This week, after hundreds of thousands of Apple customers and Greenpeace supporters asked the company to use clean energy instead of dirty coal, it announced a significant investment in local renewable energy to power its data center in North Carolina, US.

The announcement is a great sign that Apple is taking seriously the hundreds of thousands of its customers who have asked for an iCloud powered by clean energy, not dirty coal and comes on the heels of a Greenpeace demonstration at Apple’s headquarters in Cupertino where activists delivered messages from customers and supporters around the world.

Activists dress up as fully functioning iPhones to deliver the messages to Apple.

However, there’s still so much more to be done, and we think that Apple can go all the way.  Apple’s doubling of its solar capacity and investment in local renewable energy are key steps to creating a cleaner iCloud, but Greenpeace supporters and Apple’s customers still look forward to hearing details about how Apple plans to fulfill its commitment to renewable energy for its North Carolina and Oregon data centers in the US. Apple is still one of US energy giant Duke Energy’s largest customers, and will have to demand Duke provide the clean energy it needs to legitimately claim the iCloud is 100% powered by renewable energy.

Greenpeace will continue its campaign to push Apple and other IT giants like Microsoft and Amazon, to clean the cloud until Apple has policies to ensure that as Apple’s North Carolina data center and others continue to grow, they will grow using exclusively clean energy. To guarantee that, Apple must adopt a firm siting policy to prioritise renewable energy when it chooses locations for new data centers. Only then will customers have confidence that the iCloud will continue to get cleaner as it grows.

Join the 218,000 people who have asked Apple to clean its cloud, and ask the company to build on this progress until it has a policy to guarantee that all its current and future data centers will be powered by clean energy and not coal.

This auction comes as the Bureau of Land Management is coming under increased scrutiny for subsidizing coal mining companies like Peabody at the expense of US taxpayers, ignoring the huge amounts of global warming pollution that will be generated when the coal is burned, and failing to account for Peabody’s plans to export increasing amounts of this US coal to foreign markets.The BLM’s role is critical because unlike other regions such as Appalachia, Powder River Basin coal is mostly owned by the federal government, and BLM is supposed to ensure that coal development there “is in the best interests of the Nation.” But without proper oversight, the BLM has been offering this federal coal to companies like Peabody, Arch Coal, and Cloud Peak Energy for bargain rates. Over the last 30 years, this has amounted to a $28.9 billion subsidy to the coal mining industry and helped coal maintain its large share of US electricity generation by keeping coal prices artificially low, as explained in a report and legal brief by Tom Sanzillo of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. These low prices have also helped the Powder River Basin soar from just 5% of US coal production in 1970 to almost half today – even though the Federal Government no longer classifies the region as a coal-producing region. If this sounds absurd, that’s because the BLM’s process for leasing US coal is skewed to benefit coal mining companies, lacks proper oversight and public participation, and is basically corrupt – check out the Wild Earth Guardians for more info.

Coal mining in the Powder River Basin, photo courtesy of Paul K Anderson

This scandal is getting more attention from elected officials, and Representative Ed Markey last month called for a review of the BLM’s coal leasing program in the context of lowered estimates of economically recoverable coal in the Powder River Basin as well as the coal industry’s efforts to sell increasing amounts of US federal coal to foreign markets. Markey’s letter insists that, “American taxpayers must be assured they are receiving the full value for energy resources held in the public trust, especially when mining companies are seeking to export hundreds of millions of tons of coal for premium prices.”

Indeed, Peabody CEO Gregory Boyce’s own statements reveal the company plans to export increasing amounts of US coal abroad, seeking those premium prices. Boyce told investors last year that Peabody could make more money selling Powder River Basin coal if it is able to build a coal export terminal in Washington: “We see the long-term export potential, particularly with the developments at the Gateway Pacific Terminal and the increasing environmental rules in the US as to, once again, provide potential uplift for PRB in terms of volumes and margins.” Last month Boyce explained to investors that “when we look at an increase in exports, most of that is probably coming from new thermal exports out of the Illinois Basin, Powder River Basin.”

Peabody CEO Gregory Boyce is confronted with coal by youth climate activists

Although Boyce and his fellow coal mining CEOs have tried to present a rosy picture of the prospects for their export plans to their financiers at Bank of America, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, in reality these companies are facing stiff resistance from communities in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana that would suffer the economic, environmental, and health impacts of these coal export schemes. Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber expressed many of these concerns in his call to the Bureau of Land Management and other federal agencies for a sweeping review of plans to export coal from Pacific Northwest ports. In his letter, Kitzhaber insists that a comprehensive environmental impact statement “must be prepared before regulatory or additional coal leasing decisions are made.”

