US Bank has replied to recent e-mail, for which I thank the bank. Unfortunately, the problems persist and I cannot understand how a large bank with all its resources can be so very distant from conservation and sustainability. It is no excuse to say that conservation and sustainability have been lost in the transition planning. One does not have to have an MBA with a minor in environmental studies to understand what the salient themes of the day are. // The several unnecessary mailings to date add up to quite an expense, which means that if I were a shareholder, I would be furious over the lost profit. // On May 29, 2010, I received a mailed statement from US Bank about my checking account, transferred from California National Bank, which US Bank had bought. Apart from the absence of any indication of recycled paper, biodegradability, soy ink or the planting of trees, two disheartening facts accompanied the mailing: (1) California National Bank had mailed a similar statement in May and (2) I had begun using US Bank's online banking, making a mailed statement unnecessary. // I do not know what more could be said. Somebody at the bank has to become the proactive green advocate, with sufficient authorization and enthusiasm to nip these unconscionable problems before they become a public-relations liability for the bank. Thank you.

On April 16, a message went to US Bank about greening its communications with customers. US Bank is big; unnecessarily sending two mailings in the place of one results in a huge waste, more so because there is no mention of recycled paper, biodegradability, soy ink or planting trees. With regard to waste, lightning struck twice, unfortunately. About a week later, a mailing came from US Bank, saying that a Visa card from the old bank was to be replaced by a US Bank Visa card. Then, on April 26, a letter came giving deadlines as to when to redeem points from the old Visa card. Certainly these two mailings could have been combined. Again, there was no mention of recycled paper, biodegradability, soy ink or planting trees. Interestingly, the envelope of the April 26 mailing had "recycle" printed on the back in a corner, but that is not the same as "printed on 100% recycled paper". US Bank, as a for-profit company, can do much better. Internal coordination should be possible through its computer network. US Bank could and should immediately become a leader; it is time to have a corporate huddle and get a memo out to everyone. And every office, every bank branch, should have an assistant manager for green practices who is obsessive about turning the office or branch into a green showcase, even inviting people to an open house next Earth Day.

Recently, US Bank bought out California National Bank. Our families' two accounts transferred to US Bank. 1. US Bank welcomed us with two identical mailings to the same address--much paper which we would NOT read. (Side note. The California Secretary of State, when sending information on ballot propositions, sends ONE book to a household, regardless of the number of voters in the household.) 2. In all that paper, I was hoping to see mention of "100% recycled material" or, even better, "We planted a hundred saplings for every tree used to send this mailing". No such statement, unfortunately. 3. US Bank could have sent us a postcard, telling us that we could find the same information online or we could order by mail. This would have been a HUGE saving in paper and money. 4. If US Bank is constricted by law to send us a mailing, then it should remonstrate with the government. MANY account holders, including yours truly, would gladly sign a petition and defend US Bank if it refused to comply with any wasteful requirement. I am hoping that US Bank immediately set a salient example by implementing the above. I am ready to assist with #4.