Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

Your Bank Account Probably Supports Cluster Bombs and Big Coal

By Stan Cox, AlterNet. Posted March 23, 2007.


Banks have a habit of using your savings to give credit to unseemly industries like cluster bomb manufacturers and Big Coal -- but finding a practical alternative can be tricky.
picture2
fd
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

What if you had a solid, reliable business partner who, you discovered, had been investing in cluster bombs, or coal and nuclear power plants, or destruction of tropical ecosystems, or loan-sharking or strip-mining?

You just might be in such a relationship if you're one of those 4 out of 5 Americans who have a bank account. Each time you deposit your paycheck, you build a relationship with a corporation that, going by the odds, is likely to be involved in all sorts of unsavory pursuits.

Short of stowing cash in your socks drawer, is there a way to keep your hard-earned money out of trouble? Maybe, but to do that while still taking advantage of the interest, federal deposit insurance, and many conveniences afforded by checking and savings accounts is not a simple matter. By closing an account or two, you can get away from Big Banking and its high-profile abuses, but finding a place to open a new, clean-and-green account is not that easy.

You don't have to be a Wall Street tycoon to play a hand in global ruin and local plunder. A modest checking or savings account at a major bank can get you in on some pretty ugly activities. Before trying to find a new, innocent home for your paycheck or tax refund, we'll take a look at what your current business partner may have been up to.

Big banks behaving badly

America's largest banks take in colossal sums of money every day, and they have before them a world of profitable opportunities in which to invest that wealth. Commercial banks and savings institutions have taken full advantage, chalking up a sixth straight year of record profits in 2006. But follow those profits to some of their sources, and the view is not so pleasant:


-- According to a 2007 report by the Belgian nonprofit Netwerk Vlaanderen, international banking groups led by Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Wachovia and Bank of America (America's four biggest banks) supplied lines of credit totaling more than $8 billion between 2004 and 2006 to companies involved in production of cluster bombs -- probably the most vicious form of non-nuclear weaponry. The banks' customers included GenCorp, Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin, Textron, Thales and EADS.

-- In February, Texas electric utility TXU became the target of history's largest-ever leveraged buyout, which had crucial backing by banking powerhouses JPMorgan Chase, Citgroup and Morgan Stanley. Intense pressure from environmental groups convinced the banks and buyers to announce that they would reduce the number of new coal-fired plants planned by TXU from eleven to three. Their eco-consciousness, however, was short-lived; they announced in mid-March that if the deal goes through, TXU will contract with Mitsubishi to build two nuclear plants near Dallas and build three additional nukes by 2020!

-- Wells Fargo & Co., with more than 3,200 bank branches in 23 states, has provided hundreds of millions in loans to Alpha Natural Resources. Alpha strip-mines coal in the Appalachians, favoring the extreme technique known as "mountaintop removal". Wells Fargo is heavily invested in oil and gas in the western United States, it has funded Burlington Resources' oil exploration on indigenous lands in the Amazon of Peru and Ecuador, and it funded a report supporting logging in Alaska's Tongass National Forest. Oh, and Wells Fargo was also named one of the country's "100 Best Corporate Citizens for 2007" by Business Ethics magazine.

-- A predatory feature of life in low-income America, the "payday loan" industry has ballooned by more than tenfold since 1993. The Tennessean in Nashville fingered four of the nation's top ten banks -- Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wachovia and Wells Fargo -- as having played a crucial role in the rise of payday-loan shops, which saddle their customers (who average $25,000 in income) with interest rates reaching 200 percent, 300 percent, or even 500 percent on an annualized basis. Amazingly, such rates are legally recognized. The state of California, for example, limits interest on payday loans to 459 percent annually!

Who's in your wallet?

If you'd rather not endorse such shenanigans each time you endorse a check, it's not too difficult to stay away from predatory megabanks. In most cities and towns, there are plenty other places to take your money. But even if a financial institution's not on the list of America's largest banks, it still may not be the kind of business associate you'd like to have. Listed more or less in order of increasing "virtue," here are some ways that have been suggested to find a better home for your money:

Local commercial banks, even though they are perfectly capable of helping developers pave over good farmland or putting people out of their homes, have less power than the big ones to do harm. Corporate insider Catherine Austin Fitts of solari.com recommends a strategy for keeping your money in a local bank and out of what she calls "The U.S. Banking Tapeworm 20." Here's only a very brief summary of what Fitts sees as necessary in choosing a local bank with a heart: investigating the bank's coverage area, ownership and governance; reading their financial statements and Security and Exchange Commission filings, if any; contacting bank-rating agencies; doing web searches on owners' and board members' names; talking to branch managers and loan officers; determining the backgrounds and attitudes of board members; and checking out customer diversity, profitability, loan-to-deposit ratio and soundness of investments.

