Big Energy, Environmental Crimes, and Sustainability: an Analysis of How

Big Energy, Environmental Crimes, and Sustainability: An Analysis of How

Corporations Frame Environmental Issues amid Criminal Prosecutions

A thesis presented to

the faculty of

the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

Master of Arts

Victoria R. Ream

April 2017

This thesis titled

Big Energy, Environmental Crimes, and Sustainability: An Analysis of How

Corporations Frame Environmental Issues amid Criminal Prosecutions

VICTORIA R. REAM

has been approved for

the Department of Sociology and Anthropology

and the College of Arts and Sciences by

Stephen J. Scanlan

Associate Professor of Sociology and Anthropology

Robert Frank

Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3

ABSTRACT

REAM, VICTORIA R., M.A., April 2017, Sociology

Big Energy, Environmental Crimes, and Sustainability: An Analysis of How

Corporations Frame Environmental Issues amid Criminal Prosecutions

Director of Thesis: Stephen J. Scanlan

This thesis examines the two top greenhouse gas emitters in the United States,

Duke Energy and American Electric Power. Social constructionism, framing, greenwashing, state-corporate crime framework, and techniques of neutralization theories are used to understand the manner in which these corporations construct claims about sustainable business practices, criminality, and the political climate. This research uses qualitative content analysis methods to explore the claims-making of these corporations, specifically in regards to the global issue of man-made climate change. I argue that Duke

Energy and American Electric Power mislead consumers, investors, and the general public; they construct an appearance of being a proactive entity that values sustainability, compliance, and efficiency. In truth, both have multiple civil and criminal cases and millions of dollars in fines and violations due to violations of environmental regulatory laws; and many of the changes made to their business practices are only to meet minimum standards of federal law. They also have a large influence within the politics, as exemplified with the polluter-industrial complex. Further, this research discusses the importance of holding corporations responsible for the harms produced, which affect ecosystems, animals, and society.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge my parents—Denise and Tom—for supporting me, encouraging me, and always having confidence in me, even when I did not. My best friend Macey, who listened to my successes and hardships during the process nearly every day for the last two years. I also want to acknowledge Abdul for making my life brighter when I needed relief. An extended thank you to my family and friends; without my support system, I would not be able to do this!

To Jackie and Haley, thank you for being incredible colleagues as we all wrote theses and instructed our college classes for the first time; I am thankful we have become friends along the way. To Dr. Stephen J. Scanlan, my committee chair, I greatly appreciate all of your advice, guidance, and insight throughout this project, and also for helping me in my future endeavors. I could not have asked for a better experience in this program. To my additional committee members, Dr. Kelly Faust and Dr. Jieli Li, thank you for your critiques which allowed me to present an improved and stronger and final product. I have grown significantly in my time at Ohio University because of the exceptional professors here. I am extremely thankful for everything.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract ...... 3 Acknowledgments...... 4 List of Tables ...... 7 List of Figures ...... 8 Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 9 Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 13 Social Construction and Social Problems ...... 13 Constructing Climate Change ...... 14 Climate Change Deniability ...... 22 Climate Change as a Crime...... 27 Techniques of Neutralization ...... 33 Climate Change and Inequality ...... 34 Conclusion ...... 36 Chapter 3: Methods ...... 38 Introduction ...... 38 Gathering Data ...... 38 Analyzing Data ...... 40 Advantages and Disadvantages of Methods ...... 41 Chapter 4: Findings ...... 43 Sustainable Business Practices ...... 44 Criminality ...... 54 Political Climate...... 70 Political Action Committees (PACs) ...... 71 Lobbying ...... 74 Discussion ...... 78 Chapter 5: Conclusion and Limitations ...... 84 Concluding Remarks ...... 84 Implications...... 87 Limitations ...... 89 References ...... 91 6

Appendix A: List of Acronyms...... 105 Appendix B: Duke Energy Sources ...... 106 Appendix C: American Electric Power Sources ...... 107 Appendix D: Clean Air Task Force Map ...... 108

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1: Defining Climate Change ...... 16 Table 2: Company Environment Website ...... 46 Table 3: Duke Energy Environmental Regulatory Citations ...... 60 Table 4: Duke Energy and AEP’s State-Corporate Crime Framework ...... 65

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1: American Electric Power PAC Spending 2004-2016 Election Cycles ...... 71 Figure 2: Duke Energy PAC Spending 2004-2016 Election Cycles...... 72 Figure 3: American Electric Power Lobbying Spending 2004-2016 Election Cycles ..... 74 Figure 4: Duke Energy Lobbying Spending 2004-2016 Election Cycles ...... 75 Figure 5: AEP Greenwashing Images...... 82 Figure 6: Duke Energy Greenwashing Images ...... 83

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The 44th president of The United States of America, Barack Obama, proclaimed

“no challenge exposes a greater threat to future generations than climate change” (Park,

2015). Climate change refers to a state of climate that can be identified by changes in the mean and/or variability of its properties that persists for an extended period of decades or longer. It may be due to natural internal processes or external forces related to anthropogenic changes in the composition of atmosphere or land (IPCC, 2012). The evidence of climate change is abundant, yet there is a need for social scientists to address the countless connections between this particular environmental issue and society. Social scientists need to address perpetuators and deniers of man-made climate change.

One of the most alarming characteristics of climate change is greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gases (GHG) are chemical compounds that trap heat in the atmosphere and warm the earth, but human interference, specifically within the carbon cycle, has increased atmospheric concentrations of many greenhouse gases (NOAA,

2016). Carbon dioxide is the largest GHG emitted in the United States at 81%, followed by Methane (11%), Nitrous Dioxide (6%), and Fluorinated gases (3%) (EPA, 2015). The largest economic sector to emit GHG is the electricity industry (with 30% of total emissions). Increased levels of GHG cause the Earth to warm, which has a multitude of negative effects (NASA, 2016).

GHG are a significant contributor to the increasingly complex problem of climate change. Effects are widespread, and include issues such as food and water shortages, flooding, and habitat change (Agnew, 2012). This can create increased social conflict 10 and larger populations of malnourished people; one such problem that can occur from the increased likelihood of drought, flooding, and habitat change is the likelihood of famine, which would be a significant negative effect that directly impacts social structures and societies (Agnew, 2012; Saad, 2013). This represents only some of the evidence and effects of climate change, more of which will be further expanded on in this paper.

Not only is climate change important to address sociologically due to the negative effects on the human population, it is also affecting non-human species and ecosystems.

The application of sociological theory can help to further understand the connections between climate change, society, non-human species, and ecosystems in ways that we have not considered or emphasized enough. More specifically, this issue can be analyzed through the application of social constructionism and framing as an issue of environmental degradation, criminal accountability, and political climate.

As stated, utility companies comprise the largest economic sector emitting GHG.

This leads to the question of who is responsible for the harms associated with these emissions that ultimately are contributing to climatic changes. Is corporate (mis)action criminal? What is being said about issues of climate change and (un)sustainable business practices? The Political Economy Research Institute developed a Greenhouse 100 Index identifying the top corporations in the United States responsible for GHG emissions, reporting from facilities in electric power and other facilities that emit large quantities of

GHG (PERI, 2016). Duke Energy and American Electric Power are the top two GHG emitters, emitting 1.84% and 1.81%, respectively, in the United States in 2014. 11

The purpose of this thesis is to examine the top two GHG emitters, Duke Energy and American Electric Power (AEP), by applying social constructionism to address media framing, greenwashing, criminality, and connections between environmental degradation, crime, and politics. In this study, comparative content analysis of a sample of online data sources is used to examine the way in which Duke Energy and AEP construct climate change, (un)sustainable business practices, criminality, and political climate through their marketing. I apply the theoretical perspective of social constructionism, framing, and greenwashing to understand the interactions of these corporations with the public through online channels, and analyze the use of symbols, language, and communications surrounding climate change and the environment. I seek to answer the following questions through this research: How do these corporations construct claims about climate change and sustainable business practices? How does this compare to their (non)compliance of environmental regulatory laws, civil laws, and criminal laws? How do they construct their claims about sustainability, criminality, politics, and the future and evolvement of the corporation? How do their actions affect society in the United States?

The outline of this research is as follows: In Chapter Two, I review the literature of social constructionism, how climate change has been constructed, climate deniability, inequality, and climate change as criminal. I also address techniques of neutralization and how these are implemented in framing claims about civil cases and settlements. The purpose of this chapter is to establish a theoretical framework of climate change, a review 12 of literature, and to define the main themes and concepts that will be applied to analyzed data in later chapters.

In Chapter Three, I discuss the research methodology in detail. The purpose of this chapter is to clearly and explicitly state how data was gathered and analyzed, and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the qualitative content analysis process. I address how the data was evaluated, and rationalize the procedures chosen.

In Chapter Four, I introduce the findings of the analysis and describe the significant aspects the data presented. Three major themes emerged during the textual analysis and are expanded upon in this section: sustainable business practices, criminality, and political climate. Data analyzed in this section comes from a multitude of sources, some of these being press releases, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), company websites, the Center for Responsive Politics, and news sources. I also discuss the implications of the results—and how theory can make sense of the results through a sociological perspective.

Finally, Chapter Five provides a summary of the thesis, and indicates limitations of the current study, contributions to the body of literature, and considerations for further study of corporate communications about the environment. I also discuss directions for future research and additional research questions that arose during the analysis in this thesis.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Social Construction and Social Problems

While not the first to present social constructionism, the concept has been largely attributed to Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman, who note “that reality is socially constructed and that the sociology of knowledge must analyze the processes in which this occurs” (1966: 13). Social constructionists see knowledge intertwined with reality: humans create knowledge that is then dispersed and utilized, which in turn develops what humans understand and accept as reality. Through social interaction, reality is created, changed, adapted, and accepted as truth. As humans create their reality, they also construct social problems. Social problems make up the fabric of the social world, and can include issues such as racism, poverty, or unfair labor conditions. Environmental problems need to be considered social problems. Many of the disasters or accidents we hear about regarding the environment (such as oil spills) can be attributed to social actors or social organizations. “A series of identifiable managerial steps, collection of beliefs, set of regulations, or other social structures-[can lead] to the environmental problems”

(McCarthy & King, 2009: 7). It is necessary for social scientists to analyze how social institutions interact with the environment. For example, how are problems created, how are they addressed, and how do people adapt?

Further expanding upon social problems, the concept has been further defined in many ways. Spector and Kitsuse define social problems as “the activities of individuals or groups making assertions of grievances and claims with respect to some putative conditions” (1977: 75). In continuing to elaborate on the definition, there are several 14 components of a condition that must be met to be considered a social problem. It must be something that is wrong or creates harm, is a widespread issue, and is something that can and should be changed. Social problems are constructed when individuals make claims.

A claim is “any verbal, visual, or behavioral statement that seeks to persuade audience members to define a condition as a social problem” (Loseke, 2003: 26). Those who make claims are categorized as claims-makers, who can include (but are not limited to): government officials, educators, organizations, and corporations in particular—including

AEP and Duke Energy, the focus of this study. Claims-makers construct claims to promote agendas that may surround issues of morality, political ambitions, profit, or moral engineering. For a claim to become a social problem, there must be an audience to evaluate the claim and take it seriously (Loseke, 2003). Social constructionists ask questions such as (Best & Harris, 2012):

How many different types of claims are being made about this problem? Who are the people making these claims? How do the different claims-makers give different meanings to the problem at hand? Where is the problem within the social construction process? Is claims-making about this problem increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable?

Social problems can also be understood as the subjective interpretations that humans place on a certain issues (Best & Harris, 2012). How is climate change constructed as a social problem, and why is it important? In what ways can social constructionism provide a unique perspective to help answer these questions?

Constructing Climate Change

An increasingly pressing issue in today’s society is global climate change and its impacts. Climate change is discussed through a multitude of lenses, and is constructed and framed in many different disciplines. The influence of humans on ecosystems 15 worldwide is “clear and growing, with impacts observed across all continents and oceans” (IPCC, 2014). It is important to study how climate change is socially constructed in order to understand society’s knowledge of this problem. Prior literature has addressed social construction of climate change through the lens of policy (Shaw, 2009), but there is still a need for more research in the area, particularly with regard to criminality and sustainability as I do here.

The application of social constructionism can help to further understand the connections between climate change and society. Climate change is defined through many sources; however, not all definitions encapsulate the magnitude of the issue and the threats toward society and the ecosystems that we coexist with on this Earth. For understanding the construction of this concept as a social problem, Table 1 depicts several sources and their definition of climate change.

Table 1: Defining Climate Change

Source Definition

United A change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human Nations activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is 1992 in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods

IPCC A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by 2012 using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use

NOAA Climate is defined as long-term averages and variations in weather 2014 measured over a period of several decades. The Earth’s climate system includes the land surface, atmosphere, oceans, and ice. Many aspects of the global climate are changing rapidly, and the primary drivers of that change are human in origin. Evidence for changes in the climate system abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans.

NASA The broader range of changes that are happening to our planet. These 2017 include rising sea levels, shrinking mountain glaciers, accelerating ice melt in Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic, and shifts in flower/plant blooming times. These are all consequences of the warming, which is caused mainly by people burning fossil fuels and putting out heat-trapping gases into the air.

Climate change is typically understood to involve factors such as a rise in sea level, increase in average surface temperature, changing patterns of precipitation, and increases in frequency of extreme weather events (Agnew, 2012: 22-23). However,

NASA (2016) has compiled a list of compelling scientific evidence to describe the eminent problem of climate change. The sea level has risen 6.7 inches in the last century.

Global temperature has risen since the 1970s, with the twenty warmest years since 1971 and the ten warmest during the last twelve years. The oceans have also been warming by 17

.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969. Ice sheets continue to shrink, with losses in some areas adding up to 36 to 60 cubic miles of ice per year. Arctic sea ice has been declining over the last several decades. Glacial retreat has been seen in almost every region of the world. The increase in extreme weather events and more intense rainfalls continues to be problematic, with notable changes in the United States. Ocean acidification has increased

30% due to increased human emissions of carbon dioxide, which is absorbed into the ocean. Finally, there has been decreased snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere throughout the past five decades (NASA, 2016). This evidence is hard to combat; therefore, climate change can be defined as a widespread and troublesome social problem in that it can, and (arguably) should be changed.

NOAA also lists (constructs) ten indicators of a warming world: 1) decreasing sea ice, 2) increasing sea surface temperature, 3) increasing temperature over oceans, 4) increasing water vapor, 5) increasing ocean heat content, 6) increasing sea levels, 7) increasing air temperature near surface (troposphere), 8) increasing temperature over land, 9) decreasing glaciers and ice sheets, and 10) decreasing snow cover (2017). These are only some of the indicators and evidence of climate change, all expected to influence a warming world.

Climate change is a relatively new social problem— it was not seen as troublesome to a widespread population until the 1960s. Beginning in the late 1980s and early 1990s, political figures began to address or “construct” this issue (even though greenhouse warming theory was first introduced in 1896, gaining traction in the U.S. in the 1960s) [Bodansky, 2001]. With technological advancements and historical evaluation, 18 scientists identified this problem to be worse than anticipated; international respondents began to respond to the problem in the late 1980s, and climate change emerged as something that could be problematic to humankind (Bodansky, 2001).

The construction of climate change as a social problem is dependent upon how societies interpret these activities. The United Nations recently facilitated a conference on climate change, where the first universal climate change agreement was adopted by 195 countries (United Nation Conference on Climate Change 2015). The goal of the agreement is, “to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system” (UN Climate

Change Newsroom, 2015). In this political construction of climate change, it was constructed as a social problem in that it can be harmful to humans, it is widespread in that a global non-government organization deemed it important to facilitate several movements to change it, and it can and should be changed because of the dangers it presents.

As “green issues” continue to be addressed by corporations, nations, policymakers, and the general public, it has become increasingly relevant for organizations to be conscious of their actions, images, products, etc. and to be environmentally-friendly to construct positive values and corporate social responsibility

(see examples of corporate social responsibility and framing in Scanlan, 2013, 2017).

However, the variety of green issues really did not become a topic of discussion until the

1960s and 1970s. What does it mean to be green? The scope is large, and “can relate to issues such as ecological concerns, conservation (planet and animal), corporate social 19 responsibility (CSR), humanitarian concerns, fair trade, clean water, animal welfare, equality, and sustainability” (Saha & Darnton, 2005: 118). As social constructionists would say, green claims (whether through marketing, production, or capital) should uphold an image of eco-conscious producers. In addition to marketing and green claims, corporations will want to uphold CSR to portray their practices as sustainable. In the case of Duke Energy and AEP, promoting the fact that they are the top two GHG emitters in the United States would not be a strategic business practice in claiming to be environmentally-friendly. Instead corporations frame an alternative image of sustainable business practices and neutralize their role in climate change to focus on a positive communication stream about environmental pursuits.

Corporations often construct their marketing and claims with language that can be understood as greenwashing. Greenwashing is “an environmental claim which is unsubstantiated (a fib) or irrelevant (a distraction). Greenwashing can be found in advertising, PR or on packaging, and it is created about people, organizations and products” (Futerra, 2008). There are multiple signs of greenwashing, many of which are present in the materials presented in this chapter. Futerra outlines ten signs of greenwashing: 1) Fluffy language, 2) Green products v. dirty company, 3) Suggestive pictures, 4) Irrelevant claims, 5) Best in class?, 6) Just not credible, 7) Gobbledygook

(jargon/ scientific language) 8) Imaginary friends, 9) No proof, and 10) Outright lying

(Futerra, 2008). These signs will be used later to deconstruct the claims of Duke Energy and AEP. 20

Businesses are often analyzed through the lens of framing and this is particularly important for greenwashing. This theoretical lens is used in many disciplines. One definition of frames describes them as “interpretive storylines that set a specific train of thought in motion, communicating why an issue might be a problem, who or what might be responsible for it, and what should be done about it” (Nisbet, 2009: 15). Framing has been applied to several areas of environmental concern, some of which include fracking

(Scanlan, 2017), agribusiness (Scanlan, 2013), policy (Wong, 2012; De Blasio & Sorice,

2013), and the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (Wickman, 2014). Framing allows for corporations to construct their own perception of an issue; in this case, corporations use framing to communicate about their environmental impacts through a positive lens. Even in the cases where environmental regulation and law are violated, framing the issue as an opportunity for business advancement reduces the negative language and uses greenwashing tactics to construct a different perception of an issue or fault of the company.

One example similar to the application in this thesis is ExxonMobil’s greenwashing and framing. Like Duke Energy and AEP, ExxonMobil is a powerful corporation socially, economically, and politically, and they have significant influence over the knowledge created about fossil fuels. They frame their communication in a way to push a certain image through technological consumption.

ExxonMobil persuades consumers that it is an innovative and environmentally friendly company through hidden social and natural frameworks, a focus on an actor’s (ExxonMobil) remedy to a problem and moral judgments about it, and a didactic frame which coaches resignation to authoritarian rule by an extremely powerful technological and scientific industry. Those with power create knowledge (Plec & Pettenger, 2012). 21

This corporate advertising is an example of using a frame to promote environmentalism even when their practices are clearly unsustainable and not environmentally-friendly.

This creates knowledge that is consumed through unquestioning consumerism, but it is not necessarily true. ExxonMobil constructs an image of their company which is unquestioned due to their social, economic, and political power. Rather than focus on the harms they are creating and the contributions they may be responsible for regarding climate change, they focus on profit maximization and distract the public and policymakers from the real environmental damage.

The discussion around climate change (Nisbet, 2009, Moser & Dilling, 2011) addresses concerns and possible solutions to bettering public engagement and communication. Research needs to expand to other areas of climate change, including its effects, societal connections, and criminal considerations. The increasing concern of inequality as an effect of climate change should be addressed in this theoretical framework as well.

Even with the application of framing to climate change, a broader approach to climate change and social constructionism has not been related to inequality frequently.

Climate change and inequality is prevalent in the work by Ciplet, Roberts, and Khan

(2015: 23) where they discuss structural inequalities in climate change framework preceding the Paris negotiations and how it is inadequate for preventing catastrophic events in the poorest and most vulnerable countries. However, Grundmann and Stehr argue that sociologists have avoided engaging in climate change research due to the

“political implications and are anxious of not wanting to play into the hands of climate 22 change skeptics” (2010). The importance in addressing social problems should not be downplayed.

Some scholars argue that the current frames of climate change need to be restructured entirely to change “existing attitudes, values, and perceptions of different audiences” (Nisbet, 2009) to make policy more understandable, applicable, and also to refocus the conversation around current scientific evidence. Some of the existing issues of framing climate change deal with how it is framed in the news media. Much of the public, even if the issue is framed systematically to present the research and data factually, will either ignore the issue or interpret it based on existing claims about climate change (Nisbet, 2009). Media as an institution can represent this issue inaccurately and influence the public to deny the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change exists. Social construction and framing of climate change and its applications to inequality as discussed in this paper can help address gaps in literature and explore how framing and greenwashing are not only problematic but even criminal with regard to presenting factual information to an audience.

Climate Change Deniability

Social constructionism can also be applied to anti-science and “Climategate” issues. The large body of climate skeptics and deniers is extremely problematic when looking to the necessary social change and collective action that needs to take place, especially in the United States. Those who continue to deny climate change typically benefit from the fossil fuel industry, and play into the informational bias presented by the news media (Brisman & South, 2015). The news media has been a key institution in 23 influencing and framing this ideology. They have successfully created the impression that the scientific community is divided or unsure of the data presented by climate change; the news media typically brings in one climate denier and one climate scientist, which could be interpreted as science being split on the issue. In reality, 97% of climate scientists who actively publish agree that human activities have influenced these changes (NASA,

2016).

The empirical evidence is there, yet “climate change contrarians and deniers do not have to convince anyone of anything. They simply have to sow seeds of doubt”

(Mooney, May 2014). The news media’s political leanings reinforce these contradictions and inform a public unwilling to question what they see, hear, or read. Some scholars have been critical of journalists for failing to differentiate fact from fiction and continue to report phony science that attracts the public and overwhelmingly ignores empirical evidence (Otto, 2011). Journalists who discuss and debate policy changes have no background in science; they present misinformed claims (sometimes from dubious sources) without reviewing it critically, causing criticism and debate of issues (climate change) that have overwhelming support in the scientific community (Otto, 2011: 204).

Social constructionism can explain this unquestioning faith in the news media through the hierarchy of credibility: Society has given news media institutions a higher level of credibility within the body of claims-makers.

In a postmodern society, subjectivity has been the name of the game in a marketplace that has become focused on emotions rather than facts and reason, and the news media influences this considerably through propaganda or what is believed to be the 24 burgeoning proliferation of “fake news”. People choose to outright ignore science, and they mistrust the facts presented to them. Some studies indicate that many deny science because it conflicts with their personal identity, mainly for religious or political reasons

(Mooney, November 2014). This is heavily perpetuated by the recent election of

President Donald Trump, who, upon being sworn into office, purged all information regarding climate change from the White House website, promised to eliminate the

Climate Action Plan, ordered employees of the EPA and USDA not to speak to news media, told the EPA to take down their climate change page, and much more (Levitan,

2017).

Aside from limiting the information presented to the public, President Trump’s budget proposal would reduce the EPA’s budget by 31%, making it the smallest budget in 40 years (controlling for inflation). It would also cut funding

to the United Nations for its climate change efforts, and curb contributions to its peacekeeping efforts. Contributions to the World Bank would be cut by $650 million, and economic and development assistance would be “refocused” to countries of greatest strategic interest to the United States . . . That would mean eliminating funding for climate change research, closing state environmental programs and ending regional projects like the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which has bipartisan support (Rappeport & Thrush, 2017).

Not only does this threaten climate research, but also shows how the United States prioritizes current issues in society and perpetuates scientific mistrust by not supporting or even discussing climate change problems. Most recently, President Trump looks to sign an executive order that will rescind at least six Obama-era executive orders that addressed climate change issues to reduce carbon emissions; President Trump has also tweeted, "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to 25 make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” A White House official also stated, " I think the President has been very clear that he is not going to pursue climate change policies that put the US economy at risk. It is very simple” (Merica, 2017). Unfortunately, AEP sees positive aspects of working with Trump and his recent policies. CEO Nick Akins states that the company is “’very-much looking forward’ to working with Trump” (Knox,

2017). This clearly demonstrates priorities of the new administration, and should cause concern in regards to anti-science. The public has certainly been concerned, and there is a

March for Science planned in many cities on Earth Day, April 22, 2017 (Achenbach,

2017) and the People’s Climate March the following weekend. In addition, this is problematic for constructing climate change as criminal. Will corporations still be held responsible for laws and/or regulations they have broken when Trump’s changes go into effect? Will these once illegal doings become legal, and make it easier for them to neutralize harms produced? What about the environmental and health impacts?

Another way to look at science mistrust is through rhetoric. There are two rhetoric based arguments: Lacking certainty about an issue, we should do nothing, and since the conclusion is not certain, we should get a balanced perspective on both sides. Shawn

Otto, CEO of the Science Debate 2008, argues that we need to divert rhetoric-based arguments and propaganda and revert to the scientific community the United States was founded on (Otto, 2011). Otto’s work reinforces the importance of science and its continued progress, even if it is not valued by the general public. Otto uses this point to understand why the United States is anti-science, why it is crucial to change this, and 26 proposes solutions for moving towards a society that embraces science and politics together to address critical issues.

Science mistrust is propagated through many platforms, one being the news media. The news media is one of the most influential and powerful social institutions worldwide. The reality we have constructed of news media trustworthiness in the past has given news media a higher level of reliability than it deserves today. News media ideology is not restricted to social, moral, or political ties; their profit-driven goals allow them to present any information, news, and entertainment without regulation.

Technological advancements have only increased the reach that news media has. Instead of investigating the root cause of an issue, news media is likely to be “met by a harsh, well-organized, PR-driven, corporate backlash that seeks to discredit the individual authors and the reports themselves” (Campbell, 2015). This has led to division and distrust surrounding the most problematic issue facing global society today.

Media, while certainly influential, is not necessarily the root of the anti-science problem. A study by Brulle, Carmichael, and Jenkins (2012) found that elite cues and structural economic factors have the largest effect on the level of public concern about climate change. It has been shown that political elites who release public statements in turn results in statistical significance affecting public opinion. Once elites have made a claim about an issue, it is likely public opinion leans in their favor. In terms of structural economic factors, the study found increased unemployment rates, increases in GDP, and the number of U.S. wars showed statistical evidence of increasing or decreasing threat attributed to climate change. This study significantly relays how external factors such as 27 shock in the economy or polarized political views of leaders can reduce or increase public concern over climate change. These issues are often exacerbated through news media outlets. Corporate lobbying and spending can also be tied up in the political economy, affirming the importance of deconstructing the language of environmental communication of influential corporations.

Climate Change as a Crime

Crime is one example of a social problem that can be constructed in many different ways. As with climate change, crime is also socially constructed, and can vary by many factors, including region, culture, religious beliefs, and morality. One example of a definition of socially constructed crime is:

The process through which definitions and images of crime are shaped by the rhetoric and technological claims-making activities of self-interested actors. Claims-makers may include government officials, experts/scholars, or the media, who may be motivated by a variety of agendas including morality, political ambitions, profit, or moral engineering (T. Vander Ven, personal communication, January 2016).

Climate change is an interesting example that can be analyzed as a social problem. It can also be analyzed as a “crime problem.” Climate change is a unique issue to look at in that there is no singular, transformative event to mark the emergence of the problem; climate change has progressed, globally and also at a local level, to create a “slow crisis” (White,

2012), which is problematic as responses and adaptation to this issue have been slow or nonexistent until recently. One such example is soil erosion and deforestation in rural

Kenya, resulting in part by human-induced climate change. This is an issue of slow violence, gender, and environmentalism; the rural women could do little to contribute to a solution and could not avert the effects (Nixon, 2011). The slow crisis of climate change 28 has long-lasting effects on communities and, in this example, presents intersectional problems regarding violence and gender in addition to environmental issues.

Climate denial and inaction to mitigate the effects of greenhouse gas emissions

(GHG) are some of the many parts that can be addressed through a criminological perspective. According to definitions by Michalowski and Kramer (2006), we can categorize these issues as a state-corporate crime. State-corporate crime, within a capitalist economy, has been defined as “the harmful consequences of interorganizational relationships between businesses and governments” (Michalowski & Kramer, 2006).

While there is currently no established international or domestic law to provide legal frameworks of the harms associated with climate change (likely largely in part to climate denial), criminology can analyze the social injury or harms produced from climate change. There is hope that this may soon change, as governments, policymakers, and academics work to adapt to those who are being called climate refugees, those who are displaced because of climate related concerns (Weiss, 2015).

Taking a state-corporate crime approach can help deconstruct claims and actions of companies in the electric industry, which this research focuses on, but it can also be applied to any interorganizational entities. Summarizing Kramer’s argument, the political economy has failed to mitigate GHG emissions and reflects socially organized climate denial, fitting nicely with the formal definition of state-corporate crime (Kramer, 2013).

Protection of the environment is an important issue that is difficult to implement in the criminal justice system. Environmental crimes are inherently built into budgeting for companies as civil cases, fines, and violations are not deterrence enough from continuing 29 to partake in damaging actions; therefore, criminal liability was introduced in the mid-

1980s to enforce stricter laws and regulate business practices (Jarolímková, 2010)1. Even with criminal charges, frequently settlements do not force admittance of negligent acts by companies as long as they fix the illegal practices or structures and pay the fines for the citations. In practice, holding these companies responsible is not as easy as it seems, especially since they often have a large political influence.

Another way to understand climate change as criminal includes distinct activities that contribute to or are consequences of man-made climate change. White addresses the criminality of climate change claiming it can be analyzed in four ways: 1) as contributing to climate change, such as things like forestry or air pollution, 2) consequences of climate change, such as illegal fishing or wildlife poaching, 3) associated offenses due to civil unrest and criminal activities, such as eco-terrorism or violent offenses, and 4) regulatory offenses that arise from policy response to climate change, such as collusion or illegal planting (White, 2012).

One interesting example of how climate change and crime are intertwined is through a news media source which claimed that “22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, and 1.3 million burglaries, among other crimes” (Humphries, 2014) will emerge due to

1 The goals of civil versus criminal are extremely different. Civil cases can be defined as “similar to the rules governing sporting events,” the goal of civil cases “is to ensure a level playing field for all parties. No one side should possess a procedural or evidentiary advantage beyond that which is particular to the specific facts of a case. The rules of civil procedure promote reciprocity and equal access to evidence.” Criminal cases on the other hand have goals to protect “a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial. The prosecution’s corresponding right is consequently limited. This difference affects trial strategy, particularly from the perspective of the party that bears the burden of proof” (Larson). Regulations are meant to explain technical, operational, and legal details necessary to implement laws (EPA Laws and Regulations).

30 the effects of climate change, particularly global warming. What this news article does not address is that these numbers are merely a suggestion, not taking into account long- term adaption techniques; modified police techniques and changes in behavior to reduce victimization— in the original article the author even states that “the estimates from this paper could significantly over- or under-estimate climate's effects on future crime”

(Ranson, 2014). In this example, the news media portrays climate change as creating widespread harm, through statistical data that would cause 1,502,000 more people to be victims of a violent crime, among other injustices. Through this vision of social construction, it would seem to be a widespread, harmful issue that “should” be changed in order to save these 1.5 million people from victimization. In reality, the author intended to make predictions about climate change and crime that are not necessarily representative of what humans will adapt to in the future but implications worth pondering. It is thus also important to point out those responsible for the climate events leading to this inequality and to hold them responsible for their actions.

From a social constructionist lens, the literature that claims climate change is not a social problem is miniscule compared to the knowledge that it does exist. “Ninety- seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position” (Cook et al., 2013; NASA, 2016). While scientific data can be refuted and proven insignificant, the large number of people supporting these claims indicates that the claims-makers (in this case, climate scientists) are presenting data that has been reviewed by peers and their data 31 and findings upheld and are being supported through systematic research methodology that includes peer review and full disclosure of conflicts of interest.

Society has many different perceptions about crime and the criminal justice system. Barak (1994) identifies a formulaic expression of how crime news is constructed:

PERCEPTION OF CRIME=MEDIA + (CULTURE + POLITICAL ECONOMY) OVER TIME. The model suggests that how we define the cultural production of crime as a “social problem” and how we regard victims, offenders, and agents of crime control emerges out of the social interactions between ordinary people, journalists, and sources of information within the structural and political- economic contexts of active processes of news construction and crime management.

Barak’s representation of Newsmaking Criminologists addressed the need to integrate media, processes, and perceptions of crime to fully understand the dynamics of how society does or does not create social control. Multiple media sources (i.e., drama, editorial comments, campaigns, and talk shows) help create social problems; Barak’s argument exemplifies how media produces content that is socially desirable in order to appear to develop empathy with its audience (1994: 4, 17). Criminologists have a special role in this beyond social construction; they have ability to provide accurate information about the system in what does and does not work and to inform the public and help alter public perceptions (Barak, 1994: 18). One must “deconstruct and reconstruct crime and crime control” in order to understand a truthful reality of crime (Barak, 1994: 20).

When addressing climate change as a social problem anthropomorphic causes are important to examine when considering its criminality. This stage of human history has been dubbed the Anthropocene, due to the “growing significance of human actions in the overall state of the planet” (Allenby, 2015). The most prominent evidence is dramatic 32 environmental change, and because impacts of human activity are likely to be observable for millions of years in the future, it is suggested that this new epoch has begun (Lewis &

Maslin, 2015). Social actors may portray issues in ways that exaggerate or underestimate the effects of climate change when there is a clear mandate that information should be presented factually (Freudenburg & Muselli, 2010).

Sociologists have analyzed climate change and global warming as a state- corporate crime by examining transnational corporations, such as the fossil fuel industry.

In nations of the Global North, such as the United States, it can be said they “act in concert in ways that, intentionally or not, cause widespread environmental and social harm” (Kramer & Michalowski, 2012: 71). Claims-makers include corporate and state employees as actors who interact with each other to create harm in four different ways:

(1) by denying that global warming is caused by human activity, (2) by blocking efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, (3) by excluding progressive, ecologically just adaptations to climate change from the political arena, and (4) by responding to the social conflicts that arise from climate change by transforming themselves into “fortress societies while the rest of the world slips into collapse” (Kramer & Michalowski, 2012: 71).

The social construction of climate change as a crime problem is a necessary area of exploration for several reasons. It needs to be understood how knowledge about this issue is created or constructed. Research must distinguish how this knowledge is utilized and how it spreads throughout society. By analyzing the different claims about climate change and identifying who the claims-makers are social constructionists can understand how reality is constructed around the knowledge of climate change and the potential troubles that may be associated with it (or not associated with it if the claim is that climate change is nonexistent). It is essential to determine if any action is taken about the 33 claims and what side of the criminal justice system and corporations end up on. Different claims-makers discussed in this paper may have different agendas. For example, experts or scholars introduced, such as Ranson (2014), may use climate change as a factor for increased criminality to encourage more discussion and debate about the potential dangers of climate change. The subjective interpretations of climate change indicate the importance or unimportance of climate change as a crime. In this research, a macro approach looks to understand how big energy corporations can and should be held accountable for crimes at a state-corporate level.

Techniques of Neutralization

Another theoretical application regarding criminality important to consider are techniques of neutralization. Matza and Sykes (1960) identify five:

1. Denial of Victim: The individual acknowledges that there is a victim and accepts responsibility; however, he/she believes their actions are justified based on the belief the victim deserves victimization. 2. Denial of Injury: The individual accepts responsibility for his/her actions while at the same time claiming no one was hurt. 3. Denial of Responsibility: The individual fails to accept responsibility for his/her actions by claiming they were not in control, it was an accident, or push the blame onto their environment, peers, or families. 4. Condemnation of the Condemners: The individual admits to the delinquent act but claims it was acceptable since others commit similar or even worse acts. 5. Appeal to Higher Loyalties: The individual understands that his/her activity is wrong but excuses and justifies their actions by referencing allegiance to someone or some group.

Matza and Sykes argue that it is easier to violate norms when the moral obstacles are taken out of the situation, which is done through learned techniques of neutralization. To further simplify, these techniques are learned justifications that criminals use to rationalize their actions. These techniques can also be used to explain the ways in which 34 corporations frame their claims, specifically in press releases discussing their civil cases and resulting settlements. Techniques of neutralization can be linked with framing to understand how corporations frame their communication in ways to mitigate responsibility for climate change and other environmental problems. I discuss this further in the findings section.

Climate Change and Inequality

Climate change manifests itself in many different ways; thus, creating a majority of negative effects on many communities, varying by race, class, gender, age, and other social characteristics. Developing countries are more likely to suffer the effects of climate change due to their lack of resources, lower socioeconomic standing, and inability to produce sufficient amounts of food (Saad, 2013). Some populations may be left out of the conversation entirely, or perceive environmental concerns differently, which can lead to diverted effects towards communities who cannot fend off unwanted facilities (The politics of race and pollution: an interview with Bullard 1992). Negative environmental effects are especially problematic for those who do not have the resources to leave affected areas. If societies continue to pay little attention to this issue, climate change could increase inequality all over the world and exacerbate and already problematic issue

(United Nations Development Programme, 2009).

Environmental justice research emerged and continues to be relevant as more and more studies show that “environmental hazards disproportionately affect poor communities, communities of color, and other marginalized populations” (Pellow &

Brehm, 2013). Racial and ethnic disparities are evident when looking at pollution, where 35 exposure is “strongest among neighborhoods with median incomes below $25,000, while income-based disparities are stronger among neighborhoods with median incomes above that level” (Zwickl, Ash, & Boyce, 2014). This is explored in many case studies across several disciplines. Even in these studies, emphasis is not typically directed at connections between inequality and climate change.

Some communities, as illustrated in the case study of the Argentine shantytown of

Flammable, want to move out of the polluted areas but lack the capital to do so:

I have faith that we are going to leave this place. . . I’m leaving. I don’t want to be here anymore. . . I get very annoyed because of all the dirt, the rats. I hate this neighborhood. I don’t want to live here. I want something nice for my children (Auyero & Swistun, 2009: 117).

This was a common theme throughout the study, which described poor Argentinians who, due to environmental toxins, faced serious health problems and had no opportunities to leave because of the lack of state intervention and regulation on corporate pollution. A similar issue of a polluted environment is seen in a study by Checker, observing a predominantly African American community with limited resources. The community made small victories through grassroots organizations and activism, yet even in a developed country, race is the “most potent variable in predicting where hazardous waste facilities are located” (2005).

Reactions to natural disasters are important to analyze with the increase in extreme weather events as another effect of climate change. Hurricane Katrina has attracted a lot of attention in this regard, as the government was seemingly well-prepared and well-informed about the dangers of the city’s levee system failing (which constituted for the majority of the flooding in the city), but issues such as looting and police 36 misconduct followed the disaster (Nobo & Pfeffer, 2012). Scholars have discussed the potential for Hurricane Katrina to be classified as a state crime, as much of the suffering and loss of life could have been prevented (Faust & Carlson, 2011). Factors such as race, education, health, and socioeconomic status prevented people from evacuating before the hurricane; for example, “the primary means of emergency evacuation in most disaster places is the personal automobile” (Thiede & Brown 2013; Bullard & Wright, 2009: 11).

In the case of Hurricane Katrina, “low-income and people-of-color neighborhoods were hardest hit. Pre-storm vulnerabilities limited participation of thousands of Gulf Coast low-income communities of color in the after-storm reconstruction, rebuilding, and recovery” (Bullard & Wright, 2009: 19). If climate change brings increased hurricanes

(among other extreme weather events), it is important to see how economic and racial inequality has already caused increased suffering in previous disasters.

Conclusion

Throughout the literature, it can be seen how social construction and framing have been applied to a variety of realms pertinent to environmental sociology. However, it is necessary to understand the social construction of climate change, criminality, sustainability, policy, and corporate social responsibility. These topics need to be analyzed separately but also as an integrated whole to see how and why Duke Energy and

AEP understand their (mis)actions. With the effects of climate change increasing in intensity, this research is critical to furthering knowledge, especially when the need to address policy has never been more crucial. 37

Influential claims-makers often portray messages through corporations. The construction of environmentally-friendly actions as it relates to climate change and inequality needs to be further analyzed. Inequality between corporations and consumers, as well as capitalistic tendencies of efficiency over quality, need to be addressed. Prior literature has shown how climate change can increase inequality due to negative effects.

However, climate change as a crime needs to be addressed broadly in how it will increase in effect and intensity, as well as how corporations will adapt to climate change.

CHAPTER 3: METHODS

Introduction

This chapter will outline the methods I used to gather and analyze the data, and discuss advantages and disadvantages of the methods implemented. This study examines the top two GHG emitters, Duke Energy and AEP, by analyzing multiple sources, including company websites, press releases, civil cases and settlements, criminal prosecutions, company reports, and existing fines and violations. These data help explore how the companies construct claims about climate change, sustainable business practices, and political climate. It also delves into their compliance of environmental protection laws, their communication about the topics listed, connections to inequality, and how they intersect and influence the political climate. This chapter will explain the methods in such a manner that others interested in the connections between business practices and criminality can replicate the results found, or explore alternative directions with this data.

Gathering Data

Firstly, an explanation as to why Duke Energy and AEP were chosen for comparison is necessary. Looking broadly at climate change and social responsibility, we can derive that in the United States, GHG emissions (81% carbon dioxide, 11% methane,

6% nitrous oxide, and 3% fluorinated gases) are a significant contributor to climate change. Utility companies contribute the most to these emittances at 31%, followed by transportation, industry, agriculture, commercial, and residential, 26%, 21%, 9%, 7%, and 6% respectively (EPA, 2015). As previously stated, Duke Energy and AEP are the top two GHG emitters in the United States compared to all other entities regardless of the 39 industrial sector, emitting 1.84% and 1.81% from all sources. PERI (2016) also indicates regional information about the locations of the facilities and relates it to the number of minorities and those living in poverty in the area. This is significant in understanding the social implications of their actions, effects on local communities, constructions of inequality, and how marginalized people are disproportionally affected by environmental issues.

To analyze and understand how claims are constructed about climate change and sustainable business practices, I examine company websites and deconstruct their claims.

I evaluate press releases from Duke Energy and AEP, as relevant to settlements and cases of criminality. The civil cases and settlements come from the Environmental Protection

Agency website. The purpose of comparing the claims through advertisement on their websites and through press releases and contrasting it with criminality is to see how greenwash tactics are implemented. Greenwashing, though defined above, can further be conceptualized as including corporate actions as environmentally destructive: “The phenomenon of socially and environmentally destructive corporations attempting to preserve and expand their markets by posing as friends of the environment and leaders in the struggle to eradicate poverty” (Corpwatch, 2001). Duke Energy and AEP can be defined as socially and environmentally destructive because of the close proximity to inequality and the high levels of GHG emissions. I hypothesize that even though they do cause environmental and social harm, the corporation's claims-making will continue to present an image of social responsibility and a shift towards sustainability and renewable energy. I seek to understand the interactions of these corporations with the public through 40 online channels analyzing the use of symbols and images, language, and communications. The Center for Responsive Politics also provides a data source for information regarding political spending, lobbying, and influence.

Analyzing Data

I analyzed the data through qualitative2 textual analysis to understand corporate environmental communication methods. Imagery and language employed in advertising, promotional materials, and press releases is examined to note themes as they pertain to climate change, sustainability, and criminality. For a comparison, data from the EPA helped deconstruct some of the claims presented by the corporations.

The gathered data was transcribed through textual analysis. The purpose of this organizational process was to analyze specific major themes and topics pertaining to the research questions and how they were manifested in the data. Text, statistics, and images are pulled from the data to help capture the essence of the three major themes: sustainable business practices, criminality, and political climate. This method results in a fuller, more vivid account of the corporate claims-making and framing by including quotations, figures, and images directly from the companies’ own websites and reports. Although numerous narratives could be told by analyzing the claims-making of any company, the focus here speaks specifically to the accountability of Duke Energy and AEP in contributing to climate change, handling criminal and civil charges, and the way they frame their presentation.

2 Quantitative measures such as counting frequency in the data are not implemented in the present study. 41

Advantages and Disadvantages of Methods

Using a comparative content analysis approach provides a unique perspective to answer questions such as: What do these entities see as good, bad, important, or unimportant? What are their normal routine activities and how have they deviated from them? What structural influences (policy, power elite, law, and government entities) have shaped corporate (mis)action? Looking at overall trends in the data creates a better understanding of sociological conceptualization of these entities, but also content analyses are beneficial in that quotations and specific details can exemplify these concepts clearly. Comparative analysis allows for investigation of organizational processes in a holistic and authentic manner; understanding the voice these claims create is reflective of the interests of the companies.

Exploring patterns and trends between these two companies is imperative to a broader understanding of the social construction and claims-making of sustainable business practices and compliance, as well as the framing of criminality and compliance within the criminal justice system. However, closely examining two entities does not allow for generalizing to every corporation within the industrial sector or even among greenhouse gas emitters. Conversely, this allows for a more in-depth discussion, and this data may indicate trends in utility constructionism, framing, and greenwashing. This analysis provides a snapshot of two large and considerably influential corporations within a greater picture of the significant actors contributing to pollution, global warming, and climate change. This methodology is implemented in hopes that future research may 42 create a broader knowledge of other corporate polluters and those involved in anthropomorphic climate change.

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS

This chapter describes the results and outlines the major themes that emerged from the textual analysis of the data: sustainable business practices, including renewable energy or business motives in general, criminality, and political climate. As a brief overview, this section seeks to understand how claims of Duke Energy and AEP are constructed, how they frame criminality, and how their actions or (mis)actions connect to the political climate of the United States. In answering these questions, the theoretical application of social constructionism, framing, state-corporate crime, and techniques of neutralization is applied to uncover what is constructed as reality and accepted as true by these corporations, what claims they choose to present, and what they choose to emphasize in these claims-making activities.

To understand the enormity of these corporations, Fortune 500 provides an informative snapshot of the largest corporations in the United States of which Duke

Energy and AEP are a part of, ranking them by revenues per fiscal year. Duke Energy is a company in the energy sector. Its industry is utilities: gas and electric, and it ranked 115 in revenues in the last fiscal year. Headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, Duke

Energy is the largest electric power holding company in the United States with electric generating capacity in the Carolinas, the Midwest, and Florida. It currently has revenues of $24,002,000,000, profits of $2,816,000,000, and assets totaling $121,156,000,000

(Appendix B: 1). The company employs 29,188 people and serve approximately 7.4 million electric customers (“165 Duke Energy,” 2017). Globally, Duke ranks 446 in the

Global 500. 44

AEP is a company also in the energy sector and gas and electric utilities industry.

It ranked 165 on the Fortune 500 in the last fiscal year in revenues. Their headquarters are in Columbus, Ohio. AEP currently has a revenue of $16,900,000,000, profits of

$2,047,000,000, and assets totaling $61,683,000,000. The company employs 17,405 people and serves approximately 5.4 million electric customers in 11 states, which also makes it one of the largest energy providers in the United States (“115 American Electric

Power,” 2017). Unlike Duke Energy, AEP does not rank in the Global 500.

It is important to understand the immense wealth and size of these companies; not only to understand their role in the economy, but also how they support entire communities, be that as an employment agent or as a service agent. It is also necessary to perceive their enormity because of the political influence they can offer through donations, lobbying, etc. Their construction as an energy company starts here and is further explored in this chapter following the construction of their “sustainable” practices and criminal background.

Sustainable Business Practices

This section addresses how Duke Energy and AEP construct claims about their business practices, specifically how they promote sustainability, progressive business initiatives, renewable energy, and how they potentially greenwash said claims and

(mis)actions. Both AEP and Duke Energy promote “cleaner, smarter energy” repeatedly in their websites, sustainability reports, and corporate accountability reports (Duke

Energy, 2015; American Electric Power, 2016). This section explores ways that this 45 claim is reinforced and what it means to be sustainable while being a leading GHG emitting corporation.

Both Duke Energy and AEP have a tab on their main website titled

“Environment.” They state under this page a general mission and then specific areas they focus on marketing. Some of their claims are presented in Table 2. Similar themes are present in both companies, for example, both include information on climate change and compliance. Overall, the “Environment” tab creates a sense of corporate social responsibility by including contributions to social, economic, and environmental benefits.

They construct an image of accountability, using keywords like advancing, improving, proactive, engaging, working, etc. These words frame each issue in a way that is future oriented, adaptive, and preventative, especially in the occurrence of a negative event such as a spill. This language reflects how their environmental communication on a larger scale is structured. It is representative of a larger pattern that extends to communicating about sustainability, change, and also criminality.

Table 2: Company Environment Website

Company Environment Statement Areas of Interest

Duke “We're committed to responsible Energy Efficiency, Global Climate Energy stewardship of the environment.”; Change, Renewable Energy, “Working for a clean energy Environmental Education; Air future.” Quality Initiatives, Water Quality & Shoreline Management, Ash Management & Safe Basin Closure, Compliance and Reporting, Habitat Protection, Sustainability

AEP “At AEP, we believe in protecting Climate Change, Emissions and the environment while delivering Compliance, Environmental News, affordable, reliable electricity. Corporate Accountability Report, Learn about our proactive policy Conservation and Outdoor engagements and the actions we're Recreation, FalconCam taking to meet mandatory and voluntary commitments.”

Specifically looking at climate change, AEP clearly defines their beliefs regarding the issue.

We believe: Climate change is a global issue that requires a global solution. Regulations addressing climate change should account for the current state of emissions-reducing technologies. Regulations should consider the significant emission reductions already achieved through the transition of our nation’s electricity generation fleet (Appendix C: 1).

Climate change continues to be framed as an omnipresent issue; however, AEP fails to address their contribution to the problem. They discuss their motives as to “reduce the environmental impact of our operations while providing reliable electricity for our customers.” In their promotion of the issue, they fail to state the harms of their emissions or the damages created due to pollutants or hazardous waste spills. They also discuss their motives as their own promotion, rather than communicating that, in many cases, 47 they are making these changes to cooperate with federally mandated laws they were in violation of. Instead, they present information such as their support for climate change policy initiatives and advancements in technology, such as the carbon dioxide capture and storage project and renewable energy. For AEP, quoting their renewable efforts and technological advancement is an excellent distraction from the environmental impacts, whether that is pollution or an accidental spill. Partaking in legal requirements does not mitigate the impacts to the environment. Being responsive to environmental regulations does not make them proactive in environmentalism; perhaps a more environmentally- friendly entity, but their actions are not driven by the most eco-friendly motivations.

Duke Energy’s “Global Climate Change” page focuses on their dedication to

“reducing our greenhouse gas footprint through our air & climate change initiatives.”

They focus on three initiatives: Carbon capture and storage, carbon disclosure project, and advancing low-carbon technologies. While these three initiatives are framed as sustainable, they are not necessarily being implemented everywhere.

One of the initiatives, the carbon disclosure project (CDP), is a survey sent annually to large companies but also collects data for cities, states and regions, which is meant to measure and manage environmental impacts by obtaining information about potential risks and opportunities surrounding climate change (CDP Worldwide, 2017).

Companies are then scored for disclosure (1-100) and performance (A-E). A high disclosure score indicates potential quality and completeness of the disclosure, where a high performance score indicates that the internal data management of a company has a firm understanding of risk and opportunity of climate change within corporation. A 48 performance letter is awarded when companies undertake or have undertaken positive initiatives to climate change action (supporting mitigation, adaptation, and transparency).

Duke Energy scored a 67C in 2013, and AEP scored a 68D. Duke Energy is also quoted in the CDP State by state: The business response to climate change across America report:

Climate change . . . is one of the largest macro-level issues facing our industry. As a result, it significantly influences our business strategies . . . One concrete example is in planning for new power plants to meet future customer demand— we directly incorporate climate change risk by evaluating a range of future prices

on CO2 emissions (CDP Worldwide, 2017).

Duke Energy and AEP also provide their responses to the questionnaire on their website, which allows for some comparison between the CDP score and their realistic goals, day to day functions, and progress (Appendix B: 2, Appendix C: 2). For example, the CDP asks, “Please explain why you do not consider your company to be exposed to inherent opportunities driven by physical climate parameters that have the potential to generate a substantive change in your business operations, revenue, or expenditure.”

Duke Energy responded that they have not

identified any potential opportunities . . . Potential future changes in climate change parameters outside normal weather variability, for which we currently plan, are highly speculative with regard to both magnitude and timing and are too uncertain to form the basis for the identification of potential opportunities. The business of generating and selling electricity is not one that stands to benefit from potential future yet highly uncertain changes in climate change parameters (Appendix B: 2).

This response is especially interesting in comparison to their statements regarding climate change on their website, frames their day-to-day actions to bring a “brighter, smarter energy future,” (Appendix B: 3) yet fails to explicitly state their stance on climate change 49 in this report and do not define it as a pressing issue like AEP does. It contradicts many of their stances on the environment, including their mission statement, which is discussed in the prior section. They chose to incorporate climate change into their business plan as an opportunity for increasing revenue and to promote the image of corporate social responsibility, rather than in consideration of the negative environmental impacts.

Climate change is not “normal weather variability,” and effects of climate change are not

“highly uncertain” and “speculative.” In this case, they are neutralizing harms of climate change by denying anything happened at all. This answer doubts climate change science by minimizing it to normal weather variability and unpredictable climatic changes.

Comparatively, AEP neglected to respond entirely to this question on the CDP; both companies deflect the entire conversation surrounding human causes of climate change, supportive scientific evidence, and the harms to humans and ecosystems produced by climate change.

Another way these companies deflect their contribution to the problem is through renewable energy. Renewable energy is very prevalent when searching either company’s recent news releases. Duke Energy’s response to the CDP indicates an interesting spin on the motivation to transition to renewable energy:

Environmental concerns related to emissions from electricity generation have prompted many states to enact legislation requiring increasing percentages of electricity from renewable resources . . . be delivered to retail customers. The various state requirements have created a demand for greater and greater amounts of electricity from renewable energy . . . Our pursuit of wind and solar energy project development in our commercial business has created a new revenue stream for the company that is directly tied to concerns related to climate change and the desire of state policy makers to reduce the environmental footprint of the electricity consumed in their states.

In other words, while Duke releases an excessive amount of news and promotion for renewable sources, in reality they are just following state mandated regulations to make this progressive transition to renewable energy. This is dangerous because of consumer reliance on advertising and corporate communication; claims of sustainability and environmentally conscious functioning obscures the truth (Futerra, 2008). The motivating factors they frame on their website are not entirely inclusive since they fail to address legal obligations of minimal renewable energy production, and instead focus on a continuous and increasing revenue stream. Their focus on sustainability and renewable energy is not because of a strong and proactive leadership, even though it is framed this way, it is simply the result of compliance of EPA enforced laws. It is also an area they have been charged with criminally, civilly, or with regard to regulations, fines, and violations.

Duke Energy and AEP not only promote CSR, but are recognized for their sustainability efforts. Duke Energy received multiple recognitions as stated in their

Sustainability Report in 2015, two of which directly relate to sustainability efforts. These recognitions will be compared to the recognitions received by AEP or lack thereof. Duke

Energy was ranked no. 111 (no. 7 in the utility industry) of 494 large companies based on corporate sustainability and environmental impact in the Newsweek Green Rankings

(Suarez, 2015; Duke Energy, 2015). Alongside partners Corporate Knights Capital and

HIP Investor, Newsweek ranks the largest companies (chosen based on market capital) by eight specific indicators: combined energy productivity, combined greenhouse gas productivity, combined water productivity, combined waste productivity, green revenue 51 score, green pay link, sustainability board committee, and audited environmental metrics.

Comparatively, AEP was ranked no. 263 in the Newsweek Green Rankings, which indicates they operate in considerably lesser sustainable ways than Duke Energy (Suarez,

2015).

The Dow Jones Sustainability Indices (DJSI) categorizes Duke Energy as one of the sustainable corporations of the 617 surveyed in the United States and Canada for the tenth consecutive year (S&P, 2016). Typically, corporations are rejected if they are not operating in a sustainable and ethical manner. DJSI measures a variety of areas within corporations, including economic, social, and environmental management plans. In searching the DJSI North America Index and World Index, AEP did not rank according to the Total Sustainability Score, which could suggest that the manner in which they are operating is unsustainable or unethical; they were invited to participate in the ranking, but it is unclear whether or not they participated (Robecosam, 2015). If they chose not to participate, this could indicate a contradiction between what they intend to promote

(sustainability and being a good environmental citizen) versus what they actually do on a day to day basis (i.e., produce vast amounts of air pollution, mitigate criminal charges, etc.). These recognitions are important to consider because they are rankings that are boasted about. It is something that is continuously discussed as a sign of their advancements in sustainability and renewable energy, and is depicted in larger images and text size compared to something like the fines and violations discussed in similar reports. 52

One claim frequently noted is that to become a more sustainable company, carbon

emissions must be reduced. AEP repeatedly expresses the 39% decrease in annual CO2 emissions between 2000 and 2016, and Duke Energy has reduced carbon emissions by

28% since 2005. Both corporations have similar emission rates, as was found in the initial

percentages provided by PERI (2016). AEP’s total annual CO2 emissions were

112,986,909 million tons in 2015, while Duke Energy’s emissions totaled 110,513,000 tons (American Electric Power, 2016; Duke Energy, 2015). These cuts are not necessarily voluntary, but are mandated through state and federal governments, such as President

Obama’s Climate Action Plan, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Power Plan (EPA, 2017).

Both corporations provide statistical evidence that they are reducing GHG emissions and moving towards a more sustainable future. However, they also report annual toxic chemical releases as mandated by the Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Act (EPA, 2017: TRI). The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) database provided by the EPA tracks the management of approximately 650 toxic chemicals that could pose a threat to humans and the environment. While useful to have this information publically available, the majority of releases that are reported annually are based on estimates provided by the corporations themselves; the accuracy of self-reported data is unknown. One study indicates that larger corporations are more likely than smaller to use the audit process (self-report), and they are more likely to report “violations as opposed to more serious emissions or permit violations” (Stretesky, 2006). This is particularly relevant when considering public policy. It suggests that the EPA and other regulatory institutions can do little to increase self-policing of environmental violations (Stretesky, 53

2006). The self-reports are not sufficient to conclude if a causal relationship exists between public exposure and negative health or environmental impacts; but this still warrants discussion because of known effects of chemicals introduced to ecosystems and within proximity to residences.

There is merit to understanding thee known effects of these chemicals, especially if they are emitted into the air or water systems, and when it is reported that 59 million people live within one mile of at least one of the facilities reporting to the TRI, roughly

18% of the United States population (EPA, 2014 TRI; U.S. Census July, 2015)3. AEP reported 25 chemicals in 2015, with data showing 41,588,180 (2014 data) pounds of toxic chemicals released (Appendix C: 3). Duke Energy reported 34,976,000 pounds released in 2014, a 71% decrease since 2007 (Duke Energy, 2015). It is unclear what chemicals

Duke Energy has reported to the TRI, only that they have released 34,976,000 pounds of toxic chemicals.

The TRI includes a section on “chemicals of special concern,” which can be defined as chemicals that are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBTs), and

remain in the environment for a long time where they tend to build up (bioaccumulate) in the tissue of organisms throughout the food web. These organisms serve as food sources for other organisms that are sensitive to the toxicities the chemicals cause (EPA, 2014 TRI).

AEP has several chemicals that meet this criteria, including lead, mercury,

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene, Polycyclic aromatic compounds, and dioxin. This is even more concerning because they are known or suspected carcinogens to human health and if not

3 QuickFacts provides statistics for all states and counties, and for cities and towns with a population of 5,000 or more. 54 disposed of properly, can be interwoven into the environment and the food web for a very long time. The most pervasive chemicals released by AEP are Hydrochloric Acid Aerosol

(63% of total TRI system releases to air in 2015), Barium (48% of total TRI system releases to land in 2015), and Ammonia (36% of total TRI system releases to water in

2015).

Legal amounts of emissions are allowed annually; however, even though it is legal does not mean it comes without harm. The Clean Air Task Force found that “over

7,500 deaths each year are attributable to fine particle pollution from U.S. power plants”

(2012). This is a significant decline from previous years; 24,000 deaths were attributable to fine particle pollution in 2004 and that decreased to about 13,000 in 2010. While this is declining, certain regions and populations are more likely to be exposed to pollution. This has been mapped out by the Clean Air Task Force as can be seen in Appendix D (2012), but this information can also be reinforced by looking at PERI’s analysis of Duke Energy and AEP (2016) and EJScreen (EPA, 2016). Overall, the construction of sustainability is not transparent; there are many claims that can be deconstructed through understanding the criminality of these companies.

Criminality

Duke Energy and AEP repeatedly construct an image of their corporations as being proactive in becoming sustainable, evolving, and moving forward to a cleaner, safer, and more environmentally-friendly industry. In this section, these claims are examined in light of the civil and criminal cases, settlements, fines, and violations. Most 55 of the content covered compares press releases about environmental violations, and how they greenwash their criminality as “doing good business.”

One such case began in 2000 in the state of North Carolina when allegations emerged that Duke Energy violated the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and New

Source Review (NSR) program by dramatically modifying twenty-five coal fired units without obtaining the required permits and also without installing proper technology for pollution control. Several environmental groups, concerned about potential risk of the modifications, shed light on this issue. The concern of these groups transcended into a lawsuit, and in a 2007 Supreme Court Case, the EPA announced Duke Energy must apply

PSD provisions to the modifications, largely influenced by the fact that the company had increased the GHG emissions within the plant through avoiding these modifications.

Finally, the EPA and the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a consent decree where

Clean Air Act violations resulted in a $4.4 million settlement for mitigation projects in

2015 (EPA, 2015 Duke Energy Corporation Clean Air Act Settlement), as well as a fine of $975,000.

Between September 10, 2015 and September 29, 2015, Duke Energy released eight news releases. One of these releases detailed the government agreement, which discussed the case background and agreement details (Appendix B: 4). Just nineteen days later, they released another statement explaining that the settlement with the state

“advances . . . efforts to close coal ash basins in ways that protect people and the environment.” Instead of admitting to increasing GHG emissions and increased use of natural resources, Duke frames the settlement to benefit their public image. They state 56 that, “Operating our system safely and protecting the health and well-being of our plant neighbors are our highest priorities” (Appendix B: 5). Duke Energy used the settlement to advance environmentally and economically friendly messages, all the while denying their responsibility while discussing their “alleged” wrongdoings. This directly relates to greenwashing, using irrelevant claims about safety, advancing facilities, and increasing revenues to divert attention from the criminal prosecutions (Futerra, 2008).

Another interesting angle published in The Charlotte Observer states, “Duke has long argued that the modifications were part of routine maintenance that did not require pollution control improvements” (Simmons, 2015). In Duke Energy’s statement, they claimed that they “complied fully with federal law, and is agreeing to settle the case solely to avoid the costs and uncertainties of continued litigation.” After a fifteen year struggle between the company and the state, they settled to avoid “uncertainties.” Perhaps these uncertainties would have required Duke Energy to admit their criminality, but to avoid this they paid over $5 million to settle. Because these settlements are built into their budget, this may not seem like a financial burden for these companies. However, this speaks volumes to the level of struggle and commitment these companies go to in avoiding compliance to environmental regulations, as they would rather pay an enormous fine than make legal modifications to their operations infrastructure. Politically, admitting to being negligent could have severe impacts on their power and control within the political climate; taking these strides to avoid admittance of guilt is a strategic move for them in the long run that ultimately is good PR for them. 57

For another example, Duke Energy continued to make illegal modifications in years to come to plants in Indiana. These modifications “caused significant increases in

sulfur dioxide (SO2).” Duke Energy made these modifications without complying with pre-construction regulations, such as obtaining permits and using “state-of-the-art pollution control technology.” In 2009, the EPA determined they had violated the Clean

Air Act and the Indiana State Implementation Plan because of their lack of preparation

(EPA, 2016 Duke Energy Gallagher Plant Clean Air Act Settlement). Duke Energy paid

$93 million to dissolve this issue, with a $1.75 million civil penalty. As part of the

resolution, it anticipated SO2 emissions would be reduced by nearly 86%. The pollutants

under this settlement, including SO2, have a multitude of negative health effects including tremors, emotional changes, neuromuscular changes, heart attacks, visual impairment,

and premature death. SO2 can also influence preexisting conditions like respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, bronchitis, emphysema, lung disease, asthma, and respiratory infections. There are also major negative environmental effects, such as acid rain, smog, haze, ground-level ozone, particulate matter, global warming, and water quality deterioration. They do not discuss that part though; they simply use economic power to avoid admitting guilt4. Duke Energy does not provide news releases prior to

2012 on their website, therefore their comment on the violations in Indiana in 2009 are unavailable.

4 Duke Energy does not provide news releases prior to 2012 on their website, therefore their comment on the violations in Indiana in 2009 are unavailable.

Duke Energy had one major criminal case reported in 2015 (EPA, 2017 Case

Summary). The EPA’s criminal enforcement program is responsible for investigating and assisting in prosecution of negligent environmental violations; they share their major criminal cases annually on their website. Due to a release of coal ash into Dan River in

Eden, North Carolina, the river now contains “unburned carbon and various metals including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium and zinc.” The spill extended 70 miles downstream from the original accident site. This spill is problematic because the Dan River watershed is home to two identified endangered species, is a recreational body of water for fishing, canoeing, and kayaking, and is a source of drinking water for livestock and residents in North Carolina and Virginia. Duke

Energy agreed to enter a $3 million cleanup agreement with the EPA for this coal ash release, one of the largest cases for the EPA in 2015.

Duke made the following statement about this case:

Today's decision by Judge Malcolm Howard officially closes this chapter in our company's history. We've used the Dan River incident as an opportunity to set a new, industry-leading standard for the management of coal ash. We are implementing innovative and sustainable closure solutions for all of our ash basins, building on the important steps we've taken over the past year to strengthen our operations. Our highest priority is to operate our system as safely as possible for the customers and communities we serve (Appendix B: 6).

In this statement, they use the incident as an “opportunity” rather than calling it an accident or negative occurrence. This framing of the spill as a chance to better the company represents a more positive understanding of the event, rather than the negative interpretation. Using the words “sustainable,” “safely,” and “innovative” is an example of how the spill is greenwashed. Duke Energy emphasizes through this release that they 59 have learned their lesson, but they do not acknowledge the harms they have created and the hazards of using fossil fuels and its byproducts. This presentation helps to construct

Duke Energy as a corporation that is socially responsible, in response to a spill extending

70 miles and impacting endangered animals, livestock, human drinking water, and outdoor activities. The news release continues to describe the “progressive,” “meaningful progress and improvement” regarding coal ash management during the last year, concluding with information about the company’s assets, the vast population it serves, a

“growing portfolio of renewable energy assets,” and stock information. Subsequent news releases continue to update about ash basin closures (Appendix B: 7, 8), plans to ban the coal era (Appendix B: 9, 10), coal ash recycling (Appendix B: 11), and bettering coal ash management. Another company initiative following the spill was to raise CEO Lynn

Good’s salary by $50,000 the year following the spill (Darrow, 2015). Comparing these actions and statements to the image of sustainability this company promotes, it seems

Duke Energy is contradictory; they have a professed mission that advocates environmentally-friendly actions, but act in the opposite manner.

Table 3 shows Duke Energy’s total Environmental Regulatory Citations from

2011-2015. As shown, 2015 had a significant increase in fines and penalties, as response to the Dan River spill that occurred in 2014 (Sustainability Report, 2015).

Table 3: Duke Energy Environmental Regulatory Citations5

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Citations 25 16 16 33 9

Fines/Penalties $14,682 $128,562 $1,006,935 $236,058 $114,585,735

Notably, 2015 had a significant increase in Environmental Regulatory Citations.

The settlement in 2015 was already discussed, but they do not disclose in their

Sustainability Report the cases or violations that these citations result from, such as the

$4.4 million Dan River “opportunity” previously discussed. This is a significant amount of money to pay and not disclose to shareholders or the public where these citations are coming from. It can be speculated that Duke Energy is trying to divert attention away from their criminality, or at the bare minimum use techniques of neutralization to indicate their actions are not as harmful as they seem. Whether it is a small fine or one of the largest criminal cases the EPA handles in a year, or something more consumer and shareholder friendly such as sustainability rankings and advancements in renewable energy and new technology, they avoid responsibility for the harms produced. Are these fines representative of the multiple harms and risks they pose to society and the environment? It is unlikely, and it is unlikely consumers will discontinue use of these companies if they recognize the risk: criminally and sustainably.

5 The Sustainability Report does not indicate if the dollar amount presented holds the year 2015 as a constant. 61

Comprehensive and complete reports about AEP’s total amount of citations are not disclosed6 indicating transparency issues on behalf of the company. Barak says that the “omission of certain types of criminality is equally if not more important than the types of criminality included . . . state criminality or these criminal and civil violations by the U.S. government of individuals’ fundamental rights need to be uncovered and exposed” (1994: 33). Corporate criminality can also relate to this quote, because of the large influence these corporations have. However, case by case analysis can still provide a snapshot into their Environmental Regulatory Citations and criminality. In the single largest environmental enforcement settlement (measured in terms of injunctive relief7),

AEP reached a settlement agreement in October of 2007 with eight states and thirteen citizen groups8 under the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review provisions, relieving sixteen of AEP’s coal-fired power plants (46 units total) in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio,

Virginia, and West Virginia. AEP was estimated to spend more than $4.6 billion to comply with the consent decree agreed upon by the states and citizen groups (EPA, 2016

American Electric Power). Notably, this settlement is the largest settlement measuring

6 Extensive research from a multitude of sources did not uncover details of these fines and violations. While Duke Energy clearly admits to their faults in their Sustainability Report, the fact that AEP does not show their fines and violations regarding environmental laws speaks to their lack of transparency regarding criminality. 7 A court-ordered act or prohibition against an act that has been requested in a petition to the court for an injunction. Usually injunctive relief is granted only after a hearing at which both sides have an opportunity to present testimony and legal arguments (Cornell University Law School 2017). 8 The following eight states joined as plaintiffs in the case: New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maryland, and Rhode Island. The following citizen groups also joined as plaintiffs: Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, United States Public Interest Research Group, Izaak Walton League of America, Ohio Citizen Action, Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Hoosier Environmental Council, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, West Virginia Environmental Council, Clean Air Council, Indiana Wildlife Federation, and the League of Ohio Sportsmen.

62 pollution reductions under the operations of the Clean Air Act (CAA) stationary source.

Once AEP implements all of the necessary changes, the settlement will have reduced

813,000 tons of air pollution at 16 power plants annually. Environmental benefits included reductions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides9. It also estimated that the

United States would save about $32 billion annually “in avoided health-related costs associated with respiratory and cardiopulmonary illnesses, including asthma and heart attacks” (EPA, 2016 American Electric Power). With existing health disparities for those who struggle with poverty, malnutrition, and natural disaster effects, disease will be exacerbated by climate change; human health impacts are a core issue within the climate change arena (Patz, Gibbs, Foley, Rogers, & Smith, 2007). AEP was expected to pay a civil penalty of $15 million, and an additional $60 million “on projects to mitigate the adverse effects of its past excess emissions.” (EPA, 2016 American Electric Power).

After an eight year battle, the closure for this settlement required no admittance from AEP to any crimes. Chairman, president, and CEO at the time, Michael Morris, issued the following statement included in the press release following the settlement:

Since November 1999, when the initial complaint was filed by the government, we have remained firm in our belief that we operated our plants in compliance with the New Source Review provisions. That remains our position today. But we have also said that we would be willing to consider ways to reasonably resolve these issues. This consent decree represents such a resolution. It recognizes the billions we have spent on environmental retrofits at our plants as part of ongoing

9 Nitrogen oxides: NOx cause a variety of health problems and adverse environmental impacts, such as ground-level ozone, acid rain, PM, global warming, water quality deterioration, and visual impairment. NOx play a major role, along with volatile organic chemicals, in the atmospheric reactions that produce ozone. Sulfur dioxide: High concentrations of sulfur dioxide affect breathing and may aggravate existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease. Sensitive populations include asthmatics, individuals with bronchitis or emphysema, children, and the elderly. Sulfur dioxide is also a primary contributor to acid deposition, or acid rain (EPA 2016 American Electric Power).

business and the significant emissions reductions achieved at our plants. It also takes into account our existing plans for additional environmental retrofits on other plants. The mitigation projects included in the agreement are the types of activities that we have often undertaken on our own. And most importantly, this agreement enables us to make much-needed efficiency improvements at our plants without fear of additional NSR allegations (Appendix C: 4).

Morris constructs this claim about the consent decree as a recognition of AEP’s billions already spent to meet CAA NSR regulations, but also frames the decree in a way that makes the mitigation projects seem like an opportunity rather than a burden on the company. Morris even makes it a point to include that these activities are ones they “have often undertaken on our own,” framing their company as responsible and proactive in environmental concerns. The keyword “retrofit” helps portray the absent but legally necessary pollution control technology as a way to increase “efficiency” and improve their current infrastructure, when in reality they were violating existing regulations, and continued to do so for eight years during the length of the litigation. The language used in

Morris’s greenwashed statement exemplifies the irrelevant claims made to deflect the damages they created through violating these laws.

Not only is the statement greenwashed as an environmental benefit and improvement for the company, but it is also framed as beneficial economically for shareholders. Morris states, “This settlement is an excellent outcome for our shareholders. It eliminates the potentially significant financial risk of pursuing the litigation to its conclusion while still achieving the environmental improvements that both we and the government want” (Appendix C: 4). Again, focusing on the positive framing of a multibillion dollar settlement that inherently will trickle down to the energy consumers is the stance both of these companies portray. 64

The data presented in this section presents a snapshot of how corporate social responsibility can be framed by deterring or avoiding criminality. Even when Duke

Energy and AEP acknowledge their criminality, the companies greenwash their wrongdoings as opportunities for advancement rather than simply compliance with federal law. Theoretically, techniques of neutralization exemplify how Duke Energy and

AEP greenwash and frame their misconduct: they often use denial of injury for example, either diverting attention away from the harms they have produced, or completely ignoring that angle completely. Almost always they appeal to a higher loyalty, suggesting even though they were penalized, their actions are now for the “greater good,” it is a chance to implement better technology and reduce their ecological footprint. They neutralize their actions and justify them in a way that makes their lawbreaking seem harmless, meaningless, or even misunderstood.

Another way to understand their actions is applying Michalowski and Kramer’s

(2006) integrated model of state-corporate crime. Actions are analyzed generally by both corporations in two levels of analysis: institutional environment and organizational. Table

4 summarizes Duke Energy and AEP’s state-corporate crime framework.

Table 4: Duke Energy and AEP’s State-Corporate Crime Framework10

Levels of Catalyst for action: Catalyst for action: Catalyst for action: Analysis Motivation Opportunity Control

Institutional  Culture of  Obstacles and  Legal sanctions Environment competition constraints  Media scrutiny  Economic  Blocked  Public opinion pressure goals/strain  Organizational  Availability of goals illegal means  Access to resources

Organizational  Operative  Creation of illegal  Culture of goals means compliance  Managerial  Technologies  Subcultures of pressure  Normalization of resistance deviance  Safety and quality control

The levels of analysis differ in that the institutional environment level of analysis focuses on the macro-level political, historical, and economic circumstances, whereas the organizational level addresses social actors (AEP, Duke Energy, DOJ, and EPA) more specifically and how they potentially intersect. Looking at the motivation catalyst for action at the institutional environment level, the capitalistic economy in which we live in promotes competition amongst businesses at any level. Industry companies are constantly at “war” with each other to produce higher revenues, gain more customers, and expand as businesses. This competition inherently ties in with economic pressure; if your company

10 The original model includes an interactional level of analysis. Because this research takes a macro approach in looking at corporations as a whole, the interactional level was not seen as beneficial to this specific analysis. 66 is not growing, it is understood that it must not be successful or thriving. Organizational goals of society’s elite (corporate executives and government officials) dictate what is relevant in today’s climate. Unfortunately, the corporate bottom line and economic gains are prioritized over environmental conservation; the fact that company budgets incorporate money to pay fines and violations illustrates how they neutralize their actions. They ensure their political actors will also help them advance revenues; connections with policymakers are a huge benefit economically and an important investment that companies make. Health risks are ignored in order to divert attention to economic success and “the American Dream.” Techniques of neutralization can be referenced here as an appeal to higher authorities. In a macro perspective, their appeal to increase economic gain is more important than maintaining a healthy society and sustainable business practices. And in reality their appeal to higher authorities in the political realm are the policymakers they lobby to create laws that will benefit the corporations.

Opportunities at the institutional environment level include obstacles and constraints, blocked goals/strain, availability of illegal means, and access to resources. As a whole, legal obstacles and constraints can be mitigated; the government can strategically word policy to create loopholes in regulations that make things easier for corporations. Several examples can be seen in policy; it has facilitated in preventing the complete enforcement of regulations for emission standards, waste cleanup, and the products that companies such as those in the fossil fuel industry use (such as the Clean

Air Act, Clean Power Plan). Such policies prevent companies from achieving the goals of 67 maximizing profits while minimizing expenditures. Availability of illegal means, as discussed above, can be avoided for extended periods of time. When AEP settled in 2007, they had multiple violations of policy (that were meant to create blocked goals); however, they were emitting tons of pollution in sixteen locations without proper infrastructure.

The current infrastructure served as the illegal means to advance the production of electricity. Obviously, electric industries have access to resources that are harmful in many ways, but are legally allowed (fossil fuels such as coal).

The final catalyst for control at the institutional environment level is legal scrutiny. Legal scrutiny (criminal and civil cases presented in this research) and media scrutiny (which, arguably, does not have much control over the harmful decisions and actions Duke Energy and AEP partake in) are heavily shaped by public opinion. This is framed in the multiple news and press releases of the companies, but also through news media, and government agencies. If the public is informed, they should be wary of the legal sanctions against corporations and critically examine the media scrutiny. As addressed previously, in our current political climate, the United States has a problem of science deniability. This is another example of how the two companies use denial of injury as well as denial of responsibility (techniques of neutralization). They may accept responsibility, but claim their actions were not damaging to the environment or society. If they do not accept responsibility, they claim actions as accidents, or push the blame to other entities that have failed.

At the organizational level, the catalyst for action motivation presents operative goals and managerial pressure. This overlaps with the institutional environment level in 68 analysis in many cases, the goals of Duke Energy and AEP are not to reduce harms to society, ecosystems, and animals, but to maximize profits. At a managerial level, if necessary, they can execute pressures to continue to operate even if in an illegal manner.

Oftentimes, it can be assumed workers are not aware that infrastructure is not up to regulations and that emissions exceed federal law.

Opportunity for crime at the organizational level includes creation (social construction) of illegal means, technologies, and normalization of deviance. Technology exists for companies to reduce their carbon footprint, yet they continue to use outdated and illegal technologies that better fit their institutional goals of increasing economic gains and growing the company and its bottom line as efficiently as possible. Such normalization of deviance occurs in two different ways: techniques of neutralization (by denying responsibility and admitting to their criminality) and the state lacking to implement policy to reduce environmental harms and effectively holding companies responsible in a decent time frame.

Finally, controls that exist at the organizational level are culture of compliance, subcultures of resistance, and safety and quality control. A culture of compliance exists in the form of policy and social institutions such as the DOJ and EPA. Companies and workers often comply with policy, at a macro-level (EPA) or at a micro-level (employee handbook). However, subcultures of resistance at a more mid- or micro- level also have an impact on compliance. Organizations such as the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and other larger organizations also are beneficial in spreading awareness about such issues, including the IPCC, United Nations, World Wildlife Fund, etc. They can also be 69 influential in urging the public, organizations, and the government to make changes to increase safety and quality control (which can include anything from lowering pollution to better working conditions). Unfortunately, because the accuracy of self-reported emissions is not always correct, we cannot know for sure how well these controls work.

Again, while not necessarily always effective because of limited resources to regulate all entities, certainly the EPA performs as a huge social actor that does have some positive effects in holding these corporations accountable for their actions.

These two levels of analysis present the actions taken at a macro-level by multiple institutions and then with a special look at Duke Energy and AEP. They represent how their actions can be constructed as a state-corporate crime. Motivations are present, opportunity is presented to operate in an illegal manner, and with little control, committing crime is not seen as problematic. Duke Energy and AEP neutralize the situation when confronted with fines, violations, and criminal prosecutions to minimize their role in crime, and the state fails to address their wrong doings in a timely manner. In cases when companies are self-reporting their emissions and wrong doings, the state is not checking to see if they are following through with mandated laws.

This is all made possible with the enormous power wielded by the companies examined in this analysis and their ability to influence politics through access to governance processes. I now turn to this third and final component of my analysis. 70

Political Climate11

As discussed, Duke Energy and AEP construct a portrayal of corporate social responsibility, making efforts to better their business practices to increase jobs, provide efficient service to consumers, and reduce their environmental impact. However, state- corporate crime framework contradicts their mission statements, constructed claims on their website, and news sources. This section focuses on how they are politically active in promoting or influencing policy changes. Specifically, Political Action Committees

(PACs) and lobbying expenditures are examined as a focus of economic influence in politics that ultimately makes corporate crime normative.

Class dominance theory of power should be introduced to help coherently express the importance of Duke Energy and AEP’s spending. According to Domhoff, “The upper class of owners and high-level executives, based in the corporate community, is a dominant class . . . the cumulative effect of its various distributive powers leads to a situation where its policies are generally accepted by most Americans” (2006). This is created through a structural economic power. The ability to control goods and services, employment, and policy gives companies the ability to implement a complex policy planning network where they are essentially representing the upper class. They have given the corporate community unity wherein economic issues and social cohesion are combined and has given the community a sustainable dominant class where they have the

11 All figures presented in this section have adjusted dollars spent to the inflation rate in 2016.

71 power to control the political climate of the United States. This theory can be seen in action through Duke Energy and AEP by addressing their political involvement.

Political Action Committees (PACs)

Duke Energy and AEP both utilize PACs in numerous election cycles. PAC refer to a committee organized “for the purpose of raising and spending money to elect and defeat candidates” (Center for Responsive Politics, 2017). PACs can be representative of business, labor, or ideological affairs, and can give a maximum of $5,000 to a candidate per election. Below, Figure 1 indicates AEP spending for cycles 2004, 2008, 2012, and

2016 (presidential election cycles), and Figure 2 shows spending for Duke Energy in the same cycles.

Figure 1: American Electric Power PAC Spending 2004-2016 Election Cycles 72

Figure 2: Duke Energy PAC Spending 2004-2016 Election Cycles

Perhaps the most obvious point to address in both of these figures is the significant disparity between Democratic and Republican spending. Both companies had notable increases in spending for Republicans. Overall, AEP spending for Democrats declined from 2004-2016, and Duke Energy spent slightly more on Democrats, but that is not comparable to the increases in Republican spending.

This is important for several reasons. By supporting more Republicans, it can be implied that Duke Energy and AEP support the political issues and stances of that party more so than the issues and stances of the Democratic Party. In terms of climate change,

Democratic Congresses tend to seek scientific evidence for global climate change and advance energy-regulatory policies with a focus on mobilizing environmentalists and scientific knowledge. In contrast, Republican Congresses tend to expand the climate change debates and conflicts by bringing in a diversified set of witnesses, focusing on the implications of international climate negotiations and economic impacts of policy changes, and mobilizing pro-industrial sectors and non-scientific opinions (Park, Liu, & Vedlitz, 2014). 73

If Republicans are still questioning climate change and promoting it as a topic that is still up for debate, they are not going to mobilize and support climate change policies. Duke

Energy and AEP claim to support advances in climate change policies that reduce carbon emissions and promote renewable energy, but that is not what their PAC spending indicates. This suggests the companies are contradicting their claims by spending more

PAC dollars for Republicans than for Democrats.

PAC spending is also relevant following the election of President Donald Trump.

The “climate change denialism of the Trump Administration” (Foster, 2017) will continue to oppose policies that are anti-fossil fuels and anti-big business, which indicates that the United States is not going to see many changes regarding companies like Duke Energy and AEP. Divestment from fossil fuels is the furthest thing from

Trump’s plan, which includes pulling out from the Paris Climate Agreement, dismantling the Clean Power Plan, expediting approval of pipeline projects, and picking candidates such as former Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State (Foster, 2017). United

States involvement in climate change policy is imperative as a global power, and in the alarming situation we are in, “any world-wide effort to reduce carbon emissions will be severely jeopardized” (Foster, 2017). While corporations continue to support a political party with these agendas, climate change is being given significantly less consideration as a social issue. President Trump’s climate change denial is starkly contrasted to the steps

President Barack Obama made to ensure a more environmentally-friendly nation.

President Obama’s administration increased wind and solar energy, decreased carbon emissions, and imported less oil to the United States (2016 President Obama on Climate 74

& Energy). These are just a few examples of the changes the Obama administration pursued and also foretells how this will likely dramatically change in the Trump

Administration.

Lobbying

Lobbying is also a tactic heavily used by Duke Energy and AEP. Lobbying, aside from contributions in the form of donations made by PACs, seeks to influence the direction of legislation and government regulations. Lobbyists can include individuals from corporations, labor unions, or other organizations, and spend billions of dollars each year to influence the way in which politicians vote and what issues they push. The following Figures 3 and 4 indicate corporate spending on lobbying during the most recent presidential election cycles.

Figure 3: American Electric Power Lobbying Spending 2004-2016 Election Cycles

Figure 4: Duke Energy Lobbying Spending 2004-2016 Election Cycles

In 2016, Duke Energy and AEP had the third and fourth highest lobbying expenditures for the electric utilities industry. They were in the top six highest spenders for the 2012 and 2008 election cycles. Discussing electric utility spending more generally for lobbying, this industry monitors a variety of issues in Washington, including clean air regulation and waste storage. “The industry made roughly $21.6 million in political contributions, with 62 percent going to Republicans and 38 percent to

Democrats.” (Center for Responsive Politics, 2017 Electric Industries). Like PAC spending, Duke Energy and AEP, as with other electric industry companies, support

Republican interests more than the Democratic Party. Recently, Duke Energy said they want to cut payments they make to independent power producers of solar and other renewable energy sources by 30% (Downey, 2017). This reflects how their political spending does not align with the sustainability mission they claim in their online 76 communications; it even contradicts current research on preferred energy consumption of voters. For example,

A new poll sponsored by Conservatives for Clean Energy reveals that more than 83 percent of North Carolina voters polled said they would be more likely to support a lawmaker or candidate who supports policies that encourage renewable energy options such as solar, wind, and swine and poultry waste (Sorg, 2017).

The immense amount of money spent on lobbyists by the polluter-industrial complex12 is not comparable to the resources available to environmentalists and the environmental movement (Faber, 2008: 97). Corporate lobbyists may well be writing the policies for politicians (Lipton, Protess, & Lehren, 2017), and those lobbyists who want to eliminate the carbon emissions restrictions and continue with environmentally destructive habits in exchange for profit will have that power. “Corporations, banks, and agribusinesses form a corporate community that shapes the federal government on the policy issues of interest to it, issues that have a major impact on the income, job security, and well-being of most other Americans” (Domhoff, 2006). Representatives elected to run our federal bureaucracy include CEOs “of environmentally destructive corporations and financial institutions but also lawyers, lobbyists, policy analysts, academics, and other officials working on behalf of these same companies” (Faber, 2008: 79). The large campaign contributions, advocacy of policy by hired experts, and easy access to mass media give the corporate community the ability to shape opinions of leaders and political parties nationally; and largely control the entity of the executive branch.

12 Sectors of business that would stand to profit the most from a weakening of the liberal regime of environmental regulation. 77

This angle is valuable to discuss because millions of dollars Duke Energy and

AEP are using to annually to lobby Congress and federal agencies; who then make major contributions to the overall political climate of the United States. They use their currency to influence our government. For those who cannot afford a big-money lobbying firm, the likelihood that their concerns are heard by officials is unlikely. Because of the vast spending through PACs and lobbying, corporations become “the premier investors in

American politics . . . [with] greater political access . . . and special privileges . . . denied to ordinary citizens.” Thus, “the power elite largely dominates the political agendas of both the Republican and Democratic parties” (Faber, 2008:72-73). They also have control over many positions within the executive branch, with president’s filling “key behind-the-scenes jobs with lawyers and lobbyists plucked from the industries they now regulate” (Faber, 2008: 79). This leads to the revolving door:

a door that shuffles former federal employees into jobs as lobbyists, consultants and strategists just as the door pulls former hired guns into government careers. While officials in the executive branch, Congress and senior congressional staffers spin in and out of the private and public sectors, so too does privilege, power, access and, of course, money (Center for Responsive Politics, 2017 The Revolving Door).

President Trump is closely intertwined with the polluter-industrial complex through his commitment to not acknowledging climate change as a national (social) problem and cutting environmental regulations to support corporations he has ties to. The appointments of select government appointees demonstrate the revolving door with our current elected officials. This is a disadvantage for the general public, whose voices are not heard because they cannot funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into PACs and lobbying efforts, let alone afford the process to become a representative in politics. The 78 power they hold compared to the power the U.S. has to sanction is beyond simply greenwashing.

To further understand power and elitist power in the United States, in the words of C. Wright Mills:

They way to understand the power of the American elite lies neither solely in recognizing the historic scale of events nor in accepting the personal awareness reported by men of apparent decision . . . These hierarchies of state and corporation and army constitute the means of power; as such they are now of a consequence not before equaled in human history—and at their summits, there are now those command posts of modern society which offer us the sociological key to an understanding of the role of the higher circles in America (1956: 5).

Mills argues no other social institution holds comparative levels of power in shaping

America than economic, political, and military domains. Power can also be constructed through power indications: Who benefits, who governs, and who wins (Domhoff, 2006:

13). For example, corporations who have wealth and distribute incomes will benefit; by owning this means in excess than the general public, they have the ability to govern those means. Companies who are successful in governing those means will likely ‘win’ through influence over policy. Duke Energy and AEP, as part of the corporate community, hold significant control over information, knowledge, and power. When companies are so influential in politics, it is less likely they will wield to challenges from regulating forces or from the general public.

Discussion

This section has revealed the approaches Duke Energy and AEP take to construct claims about their business practices, relations to sustainability, and incorporation of climate change into their business plan. While they promote a public image of corporate 79 social responsibility and environmentally conscious infrastructure and values, they also have millions (Duke) and billions (AEP) of dollars tied up in criminal prosecutions, civil fines and penalties, and environmental regulatory citations. The polluter-industrial complex exacerbates this by cutting corners to ensure increased revenue, even if it decreases environmental protection and the livelihood of society by contributing to climate change. They are willing to break a few laws or sacrifice a small population (in the way of creating health problems) to expand their company through shareholders, energy production, and consumerism. The abundancy of cases against them through the

Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Justice, and citizen groups speak to the enormity of their negligence. Even though, in most settlements, the companies never admitted to negligent acts or criminal involvement, the vast spending and changes implemented by law to current operations by Duke Energy and AEP indicate their actions are environmentally destructive and their solutions are merely abiding by the laws, not making a proactive stance on environmentally-friendly solutions.

Press or news releases regarding hazardous waste spills or civil and criminal settlements were framed in a manner that made the illegal activities a positive opportunity to further promote their alleged values of carbon-reducing, environmentally- friendly operations, and advance their revenues by becoming more involved in renewable energy. Somehow the multi-million dollar spending to government agencies (DOJ, EPA), states, and citizen groups could benefit investors. They greenwashed environmentally irresponsible actions as positive opportunities for renewable development in place of the 80 illegal infrastructure they were persecuted for, and framed it positively when communicating with consumers, investors, and policymakers.

A major issue facilitated by the companies and with policymakers is PAC and lobbying spending. Spending copious amounts on political entities gives them significant power in influencing policy. They then have the ability to create policy that could potentially reduce carbon emissions, reduce regulation of the electric industry, or get rid of existing policy that supports climate change. They can also change the minds of the policymakers to vote one way or another on said policies. Control over political matters can dominate environmental policy. Because spending leans towards conservatives, it is likely they are doing these things rather than supporting environmental spending, especially due to their criminal actions, substantial fines, and violations.

Duke Energy and AEP self-promote sustainable business practices, but also receive recognition from other sources. This chapter also showed the multiple recognitions both companies received from Newsweek Green Rankings, Dow Jones

Sustainability Indices, and the Carbon Disclosure Project. Those recognitions were then used to promote the public image of sustainability and corporate social responsibility on

Duke Energy and AEP’s websites and their own corporate reports. Framing the corporations and recognizing them as outstanding companies who care about the environment and issues of climate change improves their public image further and gains more credibility when they have rankings acknowledging their actions. It neglects to disclose the criminality; they tend to underreport this information or leave it out 81 altogether. Even though the companies report news releases about the settlements, it is positively framed and therefore often ignored.

The numerous spills, pollution, and release of hazardous waste not only damage the environment but have negative health effects on surrounding populations. Many of the chemicals and other materials spilled such as ash and carbon releases come with a list of negative health effects, ranging from lower risk problems such as asthma or respiratory infections, to life threatening disease and illnesses such as cancer and cardiovascular diseases. Wildlife, livestock, endangered animals, plant life, and ecosystems are threatened by the possible hazards of chemical release and unregulated business practices. The many cases against Duke Energy and AEP show that continued disregard for environmental law and regulations pose a threat to communities and the natural world.

It is evident that many greenwashing tactics are used by these companies. By reviewing company websites, specifically the environment sections, AEP uses fluffy language to promote their efforts on environmentalism, climate change issues, corporate social responsibility, etc. They use suggestive pictures, as seen in Figure 5, to indicate a green impact rather than a polluting impact. They use best in class tactics; sustainability rankings in multiple publications make it seem they are making less of a negative impact than others. Perhaps the most interesting is the use of irrelevant claims; emphasis on topics such as conservation, outdoor recreation, and the FalconCam

(http://aep.com/environment/falconcam/) persuades the audience to believe that AEP’s actions are helping conserve wildlife and promote outdoor activities. 82

Figure 5: AEP Greenwashing Images

Duke Energy uses greenwashing tactics as well: fluffy language (“committed to responsible stewardship of the environment”), suggestive pictures (see Figure 6), best in class (sustainability rankings), and “gobbledygook,” (i.e., scientific consensus about ash basin closures) to name a few examples (Appendix B: 12). They use social construction language such as “experts” to give credibility to groups and organizations within the company to verify their reports or “claims.” The way that environmental issues are communicated is fabricated as positive, enlightening, and diverting attention from the harsh realities like environmental degradation, inequality, and climate change these companies are tied into.

Figure 6: Duke Energy Greenwashing Images

I argue that greenwashing is inherently tied to criminality. The state-corporate crime framework shows trends that can be applied to many companies, specifically electric utilities. This is not the only framework to understand their involvement in crime.

Returning to White’s (2012) framework addressed in Chapter 2, he addresses the criminality of climate change and says it can be analyzed in four ways. Duke Energy and

AEP are contributors to climate change, have associated offenses from criminal activities currently monitored by the EPA, and regulatory offenses related to collusion because of their failure to implement up-to-date carbon technologies and comply with federal law.

This further helps exemplify how sustainability, criminality, and politics intertwine through corporate (mis)actions.

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS

This chapter summarizes the research presented, indicating limitations, contributions to existing literature, and considerations for future research regarding corporate communications about the environment and criminality. Further, this chapter presents potential directions for future research by introducing questions that arose during my own research.

Concluding Remarks

This project sought to reveal the construction of corporate language about climate change, criminal activities, and the importance of applying this to the current political climate. This is, perhaps, more crucial than ever before.

If natural science has taught us that the rapid pace of anthropogenic climate change threatens to destroy the planet as a home for humanity, then we must turn to social science to understand the actual social causes of climate change, and the necessary solutions (Foster, 2017).

One of these solutions is decreasing GHG emissions. By focusing on two of the largest

GHG emitters in the United States, a global power and influential country in the world economy, deconstruction of claims-making can start to grasp the lack of attention corporations and governments are giving to the issue of climate change. This blatant disregard in communicating and acting on a dire social issue can be categorized as state- corporate crime. Scholars and policymakers need to continue exemplifying the existence of state-corporate crime and present examples; these actions are criminal, therefore those responsible should be penalized.

Understanding the social construction of climate change within business frameworks, crime, and politics needs to be an omnipresent issue. Politically, denying or 85 accepting climate change is a huge statement to the credibility of science. It also has implications on laws and regulations and determines what is legal and illegal. Different political parties have different missions for climate change and law; the law will dictate what is or is not criminal for these corporations, it can enable or allow greenwashing to occur, and can influence companies to become more or less sustainable based on the framing of laws or regulations. The power dynamics within state-corporate conglomerates makes it difficult to integrate other entities such as science, NGOs, communities. Criminology can theorize how actions are criminal and how companies neutralize crime or deny crime, but formal laws and formal actions from government can influence what is or is not important in society. Further, it can help understand how social problems are constructed. Companies are not held accountable through theory, thus crime is likely to continue or increase with decreased regulations. Actions between the state and corporations needs to be made inherently clear for the public to be a more well-informed and engaged society about these issues.

The application of social constructionism and criminological theory (techniques of neutralization, integrated state-corporate crime model) have revealed important communications about Duke Energy and AEP’s business practices, unlawful acts, and influence in politics. Ultimately, this study exemplifies how language is greenwashed to promote an alternative perspective wherein corporate actions seem less harmful to the environment than they really are. Greenwashing is a barrier to developing a sustainable economy and society; even when corporations acknowledge the importance of 86 environmental issues, when their initiatives are not authentic, an underestimated presentation of harms is produced (Futerra, 2008).

Kramer states, “Rapid systemic climate change induced by human caused global warming is arguably the most serious social problem, most important political issue, and greatest moral challenge that the world faces at the beginning of the twenty-first century”

(2012). Understanding their actions as criminal is necessary, but their formal and informal criminality is not always addressed. Environmental law and regulation cannot be the only solution to understanding the importance of climate change: Corporations need to take responsibility for their role in contributing to anthropomorphic climate change. It is important that they present their intentions transparently; claims should not have to be deconstructed to be able to see how criminal charges contradict so-called sustainable business missions. Political spending also does not align with sustainable business missions. Instead, these themes are framed to support the advancement of Duke Energy and AEP, disregarding the environmental destruction they facilitate.

The research shows that even though they are very successful financially, Duke

Energy and AEP reached success alongside multiple violations of environmental regulations and environmentally damaging business tactics. If sociologists are concerned with promoting change through systematic research methods and application of theory, applying this to one of the most pressing issues of our time is crucial. It is extremely important we hold companies such as these accountable for their damaging tactics and business practices. Economic gain should not be the driving force in a company when it 87 is harming society. Investigating the contributors to climate change is imperative to uncovering causes and discovering different avenues to solutions.

The theories presented in the Chapter 2 help to tie together the three themes that were analyzed in the previous chapter. Comparing how the companies frame sustainability and criminality, it shows their environmentally-friendly CSR communications do not align with their non-compliance of environmental regulations.

The many civil and criminal cases, as well as fines and regulations, show they do not proactively (or actively) care about transitioning to an environmentally and socially friendly society with regards to energy or sustainability. Even though Duke Energy and

AEP frame their actions positively, their future evolvement as a company does not actually actively try to use more renewable energy or even more sustainable infrastructure for coal or natural gas energy consumption. Their power over the political economy helps to neutralize their criminal actions through the enormous influence (via

PACs and lobbying) on policy and connections with important policymakers.

Implications

This research has shown that environmental communications are constructed to greenwash consumers and stockholders (among others). They frame their missions as sustainable, ethical, and beneficial to people and the environment. Deconstruction of claims-making can begin to grasp the lack of attention corporations and governments give to the issue of climate change. Large corporations are not concerned with climate change, even if they claim to be, and are not actively working to reduce harms associated with their actions (i.e., health impacts, environmental destruction, violation of laws and 88 regulations). This has implications to our understanding of big energy companies, but many of the patterns and trends discussed in this research can be applied to other industries, especially those in the fossil fuel industry. We need to be more critical of disguised actions and demand change if we want to combat the effects of climate change, health impacts, and actually move toward a sustainable future. There needs to be a larger voice that does not support these companies, and instead demands more sustainable business practices and dramatic changes.

This study contributes to the literature by providing a detailed analysis of two substantial GHG emitters in the United States. It also adds a new angle of crime and political implications by combining environmental sociology with criminology. Future research should continue to explore the major contributors of climate change, and ask questions: Do they grasp the enormity of harm being produced? Are they actively trying to transition to a more sustainable practice? If criminal, is it something they are concerned about, or is it built into budgets and neutralized?

Scientists should, in addition to sharing this knowledge within academia, use social activism to spread this message to the public and those who may not question the claims put forth by corporations. In order to create social change, research such as this needs to be publicized to local communities and examined in the media. Politicians need to be aware of how their opinions may be greenwashed and seen through an economic lens rather than through a social and environmental justice perspective. Ultimately, with this study and others, perhaps the issue of climate change will begin to be an even more 89 prominent issue that is tackled by corporations, governments, and active citizens collaboratively.

Limitations

This analysis of Duke Energy and AEP begins to expose the electric industry and see how companies greenwash their actions to be positive, even while they violate environmental regulations and laws. However, this represents only two of many companies who may or may not operate in similar manners; therefore, the findings presented cannot be generalized to other companies or the industry as a whole. However, the findings presented here reflect patterns of corporate greenwashing, and I would argue the study of similar industries and other utilities companies would provide similar results.

Because Duke Energy and AEP are the largest GHG emitters in the United States, this research speaks to the enormity of the problem at hand and the importance of exposing the corporate construction of sustainability, criminality, and political influence.

The astonishing number of press releases, criminal and civil cases, and news coverage of these companies also did not allow for an exhaustive examination of the data.

A mixed methods or quantitative approach to the themes presented in this paper could provide a different perspective of corporate communication, and future research could further explore similar topics. The qualitative research utilized in this paper allowed for a more in-depth and detailed exploration of the communication of business practices, climate change, and crime, among many other topics.

Climate change is going to remain a significant social problem globally, affecting the physical environment and all within it. Society needs to acknowledge the 90 anthropomorphic causes of climate change and how, individually and collectively, we are contributing to a problem that will have extreme negative effects on our future livelihoods and the world we live in. We must create a truly sustainable lifestyle by meeting the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations, by being inclusive of society, the environment, and the economy.

REFERENCES

Achenbach, J. (2017 February 7). The ‘March for Science’ is Gaining Mainstream

Momentum. The Washington Post. Retrieved from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/02/09/the-

march-for-science-is-gaining-mainstream-momentum/?utm_term=.042dd79ebde7

Agnew, R. (2012). Dire forecast: A Theoretical Model of the Impact of Climate Change

on Crime. Theoretical Criminology. 16(1), 21-42.

Allenby, B. (2015). Climate Redux: Welcome to the Anthropocene. Issues in Science and

Technology. 37-39.

American Electric Power. (2016). Corporate Accountability Report. Retrieved from

https://www.aepsustainability.com/about/report/history.aspx

Auyero, J. & Swistun, D. (2009). Flammable: Environmental Suffering in an Argentine

Shantytown. New York: Oxford University Press.

Barak, G. (Ed.) (1994). Media, Process, and The Social Construction of Crime: Studies

in Newsmaking Criminology. New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the

Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City: Doubleday.

Best, J., & Harris, S. (2012). Making Sense of Social Problems: New Images, New Issues.

Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Bodansky, D. (2001). The History of the Global Climate Change Regime. International

Relations and Global Climate Change, 161, 23-40. 92

Brisman, A., & South, N. (2015). New 'Folk Devils,' Denials and Climate Change:

Applying the Work of Stanley Cohen to Green Criminology and Environmental

Harm. Critical Criminology, 23(4), 449-460. doi:10.1007/s10612-015-9288-1

Brulle, R., Carmichael, J., & Jenkins, J. (2012). Shifting Public Opinion on Climate

Change: An Empirical Assessment of Factors Influencing Concern over Climate

Change in the U.S., 2002-2010. Climatic Change, 114(2), 169-188. doi:

10.1007/s10584-012-0403-y

Bullard, R. G., & Wright, B. (Eds.). (2009). Race, Place, and Environmental Justice after

Hurricane Katrina. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Campbell, E. (2015). Corporate Power: The Role of Global Media in Shaping What We

Know About the Environment. In K. Gould & T. Lewis (Eds.), Twenty Lessons in

Environmental Sociology. 2nd ed (77-94). New York: Oxford University Press.

Center for Responsive Politics. (2017). Electric Industries. Retrieved from

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E08

Center for Responsive Politics. (2017). The Revolving Door. Retrieved from

https://www.opensecrets.org/resources/learn/revolving.php

Center for Responsive Politics. (2017). What is a PAC? Retrieved from

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacfaq.php

CDP Worldwide. (2017). About Us. Retrieved from https://www.cdp.net/en/info/about-

us#6d54357de16dae873aca455b2a0757b4

Checker, M. (2005). Polluted Promises: Environmental Racism and the Search for

Justice in a Southern Town. New York: New York University Press. 93

Ciplet, D., Roberts, J. T., & Khan, M. R. (2015). Power In a Warming World: The New

Global Politics of Climate Change and the Remaking of Environmental

Inequality. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Clean Air Task Force. (2012). Death and Disease from Power Plants. Retrieved from

http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/

Cornell University Law School. (2017). Legal Information Institute: Wex: Injunctive

Relief. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/injunctive_relief

CorpWatch. (2001). Greenwash Fact Sheet. San Francisco, CA: CorpWatch. Retrieved

from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=242&printsafe=1

Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., Way, R.,

Jacobs, P., & Skuce, A. (2013). Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic

Global Warming in the Scientific Literature. Environmental Research Letters,

8(2), 1-7.

Darrow, B. (2015 June 30). A year after big coal ash spill, Duke Energy CEO gets a raise.

Fortune 500. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2015/06/30/duke-energy-ceo-

gets-a-raise/

De Blasio, E., & Sorice, M. (2013). The Framing of Climate Change in

Italian Politics and its Impact on Public Opinion. International Journal Of Media

& Cultural Politics, 9(1), 59-69.

Domhoff, G. W. (2006). Who Rules America? Power, Politics, & Social Change. New

York: The McGraw-Hill Companies. 94

Downey, J. (2017 April 6). Duke Energy wants to cut prices paid to solar power

producers by 30%. Charlotte Business Journal. Retrieved from

http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2017/04/05/duke-energy-wants-to-

cut-prices-paid-to-solar.html

Duke Energy. (2015). 2015 Sustainability Report. Retrieved from

http://sustainabilityreport.duke-energy.com/downloads/

Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). TRI National Analysis. Retrieved March 15,

2017 from https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/2014-tri-

national-analysis-complete-report

Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). Duke Energy Corporation Clean Air Act

(CAA) Settlement. Retrieved September 20, 2016 from

https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/duke-energy-corporation-clean-air-act-caa-

settlement

Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data Explorer.

Retrieved March 15, 2017 from

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/inventoryexplorer/index.html

Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). TRI National Analysis. Retrieved March 15,

2017 from https://www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/report-sections-2015-tri-

national-analysis

Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). American Electric Power Service

Corporation. Retrieved March 15, 2017 from

https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/american-electric-power-service-corporation 95

Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). Duke Energy Gallagher Plant Clean Air Act

Settlement. Retrieved March 15, 2017 from

https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/duke-energy-gallagher-plant-clean-air-act-

settlement

Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). EJScreen. Retrieved March 15, 2017 from

https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen

Environmental Protection Agency. (2017). Case Summary: Duke Energy Agrees to $3

Million Cleanup for Coal Ash Release in the Dan River. Retrieved March 15,

2017 from https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/case-summary-duke-energy-agrees-

3-million-cleanup-coal-ash-release-dan-river

Environmental Protection Agency. (2017). Clean Power Plan Regulatory Actions.

Retrieved March 15, 2017 from https://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/regulatory-

actions

Environmental Protection Agency. (2017). Laws and Regulations. Retrieved April 12,

2017 from https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders

Faber, D. (2008). Capitalizing on Environmental Injustice: The Polluter-Industrial

Complex in the Age of Globalization. Lanham, MD: Rowen & Littlefield

Publishers.

Faust, K. L., & Carlson, S.M. (2011). Devastation in the Aftermath of Hurricane

Katrina as a State Crime: Social Audience Reactions. Crime, Law & Social

Change, 55(1), 33-51. doi:10.1007/s10611-011-9268-7 96

Foster, J. B. (2017). Trump and Climate Catastrophe. Monthly Review: An Independent

Socialist Magazine, 68(9), 1-17. doi:10.14452/MR-068-09-2017-02_1

Freudenburg, W. R. & Muselli, V. (2010). Global Warming Estimates, Media

Expectations, and the Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge. Global Environmental

Change, 20(3), 483-491.

(2017). 115 Duke Energy. Fortune 500. Retrieved March 15, 2017 from

http://beta.fortune.com/fortune500/duke-energy-115

(2017). 15 American Electric Power. Fortune 500. Retrieved March 15, 2017 from

http://beta.fortune.com/fortune500/american-electric-power-165

Futerra Sustainability Communications. (2008). The Greenwash Guide. Retrieved from

http://communication-responsable.aacc.fr/sites/default/files/3-

Greenwash_Guide_Futerra.pdf

Grundmann, R., & Stehr, N. (2010). Climate Change: What Role for Sociology?

Current Sociology, 58(6), 897-910. doi:10.1177/0011392110376031

Humphries, C. (2014 March 2). Climate change may mean more crime, A new report

predicts another human cost to hotter weather. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/03/02/climate-change-may-mean-more-

crime/dZCKg5nx7mUcj513lwAEyO/story.html

IPCC. (1995). Climate Change: A Glossary by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/glossary/ipcc-glossary.pdf

IPCC. (2012). Glossary of Terms. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and

Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. 97

Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K.

Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.). A Special Report of

Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 555-

564. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srex/SREX-

Annex_Glossary.pdf

IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups

I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change. Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.).

IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.

Jarolímková, A. (2010). Enforcement of Environmental Protection through Criminal

Law. The Common Law Review, Retrieved from

http://www.commonlawreview.cz/enforcement-of-environmental-protection-

through-criminal-law

Knox, T. (2017 January 26). AEP sees positives in President Trump's policy plans.

Columbus Business First. Retrieved from

http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2017/01/26/aep-sees-positives-in-

president-trumps-policy.html

Kramer, R. (2013). Carbon in the Atmosphere and Power in America: Climate Change as

State-Corporate Crime. Journal of Crime and Justice, 36(2), 153-170.

doi:10.1080/0735648X.2012.752252 98

Kramer, R., & Michalowski, R. (2012). Is Global Warming a State-Corporate Crime? In

R. White (Ed.), Climate Change Through a Criminological Perspective (pp. 71-

88). New York: Springer.

Larson, K. Discovery: Criminal and Civil? There’s a Difference. American Bar

Association. Retrieved from

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/tyl/topics/criminal-

law/discovery_criminal_and_civil_theres_difference.html

Levitan, D. (2017 January 25). Donald Trump’s Science Denial Is Becoming National

Policy. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/4646085/donald-trump-science-

denial/.

Lewis, S. L., & Maslin, M. A. (2015). Defining the Anthropocene. Nature, 519, 171-180.

doi:10.1038/nature14258

Lipton, E., Protess, B., & Lehren, A. W. (2017 April 15). “With Trump Appointees, a

Potential Raft of Potential Conflicts and ‘No Transparency’”. New York Times.

Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/15/us/politics/trump-

appointees-potential-conflicts.html?_r=0/

Loseke, D. (2003). Thinking about Social Problems: An Introduction to Constructionist

Perspectives. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

McCarthy, D. & King, L. (2009). Environmental Sociology: From Analysis to Action.

Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 99

Merica, D. (2017 March 29). In executive order, Trump to dramatically change US

approach to climate change. CNN. Retrieved from

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/27/politics/trump-climate-change-executive-order/

Michalowski, R. & Kramer, R. (2006). State-Corporate Crime: Wrongdoing at the

Intersection of Business and Government. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers

University Press.

Mills, C. W. (1956). The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mooney, C. (2014, May 12). This is what a holy shit moment for global warming looks

like. Mother Jones. Retrieved from

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/05/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-

collapse

Mooney, C. (2014 November 11). These charts finally explain where science denial

comes from. The Washington Post. Retrieved from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/11/whats-a-bigger-

driver-of-science-denial-politics-or-religion/?utm_term=.033b4245c7ed

Moser, S. C., & Dilling, L. (2011). Communicating Climate Change: Closing the

Science-action Gap. In J.S. Dryzek, R.B. Norgaard, & D. Schlosberg (Eds.) The

Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society (pp. 161-174). Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

NASA. (2016). Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. Retrieved from

http://climate.nasa.gov/ 100

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2017). Climate Change and

Variability. Retrieved from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-

information/climate-change-and-variability

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2016). National Centers for

Environmental Information: Introduction What are Greenhouse Gases? Retrieved

from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php

Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for

Public Engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable

Development 51(2), 12-23.

Nobo, C. C., & Pfeffer, R. D. (2012). Natural Disasters and Crime: Criminological

Lessons from Hurricane Katrina. In R. White (Ed.) Climate Change Through a

Criminological Perspective (pp. 173-183). New York: Springer.

Otto, S. (2011). Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America.

Emmaus, PA: Rodale Books.

Park, H. S., Liu, X., & Vedlitz, A. (2014). Analyzing Climate Change Debates in the U.S.

Congress: Party Control and Mobilizing Networks. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in

Public Policy, 5(3), 239-258. doi:10.1002/rhc3.12062

Park, M. (2015 January 21). Obama: No greater threat to future than climate change.

CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/us/climate-change-us-

obama/ 101

Patz, J.A., Gibbs, H.K., Foley, J.A., Rogers, J.V., & Smith, K.R. (2007). Climate Change

and Global Health: Quantifying a Growing Ethical Crisis. Ecohealth, 4(4), 397-

405. doi:10.1007/s10393-007-0141-1

Pellow, D. N., & Brehm, H.N. (2013). An Environmental Sociology for the Twenty First

Century. The Annual Review of Sociology 29, 229-250. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-

071312-145558

Plec, E., & Pettenger, M. (2012). Greenwashing Consumption: The Didactic Framing of

ExxonMobil’s Energy Solutions. Environmental Communications, 6(4), 459-476.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2012.720270

Political Economy Research Institute. (2016). Greenhouse 100 Polluters Index. Retrieved

from http://www.peri.umass.edu/greenhouse-100-polluters-index

Ranson, M. (2014). Crime, Weather, and Climate Change. Journal of Environmental

Economics and Management 67, 274-302 doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2013.11.008

Rappeport, A. & Thrush, G. (2017 March 17). Pentagon Grows, while E.P.A. and State

Dept. Shrink in Trump’s Budget. The New York Times. Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/politics/trump-budget-spending-

cuts.html?_r=0

Robecosam. (2015). DJSI Invited Universe 2016. Retrieved from

http://www.robecosam.com/en/sustainability-insights/about-

sustainability/corporate-sustainability-assessment/invited-universe.jsp

S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC. (2016). Dow Jones Sustainability North America Index.

Zürich, Switzerland: Robecosam. 102

Saad, M. B. (2013). The Global Hunger Crisis: Tackling Food Insecurity in Developing

Countries. London: Pluto Press.

Saha, M., & Darnton, G. (2005). Green Companies or Green Con-panies: Are Companies

Really Green, or Are They Pretending to Be? Business and Society Review

110(2), 117-157.

Scanlan, S. J. (2017). Framing Fracking: Scale-Shifting and Greenwashing Risk in the

Oil and Gas Industry. Paper presented at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the North

Central Sociological Association in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Scanlan, S. J. (2013). Feeding the Planet or Feeding Us a Line? Agribusiness,

‘Grainwashing’ and Hunger in the World Food System. International Journal of

Sociology of Agriculture and Food 20(3), 357-382.

Shaw, C. (2009). The Dangerous Limits of Dangerous Limits: Climate Change and the

Precautionary Principle. Sociological Review 57, 103-123. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

954X.2010.01888.x

Simmons, D. (2015 September 10). Duke Energy settles federal air case for $5.4 million.

The Charlotte Observer. Retrieved from

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article34657470.html

Sorg, L. (2017 March 14). Renewable energy popular among voters, regardless of party.

Duke Energy, not so much. The Progressive Pulse. Retrieved from

http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2017/03/14/renewable-energy-popular-among-

voters-regardless-party-duke-energy-not-much/#sthash.hSEktWdg.dpuf 103

Spector, M., & Kitsuse, J. I. (1977). Constructing Social Problems. Menlo Park, CA:

Cummings Publishing.

Stretesky, P. B. (2006). Corporate Self-Policing and the Environment. Criminolog 44(3),

671-708. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2006.00060.x

Suarez, E. M. (2015). Top Green Companies in the U.S. 2015. Newsweek. Retrieved from

http://www.newsweek.com/green-2015/top-green-companies-u.s.-2015

Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1960). Techniques of neutralization: a theory of delinquency.

Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, College Division.

The Politics of Race and Pollution: An Interview with Robert Bullard. (1992).

Multinational Monitor (6), 21.

Thiede, B. C., & Brown, D. L. (2013). Hurricane Katrina: Who Stayed and Why?

Population Research & Policy Review, 32(6), 803-824. doi:10.1007/s11113-013-

9302-9

United Nations. (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC). S. Treaty Doc No. 102-38. Retrieved from

https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/ap

plication/pdf/conveng.pdf

UN Climate Change Newsroom. (2015). About UNFCCC. Retrieved from

http://newsroom.unfccc.int/about/

United Nations Development Programme. (2009). Resource Guide on Gender and

Climate Change. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/dac/gender-

development/46460915.pdf 104

United States Census Bureau. (2015). Quickfacts. Retrieved from

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00

Weiss, K. N. (2015) The Making of a Climate Refugee. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/28/the-making-of-a-climate-refugee-kiribati-

tarawa-teitiota/

White, Rob, ed. (2012). Climate Change Through a Criminological Perspective. New

York: Springer.

Wong, C. M. L. (2012). The Developmental State in Ecological Modernization and the

Politics of Environmental Framings: The Case of Singapore and Implications for

East Asia. Nature and Culture 7(1), 95–119.

Zwickl, K., Ash, M., & Boyce, J. K. (2014). Regional Variation in Environmental

Inequality: Industrial air toxics exposure in U.S. cities. Working Paper Series 342

Political Economy Research Institute.

(2016). President Obama on Climate & Energy. The Report. Retrieved March 15, 2017

from

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/files/a

chievements/theRecord_climate_0.pdf 105

APPENDIX A: LIST OF ACRONYMS

Environmental Protection Agency EPA

Greenhouse Gas(es) GHG

American Electric Power AEP

Corporate Social Responsibility CSR

Toxic Release Inventory TRI

Political Action Committee(s) PAC(s)

New Source Review NSR

Climate Air Act CAA

Department of Justice DOJ 106

APPENDIX B: DUKE ENERGY SOURCES

1. https://www.duke-energy.com/our-company/about-us

2. https://www.duke-energy.com//_/media/pdfs/our-company/duke-2016-cdp- response.pdf

3. https://www.duke-energy.com/our-company/environment/global-climate-change

4. https://www.duke-energy.com/news/releases/2015091002.asp

5. https://www.duke-energy.com/news/releases/2015092901.asp

6. https://news.duke-energy.com/releases/duke-energy-issues-statement-regarding- federal-court-approval-of-coal-ash-agreement-with-u-s-justice-department

7. https://news.duke-energy.com/releases/ash-basin-closure-starts-in-south-carolina- as-three-key-north-carolina-permits-granted

8. https://news.duke-energy.com/releases/duke-energy-builds-momentum-in-safely- closing-ash-basins-across-the-carolinas

9. https://news.duke-energy.com/releases/duke-energy-unveils-1-1-billion-plan-to- end-coal-era-in-asheville-n-c

10. https://news.duke-energy.com/releases/visible-progress-toward-ending-the-coal- era-in-wilmington-n-c

11. https://news.duke-energy.com/releases/coal-ash-management-progress:-duke- energy-selects-epri-to-launch-coal-ash-recycling-technology-and-market-study

12. https://www.duke-energy.com/our-company/about-us/power-plants/ash- management/independent-experts

107

APPENDIX C: AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER SOURCES

1. http://aep.com/environment/climatechange/

2. https://www.aepsustainability.com/about/report/docs/CDP-Climate-2016- AEPsResponse.pdf

3. https://www.aep.com/environment/EmissionsAndCompliance/tri/docs/TRI2014.p df

4. http://www.aep.com/newsroom/newsreleases/?id=1411

108

APPENDIX D: CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE MAP

Clean Air Task Force. (2012). Death and Disease from Power Plants. Retrieved from

http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Thesis and Dissertation Services ! !