A New Tack in the War on Mining Mountains - Last week, with little fanfare, PNC Financial, seventh largest bank, showed a significant strategic change. The bank said it would finance coal mining companies that follow the
stop mountaintop coal removal in Appalachia, a devastating environmental
practice which has attracted a lot of resistance.This
was an important decision for the PNC, the one of the largest financial
companies in the mountain mining of coal, which, committed to expose
coal under them and dumping dirt was valleys and rivers is from the
tips, the organization Earthjustice describes environmental law as " Steroid mining open pit. "
Deciding PNC comes after environmental groups put intense pressure on Wall Street banks to stop financing such practices. PNC was a bulwark; Bank of America, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Credit Suisse and others have even had the parties from the top of the mountain in the extraction of coal distances. GE Capital and UBS seem the only major financial institutions in the country is always willing to lend money to companies involved in the mining mountain, and even if these activities.
A UBS spokesman said the company had its funding reduced considerably from top removal coal mining, according to a report in 2014 to declare by the company, how the company approaches this fundraising event, called MTR released. "The mining companies who rely on MTR as part of their production also assess the extent to rely on MTR mining for their income opportunities, and UBS must be satisfied that the client is committed to reduce the time of their exposure to this form of mining. Each involved potential transaction with a company in MTR depends entirely on whether the environmental and social performance of the company met our scope of environmental and social risks and the associated processes. "Environmentalists have fought in recent years to convince large investors from stocks of companies of fossil fuel dump, but it can only to a more effective approach taken: Cut the Corporate Finance.One thing for large investors such as the Rockefeller family, or delivery of Stanford University to withdraw from fossil fuels companies. The result is perhaps an action of slightly lower price for major oil players.
But there is another country, if the banks decide independently or together, effectively closes the financing of projects, the significant capital requirements. Its effect is to kill the company.It is surprising that social activists have not tried to mount several campaigns against before financing sources.Trying to convince large investors from selling their shares in the possession of fossil fuels companies have activists often adopted a strategy copy in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. At Harvard, for example, a meeting is planned next month and famous alumni like actress Natalie Portman and director Darren Aronofsky has recently calling for a letter, university endowments, signed to sell their interests in fossil fuels companies. "While we can not bankrupt the oil companies, they can start political bankruptcy that dominate their ability to our political life more difficult," says the letter. "The transfer is effective."
In truth, however, divestment is not really effective."This means that tobacco companies snuff," it his business unless you fire a low snuff now grown, and close all plants, we will continue our shares to sell, "wrote Scott Wisor, Director and Associate Professor Center for Global Study Ethics , University of Birmingham in the UK. "Of course it would be nice if the tobacco companies had to close their doors because people stopped smoking (with the support of Effective public policies). But no leader of the tobacco companies is to close the store, simply because investors do well, they do not buy your business. "Secondly, if funding for capital-intensive projects such as mining declined, the effect can be significant."To proclaim the threat of the share price, that 80 percent of the reserves are not drawn to exponentially larger than the smaller threat some universities and churches, their shares in these companies to sell" Wisor wrote.Found itself in the high-profile efforts against apartheid in the 1980s, a pioneering study of university professors from the University of Michigan and the University of California, Los Angeles, missing results.
"We found no support for the common perception - and often violent rhetoric in the financial media - that the shareholders adversely affected boycott against apartheid and the financial sector: The announcement of the legislative pressure or shareholder had no discernible effect on the valuation of banks and companies offices in South Africa or the South African financial markets ", according to the study." One explanation could be that the actions and boycott operations mainly redistributed from "socially responsible" the indifferent and private investors. "Fast forward to now: instead of relying only on the sale of fossil fuels and Rainforest Action Team Earth Quaker Action Network, two environmental groups, decided to set his sights on the banks like PNC last year after successful battles against companies like JPMorgan."In our first meeting with the PNC, we do not use them or the problem seriously," George Lakey, a retired teacher, who was arrested twice during the campaign. "We have evidence of the foreseen water poisoned by Appalachian Mountain top removal, and brought them face to face with this practice affected residents faced. We had to take direct action in order to see the light."Because banks like PNC has more at stake than a specific sector and a wider variety of components of the coal enterprises, the militants were able to convince corporate leaders.
"The banks do not want to be associated with a dangerous practice as abominable removing the top of the mountain in connection, there is a consensus in the financial industry that these practices are not acceptable," said Rainforest Action Network. "In practice, this means that the company to operate the day more difficulties in obtaining financing and to develop, have in the future."For his part, said the PNC that due to "environmental and health risks as well as our willingness to take risks," the mountaintop removal exposure funding was significantly reduced over time. After its latest Corporate Responsibility Report that exposure less than a quarter of 1 percent of the total funding commitments. (This is probably the decision easier for the bank.)Under the new policy, the PNC has not expand credit to individual projects or mountain removal coal producer with 25 percent or more of their production of these mines.
Other sources of funding are likely to arise. But the process of finding these sources will add costs and increase the cost of financing, so that to move up to a mountain becoming less defensible.The real question is whether other social activists observed, and what could be their next target.
Deciding PNC comes after environmental groups put intense pressure on Wall Street banks to stop financing such practices. PNC was a bulwark; Bank of America, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Credit Suisse and others have even had the parties from the top of the mountain in the extraction of coal distances. GE Capital and UBS seem the only major financial institutions in the country is always willing to lend money to companies involved in the mining mountain, and even if these activities.
A UBS spokesman said the company had its funding reduced considerably from top removal coal mining, according to a report in 2014 to declare by the company, how the company approaches this fundraising event, called MTR released. "The mining companies who rely on MTR as part of their production also assess the extent to rely on MTR mining for their income opportunities, and UBS must be satisfied that the client is committed to reduce the time of their exposure to this form of mining. Each involved potential transaction with a company in MTR depends entirely on whether the environmental and social performance of the company met our scope of environmental and social risks and the associated processes. "Environmentalists have fought in recent years to convince large investors from stocks of companies of fossil fuel dump, but it can only to a more effective approach taken: Cut the Corporate Finance.One thing for large investors such as the Rockefeller family, or delivery of Stanford University to withdraw from fossil fuels companies. The result is perhaps an action of slightly lower price for major oil players.
But there is another country, if the banks decide independently or together, effectively closes the financing of projects, the significant capital requirements. Its effect is to kill the company.It is surprising that social activists have not tried to mount several campaigns against before financing sources.Trying to convince large investors from selling their shares in the possession of fossil fuels companies have activists often adopted a strategy copy in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. At Harvard, for example, a meeting is planned next month and famous alumni like actress Natalie Portman and director Darren Aronofsky has recently calling for a letter, university endowments, signed to sell their interests in fossil fuels companies. "While we can not bankrupt the oil companies, they can start political bankruptcy that dominate their ability to our political life more difficult," says the letter. "The transfer is effective."
In truth, however, divestment is not really effective."This means that tobacco companies snuff," it his business unless you fire a low snuff now grown, and close all plants, we will continue our shares to sell, "wrote Scott Wisor, Director and Associate Professor Center for Global Study Ethics , University of Birmingham in the UK. "Of course it would be nice if the tobacco companies had to close their doors because people stopped smoking (with the support of Effective public policies). But no leader of the tobacco companies is to close the store, simply because investors do well, they do not buy your business. "Secondly, if funding for capital-intensive projects such as mining declined, the effect can be significant."To proclaim the threat of the share price, that 80 percent of the reserves are not drawn to exponentially larger than the smaller threat some universities and churches, their shares in these companies to sell" Wisor wrote.Found itself in the high-profile efforts against apartheid in the 1980s, a pioneering study of university professors from the University of Michigan and the University of California, Los Angeles, missing results.
"We found no support for the common perception - and often violent rhetoric in the financial media - that the shareholders adversely affected boycott against apartheid and the financial sector: The announcement of the legislative pressure or shareholder had no discernible effect on the valuation of banks and companies offices in South Africa or the South African financial markets ", according to the study." One explanation could be that the actions and boycott operations mainly redistributed from "socially responsible" the indifferent and private investors. "Fast forward to now: instead of relying only on the sale of fossil fuels and Rainforest Action Team Earth Quaker Action Network, two environmental groups, decided to set his sights on the banks like PNC last year after successful battles against companies like JPMorgan."In our first meeting with the PNC, we do not use them or the problem seriously," George Lakey, a retired teacher, who was arrested twice during the campaign. "We have evidence of the foreseen water poisoned by Appalachian Mountain top removal, and brought them face to face with this practice affected residents faced. We had to take direct action in order to see the light."Because banks like PNC has more at stake than a specific sector and a wider variety of components of the coal enterprises, the militants were able to convince corporate leaders.
"The banks do not want to be associated with a dangerous practice as abominable removing the top of the mountain in connection, there is a consensus in the financial industry that these practices are not acceptable," said Rainforest Action Network. "In practice, this means that the company to operate the day more difficulties in obtaining financing and to develop, have in the future."For his part, said the PNC that due to "environmental and health risks as well as our willingness to take risks," the mountaintop removal exposure funding was significantly reduced over time. After its latest Corporate Responsibility Report that exposure less than a quarter of 1 percent of the total funding commitments. (This is probably the decision easier for the bank.)Under the new policy, the PNC has not expand credit to individual projects or mountain removal coal producer with 25 percent or more of their production of these mines.
Other sources of funding are likely to arise. But the process of finding these sources will add costs and increase the cost of financing, so that to move up to a mountain becoming less defensible.The real question is whether other social activists observed, and what could be their next target.
0 comments:
Post a Comment