December, 06 2017, 03:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Maryel Sparks-Cardinal, maryel@indigenousclimateaction.com, 604-603-3441
WASHINGTON
Early last week Indigenous Climate Action (ICA), an Indigenous-led climate justice project, received news they had won the Aviva Canada Community Legacy Award - a $150,000 award through the Aviva Community Fund competition. However, in a major turn of events, ICA made an unconventional decision to reject the award and cash prize because of a 'direct contradiction' between Aviva's financial relationship with oil and gas projects and ICA's vision, mission, and values.
Shortly after receiving news they were winners in the competition, ICA received information that Aviva plc, Aviva Canada's parent company, held major passive investments (over half a billion USD) in corporations operating in Alberta's tar sands, including: Teck Resource Ltd (Frontier Open pit mine), Encana, Exxon, Imperial, Suncor, Chevron, Cenovus, Kinder Morgan (TransMountain pipeline), TransCanada (Keystone XL pipeline); and Enbridge (Line 3 pipeline)1. These investments, according to ICA, are in direct contradiction with their organizational mandate.
"We cannot in good conscience accept an award from a corporation that is financially associated with fossil fuel energy projects that violate the rights of Indigenous peoples and contribute to global climate change. Our organization is working to support Indigenous rights and address the climate crisis while Aviva is investing in corporations proposing or operating tar sands projects that threaten water, land, the climate and Indigenous rights," stated Eriel Deranger, Executive Director of Indigenous Climate Action.
Aviva Canada and Aviva plc responded to ICA's rejection of the award with openness and a willingness to begin discussion on divestment and how to move away from corporate investments in the tar sands. Aviva has already created the AVIVA: An Insurance Company's Response To Climate Change(2016) and is a part of a move by the global insurance sector toward divesting from fossil fuels.
"There are other insurance companies who are taking the climate risk seriously, such as Swiss Re who recently have limited their underwriting of shale gas, tar sands and Arctic drilling projects. We want to see a major commitment from Aviva to climate action alongside their community fund and scientific research and a broader commitment to finding the mechanisms to divest from tar sands pipelines and projects. We need Aviva to look seriously into their investment in projects that are violating the rights of Indigenous Peoples, furthering the expansion of the Alberta tar sands infrastructure and pipelines which pose a major threat to the stability of the global climate," stated Suzanne Dhaliwal, Director of the UK Tar Sands Network.
ICA and many Indigenous communities don't feel there has been true progress to ensure the inclusion and protection of the rights of Indigenous peoples in the climate and divestment discourse, resulting in continued violations of Indigenous rights.
"Aviva invests in projects that are in violation of international human rights and Indigenous rights standards. Right now my people's traditional food source, the wild sockeye salmon and our very survival is being threatened by the Trans Mountain project, while communities at the source have already faced decades of contamination and devastation. Aviva needs to ensure they are on the right side of history and to do that, they must divest from projects that violate our rights and threaten our survival," states Kanahus Manuel, a Secwepemc and Ktunaxa women at the helm of the Tiny House Warrior project - building tiny homes in the path of the proposed Trans Mountain pipeline.
"As a member of a community actively challenging tar sands expansion, I was shocked to learn Aviva invests in Teck Resources. Teck owns Frontier Mine -- one of the largest proposed open pit tar sands mine just 16km from the boundary of a settlement near my community. I hope Aviva will take this opportunity to understand why these corporations should not be included in their investment portfolio," added Deranger.
ICA hopes their rejection of the prize will move Aviva step up and show real leadership to adopt policies that result in substantive change. This moment could move Aviva, and the divestment conversation, forward to recognize Indigenous rights and cease all underwriting of tar sands corporations and full divestment from fossil fuels.
1 This is reflected in Aviva's 13F disclosure filed with the Security and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2017 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1140022/000114002217000021/xslForm13F_X01/Smart13F_FINAL2.xml
2 Swiss and French re/insurers doing most to avoid coal underwriting, November 15, 2017 Environmental Finance https://bit.ly/2jX8ica
Quotes from Indigenous communities and allies:
"Kinder Morgan's projects pose unacceptable risks to Tselil-Waututh's culture, spirituality, economy and identity and denied us of our Free Prior and Informed Consent. We are working hard to restore Burrard Inlet and tar sands threatens this important work. We applaud and support ICA's principled decision to reject this award. No amount of money can buy our consent or is worth damaging our waters, lands and people, because our spiritual reciprocal relationship with our lands and waters is unbreakable. We call on Aviva and any other investor of Kinder Morgan to divest from these projects and invest in our future." -- Rueben George, of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation Sacred Trust Initiative.
"Our organization is actively fighting TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL pipeline from crossing indigenous territories. We do this not only to protect the lands along the route but in solidarity with those struggling to protect their lands in the Tar Sands region. This fight includes divesting from TransCanada and all other fossil fuel development. We must continue to hold the line, physically and economically, against these corporations who wish to assault our Mother Earth for the benefit of the extreme energy regime. Divestment is key. Divestment is needed. We must hold the line." -- Dallas Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental Network
"My community has been challenging the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline, working to protect our water and rights while corporation like Aviva continue to profit off projects that wreak havoc on Indigenous peoples. Corporate greenwashing in an era of extreme destruction and greed is shameful. Canada's petro dollar plan is a shaky one, in the least, and it is time to move on. The Indigenous leaders of our time call for a higher standard. If Aviva wants to support ways to combat climate change and support Indigenous communities they need to divest from all dirty fossil fuels now." -- Winona LaDuke, Honour the Earth
"Aviva PLC should not be invested in profiting off the climate crisis nor off of indigenous rights violations, many insurance companies are institutional shareholders of many of the world's oil majors. Whats disturbing about Aviva and the circumstances with Indigenous Climate Action being selected for their award, is that their parent company Aviva PLC is invested in most of the major oil extraction and energy transport companies involved in Canada's controversial tar sands development. This questionable list include Houston based pipeline company, Kinder Morgan and Canadian based mining company, Teck Frontier. Both of these companies and their proposed projects are strongly opposed by Canadian based First Nations in the courts, on the streets and out on the land." -- Clayton Thomas-Muller, 350.org
"Aviva is guilty of fueling the climate crisis and Indigenous rights abuses by investing in some of the most climate-deadly corporations of our time. To profit from investment in tar sands extraction and pipelines, then turn around and donate funds to Indigenous Climate Action is a gross example of greenwashing, and it won't be tolerated. We applaud Indigenous Climate Action for taking this bold step to challenge Aviva's integrity, and challenge Aviva and other insurance companies and investors to divest the tar sands sector." -- Ruth Breech, Climate and Energy Senior Campaigner, Rainforest Action Network
Rainforest Action Network (RAN) is headquartered in San Francisco, California with offices staff in Tokyo, Japan, and Edmonton, Canada, plus thousands of volunteer scientists, teachers, parents, students and other concerned citizens around the world. We believe that a sustainable world can be created in our lifetime and that aggressive action must be taken immediately to leave a safe and secure world for our children.
LATEST NEWS
'MAGA Power Grab': US Supreme Court OKs 2026 Map That Texas GOP Rigged for Trump
One journalist who covers voting rights called the decision upholding the new districts "yet another example" of how the high court "has greenlit the many undemocratic schemes of Trump and his party."
Dec 04, 2025
The US Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority on Thursday gave Texas Republicans a green light to use a political map redrawn at the request of President Donald Trump to help the GOP retain control of Congress in the 2026 midterm elections.
Since Texas lawmakers passed and GOP Gov. Greg Abbott signed the gerrymandering bill in August, Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom and his constituents have responded with updated congressional districts to benefit Democrats, while Republican legislators in Indiana, Missouri, and North Carolina—under pressure from the president—have pursued new maps for their states.
With Texas' candidate filing period set to close next week, a majority of justices on Thursday blocked a previous decision from two of three US district court judges who had ruled against the state map. The decision means that, at least for now, the state can move ahead with the new map, which could ultimately net Republicans five more seats, for its March primary elections.
"Texas is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the district court committed at least two serious errors," the Supreme Court's majority wrote. "First, the district court failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith by construing ambiguous direct and circumstantial evidence against the Legislature."
"Second, the district court failed to draw a dispositive or near-dispositive adverse inference against respondents even though they did not produce a viable alternative map that met the state's avowedly partisan goals," the majority continued. "The district court improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections."
Texas clearly did a racial gerrymander, which is illegal.A district court found that Texas did a racial gerrymander, rejecting the new map because it is illegal.But the Supreme Court reversed it.Because? Must assume the gerrymanderers were acting in good faith (despite the evidence otherwise).
[image or embed]
— Nicholas Grossman (@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social) December 4, 2025 at 6:18 PM
The court's three liberals—Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor—dissented. Contrasting the three-month process that led to the map initially being struck down and the majority's move to reverse "that judgment based on its perusal, over a holiday weekend, of a cold paper record," Kagan wrote for the trio that "we are a higher court than the district court, but we are not a better one when it comes to making such a fact-based decision."
"Today's order disrespects the work of a district court that did everything one could ask to carry out its charge—that put aside every consideration except getting the issue before it right," Kagan asserted. "And today's order disserves the millions of Texans whom the district court found were assigned to their new districts based on their race."
"This court's stay guarantees that Texas' new map, with all its enhanced partisan advantage, will govern next year's elections for the House of Representatives. And this court's stay ensures that many Texas citizens, for no good reason, will be placed in electoral districts because of their race," she warned. "And that result, as this court has pronounced year in and year out, is a violation of the Constitution."
Simply amazing that the Supreme Court declared an end to legal race discrimination in the affirmative action case two years ago and now allows overt racism in both immigration arrests and redistricting.Using race to help minorities? Bad. Using it to discriminate against them? Very, very good.
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) December 4, 2025 at 6:52 PM
Top Democrats in the state and country swiftly condemned the court's majority. Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin called it "wrong—both morally and legally," and argued that "once again, the Supreme Court gave Trump exactly what he wanted: a rigged map to help Republicans avoid accountability in the midterms for turning their backs on the American people."
"But it will backfire," Martin predicted. "Texas Democrats fought every step of the way against these unlawful, rigged congressional maps and sparked a national movement. Democrats are fighting back, responding in kind to even the playing field across the country. Republicans are about to be taught one valuable lesson: Don't mess with Texas voters."
Texas House Minority Leader Gene Wu (D-137) declared that "the Supreme Court failed Texas voters today, and they failed American democracy. This is what the end of the Voting Rights Act looks like: courts that won't protect minority communities even when the evidence is staring them in the face."
"I'm angry about this ruling. Every Texan who testified against these maps should be angry. Every community that fought for generations to build political power and watched Republicans try to gerrymander it away should be angry. But anger without action is just noise, and Democrats are taking action to fight back," he continued, pointing to California's passage of Proposition 50 and organizing in other states, including Illinois, New York, and Virginia. "A nationwide movement is being built that says if Republicans want to play this game, Democrats will play it better."
SCOTUS conservative justices upholding Texas gerrymander is yet another example of how Roberts court has greenlit the many undemocratic schemes of Trump and his partyThey’ve now ruled for Trump and his allies in 90 percent of shadow docket opinions www.motherjones.com/politics/202...
[image or embed]
— Ari Berman (@ariberman.bsky.social) December 4, 2025 at 6:52 PM
Christina Harvey, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, said in a statement that "the right-wing majority on the Supreme Court just handed Republicans five new seats in Congress, rubber-stamping Texas Republicans' MAGA power grab. Make no mistake: This isn't about fair representation for Texans. It is about sidelining voters of color and helping Trump and Republican politicians dodge accountability for their unpopular agenda."
"In America, voters get to choose their representatives, not the other way around," she stressed. "But this captured court undermines this basic democratic principle at every turn. We deserve a Supreme Court that protects the freedom to vote and strengthens democracy instead of enabling partisan politics. It's time for Democrats in Congress to get serious about plans for Supreme Court reform once Trump leaves office, including term limits, an enforceable code of ethics, and expanding the court."
Various journalists and political observers also suggested that, despite Thursday's decision in favor of politically motivated mid-decade redistricting, the high court's right-wing majority may ultimately rule against the California map—which, if allowed to stand, could cancel out the impact of Texas gerrymandering by likely erasing five Republican districts.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Demands to Release Full Video of Deadly US Boat Strike Grow After Congressional Briefing
"The Department of Defense has no choice but to release the complete, unedited footage," said Sen. Jack Reed.
Dec 04, 2025
Calls mounted Thursday for the Trump administration to release the full video of a September US airstrike on a boat allegedly transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea following a briefing between Pentagon officials and select lawmakers that left some Democrats with more questions than answers.
“I am deeply disturbed by what I saw this morning," Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said after the briefing. "The Department of Defense has no choice but to release the complete, unedited footage of the September 2 strike, as the president has agreed to do."
Reed's remarks came after Adm. Frank Bradley and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dan Caine briefed some members of the Senate and House Armed Services and Intelligence committees on the so-called "double-tap" strike, in which nine people were killed in the initial bombing and two survivors clinging to the burning wreckage of the vessel were slain in second attack.
Lawmakers who attended the briefing said that US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth allegedly did not give an order to "kill everyone" aboard the boat. However, legal experts and congressional critics contend that the strikes are inherently illegal under international law.
“This did not reduce my concerns at all—or anyone else’s,” Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), who attended the briefing, told the New Republic's Greg Sargent in response to the findings regarding Hegseth's actions. “This is a big, big problem, and we need a full investigation.”
"I think that video should be public," Smith added.
The Trump administration has tried to justify the strikes to Congress by claiming that the US is in an "armed conflict" with drug cartels, which some legal scholars and lawmakers have disputed.
Cardozo Law School professor of international law Rebecca Ingbe told Time in a Thursday interview that "there is no actual armed conflict here, so this is murder."
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said Thursday that “clearly, in my view, very likely a war crime was committed here."
“We don't use our military to help intervene when it comes to drug running, and what the Trump administration has done is manufactured cause for conflict with respect to going after drug boats and engaging in extrajudicial killing when the real aim is clearly regime change in Venezuela," he added, alluding to President Donald Trump's massive military deployment and threats to invade the oil-rich South American nation.
At least 83 people have been killed in 21 disclosed strikes on boats the Trump administration claims—without releasing evidence—were transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. South American leaders and relatives of survivors say that at least some of the victims of the US bombings were fishermen with no ties to narco-trafficking.
Reed said that Thursday's briefing "confirmed my worst fears about the nature of the Trump administration’s military activities, and demonstrates exactly why the Senate Armed Services Committee has repeatedly requested—and been denied—fundamental information, documents, and facts about this operation."
"This must, and will be, only the beginning of our investigation into this incident," he vowed.
After the briefing, US Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.)—the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence—called the footage “one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.”
“Any American who sees the video that I saw will see its military attacking shipwrecked sailors,” he added.
Thursday's calls followed similar demands from skeptical Democrats, some of whom accused the Trump administration of withholding evidence.
"Pete Hegseth should release the full tapes of the September 2 attack," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on the upper chamber floor on Tuesday. "Both the first and second strike. Not a clip. Not some edited or redacted snippet. The full unedited tapes of each strike must be released so the American people can see what happened with their own eyes."
"Pete Hegseth said he did nothing wrong," he added. "So prove it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Microplastics Make Up Majority of National Park Trash, Waste Audit Finds
“Even in landscapes that appeared untouched,” volunteers found “thousands of plastic pellets and fragments that pose a clear threat to the environment, wildlife, and human health,” said a 5 Gyres Institute spokesperson.
Dec 04, 2025
More than half the trash polluting America's national parks and federal lands contains hazardous microplastics, according to a waste audit published Thursday.
As part of its annual "TrashBlitz" effort to document the scale of plastic pollution in national parks and federal lands across the US, volunteers with the 5 Gyres Institute collected nearly 24,000 pieces of garbage at 59 federally protected locations.
In each of the four years the group has done the audit, they've found that plastic has made up the vast majority of trash in the sites.
They found that, again this year, plastic made up 85% of the waste they logged, with 25% of it single-use plastics like bottle caps, food wrappers, bags, and cups.
But for the first time, they also broke down the plastics category to account for microplastics, the small fragments that can lodge permanently in the human body and cause numerous harmful health effects.
As a Stanford University report from January 2025 explained:
In the past year alone, headlines have sounded the alarm about particles in tea bags, seafood, meat, and bottled water. Scientists have estimated that adults ingest the equivalent of one credit card per week in microplastics. Studies in animals and human cells suggest microplastics exposure could be linked to cancer, heart attacks, reproductive problems, and a host of other harms.
Microplastics come in two main forms: pre-production plastic pellets, sometimes known as "nurdles," which are melted down to make other products; and fragments of larger plastic items that break down over time.
The volunteers found that microplastic pellets and fragments made up more than half the trash they found over the course of their survey.
"Even in landscapes that appeared untouched, a closer look at trails, riverbeds, and coastlines revealed thousands of plastic pellets and fragments that pose a clear threat to the environment, wildlife, and human health,” said Nick Kemble, programs manager at the 5 Gyres Institute.
Most of the microplastics they found came in the form of pellets, which the group's report notes often "spill in transit from boats and trains, entering waterways that carry them further into the environment or deposit them on shorelines."
The surveyors identified the Altria Group—a leading manufacturer of cigarettes—PepsiCo, Anheuser-Busch InBev, the Coca-Cola Company, and Mars as the top corporate polluters whose names appeared on branded trash.
But the vast majority of microplastic waste discovered was unbranded. According to the Coastal & Estuarine Research Federation, petrochemical companies such as Dow, ExxonMobil, Shell, and Formosa are among the leading manufacturers of pellets found strewn across America's bodies of water.
The 5 Gyres report notes that "at the federal level in the United States, there is no comprehensive regulatory framework that specifically holds these polluters accountable, resulting in widespread pollution that threatens ecosystems and wildlife."
The group called on Congress to pass the Reducing Waste in National Parks Act, introduced in 2023 by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), which would reduce the sale of single-use plastics in national parks. It also advocated for the Plastic Pellet Free Waters Act, introduced last year by Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) and then-Rep. Mary Peltola (D-Alaska), which would prohibit the discharge of pre-production plastic pellets into waterways, storm drains, and sewers.
"It’s time that our elected officials act on the warnings we’ve raised for years—single-use plastics and microplastics pose an immediate threat to our environment and public health," said Paulita Bennett-Martin, senior strategist of policy initiatives at 5 Gyres. "TrashBlitz volunteers uncovered thousands of microplastics in our nation’s most protected spaces, and we’re urging decisive action that addresses this issue at the source."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular