among these is pollution data.  As a result of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 and Pollution Prevention Act, EPA annually collects data from companies on releases and transfers of certain toxic chemicals and waste management activities from industrial facilities.  The agency then publishes the data through the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program.  As part of the program, the TRI data is indexed and made publicly available through the EPA’s online databases and software.

The TRI database, called the TRI Explorer, allows queries based upon several criteria including industry code, chemical type, and facility.  Using TRI explorer, 24/7 Wall St. created toxic chemical release reports based upon industry and facility.  Using this methodology we identified the companies which released the largest amount of toxic chemicals according to 27 different industrial codes identified by the EPA.  This data included the ranking of each company’s facilities compared to the performance of other companies in the industry.  Frequently, the larger the share of the industry the company enjoyed the greater total amount of toxic release.

Relying on the TRI program, a number of organizations, including nonprofits and trade groups, create additional databases that further analyze this information based upon issues including the facilities reporting the release of the toxic chemicals, the companies which own the facilities, the level of toxicity of the chemicals, and the risk of public exposure to the chemicals.  24/7 Wall St. also used these databases, including the Political Economy Research Institute’s Toxic 100 index.

Enforcement data includes court orders, civil actions, and administrative rulings.  Generally, these arose from private or governmental concern over the company’s environmental conduct vis-à-vis EPA and State environmental regulations.  24/7 Wall St. reviewed case law and EPA enforcement actions to identify companies that had poor environmental records.  In addition to settlements and awards against the companies, 24/7 Wall St. also considered the company’s responses to environmental concerns raised by agencies and the public.  The greater the number of actions, the monetary value of the awards or settlements, and the reluctance of the companies to abide by the agreement were all factors that we took into consideration.

Finally, lobbying efforts had a substantial impact on whether companies were on the list.  Using OpenSecerts.org, a “nonpartisan guide to money’s influence on U.S. elections and public policy,” 24/7 Wall St. calculated the amount of contributions that each company made through their corporate PACs.  Specifically, we considered whether or not the company donated to particular members of the House and Senate who are known to have bad voting records on environmental laws.  All of the companies on our list donated to at least three Senators or Congressman who have such records.

By Ash Allen
Edited by Douglas A. McIntyre

In 2004, the largest logger in Tasmania, Gunns Ltd. surprised the world by suing 20 of its strongest critics, charging them with 9 separate acts of misconduct. Every single action these activists had taken had been nonviolent, ranging from organizing massive street protests to lobbying government to stop Gunns from destroying Tasmania’s old growth forests. Had Gunns been successful, it would have sent a chilling effect across the world for all activists who exercise free speech in defense of the earth. Fortunately, this is one battle that the good guys won.

Now, a quick note on Gunns, which is about as bad as a logging company can get. It clearcuts old growth forests for copy paper, then sets fires in the forest to burn anything that might remain, and sets poison traps to kill any wildlife that has escaped the logging and fires and might feed on newly-established plantations. Naturally, activists across Australia and around the world got involved in protests against Gunns.

Among the Gunns 20 was the Australian Wilderness Society, an ally organization of RAN’s. Through our office in Japan, since 2006 RAN has been working with The Wilderness Society to educate Japanese customers about the beautiful old growth forests of Tasmania, the horrible logging practices of Gunns, and the role of the Japanese paper industry in supporting Gunns’ old growth logging. 80% of Tasmania’s pulp and paper is exported to Japan, where it is manufactured into disposable paper products like tissue and copy paper.

In 2007 RAN’s Global Finance campaign advised ANZ Bank to not finance Gunns’ pulp mill. Eventually ANZ listened, and to this date Gunns is struggling to find financing for the pulp mill. Meanwhile Gunns’ stock price is barely worth the old growth paper it’s printed on, and despite the horrible economic climate the company continues to pursue the idea that it needs to build a new pulp mill. Through our most recent conversations with Japanese customers, they are becoming less interested in buying Gunns’ paper: Ricoh, Canon and Fuji Xerox are all asking suppliers Oji Paper and Nippon Paper to exclude old growth fiber from Gunns.

RAN activists in Tokyo protest at ANZ branch

One surprising measure of how effective forest activists are is the level of repression they face. Cheers to The Wilderness Society for standing up and fighting back!

Take our Planet Back – will.i.am

Take heart. We can do this.