Cameron Bren
Members of 350 Madison Climate Action Team protest Chase Bank for providing financing to Enbridge, whose pipeline pumps 1 million gallons of tar sands oil a day through Wisconsin.
Local activists working to head off catastrophic climate change are trying a new tactic: following the money.
On Nov. 9, members from 350 Madison Climate Action Team marched into the Sauk Creek Chase Bank branch on Madison’s west side, sat down on the floor of the lobby and began calling out for divestment of fossil fuel infrastructure.
The group singled out Chase Bank for financing the Canadian-based energy company Enbridge, which since 2015 has been working to increase the capacity of its largest pipeline running through the state, which transports diluted bitumen known as tar sands.
“We are trying to stop the funding,” says protest organizer Julia Isaacs. “They call themselves a sustainable bank. They are trying to put solar panels on their banks but at the same time they are the number one funder of fossil fuel infrastructure including lending money to Enbridge to build this pipeline through Wisconsin. So that is why we are here.”
About 20 minutes after the sit-in began, Chase staff shut down the bank, unlocking the front door only to turn away approaching customers. About 15 minutes later, Madison police arrived to arrest two protestors and cite three others for disorderly conduct, which carries a $439 fine. The bank then reopened.
“The customers walking into Chase don’t realize that their money is being used to fund tar sands pipelines, so we want them to be aware and join us in telling Chase to stop funding tar sands pipelines,” says Isaacs. “A lot of people just don’t know this connection and we are trying to draw that very clearly.”
Both Dane County and landowners near the pipeline sued Enbridge to require the company to increase insurance coverage in case of a spill. The case went all the way to the state Supreme Court, which ruled in Enbridge’s favor.
The Enbridge’s Line 61 now pumps nearly 1 million barrels of tar sands through the state each day. Activists believe the company is planning a “twin” pipeline along Line 61 — it was mentioned in a 2016 report but the company has not submitted any plans for it — that could carry another 1.2 million barrels of oil a day.
Isaacs points to data collected from Rainforest Action Network that show JPMorgan Chase is the leading lender for fossil fuel infrastructure in the U.S., including $11 billion invested in tar sands from 2015-2017.
Isaacs says her group will continue staging protests like the one on Saturday, which was live streamed on the group’s Facebook page. The group won’t publicize actions ahead of time.
While JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon has publicly supported the Paris Climate Accord, Isaacs says the bank’s investments don’t reflect that. She sent a letter to Dimon addressing the group’s concerns and gave a copy to Chase staff at the Sauk Creek branch. Staff at the branch declined to comment to Isthmus about the protest or the bank’s position.
In an email statement, Andrew Gray, managing director of Chase’s corporate communications, says the bank takes climate change concerns seriously, but believes balancing “environmental and social issues with financial considerations is fundamental to sound risk management.” Gray says in 2016 the bank banned the financing of new coal mines and put more restrictions on financing new coal plants.
Cameron Bren
CJ Knoepp was one of two protesters arrested during the protest. Three others were cited for disorderly conduct.
Isaacs says she is concerned particularly about Enbridge’s increased transportation of tar sands and the company’s record of spills, including 1,200 barrels in Grand Marsh, Wisconsin, in 2012, 20,000 barrels into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River in 2010, and 6,400 barrels in Romeoville, Illinois, in 2010.
The tar sands in Alberta, Canada, are the third largest oil reserve worldwide. While the price per barrel for tar sands is lower than for lighter crude oils, production ramps up as the global price per barrel increases to balance the market.
“We don’t need this dirty tar sands oil, we can burn other types of oil while we transition,” Isaacs says. “We don’t need to build more infrastructure for tar sands — it destroys Alberta’s boreal forests.”
Seth Jensen, a 350 activist, says preserving natural resources is a greater concern than the demand for oil.
“We consider our need to protect our water and have clean waterways and have a stable climate more important than Enbridge’s need to get their oil to overseas’ markets,” Jensen says.
Isaacs says tar sands should also be avoided because they have a higher level of carbon emissions and require more energy and water to extract. Crude oil made from tar sands has been found to generate about 20 percent more carbon emissions than conventional oil.
“We don’t want them transporting the oil in anyway, it’s time to leave the tar sands oil in the ground and use other fossil fuels temporarily as we’re transitioning,” Isaacs says. “We need to transition and we don’t need to be building more pipelines for energy intensive fuels. Each time you build a pipeline you are trying to build for 30 years in production. We can’t be spending 30 years burning tar sands oil so why are we building this at all?”
