Illustration by Stefan Lorant

As an ode to the  “rank ‘em and spank ‘em” strategy coined by our outgoing Executive Director Mike Brune, we proudly present the following roster of international banks backing expansion in the tar sands.

The table below is based on credit extended underwritten by each bank to companies operating in the tar sands since 2007 according to Bloomberg. Restrictions at Bloomberg now prevent us from publishing deal-by-deal details to the web, but are available upon request if you leave your email in the comments.

Each of these banks received letters from RAN, IEN and BankTrack late last year requesting information about how they are addressing the damage caused by tar sands development. Responses (or lack thereof) will help us identify which banks are serious about responsible banking, and which may need more convincing. Responses received to date are also linked in the table after the jump.

UPDATE: There’s been some questions about how these numbers are derived.  We have answers, following the table. More »

Claim your change by Kyle Thiermann

Kyle decided to do something to help the folks in Chile fight a coal plant proposed for their local area.

Changing where you bank might be the most simple and effective way to support your community and stop destructive projects all at the same time! Surfer, Kyle Thiermann shows you how your money gets used to create the world you live in by taking you on a trip to Chile.

Our friends at Bank of America, Citigroup, and other major banks are in the news this week:
- Yesterday, Treasury Secretary Geithner unveiled the Obama administration’s bailout plan to spend up to 2 TRILLION dollars to revive the economy, including details for how the government will spend the second half of the TARP bailout funds.
- Today, Representative Barney Frank called the CEO’s of 8 of the bailed-out banks to a hearing before the House Committee on Financial Services to account for how they’ve spent the first half of those bailout funds.

We here at RAN are hoping that you can help us capitalize (no pun intended!) on the public focus on the banks this week to raise questions about another important and relevant consideration that hasn’t gotten much airtime in the current debate: What other risky behavior are the banks involved in, that threatens further economic calamity?

Many of the bailed-out banks are engaging in very risky investments, sinking billions of dollars in support of fossil-fuel intensive industries, such as coal and oil. Unlike Treasury Secretary Geithner, who reportedly resisted calls for more conditions on how banks spend the taxpayers’ money, we think that the release of additional public funds to these institutions should come with more strings attached. Or, at the very least, it should invite more public scrutiny of the banks’ other toxic investments.

The banks don’t really want to talk about their deep involvement in the climate crisis. But those risky and toxic investments (a) will undoubtedly face additional costs and regulation in the near future; and (b) are locking in an unsustainable infrastructure that will undermine the efforts to bring greenhouse gas emissions in line with scientific necessity. Furthermore, the banks, even while receiving a government hand-out, are taking actions that undermine the goals of a ‘green’ economic stimulus package. If Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, or any of these other banks provide financial support to mountain top removal coal companies, new coal-fired power plants, and tar sands pipelines, they are helping to lock in long-term dirty energy infrastructure, undermining other efforts to address the other pressing issue of our day: runaway greenhouse gas emissions and the threats to the global climate.

That’s why RAN’s Global Finance Campaign continues to press these banks to take responsibility for their role in fueling climate change, and to redirect their resources away from dirty energy sources and towards support for energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy resources such as solar and wind. It is unconscionable that wind and solar are taking a hit from the credit crisis, at precisely the time when we need to ramp up our national capacity to harness clean energy. We believe that the banks must account for and commit to reducing the carbon emissions that are embedded in their financial services portfolios, and help fund the future.

-Dana

It wasn’t that long ago (I think we can count it in months actually) that the terms ‘nationalize’ and ‘banks’ just wouldn’t ever have been found in the same sentence. Ever. Check out this whole article in the NY Times entitled: “Nationalization Gets a New, Serious Look”. One small excerpt:

“In an interview Sunday on “This Week” on ABC, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, alluded to internal debate when she was asked whether nationalization, or partial nationalization, of the largest banks was a good idea. “Well, whatever you want to call it,” said Ms. Pelosi, Democrat of California. “If we are strengthening them, then the American people should get some of the upside of that strengthening. Some people call that nationalization.”

Yes, some people do. Namely, most of the other people in the world when faced with the government owning the majority share in a company. What does this mean for the banks? Citi and Bank of America lead the pack as poster children for the declining financial sector. Ken Lewis has some serious egg on his face as the train-wreck that is Merrill Lynch pulls up to the station, and Citi is hiving itself off into smaller and smaller chunks to keep it’s head above water. Both are desperately in need of more government intervention to avoid collapse. Whatever we call it, let’s spend some serious time thinking about what kind of conditions should be placed on any public money for the private banks.

Last week, Bank of America released a new coal policy on their website announcing that they would “phase out financing of companies whose predominant method of extracting coal is through mountain top removal.” We were thrilled. We celebrated. We sent out a press release praising Bank of America for their decision to move away from financing mountaintop removal coal mining, and pressuring them to go a step further and pull out of coal financing altogether.

Bank of America’s announcement, and the responses of RAN and many of our allies picked up a fair amount of press coverage. We were pleased that the press coverage focused on Bank of America’s culpability in the practice of mountaintop removal. We were especially pleased to know that reporters were calling Bank of America representatives to ask hard questions about their vague policy, such as what is BoA’s time-line for phasing out mountaintop removal? And what companies in BoA’s portfolio will this policy affect?

This article appeared in the Charleston Gazzette: http://sundaygazettemail.com/News/200812040774

Another good article, this one from GreenBiz:
http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2008/12/05/bofa-curbs-coal-financing-with-new-policy

And then there was the article that got picked up by the AP: http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/a3e3c96be1da660d911b45f0f7a447f5.htm This article was very critical of Bank of America’s policy and asked whether it is all for show.

We at RAN are asking ourselves that same question. While it is great that Bank of America has acknowledged their responsibility on the issues of mountaintop removal mining, we wonder which companies in their profile they consider to “predominately” use mountaintop removal as a method of mining coal. Do they mean companies who mine more than 50% of their coal with mountaintop removal? The AP reporter who wrote the above article assumed that 50% + 1 equals predominate, but unfortunately, we have not yet been able to clarify with Bank of America this very important question.

We are working on updating all of the research that we keep regarding Bank of America (and other banks) financial relationships within the coal industry, and we are taking a look at the top companies that are involved in mountaintop removal mining and crunching numbers to figure out how much of their coal is mined by mountaintop removal so that we can quickly and accurately respond as Bank of America’s policy becomes more clear. We will be sure to keep the blog updated as details emerge from Bank of America – so stay tuned!

-Annie

From Bank of America’s website:

“Bank of America is particularly concerned about surface mining conducted through mountain top removal in locations such as central Appalachia. We therefore will phase out financing of companies whose predominant method of extracting coal is through mountain top removal. While we acknowledge that surface mining is economically efficient and creates jobs, it can be conducted in a way that minimizes environmental impacts in certain geographies.”

We are thrilled that just two and a half weeks after RAN’s day of action against coal and coal finance, Bank of America has made a public commitment to stop financing the devastating practice of mountaintop removal mining. This has been a major demand of the banks for the Global Finance campaign and we applaud Bank of America as it takes a step in the right direction – a step away from coal. Congratulations to everyone who has helped to pressure Bank of America to end it’s financing of coal and mountaintop removal – this is a truly incredible grassroots victory!

We will have more information about Bank of America’s announcement soon, as we work with our team and our allies to respond. For now, let’s celebrate!

-Annie

Last Friday, members of Rising Tide Boston set up “Green Coal” marketing tables outside branches of Bank of America and Citibank to highlight these banks’ high-risk investments in coal power and mining.

Emulating the coal industry’s marketing pitch of “clean coal”, activists handed out samples of “green coal” while informing fellow citizens not to expect green coal to be clean, safe, or affordable.

“Although we’ve spent a lot of time and resources researching ways to make coal environmentally friendly, or ‘clean and green’, the best way we found to do it is to paint it green,” said Chris Santorum, one of the Green Coal Salespeople.

To watch a video of this event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doWqvWDRDGM

Rising Tide Boston has been working with local housing and poverty advocacy groups to demand that the big banks stop gambling with the future of people and planet. Real solutions to the climate crisis, that are market-ready and viable, would both address economic equity for local communities and directly reduce the disproportionate burden of impacts that working class communities around the world face from fossil fuel industries such as coal.

Despite the coal lobby’s desperate schemes to sell the “clean coal” concept, coal power generation remains dirty, unsafe and unaffordable as the following facts confirm.

• The coal industry is responsible for nearly 40% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions
• Toxic emissions from coal power plants cause over 26 000 deaths per year in the US alone
• An average coal plant is responsible for externalized environmental and public health costs of over 300 million dollars per year.
• There are currently 110 coal power plants slated for development in the U.S. none of which have the ability to capture the carbon they would emit.

“Without the financial backing of big banks like Citi and Bank of America, the coal industry wouldn’t be able to build over 100 new coal plants. We need real solutions to the climate crisis, not more coal industry greenwash,” said Lulu Debarca of Rising Tide Boston.

Activists across North Carolina took action against Bank of America’s dirty coal financing.

In the early hours of commuter traffic, Raleigh commuters encountered banners at key thoroughfares – reminding them that “Coal Ain’t Clean”, and that Bank of America continues to finance the coal industry, including Mountaintop Removal coal mining and dirty coal power companies like Duke Energy.

Earth First & Rising Tide claimed responsibility for these banners.

Later in the day, folks in Wilmington joined Raleigh, as activists went around both cities shutting down dozens of Bank of America ATM machines with global warming crime scene tape.

Even Bank of America Headquarters in Charlotte were not spared on this day, as a group of activists left the bank a gift inside the HQ building – a banner suspended from scores of helium balloons, with the message “Stop Banking on Climate Change”.

A number of public interest groups around Charlotte, North Carolina, have been campaigning against Duke Energy’s plans to build an 800 MW Coal power expansion to their Cliffside facility. Bank of America is one of the primary financiers of Duke. Like many other swing states that turned color on Nov 4th, it appears the color of public opinion on coal in North Carolina may be turning as well.

A few months back, when tomorrow’s day of action against coal and coal finance was already in our calendars, the Global Finance Campaign team discovered that Bank of America would be hosting a conference for the energy industry in Miami, Florida November 12th-14th. Executives from the oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear energy sectors would all be present. What a fabulous coincidence! We decided that it would be great to put some pressure on Bank of America to end their financing of dirty fossil fuels, including coal, and build a truly clean energy portfolio on the day before our day of action.

So off to Miami I went. I have to say that I wasn’t sad to pack my bathing suit and sunscreen and escape the beginnings of fall in San Francisco. The opportunity to come face to face with Bank of America on the eve of our day of action certainly added to the excitement. I met up with activists from Everglades Earth First! near Miami and we quickly cooked up what we were sure was a great plan, one that involved row-boating our way to the beach-front Ritz Carlton hotel where the conference is being held, and presenting Bank of America and energy sector executives with a winning performance outlining Bank of America’s transition to funding clean energy instead of false solutions.

Unfortunately, our clever plan fell apart once we realized that Bank of America’s beach-side cocktail party had been (suspiciously?) moved to the lawn further on the hotel campus. We quickly regrouped our crew of trouble-makers and decided to crash their cocktail party. We sadly ditched our boat and made our way to the lawn at the Ritz Carlton. We used a megaphone to make the presentation that we had planned for the boat, outlining the reasons that Bank of America needs to move away from dirty energy and toward better energy solutions. Two of us held a banner reading “Captains of Industry: Rise Above Dirty Energy!” and we had a few others on hand to help negotiate with security officers and take pictures.

What happened next was truly unexpected – before security could even get to us and tell us to leave, the group of energy executives assembled fell into two groups, the first curiously watching and listening our presentation, and the second group angrily and aggressively attacking us! I think the cocktail party must have been going on for a bit, because one conference-goer ran at our banner and grabbed it and tried to wrestle it away from the guys holding it, while another poured his beer on one of the banner-holders and a third angrily yelled in our faces as we spoke into the megaphone. Wow. Seems like they are a bit defensive, maybe they should look for another line of work? By the time security asked us to leave, we were ready to scram, and I just wanted to get out of there without someone getting punched.

So, we successfully brought a message demanding clean energy to the conference, and we disrupted their cocktail party, but I have to say I never expected the reaction that we got.

-Annie

Thanks to the good work of the Sierra Club and a large coalition of western and Utah organizations, the phrase ‘No New Coal’ may have gone WAY out of style today. The Environmental Appeals Board of the EPA just ruled that the EPA has the authority to establish a Best Available Control Technology (BACT) limit for carbon dioxide.

Up until now the EPA has gone out of it’s way to avoid, duck, shirk and otherwise weasel it’s way out of treating C02 as a pollutant and regulating it as such, but this ruling decrees that every argument it has used so far to avoid doing so is legally insufficient. The decision is binding for all EPA-issued air quality permits, so best case scenario – this could affect every single air quality permit for a new coal plant in the country.

Which means……that we may see the stalling of all coal-fired power plant permits under consideration for a year or so while the EPA figures out what ‘Best Available Control Technology’ means in this context. I repeat: no more new coal-plants. Then, the sound of scurrying feet as the coal industry scrambles to fast-track the ever-mythical Carbon Capture and Sequestration technology and finally the gradual movement of all the energy that has been built up around stopping NEW coal plants towards dealing with the 500 existing plants.

This has been a week of emails and blogs about how we can’t rest on our laurels just because Obama got elected. The same holds true for this EAB ruling — it may really stop new coal-fired power plants, and for that we can all be enormously relieved.

We won’t be moving in the wrong direction any more. Now the challenge is to start moving in the right one – towards no coal whatsoever.

UPDATE: The ruling will also cover oil refineries and other major sources of CO2 pollution. Score one for the climate!!