SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
greenwashing
Small Town Sues Utility for Climate Deception
"We have to speak truth to power as we continue to fight the existential threat that is climate change," said the mayor of Carrboro, North Carolina.
Dec 04, 2024
The town of Carrboro, North Carolina filed a lawsuit Wednesday accusing the utility company Duke Energy of carrying out a "knowing deception campaign concerning the causes and dangers posed by the climate crisis."
The municipality—which is near Chapel Hill and is after compensation for damages it has suffered or will suffer as a result of the alleged deception campaign—is the first town in the United States to challenge an electric utility for public deception about the dangers of fossil fuels and seek damages for the harms those emissions have created, according to the town's mayor, Barbara Foushee.
The case was filed in North Carolina Superior Court and argues that Duke Energy has engaged in a "greenwashing" campaign to convince the public it sought to address the climate emergency.
"In reliance upon these misrepresentations, the public has continued to conduct business with Duke under the mistaken belief that the company is committed to renewable energy," according to the filing.
"We have to speak truth to power as we continue to fight the existential threat that is climate change. The climate crisis continues to burden our community and cost residents their hard-earned tax dollars," said Foushee, according to a press release.
Mayor Pro Tem Danny Nowell added that "it's time for us to hold Duke Energy accountable for decades of deception, padding executives' pockets while towns like ours worked to mitigate the harmful effects of climate change. This suit will allow the Town of Carrboro to invest new resources into building a stronger, more climate-resilient community, using the damages justly due to our residents to reimagine the ways we prepare for our climate reality."
According to the lawsuit, Carrboro will be forced to spend millions of dollars either repairing or shoring up public infrastructure as a result of more frequent and devastating storms, which scientists agree are caused by climate change.
The complaint comes not long after the release of a report, Duke Energy Knew: Documenting the Utility’s Early Knowledge and Ongoing Deception About Climate Change, from the Energy and Policy Institute, a watchdog group. According to the report, Duke Energy well understood the risks posed by burning fossil fuels as far back as the 1960s, but chose to take part in promoting disinformation about climate science. In more recent years, the utility continued to pursue fossil fuels while blocking renewable energy development, according to the report's authors. Much of this research is referenced in the lawsuit.
As one example of its "deception," the lawsuit points to Duke Energy's participation in the the Global Climate Coalition, an entity created with the intent of opposing action to curb the climate crisis.
Duke Energy was the third largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in 2021, according to a breakdown from the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, which ranked U.S. companies in terms of their CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions.
More than 20 states, tribes, cities, and counties have brought similar climate deception lawsuits. Maine, for example, recently became the ninth state to sue a major oil and gas company for deceiving the public about its products' role in the climate crisis.
"We’ll soon have a climate denier-in-chief in the White House, but Carrboro is a shining light in this darkness, taking on one of the country's largest polluters and climate deceivers," Jean Su, energy justice director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a press release. The Center for Biological Diversity is advising on the case.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Nuclear Propaganda Exposed: The Dirty Truth Behind Government and Industry Claims
The international momentum behind nuclear power reflects a coordinated global effort to promote nuclear as a solution to climate change, despite ongoing concerns about radioactive waste, environmental risks, and the diversion of resources from renewable energy.
Nov 20, 2024
As a physicist and concerned citizen, I find myself outraged every time I scroll through social media and encounter tweets from the Department of Energy, or DOE, and the Office of Nuclear Energy, or ONE, touting nuclear power as “clean, safe, and carbon-free.”
This narrative not only misrepresents the dirty reality of nuclear power but also obscures the significant environmental and health risks associated with its production and waste. It’s infuriating to see government agencies knowingly lie and promote such misleading information, while ignoring the pressing issues faced by communities affected by the toxic reality of the nuclear power industry—propaganda paid for by U.S. taxpayers!
Oh, Canada! Leading the Charge Against Nuclear Greenwashing
Finally, someone is doing something about it—but not in the U.S., where you’d expect it. In Canada, a coalition of seven environmental organizations recently filed a formal complaint with the Competition Bureau against the Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA), accusing it of misleading the public by marketing nuclear power as “clean” and “emissions-free.” Based on Canada’s Competition Act, the complaint challenges the CNA for violating provisions related to false or misleading advertising, similar to greenwashing regulations in other countries, where deceptive environmental claims distort market competition and misinform consumers.
The complaint argues that the CNA omits critical information about the environmental damage and health risks associated with the nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium mining, radioactive waste management, and the impacts on communities near nuclear facilities. By selectively framing nuclear power as a climate solution, the CNA diverts attention and resources away from truly sustainable alternatives like solar and wind energy.
In confronting the extremism of a potential Trump administration, it’s more vital than ever to collaborate with Canada and other nations committed to challenging nuclear misinformation.
In the U.S., similar deceptive practices could be challenged under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, which includes the FTC’s Green Guides. These guidelines require that any environmental claims be substantiated, transparent, and not misleading about the overall environmental impact. Yet, organizations like the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and the American Nuclear Society (ANS) continue to promote nuclear power as a “clean” energy solution while conveniently ignoring the lifecycle emissions, radioactive waste, and long-term environmental costs.
Leading the charge in Canada are groups such as the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA), Environmental Defence Canada, and the Sierra Club Canada Foundation. Here in the U.S., organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the Sierra Club could take similar action against the NEI and ANS by leveraging the FTC’s guidelines to expose deceptive marketing practices in the nuclear sector.
Let’s Be Real: Nuclear Power is Not Clean or Green
Sure, nuclear fission may not produce direct carbon emissions, but the nuclear fuel cycle—including uranium mining, reactor construction, radioactive waste management, and decommissioning—creates significant greenhouse gas emissions. In places like the Navajo Nation, uranium mining has already caused immeasurable harm. Over 523 abandoned uranium mines and mills continue to contaminate the land and water with radioactive waste, leading to severe health problems that affect multiple generations. The DOE’s failure to address these ongoing harms while simultaneously promoting the narrative of “clean, safe, carbon-free” nuclear power is not just unethical—it’s a dangerous distraction from real solutions for our energy needs and the fight against climate change.
Small Modular Reactors: A Costly and Dangerous Gamble
The Biden administration has funneled billions into developing Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), touting them as the future of “clean” energy. This renewed investment includes funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, which together allocate substantial financial support to accelerate the deployment of next-generation nuclear technologies. The push for SMRs is also bolstered by private sector investments, particularly from tech companies looking to power energy-intensive AI applications.
However, this push for nuclear expansion is not happening in isolation. At the recent COP29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, a declaration was endorsed by 31 countries—including the U.S.—to triple global nuclear capacity by 2050. The declaration emphasized nuclear energy’s crucial role in achieving net-zero emissions, aligning with the U.S. strategy to secure a low-carbon future. The international momentum behind nuclear power reflects a coordinated global effort to promote nuclear as a solution to climate change, despite ongoing concerns about radioactive waste, environmental risks, and the diversion of resources from renewable energy.
The Peak Uranium Crisis
In addition to the delayed deployment of SMRs, high-grade uranium resources are finite, with estimates suggesting they may only last another 10 to 15 years at current consumption rates. This means that SMRs could face fuel shortages before they even become widespread. As high-grade deposits run dry, the industry may turn to in-situ leaching (ISL) methods, which pose severe environmental risks, particularly groundwater contamination. Furthermore, reprocessing nuclear waste—an extremely hazardous and costly endeavor—is not currently practiced in the U.S. due to its dangers. However, as peak uranium approaches, reprocessing may be reconsidered as a necessary but risky solution.
Better Use of Funds: Investing in Renewables
Instead of funneling billions into new unproven nuclear projects, those funds should be redirected to renewable energy sources that are ready for deployment today to reduce carbon emissions. The $4 billion allocated for SMRs could fund solar panels on rooftops for every house in a city the size of Las Vegas.
- Investments in wind farms and solar plants can achieve far greater reductions in CO2 emissions without the risks of radioactive waste.
- Congress has the power to reprogram funds from nuclear projects to support wind, solar, and energy storage, providing immediate climate benefits.
The Way Forward: Taking Action While We Can
People concerned about the DOE’s misleading promotion of nuclear power and SMRs can take meaningful action by contacting the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to advocate for oversight of nuclear greenwashing. Additionally, individuals can request the reprogramming of funds from SMR development to renewable energy initiatives, and they can file complaints with the DOE Office of Inspector General for industry and government greenwashing. We can also support nonprofit environmental groups and ask that they follow Canada’s lead to try to hold the nuclear industry and government agencies accountable. With the Trump administration poised to make sweeping cuts to federal agencies, reduced public oversight could embolden the nuclear industry to expand greenwashing efforts unchecked. Advocacy is more crucial than ever before.
We don’t need to face this challenge alone. In confronting the extremism of a potential Trump administration, it’s more vital than ever to collaborate with Canada and other nations committed to challenging nuclear misinformation. By working together across borders, we can expose the truth, resist industry propaganda, and push for real, sustainable energy solutions that prioritize our planet over corporate interests.
Action Contact Information
- Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources—Phone: (202) 224-4971 / Website: https://www.energy.senate.gov
- FTC fraud reporting—https://reportfraud.ftc.gov
- Union of Concerned Scientists—Website: https://www.ucsusa.org / Email: ucs@ucsusa.org
- Natural Resources Defense Council—Website: https://www.nrdc.org
- Sierra Club—Website: https://www.sierraclub.org
Keep ReadingShow Less
Greta Thunberg Won't Attend UN Climate Talks in 'Yet Another Authoritarian Petrol State'
"We can't legitimize COP meetings in their current form," Thunberg said. "The last three years, they've taken place in authoritarian regimes, and holding them in such places leads nowhere."
Nov 05, 2024
When national delegates and civil society representatives gather in Baku, Azerbaijan next week for the United Nations Climate Change Conference, one prominent climate voice will not be among them—Greta Thunberg.
The 21-year-old Swedish activist said she would not attend COP29 due to Azerbaijan's authoritarian record and reliance on fossil fuels, and criticized the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for naming it as a host.
"It is extreme hypocrisy of the UNFCCC to let yet another authoritarian petrol state host the COP," Thunberg said in a video posted on social media.
Thunberg expressed concerns about Azerbaijan's record of stifling internal dissent as well as its ethnic cleansing of Armenians. The U.N. summit comes a little over a year after Azerbaijani forces entered the disputed, ethnic Armenian-controlled territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, prompting most ethnic Armenians in the area to flee across the border to Armenia. Armenia told the International Court of Justice in April that Azerbaijan had "completed" ethnic cleansing in the territory and was "erasing all traces of ethnic Armenians' presence" there.
At the same time, Thunberg added her voice to the many environmental advocates who have called out Azerbaijan for planning to expand its fossil fuel production. Azerbaijan's selection was especially controversial because it came on the heels of the United Arab Emirates' hosting of COP28, which also prompted backlash due to the country's human rights record and reliance on oil and gas. Both COPs also came under fire for selecting presidents with close ties to state-run oil companies.
"It is a slap in the face to all the people who are suffering from the climate emergency and from the repression and oppression of the Azerbaijani regime," Thunberg said.
"Climate activism and human rights are united."
There is another reason that Thunberg cannot attend COP29: It has a closed land border, which means that people can only enter the country by plane, something Thunberg has vowed not to do for climate reasons.
"The population in Azerbaijan is trapped. They can't travel in or out of the country except through the airport. Even if I could go there, I wouldn't. I don't want to legitimize the regime," Thunberg toldBlankspot.
Instead, she is traveling through Europe ahead of COP29, coming as close as possible to Azerbaijan. Currently, she is in Georgia where people are in the streets protesting a parliamentary election they say was rigged by the ruling party with help from Russia. After COP29 starts, she plans to continue on to Armenia.
During COP29, she will meet with Azerbaijani activists who are not in the country, as well as activists from Georgia and Armenia.
She told Blackspot that one purpose of her trip is to "highlight that we can't legitimize COP meetings in their current form. The last three years, they've taken place in authoritarian regimes, and holding them in such places leads nowhere."
More broadly, she also aims to foreground the relationship between the climate crisis and human rights.
"In countries like Sweden, many people are surprised when you talk about how climate activism, the LGBTQ movement, and human rights are interconnected," she said. "But in countries where people face repression and rights violations every day, activists see a clearer connection."
"Of course, we can't talk about the climate until our fundamental human rights are met," Thunberg continued. "'We can't talk about the climate if we can't go out on the street and hold a sign,' they say. Unfortunately, the climate crisis is extremely urgent, so it has to happen simultaneously. Climate activism and human rights are united."
Thunberg's remarks come as there has been an increasing crackdown on climate and other forms of nonviolent protest, including in so-called democratic countries. In its most recent report on the killing of environmental defenders, Global Witness observed that countries like the U.S., U.K., and E.U. member states had continued to criminalize climate protesters in 2023, with new laws targeting dissent and dolling out harsh penalties for common protest tactics.
"Nonviolent, nondestructive climate protest is increasingly being subjected to criminal prosecution, while punishments are being ratcheted up to levels befitting violent and far more serious crimes," author Stan Cox observed in October.
As for the outcome of COP29 itself, Thunberg does not hold high expectations.
"The only thing that will come out of it is loopholes, more negotiations, and symbolic decisions that look good on paper but are really just greenwashing," Thunberg said.
However, she maintained faith in the importance of speaking out on climate and other issues.
"Every time those in power get a chance to act, they choose not to and instead listen to industries that destroy the planet and violate human rights, rather than doing what's right," Thunberg said. " I want to spread awareness, focus on grassroots activism, and support those who are trying to make a difference."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular