May, 19 2020, 12:00am EDT
![As You Sow](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012598/origin.jpg)
Shareholders Urge JPMorgan Chase to Reduce Climate Impacts of Financing
BERKELEY, CA
Shareholders today sent a strong message of concern to JPMorgan Chase about its outsize support of fossil fuels in the face of catastrophic climate risk. The preliminary vote came in this morning showing just under 50% of voters supported a pioneering shareholder resolution asking the U.S. banking giant to describe whether it will align its lending with the Paris goal of maintaining global warming well below 2 degrees Celsius and how it plans to do so. JPMorgan is the largest global financier of fossil fuels, having funneled more than $268.593 billion from 2016 to 2019 into companies profiting from climate change , averaging approximately $67 billion per year.
"As the world's largest funder of fossil fuels, JPMorgan Chase has a decision to make -- either recognize growing global climate risk and dramatically reduce its fossil fuel funding or continue irresponsibly driving global temperature rise to greater and more devastating impacts," said Danielle Fugere, President of As You Sow. "Shareholders today sent the message that it is past time for Chase to catch up with its peers, implement a strategy to decarbonize and de-risk its lending portfolio, and help build a more secure future for all."
The investment community has not missed the parallels between COVID-19 and the global disruption that has followed. Shareholder's significant support of this proposal underscores their position that banks are as responsible as any other company to heed the science of climate and to take early action to reduce systemic and growing risk.
Climate change presents material portfolio risks to investors. Globally, losses from climate change are estimated to be between $150 and $790 trillion by 2100. In the U.S., annual losses in some sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century. A large range of shareholders are responding to the likelihood of portfolio-wide risk from climate impacts, including Climate Action 100+, a group of large asset owners and managers with a combined total of more than $40 trillion assets under management.
As You Sow withdrew similar climate-related proposals with large U.S. peer banks -- Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs -- after the banks made commitments recognizing the urgent need to find systems to measure the greenhouse gas emissions associated with their financing activities toward alignment with Paris goals. Significantly, major European peers BNP Paribas, Societe Generale, BBVA, Standard Chartered, and ING, with a combined portfolio of $2.7 trillion, committed to decrease the climate impact of their loans in alignment with Paris climate goals. Most recently, Barclays, the largest financier of fossil fuels in Europe, stated an intention to align its financing with the Paris climate agreement and set a target of net zero emissions -- a goal that promises progress.
In contrast, JPMorgan continues to face scrutiny for its reckless approach to financing climate risk. It has become one of the prime targets of a major activist campaign, "Stop the Money Pipeline," that is focused on the biggest financial supporters of the fossil fuel industry. It has also come under fire for setting up independent companies to take ownership of oil and gas assets, as fossil fuel companies struggle to respond to a decreased demand for fossil fuels. JPMorgan has promised to appoint a new lead independent director after strong concern from shareholders regarding the re-election of Lee Raymond, a former CEO of ExxonMobil, to that post. Raymond will remain on the board in a director position, which is of continued concern to investors, and recently the State Treasurers of Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin joined the Pennsylvania Treasurer, the Comptrollers of New York City and New York State, CalPERS, and other shareowners in opposing his re-election.
"It is critical that financial heavyweight JPMorgan Chase accelerate ambition to clean up its fossil fuel financing," said Fugere. "JPMorgan's inaction in the face of the staggering risks of climate change is noteworthy and unacceptable. Investors can no longer tolerate business as usual in these unprecedented times."
To learn more about As You Sow's work on climate change, click here.
As You Sow is the nation's non-profit leader in shareholder advocacy. Founded in 1992, we harness shareholder power to create lasting change that benefits people, planet, and profit. Our mission is to promote environmental and social corporate responsibility through shareholder advocacy, coalition building, and innovative legal strategies.
LATEST NEWS
Newly Released Gaza Hospital Director Alleges 'Almost Daily Torture' in Israeli Detention
The hospital director, who'd been held without trial since Israeli forces detained him in November, said that he and others were subjected to torture, psychological humiliation, and severe undernourishment.
Jul 01, 2024
The director of Gaza's main hospital said at a press conference on Monday that he was tortured while being held without charges for the last seven months at an Israeli detention center.
Muhammad Abu Salmiya, director of the Al-Shifa hospital, once Gaza's main medical center, made the claims after he and 54 other Palestinian detainees were released and arrived back to the Gaza Strip.
Israeli forces had raided the hospital in November and alleged that Abu Salmiya was involved in making it a Hamas command center. They later destroyed the hospital.
Abu Salmiya said detention guards broke his finger and beat him to the point that his head bled—and that he wasn't the only one.
"Our detainees have been subjected to all kinds of torture behind bars," Abu Salmiya said. "There was almost daily torture."
There was "daily physical and psychological humiliation," he added.
He also said that they were severely underfed, surviving on nothing more than a loaf of bread per day. He said that all of the detainees had lost at least 30 kilograms (66 pounds).
"Our detainees have been subjected to all kinds of torture behind bars. There was almost daily torture."
Israeli forces seized Abu Salmiya from a United Nations convoy on November 22. They took him to court three times while in detainment but brought no charges and allowed him no lawyer, Abu Salmiya said.
His detention in November followed an Israeli siege of Al-Shifa hospital, which Israeli officials said had become a Hamas control center. Though weapons were found at the hospital, an investigation by The Washington Post in December showed that the evidence fell short of revealing a command center, and that key claims the Israelis had made to justify the siege turned out to be incorrect.
Israeli forces attacked the hospital again in late March, killing hundreds and leaving the facility mostly destroyed. Several mass graves were discovered near the hospital site in the weeks that followed.
Israel has detained thousands of Palestinians since the war started, leading to "intolerable overcrowding" of its facilities, as Haaretzreported in February. Many detainees are held without charges in what is called "administrative detention."
At least 40 Palestinians have died in Israeli detention during the war, according to Addameer, a Palestinian watchdog group. Salmiya said Monday that some had been killed in interrogation cells, Al Jazeerareported.
At least one other doctor was among those released on Monday: Bassam Miqdad, head of the orthopedic unit at Gaza European hospital in Khan Younis.
In April, Adnan Ahmad Albursh, a 50-year-old Palestinian surgeon, died in Israeli detention, according to Palestinian officials and rights groups. He had been the head of orthopedics at Al-Shifa hospital. Overall, hundreds of healthcare workers have been killed during the war.
Israeli officials and political figures from various parties denounced the release of the 55 detainees, which was reportedly done to make space in the overcrowded detention centers.
Itamar Ben-Gvir, a far-right minister in charge of Israel's police and prison service, called the release of the detainees a case of "security negligence" and blamed another ministry. Benny Gantz, an opposition figure who recently resigned from the war cabinet, said whoever released the detainees should be fired and that government offices should be made available to "free up space and budget for prisoners," according to Al Jazeera.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Outrage as Reports Suggest DOJ to Offer Boeing 'Sweetheart Deal' Over Fatal Crashes
"There is no accountability, no admission that Boeing's admitted crime caused the 346 deaths, and the families will most certainly object," said one lawyer for victims' relatives.
Jul 01, 2024
The families of 346 people who were killed on two Boeing 737 MAX airplanes in 2018 and 2019 were expected to "strenuously object" to a plea deal reportedly proposed by the U.S. Department of Justice a week after federal prosecutors recommended criminal charges for the company.
The penalties proposed by the DOJ "are totally inadequate," said Javier de Luis, whose sister was killed when the Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 MAX plane she was on crashed in 2019.
Family members take issue with the proposal "both from the perspective of accountability for the crimes committed, and from the perspective of acting in the public interest by ensuring a change in Boeing's behavior," said de Luis, who served on a panel assembled by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to review Boeing's safety culture.
The agreement, which has been denounced as a "sweetheart deal" by family members and their attorneys, reportedly includes a requirement that Boeing plead guilty to conspiring to defraud the FAA in connection with the crashes, as well as a $487.2 million financial penalty. The company board would be required to meet with the victims' families and appoint an independent monitor to oversee Boeing's safety practices.
Boeing would be required to pay only half of the fine because prosecutors would give the company credit for a settlement payment officials already made in relation to the crashes.
Boeing paid $2.5 billion as part of another deal that granted it immunity from criminal prosecution over its planes' safety flaws, with the agreement mandating that it abide by the terms for a three-year period that ended in January. Two days before that period ended, the company came under new scrutiny after a door plug that was missing several bolts blew off a Boeing 737 MAX 9 flown by Alaska Airlines while the plane was at an elevation of 16,000 feet.
Erin Applebaum, a lawyer representing victims' relatives, said Sunday as the new plea deal proposal was reported that "when there is inevitably another Boeing crash and DOJ seeks to assign blame, they will have nowhere else to look but in the mirror."
Boeing has until the end of the week to accept or reject the agreement; if it agrees, U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor will decide whether the deal is in the public interest.
Attorneys for the families said the relatives plan to call on the judge to reject the deal.
"The families are very unhappy and angered with DOJ's decisions and proposal," said Robert Clifford, lead counsel for the families who have filed civil litigation. "There is no accountability, no admission that Boeing's admitted crime caused the 346 deaths, and the families will most certainly object before Judge Reed O'Connor and ask that he reject the plea if Boeing accepts."
The memory of victims of the crashes in 2018 and 2019, said Paul Cassell, who represents the families of 15 people who were killed on the Ethiopian Airlines and Lion Airlines planes, "demands more justice than this."
David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, noted that some reporting on the deal suggests the DOJ will make a criminal charge, but said, "That's probably just trying to get Boeing to admit wrongdoing."
The reported deal comes a week after an employee of a contractor for one of Boeing's partner companies, Spirit Aerosystems, became the latest of more than a dozen whistleblowers to come forward about safety issues with the company's aircrafts. The worker notified Boeing of problems with 787 Dreamliner planes that posed "catastrophic" danger to people on board.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Right-Wing Supreme Court Rules Trump Has 'Absolute Immunity' for Official Acts
"In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law," warned Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
Jul 01, 2024
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled along ideological lines on Monday that former President Donald Trump is entitled to "absolute immunity" for "official acts" taken while he was in office, a decision that liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned makes any occupant of the Oval Office "a king above the law."
Writing for the majority in the 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts declared that Trump "may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts."
But Sotomayor countered in her dissent that the majority distorted the concept of core constitutional powers "beyond any recognizable bounds," effectively granting Trump the sweeping immunity he demanded as he faces charges for attempting to subvert the 2020 presidential election in a failed last-ditch bid to remain in power.
"When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution," Sotomayor wrote. "Orders the Navy's SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."
"In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law," the justice added. "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
The New York Timesnoted that the high court "has remanded the case to the federal district court judge overseeing the matter, Tanya Chutkan, to determine the nature of the acts for which former President Trump has been charged—which are unofficial ones he undertook in his personal capacity and which are official ones he undertook as president."
The high court's ruling, which came after months of delays, all but forecloses the possibility of Trump facing trial for election subversion charges before the November presidential contest. The progressive advocacy group MoveOn said the conservative supermajority's decision to punt the case back to the lower court makes the justices "complicit in Trump's plan to delay any legal accountability until after the election."
Two of the court's right-wing justices—Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito—faced calls to recuse from the case but rejected them.
"Donald Trump incited the deadly January 6 insurrection and the MAGA Supreme Court continues to do everything in their power to stop him from facing accountability for attempting to overthrow our government," said Rahna Epting, executive director of MoveOn Political Action. "Nobody is above the law, especially not Trump. MAGA extremists in Congress and the courts have made it clear there will be no checks or balances on Trump and the only hope for American democracy is the people coming together to defeat him in November."
Lisa Gilbert, executive vice president at Public Citizen, added in a statement that "Trump versus the United States is a fitting name for this case."
"There is no better way to characterize Trump's attempt to upend the Constitution and rule of law as we know it," Gilbert said. "Today's ruling is a blow to U.S. democracy. But it's not a final blow by any means. Trump can and should still be held accountable for his role in the violence on January 6 in an attempt to overturn the 2020 election and stop a peaceful transfer of power."
In an amicus brief submitted in April, Public Citizen noted that the president "has no specific, constitutionally assigned role in the conduct of presidential elections," making "any assertion that a president's authority empowers him to conspire to overturn the result of a valid election and retain power beyond his term in office... absurd."
"Accepting a view of the outer limits of presidential authority that would sweep in a conspiracy to overturn an election and remain in office unlawfully would have exceptionally broad implications and threaten severe damage to our constitutional democracy," the group warned.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular