November, 02 2022, 08:17am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Ginny Cleaveland, Deputy Press Secretary, Fossil-Free Finance, Sierra Club, ginny.cleaveland@sierraclub.org
Leaders or laggards? Report analyzes net-zero pledges of US banks
Commitments, actions from 6 biggest banks fall far short of what’s needed for global climate goals
NEW YORK
Ahead of COP 27, a new report by the Sierra Club's Fossil-Free Finance campaign analyzes the financial sector's net-zero emissions pledges two years in the making, revealing that the commitments and actions from the 6 biggest US banks fall far short of what's needed to meet global climate goals. Read the report:https://sc.org/bank-progress
With the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) expected to release an update at COP 27 on its members' progress toward their net-zero commitments, this new report serves as a useful, critical analysis of US banks' own net-zero commitments, interim targets, and exclusion policies, all summarized in one place. It also highlights the need for mandatory comparable disclosures of corporate climate commitments, which was feedback that many investors and advocacy groups gave to the Securities & Exchange Commission on its proposed climate risk disclosure rule.
The report focuses on the commitments of 6 US banks -- JPMorgan Chase, Citi, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs. All 6 banks pledged to reach net-zero financed emissions by 2050 and are members of the Net Zero Banking Alliance. The report looks at the banks' interim 2030 targets for the oil & gas and power generation sectors, and exclusion policies for high-risk sectors like coal and Arctic oil & gas. It also lists key standards for policies to be considered credible and robust.
Overall, the report finds banks' progress remains limited in large part due to their continued financing of fossil fuel expansion. US banks are the biggest fossil fuel financiers in the world, with JPMorgan Chase, Citi, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America together providing a whopping quarter of the $4.6 trillion USD in global fossil fuel financing in the past six years alone. This financing comes despite calls from leading energy experts for no new fossil fuel projects to ensure the world reaches its climate goals.
"The science is clear that in order to reach net zero by 2050 -- and help steer the world away from climate disaster -- banks must stop funding fossil fuel expansion. But big US banks have fallen far behind the best practices of their global peers, setting only weak targets and policies riddled with loopholes that allow billions of dollars in new fossil fuels projects each year. If banks want to live up to their net-zero pledges, they need to commit to real emissions reductions and end financing for companies expanding fossil fuels," said Adele Shraiman, Campaign Representative for the Sierra Club's Fossil-Free Finance campaign.
INTERIM 2030 TARGETS
The report details how the 2030 targets set by big US banks fall short of what is needed to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, and establishes recommendations for credible and robust targets. Some of the most critical elements of robust 2030 targets include application to both lending and underwriting, use of a carbon dioxide equivalent metric to assess all greenhouse gas emissions, and high-quality data and methodology disclosures.
For the oil and gas sector, the report outlines why it is essential for banks to set absolute emissions reduction targets instead of intensity-only targets. At present, only Citi and Wells Fargo have set absolute emissions reduction targets for the oil and gas sector.
For the power generation sector, the report details why banks must demonstrate how their emissions intensity target will lead to an overall reduction in financed emissions on an absolute basis aligned with the UN Paris Agreement's 1.5degC target.
EXCLUSION POLICIES
The report also assesses the policies that inform the banks' approach to financing certain high-risk sectors. Most notably, the vast majority of bank financing for oil and gas is in general corporate financing, not project financing, meaning that exclusion policies focused on project financing allow the banks to continue pouring billions into fossil fuels in places like the Arctic and in dirty energy sources like coal.
CONCLUSION
Across the board, the report finds that all six big US banks are severe laggards when compared to the best practices set by some of their international counterparts. It provides a suite of recommendations for banks to strengthen their interim targets and financing policies in order to reach their net zero by 2050 pledges. Among the most pressing recommendations are the need to cover both lending and underwriting, and extend exclusion policies to cover general corporate finance, rather than being limited to project financing.
"The yawning chasm between the stated climate commitments of the big US banks and their actual policies and targets lies in sharp contrast to the increasingly robust fossil fuel policies of many large European financial institutions. US banks should follow the lead of their European peers, rather than continue with the anti-science fallacy that expanding fossil fuel production is in any way compatible with a liveable climate," said Paddy McCully, Senior Analyst at Reclaim Finance.
Dozens of European banks, investors, and insurers refuse to support most companies developing new coal projects, and financial institutions have begun to extend these policies to oil and gas companies. For example, French banks La Banque Postale and Credit Mutuel have both suspended financial services to companies expanding oil and gas production. And many European firms have adopted stronger emissions reduction targets than the US banks, such as Swiss bank UBS, which is targeting a 71% reduction in its absolute financed emissions from oil and gas companies between 2020 and 2030.
The Sierra Club is the most enduring and influential grassroots environmental organization in the United States. We amplify the power of our 3.8 million members and supporters to defend everyone's right to a healthy world.
(415) 977-5500LATEST NEWS
Sanders Says Trump Arrest of Wisconsin Judge Is About One Thing Only: 'Unchecked Power'
"Let's be clear. Trump's arrest of Judge Dugan in Milwaukee has nothing to do with immigration. It has everything to do with his moving this country toward authoritarianism."
Apr 25, 2025
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders led congressional progressives on Friday in condemning the Trump administration's arrest of a county judge in Wisconsin for allegedly helping an undocumented man evade capture by federal immigration agents.
FBI agents arrested 65-year-old Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, who faces felony charges of obstruction and concealing an individual, whom she is accused of giving refuge in her chambers as federal officers sought to arrest him.
In a statement accusing President Donald Trump of "illegally usurping congressional powers," Sanders (I-Vt.) said: "Let's be clear. Trump's arrest of Judge Dugan in Milwaukee has nothing to do with immigration. It has everything to do with his moving this country toward authoritarianism."
"Trump continues to demonstrate that he does not believe in the Constitution, the separation of powers, or the rule of law."
"He is suing media that he dislikes. He is attacking universities whose policies he disagrees with. He is intimidating major law firms who have opposed him," Sanders continued. "He is ignoring a 9-0 Supreme Court decision to bring Kilmar Abrego García back from El Salvador, where he was illegally sent. He is threatening to impeach judges who rule against him."
"Trump's latest attack on the judiciary and Judge Dugan is about one thing—unchecked power," the senator asserted. "He will attack and undermine any institution that stands in his way. Trump continues to demonstrate that he does not believe in the Constitution, the separation of powers, or the rule of law. He simply wants more and more power for himself."
"It is time for my colleagues in the Republican Party who believe in the Constitution to stand up to his growing authoritarianism," Sanders added.
Other progressive lawmakers also condemned Dugan's arrest, with Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) calling this "a red alert moment" that we "all must rise against."
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said on the social media site X: "Judge Dugan's arrest is outrageous and a fear tactic to our independent judiciary. Trump has always thought he was above the law, but now he's enabling his goons to push that limit as far as it can go. His reckless deportations and flaunting of the Constitution will fail."
Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.)
said on social media that "arresting judges is the kind of crackdown you see in a police state."
"This is how dictators take power," Lee warned. "They manufacture crises, undermine our institutions, and erode our checks and balances. If they'll come for one, they'll come for all."
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) said that "Trump's playbook is simple: punish anyone who stands in his way."
"This ain't law and order—it's a rise of authoritarianism in real time," she added.
The FBI arrested a Wisconsin judge who stood up for due process for immigrants. This is unprecedented. All of us need to stand up and speak out against arresting judges in this country. We are living in dangerous times.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Ro Khanna ( @khanna.house.gov) April 25, 2025 at 11:07 AM
Accusing the Trump administration of a "shocking" willingness to "weaponize federal law enforcement," Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) contended that the FBI "coming into a community and arresting a judge is a serious matter" that would require a "high legal bar."
Moore added, "I am very alarmed at this increasingly lawless action of the Trump administration," including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which has "been defying courts and acting with disregard for the Constitution."
Advocacy groups including Voces de la Frontera, Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression (MAARPR), and Milwaukee Turners led a Friday afternoon protest against Dugan's arrest outside the Milwaukee County Courthouse.
HAPPENING NOW: A HUGE crowd of protesters have gathered outside a Milwaukee courthouse to support Judge Hannah Dugan after her arrest earlier today
[image or embed]
— Marco Foster ( @marcofoster.bsky.social) April 25, 2025 at 1:46 PM
"To refer to this heinous attack as alarming would be an understatement," MAARPR said in a statement accusing FBI Director Kash Patel of "intentionally being public with his announcement and accusations" and "seeking to bypass Dugan's due process and label her as a criminal before she even has an opportunity to speak up."
"It's no coincidence that Patel and the FBI have acted this way when the agency has a long history of bypassing any due process," the group said. "They are seeking to send a clear message: Either you play along with Trump's agenda, or pay the consequences."
MAARPR continued:
During this period of racist and political repression, we must stand together to denounce today's actions by the FBI. What happened to Dugan is not new. The FBI and other agencies have been emboldened in recent months, snatching people off the streets, separating families, terrorizing communities, breaking doors down of pro-Palestine activists, and contributing to the unjust deportation of immigrants who don't have criminal records. What is new is that they have gone after a judge.
"The conditions we face are scary, but it will be the people united who can put an end to this terror by the FBI, ICE, and all other agencies committing such acts of injustice," the group added. "The people united will stand against Trump and his agenda."
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Wants $27 Billion for Trump's Golden Dome 'Fantasy' While Working to Gut Working-Class Safety Net
"$27 billion for a golden defense dome, yet Republicans want to cut Medicaid," wrote one observer. "Vote accordingly in 2026."
Apr 25, 2025
As Republicans in Congress push forward with a sweeping tax and spending plan that could be be paid for in part by deep cuts to Medicaid and to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the GOP plans to add a defense package to that bill which will include "an initial $27 billion boost" for the Golden Dome desired by U.S. President Donald, according to Thursday reporting from Reuters.
Trump has said he wants an "Iron Dome for America"—something akin to Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile defense. In a speech earlier this year he referred to it as a "Golden Dome."
Experts who spoke to NPR recently said that building a Golden Dome would be more complicated than Israel's Iron Dome for multiple reasons. Dylan Spaulding, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, earlier this week called the Golden Dome idea a "complete fantasy."
According to Reuters, which cited "a document" and a congressional aide, the $27 billion would be a part of a $150 billion defense package Republicans plan to introduce. "It will be part of Trump's sweeping tax cuts bill, which will cut taxes by about $5 trillion and add approximately $5.7 trillion to the federal government's debt over the next decade," per the outlet. The measure, if passed, will also fund the construction of 14 warships and increase homeland security spending.
"The $27 billion investment in Golden Dome will fund the building of more missile interceptors and the purchase of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) antiballistic missile batteries, according to the congressional aide. THAAD is made by Lockheed Martin," the defense contractor, Reuters reported.
According to reporting from the outlet last week, billionaire "Elon Musk's SpaceX and two partners have emerged as front-runners to win a crucial part of the Golden Dome program that would track incoming missiles."
Bob Peterson, a senior research fellow for strategic deterrence at the right-wing think tank the Heritage Foundation, applauded the move. Peterson shared Reuters' reporting and wrote on Friday: "This is an important start to building Golden Dome. I sincerely hope this passes so that missile defense will protect all Americans from our adversaries."
Not everyone is enthusiastic about the spending.
One observer wrote on social media: "Golden Dome missile defense shield? WTF. $27 billion for a golden defense dome, yet Republicans want to cut Medicaid and Social Security. Vote accordingly in 2026."
"More than 180 companies are interested, but Musk's Space X just so happens to be the 'front-runner' for the contracts," wrote Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), reacting to earlier reporting from Reuters about Musk's potential involvement in the project. "Shut this corrupt deal down. No cuts to Medicaid and Social Security to pay for more Musk contracts."
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Activist-Turned-Federal Prosecutor Sends 'Threatening' Letters to Medical Journals
One doctor and public health advocate called on editors to "join together and publicly renounce this as yet more thinly guised anti-science political blackmail."
Apr 25, 2025
Reports of letters that an interim U.S. attorney has sent to several medical journals in the United States prompted a show of solidarity from the U.K.-based Lancet on Friday, with the publication denouncing "the harassment of journals" and warning it "comes amid wider radical dismantling of the USA's scientific infrastructure."
The letters, containing questions about the academic journals' bias, come a year after Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he hoped to prosecute medical journals and accused the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)—which condemned President Donald Trump's response to the coronavirus pandemic in 2020—of "lying to the public."
The letters from interim U.S. Attorney Edward Martin, who has previously been accused of using his office to target Trump's critics, are "an obvious ruse to strike fear into journals and impinge on their right to independent editorial oversight," said The Lancet.
NEJM is one of at least four medical journals that have received the correspondence from Martin recently. According toMedical Professionals Reference, the peer-reviewed journal CHEST, which is published by the American College of Chest Physicians, received a letter on April 14 with the following questions and a demand that editors respond by May 2:
- How do you assess your responsibilities to protect the public from misinformation?
- How do you clearly articulate to the public when you have certain viewpoints that are influenced by your ongoing relations with supporters, funders, advertisers, and others?
- Do you accept articles or essays from competing viewpoints?
- How do you assess the role played by government officials and funding organizations like the National Institutes of Health in the development of submitted articles?
- How do you handle allegations that authors of works in your journals may have misled their readers?
Martin also asked the editors whether "publishers, journals, and organizations with which you work are adjusting their method of acceptance of competing viewpoints."
Psychiatrist Eric Reinhart of Northwestern University posted the letter on X last week and asked what kinds of "competing viewpoints" Martin—former chair of the Missouri Republican Party and president of the right-wing Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund—might want to see a medical journals about respiratory health.
"'Is sarcoidosis actually bad?" Reinhart suggested sardonically. "Should trans people get treatment for chest infections? Is ivermectin the cure for lung cancer? Why shouldn't Joe Rogan perform lung transplants? So glad RFK Jr. is in charge to ensure these important views get airtime."
Reinhart urged other scientific journal editors to speak out against threats they receive from the Trump appointee.
Adam Gaffney, a pulmonary and critical care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance in Massachusetts and former president of Physicians for a National Health Program, also called on journal editors to "join together and publicly renounce this as yet more thinly guised anti-science political blackmail."
"It is yet another example of the Trump administration's effort to control academic inquiry and stifle scientific discourse—an administration, it warrants mentioning, that has embraced medical misinformation and pseudoscience to reckless effect," Gaffney toldMedPage Today last week.
The letters have been received by the medical journals as Kennedy angered medical experts and families with his recent comments about autism, claiming that "most cases now are severe"—a claim not backed up by science. Kennedy has also recently downplayed measles outbreaks in the United States before finally admitting this month that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine is the best defense against the disease.
The Trump administration has also cut funding for health agencies, prompting concern that it is sabotaging the country's ability to produce high-quality biomedical research as it has for generations.
NEJM responded to Martin ahead of the May 2 deadline, telling the prosecutor the journal uses "rigorous peer review and editorial processes to ensure the objectivity and reliability of the research we publish. We support the editorial independence of medical journals and their First Amendment rights to free expression."
Eric Rubin, editor-in-chief of the publication, told The New York Times, "Our job is to evaluate science and evaluate it in an unbiased fashion."
"The questions seem to suggest that there's some bias in what we do—that's where the vaguely threatening part comes in," Rubin said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular