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
April, 26 2022, 03:48pm EDT
Contact:
Travis Nichols, travis@stand.earth
Ada Recinos, ada@amazonwatch.org
Pendle Marshall-Hallmark, pendle@amazonwatch.org
Citigroup AGM: Bank Called Out for Amazon Oil Financing
Report shows bank’s role in funding oil companies with ties to corruption, rights violations, pollution, and deforestation in the Amazon. Indigenous leaders, alongside human rights and environmental campaigners, calling for Citigroup to exit Amazon oil and gas.
WASHINGTON
Following Earth Day and on the day of Citigroup's AGM, activists supporting an Amazon Watch and Stand.earth led campaign to end Amazon drilling revealed a banner reading "Citi: Stop Destroying the Amazon," calling out Citi for its role as the top financier in the world of oil activity in the Amazon. Environmental campaigners at Stand.earth and Amazon Watch are also spotlighting an "Investor Risk Alert" highlighting the bank's exposure and central role in providing billions in financing and investments to oil and gas companies in the Amazon. Indigenous leaders and federations directly impacted by oil drilling are calling on Citigroup to commit to exit Amazon oil and gas.
Citigroup's investments and financing in Amazonian oil are tied to corruption, pollution, deforestation, and Indigenous rights violations - incompatible with its climate forward image. Without a clear commitment to end its role as a major driver of the fossil fuel industry in the Amazon, Citigroup's climate promises remain inadequate.
- Read the Risk Alert: https://www.stand.earth/publication/citigroup_riskalert
Citi's Annual General Meeting was met with protesters today urging Citigroup to release plans winding down its financing of the fossil fuel industry and to support two different shareholder proposals calling for the bank to cease its support for fossil fuel expansion and to produce a report evaluating its respect or lack thereof for Indigenous Peoples' right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent. 12.8% of shareholders voted for Citi to cease its support for fossil fuel expansion, and 34% voted in favor of the Indigenous Rights resolution. While not yet in the majority, these votes represent significant amounts of investment capital and signal a growing push from shareholders for Citi to end fossil fuel expansion and recognize Indigenous rights.
The end to fossil fuel financing is being echoed by climate activists. Last week, protesters with Extinction Rebellion NYC blockaded Citigroup's headquarters for hours resulting in at least 19 arrests, New York Communities for Change activists confronted a Citigroup executive at the Reuters Responsible Business USA conference over the bank's continued support of oil and gas in the Amazon, and just yesterday students at Yale University confronted outgoing Citigroup board member Ernesto Zedillo, a professor at the school, about his role in enabling fossil fuel financing at Citi.
In 2021, Citigroup released an updated energy policy that rules out financing for oil and gas in the Arctic, yet the bank has made no commitments related to its financing of the oil industry in the Amazon. In a global declaration by Indigenous federations and allies, banks are being called to end financing of commodities like oil that are responsible for fragmenting and polluting the Amazon. Leadership on this issue is coming from European banks - including ING, Credit-Suisse, Natixis, Societe Generale, BNP Paribas, and Intesa - all of whom have made commitments to end financing for oil trade in Ecuador and beyond. This is consistent with international calls for protecting 80% of the Amazon by 2025 - a critical threshold to meet in order to prevent the biome from unraveling. Not a single U.S. bank has made any such commitments.
"Oil drilling in our Amazon has brought contamination, disease, deforestation, destruction of our cultures, and the colonization of our territories. It is an existential threat for us and violates our fundamental rights as Indigenous peoples. We are calling for an end to all new extraction on our lands, and as our ancestors and science now affirm, we must keep fossil fuels in the ground." - Nemo Andy Guiquita, a Waorani Indigenous leader and Women and Health Coordinator for the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of the Ecuadorian Amazon (CONFENIAE)
With the Amazon rainforest at the tipping point of ecological collapse, Citigroup's lack of an exclusion policy and exit strategy on Amazon oil and gas presents a significant reputational risk. Its financing has been instrumental in the build-out of oil drilling and infrastructure in critical rainforest areas and Indigenous territories. Its investments have long-term impacts and have supported the expansion of oil production, in many cases despite strong opposition from Indigenous communities. Citigroup is one of the top foreign banks financing state-owned oil companies operating in the Amazon. Its clients include Petrobras in Brazil, EcoPetrol in Colombia, PetroAmazonas/Petroecuador in Ecuador, and PetroPeru in Peru.
"The Amazon is the last place on the planet where oil drilling should be expanding, so Citigroup CEO Jane Fraser has a critical opportunity before her. Will she show a new kind of leadership and commit to aligning bank policy with what the world needs and what generations of Indigenous peoples and concerned citizens are calling for, or will she allow for business as usual and continued degradation of the Amazon?" said Tyson Miller, Amazon Campaigns Director at Stand.earth.
Pendle Marshall-Hallmark, Climate and Finance Campaigner at Amazon Watch said, "Activists are fed up with Citi's greenwashing. It can't call itself a climate leader while pouring billions into oil and gas exploitation anywhere, let alone on Indigenous territories in the Amazon. Citi's fossil fuel financing is razing the rainforest, spewing oil into local water sources, and destroying our climate. It has to stop now."
Citigroup is one of the only U.S. banks that has been providing funding to PetroEcuador (formerly PetroAmazonas), the state oil company of Ecuador, and the country is now planning to double oil production. Many of those expansion projects will open up pristine and roadless Amazon rainforest and titled territories of Indigenous peoples, who have not provided their consent, a right recently upheld by the country's Constitutional Court. Despite averaging two oil spills per week, the country is currently expanding drilling in protected areas such as Yasuni National Park, building roads in intact forests, and in areas near Indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation. Oil concessions that span approximately 7.5 million acres (3 million hectares) of rainforests are slated to be auctioned off this year.
In Peru, Citigroup is participating in a 10-year, 1.3 billion USD syndicated loan to the state-owned oil company PetroPeru, which is seeking to expand oil operations within the North Peruvian Amazon where the Indigenous Achuar and Wampis peoples live and are strongly opposed to any kind of oil drilling within their ancestral territory.
"Our collective fight to defend our lands and prevent oil drilling is not just a fight to protect our own communities but to protect the entire planet from the climate crisis we all face. The banks that finance the extraction and expansion of oil in the Amazon are complicit in genocide against indigenous peoples and in the perpetuation of a climate crisis that is an existential threat to all of us. All banks, including Citigroup, must commit to ending financing for the exploitation of fossil fuels in the Amazon and in the world in general.," says Nelton Yankur, President of the Federation of the Achuar Nationality of Peru.
At the end of March, the Exit Amazon Oil and Gas campaign provided a case study on the impact of oil and gas extraction in the Amazon Biome for the annual Banking on Climate Chaos report released by a coalition of top international environmental groups. The report revealed how U.S. banks are among the world's major drivers of climate chaos. The report, the most comprehensive analysis of fossil fuel banking to date, documents how U.S. banks such as Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase continue to fuel climate destruction, despite their many public pledges to the contrary. Crucially, the 13th annual report shows how most of the banks' biggest fossil fuel clients are actively expanding new fossil fuel extraction and infrastructure projects.
About Exit Amazon Oil and Gas
The Exit Amazon Oil and Gas campaign, led by Amazon Watch, and Stand.earth in collaboration with the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of the Ecuadorian Amazon (CONFENIAE) and the Coordinating Body of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin (COICA), is calling on banks to commit to exclude financing for oil and gas in the Amazon biome, starting with ending its expansion.
The campaign follows research completed by Stand.earth and Amazon Watch that exposes links between leading banks in the Global North and the Amazon oil and gas trade:
Stand.earth (formerly ForestEthics) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with offices in Canada and the United States that is known for its groundbreaking research and successful corporate and citizens engagement campaigns to create new policies and industry standards in protecting forests, advocating the rights of indigenous peoples, and protecting the climate. Visit us at
LATEST NEWS
Senate Rejects Sanders' Bid to Halt Arms to Israel Over Gaza Atrocities
"Our taxpayer dollars should be used to fund education, housing, and healthcare for Americans, not to support the destruction of innocent lives abroad," said one advocacy leader "deeply saddened" by the votes.
Nov 20, 2024
The U.S. Senate on Wednesday refused to pass joint resolutions of disapproval proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders that would prevent the sale of certain offensive American weaponry to Israel, which has killed nearly 44,000 Palestinians in Gaza since last fall.
S.J. Res. 111, S.J. Res. 113, and S.J. Res. 115 would have respectively blocked the sale of 120mm tank rounds, 120mm high-explosive mortar rounds, Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), the guidance kits attached to "dumb bombs."
The first vote was
18-79, with Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) voting present and Sens. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) and JD Vance (R-Ohio)—the vice-president-elect—not voting. In addition to Sanders (I-Vt.), those in favor were: Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Angus King (I-Maine), Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.).
The second vote was 19-78—Sen. George Helmy (D-N.J.) joined those voting for the resolution. The third vote was 17-80.
"What this extremist government has done in Gaza is unspeakable, but what makes it even more painful is that much of this has been done with U.S. weapons and American taxpayer dollars."
Ahead of the votes, Sanders took to the Senate floor to highlight that his resolutions were backed by over 100 groups, including pro-Israel J Street; leading labor organizations such as the Service Employees International Union, United Auto Workers, and United Electrical Workers; humanitarian groups like Amnesty International; and various faith organizations.
"I would also point out that poll after poll shows that a strong majority of the American people oppose sending more weapons and military aid to fund Netanyahu's war machine," the senator said, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. "According to a poll commissioned by J Street... 62% of Jewish Americans support withholding weapons shipments to Israel until Netanyahu agrees to an immediate cease-fire."
In addition to stressing that his proposals would not affect any of the systems Israel uses to defend itself from incoming attacks, Sanders argued that "from a legal perspective, these resolutions are simple, straightforward, and not complicated. Bottom line: The United States government must obey the law—not a very radical idea. But unfortunately, that is not the case now."
"The Foreign Assistance Act and the Arms Export Control Act are very clear: The United States cannot provide weapons to countries that violate internationally recognized human rights or block U.S. humanitarian aid," he continued. "According to the United Nations, according to much of the international community, according to virtually every humanitarian organization on the ground in Gaza, Israel is clearly in violation of these laws."
To illustrate the devastating impact of Israel's assault on Gaza—which has led to a genocide case at the International Court of Justice—Sanders quoted from an October New York Timesopinion essay authored by American doctors who volunteered in Gaza. For example, Dr. Ndal Farah from Ohio said: "Malnutrition was widespread. It was common to see patients reminiscent of Nazi concentration camps with skeletal features."
Sanders said that "what this extremist government has done in Gaza is unspeakable, but what makes it even more painful is that much of this has been done with U.S. weapons and American taxpayer dollars. In the last year alone, the U.S. has provided $18 billion in military aid to Israel... and by the way, a few blocks from here, people are sleeping out on the street."
"We have also delivered more than 50,000 tons of military equipment to Israel," he added. "In other words... the United States of America is complicit in all of these atrocities. We are funding these atrocities. That complicity must end, and that is what these resolutions are about."
Merkley, Van Hollen, and Welch joined Sanders in speaking in favor of the resolutions on Wednesday. Members of both parties also spoke out against them: Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sens. Ted Budd (R-N.C.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John Kennedy (R-La.), James Risch (R-Idaho), and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.).
Cardin quoted talking points from the White House that were reported on earlier Wednesday by HuffPost. The outlet detailed how officials in outgoing President Joe Biden's administration suggested that "lawmakers who vote against the arms are empowering American and Israeli foes from Iran to the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah, which the U.S. treats as terror organizations."
Just hours before the Senate debate, the Biden administration vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza—the fourth time it has blocked such a measure at the world body since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel.
After the Senate votes, groups that supported Sanders' resolutions expressed disappointment.
Wa'el Alzayat, CEO of the Muslim advocacy group Emgage Action, said in a statement that "we have a moral obligation to stand up for the people of Gaza and demand an end to the constant bombardment they face. I'm deeply saddened that our U.S. senators shot down the joint resolutions calling for a halt in weapons to Israel. Our taxpayer dollars should be used to fund education, housing, and healthcare for Americans, not to support the destruction of innocent lives abroad."
"Continuing to provide Israel with unrestricted military aid to attack innocent civilians in Gaza and Lebanon is a moral failure—one the American government will look back on in horror as the situation gets unimaginably worse," Alzayat added. "While the resolution did not pass this time, we will continue working with lawmakers and allies to advocate for legislation that promotes justice and adherence to international law."
While these resolutions did not advance to the House of Representatives, Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian noted that "never before have so many senators voted to restrict arms transfers to Israel, and we are extremely grateful to those who did. This historic vote represents a sea change in how elected Democrats feel about the Israeli military's campaign of death and destruction in Gaza."
"We have all seen with our own eyes the thousands of innocent civilians who have been killed, displaced, and starved by weapons paid for with U.S. tax dollars," Kharrazian said. "Now, almost half of the Senate Democratic caucus is backing up our collective outrage with their votes. Supporters of this destructive war will try to claim victory but even they know that today's vote proves that the movement to end the war is growing, across America and in Congress, and we won't stop."
Center for International Policy executive vice president Matt Duss, who formerly served as Sanders' foreign policy adviser, similarly welcomed the progress, commending those who voted in favor of the resolutions for having "the courage to stand up for U.S. law, the rights of civilians in conflict, and basic decency."
"As civilian deaths, displacement, and disease among Palestinians in Gaza mount alongside open calls for ethnic cleansing by Israeli officials, the Biden administration is not merely failing to act—it is actively enabling the Netanyahu government's war crimes," he continued. "Rather than taking steps to bolster democracy, rights, and rule of law at home and abroad in advance of [President-elect] Donald Trump's second term, President Biden and his top officials are spending their precious last days in office lobbying against measures to protect U.S. interests and vetoing otherwise unanimously supported resolutions in the United Nations Security Council that reflect its own stated policies."
"The lawmakers who stood on the right side of history today will be remembered for their leadership and humanity," he added. "The same cannot be said about President Biden and those who help him abet starvation and slaughter in Gaza."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Previously Voting With GOP, 52 House Dems Targeted to Oppose 'Nonprofit Killer' Bill
"Every nonprofit across the spectrum of human rights and progressive values is up in arms, begging Democrats to overcome their greed and their spite, and not to hand President-elect Trump the ability to destroy any nonprofit he dislikes with the flick of a pen," wrote one campaigner.
Nov 20, 2024
House Republicans have revived an effort to pass the so-called "nonprofit killer" bill—a piece of legislation that, if passed, would hand U.S. President-elect Donald Trump the ability to sanction civil society groups, including government watchdogs, news outlets, and humanitarian organizations.
A vote on the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act (H.R. 9495), which would allow the Treasury Department to remove tax-exempt status from nonprofits deemed "terrorist supporting organizations," is expected on Thursday.
But a wide coalition of organizations and individuals have voiced their opposition to the bill, including multiple groups that have mobilized to pressure House members to vote against it, particularly the 52 Democrats who previously voted in favor of it.
The controversial bill was blocked last week when 144 Democrats and one Republican voted against the bill after it was fast-tracked under a procedure that requires two-thirds majority support for passage. Republicans then brought it back through the House Rules Committee, teeing it up for a simple majority floor vote.
The 52 Democrats who voted in favor of the bill include Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), and Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.).
Groups including Muslims for Progressive Values, Fight for the Future, Council on American-Islamic Relations, and the union The NewsGuild-CWA have launched an advocacy effort to pressure those 52 Democrats to flip their votes and urge all members of the House to vote no on the bill.
"H.R. 9495 is a threat to our basic right to free speech, dissent, and advocacy. Democrats who claim to defend democracy must be called out for their SUPPORT of this bill. This bill will silence non-profits who speak up for human rights of Palestinians, reproductive rights, against deportations or ANY government policies," wrote Muslims for Progressive Values.
Some of Democrats who voted in favor have since said they will no longer support the bill.
Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.) released the following statement on Monday: "I have heard loud and clear from folks in my district and understand the concerns of my constituents, non-profit leaders and their staff. The incoming administration's recent Cabinet nominations give me little faith that this tool would be used as originally intended. Therefore, I have decided to vote against H.R. 9495 and will continue acting in our district's and nation's best interests."
There is fear that the bill would, in particular, have a chilling impact on Palestinian rights organizations and pro-Palestine speech.
"This bill was designed to criminalize organizations and activists who oppose the U.S.'s unconditional support of Israel's genocide of Palestinians and the slaughter of Lebanese civilians. Such legislation threatened the constitutional rights of American nonprofits, houses of worship, and advocacy organizations—regardless of political orientation. Lawmakers must understand the serious, long-term dangers of advancing bills or investigations that seek to suppress lawful activism and silence dissent," according to a joint statement issued by Arab and Muslim American groups last week.
