Progressive Democrat Issue 117: INVESTING IN THE FUTURE, NOT THE PAST

Energy will be one of our number one issues in coming years. The conflicting pull of increased demand overwhelming our grid and the need to cut carbon emissions to battle global warming before our 10-year window has passed. Both of these conflicting needs are critical needs and we have to find a way to address both.

The 21st century solutions, as seen by scientists, is increased efficiency, reforestation and new energy solutions like wind, biofuels, geothermal, tidal, and solar energy. But too often the American solution is a 19th century solution: coal. Using dirty coal, which affects our health, and adds carbon and pollutants to the atmosphere, is a relatively cheap solution to increased energy demand...but is completely stupid when we have only 10 short years to address global warming. Clean coal, which still adds carbon to the atmosphere but doesn't have as many problems as dirty coal, costs about the same as wind power...which is one of the cleanest and most practical solutions we have. Denmark, a much smaller economy than our own, generates more wind energy than the entire United States.

One problem is investment trends. Banks are slow to change their investment practices. The Union of Concerned Scientists is lobbying banks to change their investment practices to favor alternative energy over coal. I should note that I personally have profited from investing in both solar and geothermal.

This action alert comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

Across the United States, utilities are proposing the construction of more than 150 coal-fired power plants...

Almost all of the proposed plants would use conventional coal-burning technology. Only 16 percent of the facilities would gasify the coal first to remove mercury, sulfur, and particulates. If built, the plants would increase global warming pollution from the electrical sector by 25 percent over 2004 levels. With climate regulations expected in the next few years, the proposed coal plants would put investors and ratepayers at risk of increased costs from carbon emissions and make it virtually impossible for the United States to bring emissions down to levels scientists say are needed to prevent the worst effects of global warming.

A coalition of national groups are working to stop the coal rush in its tracks by persuading the Wall Street Seven to stop investing in coal facilities because it does not make economic sense...

The Wall Street Seven, a group of banks including JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Credit Suisse, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley, are the major funders for the new plants. Please send a letter calling on these banks to end their support for proposed coal plants and to help finance clean, renewable energy instead.

Click here to write to these banks.

Or here are the individual contact numbers for the companies if you want to contact them directly and have a bigger impact:

Lehman Brothers:
World Headquarters
745 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
212-526-7000

Citibank:
U.S. Service Center
Citi Inquiries
100 Citibank Drive
San Antonio, TX 78245
1-212-820-2380 (in NYC)
1-800-846-5200 (outside NYC)

JPMorgan Chase & Co:
Investor Relations
270 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017-2070
212-270-6000
JPMCinvestorrelations@jpmchase.com

Goldman Sachs:
Investor Relations
85 Broad Street
17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
U.S.A
Tel: 1-212-902-0300
Main number: 1-212-902-1000
E-mail: gs-investor-relations@gs.com

Credit Suisse:
Contact info here

Merrill Lynch:
1-800-MERRILL (637-7455)
general_askml@ml.com

Morgan Stanley:
Morgan Stanley
1585 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 761-4000
http://www.morganstanleyindividual.com/customerservice/contactus/

Wind power has been viable since at least 1995 and is competative with clean coal. Geothermal, where possible, is also current technology. Solar is on the cusp of economic viability. Biofuels and wind in particular can be used to help rebuild the economy of America's heartland, both farmers and the rust belt. These are the solutions we have available to us right now...so why are we still using a 19th century solution?

Click here to go back to THOUGHTS section and Table of Contents for this issue.