So will the BLM heed Governor Kitzhaber’s calls and stop leasing coal until a thorough federal review examines the impacts of increased US coal exports? Will it begin to reform as the GAO reviews its coal leasing process? Keep in mind that in its Record of Decision for the South Porcupine lease, the BLM justified the decision by asserting that doing so would help “meet the national coal demand,” and that “The public interest is served by leasing the South Porcupine LBA tract because doing so provides a reliable, continuous supply of stable and affordable energy for consumers throughout the country.” At a time when coal’s share of US electricity generation has dropped 19% in one year to just 36%, and Peabody’s CEO is touting plans to profit from “the global coal supercycle,” even the twisted logic of BLM’s coal leasing process falls apart. How exactly is it in the “best interests of the Nation” to sell coal that belongs to US taxpayers at a discount so Peabody can strip mine and ship it to Asia?

Whatever happens with this particular coal lease, it’s clear that the BLM will no longer be able to continue its fire sale of US coal without scrutiny. Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Keith Ellison have introduced the “End Polluter Welfare Act” which would require the BLM to do a fair market value study and designate the Powder River Basin a coal-producing region, as well as end a host of other subsidies to the coal and oil industries. And the Sierra Club and Wild Earth Guardians have filed a lawsuit challenging the BLM’s failure to consider the enormous amounts of global warming pollution that would come from mining and burning the coal from this and other nearby coal mines. In response to the lawsuit, a BLM spokesperson told the Associated Press, “We recognize that it’s going to be burned; we just don’t know where it’s going to be burned.”

Really? If the BLM doesn’t know where this coal is going to be burned, how can it claim that selling it will help “meet the national coal demand?” Peabody hopes the coal is burned abroad, because that means higher profits – it doesn’t need to pretend to be looking out for the “best interests of the Nation.” Perhaps it’s time the Bureau of Land Management take a closer look.

My name is Brandy and I’m here in our “iPod” to send Apple your messages. We’re right in front of Apple’s headquarters in Cupertino, California, in an eight-foot tall, ten-foot wide pod broadcasting audio messages from people like you to Apple’s employees and executives asking the company to power its iCloud with clean energy instead of coal.

In the past month, 215,000 of you have written to Apple to tell them that we want their iCloud to be powered by clean energy, not coal.
This is an incredibly important issue for me personally. I use Apple products every day, just like millions of people around the world. I use my iPad every day in school, just like the one I’m using right now in this pod. It helps me in everything from taking notes, helping me to study for my tests (or even distracting me from class every once in a while.) My iPhone helps me connect with my friends.

I don’t want to stop using those great tools. I want Apple to use their influence to power the iCloud I use every day with clean energy, not dirty coal that’s bringing our planet to the brink of disaster.

It’s been really inspiring to see how many of you agree in your messages! Here are a few of my favorites:
“Surely a visionary company like Apple can see that renewable energy is not only the smart thing to do, it’s the right thing to do. Clean our Cloud!”

“Imagine, design, create … Apple you need to approach your energy usage with the same ideals. You are supposed to be at the forefront of innovation yet you are using outdated, non-sustainable energy producers. Go Green!”

We’re going to stay here and read Apple your messages as long as we can. If you haven’t sent them one yet, join the fun by going to facebook.com/cleanourcloud and we’ll try to read your message too!

Follow live:

Over 215,000 people have signed our petition asking Apple to power its iCloud with clean energy. The writing’s on the wall for Apple: it’s time to clean up the cloud. Send them the message yourself right now!

Greenpeace activists project Facebook posts, tweets, and photos from supporters of the Clean Our Cloud campaign onto Apple's Cupertino headquarters early Tuesday, May 15, 2012.

Right now, Greenpeace activists are projecting Facebook posts, tweets, and photos from supporters of the Clean Our Cloud campaign onto a wall of the company’s famous Cupertino headquarters.

We are turning Apple’s building into a giant canvas for your messages, using a high-tech laser projector to post them on the wall while live-streaming the action back to you.

Over 215,000 people have signed our petition asking Apple to power its iCloud with clean energy. The writing’s on the wall for Apple: it’s time to clean up the cloud. Send them the message yourself right now!

Need a refresher on ALEC? It’s the group that brings state legislators to the table with representatives from major corporations in the sectors of energy, healthcare, tobacco, private prisons, and other groups to manipulate state politics to maximize their profits and limit their liabilities. These companies help craft template bills for state legislators to bring home and introduce in their respective statehouses.

Documents obtained and published by Common Cause now give us a roster of specific attendees at ALEC’s environmental meetings, a consortium of state legislators and a who’s who of the most offensive polluting political heavyweights including: Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, Duke Energy and Peabody.  Participating legislators know well they’re walking into a dirty party, sometimes using state taxpayer money to foot the bill.

The corporations that fund ALEC are well known for their political spending on both sides of the aisle. ALEC funders include Koch Industries, known for its coordinated political spending against President Obama, and Duke Energy, which is laying down a ten million dollar line of credit to host the Democratic National Convention in their hometown of Charlotte, NC. But these polluting companies are co-conspirators under the banner of ALEC, where partisan politics are set aside to focus on the mission of destroying environmental protections, clean energy competition and liability for crimes against both people and the ecosystems sustaining us.

So what exactly are ALEC and these oil, coal, chemical and public relations companies focusing on tomorrow?

According to their newest meeting memorandum, ALEC’s Energy, Environment and Agriculture task force is going to discuss some pending model laws that ALEC will likely be approved for state distribution:

• The “Electricity Freedom Act” (really? Electricity Freedom?!) is a new attack on states with plans requiring companies to get a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. This new bill is similar to other legislation ALEC has already peddled in several states and compliments an “email and telephone campaign” against state renewable energy standards, according to the Guardian.

• The “Coal Intrastate and Use Act” serves to prevent EPA from overruling state permits for coal mining and producing dirty coal products (like liquid coal for fuel) if all the coal operations are conducted within the borders of a single state.

• The “Resolution on U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement Accountability” mandates a report be filed on cities and states that have fallen short of their goals to reduce greenhouse gases through the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, which has over 1,000 signatories. ALEC’s new resolution then demands that any program that hasn’t met its goal be canceled out right, voiding the Climate Protection Agreement altogether. Keeping in mind that ALEC’s members like Koch and Exxon have fought greenhouse gas programs at every turn for years, it is obvious that this ALEC bill is meant for one thing, attacking programs that address carbon emissions.

• A resolution demanding the passage of the notorious federal REINS Act, which would give Congress the power to block the enforcement of just about any federal protection–clean air and water laws, safeguards for mine workers, prohibiting tobacco sales to kids, protection from discrimination, you name it. It’s the ultimate gift from Congress to their corporate fundraisers who would like to avoid responsibility for…everything.

• The exhaustively-titled “Resolution Supporting a Reasonable Compliance Timeline and Economy-wide impact study of EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Rule” has a simple purpose: delay when coal-burning utilities have to reduce mercury pollution and other severely hazardous emissions. For major mercury polluters like Energy Future Holdings, American Electric Power, and Duke Energy, this is likely to be a popular item tomorrow.

Documents obtained and published by Common Cause also show us what ALEC’s focal points have been for other meetings in the last two years. Here are a few examples:

• A resolution urging Congress and the State Department to push through TransCanada’s Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. ALEC recycles a lofty jobs lie in their reasoning for this resolution, ignoring State Department KXL job estimates  under 2,000 and a Cornell study warning that “There is evidence to suggest that the effects of KXL construction could very well lead to more jobs being lost than are created.” How many jobs does ALEC assume? 120,000 — see Greenpeace’s letter to the SEC to understand how they were calculated by politics rather than reality. Go figure–the American Petroleum Institute and its largest members were in the room when this resolution was forged.

• A deceptive ALEC bill pushed by ExxonMobil that “discloses” chemicals used by the oil industry in fracking operations, but actually inserts loopholes to avoid disclosure of certain fracking chemicals. This bate-and-switch comes at a time when doctors are concerned about signing confidentiality agreements if they ask for disclosure of fracking chemicals when treating people who are exposed to chemicals from gas drilling.

• A resolution that would prevent EPA from recognizing coal ash as a hazardous substance (it contains neurotoxins, carcinogens and radioactive elements). This may well have served as the model for the coal ash amendment that is currently being tacked on to the federal transportation bill by Rep. David McKinley (R-WV). Coal ash was a repeated topic of discussion at ALEC’s energy task force meetings over the last two years, according to their meeting documents.

Who exactly attends these events? Beyond ALEC staff and dozens of corporate representatives, industry front groups are also represented. Tomorrow will feature John Felmy of the American Petroleum Institute in a presentation on gas prices (spoiler alert: this crowd will probably blame the President). Next up: presentations from representatives of the Edison Electric Institute (utility trade group) and the Nuclear Energy Institute (nuclear industry lobby).

Perhaps most intriguing will be a chat about “The Dirty Truth Behind Reusable Bags” led by Charles Gerba, who will warn attendees that reusable bags will give them “projectile vomiting and diarrhea.” Gerba may not mention this dramatic and messy sickness can be avoided by simply washing one’s reusable bags, since Mark Daniels of Hilex Poly (a plastic bag company) regularly attends these meetings, and Gerba serves as an advisor to Hilex Poly.

ALEC always gets some of industry’s most interesting mouthpieces to set the rhetorical tone for those attending ALEC’s anti-environmental jamborees. Looking back to last August at ALEC’s Energy, Environment, and Agriculture task force meeting in New Orleans, presenters included:

• Robert Bradley of the Institute for Energy Research, which made press recently when its sister group the American Energy Alliance spend $3.6 million on ads blaming the President for high gas prices. IER has a former Koch lobbyist on staff and has received $175,000 from Koch foundations in recent years as part of the climate denial network.

• Gerry Angevene of the Fraser Institute, another longtime player in the Koch- and Exxon-funded climate denial machine

• James Taylor of the Heartland Institute, which has helped champion ALEC efforts to confuse K-12 students about climate science. Heartland is currently in the middle of a crisis as corporate funders are distancing themselves from its comparison of terrorists and serial killers to those who recognize the reality of global warming. Seriously, they put the Unabomber on a billboard saying, “Do you still believe in global warming? I do. www.heartland.org”

• Craig Idso, whose nutjob Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has been paid by the coal industry and the Heartland Institute to tell people that global warming is good for the planet. Craig Idso explained this nonsense to state legislators in August. As is the pattern here, see the Center’s history of Koch- and Exxon-funding, as well as Idso’s former employment at Peabody and work for the Western Fuels Association.

• Stephen Miller of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, which spends big on national advertisements promoting the idea that perhaps coal isn’t inherently dirty, dangerous and deadly (it is). Miller, who is resigning from ACCCE this year after serving as a dilligent coal apologist for the last decade, came under Congressional fire in 2009 when it was revealed that ACCCE contractors forged letters on behalf of groups “representing senior citizens, minorities and veterans,” including the NAACP.

Likely due to the publicity of ALEC Exposed and the recent mass migration of 16 companies and 34 state politicians away from ALEC (in response to controversial bills on voter suppression and Stand Your Ground laws that protected Trayvon Martin’s killer), ALEC no longer includes the specific members of its task forces in the documents it mails to participants beforehand. ALEC’s Energy task force as of June, 2011 shows the nefarious people who run this dirty operation, by name. People representing the following groups have been consistently present at recent ALEC meetings over the last couple years:

Oil and gas industry:

• Koch Industries
• ExxonMobil
• Shell Oil
• BP
• Chevron
• American Petroleum Institute
• Occidental Petroleum
• Marathon Oil
• Continental Resources
• American Gas Association (trade association)

Coal mining

• Peabody Energy
• Cloud Peak Energy

Coal-burning utilities:

• Duke Energy & Progress Energy (which are merging into the nation’s largest utility company)
• Energy Future Holdings
• American Electric Power
• PacifiCorp (a MidAmerican subsidiary, owned by Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway)
• Alliant Energy
• Pinnacle West
• MDU Resources
• NiSource
• NV Energy
• Edison Electric Institute (trade association, membership includes all utilities above)
• American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (membership includes AEP, Peabody, and Energy Future Holdings subsidiary Luminant)
• Salt River Project
• National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (an aggressive lobbying group for electrical utility cooperatives and top political donor in the energy sector)

Nuclear Industry:

• EnergySolutions
• Nuclear Energy Institute (trade association)
• Duke, Progress, AEP, and Pinnacle West all have notable nuclear generation capacity

Other major polluters:

• Dow Agrosciences
• International Paper
• American Chemistry Council (top trade association for chemical companies)
• Bayer Healthcare (Bayer is the country’s top air polluter according the Political Economy Research Institute at U-Mass, Amherst)
• Honeywell (#31 on PERI’s toxic air polluters list)
• General Motors (GM has a history of climate denial, although GM Foundation just dumped the Heartland Institute)
• LyondellBasell Industries (third largest chemical company in the world)

Front groups, all involved in climate science denial (Koch funding since 2005):

• Americans for Prosperity ($5,760,781)
• Atlas Economic Research Foundation ($152,600)
• Commonwealth Foundation ($84,532)
• Goldwater Institute ($70,427)
• John Locke Foundation ($47,472)
• Heartland Institute ($25,000)

Public Relations Firms

Dezenhall Resources (What Businessweek calls the “Pit Bull of Public Relations,” Dezenhall Resources is currently included in a Greenpeace lawsuit due to its role in hiring spies on behalf of chemical companies to track Greenpeace’s internal campaign plans)