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
Nearly a Third of Tuvalu Residents Seek Climate Visas to Australia as Sea Engulfs Their Home
Scientists say the Pacific island nation will likely be uninhabitable by 2100.
Jun 26, 2025
With more than three weeks to go until the deadline for citizens of Tuvalu to apply for a limited number of visas as part of an agreement with Australia, nearly a third of people in the tiny Pacific island nation had registered by Thursday in hopes of emigrating from one of the world's most climate-vulnerable countries.
After a 2024 climate migration pact between the two nations, the Falepili Union, citizens of Tuvalu are eligible to apply for 280 Australian visas that will be given out each year.
Registration for the inaugural visas began last week, and within four days, 3,125 Tuvaluans had entered a lottery to win one. Tuvalu is home to about 10,643 people, according to 2022 census figures.
The Falepili Union was agreed to two years after leaders from Tuvalu proposed a fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty at the 27th United Nations Climate Change Conference in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, making it the second Pacific island nation to demand an international agreement to stop the extraction of the planet-heating fossil fuels that have made Tuvalu one of the world's most vulnerable countries to the climate emergency.
Scientists say Tuvalu, which includes nine low-lying islands and atolls, could be uninhabitable by the end of the century due to rising sea levels.
The islands also see an average of one tropical cyclone in their vicinity per year, with storms often hitting in quick succession and exposing homes and other structures to high winds and extreme rainfall. The nation's gross domestic product fell by more than 25% in 2015 due to Cyclone Pam, which temporarily displaced 45% of the population, contaminated drinking water, and killed livestock. Due to the impact on agriculture across several Pacific Islands, roughly 166,000 people needed immediate food aid in the aftermath of the storm.
Two of the country's coral atolls have mostly been lost to sea-level rise, making the islands more vulnerable to storms.
By 2100, sea levels are projected to rise by more than two feet and Tuvalu is expected to face flooding for nearly a third of every year.
A spokesperson for Australia's Foreign Affairs Department toldThe Guardian that the Falepili Union is "the first agreement of its kind anywhere in the world, providing a pathway for mobility with dignity as climate impacts worsen."
Tuvaluans who obtain Australian visas under the pact will be eligible for Medicare, disability insurance, family tax benefits, childcare subsidies, and other benefits.
Earlier this month, Tuvalu was included in a draft list of countries where the Trump administration was considering imposing travel bans, in an internal cable sent by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The administration said Tuvalu's inclusion was a mistake.
The pact with Australia commits the Australian government to defending Tuvalu from military aggression and health pandemics as well as "natural disasters."
"For the first time," Tuvaluan Prime Minister Feleti Teo said when the agreement was signed, "there is a country that has committed legally to recognize the future statehood and sovereignty of Tuvalu despite the detrimental impact of climate change-induced sea-level rise."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unprecedented Handout': Senate GOP Tax Bill Even More Regressive Than House Version
"Senate Republicans apparently saw the House Republican tax plan as a challenge, because their version of this bill is an even bigger rip-off," said Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden.
Jun 26, 2025
An analysis released this week by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation shows that the tax portion of Senate Republicans' reconciliation package is even more favorable to the rich than the House GOP version—and worse for low-income families.
The distributional analysis, published Tuesday, estimates that the richest 0.1% would on average receive $255,155 in tax breaks under the Senate legislation.
That's $3,093 morethan they would receive under the House GOP bill, according to Sen. Ron Wyden's (D-Ore.) office, which in a statement Wednesday described the Republican budget package as "an unprecedented handout to big corporations and the wealthy paid for by stealing from typical families and driving millions of Americans into hardship and misery."
By contrast, an average family earning $30,000 per year would get a tax break of just $108 under the Senate GOP plan, according to JCT—$51 less than the family would receive under the House-passed bill. (The JCT analysis does not account for the devastating impact that the GOP's proposed cuts to Medicaid and nutrition assistance would have on low-income households.)
Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said Wednesday that "Senate Republicans apparently saw the House Republican tax plan as a challenge, because their version of this bill is an even bigger rip-off."