Few people are going to have the interest and knowledge to do what Fitts suggests; indeed, if you are able and willing to follow that whole procedure, it probably means you are a banker. Fitts estimates that investigating one's local banks will take 4 to 15 hours. Good luck with that.

Dr. Ritchie Lowry, professor of sociology at Boston College, runs the website goodmoney.com. He told me that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, which requires financial institutions to target an appropriate portion of their investments to low-income communities in their area, provides a convenient window on what a local bank is up to: "Each bank has to file a report under the act. So you can go to the manager and say, 'I'd like to see your report.' That way, you'll find out if they are supporting things like low-income housing and the right kinds of small business."

Credit unions have a lot of appeal as places to keep your money. They're owned by their depositors. They're nonprofit and tax-exempt, so they can afford to pay slightly higher interest rates and loan money at lower rates. These days, they can provide a broad range of services that include increasing availability of ATM services. And your money is less likely to end up in the global arms trade or tropical sweatshops.

A credit union must have a well-defined "field of membership" -- for example a group of employees or a geographical community. The Credit Union Membership Access Act of 1998 has allowed them to greatly expand their fields of membership. This, naturally, has drawn fire from the owners and managers of commercial banks, who don't like competing against tax-exempt institutions that are permitted to offer most of the same services they do.

Now any industry that's a thorn in the side of Big Banking can't be all bad, but credit unions aren't without faults of their own. Complaints by the major banks' friends in Congress prompted the General Accounting Office (GAO) to look at the lending practices of credit unions, which are exempt from the Community Reinvestment Act. Released late last year, the GAO report (pdf) found that "despite the shift toward community charters and the increase in the number of credit unions participating in NCUA's [the National Credit Union Association's] low-income and underserved programs, our analysis ... indicated that credit unions had a lower proportion of customers who were of low and moderate income than did banks."

NCUA's own figures show that only 30 percent of credit union members earn less than $34,000 a year, compared with 39 percent of bank customers, while credit unions serve a much higher percentage of people in the $90,000 to $130,000 bracket than do banks.

Although credit unions aren't under pressure to make a profit, there's nothing to stop them from investing in shady ventures on behalf of their members. A recent instance: The 73-year-old New Horizons Credit Union of Denver, which lost $20 million in 2006, was taken over by the state of Colorado last April and is now up for sale. Its fiscal ill-health appears to be related to loans made through car dealers who exploit credit-challenged customers.

Community development financial institutions (CDFIs) are designed primarily to serve low-income areas. The National Federation of Community Development Credit Unions lists 220 members. Among the most prominent is Self-Help Credit Union of Durham, N.C., which since 1980 has loaned $4.5 billion to over 50,000 small businesses, homeowners and development organizations. Self-Help has regional offices in nine other cities. Anyone can become a member and open money market and savings accounts, complete with ATM services.

The Community Development Bankers Association has 22 member banks across the country. The most celebrated is ShoreBank of Chicago, Detroit and Cleveland, which pioneered the community-development model. Having gotten its start in 1973 as South Shore Bank in Chicago, ShoreBank has made more than $300 million in development and conservation loans, including the financing of 47,000 affordable residences. It offers the usual banking services, including online banking, to customers anywhere in the country. Shorebank has been widely credited with helping revive Chicago's South Side.

Although you can join or bank at almost any CDFI, even if you don't live near one, you may have to give up a lot of the conveniences provided by local banking -- like having ATMs nearby or writing checks accepted readily by your own local businesses. Ritchie Lowry points out, however, that if you have a couple of thousand dollars to set aside, you can buy a certificate of deposit (CD) at any community development credit union or bank you choose, whether you live on the South Side of Chicago or the North Slope of Alaska. As Lowry points out, "It doesn't really make much difference whether or not a CD is from a local bank."

"Do the right thing with the rest of your life."

Wherever you put your own money, don't expect highly profitable but less-than-pure industries to go begging for investors. (In fact, for the truly hard-nosed, bottom-line investor, there's the Vice Fund, which claims high and "recession-proof" returns on your investment in military armaments, tobacco, alcohol and gambling.) Nevertheless, there is little doubt that by depositing in a community development bank or screened mutual fund instead of the Vice Fund or Wells Fargo, you can sleep somewhat better at night.

To get a broader picture of personal banking, I asked Doug Henwood, publisher ofLeft Business Observer and author, most recently, of the 2003 book "After the New Economy," about alternatives for people on the left who don't have the means to become big philanthropists but who want the equivalent of a checking and savings account with adequate convenience and security in which to put their modest earnings.

Henwood was blunt, telling me, "Basically it's very hard to do what you're talking about." Just because a bank is local, he noted, it's not necessarily innocent: "A lot of small banks have far more money than they can invest locally, so they either lend the surplus to bigger banks via the federal funds market or buy U.S. Treasury bonds, which means they're directly funding the purchase of cluster bombs."

Citing the GAO report on credit unions, Henwood characterized them as "notorious for underserving lower-income people and communities." Even with a community development credit union, he said, "you have to read the fine print on what they do."

The effort to bank ethically is a variation on the theme of "socially responsible investing," which rose to prominence in the 1980s with the campaign that pushed companies to divest from apartheid-era South Africa. As a veteran advocate of responsible investing, Ritchie Lowry sees the choice of a bank as an exercise of power: "Whether you have a bank account or a credit card or a mortgage, you're a customer, and customers always have a degree of power over businesses. We can use that. People say, 'Well, corporations are starting to use green practices just because they're hot right now and it's good PR.' I say fine; I don't care what's going through the souls of CEOs as long as they do what's needed."

In a recent article, Aaron Chatterji of Duke University and Siona Listokin of the University of California at Berkeley acknowledged that, "by the numbers" responsible investing has become an important feature of the nation's financial landscape, with one dollar of every nine invested now being put through some kind of social and/or environmental screening process.

But how effective are such screens? The number of issues concerning people is now so large, write Chatterji and Listokin, that companies can shop around for issues and voluntary codes of conduct that will be pleasing to customers and investors but won't hurt the company's bottom line -- and probably won't accomplish very much. They conclude:

At the root of the problem is an inconvenient but implacable fact: Corporations care about profits. Corporations will not -- and their shareholders do not expect them to -- engage in behaviors that do not maximize profit. Indeed, shareholders would punish them if they did. In concept and in practice, therefore, [corporate social responsibility] is at best a partial solution to solving social injustices.
Citigroup, to take one example, has initiatives to oppose illegal logging and buy renewable energy. Yet it is also the country's No. 1 banker to the oil, gas and power-utility industries, having advised on $9 billion worth of such deals in a single day this month.

And for an ordinary citizen trying to be ethical, the choice of a bank is much more complicated than choosing at lunchtime between McDonald's and Gino's Sandwich Shop. Financial institutions are one or more steps removed from the impact of what they're funding, whether it's military hardware or wind farms or both. Their investments are highly diverse and constantly changing, and they're always obliged to maximize return on investment.

Putting pressure on corporations through their banks can be tricky, as TXU's abovementioned switch from an all-coal to a coal-plus-nuclear energy strategy illustrates. Environmental Defense, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Rainforest Action Network all helped lead the fight to force TXU's buyers, through their financing banks, to drop plans for eight coal plants. The organizations are rightly proud of their vistory, but if they have views on TXU's new plan to compensate by building nuclear plants, those views haven't shown up on any of the groups' websites.

After looking at more than 100 academic studies, Chatterji and Listokin dismissed the claim that it's more profitable to invest in responsible corporations than in evil ones. That's because it's hard to know whether responsibility breeds good performance or if it's just that companies with more money can afford to spend more on activities perceived as "doing good." A bank, for example, can be pushed into voluntary actions that promise to be profitable. But it will almost never bow to demands that would give an edge to the competition. On the other hand, legal restrictions and regulations, universally applied, don't face that problem.

To keep your money out of the hands of the most notorious polluters and exploiters is one thing; to expect to improve the world simply through the passive act of drawing interest or dividends is quite another. "My usual line on all this," says Doug Henwood, "is that you should hold your nose and invest more or less conventionally (because it's nearly impossible to do the right thing if you're looking to earn interest) and do the right thing with the rest of your life."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: environment, polluters, banking, investing, socially responsible

Stan Cox is a plant breeder and writer in Salina, Kan.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A Well-Travelled Dollar or Two
Posted by: edith on Mar 23, 2007 1:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Money is like Oil; it's fungible. If you don't want to do business with Citigroup, for example, some one else will borrow their dollars to destroy open space or to mine coal. Remember, people don't create "money". Banks, like the warm-hearted Federal Reserve,or central banks in China and Russia, do. So dubious fingerprints are already on that crisp, new $20 you just received when you deposited your paycheck.

This article was informative, but at the end the author gave up, as was inevitable, and said that just invest your money as you wish and use what you keep to contribute to good causes. Sounds like an advisor to the typical foundation to me.

If there isn't a "clean" way to invest money, and the conclusion of the article is that there isn't, then what was the point of the article? To break a few illusions of naive Alternet depositors?

The Old World strategy of buying and hiding some gold and diamonds seems as sound (and "ethically") as clean as deposits in banks.

Oh yes. "Blood Diamond". I forgot.

Well, back to the old hole in the backyard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» All Banks are the same Posted by: Rolomax
Explanation needed
Posted by: jsong123 on Mar 23, 2007 1:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for the exclamation mark at the end of this statement: "Their eco-consciousness, however, was short-lived; they announced in mid-March that if the deal goes through, TXU will contract with Mitsubishi to build two nuclear plants near Dallas and build three additional nukes by 2020!"

Isn't nuclear cleaner than coal? If it is, then TXU moved in the right direction by canceling the coal plants and building nuclear, and the point of this sentence is missed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: xplanation needed Posted by: edgar_michel
Good, but we need real talk about this...
Posted by: notabilia on Mar 23, 2007 2:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I enjoy a good expose of how corrupt even our best intentions are in America, but we need to get some basics straight. This idea that business and investing is above moral considerations because "it's all about maximizing shareholders' profit" is nonsense. Where is that etched in stone? What about a decent rate of return, that's all, without causing the kind of long-term damage that will make your money worthless because of your involvement in the destruction of your own world? Henwood and Cox seem much too cavalier about this. If you have some money, put it in some South Shore CDs, earning a low but comforting return, and you will have done some good, instead of investing in the very oppression you deplore. If you're not in terrible debt, have the basics of life in place, why wouldn't you try to steer your money to a better fund? I could make law today stating that shareholders are responsible for knowing the long-term effects of their investments, and bill them for the environmental and social costs. What our money does, whether it is in taxes or in banking, is extremely important, and not immune to collective oversight. We just choose not to try...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Remember 1929 Posted by: edgar_michel
You can start at buyblue.org
Posted by: xbj on Mar 23, 2007 3:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can start at buyblue.org and choose banks that DON'T fund the NaziGOP Party. That would be the first step, because obviously these banks give a damn and are big enough to not care about the repercussions of paying mob tribute to the family that runs DC.

They're also far more likely to be run by people that actually do have social consciences.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Progressives hope to change the world.....
Posted by: sfortuna on Mar 23, 2007 5:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...we need to start with the banking system. Buyblue and others show progressives who NOT to do business with, but a national, fair-trade socially just institution that is chartered by and for progressives would be HUGE in bringing social change and environmental progress. Imagine the billions of dollars progressive make annually. If we take our money out of the hands of the death economy and invest it in green energy, new media, sustainable organics, biodiversity, micro-loan incubators, etc it would profoundly effect corporate culture. I have most of my money in the Pax World socially responsible family of funds, but until now I hadn't thought of responsiblly investing for day-to-day banking. There is HUGE market for a national progressive socially active bank. I'd leave NationsBank in a heartbeat if I had an alternative that reflected my values. If people like George Soros, MoveOn. etc. could fund this start up, I'd be willing to make sacrifices, like fewer ATM choices and no interest on checking accounts. Small price to pay for the dream of a livable, saner planet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think I'll start with the banks, hehe, on getting them to
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 23, 2007 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
counterlobby Congress to make them DIVERT subsidization from BIG OIL/COAL/NUCLEAR to solar, wind, hemp, geothermal, etc ...

Oh, and we're going to need all the consumer support and efforts to do it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Um, holding your nose and doing good with the rest of your life is NOT the answer!
Posted by: workerbee on Mar 23, 2007 7:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An otherwise fine article dissipates all its benefit with its ending. If everyone did what it suggests, then no progress would ever be made on anything. Do what you can. If you have time to research banks, then do it. If not, talk to your bank or credit union about your wishes -- and let it be known that there are other options you'll be taking if they don't change their ways. There ARE small banks that specialize in community lending, and you can place money there (the bulk of your savings, for instance, instead of keeping it in a bank that invests in cluster bombs or the building of coal plants). Just because you may have to depend on a local bank whose policies you dislike for such things as a checking account or a car loan does NOT mean that you have to place all your accounts with them. Shop around. Look into what's available. Go to Co-Op America's Green Pages and see what's listed there for finance and investing.
What a cop-out!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Valuable Resource Posted by: Lincoln fan
What is socially responsible investing?
Posted by: Cerberus on Mar 23, 2007 8:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Sweden and Norway the Public Pension funds have SRI guidelines for their investments since public pension funds are invested on the behalf of the people.

During the discussion on what should govern Ethical investments a very delicate dilemma came into play: Whose ethics and morals?

This might seem to be a very easy task. No guns, no weapons, no gambling, no oil, no alcohol, no drugs, no porn etc.

But is it, no in effect to find common denominator that spans over the globe is very difficult.

It cannot be biased by:

• Religious affiliation: value conservative morals is not acceptable such as the abhorrence of alcohol, drugs, sex, porn
• Political ideologies : cannot be based on socialist, liberal or conservative values
• Race: cannot be based your nationality, ethnicity
• Gender: cannot be based on gender or sexual orientation

Further the issue is that as it is invested for all the people of Norway and Sweden the underlying values must reflect the peoples values and also what the Government of each country in itself does, what companies do they own, invest in?

It is a very easy task of saying that pointing the finger at the big banks and saying Bo-ho look how horrible they are, I have much better ethics than them. However if you look yourself in the eye how ethical is your lifestyle compared to your own ideologue? You are probable a big hypocrite, you talk fast and loose about how other people should lead their lives but you yourself don not have to do this. This is most frequent when it comes to religious conservatives, greens and socialist. These are the groups that say they have higher moral values. But are also the ones that most often live a life of double standards. At least this is the way in Sweden.

But back to the original question. Sweden and Norway came to different conclusions but had a very interesting point. As Sweden is a semi-socialist country a lot of companies are owned by the Government such as a huge Military industrial complex. Sweden also has a socialised monopoly of the state on gambling and alcohol distribution and production. As well as owning most of Sweden’s nuclear power plants and energy production faculties among the worlds most dirtiest coal mines and production plants in former Eastern Europe, TXU pales in comparison.. Norway on the other hand has huge interests in Natural Gas and Oil. So the solution became that everything is allowed but the things the government and the people itself does is excluded. Guns, weapons and military industry is allowed but not clusterbombs manufacturers or manufactures of mass destruction weapons. Alcohol and gambling shares are allowed since the people gamble and drink. Nuclear power is also allowable investments. Norway has a more restrictive view but allows Oil and Gas.

Are the Swedish and Norwegian Government and people hypocrites or is it a fact that is virtually impossible to set a Social Responsible Investment guideline that is works both domestic and globally.

You should read the Norwegian legislative committee on these delicate issues. It is a very interesting reading indeed! They introduced the concept of “Overlapping consensus”.

So pointing the finger is not that easy, first look into your own eye.

The Graver Report, “ Commission on ethical guidelines”:

Go to: http://www.norges-bank.no/english/petroleum_fund//ethics
Then click on: "The report from the Government commission"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The one thing that Christianity and Islam got right: usury is a sin
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Mar 23, 2007 9:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and should be banned. Now we have a secular society but this 'message' of Christianity and Islam is still valid. The 'money lenders' need to be thrown out of the temple, again. This time it is thier paid-for Congressmen and Senators need to be kicked out. The pernicious influence of the bankers have caused wars, poverty, crime, and suicide. They have destroyed family farms, caused famines in Africa and Asia, they have ruined whole continents, and they exert undue influence in the world of politics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Excellent... Posted by: CatDad
There are alternatives
Posted by: rwa on Mar 23, 2007 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Vanguard's VFTNX is the lowest expense ratio stock investment option. While you won't eliminate banking, at least you won't invest directly in nuclear plants, weopons, or tobbaco.
To balance your investments you can inest in American Century's BEGBX, which invests almost entirely in developed nation treasury debt (non-dollar denominated). This fund also carries a low expense ratio.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Usury is the problem
Posted by: redbrownandblueparty on Mar 23, 2007 9:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with albrechtkrausse above that usury is the root of the problem. It's driven by greed, and we're all sucked into it. Banning usury would bring the whole house of cards down but it may come down anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear power is misunderstood.
Posted by: Vin on Mar 23, 2007 10:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuclear power would certainly be cleaner in the mean time while we work on something better. We can either bury some radioactive metals in remote locations or we can dump tons of pollutants and carcinogens into our atmosphere every day. BTW, burning coal also releases radioactive dust into the atmosphere.

Yes, spent fuel rods can remain radioactive for thousands or even millions of years, but they will only remain slightly radioactive. The most radioactive waste elements will half-life relatively quickly. Like in the case of Praseodymium 144, it will half life in 17.28 minutes. Overall, within 40 years the spent fuel will have less than one thousandth of the radioactivity that it once had.

The earth is full of radioactive metals, it's not like we are putting something unnatural back into the Earth. As long as you don't go to a radioactive dump site, break through the concrete and ceramic that stores the spent rods, and then proceed to eat them or grind them into dust and spread them into the atmosphere, you will be perfectly safe from nuclear power plant waste.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nuclear power is misunderstood? Posted by: edgar_michel
» you make a good point Posted by: rwa
» RE: you make a good point Posted by: edgar_michel
» Amazing Posted by: rwa
» RE: Amazing Posted by: jsong123
Let's start with busting banking monopolies that are building something fierce.
Posted by: Sojourner on Mar 23, 2007 10:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for this article. It gets to the nitty-gritty for those of us (including myself) who bitch about corporations.

While the recent GOP congresses have given banking the benefits they’ve wanted for a long time, it is an industry that is carefully regulated. So if laws cannot make a difference in banking, they cannot make much of a difference anywhere else.

Corporate officials are charged by law to operate for the benefit of their investor members. Officials who do not do so can be punished. That’s all that a corporate official need consider when making a decision.

Can consumers change an industry that continues to centralize itself in fewer corporations? Only if trust busting can once again be implemented by congress. As anyone knows, who has paid the outrageous fees for services that banks have been able to charge in recent decades, banks have felt free to treat accountholders with impunity. Yes, there is competition, but far less than a generation ago.

“Competition” is a salesman’s pitch in a market economy where monopoly brings the biggest pay off.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sounds Tame Compared To
Posted by: hole11 on Mar 23, 2007 11:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The banks turning a social security number into a tax payer id number when you open an account.

No privacy no banky.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sounds Tame Compared To Posted by: freethink7
» RE: Sounds Tame Compared To Posted by: hole11
The Big Banks Won't Loose Business
Posted by: edgar_michel on Mar 23, 2007 11:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can move your acounts out of Morgan Stanley, Citicorp and JP-Morgan Chase holdings all you want. But when a significant enough number of accounts move to independent banks, the New York 12 will flex their Federal Reserve muscle and pull another 1929, buying out all the smaller independent banks at 25 cents on the dollar to the loss of those who moved their accunts out of the New York 12 in the first place. Remember it's an international market now and the momentary demise of America won't hurt the New York 12.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HANFROD NUCLEAR POWER IN THE TRI-CITIES AREA
Posted by: Intraspecto on Mar 23, 2007 12:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK, it is called Hanford, and let me tell you it sucks. The place is the most radioactive on thr planet and the place is still as toxic as it was in 1945 after manufacturing the radioactive parts (ie. plutonium and uranium IIRC). In fact, it is so toxic, that it will take AT LEAST 25,000 years to decay, and there is no amount of clean-up that will fix it. The river there was destroyed and people exposed to vast amouts of Cesium as part of expirements. People from the region still have issues and the place has been shut down for a few yeares.

Nuclear power isnt the solution either, it is not the 1950's. It will not work. We need to look at wind and solar and live within our means power-wise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: HOW ABOUT FUSION? Posted by: edgar_michel
Speaking of Unscrupulous Banks…..
Posted by: freethink7 on Mar 23, 2007 12:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Basically, this country was hijacked by a group of elitist bankers in 1913 with one goal in mind: Turn the U.S. into a communist regime. The Federal Reserve Act enacted in 1913 by the international bankers and their friends in Congress (both Dem + Rethugs) is the largest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. Income tax based on your employment-labor is illegal. The Federal Reserve Act is tantamount to a central bank and a central bank including income tax is a plank in the “Communist Manifesto”.

These international bankers bankrolled the Bolsheviks, are in bed China, MANIPULATE inflation, deflation, caused the Great Depression, cause a myriad of mini-recessions, run Wall Street, our banking system, run business + finance, run the news media (censoring and otherwise blacking out important news), use propaganda and mind control, run the elections, run education system, run D.C., run publishing companies, start wars, end wars (financing both sides of wars), et al. These events are not happenstance nor coincidental, in fact they are carefully designed, planned and contrived by the international bankers. They finance + bankroll both the left (Democrats) and right (Republicans) in this country. (When Lincoln fan says both parties are synonymous with each other he is 1000% correct). Essentially, they run the entire planet, and especially the U.S. The ultimate goal of international bankers: one world government and new world order where they are a powerful centralized government for entire planet. (or as Hal says on this forum – the evil global empire). Within this nefarious scheme, the U.S. and other countries will lose their sovereignty and independence. That’s why it’s so important that we refute the North American Union as it is one step closer to one world government, new world order.

Bu$h Cheney Inc. are but installed unelected puppets for the international bankers, they are essentially puppet masters. We must take back our country….before it’s too late. This is a relatively small group of people (international bankers) compared to the total population of this country; we the people definitely outnumber these miscreants. We have the power of the people. Time may very well be running out for the U.S. Also, maybe it’s time for the second American Revolution. Please read these books and watch this video, you will never again look at news and world events the same.

Books:
None Dare Call It Conspiracy
Treason the New World Order
Video:
America Freedom to Fascism

Here’s an example of chapters contained in “None Dare Call It Conspiracy”:
- Socialism: Royal Road to Power For Super Rich
- The Money Manipulators
- Bankrolling the Bolsheviks
- Rockefellers and the Reds

google: N.A.U.
google: quotes by Rockefeller re: China + his homage + admiration for Mao who killed 60 million innocent people in China (despicable + sickening)

Read it and weep. Read it and weep for the future of our country….for the future of real democracy.

Consider this quote by past congressman Wright Patman (Chairman of the House Banking Committee):

“In the United States today we have in effect two governments….we have the duly constituted government….then we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System, operating the money powers which are reserved to Congress by the Constitution.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is only one conspiracy, and it's the cash in your pocket
Posted by: eddie torres on Mar 23, 2007 1:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You don't know where it's been; you just know that you want it.

You'll do just about anything for it, if the amount is high enough.

That's how the NeoCons got hooked on oil. It's how the Iran/Contra show started. And every American shares responsibility, regardless of political affiliation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

tThere is Green Bank in the Pacific Northwest...
Posted by: onadime9 on Mar 23, 2007 1:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People living in the Pacific Northwest can use Shore Pacific Bank. It's one of the few Green Banks in the U.S..

http://www.eco-bank.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is this banking thing?
Posted by: badkitty on Mar 23, 2007 3:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Credit unions may have occasional draw backs, but I'll never put my money in a bank again unless it is very locally owned. We're not always happy with our credit unions, but compared to Wells Fargo, or Citibank (what our nice small bank was bought by), we'll take our credit unions any day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Simply DON'T Invest.
Posted by: Mathuselah on Mar 23, 2007 5:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In light of the constant (albeit bogus) reminders by the media that Social Security in the U.S. is headed for bankruptcy, it is no wonder that anyone with any savings is investing for retirement. It is unfortunate, though, that many of these well-intentioned Americans believe it is possible to invest responsibly in the stock market. Market-based exchange systems depend for their survival on constant economic growth, which we are now realizing is unsustainable. For proof we needn’t look any further than the present states of social justice and the environment.

But perhaps we can do right by screening our investments for these concerns. This is where profit-driven Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) mutual funds enter the picture. A simple inspection of the portfolios of these SRIs, however, reveals a troubling fact: 90% of Fortune 500 companies are included in the 100+ SRI funds in North America. A corporation’s ethics are often judged in relation to its competitors, which is how companies like British Petroleum and Halliburton are deemed “socially responsible.” It is nice to imagine we’re changing things from the inside by using proxy votes to ask that BP be less egregiously destructive, for instance, or that Halliburton improve its hiring practices. But we must admit to ourselves that when we invest in any publicly-traded corporation, we’re motivated more by greed than by a desire to effect change. The SRI industry accounts for some $2.16 trillion of invested money. If we were truly interested in voting with our dollars, we’d withdraw that money from the stock market altogether. That would send a message.

Ethics aside, there’s an unspoken but sizeable risk involved in investing. Financial advisors will always point to past performance of the stock market as evidence for its stability over time. They assure us that in all likelihood it will continue to grow. Yet we know that unlimited economic growth is beyond the carrying capacity of the planet. Still, we choose to believe them because we desperately want to believe them. So we hand them our life’s savings to do with as they see fit, knowing that by no means is our investment guaranteed, let alone insured. If you can imagine that our economy might be heading for trouble (keep in mind that the U.S. is the largest debtor nation in the world), then you can imagine that the stock market is not a safe place to stash your savings.

Politicians tell us that Social Security is no longer practical, yet the Pentagon spends over $250 million of our tax dollars per day in Iraq. Clearly we can afford to care for our elderly and poor. But it’s through the privatization of our retirements that politicians repay their corporate benefactors who helped them get elected in the first place. In other words, investing in the stock market is exactly what they want us to do. Why should we oblige them?

The bottom line is that investing in the stock market is inherently irresponsible. So what is a person of conscience to do? What is the alternative? The answer is very simple, yet it has somehow evaded investors for decades. The answer is ... don’t invest. Get back to basic saving. If you require interest, find a decent community investment bank or credit union and lend them your money (in the form of an IRA CD, for example, if you're interested in the tax advantage) for a guaranteed and insured rate of return. You may only earn 4 or 5% APY, compared with the 10-15% you might make in a mutual fund. Your money may not even outpace inflation for that matter, but if you minimize your needs you will manage to make ends meet. Live simply within your means and you will live within the earth’s means, and for that you will be rewarded.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Golden Calf Posted by: Danish sculptor
Complex Issue - Because We Are All Whores
Posted by: drricklippin on Mar 24, 2007 4:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks Stan Cox for the excellent research on this complex topic.

As humans who are inextricably linked to institutions run by humans we are all tainted by greed and corruption. It is just a matter of degree.

That said, a lot of the current pus is coming out and we are birthing a less corrupt era right now. MLK said "the arc of history bends toward justice". King was correct.

But until we are free of neuroses which drives the concept that things are more important than people we are fallen from grace and greatness.

I've noticed that my most liberal and progessive academic friends have a unique penchant for fine wines and fine food. Should they not enjoy this pleasure while millions go to bed hungry in the U.S. but especially in undeveloped and underdeveloped nations?

I think not! We are indeed human.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another resource for making ethical banking choices
Posted by: LE on Apr 3, 2007 9:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The Better World Shopping Guide" uses extensive research to incorporate five categories of criteria (human rights, the environment, animal protection, community involvement, social justice) and finds that against all five of these, some banks do much better than others (Bank One and Chase get a C+, whereas Diners Club and Citibank get an F); and some financial institutions get a flat-out A (Shorebank, Chittenden, Working Assets, and others); and local credit unions get a B. These results seem at odds with Doug Henwood's advice in the last paragraph, "you should hold your nose and invest more or less conventionally... and do the right thing with the rest of your life."

I use "The Better World Shopping Guide" regularly to inform my decision-making as an ethical consumer. If anyone has any comments about the data behind their rankings on banks, please let me know - since I use this guide to select financial institutions, and I encourage others to do the same.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement