February, 03 2017, 03:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
For inquiries to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, contact Nick Pelosi, Director of Corporate Engagement, First Peoples Worldwide: standingrockdapl@gmail.com, 540-899-6545
For inquiries to the Indigenous Coalition at Standing Rock, contact Tara Houska, National Campaign Director, Honor the Earth: tara@honortheearth.org, 612-226-9404
For inquiries about the week of action and event logistics contact Vanessa Green, Individual Campaign Director, DivestInvest: vanessa@divestinvest.org, 617-230-8942
For inquiries about Amazon Watch's participation in this campaign, contact Moira Birss, Media and Communications Manager: moira@amazonwatch.org, 510-394-2041
Over 700,000 People Demand Banks Stop Financing the Dakota Access Pipeline
While Trump, Energy Transfer Partners and Sunoco Logistics race to complete the pipeline, over 700,000 people say "No!" to the banks behind the project
Over 700,000 people have signed one of six petitions demanding that the banks financing the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) remove their support of the project. The figure includes individuals who collectively report having over US$2.3 billion invested in these banks through checking, mortgage, and credit card accounts, which they are ready to divest if the banks continue financing DAPL. Thousands have already closed their accounts at those banks, removing over US$55 million and counting.
With the Trump government exerting massive pressure on the US Army Corps of Engineers to ignore its own procedures and immediately issue the last permit needed to construct the final part of the Pipeline, and with Energy Transfer Partners expressing its intention to "complete construction of the pipeline without any additional rerouting in and around Lake Oahe", pressure is mounting on the banks involved.
The 17 banks involved in directly financing the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, and the many others providing credits to the companies behind the project, continue to find themselves targeted by campaigners demanding an end to their support for the project. Activists this week showed up in person at bank headquarters in New York, Montreal, Munich, Madrid, Amsterdam, San Francisco and elsewhere, demanding the withdrawal of the 17 banks involved in the construction loan to ETP. More actions are planned for next week in Washington DC, and Palo Alto, CA. A full list of ongoing #NoDAPL 2017 actions can be found here.
The 17 banks directly funding the construction of the DAPL are: Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ, BayernLB, BBVA, BNP Paribas, Citigroup, Credit Agricole, DNB ASA, ICBC, ING, Intesa Sanpaolo, Mizuho Bank, Natixis, SMBC, Societe Generale, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, TD Bank, Wells Fargo.
In response, banks including ABN AMRO and ING have made public statements that they are ready to reconsider their relation with ETE. However, at the same time campaigners noted with dismay the renewed involvement of a number of banks in a new $2.2 billion refinancing loan to Energy Transfer Equity, led by Credit Suisse.
As pressure is mounting on the financiers of the project, The Sacred Stone Camp and their allies have vowed to stand their ground as long as DAPL construction equipment remains on Oceti Sakowin treaty land. The global coalition targeting the DAPL financiers has vowed to continue pressure on all banks funding fossils throughout 2017.
In support of these actions, leaders from the movements to stop DAPL made the following statements:
Leila Salazar Lopez, Executive Director, Amazon Watch:
"Indigenous peoples across the Americas, from Standing Rock to the Amazon, have for years been standing up against the destructive, racist practices of the fossil fuel industry. The number of people withdrawing their money from the banks supporting the Dakota Access pipeline is a clear signal to those banks that destructive fossil fuel projects are a bad financial, social, and environmental investment."
Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Chairman Dave Archambault II:
"By attempting to fast track DAPL, President Trump has made it clear that his priorities lie with his wealthy contributors rather than the public interest. Banks now have an opportunity to take a stand against this reckless assault on our treaty rights and water, or be complicit and continue to lose millions."
Dallas Goldtooth, Keep It In the Ground Campaigner, Indigenous Environmental Network:
"President Trump wishes to fast-track the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline, against federal law and tribal treaty rights. Indigenous nations and communities will not be the sacrifice zones for President Trump's fossil fuel regime. We remain steadfast in our defense of our inherent rights and the protection of Mother Earth and we implore our allies to stand with us. We must remind the investors of this pipeline that they, via their financing, are threatening the lives of water protectors and it's time to be held accountable for that."
Judith LeBlanc, Director, Native Organizers Alliance and member of the Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma:
"The decision to build the Dakota Access Pipeline was made in the halls of power by a handful representing banks and corporations willing to sacrifice Mother Earth for profit. The decision to stop it will be made by the many, all across the world, who know that Mother Earth and water give us life. Time is now for investors to also stand for Mother Earth. We started at Standing Rock, now Standing Rock is everywhere."
Chase Iron Eyes, lead attorney, Lakota People's Law Project:
"It's inspiring to see the power of global currency being leveraged in the frontline movement at Standing Rock. Separate fights - defending clean drinking water, upholding constitutional freedoms, creating a new energy economy - are becoming one as people recognize and respond to the problem of banks using their money to finance human rights violations and brutality. If money rules the day then we will bring compassion to our capital by divesting."
Angus Wong, Campaign Manager, SumOfUs:
"Trump's green light of the destructive Dakota Pipeline is a corporate scheme to enrich himself and his corporate friends. But we know targeting banks to stop financing this dangerous pipeline works - two days after we delivered hundreds of thousands of SumOfUs members' signatures to Norway-based DNB bank headquarters in November, it pulled its assets in the pipeline. We hope DNB will again demonstrate leadership by committing to withdraw its project funding."
Erich Pica, President, Friends of the Earth US:
"The voices of Indigenous peoples have been ignored for too long - by the US government, corporations and big banks. By not acknowledging Indigenous peoples, these banks are perpetuating a pattern of colonialism and failing to respect Indigenous peoples' rights to Free, Prior and Informed Consent."
Vanessa Green, Director of DivestInvest Individual:
"DAPL is simply the wrong kind of investment, and people don't want their money behind it. With government mandates to scale up clean energy investments, a market increasingly supportive of a low carbon future, and unprecedented consumer and investor interest in moving money into climate and community solutions, the question now is which banks will lose the most in this historic energy transition."
Mary Sweeters, Climate Campaigner with Greenpeace USA:
"People across the world have pledged their solidarity with the Indigenous communities who reject this dirty pipeline and the threat it poses to the water and climate. The banks must choose whether they want to continue to invest their money in yesterday or listen to the millions of people who stand with Standing Rock."
Fran Teplitz, Executive Co-director of Green America:
"Now more than ever we need to move away from destructive fossil fuel pipelines and pursue a clean energy future. Indigenous communities are demonstrating heroic leadership by protecting water, the source of life, from the dangers of pipelines. We call on the government and banks to halt support for the Dakota Access Pipeline immediately."
Kristen Perry, Climate Justice Montreal Organizer:
"We need to stop funding projects which endanger water, land, and our communities, and instead follow the lead of defenders calling for direct action and support. It is crucial that we center justice for communities on the frontline of the crisis and the forefront of solutions, and pushing for divestment and the defunding of destructive projects is a tangible way for us to take action in solidarity with Indigenous communities across colonial borders."
Yago Martinez from Ecologistas en Accion:
"DAPL is not only a clear violation of Indigenous people's rights but also a major climate threat. We believe in the importance of international solidarity to achieve goals leading to global and climatic justice, and therefore we cannot fail to stand with Standing Rock. We must raise our voices. Banks from all over the world are involved in this destructive project and they must be held accountable."
Ruth Breech, Campaigner, Rainforest Action Network:
"The Dakota Access Pipeline is a morally and financially bankrupt project. If banks value Indigenous rights and free, prior and informed consent, they will leave this project immediately. We don't need another pipeline. We need financial institutions that are willing to take a stand and do the right thing-divest from the Dakota Access Pipeline."
Regine Richter of the German organisation urgewald:
"European banks involved in financing DAPL might think they are far enough away and can get off the hook from the protests. But here as well people are enthusiastic to stand with Standing Rock and protest against the loan, as we do this week at BayernLB."
Johan Frijns, Director BankTrack:
"The Dakota Access Pipeline is becoming a litmus test for all banks involved on how they let environmental, social and human impacts weigh in when considering finance for a particular project. In this case, the ongoing violation of the rights of the Sioux Tribe leave them no other option but to withdraw from the project."
Amazon Watch is a nonprofit organization founded in 1996 to protect the rainforest and advance the rights of indigenous peoples in the Amazon Basin. We partner with indigenous and environmental organizations in campaigns for human rights, corporate accountability and the preservation of the Amazon's ecological systems.
LATEST NEWS
Pesticide Scorecard Exposes Which Food Retailers Are Failing Bees
"Under the incoming Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency will likely do even less to mitigate the damage of pesticides, putting even more onus on companies to address the escalating risks," said one climate advocate.
Dec 10, 2024
A report released Tuesday from the environmental group Friends of the Earth finds that the U.S. food retail sector's use of pesticides on just four crops—almonds, apples, soy, and corn—could result in over $200 billion worth of financial, climate, and biodiversity risks for the industry between 2024 and 2050. Pollinators, including bees, form a crucial link between pesticide use and these risks.
The report was released in tandem with the group's annual retailer scorecard, which ranks the largest U.S. grocery stores on the "steps they are taking to address the use of toxic pesticides in their supply chains and to support the expansion of organic agriculture and other ecological solutions."
While it highlights some industry leadership on this issue, the authors of the scorecard say that, on the whole, retailer action to curb the impact of pesticides falls short. The following retailers received an "F" grade from Friends of the Earth: Wakefern, Publix, Dollar General, 7-Eleven Inc., Hy-Vee, Walgreens, H-E-B, BJ's, Amazon, and Wegmans.
Although its owner, Amazon, received an F grade, the grocery store Whole Foods was the only retailer that was given an A grade.
A handful of the companies, including Whole Foods, have made time bound pledges to address pesticide use by requiring fresh produce suppliers to adopt ecological farming methods and to confirm their practices through third-party verifications. Eight companies have created policies that encourage suppliers to reduce the use of "pesticides of concern—including neonicotinoids, organophosphates, and glyphosate—and to shift to least-toxic approaches," according to the scorecard.
Friends of the Earth's report on risks associated with pesticide use explains why scrutiny around retailers' use of pesticides is warranted, and why retailers themselves ought to be motivated to reduce these risks.
For one thing, "under the incoming Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency will likely do even less to mitigate the damage of pesticides, putting even more onus on companies to address the escalating risks," according to Kendra Klein, deputy director of science at Friends of the Earth.
"Food retailers must urgently reduce their use of pesticides and advance organic and other ecologically regenerative approaches. They have the opportunity to lead in the fight against biodiversity collapse and climate change, helping to ensure Americans have continued access to healthy food," she said in a statement.
An estimated one-third of world crops rely on pollination, and a little less than three-fourths of fruit and vegetable crops require pollination from insects and other creatures, according to the report. Pollinators are often studied as an indicator for biodiversity risk and general environmental health—and experts cite pesticides as among the reasons that pollinators are in decline. Research also shows that pesticides poise a threat to healthy soil ecosystems.
According to the report, an estimated one-third of world crops rely on pollination, and a little less than three-fourths of fruit and vegetable crops require pollination from insects and other creatures. Pollinators are often studied as an indicator for biodiversity risk and general environmental health—and experts cite pesticides as among the reasons that pollinators are in decline, per the report. Research also shows that pesticides poise a threat to healthy soil ecosystems, the report states.
The report states that 89% of the almond crop area, 72% of apples, 100% of corn, and 40% of soy receives more than one "lethal dose" of an insecticide that is considered toxic to bees. This "quantification of the risk of pesticides to pollinators" for the four crops "provides the values to conduct the financial analysis in this study."
The document details how the food retail industry's use of pesticides creates direct costs for the industry—for example, the money spent purchasing and applying the pesticides, the CO2 emissions associated with using or producing pesticides, and the impact on crop yields, as well as indirect costs.
When it comes to climate damage costs, the report estimates that U.S. food retailer sales for products that include soy, corn, apples, and almonds will suffer $4.5 billion over the period of 2024-50. Biodiversity risk stemming from using pollinator-harming pesticides on those four crops is valued much higher, at $34.3 billion, over the same time period.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Arctic Tundra Has Turned From 'Carbon Sink to Carbon Source' in Dangerous Flip: NOAA
"This is yet one more sign, predicted by scientists, of the consequences of inadequately reducing fossil fuel pollution," said one scientist.
Dec 10, 2024
Permafrost in the Arctic has stored carbon dioxide for millennia, but the annual Arctic Report Card released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a concerning shift linked to planetary heating and a rising number of wildfires in the icy region: The tundra is now emitting more carbon than it is storing.
The report card revealed that over the last year, the tundra's temperature rose to its second-highest level on record, causing the frozen soil to melt.
The melting of the permafrost activates microbes in the soil which decompose the trapped carbon, causing it to be released into the atmosphere as planet-heating carbon dioxide and methane.
The release of fossil fuels from the permafrost is also being caused by increased Arctic wildfires, which have emitted an average of 207 million tons of carbon per year since 2003.
"Our observations now show that the Arctic tundra, which is experiencing warming and increased wildfire, is now emitting more carbon than it stores, which will worsen climate change impacts," said Rick Spinrad, administrator of NOAA. "This is yet one more sign, predicted by scientists, of the consequences of inadequately reducing fossil fuel pollution."
Sue Natali, a scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research Center in Massachusetts and one of 97 international scientists who contributed to the Arctic Report Card, told NPR that 1.5 trillion tons of carbon are still being stored in the tundra—suggesting that the continued warming of the permafrost could make it a huge source of planet-heating greenhouse gas emissions.
Along with the "Arctic tundra transformation from carbon sink to carbon source," NOAA reported declines in caribou herds and increasing winter precipitation.
The report card showed that the autumn of 2023 and summer of 2024 saw the second- and third-warmest temperatures on record across the Arctic, and a heatwave in August 2024 set an all-time record for daily temperatures in several communities in northern Alaska and Canada.
The last nine years have been the nine warmest on record in the Arctic region.
"Many of the Arctic's vital signs that we track are either setting or flirting with record-high or record-low values nearly every year," said Gerald (J.J.) Frost, a senior scientist with Alaska Biological Research, Inc. and a veteran Arctic Report Card author. "This is an indication that recent extreme years are the result of long-term, persistent changes, and not the result of variability in the climate system."
Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, emphasized that the continuous release of fossil fuel emissions from oil and gas extraction and other pollution has caused the Arctic to warm at a faster rate than the Earth as a whole over the past 11 years.
"These combined changes are contributing to worsening wildfires and thawing permafrost to an extent so historic that it caused the Arctic to be a net carbon source after millennia serving as a net carbon storage region," said Ekwurzel. "If this becomes a consistent trend, it will further increase climate change globally."
The Arctic Report Card was released weeks before President-elect Donald Trump is set to take office. Trump has pledged to slash climate regulations introduced by the Biden administration and to increase oil and gas production. He has mused that sea-level rise will create "more oceanfront property" and has called the climate crisis a "hoax," while his nominee for energy secretary, Chris Wright, the CEO of the fracking company Liberty Energy, has claimed that climate warming is good for the planet.
"These sobering impacts in the Arctic are one more manifestation of how policymakers in the United States and around the world are continuing to prioritize the profits of fossil fuel polluters over the well-being of people and the planet and putting the goals of the Paris climate agreement in peril," said Ekwurzel. "All countries, but especially wealthy, high-emitting nations, need to drastically reduce heat-trapping emissions at a rapid pace in accord with the latest science and aid in efforts of climate-vulnerable communities to prepare for what's to come and help lower-resourced countries working to decrease emissions too."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Huge Administrative Waste Makes Clear For-Profit Insurance Is 'Actually Very Bad': Analysis
"It is totally fair for people to identify private insurers as the key bad actor in our current system," writes Matt Bruenig of the People's Policy Project. "The quicker we nationalize health insurance, the better."
Dec 10, 2024
Last week's murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson brought to the surface a seething hatred of the nation's for-profit insurance system—anger rooted in the industry's profiteering, high costs, and mass care denials.
But that response has led some pundits to defend private insurance companies and claim that, in fact, healthcare providers such as hospitals and doctors are the real drivers of outlandish U.S. healthcare costs.
In an analysis published Tuesday, Matt Bruenig of the People's Policy Project argued that defenders of private insurers are relying on "factual misunderstandings and very questionable analysis" and that it is reasonable to conclude that the for-profit insurance system is "actually very bad."
"From a design perspective, the main problem with our private health insurance system is that it is extremely wasteful," Bruenig wrote, estimating based on existing research that excess administrative expenses amount to $528 billion per year—or 1.8% of U.S. gross domestic product.
"All healthcare systems require administration, which costs money, but a private multi-payer system requires massively more than other approaches, especially the single-payer system favored by the American left," Bruenig observed, emphasizing that excess administrative expenses of both the insurance companies and healthcare providers stem from "the multi-payer private health insurance system that we have."
He continued:
To get your head around why this is, think for a second about what happens to every $100 you give to a private insurance company. According to the most exhaustive study on this question in the U.S.—the CBO single-payer study from 2020—the first thing that happens is that $16 of those dollars are taken by the insurance company. From there, the insurer gives the remaining $84 to a hospital to reimburse them for services. That hospital then takesanother $15.96 (19% of its revenue) for administration, meaning that only $68.04 of the original $100 actually goes to providing care.
In a single-payer system, the path of that $100 looks a lot different. Rather than take $16 for insurance administration, the public insurer would only take $1.60. And rather than take $15.96 of the remaining money for hospital administration, the hospital would only take $11.80 (12% of its revenue), meaning that $86.60 of the original $100 actually goes to providing care.
High provider payments, which some analysts have suggested are the key culprit in exorbitant healthcare costs, are also attributable to the nation's for-profit insurance system, Bruenig argued.
"Medicaid and Medicare are able to negotiate much lower rates than private insurance, just as the public health insurer under a single-payer system would be able to. It is only within the private insurance segment of the system that providers have been able to jack up rates to such an extreme extent," he wrote. "Given all of this, I think it is totally fair for people to identify private insurers as the key bad actor in our current system. They are directly responsible for over half a trillion dollars of administrative waste and (at the very least) indirectly responsible for the provider rents that are bleeding Americans dry."
"The quicker we nationalize health insurance," he concluded, "the better."
Bruenig's analysis comports with research showing that a single-payer system such as the Medicare for All program proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and other progressives in Congress could produce massive savings by eliminating bureaucratic costs associated with the private insurance system.
One study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in January 2020 estimated that Medicare for All could save the U.S. more than $600 billion per year in healthcare-related administrative costs.
"The average American is paying more than $2,000 a year for useless bureaucracy," said Dr. David Himmelstein, lead author of the study, said at the time. "That money could be spent for care if we had a Medicare for All program."
Deep-seated anger at the systemic and harmful flaws of the for-profit U.S. insurance system could help explain why the percentage of the public that believes it's the federal government's responsibility to ensure all Americans have healthcare coverage is at its highest level in more than a decade, according to Gallup polling released Monday.
"There's a day of reckoning that is happening right now," former insurance industry executive Wendell Potter, president of the Center for Health and Democracy, said in an MSNBCappearance on Monday. "Whether we're talking about employers, patients, doctors—just about everybody despises health insurance companies in ways that I've never seen before."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular