Palm oil day laborer in Sumatra, Photo by David Gilbert/RAN

Fortunately the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took into consideration the complexity of the issue in its latest ruling about biofuels derived from palm oil. Late last week, the EPA excluded palm oil biodiesel from the U.S. renewable fuel standard—a small yet significant reprieve for Indonesia’s rainforests, where palm oil plantations are a major cause of rainforest destruction.

The EPA found that biofuels derived from palm oil aren’t a good choice for the climate because, once the carbon footprint of palm oil production is factored in, they can no longer meet the 20% emissions-reduction standard for biofuels.

It’s encouraging that the EPA sees the terrible toll the industrial production of palm oil biodiesel has on the environment. Indonesia is already the world’s third largest emitter of greenhouse gases, after China and the U.S. Some 85% of Indonesia’s emissions result from clearing rainforests and draining carbon-rich peatlands, activities driven heavily by the rapid expansion of the palm oil industry.

Widely considered a “clean” agrofuel, palm oil has more environmental implications to consider than just the emissions it produces when burned. According to the Center for International Forestry Research, biodiesel from palm oil grown on peat has a 200 year carbon debt. This means it would take 200 years of production for these palm oil plantations to replace the carbon lost from land conversion. And once you consider the amount of fuel used for palm oil cultivation and transcontinental shipping, palm oil can be one of the worst fuel sources for the climate.

Looking at the harsh and immediate realities of today’s climate science, it’s clear that a 200-year turnaround is 200 years too late. There are already too many demands on Indonesia’s rainforests coming from the palm oil industry.

If corporations are people, then this Mr. Bank O. America fellow is a clear and present danger to society. So we teamed up with The Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, rounded up a posse, and searched the streets of San Francisco for this fugitive from justice.

We went to several of his known hangouts (otherwise known as Bank of America branches) with a citizen’s arrest warrant in hand. But the perp had flown the coop before we got to each location.

Just to make sure Mr. Bank O. America’s crime spree is brought to an end as soon as possible, we pasted the arrest warrant all over town. If he exists — which I’m beginning to doubt — we’ll catch him.

Just what are Mr. Bank O. America’s crimes? It’s a long list. He’s a tax cheat who made off with BILLIONS in taxpayer dollars, even while he was putting thousands of Americans out of work by helping crash our economy. He’s a notorious bankroller of the dirtiest energy source — coal — and is thus responsible for poisoning countless communities across the States. And he has outright stolen more of America’s homes than any other bank-person-thing (sorry, the metaphor kinda broke down there — see how ridiculous the idea of corporate personhood is?).

If you see him, do not attempt to apprehend Mr. Bank O. America alone. Call for backup on our blog, Bankrupting America.

Our Bank of America “man” hunt today was part of the broader Occupy Wall Street West day of action against the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision that gave corporations the same free speech rights as people. (Jan 21 is the decision’s 2-year anniversary.) RAN and ACCE joined with Occupy Wall St. West to to expose how Wall St. banks like Bank of America are attacking our communities, our environment, and our democracy in the name of profits. Today, we sent a loud and clear message: Corporations are NOT people. Money is NOT speech.

There are many actions going on throughout the day. Find out how you can get involved and check out pics and video from all of the actions on the Occupy Wall Street West website.

The top three “climate killers” will not come as much of a surprise: JP Morgan Chase, Citi, and none other than Bank of America top the list with $22 billion, $18.27 billion, an $16.79 billion invested in coal since 2005, respectively.

As officials from around the world are assembling in Durban, South Africa to discuss ways to combat climate change, banks around the world are busy trying to figure out how they can profit off of making the climate crisis worse.

In fact, between 2005 — the year the Kyoto Protocol went into effect — and 2010, funding for coal nearly doubled. Yes, you read that right: As the world’s leaders have been trying to get their act together and deal with the most urgent existential crisis humanity has ever faced, the biggest banks in the world have been busy sinking as much money as they can into the single largest cause of that crisis (emissions from coal-fired power plants are the biggest source of man-made carbon pollution).

As the report notes, these banks are not unaware of the climate crisis. It’s just that they see it more as an opportunity for some great PR than a problem they have a stake in solving even if it means leaving money on the table. All of the top 20 coal bankrollers have made climate commitments that are drastically contradicted by where they’re actually investing their money.

JP Morgan Chase claims it’s “Helping the world transition to a low-carbon economy”, for instance. Citi holds itself out as the “Most innovative bank in climate change” — which sounds more like Citi is gunning for Chase’s number one spot than trying to help solve the climate crisis, but who am I to quibble with how Citi chooses to word its greenwash.

Bank of America has declared that “The most formidable challenge we face is global climate change.” A fittingly purposeless statement, given that BoA has invested $4.3 billion in the US coal industry, making it the single largest underwriter of America’s coal problem.

Here is a chart showing which banks made the top 20, and the amount they’ve invested in companies that are polluting our communities and wrecking our climate:

An international coalition of NGOs came together to release this groundbreaking report, including urgewald, a German environmental organization; groundWork and Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, two South African social and environmental justice organizations; and BankTrack, an international network. RAN contributed research to the report.

A full copy of the study with a ranking of all the researched banks can be downloaded here. The underlying data for this research were provided by Profundo economic research. They can be found here.

Becky White and the Secret Mission have just released this catchy and hilarious protest anthem/call to action track and music video — featuring RAN’s own Executive Director Rebecca Tarbotton on violin — called “Man Up!” The song calls on people to gather at the White House on November 6 to persuade President Obama to make the right decision and oppose the disastrous Keystone XL Pipeline project, the fate of which is being decided by his Administration right now.

The movement to stop this massively destructive pipeline has brought together a wide array of unlikely allies and has exploded into a national political force to be reckoned with in a very short amount of time. Please check this out and share it widely to spread the word on this crucial and time-sensitive issue!

The White House. Nov 6. Be There.

These are the final moments before President Obama makes a decision to approve or reject the construction of the dirty and dangerous Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. On November 6, exactly one year before the election, thousands will come together to completely encircle the White House in an act of solidarity to convince President Obama to make the right decision to reject the Keystone XL.

More than 4000 have already signed up to participate. This is fantastic, but we need thousands more!

Please don’t stay at home this Sunday wondering whether your presence would have made a difference. Come stand with us for clean energy, for human rights, for all of our futures. Sign up now!

“So many lives are on the line right now. The system is crashing. It’s crashing economically and it’s crashing ecologically. The stakes are too high right now for us not to make the most of this moment.” — Naomi Klein at Occupy Wall Street

Image via PNC Financial Services Group

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

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

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

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

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

Photo by Doug Bardwell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Projection on Seattle Bank of America Branch. Photo by Marcus Donner/RAN

Last week, Rainforest Action Network’s guerrilla projections team rolled around Seattle raising the profile of coal exports in the Pacific Northwest.

Coal companies like Peabody Energy and Arch Coal are lobbying hard to build coal export terminals in Bellingham, WA and Longview, WA. And there are rumors that more such proposals will be popping up in other port towns up and down the Oregon and Washington coasts. The industry hopes to ship tens of millions of tons of coal through those terminals. The coal will be bound for power plants in overseas markets like China and India and will significantly contribute to global climate change. Furthermore, the mining and shipping of the coal will impact eco-systems and communities from Montana to the coast, and of course in Asia.

As we highlight the controversies around coal exports, we don’t want one of the worst culprits behind this potential environmental and human rights disaster to get away with anything.

That culprit is Bank of America.

The bank has been in the news a lot lately. It is the biggest forecloser of homes in the U.S. It pays its executives more in bonuses than it pays the government in taxes. It is rapidly downsizing its operations by laying off 30,000 employees and closing 600 branches. It is, at least partially, responsible for the economic disaster besieging the country right now.

Bank of America is also the money backing the ecological disaster unraveling before our very eyes — climate change. In short, Bank of America is the largest funder of coal in the U.S. And because BoA is the financier of both Peabody Energy and Arch Coal, it’s also one of the biggest funders of the great coal export build-out as well.

Earlier this week, RAN activists “bird-dogged” Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan in New York while our projections team created controversy around coal exports in the northwest. Part of the projections work was a little artistry with Bank of America branch logos and the projections. Our goal was to connect Bank of America to the northwest coal exports.

Life is not going to get easier for Mr. Moynihan or Bank of America as long as they continue to finance the coal industry. Just a heads up, things are about to get interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

Athletic Director Tom Osborne said that University of Nebraska athletic events are designed to “entertain and unify our fan base” — not be “divisive.”

Divisive would be one word to describe the Keystone XL pipeline, which aims to transport dirty tar sands oil from Canada down to refineries on the Gulf Coast. Another word to describe the project would be just plain “wrong”.

We stand with Nebraska and ALL those opposed to TransCanada’s sponsorships and their plans to build a pipeline across North America, which is a catastrophic threat to our communities, our climate, and our planet.

Projection by Seattle Space Needle, Photo Credit: Marcus Donner/RAN

Holy Coal Hard Truth, Batman!

This week, I’ve been riding around the streets of Seattle with a guerrilla projection team. We’ve been shining a massive Bat Signal-like light on iconic locations around town to get our message about coal exports out to Seattle’s citizens.

For almost a year now, one of the biggest environmental stories in the Pacific Northwest has been the coal industry’s attempts to establish a coal exporting foothold along the Washington and Oregon coasts. Companies like Peabody Energy (the biggest coal company in the world) and Arch Coal (the second largest coal company in the U.S.) want to ship that dirty black rock they’ve dug out of the ground in Wyoming and Montana to overseas markets for power generation.

Arch Coal and their Australian business partners Ambre Energy have applied for permits to build a coal export terminal on top of an old aluminum smelting plant along the Columbia River in Longview, WA.

Up north on Puget Sound near Bellingham, Peabody Energy has partnered with SSA Marine (the world’s largest port logistics company) to build an export terminal on Cherry Point.

Both of these projects would ship tens of millions of tons of coal a year, wreaking havoc on local ecosystems, local communities and the global climate.

The fight has thus far been waged in political, regulatory and legal arenas. And we’re winning. But Old King Coal is determined to reap profits from mining and power plants and isn’t giving up so easily.

So we are using more street and creative actions to elevate the profile of coal to folks in the Northwest. The Pacific Northwest has a long of history of environmental resistance and we’re turning up the heat.

via RAN Photo Credit: Marcus Donner

“The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the Everest of dirty money.”

Have you heard of the Partnership to Fuel America? It sounds innocent enough, but it’s actually a campaign launched by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to promote the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

The U.S. Chamber would like you to imagine it as the voice of all American businesses, but it has more in common with the American Petroleum Institute than with your local chamber of commerce. In fact, according to 350.org, some 55% of the Chamber’s funding comes from just 16 companies. Who are these donors? We don’t know (yes, it’s actually a secret). We can make a good guess, though, by looking at where the money goes.

The Chamber spent $132 million on lobbying in 2010 — $32 million on the midterm elections alone,  with 94 percent going to candidates that deny climate change. And almost all the politicians the Chamber helped elect made dismantling environmental regulations a top priority. This, in addition to a long history of science denial, makes the Chamber’s position on global warming clear. Such staunch opposition to climate action has led corporations like Nike, Apple, Microsoft, and PG&E to distance themselves from the Chamber.

However, for some reason the Chamber sees a need to cast itself as a moderate on climate and energy. On its web site, for example, it claims to support a “comprehensive legislative solution” for climate change. That’s easy to say now that every legislative solution has been killed, largely thanks to the Chamber’s lobbying. And the Chamber fiercely opposes EPA carbon regulations — the only federal option left on the table.

Click to view larger infographic

In comments sent to the EPA, the Chamber insisted that global warming really isn’t a problem:

Overall, there is strong evidence that populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological, and technological adaptations.

I’m sure the folks in Texas suffering from the historic drought will be happy to hear that.

If you need further evidence of whom the Chamber works for, consider this: It sided with Chevron in the Amazon pollution lawsuit. While international law experts criticized a U.S. federal judge for barring the enforcement of the $18 billion verdict against Chevron, the Chamber had this to say about the oil giant’s appeal:

At bottom, this appeal involves a carefully tailored solution in a case containing extraordinary, unrebutted evidence of a plan to shake down a United States corporation.

More recently, the Chamber has taken a stand in favor of smog, aka ground level ozone, by opposing tighter pollution standards. Having beaten down climate and clean energy bills, the Chamber is now working with its friends in Congress to blanket-bomb decades of green achievements, from the Clean Air Act to the EPA itself. The Partnership to Fuel Pollute America is just the latest step in the Chamber’s plan.

The Keystone XL pipeline could be disastrous for the regions it crosses, and the accompanying tar sands expansion would be disastrous for the climate, according to top scientists. In an open letter, they warned that energy sources like the tar sands will “leave our children and grandchildren a climate system with consequences that are out of their control.”

I guess they haven’t heard that we can just change our physiology.

If the quote about “physiological adaptations” sounds familiar, that’s because Bill McKibben mentioned it in his Powershift speech:

I don’t even really know what that means, alter your physiology. Grow gills? I don’t know. But I can tell you this. I am too old to change my physiology and you all are too good looking. But I will adapt my behavior. Every day now I will roll out of bed and go to work fighting [the Chamber's agenda]….

We’re going to adapt our behavior all right. We’re going to adapt our behavior now to fight on every front. I’m sorry if that sounds aggressive, but there we are.

Do you want to join the fight against the Chamber’s agenda? If so, here are some ways to take action:

• Sign the petition asking President Obama to block the Keystone XL pipeline expansion. Although the State Department is ready to give the project a green light, the President has the final word; he can approve or stop the pipeline with a signature.
• Support and spread the word about the Tar Sands Action. For two weeks (until September 2), over 2,000 activists will gather in Washington, D.C. to protest the Keystone XL. The event began on August 20 with 70 arrests in front of the White House (but you don’t have to get arrested to participate).
• Own a business, or know someone who does? Tell America that the U.S. Chamber doesn’t speak for you. We can’t take away the Chamber’s money, but we can undermine its credibility. So far, over 6,000 businesses have signed 350.org’s statement opposing the Chamber.

Image courtesy of SouthWings

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

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

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

Senator Joe Manchin

Representative Nick Rahall

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

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

I think I’ve found a solution, nestled in northern England. The Baywind Energy Co-operative is pioneering an incredibly smart model. Local residents invest money in a locally run renewable energy company, putting money right back into their community while ending their reliance on polluting fossil fuels. Talk about improved quality of life.

Baywind’s wind farm co-operative started in 1996, when they offered shares to community members, with a low minimum stock purchase to make it financially feasible for as many as possible. Using the capital they raised from 1,350 shareholders (approx. 2 million pounds), the Baywind co-op purchased their first three wind turbines. A board of directors, elected by the shareholders, runs the day-to day operations. Hyper-focused on community involvement, Baywind uses only local contractors for site development, maintenance, and support.

Hurray for local green jobs!

As for the investment part, shareholders receive annual dividends amounting to 5-10%. The industry average is 9%. Though co-op members may receive a few less annual dividends, they get clean energy that keeps their air and water free of pollutants while keeping their investment in their community. This sort of ROI goes beyond dollars and cents.

The leadership at Baywind also focuses heavily on education, which they see as absolutely key for progress. They invite local schools and adults alike to visit the wind farm and read their educational materials. Think about how inspiring it is for a young child to see the possibilities of renewable energy right in their backyard!

Through Baywind’s development organization, Energy4All, communities can have assistance with recreating this type of renewable energy co-op in their own parts of the world. Energy4All assists communities in planning, building and maintening a wind farm co-op. Over the past nine years, Energy4All has succeeded in sharing their model with seven different communities throughout England and Scotland.

Let’s hope this renewable energy co-op model spreads far and wide, so that all of us can participate in locally-run, clean, sustainable energy generation that keep jobs, revenue and resources right where they belong.

A typical fake Twitter account set up by tar sands cheerleaders

UPDATE (8/8/11): @kbockman, and all of the 25 fake Twitter accounts we listed, have now been removed. Publiaffairsinformant.com and Keith’s Facebook page are also down. The links to those accounts previously indicated below now show screenshots taken before the accounts were removed.

The office of a former Nebraska Senator working for the American Petroleum Institute appears to have set up more than a dozen fake Twitter accounts to promote the KeystoneXL tar sands pipeline.

Followers of the #tarsands hashtag on Twitter may have noticed a strange spike in posts yesterday morning. Within three minutes, fifteen accounts (here’s the list the list has since grown) all posted the message “#tarsands the truth is out! [link]” linking to API’s web page about oil sands. Then came another post from the same accounts, this time linking to the Nebraska Energy Forum, one of 26 state-based-front-groups sponsored by API in the lead up to the 2012 election. Then a flurry of posts late last night from those same accounts, all linking to a post on “publicaffairsinformant.com” touting KeystoneXL and linking back to the Nebraska Energy Forum.

WTF? Let’s connect the dots.

First, fourteen of those accounts are clearly fake. The simultaneous posts were all sent via the “Netvibes Official Widget” that allows users to post to multiple Twitter accounts at the same time. All fourteen accounts were established in the same week in July, most on the same day. Each of their avatars appear to have been pulled from the web. One was pulled from NebraskaDUILawyers.com. All use variations on very simple names (jimjohnson16, richhoward1) and have very similar “everyperson” type descriptions (“Environmentally and economically concerned citizen looking for real facts. We need to make wise choices in during these uncertain times [sic]“), and all tend to retweet one another, bombard journalists with favorable opinions on the KeystoneXL pipeline, and generally cheerlead for tar sands.

Keith Bockmann (left)

The fifteenth account is kbockmann aka Keith Bockmann aka kbdank, a party boy from Omaha who established that publicaffairsinformant.com website on July 15th.

Here’s where it gets interesting: Keith also registered abboudlawfirm.com, an Omaha-based law firm.  He describes himself as a paralegal and is a friend of Greg Abboud on Facebook. Greg’s partner at Abboud Law Firm is Chris Abboud, the former Nebraska Senator, whom I presume to be Greg’s brother. Chris, meanwhile, is also a tobacco lobbyist and “Grassroots Coordinator for the Nebraska Energy Forum.” And finally, the maiden name of Greg’s wife appears to be Bockmann (not hard to figure out, but I won’t implicate her with links here).

Former Nebraska Senator Chris Abboud

So to recap: It looks very much like the “grassroots” being coordinated by Chris Abboud are the fabrications of his employee and nephew, Keith Bockmann.

If you’re on Twitter MySpace drop @kbockmann kbdank a line. Let’s see if he continues to defend his “real supporters.” You may also want to drop the Omaha Police Union a line to let them know their what their $10K/month lobbyist is doing on the side.

From August 20 – September 3, concerned people from across the continent — students, scientists, Indigenous peoples, church groups, environmentalists, parents, celebrities, and more — are gathering in Washington for a mass act of civil disobedience at the White House. Over 1,500 individuals are already registered to join this wave of sustained sit-ins to send a clear message to the President: The People are saying NO to the 2000-mile climate-destroying Keystone XL pipeline.

If you’ve had it with climate change and astroturf stunts like this, and are ready to engage in a new level of community activism, you can register to join the action at TarSandsAction.org.

The coal industry argues that coal technology is already available while renewable energy technology is a pipe-dream that hasn’t yet been developed enough to supply energy en masse. Well, let’s not forget an important point — renewable energy is already being utilized. And not only on a small scale.

Take, for example, the Thisted municipality in Denmark, which uses 100% renewable resources for its electricity demands and 85% renewable energy for heating demands to supply over 46,000 residents. Thisted’s success can largely be attributed to the community’s focus on the local economic benefits of shifts to renewable energy, the constant re-evaluation of its programs to achieve continual improvement, and inclusion of local leadership.

Thisted is situated in Northern Jutland, an ideal location for utilizing windmills because of its strong, constant wind almost year round. Thisted has 226 windmills throughout the municipality that generate 103 GwH hours of energy each year. Thisted is also home to Denmark’s first geothermal facility, which produces another 10% of electricity needs.

Another significant source of Thisted’s electricity is provided by biomass — a combination of landfill incineration (which RAN acknowledges can have detrimental impacts on local communities, see GAIA to learn more) and straw burning plants.

As an example of the constant inclusion of locals and an expanding business plan, the municipality purchases the 8700 tons of straw it burns each year from the farmers, who otherwise would have discarded the straw as waste.

Since Thisted’s switch to lower carbon energy sources, customers have seen their energy bills fall by two-thirds.

Movements such as Thisted’s are being referred to as the “Third Industrial Revolution,” the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. Community-led initiatives offer a better environment to live in by leaving nature in tact as much as possible, while always keeping sight of the financial benefits for the local society. The people of Thisted did not wait for large grants, corporations, or subsidies to start their conversion.

Thisted wants to keep the bar of energy achievement high. The municipality has pledged to further reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 3% each year, until 2025. The largest project being considered is a network that will connect district farmers who are producing more than enough energy to run their respective farms, to a municipal grid where the farmers can sell their surplus energy.

Thisted is a reminder that small steps, perseverance, and local commitment can lead to larger, sustainable change. Their commitment to forward thinking and proactive measures are a beautiful example of community action and decision-making.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

What do you think of Deutsche Bank’s response?

It gets worse. Utility companies are making some really bad decisions on our behalf. Take this quiz and find out just how bad. Once you complete the quiz, you’ll have a chance to take action to leave dirty coal in the past where it belongs.

Thanks to our friends at Union of Concerned Scientists, who put this quiz together.

We’ve watched movies like Split Estate and Gasland, which explain the serious health risks associated with fracking, and we’ve been hearing and reading about thousands of people across the US who are turning out to public meetings and hearings to say “No” to fracking in their community.

Having taken a look at the issue, we developed the following policy position on hydrofracking:

Rainforest Action Network believes that corporations should be allowed to extract and process mineral fuels only if they can do so without harming human health or contaminating the air, water, and soil, or failing to maintain ecological integrity,  with an eye on impacts at all levels: local, regional, and global. This means achieving the following goals:

1. No water pollution: Protecting public health, the environment, and the climate from toxic, hazardous, and carcinogenic chemicals used in the extraction of fossil fuel energy resources;

2. Low emissions: Protecting public health, the environment, and the climate from pollutants emitted during the drilling and ongoing production of energy resources;

3. No-go zones: Protecting sacred areas, fragile ecosystems, high conservation and high carbon value areas, neighborhoods, drinking watersheds, and densely populated areas targeted for energy development;

4.  Landowner Consent: Continuing to develop and then implementing laws and policies that make surface and mineral estates co-equal and ensure that landowners have essential rights to negotiate, including the right to say ‘no’ to energy development.

5.  Indigenous Rights: Honoring the unique right of Indigenous Communities to free, prior, informed consent as defined in the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. Consent should be sought via a process that respects the traditional decision-making structures of the community. The process should be mutually agreed upon and recorded, while also complying with and building upon any applicable laws and regulations.

We would love to hear your feedback on this policy.

At 8:00am on an unseasonably warm day in Chicago for the middle of February, RAN Chicago, along with allied student groups from around the city, rallied outside the doors of City Hall’s LaSalle entrance, loaded out our cornucopia of assorted, neon-candy colored, Valentine’s Day themed props.

The props included a Pepto-bismol toned kiosk, three paper machê two-foot-wide “candy” hearts with the words, “arsenic,” “mercury” and “CO2” painted across the fronts, a cardboard coal plant mimicking our local coal plant, Fisk, cardboard gas masks, Clean Power Coalition signs and two large banners.  The kiosk advertised the Toxic Tours that collaborating group Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO) leads people on that gives them a glimpse of the devastating coal plant, plastic manufacturing and waste management factories that riddle their streets in places once promised to be community centers or parks.

Once inside there was a press conference where more than 200 civilian proponents of the Clean Power Ordinance stood along with, several reporters, news stations and photographers asking all the brightly clothed individual what it was all about.  Kimberly Wasserman (Director of LVEJO) spoke, along with Alderman Moore.  As they spoke there was a 30-second moment of silence where LVEJO began a memorial for the 30 people in their community who died since the first talk of the Clean Power Ordinance last March.  LVEJO members wore respirator masks and stood around mock tombstones holding a banner that read, “30 More Died While We Waited for Our Hearing.”

After the press conference the Ad Hock Hearing began.  The council room was full, more than 250 were seated and standing as we listened to the testimony of nearly 40 citizens of frontline communities, health professionals, and concerned citizens all speaking against the two coal plants wherein the shadows of which Chicagoans are forced to reside.

Speaker after speaker went to the podium, spoke from both their hearts and scientific facts and drove home to the aldermen listening that coal power is not a sustainable solution.  The aldermen were visibly effected. It seems as though they too understood the gravity of the situation that we all, as citizens of Chicago, live in.  We can not go on like this.  Something drastic has to change.  And from the tone of the hearing, the steadfast and often humorous tone of the pre-rally, and the sheer numbers of people who turned out it is becoming more and more apparent that change is here, that change is happening.  We are standing up for our rights, not only as Citizens of Chicago, but as human beings, and we’re speaking in a voice too strong and urgent for the unsympathetic officials of this city to ignore any longer.

For more information on the plants and community:

• http://www.lvejo.org/
• http://cleanpowerchicago.org/

-Liz Nerat, RAN Chicago

]]> http://understory.ran.org/2011/02/16/chicago-for-clean-power/feed/ 0