"This bill will give the ultra-wealthy annual tax breaks of hundreds of thousands of dollars, but low-income families will be lucky to get enough to cover groceries for a week," said Wyden. "The reality is, this Republican plan will drive the vulnerable into misery and drag down the middle class for the benefit of big corporations and the rich. It's getting worse with every rewrite."
The Senate GOP tax package is expected to cost $4.2 trillion over the next decade, notwithstanding Republicans' attempted use of budget gimmicks to dramatically understate the measure's projected deficit impact. Senate Republicans have argued that because the 2017 Trump-GOP tax cuts are "current policy," it wouldn't cost anything to extend them.
"Don't believe Republicans when they try and float their 'magic math' to claim this bill will only cost a fraction of what it will really cost," Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, said Tuesday. "It's fiscally reckless and dishonest. This is the Great Betrayal of working families where families lose, and billionaires win."
JCT's breakdown of the highly regressive distributional effects of the Senate GOP tax plan broadly aligns with outside analyses. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), 69% of the net tax cuts under the Senate proposal would go to the richest fifth of Americans during the legislation's first year in effect.
"There are plenty of technical differences between the House and Senate versions of this legislation, but the bottom line for both is the same," said ITEP federal policy director Steve Wamhoff. "Both bills give more tax cuts to the richest 1% than to the entire bottom 60% of Americans and both bills particularly favor high-income people living in more conservative states."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Decry GOP's $15 Billion Rural Hospital Fund as Sick Joke Compared to $800 Billion in Medicaid Cuts
Instead of offering a "disaster fund" for rural hospitals that would lose crucial funding due to Medicaid cuts, one Democratic senator said Republicans should not "create the problem in the first place."
Jun 26, 2025
"That ought to do it."
That was Democratic Senator Ron Wyden's sardonic response Wednesday to a new proposal put forward by Senate Finance Committee Republicans whose proposed solution to the devastating impacts of the $800 billion in Medicaid cuts they want to impose is a so-called $15 billion "stabilization fund" for rural hospitals that rely on Medicaid to operate.
Wyden was among several Democrats who appeared fed up this week with Republicans' attempts to paper over the devastation hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid cuts would cause in communities across the United States.
While several Republicans in the House have acknowledged that cutting Medicaid to help fund tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest Americans would harm "vulnerable constituents"—echoing warnings that Democrats and progressive advocates have been shouting for months—Senate GOP lawmakers have also evidently looked at the party's budget reconciliation bill and its Medicaid provider tax decrease, which would slash state funding for Medicaid, and come to terms with the suffering the proposal would inflict on their own voters.
"The devastation to healthcare in the United States will be red and blue," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told the news outlet NOTUS. "Red, white, and blue, across the country, and I think they're hearing from constituents."
According to a report released last week by the AFL-CIO, with states losing Medicaid funding from the provider tax decrease, more than 330 rural hospitals are expected to go out of business if the Republicans manage to pass the reconciliation bill as written.
"This is literal life-and-death for folks who will have to travel even farther to access the healthcare they need," said Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive think tank and advocacy group.
Democrats suggested the apparent panic created by public outrage over the proposed cuts led Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee to circulate a memo Wednesday proposing a $15 billion fund for rural hospitals—but not facilities in urban areas, which also serve many Medicaid recipients but lie in largely Democratic areas.
About half the money in the fund would be made available for rural hospitals across the country and the other half would go to specific hospitals chosen by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a Republican senator toldThe Hill.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) denounced the proposal as "a slush fund" that exemplified "the corruption" behind the GOP's megabill.
Republicans including Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) have proposed a larger $100 billion fund for hospitals—a number Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) scoffed at Wednesday—but Democrats were quick to point out that a bigger fund wouldn't reverse the impact of $800 billion in Medicaid cuts.
"The rural hospital fund is a fig leaf that will let them pretend that they can take away hundreds of billions of dollars in healthcare reimbursements," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told NOTUS.
Several Democrats and advocates said Republicans were desperately "trying to solve a problem they're creating" by slashing a healthcare program used by more than 71 million Americans.
"The obvious question is, don't create the problem in the first place," Wyden told NOTUS. "Don't create the need for things like disaster funds."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular