Pages tagged "Bank of America"


Communities Speak Out Against Coal Plants

This morning, the EPA announced limits on carbon pollution from power plants. That's a welcome step in fighting climate change—and it wouldn't have happened without communities speaking out against coal plants. Here at RAN, we're proud of the role our network of friends and activists has played in building pressure over the last several years.

TXU_AStern_1024

Stop TXU! Activists stage protests against financial institutions linked to Texas utility company TXU’s controversial plans to build 11 new coal-fired power plants as part of an expansion strategy that would make it the single largest corporate greenhouse gas emitter in the Unites States. Winter 2007. Photo: Andrew Stern.

 

FFD_UK

University of Kentucky Fossil Fools Day. Students raise a wind turbine atop a coal mound as part of an action for Fossil Fools Day at University of Kentucky. April 1, 2008.

 

Wise-County

Wise Coal Action. Virginia residents and anti-coal activists form a blockade to disrupt the construction of Dominion's Wise County Coal-Fired Power Plant. September 2008.

 

closed-for-climate-justice

Capitol Climate Action. Thousands of activists surround the Capitol Coal Plant in Washington DC to demand its retirement. March 2009.

 

Duke_Cliffside

Duke Energy's Cliffside Coal Plant. RAN activists holding a banner in front of Duke Energy's Cliffside coal plant in Cliffside, North Carolina. The banner action coincided with the release a new report, The Principle Matter: Banks, Climate & The Carbon Principles. January 2011.

 

Chicago_Crawford

Crawford Coal Plant Banner. Six activists with the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO), Rising Tide North America, Rainforest Action Network (RAN) and the Backbone Campaign climbed the fence to Midwest Generation’s controversial Crawford coal plant in Little Village. The activists unfurled a 7' x 30' banner atop a 20-foot tall sprawling coal pile that feeds the power plant, which reads: "Close Chicago's Toxic Coal Plants." April 2011.

 

BofA_PCBrown
BofA_PCBrown2

Stand with Pat: Tell BofA to Stop Funding Coal. Grandmothers Pat Moore and Beth Henry and seven others were arrested outside of four different Bank of America branches in Charlotte, NC delivering a simple yet urgent message to the bank: they must STOP funding coal. November 2012. Photo: © Paul Corbit Brown.


Coal is Poisoning the Cape Fear River

This month, Rainforest Action Network and three allies testified at Bank of America's annual shareholder meeting, urging them to drop coal, to stop profiting from environmental destruction and human rights abuses. We're posting the statements of our three allies. Add your voice by telling Bank of America to stop funding coal—and come clean on climate change

My name is Kemp Burdette. I am the Cape Fear Riverkeeper. I was born and raised along the Cape Fear River in southeastern North Carolina.

I want to describe to you the impacts that coal is having on the Cape Fear River, because Bank of America's financing of the coal industry, and specifically Duke Energy, is supporting the contamination of groundwater, the fouling of rivers, and the poisoning of drinking water supplies for nearly a million people in the Cape Fear watershed alone. Across North Carolina, the problem is even worse.

CapeFear_720x720I’m sure you've heard about the Dan River coal ash spill.

You may not have heard about Duke's other discharge of coal ash waste water into the Cape Fear River. Less than two months ago Duke was caught illegally pumping over 61 million gallons of coal ash wastewater into the Cape Fear River—three times more wastewater than what spilled into the Dan River.

This was done above the drinking water intakes for 840,000 people, and it was done intentionally, although secretly and illegally, with no notification of the public or of state regulators.

In addition to catastrophic failures and illegal discharges, Duke's coal ash ponds have other problems—they leak like sieves into groundwater and surface waters. They leak 24 hours a day, seven days a week at every location across North Carolina.

In New Hanover County, selenium contamination from coal ash is deforming fish in a popular fishing lake.

Duke Energy and the State of North Carolina are currently under a federal investigation for inappropriate conduct and relations between state regulators and the company.

I would urge Bank of America to end its lending and underwriting of companies like Duke Energy. Duke's coal ash ponds will continue to fail. They will continue to leak. They will continue to poison water supplies. They will continue to destroy the environment. Coal is, and will continue to be, very, very risky business.

Stand with Kemp and RAN by telling Bank of America to stop funding coal—and come clean on climate change


Change your bank, change your world

Claim your change by Kyle Thiermann [caption id="attachment_3331" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Kyle decided to do something to help the folks in Chile fight a coal plant proposed for their local area."]Kyle decided to do something to help the folks in Chile fight a coal plant proposed for their local area.[/caption] Changing where you bank might be the most simple and effective way to support your community and stop destructive projects all at the same time! Surfer, Kyle Thiermann shows you how your money gets used to create the world you live in by taking you on a trip to Chile.

Bailed out Banks in the News

Our friends at Bank of America, Citigroup, and other major banks are in the news this week: - Yesterday, Treasury Secretary Geithner unveiled the Obama administration’s bailout plan to spend up to 2 TRILLION dollars to revive the economy, including details for how the government will spend the second half of the TARP bailout funds. - Today, Representative Barney Frank called the CEO’s of 8 of the bailed-out banks to a hearing before the House Committee on Financial Services to account for how they’ve spent the first half of those bailout funds. We here at RAN are hoping that you can help us capitalize (no pun intended!) on the public focus on the banks this week to raise questions about another important and relevant consideration that hasn’t gotten much airtime in the current debate: What other risky behavior are the banks involved in, that threatens further economic calamity? Many of the bailed-out banks are engaging in very risky investments, sinking billions of dollars in support of fossil-fuel intensive industries, such as coal and oil. Unlike Treasury Secretary Geithner, who reportedly resisted calls for more conditions on how banks spend the taxpayers’ money, we think that the release of additional public funds to these institutions should come with more strings attached. Or, at the very least, it should invite more public scrutiny of the banks’ other toxic investments. The banks don’t really want to talk about their deep involvement in the climate crisis. But those risky and toxic investments (a) will undoubtedly face additional costs and regulation in the near future; and (b) are locking in an unsustainable infrastructure that will undermine the efforts to bring greenhouse gas emissions in line with scientific necessity. Furthermore, the banks, even while receiving a government hand-out, are taking actions that undermine the goals of a ‘green’ economic stimulus package. If Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, or any of these other banks provide financial support to mountain top removal coal companies, new coal-fired power plants, and tar sands pipelines, they are helping to lock in long-term dirty energy infrastructure, undermining other efforts to address the other pressing issue of our day: runaway greenhouse gas emissions and the threats to the global climate. That’s why RAN’s Global Finance Campaign continues to press these banks to take responsibility for their role in fueling climate change, and to redirect their resources away from dirty energy sources and towards support for energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy resources such as solar and wind. It is unconscionable that wind and solar are taking a hit from the credit crisis, at precisely the time when we need to ramp up our national capacity to harness clean energy. We believe that the banks must account for and commit to reducing the carbon emissions that are embedded in their financial services portfolios, and help fund the future. -Dana

Bailed out Banks in the News

Our friends at Bank of America, Citigroup, and other major banks are in the news this week: - Yesterday, Treasury Secretary Geithner unveiled the Obama administration’s bailout plan to spend up to 2 TRILLION dollars to revive the economy, including details for how the government will spend the second half of the TARP bailout funds. - Today, Representative Barney Frank called the CEO’s of 8 of the bailed-out banks to a hearing before the House Committee on Financial Services to account for how they’ve spent the first half of those bailout funds. We here at RAN are hoping that you can help us capitalize (no pun intended!) on the public focus on the banks this week to raise questions about another important and relevant consideration that hasn’t gotten much airtime in the current debate: What other risky behavior are the banks involved in, that threatens further economic calamity? Many of the bailed-out banks are engaging in very risky investments, sinking billions of dollars in support of fossil-fuel intensive industries, such as coal and oil. Unlike Treasury Secretary Geithner, who reportedly resisted calls for more conditions on how banks spend the taxpayers’ money, we think that the release of additional public funds to these institutions should come with more strings attached. Or, at the very least, it should invite more public scrutiny of the banks’ other toxic investments. The banks don’t really want to talk about their deep involvement in the climate crisis. But those risky and toxic investments (a) will undoubtedly face additional costs and regulation in the near future; and (b) are locking in an unsustainable infrastructure that will undermine the efforts to bring greenhouse gas emissions in line with scientific necessity. Furthermore, the banks, even while receiving a government hand-out, are taking actions that undermine the goals of a ‘green’ economic stimulus package. If Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, or any of these other banks provide financial support to mountain top removal coal companies, new coal-fired power plants, and tar sands pipelines, they are helping to lock in long-term dirty energy infrastructure, undermining other efforts to address the other pressing issue of our day: runaway greenhouse gas emissions and the threats to the global climate. That’s why RAN’s Global Finance Campaign continues to press these banks to take responsibility for their role in fueling climate change, and to redirect their resources away from dirty energy sources and towards support for energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy resources such as solar and wind. It is unconscionable that wind and solar are taking a hit from the credit crisis, at precisely the time when we need to ramp up our national capacity to harness clean energy. We believe that the banks must account for and commit to reducing the carbon emissions that are embedded in their financial services portfolios, and help fund the future. -Dana

Bailed out Banks in the News

Our friends at Bank of America, Citigroup, and other major banks are in the news this week: - Yesterday, Treasury Secretary Geithner unveiled the Obama administration’s bailout plan to spend up to 2 TRILLION dollars to revive the economy, including details for how the government will spend the second half of the TARP bailout funds. - Today, Representative Barney Frank called the CEO’s of 8 of the bailed-out banks to a hearing before the House Committee on Financial Services to account for how they’ve spent the first half of those bailout funds. We here at RAN are hoping that you can help us capitalize (no pun intended!) on the public focus on the banks this week to raise questions about another important and relevant consideration that hasn’t gotten much airtime in the current debate: What other risky behavior are the banks involved in, that threatens further economic calamity? Many of the bailed-out banks are engaging in very risky investments, sinking billions of dollars in support of fossil-fuel intensive industries, such as coal and oil. Unlike Treasury Secretary Geithner, who reportedly resisted calls for more conditions on how banks spend the taxpayers’ money, we think that the release of additional public funds to these institutions should come with more strings attached. Or, at the very least, it should invite more public scrutiny of the banks’ other toxic investments. The banks don’t really want to talk about their deep involvement in the climate crisis. But those risky and toxic investments (a) will undoubtedly face additional costs and regulation in the near future; and (b) are locking in an unsustainable infrastructure that will undermine the efforts to bring greenhouse gas emissions in line with scientific necessity. Furthermore, the banks, even while receiving a government hand-out, are taking actions that undermine the goals of a ‘green’ economic stimulus package. If Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, or any of these other banks provide financial support to mountain top removal coal companies, new coal-fired power plants, and tar sands pipelines, they are helping to lock in long-term dirty energy infrastructure, undermining other efforts to address the other pressing issue of our day: runaway greenhouse gas emissions and the threats to the global climate. That’s why RAN’s Global Finance Campaign continues to press these banks to take responsibility for their role in fueling climate change, and to redirect their resources away from dirty energy sources and towards support for energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy resources such as solar and wind. It is unconscionable that wind and solar are taking a hit from the credit crisis, at precisely the time when we need to ramp up our national capacity to harness clean energy. We believe that the banks must account for and commit to reducing the carbon emissions that are embedded in their financial services portfolios, and help fund the future. -Dana

Bank of America and MTR – What Does it All Mean?

Last week, Bank of America released a new coal policy on their website announcing that they would “phase out financing of companies whose predominant method of extracting coal is through mountain top removal.” We were thrilled. We celebrated. We sent out a press release praising Bank of America for their decision to move away from financing mountaintop removal coal mining, and pressuring them to go a step further and pull out of coal financing altogether. Bank of America’s announcement, and the responses of RAN and many of our allies picked up a fair amount of press coverage. We were pleased that the press coverage focused on Bank of America’s culpability in the practice of mountaintop removal. We were especially pleased to know that reporters were calling Bank of America representatives to ask hard questions about their vague policy, such as what is BoA’s time-line for phasing out mountaintop removal? And what companies in BoA’s portfolio will this policy affect? This article appeared in the Charleston Gazzette: http://sundaygazettemail.com/News/200812040774 Another good article, this one from GreenBiz: http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2008/12/05/bofa-curbs-coal-financing-with-new-policy And then there was the article that got picked up by the AP: http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/a3e3c96be1da660d911b45f0f7a447f5.htm This article was very critical of Bank of America’s policy and asked whether it is all for show. We at RAN are asking ourselves that same question. While it is great that Bank of America has acknowledged their responsibility on the issues of mountaintop removal mining, we wonder which companies in their profile they consider to “predominately” use mountaintop removal as a method of mining coal. Do they mean companies who mine more than 50% of their coal with mountaintop removal? The AP reporter who wrote the above article assumed that 50% + 1 equals predominate, but unfortunately, we have not yet been able to clarify with Bank of America this very important question. We are working on updating all of the research that we keep regarding Bank of America (and other banks) financial relationships within the coal industry, and we are taking a look at the top companies that are involved in mountaintop removal mining and crunching numbers to figure out how much of their coal is mined by mountaintop removal so that we can quickly and accurately respond as Bank of America’s policy becomes more clear. We will be sure to keep the blog updated as details emerge from Bank of America – so stay tuned! -Annie

Bank of America and MTR – What Does it All Mean?

Last week, Bank of America released a new coal policy on their website announcing that they would “phase out financing of companies whose predominant method of extracting coal is through mountain top removal.” We were thrilled. We celebrated. We sent out a press release praising Bank of America for their decision to move away from financing mountaintop removal coal mining, and pressuring them to go a step further and pull out of coal financing altogether. Bank of America’s announcement, and the responses of RAN and many of our allies picked up a fair amount of press coverage. We were pleased that the press coverage focused on Bank of America’s culpability in the practice of mountaintop removal. We were especially pleased to know that reporters were calling Bank of America representatives to ask hard questions about their vague policy, such as what is BoA’s time-line for phasing out mountaintop removal? And what companies in BoA’s portfolio will this policy affect? This article appeared in the Charleston Gazzette: http://sundaygazettemail.com/News/200812040774 Another good article, this one from GreenBiz: http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2008/12/05/bofa-curbs-coal-financing-with-new-policy And then there was the article that got picked up by the AP: http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/a3e3c96be1da660d911b45f0f7a447f5.htm This article was very critical of Bank of America’s policy and asked whether it is all for show. We at RAN are asking ourselves that same question. While it is great that Bank of America has acknowledged their responsibility on the issues of mountaintop removal mining, we wonder which companies in their profile they consider to “predominately” use mountaintop removal as a method of mining coal. Do they mean companies who mine more than 50% of their coal with mountaintop removal? The AP reporter who wrote the above article assumed that 50% + 1 equals predominate, but unfortunately, we have not yet been able to clarify with Bank of America this very important question. We are working on updating all of the research that we keep regarding Bank of America (and other banks) financial relationships within the coal industry, and we are taking a look at the top companies that are involved in mountaintop removal mining and crunching numbers to figure out how much of their coal is mined by mountaintop removal so that we can quickly and accurately respond as Bank of America’s policy becomes more clear. We will be sure to keep the blog updated as details emerge from Bank of America – so stay tuned! -Annie

Bank of America and MTR – What Does it All Mean?

Last week, Bank of America released a new coal policy on their website announcing that they would “phase out financing of companies whose predominant method of extracting coal is through mountain top removal.” We were thrilled. We celebrated. We sent out a press release praising Bank of America for their decision to move away from financing mountaintop removal coal mining, and pressuring them to go a step further and pull out of coal financing altogether. Bank of America’s announcement, and the responses of RAN and many of our allies picked up a fair amount of press coverage. We were pleased that the press coverage focused on Bank of America’s culpability in the practice of mountaintop removal. We were especially pleased to know that reporters were calling Bank of America representatives to ask hard questions about their vague policy, such as what is BoA’s time-line for phasing out mountaintop removal? And what companies in BoA’s portfolio will this policy affect? This article appeared in the Charleston Gazzette: http://sundaygazettemail.com/News/200812040774 Another good article, this one from GreenBiz: http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2008/12/05/bofa-curbs-coal-financing-with-new-policy And then there was the article that got picked up by the AP: http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/a3e3c96be1da660d911b45f0f7a447f5.htm This article was very critical of Bank of America’s policy and asked whether it is all for show. We at RAN are asking ourselves that same question. While it is great that Bank of America has acknowledged their responsibility on the issues of mountaintop removal mining, we wonder which companies in their profile they consider to “predominately” use mountaintop removal as a method of mining coal. Do they mean companies who mine more than 50% of their coal with mountaintop removal? The AP reporter who wrote the above article assumed that 50% + 1 equals predominate, but unfortunately, we have not yet been able to clarify with Bank of America this very important question. We are working on updating all of the research that we keep regarding Bank of America (and other banks) financial relationships within the coal industry, and we are taking a look at the top companies that are involved in mountaintop removal mining and crunching numbers to figure out how much of their coal is mined by mountaintop removal so that we can quickly and accurately respond as Bank of America’s policy becomes more clear. We will be sure to keep the blog updated as details emerge from Bank of America – so stay tuned! -Annie

This Just In: Bank of America to Stop Financing Mountaintop Removal!

From Bank of America’s website: “Bank of America is particularly concerned about surface mining conducted through mountain top removal in locations such as central Appalachia. We therefore will phase out financing of companies whose predominant method of extracting coal is through mountain top removal. While we acknowledge that surface mining is economically efficient and creates jobs, it can be conducted in a way that minimizes environmental impacts in certain geographies.” We are thrilled that just two and a half weeks after RAN’s day of action against coal and coal finance, Bank of America has made a public commitment to stop financing the devastating practice of mountaintop removal mining. This has been a major demand of the banks for the Global Finance campaign and we applaud Bank of America as it takes a step in the right direction – a step away from coal. Congratulations to everyone who has helped to pressure Bank of America to end it’s financing of coal and mountaintop removal – this is a truly incredible grassroots victory! We will have more information about Bank of America’s announcement soon, as we work with our team and our allies to respond. For now, let’s celebrate! -Annie

1  2  Next →
Sign in to ran.org