Lia Holland, the campaigns and communications director at Fight for the Future, said in a statement that "it's a disappointment but not a surprise to find Democrats voting for a bill to punish student protests against genocide on the wrong side of their entire values system. Over and over again, we've seen how legislative efforts designed to oppress dissent and silence speech end up burning their progenitors."
"H.R. 9495 is no exception—now, every nonprofit across the spectrum of human rights and progressive values is up in arms, begging Democrats to overcome their greed and their spite, and not to hand President-elect Trump the ability to destroy any nonprofit he dislikes with the flick of a pen," Holland added.
Others have also critiqued the proposed legislation on broader civil rights and free speech grounds.
"H.R. 9495 provides no due process or oversight, creating a tool for political retaliation under the guise of 'fighting terrorism.' Trump would abuse this power to retaliate against any [organization] that challenges his agenda. The 52 Dems who initially supported it must reverse course," wrote former Labor Secretary Robert Reich.
Kia Hamadanchy, senior federal policy counsel at the ACLU, said that "every time we give the president new powers and more authority to act alone, we create an open invitation for abuse by the executive branch."
"While the ACLU would oppose this legislation no matter who the president is, and there is no question it could be weaponized against groups on both ends of the ideological spectrum," Hamadanchy added, "the rhetoric we saw on the campaign trail from the president-elect is even more reason for Congress to reject this bill."
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP-Controlled House Ethics Panel Votes to Keep Gaetz Report Secret
"The American people deserve transparency from their elected officials, especially when it comes to evaluating the nominee to become our nation’s chief law enforcement officer," said one critic.
Nov 20, 2024
Critics slammed the Republican-controlled U.S. House Ethics Committee on Wednesday after the panel decided against releasing a report on sexual misconduct allegations against former U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, who has been nominated by President-elect Donald Trump to serve as attorney general.
Committee Chair Michael Guest (R-Miss.) told reporters that "there was not an agreement by the committee to release the report," while Rep. Susan Wild (D-Penn.) clarified that "a vote was taken."
Julie Tsirkin, congressional correspondent for NBC News, said Wild "suggested all Democrats voted yes, all Republicans voted no."
Christina Harvey, executive director of Stand Up America, called on the committee to "release the full report immediately" and warned that "failing to make it public would be a betrayal of the public trust and a dangerous precedent for our democracy."
Committee investigators have been examining allegations that Gaetz paid to have sex with a 17-year-old at parties while he was serving in Congress.
The investigators obtained records showing that Gaetz paid more than $10,000 to two women who testified before the committee. The records showed 27 PayPal and Venmo transfers from Gaetz between July 2017 and January 2019, some of which were allegedly payments for sex.
The allegations were also part of an FBI investigation into whether Gaetz was involved in sex trafficking of a minor. That probe was dropped without charges.
"The American people deserve transparency from their elected officials, especially when it comes to evaluating the nominee to become our nation’s chief law enforcement officer," said Harvey. "The Senate can't fulfill its constitutional duty to advise and consent on the president's nominees without access to the report and all evidence of the numerous allegations of Gaetz's sexual misconduct."
Gaetz abruptly resigned from Congress hours after Trump announced his nomination. The resignation meant Gaetz was no longer under the congressional committee's jurisdiction, and several lawmakers suggested the former Florida congressman aimed to avoid the release of the report. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has pushed for the report to remain confidential considering Gaetz's resignation.
As the House committee was weighing whether to release the documents, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee met with Gaetz ahead of his confirmation process. Vice President-elect JD Vance (R-Ohio) suggested on social media as the meetings were taking place that senators should support Trump's nomination, saying the party rode the president-elect's "coattails" to a Senate and House majority.
"He deserves a cabinet that is loyal to the agenda he was elected to implement," Vance said.
The House Ethics Committee report could still be released, either by someone who leaks it to the media or a lawmaker who could read it into the congressional record—an act that could lead to censure or expulsion from Congress.
As it stands, podcast host Brian Tyler Cohen said, "the House Ethics Committee Republicans are now complicit in trying to bury a potentially 'highly damaging' report into Matt Gaetz."
"Trump says jump, Republicans say 'how high,'" he said, "even if it means shielding sex trafficking of a minor."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular