Wells Fargo: Use Your Influence to Stop Animal Cruelty
Chances are, you or someone you know has a bank account with Wells Fargo. It’s one of the largest banks in the world and almost everyone is familiar with this company. But most people don’t know about Wells Fargo’s close relationship with the nation’s biggest fast-food chain: McDonald’s. Not only is Wells Fargo/Wells Fargo Advisors a top institutional holder of McDonald’s stock, it also has a special financing program for McDonald’s franchise operators, and until recently the companies even shared 2 board members.Wells Fargo’s close relationship with McDonald’s is bad business because it means working with a company that supports extreme animal cruelty.Right now, McDonald’s is the subject of a nationwide boycott because of its outdated and ineffective animal welfare policies. The restaurant refuses to enact standards that would prevent some of the cruelest factory farming practices, despite the fact that many of its competitors, including Subway, Starbucks, and Burger King have already vowed to stop supporting these abuses. And yet, Wells Fargo has continued to invest in McDonald’s and its franchisees. It is unethical for Wells Fargo to continue to do business with a company that is complacent with widespread animal abuse and neglect.As consumers, we have the choice to support businesses that we feel are socially responsible and avoid businesses that don’t align with our morals. That’s why so many consumers are boycotting McDonald’s. Companies like Wells Fargo have this same choice and Wells Fargo has chosen to continue doing business with McDonald’s despite the unnecessary and outdated animal cruelty in the restaurant’s supply chain. Join us in asking Wells Fargo to either use its influence for good by urging McDonald’s to adopt meaningful animal welfare standards, or to end its relationship with McDonald’s.
Tell the Big Banks to Stop Funding Climate Change
$115 billion. That’s how much the world’s biggest banks pumped into “extreme fossil fuel” projects in 2017 alone.* Here’s the kicker: those are your dollars directly fueling climate change. Big Banks finance fossil fuel companies through loans and investments using the money we trust them to hold—projects like the Dakota Pipeline (DAPL) or offshore/Arctic drilling couldn’t happen without it. The list of top offenders includes Chase, Citi, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and Wells Fargo. Any of those names sound familiar? We can and must do better! Let’s commit to break that destructive cycle by voting with our feet—we’ll move our money to green banking and investing options. Today we’re asking you to take the #MovetoGreen pledge: I commit to start moving my money into fossil fuel-free banking and investments that are sustainable—so my money will help, not hurt, the planet and people. Imagine: together, we will get 1 million Americans to commit to move to green banking and investment by Earth Day 2019—ourselves, our friends, our families—and we will make a real difference in the fight against climate change this year. There is a growing movement toward moving money away from fossil fuels, including steps taken by cities like Kansas City and New York City, organizations like the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Funds, and colleges across the country. We can’t wait any longer. Since 2001, we’ve seen 17 of the 18 hottest years on record. Doing nothing is no longer an option. Now it’s time for all of us to step up and join the green revolution in banking and investing. Sign the pledge and share it widely, because tomorrow’s planet depends on what we do today. We do have the power to change things. Together we can finally take on the fossil fuel industry, and win. *"Banking on Climate Change: Fossil Fuel Finance Report Card," March 28, 2018
Proposed solutions for the Dakota Access Pipeline Period 1
By some, the Dakota Access Pipeline is viewed as the safest and most environmentally sensitive way to transport oil. By others, it is viewed as a risky and hazardous pipeline that could cause all water supply to be contaminated. The DAPL is a long series of connected pipes, that stretches across four states; North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois. This $3.8 billion project travels beneath the Missouri River, and has been causing chaos within a half-mile of the Standing Rock Sioux reservation river. The pipeline could decrease the reliance on foreign oil, but it could also contaminate the water supply and disturb sacred tribal sites. As a result this has caused havoc amongst worrisome Indian protesters wanting to protect their burial sites. With that being said, is there a compromise? Life as a Native American started strong, especially before Europeans colonized America. Once the Europeans landed in the new world, they spread diseases and eliminated many of the remaining Native American tribes. Between the 18th-20th century, the US has been persecuting Native Americans by removing their land, isolating them, and building projects on Native American soil. DAPL(Dakota Access Pipeline), has been a topic of conversation in 2016-2017 and probably for future years to come. Native American groups such as the Sioux Tribe have argued against the government in the building of the project. However, due to the advancement in technology and cruciality in world relationships, the government has a reasonable response that is proved just in their point of view. The DAPL can prove to have many benefits yet, also have consequences that will affect each side’s opinion and perspective of the situation. While the government sees the pipeline as a way to transport oil and raise the economic status of the country, the various opposing sides disapprove this act because it could bring potential harm to the environment. Although this may decrease the U.S.’s dependency on foreign oil, this will affect other countries since trade relations between the countries will be disrupted. Even though each benefit is backed with a negative and vice versa, this isn’t necessarily a win-lose situation, because to prevent this deepening struggle, a compromise solution is possible to support both causes. For the government, deciding whether or not to discontinue the building of the pipeline is a difficult decision. They have invested over $3.8 billion in the construction of the DAPL and if they decide to stop it, they will become independent from the countries that supply oil all over the world but they will lose all the money. And if they decide to continue with the project, the government will access a vast amount of oil; jobs, gasoline, economical challenges will be gained and saved with this progressive project. With a goal of transporting crude oil to refining markets across the continental United States, proponents of DAPL believe that it will make transportation of oil safe and cost-effective. Ignoring the significant protests and the cruciality of the environment, they thought of their country’s benefits first before anything else. The environment is a large factor that is being most affected by the pipeline access. It has been in increasing danger from the hands of people, which is becoming more of a threat, because of the oil production and transportation throughout the country borders. People that support nature’s well-being protest against the usage of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). Evidence of their investigations support their sayings, “The Missouri River is the tribe's only source of water. If this leaks, it is going to spill into the river. So the tribe's legal stance — that they were not adequately consulted, that there are potential water issues here — their legal concerns are strong," Devashree Saha, a senior policy associate at Brookings Institution, told Business Insider. If leaks of the pipe occur, the harmful crude oil would enter the water and contaminate it, meaning the tribes will have no clean water to drink. Additionally, farmers and other landowners are displeased because the DAPL could drown their lands with oil, leading to an unbalanced economy in the United States. It is not a win-lose situation because there is a solution that may please both sides. Completing the pipeline project will rejoice the company's side of profit, but both will equally face environmental challenges. Additionally, preventing DAPL will lead the protesters to reclaim their homes, however, both of the sides will endure the lack of oil and U.S. independence. There is a compromise solution that is deemed fair and equitable for both sides, for example, to continue the project for oil, they can go around the Native American sacred sites and lakes, which could protect historical places as well as the water sources. Furthermore, if they are persistent in keeping the placement of the pipeline, they may do so however at the expense of providing the Native Americans more land for their reservations. Both solutions are just for the cruciality of U.S. connections with other nations and self-producing oil, and supporting the environmental safety of the United States and preventing harm for the historical and sacred sites of the Native Americans. By using this compromising solution, many conflicts can be rectified. The oil processing company can profit from the oil, protesters can be satisfied and return to the comfort of their homes, and the Native American Reservations will remain undisturbed. The United States of America will prosper from trade because now, thanks to the pipeline compromise, it has the upper hand in oil. Gas prices will plummet, and many people will benefit from this. However, the group that would benefit the most would be the Native Americans. This is because it is only fair that what you take is what you return, meaning that if you return some land to the Native Americans to make up for the ones withdrawn, then there won’t be any loss. By putting this proposal into action, the government, the citizens, and the Native Americans will all benefit. An anonymous person once said “The worst feeling is regretting not having done something when you had the chance.” Similar to this quote, we can all learn from our terrible mistakes and hope that we learn from them and spread our message. Please support our petition through social media in the hope that we can all reach a common agreement about this crucial situation. “I am a human not a robot. I need water, not oil." -Chloe a 3 year old in Utah, Paiute
Be inclusive, not dismissive of the Arts Community
Wells Fargo has recently promoted an ad for "Teen Day" on September 17th that is incredibly harmful and disparaging to the Arts Community. The ads proclaim: "A ballerina yesterday. An engineer today," with an image of a young woman and "An actor yesterday. A botanist today." Accompanying both photos is the sentence: "Let's get them ready for tomorrow." Millions of people are employed by the Arts - as singers, actors, dancers, performers, photographers, writers, instrumentalists, and musicians. The often unsung heroes - the stage and technical crews, production and artistic designers, teachers, trainers, coaches, accompanists, copy writers, film and recording editors, marking and PR staff, research and development are crucial to the arts and boundless in number. We are all "ready for tomorrow," Wells Fargo, because we are the today and have already been the yesterday. As a community, we are asking you to think about why you would run such a dismissive and false advertisement. To dismiss a career in the Arts is to dismiss millions of hard working people and even more millions of patrons who enjoy the work we produce every single day. As an organization who has provided grants and has a history of supporting the Arts, we are confused why you decided to create these ads. Consequently, we are asking you to re-adjust your campaign to be inclusive and not dismissive of the arts community.
Wells Fargo: Denounce Steve King’s racist comments
“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” “We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.” “The idea of multiculturalism, that every culture is equal — that’s not objectively true.” This is Iowa Representative Steve King. He is essentially a self-proclaimed racist and divisive figure who has a long history of insulting racial minorities. In November, right before his re-election, a number of companies withdrew support from Steve King’s campaign by announcing that they will no longer be donating to his future campaigns. These companies include dairy company Land O’Lakes and AT&T. This was following King’s announced support of a white nationalist candidate in Canada and his ties to the far right Austria Freedom Party, which has historic ties to Nazism. This man has been in office for nine terms. He has held this platform for nine terms that has allowed him to spew hatred. People have to be held accountable for their words — especially when those words are as offensive as King’s. One way to hold politicians accountable is for groups who have contributed to his campaigns to: 1. Denounce his words. Stop hiding and hoping that no one will notice your donations. Make clear that your organization does not stand for this kind of hate speech. 2. Announce that your organization will no longer be contributing to future campaigns. Money is power and selecting donors carefully will mean a lot more than words. Wells Fargo donated $2,500 to Steve King’s 2018 re-election campaign, tied with Land O’Lakes’ contribution. While AT&T and Land O’Lakes came out and rejected King’s statements (and announced that they will no longer be donating to his campaigns), Wells Fargo has remained silent on the subject. Wells Fargo: stand up and call out a wrongdoing when you see one. Denounce Steve King’s statements and promise that you will no longer donate to his campaigns.