The cable, obtained by WikiLeaks, describes the State Department’s then-energy envoy, David Goldwyn, as having “alleviated” Canadian officials’ concerns about getting their crude into the U.S. It also said he had instructed them in improving “oil sands messaging,” including “increasing visibility and accessibility of more positive news stories.”

Goldwyn now works on Canadian oil sands issues at Sutherland, a Washington lobbying firm, and recently testified before Congress in favor of building the 36-inch underground pipeline, Keystone XL.

This is regulatory capture taken to the next level, and yet another sign that industry claims about pipeline safety must be examined with a skeptical eye. And even when regulators are doing their duty, pipeline operators too often find a way to delay action to guarantee safety. For example, take the recent Yellowstone spill, where ExxonMobil was warned 2 years before about debris that was piling up under the pipeline. Their response was to do nothing but write a letter back to regulators months later saying that it was still “evaluating control measures.” To date, 42,000 gallons have spilled into the pristine Yellowstone River.

Hearst newspapers recently revealed a scandal that showed two-thirds of the 174 safety studies initiated by the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) on pipelines received “significant funding” from pipeline operators or industry-controlled organizations. President Bush encouraged the practice by stipulating that at least half the funding for federal pipeline safety research to come from outside sources.

So we have corporations paying for their own government-approved investigations and secret wires going between diplomats that hint that the wheels are already greased to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, a project under heavy scrutiny from the public and the EPA.

All of this adds up to further justify direct action. Beginning on August 20th, concerned citizens from across the country will gather at the White House for two weeks of protests of the Keystone pipeline. The corruption at the highest levels of government and industry show that the time for citizen-led action is now.

Little Village Environmental Justice Organization rally to shut down dirty coal power plants in South Chicago

Research shows that carbon offsets aren’t working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stall global warming. That’s why RAN has founded the Climate Action Fund.

In theory, a carbon offset is a reduction in emissions of carbon or greenhouse gases made in order to compensate for or to offset an emission made elsewhere. Rather than reduce its own pollution, for example, a business would pay someone somewhere else in the world to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and then take credit for their contribution.

Sounds good, but does it really work?

A recent report estimates that of the $700 million dollars that are invested in carbon offsets around the world, offset buyers

are often buying vague promises instead of the reductions in greenhouse gases they expect. They are buying into projects that are never completed, or paying for ones that would have been done anyhow, the investigation found. Their purchases are feeding middlemen and promoters seeking profits from green schemes that range from selling protection for existing trees to the promise of planting new ones that never thrive. In some cases, the offsets have consequences that their purchasers never foresaw, such as erecting windmills that force poor people off their farms. Carbon offsets are the environmental equivalent of financial derivatives: complex, unregulated, unchecked and – in many cases – not worth their price.

Stanford University researchers found that up to 2/3 of offsets in international markets are not delivering any additional reduction in emissions compared to business as usual, which means that buyers are getting ripped off and the offsets are doing nothing to slow climate change. The attempt to “buy” our way out of climate change has left us with a corrupt system with little accountability where very little is done to reduce emissions.

At RAN, we began the Climate Action Fund (CAF) to take a fundamentally different approach. Starting with our own organization, we calculate the annual carbon emissions associated with our operations, including travel. We then apply an internal price — effectively a tax — on that carbon. These modest revenues are then invested directly in frontline community groups that are organizing against the extraction and combustion of dirty fossil fuels in the first place.

The Climate Action Fund is also open to individuals and businesses that want to participate in CAF-supported efforts to tackle the root causes of climate change. The CAF contributes 100 percent of donations directly to community organizations that are fighting to protect land and people, as well as to keep millions of tons of CO2 in the ground.

Rainforest Action Network is inspired by the work these frontline community groups are doing and honored to be able to support and promote their amazing work. We hope to be able to get more and more progressive organizations and companies involved with the CAF and learn how to green their business, reduce their carbon footprint and make direct contributions to groups on the frontlines of the battle to end our addiction to dirty fossil fuels and reduce dangerous carbon emissions contributing to climate change.

Get started with Climate Action Fund!

Clearly, it means a significant about-face on tar sands for one of the world’s biggest banks. Before today, RBC trailed its peers on basic issues like Indigenous rights, water quality, and the environment. A review of the Bank’s 2009 annual report shows strong philanthropy and energy-saving initiatives across the bank, but relatively few screens for lending and other core financial services. Despite being one of the world’s biggest financiers of the tar sands, RBC’s business in the sector escaped any systematic environmental or social review. During a speech to shareholders in early 2009, CEO Gord Nixon claimed that concerns about tar sands concerns were “not a bank issue.”

What a difference a year makes. In a post to its website, RBC announced its first ever “Policy on Environmental & Social Risk Management for Capital Markets.” The policy guides the bank in assessing the environmental and social impact of its clients and deciding what to do about them. While the announcement doesn’t go into details, Rainforest Action Network (RAN) got a peek at the language in the new policy last month.

The policy breaks significant new ground on Indigenous rights. For clients with operations within Indigenous territories, the bank will document the status of consultation with those groups. That’s not especially new. In fact many banks have incorporated the World Bank standards of “consultation, leading to broad community support” into their lending policies. Where RBC raises the bar is in documenting whether clients have “policies and processes consistent with the standard of “Free, Prior and Informed Consent.”

That “consent” clause—commonly referred to as FPIC (pronounced “eff pick”)—was taken from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was endorsed by the US government just last week and by the Canadian government last month. No other bank has yet issued such an explicit expectation of its clients regarding Indigenous rights. RBC also extends this policy to its entire capital markets business — not just a handful of its biggest loans, as is the standard established by the Equator Principles.

Policies are one thing, but results for communities facing off against RBC’s clients are quite another. The first test of RBC’s new policy will happen in the heart of the Great Bear Rainforest in British Columbia, where Enbridge is proposing a 727 mile long pipeline to carry more than half a million barrels of tar sands oil per day to a tanker port in Kitimat. Along the way, 61 First Nations are (strongly) withholding consent for the project due to failed consultation over its substantial social and environmental impacts to traditional territories.

Enbridge will likely go to the bond market to finance the $5.5 billion project. If RBC steps in to underwrite that bond, the bank’s policy will have meant little to the communities which it purports to honor. If RBC opts out, it will be a new day in the banking world. Rumor has it that the World Bank will be adopting similar “consent” language in its revised IFC Performance Standards expected to be released next year. RBC’s handling of this new commitment will be a bellwether for the private banking sector’s willingness to implement this emerging international standard.

Is RBC up to the challenge?

Let us know what you think in the comments section below.

In an interview reported today by Lauren Krugel of the Canadian Press, CEO Russ Girling said:

I don’t believe that there’s a causal link between the two… It will be developed responsibly, in my view, irrespective of whether we build a pipeline or not… That oil will go someplace, so I think this push to connect somehow the development of the keystone pipeline to the development in the oilsands is not valid.

That’s a very different message from TransCanada PipeLine’s most recent Annual Report which states:

The increase in WCSB crude oil exports from Alberta requires access to new markets, including the Gulf Coast. TCPL will continue to pursue additional opportunities to move crude oil from Alberta to U.S. markets.

So for its investors, increasing tar sands production “requires” the XL pipeline, but for the American public concerned about locking in dirty oil imports, the two have nothing to do with one another. Which do you believe?

In a conference call last week reported today by Politico, API previewed a national advertising campaign supporting the TransCanada KeystoneXL oil pipeline set to launch in January. Critics including Senator Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) are concerned that the pipeline risks contamination of the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the world’s largest and a critical source of drinking water for Midwestern states.

According to reports from the call, API will focus its message on energy security. “Every barrel we import from Canada will replace oil from less secure sources” said API’s Cindy Schild, according to the Oil and Gas Journal.

A report commissioned by TransCanada themselves, however, shows those claims to be false. According to the report from Purvin & Gertz, the supply from the KeystoneXL pipeline would primarily displace domestic oil flowing into Midwestern refineries (see chart below).

Oil imports from KeystoneXL would displace domestic oil in the Midwest, not foreign oil.

Meanwhile, new demand from Gulf Coast refiners enabled by the new pipeline would constrain supplies available to Midwestern refiners, pushing oil prices up for Midwestern consumers. According to the report, after KeystoneXL

Midwest demand for Canadian heavy crude would exceed the available supply and the market price of Cold Lake Blend would be approximately $6.55 per barrel above the 2008 price level at Patoka. (p.27).

The report also describes the real economic basis behind support for the pipeline: big profits for the oil companies.

In summary, if the Keystone XL Pipeline causes the USGC price discount to be eliminated, the annual revenue increase to the Canadian producing industry is estimated at $2.0 billion (U.S.). In addition, if the Keystone XL Pipeline causes the Midwest price to rise above USGC parity, the annual revenue could increase by another $1.9 billion to reach approximately $3.9 billion (U.S.). (p.29)

Resistance is fertile.

Last week, almost 100 people from Idaho, Montana, Washington, Utah Oregon, California, Oklahoma and different parts of Canada converged outside of Missoula, MT  for the Anti-Tar Sands Resistance Summit.

Oregon, Idaho and Montana’s transportation corridor for heavy hauls of mining equipment are fast becoming a hub of resistance to tar sands oil expansion. Companies like Exxon and Conoco Phillips have spent millions in hauling this equipment from South Korea, up the Columbia and Snake Rivers to Lewiston, ID where they are awaiting transport on big rigs to Alberta. Once in Alberta they will continue the expansion of tar sands to feed the Gateway and Keystone XL pipelines with oil to the United States and Asia.

Northern Rockies Rising Tide, Northern Rockies Earth First!, various community and environmental groups in Idaho and Montana, Cascadia Rising Tide and the Indigenous Environmental Network have created networks with plans to stop and slow down tar sands expansion in the transportation corridor.

Also represented were groups fighting tar sands in Utah (90% of U.S. tar sands are in Utah), the Keystone XL pipeline development through the U.S. Mid-West, and the Gateway pipeline expansion through British Columbia.

The summit was marked by non-violent direct action trainings and network strategy development. The fight against the heavy hauls has been in the Idaho courts and will then go into Montana courts after that. Municipalities like Missoula are also lining up to block the heavy hauls through their boundaries.

Tar sands oil extraction is one of the most carbon intensive projects on the planet causing many air and water quality problems for populations near the extractive areas.

ACTION

If you want to help stop the tar sands heavy hauls from coming through Idaho and Montana, sign this petition.

Avatar vs. tar sands. See the resemblence?

James Cameron, “the most powerful man in Hollywood,” is in Alberta. Canadian TV cut into regular broadcasts this morning to show footage of him climbing into a helicopter for an areal tour of the tar sands. He’s touring with industry reps this morning, then will visit with Indigenous leaders later this afternoon in Ft. Chipewyan. He’s expected to do a formal press briefing on Wednesday.

Cameron is visiting on the invitation of George Poitras on behalf of the Indigenous Environmental Network issued last year at the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Rights at the UN. Kevin Libin at the (conservative) National Post is providing live coverage during the industry tour. CTV is also getting good footage, including Cameron’s comparison of the tar sands to destruction of the Amazon and his movie Avatar.

Meanwhile, tar sands development is beginning to encroach on US soil. Utah’s Division of Oil, Gas & Mining just approved the first ever commercial lease for tar sands development adjacent to Canyonlands National Park. Transcanada is also pushing for approval of a $12 billion pipeline to bring 1 million barrels per day of tar sands crude oil to the Gulf Coast.

Both projects show an industry pushing our economy deeper into oil addiction–scraping bottom to extract the last, dirtiest drops of a fundamentally a non renewable resource.

Take action to demand a stop to tar sands production in the US and watch this space for updates on Cameron’s “Avatarsands” visit.

RAN Chicago Rallies at Canadian Consulate

Following three significant spills of tar sands oil from aging pipelines in the Midwest, RAN Chicago took action. An afternoon protest was themed around pushing back on Canada’s tar sands and kicking our addiction to oil. Of the various placards on display (stop the serial spiller!), the hypodermic needle filled with oil was my personal favorite.

If oil is like a drug, then the Canadian Consulate in Chicago has become the kingpin of US tar sands trafficking. The Consulate has teamed up with oil companies to push through new tar sands pipelines, and strong-arm companies into keeping tar sands crude flowing into Midwestern refineries.

Meanwhile on the other coast in British Columbia, RAN’s Eriel Deranger joined over 300 at a march in support of First Nations opposed to the Enbridge Gateway Pipeline in Prince George British Columbia.  The proposed pipeline would move up to 525,000 barrels of oil a day from the tar sands in northern Alberta to tanker port in Kitimat, BC.  The project would cross unceded territories claimed by over 20 First Nations.  It would also cross 785 watercourses, fragment wildlife habitat and impact fragile salmon fisheries.  Enbridge has a long history of pipeline spills and other accidents, including the one million gallon spill of crude oil into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan in July—one of the largest spills in U.S. history.

The pipeline protests come just one week after a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showed that the tar sands industry is poisoning the Athabasca River. The study confirmed worries about elevated rates of cancers by communities downstream.

Check out this great new flick from our friends at Climate Camp UK. This year, they take on Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS)- among the world’s top financiers of fossil fuels. The Climate Camp crew doesn’t mess around; previous camps successfully shut down the third runway at Heathrow and Kingsnorth power station in Kent.

Visit www.climatecamp.org.uk for details on the camp Aug 21-24 near Edinburgh, UK.

A light at the end of the tunnel?Photo:  . SantiMB . via Flickr

The tar sands tide may finally be turning at Canada’s biggest bank. RBC is among the largest financiers of Canada’s Tar Sands but so far lacks policies adopted by other banks that seek to limit harm to Indigenous rights, water quality and climate.

That may be changing. Last week, representatives from RBC showed us a summary of the new draft Environmental Risk policy that it hopes will fill the gap. It’s too early to draw conclusions– the early draft has yet to be ratified by the bank’s Senior Management–but here’s our initial take on where we see progress relative to other banks, and where we still see distance.

Bottom line, we think bank is moving in the right direction on Indigenous rights and the environment but falls well short of establishing a significantly new standard for responsible banking. On a scale of 1 (worthless) to 10 (perfect), we gave the draft a 5. Here’s why:

On Indigenous rights, the policy acknowledges “free, prior and informed consent” (FPIC) as an international standard established by the UN, but requires it from clients only where FPIC is national law.  Elsewhere (including in Canada’s tar sands), the bank relies on the weaker World Bank standard of “free, prior, informed consultation” and meaningful accommodation. Essentially, RBC is proposing the same “recognize” language on FPIC that TD adopted in 2007, though RBC claims its application will be more robust.

We’ve been asking RBC’s to require evidence of consent from its clients no matter where they operate, especially in Canada’s tar sands where recent studies show that Indigneous communities are facing elevated rates of cancer. RBC maintains that demonstrating consent is impractical given the inconsistent interpretation of “consent”, the lack of a legal framework for establishing “consent” in Canada and overlapping and unresolved land claims and interests. We disagree. Our view is that consent is really just the product of consultation that takes “no” for an answer. It’s a hard pill for industry to swallow, but it’s the right thing to do.

On land and water, the bank singles out clients operating in “environmentally sensitive areas” which it defines as tropical forests, UNESCO world heritage sites, critical habitat for species at risk and High Conservation Value Forests. The policy would require an assessment of whether clients “prevent or mitigate” irreversible adverse impacts to these areas, but stops short of imposing clear penalties if they don’t.

We’ve been asking RBC to phase out financing to companies that can’t do business without wrecking the environment. Despite the bank’s assurances that these new guidelines will help weed out bad apples, we remain unconvinced. We like to see the bank defining “environmentally sensitive areas” but the policy lacks the teeth to avoid doing them harm.

Finally, we’ve been asking RBC to meet Unicredit’s commitment to measure and reduce its “financed emissions” of CO2 by reigning in financing to tar sands operators and other large CO2 emitters. They offered to encourage clients to disclose emissions under the Carbon Disclosure Project, but won’t cut clients that don’t. Again, good sentiment, but ultimately lacking teeth.

We want to see the policy improve but really it’s the practice that counts. And there’s no shortage of test cases in the queue. Analysts expect more than $100 billion to flow into tar sands developments within the next decade. We’re keeping an eye on two: the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline strongly opposed by a number of well organized First Nations, and the Total Joslyn North Mine which threatens the Athabasca watershed with yet another toxic tailings pond. Both companies will likely come knocking at RBC for financial backing for these projects. How will RBC respond?

But enough pontificating from us. Let’s hear from you! One way or another, this policy will impact how the banks relate to the growing controversy over tar sands. How should we respond? Please give us your questions and ideas in the comments.

Alberta Minister Iris Evans. Photo: Dave Cournoyer

Fearful that the union of environmental activists and cosmetics purveyors spells doom for the tar sands, Canada’s biggest oil boosters totally freaked out about our campaign with LUSH Cosmetics this week.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) were the first to freak out.  A hurried press release boldly asserted that “It’s technology – not soap – that enables cleaner energy.” The hoaky humor got a laugh, but the laughing was at them not with them. Carola Hoyos at the Financial Times panned that CAPP “has drawn the line at designer soap“.  Dina O’Meara at the Calgary Herald came down even harder writing that “CAPP should know better than to charge out, guns blazing, in reaction.” But charge out they did, upping the ante with a challenge (via Twitter no less!) to an in-person debate. We humbly obliged of course, but now they’re not returning our emails (or tweets). C’mon guys! Let’s talk it out!

Not to be outdone, the Government of Alberta freaked-out big time and picked up the phone. Alberta Minister Iris Evans (voted best-dressed in Alberta!) pulled her rapid-response team for “frank discussion” with LUSH and RAN. Her blog post after the call included “just a sample” of the gems she dished out including that “Oil sands account for less than 0.1 per cent of world’s greenhouse gas emissions.” By way of sample comparison, BP Gulf Spill (depending on who you ask) accounts for less than .1 percent of oil spilled globally, but we don’t think it’s a good idea either.

Frankly,we’re tickled pink that our little campaign has drawn so much attention. We’re educating thousands of average folks across North America about the hidden cost of our oil addiction, and it’s good to know who’s freaked out by that.

Bonus Quiz: How much more CO2 does Alberta emit per-capita than the global average? Winner gets a t-shirt!

It’s the same  mantra CAPP offers just about every time the industry’s challenged.  They thought an ad placed in Variety Magazine was “blurring of the lines between fact and fiction.” They called a spoof video game by Polaris “inaccurate“.  They challenged Al Gore invoking interest in a discussion “based on scientific facts.”

Trouble is, CAPP won’t dispute our facts. Not one! We even asked CAPP to defend their blurry assertion and take us on point-for-point, as we have occasionally done with the Government of Alberta.  No dice. Canada’s oil industry would rather lob accusations than discuss substance.

No matter!  We’ll keep dishing out the facts and look forward to a rebuttal in the comments.

1. Oil sands mining is licensed to use twice the amount of fresh water that the entire city of Calgary uses in a year. The water requirements for oil sands projects range from 2.5 to 4.0 barrels of water for each barrel of oil produced.
2. At least 90% of the fresh water used in the oil sands ends up in tailing lakes so toxic that propane cannons and floating scarecrows are used to keep ducks from landing in them.
3. A 2003 report concluded that “an accident related to the failure of one of the oil sands tailings ponds could have catastrophic impact in the aquatic ecosystem of the Mackenzie River Basin due to the size of these lakes and their proximity to the Athabasca River.”
4. In April, 2008 a flock of migrating ducks landed on a tar sands toxic lake and died.
5. Processing the oil sands uses enough natural gas in a day to heat 3 million homes in Canada. Natural gas requirements for the oil sands industry are projected to increase substantially during the projected period from 17 million cubic metres (0.6 billion cubic feet) per day in 2003 to a range of 40 to 45 million cubic metres (1.4 to 1.6 billion cubic) feet per day in 2015.
6. The toxic tailing lakes are considered one of the largest human-made structures in the world. The toxic lakes in Northern Alberta span 50 square kilometers and can be seen from space.
7. Producing a barrel of oil from the oil sands produces three times more greenhouse gas emissions than a barrel of conventional oil. In 2004, oil sands production surpassed 160 000 cubic metres (one million barrels) per day; by 2015, oil sands production is expected to more than double to about 340 000 cubic metres (2.2 million barrels) per day.
8. The oil sands operations are the fastest growing source of heat-trapping greenhouse gas in Canada. By 2020 the oil sands will release twice the amount produced currently by all the cars and trucks in Canada.
9. The Alberta Oil Sands Operation are the largest single point source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.
10. By 2015, the Alberta Oil Sands are expected to emit more greenhouse gases than the nation of Denmark (pop. 5.4 million).

Hat tip to Desmogblog for pulling these together with sources. For more fun facts and materials visit ran.org/tarsands

Update: Responses to comments follow

David! Steve! Welcome to the Understory. Thanks for taking the invitation for a rebuttal.

To David’s point, the fact above came from Canada’s National Energy Board in 2003.  Not sure where your numbers come from David, but unfortunately the NEB numbers are the latest Government data we could find–and that’s a problem. Government doesn’t have the data that it needs to manage water impacts of tar sands development.

Steaming oil out of the ground through in-situ isn’t a solution to the water problem in the tar sands by far. Canada’s Pembina Institute has done some of the best work on this point. Below is a chart from their recent report card on In-Situ water use. Current and proposed projects could withdraw more than 15% of the Athabasca River’s water flow during its lowest flow periods, reducing the availability of fish habitat threatening health of the river’s ecosystem .

Water use by in-situ tar sands mines

As for Steve’s comment, we’re really just comparing dueling statistics. As I’ve stated before, you have to compare apples to apples. Emissions from transit grew 36% 1990-2008 while emissions from Oil and Gas extraction grew 285%. And transit is now trending down with -.5% growth in emissions ’07 to ’08. Compare that to an increase of 2.9% from oil and gas (http://bit.ly/bTVZ1L). And that was during a downturn! NEB expects tar sands oil production to jump 11% this year (http://is.gd/bp7jW) and you can bet emissions will too.

Photos by BP and National Geographic

Last week, we reported that Canada’s tar sands have just become the biggest source of oil imports to the US. This week we compare tar sands to the other big source of US oil–the Gulf of Mexico.

Industry backers are trying hard to spin differences between tar sands and the Gulf. During a cheerleading trip to DC Germany last month Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach Environment Minister Jim Prentice speculated that the risk of tar sands development in Alberta is “probably less than the kind of risks associated with offshore drilling.” Stelmach, choosing his words a more carfefully on a simmilar mission to DC used the word “safer” when he made the same comparison.

We see more similarities. As more conventional supplies of oil dry up, deep water drilling in the Gulf and strip mining for oil in the tar sands represent the dirty, dangerous future of our oil addiction unless we break the habit.

Both regions represent a large and growing supply of oil the US. Canada’s tar sands just became the top source of imported oil (about 1 M barrels/day or just over 8%), and the Gulf of Mexico has long been the top supply of domestic production (1.6 M barrels/day or just over 30%). Analysts expect expect double digit growth in production from both regions over the next decade or so.

Both are an expensive fix too, requiring sky-high oil prices to turn a profit. Profitable production from Canada’s tar sands requires oil prices at around $100/barrel. Deep water production requires oil prices of at least $70/barrel. Despite the costs, analysts expect investors to pour more than $167 billion into deep water drilling  and more than $120 billion into Canada’s tar sands by 2014.

And then there’s the environment. There’s no doubt that the Gulf spill is a catastrophe. But Stelmach’s cynical pitch last month ignores the devastating ecological harms of strip mining for oil. A recent report from CERES concluded that the millions of gallons of toxins leaking from giant tailings ponds every year are “like the Gulf of Mexico spill, but playing out in slow motion.” For evidence, he need only look to thousand of animals that have perished in these pits, and the unusually high rates of cancer in native communities living downstream.

So who wins the Deathmatch?  Big Oil. Everybody else loses.

Existing and proposed tar sands pipelines

Ask anyone where most of US oil comes from and you’re likely to hear “somewhere in the Middle East.” Ten years ago, that would have been true. Today though, Canada is the undisputed top supplier of oil to the US.

A new report from a prominent oil industry group shows the tar sands are responsible for more than half of what we import from Canada.

This year, oil companies will ship more than 1 million barrels of oil per day from the tar sands across the border into the US.

If you live in the Midwest, you almost certainly fill your tank with tar sands oil. And wherever you live, it’s likely that industry has designs on your tank too. This image from a recent industry report paints a clear picture of tar sands expansion into the US. Analysts expect investors to pour more than $100 billion dollars into pipelines and refineries needed distribute and refine tar sands oil over the next decade.

What can I do, you ask? Two things. First, write President Obama and tell him to promote investments in renewable energies that will break our addiction to fossil fuels. Second, choose a bank that won’t use your money to underwrite this fossil fuel expansion (here’s the list).

Know of other ways to kick our tar sands oil habit? Please share them in the comments section below.

Brant Olson is the Director of RAN’s Freedom From Oil Campaign. For up-to-the-minute information on this campaign to end expansion of the Alberta tar sands, follow @Branto on Twitter.

Indigenous Activist Protests RBC Waterloo Branch

An activist was arrested this afternoon at the Waterloo Branch of RBC Bank. Mark Corbiere was charged with mischief for hanging a banner reading “Boycott RBC” and “Stop the Tar Sands” from the roof of the branch, located in uptown Waterloo.

The protest was one of eight “Fossil Fools Day” protests at RBC branches across Canada. For the last five years, activists around the world have adopted April Fools Day as a day of pranks and protest against fossil fuels and climate change. According to Bloomberg, RBC is a top arranger of financing to companies operating in the tar sands.

Those present report that Corbiere was joined by 10 supporters chanting and holding banners in front of the bank branch during the protest. CTV cameras were on scene to catch the action. After an hour of negotiations, police removed Corbiere from the roof and confiscated his banner.

In the spirit of Fossil Fools day, 13 Cities in Canada have taken action and pulled creative pranks and tricks on tar sands supporters.

8 communities in Canada: London, Toronto, Waterloo, Peterborough, New Westminster (BC), Duncan (BC), and Victoria all targeted RBC as the top financier in dirty tar sands projects. In Waterloo, one indigenous activist was arrested after a banner drop at a local branch of Royal Bank of Canada.

photo: Tristan Glenn

In Montreal, 70 people staged a bike bloc protest shutting down the roads in and out of Montreal’s oil refining sector

with clean, green people power.  A banner was hung in front of the Enbridge Trailbreaker Pipeline stating “Changeon le System, Pas le Climat. Trailbreaker=Tar Sands” where cyclists blockaded the road to draw attention to the downstream, destructive effects of the Athabasca Tar Sands.  “The east end of Montreal is a seldom seen and discussed region, but it is the largest urban oil refining center in Canada,” says Cameron Fenton, a member of Climate Justice Montreal.  ”It is a vast wasteland of oil, gas and chemical storage tanks, threatening the health of local residents and all Montrealers. If completed, the Trailbreaker would bring the direct effects of the Tar Sands right here.”

In Edmonton and Calgary, local residents delivered “awards” in the shape of Black and Gold ducks to Premier Ed Stelmach and Environment Minister Jim Prentice respectively.  In Halifax, local youth called out Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Environment Minister Jim Prentice and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty in front of CBC radio for failing to respect the rights of first nations communities affected by tar sands development, and suspending the popular ecoEnergy retrofit program yesterday.  “Harper doesn’t grasp the science [of climate change] let alone the moral issues,” says Emily Rideout, student at Dalhousie University.  “I’d like to see Canada adopt a science-based target, pull out of the tar sands – or at least put a moratorium on development.  Instead, we’re cutting eco-energy programs and funding.”

“Fossil Fools Day is an international day of action to hold dirty politicians and industries accountable for expanding a fossil fuel industry that is fast destroying our planet and our communities,” said Fenton. “In Canada, the biggest Fossil Fools are tar sands developers, investors and political supporters. It’s time they stop the foolery, stop the tar sands, and start building the green economy we want to leave for the next generation.” The group is calling for a global response to ensure that we respect Aboriginal title and peoples and avoid catastrophic climate change.

“Tar sands projects are destroying our forests, our water systems, and are endangering people in Canada,” says Skye Augustine, student at the University of Victoria. “As a

member of the G8 and the G20, we have the resources to look for alternatives and create a clean, green energy economy that protects people and the planet.”

Worldwide, Fossil Fools Day is promoting strong, just climate legislation, corporate responsibility and a clean renewable energy future.  “It is time that Canada cleans up its dirty energy addiction,” said Kimia Ghomeshi, National G20 and Climate Organizer for the Canadian Youth Climate Coalition.  ”People in Canada are ready for change. We need to stop providing subsidies to dirty fossil fuel industries, make substantial investments into the renewable energy sector, and provide a just transition for workers in the tar sands. This is what real climate justice looks like.”

In the lead up to the G8 and G20 meetings taking place in Canada in June 2010, climate justice activists are raising the profile of the tar sands industry in Canada as the key reason the Canadian government is refusing to do its fair share to set deep and binding greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, and tarnishing Canada’s international reputation as a result. For details of days of action leading up to the arrival of the G20 in Toronto, visit http://g20.torontomobilize.org

For photos, visit http://www.flickr.com/photos/climatejusticecanada/

For nomination and action videos, visit www.youtube.com/canadaclimatejustice

For more information on Fossil Fools Day actions, visit http://canadaclimatejustice.wordpress.com/

But this year, a wide variety of activists, in B.C. and beyond, are reminding us that the 2010 Vancouver Olympics aren’t all fun and games. In fact, they’re resulting in huge developments on unceded First Nations land, massive spending on hyper-militarized security, and displacement of poor people and increased homelessness in Vancouver.

And, of course, it’s an opportunity for some good ol’-fashioned corporate PR. Companies from around the world with gruesome environmental and human rights track records – like Dow, Coca-Cola, and General Electric – are lining up to spend millions on funding the Olympics and sprucing up their tarnished images.

And the lead sponsor of the Olympic torch run: Royal Bank of Canada, the ATM for the Alberta tar sands. In fact, their website for the torch run calls on people across Canada to “make a pledge” to “make a better Canada,” and touts RBC’s “Blue Water Pledge” to “support watershed protection” – a little bit hypocritical, given that RBC has pledged $3.8 billion in financing to tar sands companies in the last six months alone.

So a group of folks in Vancouver decided to call RBC on their greenwashing. They issued a callout last week – endorsed by RAN - calling for protests at RBC branches across Canada every Friday at noon, to protest RBC’s attempts to use their Olympic funding to greenwash their role as the world’s biggest financier of the tar sands.

This past Friday – on incredibly short notice – protestors in Toronto, Vancouver, and Edmonton took their message to their local RBC branches.

In Toronto, the ever-amazing RAN Toronto set up a tar sands cafe: they served up delicious tar sands tailing ponds “tea” to customers and passers-by outside RBC’s Yonge St. branch. They also went inside and offered “tea” to the branch employees, who politely declined.

In Vancouver, a group of concerned people went to RBC’s Vancouver headquarters, and passed out a brand-new flyer about RBC’s role in funding the Olympics and destroying the tar sands. (You can download the flyer here.)

And our reports indicate that there was a protest at an RBC branch in Edmonton, too! (Of course, the coolest part about decentralized days of action like this is that it’s entirely possible that actions happened that we didn’t even know about.)

This was a great start to the campaign – three protests across Canada, only three days after the callout was issued! But this is only the beginning – after all, if RBC is raking in millions in profits from its financing of tar sands companies, then we’re going to have to make a lot of noise before they start to listen.

So email 2010corporatecampaign [at] gmail.com to find out if there’s a protest happening soon near you – and if there isn’t, you can go ahead and organize one! (And it doesn’t have to be on a Friday at noon, either – and if you’d like help organizing a protest, you can email us at answers [at] ran.org.)

RBC: MAKE A PLEDGE: STOP FUNDING THE TAR SANDS!

RBC CEO Gord Nixon should be putting his bank’s money where his mouth is. Last week, he offered an incoherent defense of RBC’s “balanced approach” to the environment after RAN activists confronted him on the bank’s financial support for expansion of Canada’s tar sands.

Recognizing his stumble, Nelson hit the papers this week to explain. “You can’t over-emphasize the environment at huge cost to the economy” Nixon told the National Post, “and at the same time you cannot do things economically that are a huge cost to the environment.”

Below the surface, though, RBC’s “balanced approach” is anything but. Nixon clarifies that the Bank’s environmental commitment “…doesn’t mean you can’t lend to someone in the oil sands.” In fact, with more than $16.8$14.3 billion (USD) in credit extended to the sector since 2007, nobody lends arranges more lending to oil sands companies than RBC.

Compare this with RBC’s environmental commitments. Nixon points to RBC’s Blue Water Project

“…which, at $50-million, is the biggest philanthropic project for the bank. It is dedicated towards water initiatives in the world from financings that impact wetlands to financing clean-water projects or drilling wells in Nicaragua. We try to do our part.”

Look under the hood, though, and The Blue Water Project looks more like a public relations project. Three years since its launch, the bank has issued just $9.5 million in grants. During the same time period, RBC earned more than $87$84 million (USD) in underwriting fees from tar sands companies. How’s that for balance?

If Nixon were serious about sustainability, he would recognize that the tar sands need to be stopped. That was the recommendation earlier this week from Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. French Bank Dexia and the UK’s Co-Op Bank have both established policies that maintain shareholder returns while effectively prohibiting any lending to tar sands companies. RBC should seek a similar balance.

Before dawn this morning, a small team of climate activists rappelled from the US observation deck at Niagara Falls. Dangling hundreds of feet above the ground, they sent a special welcome message to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper ahead of his first official visit to the White House to push dirty Tar Sands oil.

Not that he’s feeling so welcome anyway. Obama limited the meeting to just one hour. While some have called it a slap in the face, Aides say Harper will turn the other cheek. “The economy, and the clean-energy dialogue,” one aide told the Globe and Mail, “will dominate the discussions.” Obama needed to dodge controversy over oil imports from Canada’s tar sands in the midst of the Climate Legislation debate. Harper needed a story to go with his photo-op.

During Harper’s first official trip to meet Obama in the U.S., the two leaders are expected to discuss climate change and energy policy ahead of the upcoming G20 Summit. Canada supplies 19% of U.S. oil imports, more than half of which now comes from the tar sands, making the region the largest single source of U.S. oil imports. The expansion of the tar sands will strip mine an area the size of Florida. Complete with skyrocketing rates of cancer (by 400%!) for First Nations communities living downstream, broken treaties, toxic belching lakes so large you can see them from outer space, churning up ancient boreal forest, destroyed air and water quality, the tar sands have been called the most destructive project on Earth.

Tomorrow’s visit to the U.S. by Prime Minister Harper is the latest attempt by Canadian Federal and Provincial officials to lock in subsidies for 22 new and expanded refinery projects and oil pipelines crisscrossing 28 states, which would transport and process the dirty tar sands oil. Many are concerned that Prime Minister Harper wants to protect the tar sands oil industry from climate regulation, even though it is one of the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

“Climate change, one of the biggest security threats of our time, is something Canada and the United States face together. Extracting tar sands oil, which sends three times more climate-changing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than conventional oil, puts us all at risk,” said Eriel Deranger a member of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and Rainforest Action Network’s Tar Sands Campaigner in Alberta.

As this oil spills into the U.S., communities living near oil refineries face increased air and water pollution, which contains 11 times more sulfur and nickel and five times more lead than conventional oil.

Opposition to tar sands oil has been rising on both sides of the border. Just last month, four Native American and environmental groups sued Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Deputy Secretary James Steinberg and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over Enbridge Energy’s Alberta Clipper pipeline. If built, the 1,375 mile pipeline would pump 800,000 barrels of tar sands oil per day from Northern Alberta to Midwestern refineries. On the Canadian, Native activists escalated pressure on the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) for their funding of the tar sands a few weeks ago.

Canada has no regulations to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, and the federal government’s climate change plan would allow total pollution from the tar sands to increase almost 70 percent by 2020. Tar sands oil production is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada and was recently cited as one of the most important reasons Canada will miss its Kyoto targets by over 30%.

Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) used to be the centerpiece of Harper’s pitch. Global warming pollution from coal and tar sands “can be solved by technology,” declared Obama. Not to be outdone, Harper’s office announced that “A strengthened U.S.-Canada partnership on carbon sequestration will help accelerate private sector investment in commercial scale, near-zero-carbon coal facilities to promote climate and energy security.”

Half a year and billions of wasted tax dollars later, though, CCS is still a pipe dream. FutureGen, North America’s supposed proving ground for the unproven technology, can’t keep private investors to save it’s life. Two of its biggest private backers, Southern Co. and AEP, jumped ship last June. Around the same time, sponsors lowered the goal-post on the project to just 60% less carbon. So much for near-zero-carbon facility. Projects promised in the tar sands are fairing even worse.

No matter. Harper is back, hat in hand, looking for legislative handouts to an industry destined to ruin the climate.

So here’s our welcome to you, Prime Minister Harper. Now, please, go home.

And take your dirty tar sands with you.