SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
December, 09 2020, 11:00pm EDT
Contact:
Jacey Bingler, Communications Manager, Urgewald, jacey@urgewald.org, +49 175 521 7571
Lucie Pinson, Director, Reclaim Finance, lucie@reclaimfinance.org
Patrick McCully, Climate & Energy Program Director, Rainforest Action Network, patrick@ran.org
Erin Jensen, Deputy Communications Director, Friends of the Earth U.S., 202-222-0722, ejensen@foe.org
WASHINGTON
Two days ahead of the 5th Paris Agreement anniversary, 18 NGOs are releasing a joint report showcasing 12 of the most devastating fossil fuel projects that are currently planned or under development. These expansion projects alone would use up three-quarters of the total remaining carbon budget if we are to have a 66% probability of limiting global warming to 1.5deg Celsius.
The report exposes the banks and investors that are providing financing to the fossil fuel companies developing large-scale, contested coal, oil and gas expansion projects. The 12 case studies highlight the immense environmental damage, violation of Indigenous rights, negative health impacts, human rights concerns and expected CO2 emissions caused by each of the projects. The group of organizations behind the report has formulated concrete policy demands for the finance industry. The finance sector needs to rapidly move money and services such as insurance out of the fossil fuel industry. The first priority should be to no longer enable coal, oil and gas expansion projects - such as those covered in the report - to move forward.
The full report can be downloaded at: https://urgewald.org/five-years-lost.
The case studies covered in the report were chosen based on their detrimental local and global impacts. They are being pushed forward against local resistance and despite calls by scientists and numerous political leaders to phase out fossil fuels.[1] The case studies are: gas extraction in Mozambique; oil & gas development in Suriname; oil & gas drilling in the US Permian Basin; oil & gas extraction in Argentina's Vaca Muerta region; coal and gas in Bangladesh's Payra Hub; China's new coal power plants; India's coal mines; coal expansion in the Philippines; gas extraction as part of Australia's Burrup Hub; drilling for oil & gas in the Norway Barents Sea; oil & gas projects and pipeline construction in the East Mediterranean; and offshore oil & gas drilling in the UK.
Together, these 12 projects are expected to cause at least 175 gigatons of additional CO2 equivalent emissions, should they move forward as intended by the companies involved. This is almost 75% of the remaining 235 Gt carbon budget if we are to limit global warming to 1.5degC with a 66% probability. [2]
The companies represented in the most case studies are ExxonMobil, BP and Total. These oil majors are each involved in six out of the eight oil and gas projects in the report. Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron are each involved in five of the eight oil and gas projects. Equinor is involved in four, while Repsol and Eni are each represented in three.
The report finds that financial institutions have provided $1.6 trillion in loans and underwriting since January 2016 and invested $1.1 trillion in bonds and shares in the 133 companies driving the 12 fossil fuel expansion projects. [3] On the banking side, the companies that have received the most funding since the Paris Agreement are BP, ExxonMobil, Petrobras, Occidental Petroleum and State Grid Corporation of China with a total of $358 billion in loans and underwriting from January 2016 to August 2020. The companies in the report with the highest investment value are Chevron, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Total, and BP. Together, investors hold bonds and shares in value of $394 billion in these five companies, as of August 2020.
20 investors provided almost half of the total investments - $535 billion of the total $1.1 trillion - identified in the report. Among the top investors, US financial institutions are the worst offenders. With bonds and shares worth $110 billion, BlackRock (USA) is the top investor in the report's coal, oil and gas companies. Vanguard (USA) follows closely behind with $104 billion in bonds and shares. State Street (USA) is in third place with $50.8 billion, followed by Capital Group (USA) with $48.4 billion. Only four of the top 20 investors are not from the US: the Norwegian Government Pension Fund with $31.9 billion in fifth place, UBS (Switzerland) with $11.8 billion in 11th place, Deutsche Bank (Germany) with $10.4 billion in 19th place and Legal & General (UK) with $9.8 billion in 20th place.
The top 20 banks provided more than half of the total funding to the fossil fuel companies involved in these 12 projects: $949 billion out of the total $1.6 trillion. The US banks CitiGroup, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase are the top financiers with a total of $295 billion. There are eight European banks among the top 20. Together, they provided $308 billion, led by Barclays ($66.4 billion) and HSBC ($55.2 billion), and followed by BNP Paribas ($52.7 billion), Deutsche Bank ($27.6 billion), Credit Suisse ($22.5 billion) and Santander ($21.1 billion). The Japanese banks in the top 20, Mitsubishi, Mizuho and SMBC, provided financing worth $149 billion. Also among the top 20 financiers are the Bank of China ($26.5 billion) and the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China ($24.9 billion), and the Royal Bank of Canada ($24.7 billion).
"These 12 case studies illustrate the lamentable failure of banks to respond to the urgency of the climate crisis. Instead of adopting a rigorous approach that would prevent the expansion of fossil fuels and facilitate their phase-out, global banks are refusing to break with the fatal growth trend of fossil extraction. BNP Paribas, JPMorgan Chase and Mitsubishi all have very different coal, oil and gas exclusion policies. However, this report shows that there is something that clearly unites them: they all keep supporting some of the worst projects worldwide through their loyal financing to the oil and gas majors," comments Lucie Pinson, executive director of Reclaim Finance.
"The Vaca Muerta geological basin in Argentina has the world's second largest reserves of shale gas. But fracking is not financially viable without huge government subsidies: in 2021, the subsidies to private companies are projected to cost the government one percent of Argentina's national budget, and four times its total health expenses projected for Covid 19. So exploiting Vaca Muerta is not part of the climate solution." says Maria Marta di Paola, director of investigations with FARN.
A multitude of new exclusion policies and sustainability commitments have recently been released by banks and investors. However, the findings outlined in the "Five Years Lost" report prove that the finance industry is failing to align its business model with the Paris Agreement. The 12 case studies, while are by no means the only examples of unhindered fossil fuel expansion, should be seen as a litmus test for the industry. As long as financiers do not divest from the top companies driving these fossil fuel expansion projects forward, their sustainability announcements clearly ring hollow. It is high time for financial institutions to adopt policies that exclude companies whose fossil fuel expansion plans will blow our carbon budget. Otherwise global efforts to fight the climate crisis will fail.
"Developing new coal, oil and gas reserves while the world is already experiencing the devastating effects of climate change is insane. This is the opposite of reducing CO2 emissions as agreed five years ago in Paris. If carbon bomb mega-projects such as the ones showcased in this report move forward, we will overshoot 1.5deg of global warming. The leading investors of the companies behind these projects are BlackRock, Vanguard and StateStreet. These institutions are gambling away our future and are exposing themselves to a risk of huge stranded assets at the same time. The only reasonable decision for investors in this situation is to green their portfolio and to quit companies planning new fossil investments now," says Katrin Ganswindt, Finance Campaigner with Urgewald.
The full report can be downloaded at: https://urgewald.org/five-years-lost.
The Environmental Working Group is a community 30 million strong, working to protect our environmental health by changing industry standards.
(202) 667-6982LATEST NEWS
Dr. Oz Nomination Seen as Potential Boon for Medicare Privatization
"Dr. Oz wants to fully privatize Medicare," warned one advocacy group. "That’s why Donald Trump put him in charge of Medicare."
Nov 20, 2024
Dr. Mehmet Oz, whose unsuccessful 2022 Pennsylvania Senate bid included pitching voters on a plan to expand the privatized Medicare Advantage program, is now in a position to potentially actualize that plan.
President-elect Donald Trump announced Tuesday that Oz, also known by his TV personality name Dr. Oz, is his pick to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
"Dr. Oz—a massive investor in Pharma—told the voters of Pennsylvania his plans to privatize Medicare… and they rejected him. Now Trump is giving him the authority to see his industry-approved plan carried through," wrote the progressive-leaning outlet The Lever, which covered Oz's support for Medicare Advantage back in 2022.
Through Medicare Advantage, which has been promoted by Trump and other congressional Republicans, seniors can opt out of traditional government-run Medicare health plans and instead choose plans administered by private insurers, such as UnitedHealthcare and Cigna.
According to The Lever's 2022 reporting, Oz pushed Medicare Advantage plans on his show The Dr. Oz Show and co-wrote a 2020 column for Forbes with a former healthcare executive in which they argued that a "Medicare Advantage For All" plan can "save" our healthcare system. In the column, Oz and his co-author articulated a plan to expand Medicare Advantage by imposing a 20% payroll tax.
Oz "is not a good pick for a very powerful position in charge of a trillion dollars of healthcare spending," wrote Matt Stoller of the American Economic Liberties Project on X, in reference to The Lever's investigation.
The Lever also reported that Oz's plan to expand private plans under Medicare Advantage could "boost companies in which he invests." For example, Oz and his wife owned up to $550,000 worth of stock in UnitedHealth Group, at the time of reporting. UnitedHealthcare and Humana account for nearly half, or 47%, of Medicare Advantage enrollees nationwide, according to the health policy organization KFF.
Additionally, a 2022 investigation by The New York Timesfound that major health insurers have exploited Medicare Advantage to boost their profits by billions of dollars.
Project 2025, a list of right-wing policy proposals led by the Heritage Foundation that Trump has tried to distance himself from, calls for making Medicare Advantage the default option for Medicare beneficiaries, which, if enacted, "would be a multibillion-dollar annual giveaway to corporations at the expense of Medicare enrollees and taxpayers," according to the liberal research and advocacy organization the Center for American Progress.
Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, offered a related critique of Oz: Americans "need someone who will crack down on insurers who want to deny care to the sick, providers who skimp on quality healthcare, corporations that want to privatize Medicare, and Big Pharma profiteers and ideologues who want to slash Medicaid and refuse care to low-income people. What they do not need is a healthcare huckster, which unfortunately Dr. Mehmet Oz appears to have become, having spent much of his recent career hawking products of dubious medical value."
In addition to the potential boon for private insurers, some researchers, news outlets, and members of Congress have also raised concerns about the quality of care administered under Medicare Advantage.
A 2022 government report found that "[Medicare Advantage Organizations] sometimes delayed or denied Medicare Advantage beneficiaries' access to services, even though the requests met Medicare coverage rules" and also "denied payments to providers for some services that met both Medicare coverage rules and [Medicare Advantage Organization] billing rules."
In October, a group of three senators wrote to the current CMS administrator about increasingly widespread abuses and care denials by for-profit Medicare Advantage insurers.
"We are concerned that in many instances MA plans are failing to deliver, compromising timely access to care, and undermining the ability of seniors and Americans with disabilities to purchase the coverage that’s right for them," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), and Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) wrote in a letter.
"We continue to hear alarming reports from seniors and their families, beneficiary advocates, and healthcare providers that MA plans are falling short, and finding a good plan is too difficult," they wrote.
In particular, they pointed to Medicare Advantage plans' growing reliance on prior authorization, a complex, barrier-ridden process whereby doctors must demonstrate a proposed treatment is medically necessary before the insurer will cover it.
"Overuse of prior authorization is not only harmful to patients, it hinders healthcare providers' ability to offer best-in-class service," they added.
Social Security Works, a progressive advocacy group, warned in a social media post Tuesday that "Dr. Oz wants to fully privatize Medicare."
"That's why Donald Trump put him in charge of Medicare," the group added. "We will fight to stop this charlatan from getting anywhere near our Medicare system."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 14-1 UN Security Council Vote, Lone US Veto Kills Gaza Cease-Fire Resolution
The U.S. government, said one human rights lawyer, "proves once again to the world that it is fully committed to the continuation of the genocide in Palestine."
Nov 20, 2024
The Biden administration faced fierce criticism on Wednesday after using its veto power at the United Nations Security Council to block a resolution demanding an immediate, unconditional, and permanent cease-fire in Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip.
The vetoed measure also called for all parties to implement a U.N. Security Council (UNSC) resolution passed in June—which would lead to the release of all hostages—and to enable Gaza civilians' immediate access to basic services and humanitarian assistance.
Jess Peake, who directs the International and Comparative Law Program at the University of California, Los Angeles, condemned the U.S. decision as "absolutely unforgivable" while Nina Turner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy, declared that "this is absurd."
Mai El-Sadany, executive director of the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy in Washington, D.C., called it "yet another shameful abuse of the UNSC veto by the U.S. to perpetuate a war that violates U.S. law and U.S. international legal commitments."
"Today's message is clear to the Israeli occupying power—you may continue your genocide... with complete impunity."
Human rights attorney Craig Mokhiber, who last year resigned as the New York director for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights over the United Nations' response to Gaza, said Wednesday that "the U.S. has just vetoed another cease-fire resolution in the U.N. Security Council, and, in doing so, proves once again to the world that it is fully committed to the continuation of the genocide in Palestine."
Mokhiber also called for action at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), where there is no U.S. veto power.
"Even as we seek accountability for Israeli perpetrators, we must also seek accountability for complicit U.S. actors," he said. "Israeli/U.S. impunity threatens the entire world. And the U.N. must now move to take concrete action in the UNGA."
The 14-1 vote at the UNSC marked the fourth time the United States has blocked a Gaza resolution since Israel began its retaliation for the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack. All five permanent members of the Security Council—the U.S., the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China—have veto power. The other seats are filled on a rotating basis and lack that authority.
The 10 nonpermanent members—Algeria, Ecuador, Guyana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, South Korea, and Switzerland—were behind the push to pass this draft resolution. Those who supported it represent "the collective will" of the international community, Algerian Ambassador Amar Bendjama said after the vote, according toU.N. News.
"It is sad day for the Security Council, for the United Nations, and the international community as a whole," Bendjama said, stressing that it has been "five months since the adoption of Resolution 2735, five months during which the Security Council remained idle—remained hand-tied."
"Today's message is clear to the Israeli occupying power—you may continue your genocide... with complete impunity. In this chamber—you enjoy immunity," he added. "To the Palestinian people, another clear message—while the overwhelming majority of the world stands in solidarity with your plight, others remain indifferent to your suffering."
Israel faces a South Africa-led genocide case at the International Court of Justice over its assault on Gaza, which as of Wednesday has killed at least 43,985 Palestinians, according to local officials. Another 104,092 people have been wounded, and most of the enclave's 2.3 million residents have been repeatedly displaced as Israeli forces have devastated civilian infrastructure.
U.S. Ambassador Robert Wood said Wednesday that "we made clear throughout negotiations we could not support an unconditional cease-fire that failed to release the hostages."
"This resolution abandoned that necessity," he argued. "For that reason, the United States could not support it."
The U.S. government has been widely accused of complicity in genocide for arming Israeli forces over the past 13 months—including by progressives in Congress. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday planned to force a vote on resolutions that would block American weapons sales to Israel on the grounds that they violate federal law.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Nomination of Crypto Banker Howard Lutnick Another 'Win for the Billionaire Class'
"Just another reminder that Trump serves the oligarchy, not the people," said former Labor Secretary Robert Reich.
Nov 20, 2024
Consumer advocacy group Public Citizen feigned surprise on Wednesday over President-elect Donald Trump's nomination of Wall Street CEO Howard Lutnick to lead the U.S. Department of Commerce.
"Oh look, another billionaire has made his way into Trump's Cabinet," said the group, noting Lutnick is also a promoter of cryptocurrency and a Trump megadonor. "The conflicts of interest are almost too many to count."
Among the conflicts are Lutnick's involvement in the crypto industry and federal and state cases against Cantor Fitzgerald.
In addition to running the Wall Street firm, Lutnick is a banker for the "stablecoin" company Tether; purchasers receive a Tether token for $1, with the proceeds invested in reserves and Treasury bonds managed by Lutnick's Cantor Fitzgerald.
As Public Citizen noted, New York Attorney General Letitia James found in 2021 that Tether and another crypto firm "recklessly and unlawfully covered up massive financial losses to keep their scheme going and protect their bottom lines."
The company is also reportedly under federal investigation over alleged criminal violations of anti-money laundering rules and sanctions.
Public Citizen also said that while co-chairing Trump's transition team, Lutnick "may also have helped arrange a meeting between Trump and Coinbase chief Brian Armstrong," who "helped steer a record amount of political spending from the crypto industry into the 2024 election."
Crypto firms poured over $119 million into directly influencing the 2024 federal elections, Public Citizen found in August, making the industry's spending second only to that of fossil fuel companies.
As Politico reported in October, even other members of Trump's inner circle have accused Lutnick of using his transition team co-chair position to take meetings on Capitol Hill and "talk about matters impacting his investment firm, Cantor Fitzgerald—including high-stakes regulatory matters involving its cryptocurrency business."
Lutnick's nomination, said former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, serves as a reminder that "Trump serves the oligarchy, not the people."
"Debris from crypto's political spending tsunami will jam up more halls in Washington than ever before if Lutnick is confirmed as secretary of commerce," said Bartlett Naylor, a financial policy advocate for Public Citizen. "The president-elect, who once correctly called bitcoin a scam, now surrounds himself with even more crypto enablers. Cryptocurrency won't return good jobs to the heartland or reduce food prices; it will only thin the wallets of those vulnerable to a now government-legitimized con."
Government watchdog Accountable.US pointed to more than $19 million in political donations Lutnick has made since 2009, nearly all of which went to GOP candidates and political action committees. He contributed $6 million to Trump's super PAC, Make America Great Again, Inc., in 2024 alone.
"Howard Lutnick's questionable qualifications to lead the Department of Commerce begin and end with his loyalty to the president-elect," said Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk.
Tether isn't the only Lutnick-linked company that's been investigated for wrongdoing. The Securities and Exchange Commission fined Cantor Fitzgerald $1.4 million in 2023, saying the company repeatedly failed "to identify and report customers who qualified as large traders." The company also agreed to pay $16 million in fines to the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in 2022 for using unauthorized communication channels.
Should Lutnick be confirmed as commerce secretary, Accountable.US said a "major regulatory conflict" could arise due to a dispute between the BGC Group, a spin-off brokerage of Cantor Fitzegerald, and futures and commodities exchange CME Group, over a competing trading platform BGC Group is launching.
"Lutnick's company's violations resulting in financial regulator fines and millions in right-wing political donations shows that political devotion takes precedence over actual experience to do the job in Trump's Cabinet," said Carrk.
Trump campaigned as a champion of working people as he railed against high grocery prices. As The New Republicreported on Tuesday, Lutnick has showered Trump's plan for across-the-board tariffs with effusive praise—even as leading economists warn the plan to impose tariffs on foreign imports will pass higher costs onto consumers, not foreign countries.
"In September, Lutnick told CNBC that 'tariffs are an amazing tool for the president to use—we need to protect the American worker,'" wrote Edith Olmsted. "Lutnick also gushed about tariffs at Trump's fascistic rally in Madison Square Garden last month, claiming that America was better off 100 years ago, when it had 'no income tax and all we had was tariffs.' His high praise for tariffs came even as he admitted Americans would face higher prices as a direct result."
Lutnick's nomination, said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), "is a win for the billionaire class at the expense of working people."
"The across-the-board tariff plan," she said, "is a distraction from the MAGA scam to extend tax giveaways for giant corporations and billionaires like Howard Lutnick."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular