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, 13 2023, 08:45am EDT
Contact:
Ginny Cleaveland, Deputy Press Secretary, Fossil-Free Finance, Sierra Club, ginny.cleaveland@sierraclub.org
Banking on Climate Chaos Report: World's Biggest Banks Continue to Pour Billions into Fossil Fuel Expansion
Annual report details massive bank support for climate-destroying corporations
Released today, the 14th annual Banking on Climate Chaos report is the most comprehensive global analysis on fossil fuel banking. Endorsed by over 625 organizations from 75 countries, it reveals the truth of banks’ commitments to the climate by examining their financing of the fossil fuel industry.
- Read the report: bankingonclimatechaos.org
For the first time since 2019, a Canadian bank is the #1 annual financier of fossil fuels rather than US bank JP Morgan Chase. Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) showered fossil fuel projects with $42.1 billion dollars in 2022, including $4.8 billion for tar sands and $7.4 billion into fracking. Canadian banks are becoming the banks of last resort for fossil fuels, providing $862 billion to fossil fuel companies since the Paris Agreement. RBC continues to bankroll expansion projects like the Coastal GasLink fracked gas pipeline. That project violates human rights and Indigenous sovereignty, and has proceeded without consent from Wet’suwet’en Hereditary leadership.
The report shows that overall, U.S. banks dominate fossil fuel financing, accounting for 28% of all fossil fuel financing in 2022. JPMorgan Chase remains the world’s worst funder of climate chaos since the Paris Agreement. Citi, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America are still among the top 5 fossil financiers since 2016.
“In a critical year for climate action, fossil fuel giants doubled down on reckless expansion projects and walked back their climate commitments. Meanwhile, major US banks stalled on their net-zero plans and failed to adopt stronger and more robust financing restrictions for companies pushing unsustainable fossil fuel expansion. As big banks face shareholder votes in the coming weeks, we will keep up pressure on banks and investors to adopt credible policies to achieve their climate commitments and take real steps to accelerate the clean energy transition,” said Adele Shraiman, senior campaign representative for the Sierra Club's Fossil-Free Finance Campaign.
In the seven years since the Paris Agreement was adopted, the world’s 60 largest private banks financed fossil fuels with USD $5.5 trillion. The report lays bare the shocking fact that even as fossil fuel companies made $4 trillion in profits in 2022, banks still provided $673 billion in financing. Remarkably, this happened while oil majors like Exxon Mobil and Shell PLC asked for $0 financing from banks in 2022.
While Europeans and Ukrainians called for a transition to renewables to stop funding Russian atrocities, fossil fuel companies doubled down on expansion and weakened their climate commitments. The top 30 companies expanding LNG used the crisis to secure nearly 50% more financing in 2022 compared to 2021 from the banks in the report — even as most energy experts agree that the LNG expansion plans in Europe are unnecessary, and new projects would contribute to a supply glut and long-term dependence on this fossil fuel.
The report includes detailed maps of this explosion of expansion projects in the US Gulf Coast and the Philippines. It also features case studies of climate leaders in Myanmar and the Philippines who are resisting the devastating effect of fossil fuel expansion.
Global banks’ net zero pledges have netted nothing so far, according to the report. Forty nine of the 60 banks profiled in the report made net zero commitments, but most are not paired with rigorous policies excluding finance for fossil fuel expansion. The policies contain many loopholes that allow banks to continue financing fossil fuel clients. Banks with restrictions on Arctic project financing, for example, nevertheless financed ConocoPhillips, which is developing the Willow project in the Arctic, the largest proposed oil project in the United States.
As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change affirmed in its March 2023 report, to give humanity a chance at avoiding unacceptable harm to millions of people alive today and countless generations to come, fossil fuel expansion must stop, and use of fossil fuels across all sectors must decline sharply. They assert that the window of opportunity to remain below 1.5˚C and to build a secure, liveable, and sustainable future is rapidly closing.
“Our window of opportunity for keeping global warming below 1.5ºC is closing fast. We need a people-centered energy transition now. Profits now are a false economy because we simply cannot afford to continue burning fossil fuels – the costs down the road will be devastating. Fossil fuel companies are the ones dousing the planet in oil, gas, and coal, but big banks hold the matches. Without financing, fossil fuels won’t burn,” said April Merleaux , Research and Policy Manager at Rainforest Action Network.
Banking on Climate Chaos is authored by Rainforest Action Network, BankTrack, Indigenous Environmental Network, Oil Change International, Reclaim Finance, Sierra Club, and Urgewald. Over 550 organizations from more than 70 countries around the world endorsed the report and are calling on banks to stop funding climate destruction.
Fossil fuel sector trends
- Expansion: The 60 banks profiled in this report funneled $150 billion in 2022 into the top 100 companies expanding fossil fuels, including TC Energy, TotalEnergies, Venture Global, ConocoPhillips, and Saudi Aramco.
- Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG): The top bankers of liquefied “natural” gas (LNG) in 2022 were Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Mizuho, ING, Citi, and SMBC Group. Overall finance for LNG increased nearly 50% from $15.2 billion in 2021 to $22.7 billion in 2022.
- Tar sands oil: The top tar sands companies received $21.0 billion in financing in 2022, led by the biggest Canadian banks, who provided 89% of those funds. TD, RBC, and Bank of Montreal top the list.
- Arctic oil and gas: Chinese banks ICBC, Agricultural Bank of China, and China Construction Bank led financing for Arctic oil and gas, which totaled $2.9 billion for the top companies in this sector in 2022. 26 banks are still financing Arctic oil and gas, including U.S. banks JPMorgan Chase, Citi, and Bank of America.
- Amazon oil and gas: Spanish bank Santander leads financing for companies extracting in the Amazon biome, followed closely by U.S. bank Citi. Financing totaled $769 million in 2022.
- Fracked oil and gas: Finance for fracking companies totaled $67.0 billion dollars in 2022, which is an 8% increase over the financing reported in 2021 for the top fracking companies. This increase is especially disturbing given the extreme methane emissions from fracking. RBC and JPMorgan Chase are the top financiers of fracked oil and gas for 2022 and since the Paris Agreement.
- Offshore oil and gas: European banks BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole, and Japanese bank SMBC Group top the list of worst financiers of offshore oil and gas for 2022. Financing totaled $34 billion in 2022.
- Coal mining: Of the $13.0 billion in financing that went to the world’s 30 largest coal mining companies, 87% was provided by banks located in China, led by China CITIC Bank, China Everbright Bank, and Industrial Bank.
- Coal power: Of the financing to the world’s top 30 companies in coal power, 97% of financing was provided by Chinese banks. These companies, which have plans to expand coal power capacity, received $29.5 billion from the profiled banks in 2022.
More information
Full data sets – including fossil fuel finance data, policy scores, and stories from the frontlines – are available for download at bankingonclimatechaos.org.
Additional quotes from authoring, frontline, and key organizations including Center for Energy, Ecology & Development, BankTrack, Indigenous Environmental Network, Oil Change International, Reclaim Finance, Stand.earth, and Urgewald, are available at bankingonclimatechaos.org.
Quotes from elected officials
“Corporate greed is killing us. Despite the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel companies making $4 trillion in profits in 2022, the world’s largest banks still provided $673 billion in financing for projects that are poisoning our communities and destroying the planet. This report makes it clear that banks’ ‘net zero’ commitments aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on – they’re simply cheap PR cover for pouring fuel on the climate crisis. Banks will not act in the public interest unless we force them to, and while grassroots movements around the world continue to build pressure, it’s long past time that the Federal Reserve, White House, and Congress take more aggressive action that meets this critical moment for the planet.” -Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich)
“Climate risk is a financial risk that poses an existential threat to our economy. As this important new report shows, big banks are financing fossil fuels by the billions, contributing to the climate crisis, and threatening the stability of our financial systems. That is why Congress must pass my Fossil Free Finance Act — to protect Americans’ savings, reject backwards-looking and risky investments into fossil fuels, and move toward a clean energy future that supercharges our economy.” -Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass)
“Big banks continue to funnel money into risky fossil fuel investments, ignoring the looming costs and economic risks of climate upheaval we are documenting in the Senate Budget Committee. By turning their backs on their climate pledges and doubling down on their support for the fossil fuel industry, Wall Street banks are increasing the likelihood of systemic risks to the economy, including a coastal property values collapse, a carbon bubble crash, and insurance market turmoil. Neither our planet nor our economy can afford these massive investments in new fossil fuel projects." -Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee
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
Report on US Killer Robots Warns of 'Reckless, Dangerous Arms Race'
"All signs point to the Pentagon developing 'killer robots' via Replicator, despite deflections from Pentagon representatives themselves," according to Public Citizen.
Nov 22, 2024
A report from the government watchdog Public Citizen released Friday gives the who, what, when, where, and why of the Pentagon's flagship Replicator initiative—a program to increase the number of weapons, particularly drones, in the hands of the U.S. military.
In the report, Public Citizen re-ups concerns about one particular aspect of the program. According to the report's author, Savannah Wooten, the Defense Department has remained ambiguous on the question of whether it is developing artificial intelligence weapons that can "deploy lethal force autonomously—without a human authorizing the specific use of force in a specific context." These types of weapons are also known as "killer robots."
"It is not yet clear whether or not these technologies are designed, tested, or intended for killing," according to the report.
"All signs point to the Pentagon developing 'killer robots' via Replicator, despite deflections from Pentagon representatives themselves," wrote Wooten in the summary of the report.
The program, which was announced last year, is part of the Department of Defense's plan to deter China.
"Replicator is meant to help us overcome [China's] biggest advantage, which is mass. More ships. More missiles. More people," said Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks in a speech announcing the project last year. That mission will be achieved specifically by "mastering the technology of tomorrow," Hicks said.
There will soon be a "Replicator 2.0" that will focus on counter-drone technologies—per a memo from the defense secretary released in September—according to Public Citizen's report.
In a letter sent in March, Public Citizen and 13 other civil society groups highlighted remarks Hicks made in 2023 as an example of the ambiguity the Pentagon has created around the issue.
"Autonomous weapons are inherently dehumanizing and unethical, no matter whether a human is 'ultimately' responsible for the use of force or not. Deploying lethal artificial intelligence weapons in battlefield conditions necessarily means inserting them into novel conditions for which they have not been programmed, an invitation for disastrous outcomes," the organizations wrote to Hicks and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.
Wooten's report reiterates that same call: "The Pentagon owes Americans clarity about its own role in advancing the autonomous weapons arms race via Replicator, as well as a detailed plan for ensuring it does not open a Pandora’s Box of new, lethal weapons on the world by refusing to hold its own operations accountable."
Additionally, "'Artificial intelligence' should not be used as a catchall justification to summon billions more in Pentagon spending, especially when the existing annual budget for the U.S. military already dwarfs every other U.S. agency and is careening towards the $1 trillion mark," Wooten wrote.
The fear that these types of weapons would open a Pandora's Box—and set off a "reckless, dangerous arms race," as Public Citizen warned of Friday—is not new. Back in 2017, dozens of artificial intelligence and robotics experts published a letter urging the United Nations to ban the development and use of so-called killer robots. As drone warfare has grown, those calls have continued.
The report also highlights the public statements of the head of one defense contractor that has been selected to produce for the Replicator initiative as a hint that the program is aimed at creating weapons that are capable of autonomous lethal force.
In early October, CEO of Anduril Palmer Luckey said that, "societies have always needed a warrior class that is enthused and excited about enacting violence on others in pursuit of good aims."
"You need people like me who are sick in that way and who don't lose any sleep making tools of violence in order to preserve freedom," he said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Christian Nationalism Marches on With 'Bible-Infused' Texas Curriculum
"What we're seeing here in Texas with these lessons is a larger national push to promote the idea that American identity and Christian identity are woven together, are one in the same," said one professor.
Nov 22, 2024
Parents, teachers, and other critics of Christian nationalism were outraged by a Texas board's Friday vote to approve a "Bible-infused" curriculum for elementary school students—part of a broader right-wing push to force Christianity into public education.
"They chose politics over what's best for students, promoting an evangelical Christian religious perspective and undermining the freedom of families to direct the religious education of their own children," declared the Texas Freedom Network, accusing the State Board of Education (SBOE) of ignoring warnings from religious studies experts, national media attention, and overwhelming negative feedback from the people they're elected to serve."
Like a preliminary vote Tuesday, eight of the SBOE's 15 members voted to approve Bluebonnet Learning, instructional materials proposed by the Texas Education Agency. Three Republicans joined all four Democrats in opposing the curriculum. The deciding vote in favor of it was cast by Leslie Recine, a Republican recently appointed by GOP Gov. Greg Abbott to temporarily fill a vacant seat.
"In a state as diverse as Texas, home to millions of people from countless faiths and beliefs, the Texas Republicans on the State Board of Education voted to incorporate Biblical teachings into the state curriculum—completely undermining religious freedom," said Texas Democratic Party Chair Gilberto Hinojosa in a statement after the final vote.
"This move has ultimately violated parents' rights to guide their children's faith while presenting teachers with additional needless challenges," Hinojosa argued. "Our public schools should be focused on equipping students with the education and skills they need to succeed beyond grade school whether it's pursuing a higher education or entering the workforce. The teaching of religious doctrine should stay in our places of worship where it belongs."
Although the curriculum isn't required, The Texas Tribunereported, "the state will offer an incentive of $60 per student to districts that adopt the lessons, which could appeal to some as schools struggle financially after several years without a significant raise in state funding."
"Christian nationalists have bought their way into every governing body of the state, including the SBOE. And they will not stop with inserting Biblical content in English textbooks."
Bluebonnet Learning features lessons from Christianity in reading and language arts materials for kindergarten through fifth grade.
"This curriculum is not age-appropriate or subject matter appropriate in the way that it presents these Bible stories," Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, toldThe Associated Press. Children who would read the material, she said, "are simply too young to tell the difference between what is a faith claim and what is a matter of fact."
Zeph Capo, president of the Texas arm of the American Federation of Teachers, urged districts "to resist the dollars dangled before them and refuse to use Bluebonnet Learning materials," arguing that they violate the code of ethics for the state's educators and "the separation of church and state by infusing lessons with Bible-based references more appropriate for Sunday Schools than public schools."
"Moreover, they are assaults on the academic freedom of our classrooms and the sanctity of the teaching profession," he said in a Friday statement. "We have a duty as teachers to make our teaching and learning materials accessible and inclusive of all students in our classrooms. These prescriptive materials cannot meet all learners in all contexts; in fact, they make no effort to do so."
"Perhaps what's most insulting about today's vote is that these materials are not just inappropriate—they're bad at what they proclaim to do. Instructional experts have expressed deep concerns about the age-appropriateness of the materials and whether they will be effective reading instruction," Capo continued. "In short, this is a push coming from idealogues, rather than anyone with expertise in educational best practices."
Noting the current "moment of profound political division," the union leader added that the vote "is the latest evidence that Christian nationalists have bought their way into every governing body of the state, including the SBOE. And they will not stop with inserting Biblical content in English textbooks. We can anticipate what will come next, whether that's the erasure of contributions of marginalized populations in social studies or the minimalization of climate change in science."
The curriculum push coincides with an SBOE effort to restrict library materials. The ACLU of Texas said on social media that "the same politicians censoring what students can read now want to impose state-sponsored religion onto our public schools."
The Tribunereported Thursday that "10 members on the board responsible for determining what Texas' 5.5 million public schoolchildren learn in the classroom voted to call on the Texas Legislature, which convenes in January, to pass a state law granting them authority to determine what books are appropriate for school-age children."
Earlier this week, Mark Chancey, a religious studies professor at Southern Methodist University, toldFox 4 that he supports teaching religion in public schools, but in a fair and unbiased way, and he doesn't agree with the state proposal.
"I think it would be unfortunate to approve these lessons in their current form," he said. "Public schools should reflect the religious diversity of our state. And when teaching about religion, not privilege one religious tradition over others."
"What we're seeing here in Texas with these lessons is a larger national push to promote the idea that American identity and Christian identity are woven together, are one in the same," Chancey pointed out.
For example, in Oklahoma, Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters has set out to put Bibles—specifically, a pricey one peddled by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump—in every classroom in the state. In a recent appearance on CNN, Walters said that "President Trump has a clear mandate. He wants prayer back in school. He wants radical leftism out of the classroom, wants our kids to be patriotic, wants parents back in charge with school choice."
Meanwhile, in Louisiana, state lawmakers passed legislation requiring every public school classroom to display, in large font, a Protestant version of the Ten Commandments. Earlier this month, a judge prohibited enforcement of that requirement, which was on track to take effect in January.
At the federal level, Trump—who is set to return to the White House in January—has advocated for dismantling the U.S. Department of Education. For now, he has named Linda McMahon, a former wrestling executive accused of enabling sexual abuse of children, as his pick for education secretary.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Say 'History of Enabling Sexual Abuse' Makes McMahon Unfit for Top Education Post
"This is someone accused of ignoring rampant sexual abuse under her watch," said one advocate. "It's an insult to survivors and a blatant attack on the safety of students nationwide."
Nov 22, 2024
A group that combats sexual violence on campuses was among those speaking out on Friday against U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's nomination of former wrestling entertainment executive Linda McMahon for education secretary, warning that her own sexual abuse scandal makes her an "appalling" choice to lead the department tasked with protecting students from discrimination and violence.
Kenyora Parham, CEO of End Rape on Campus, said McMahon's "documented history of enabling sexual abuse of children and sweeping sexual violence under the rug" is "disqualifying" for a nominee to lead the Department of Education.
Parham was referring to a lawsuit that was filed in October by five anonymous plaintiffs in Maryland, which alleges that while McMahon was the CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) in the 1980s, she and other executives enabled "open and rampant" grooming and sexual abuse of the company's teenaged "ring boys" by announcer Mel Phillips and others.
The lawsuit alleges that McMahon and her now-estranged husband, WWE co-founder Vince McMahon, knew that Phillips was recruiting boys as young as 12 to work as stagehands and then sexually exploiting them, sometimes in front of wrestlers and executives in the locker area. WWE wrestlers Pat Patterson and Terry Garvin are also named as abusers.
The plaintiffs said they were between the ages of 13-15 when they were abused, and that the McMahons were aware of the sexual exploitation. According to the lawsuit, Vince McMahon admitted the couple was aware of Phillips' "peculiar and unnatural interest" in young boys, and the McMahons fired him briefly in 1988 over allegations of sexual abuse.
They "rehired him six weeks later on the condition that he 'steer clear from kids,'" according to the lawsuit, but the exploitation continued.
Parham spoke out a day after she and other rights advocates celebrated the news that former Rep. Matt Gaetz, who Trump had nominated to be attorney general, was withdrawing from consideration amid allegations that he paid to have sex with a 17-year-old, which were the subject of an investigation by the House Ethics Committee.
"Now can we get Linda McMahon to withdraw her appointment as secretary of education, too?" said Parham on Thursday.
Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News host who Trump has nominated to be defense secretary, has also been accused of sexual assault, the details of which were revealed in a police report that was made public this week. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who Trump nominated to lead the Health and Human Services Department, has been accused by his children's former babysitter of sexual abuse.
Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, who Trump has named to run his Department of Government Efficiency, has been named in a lawsuit filed by former SpaceX employees who alleged sexual harassment at work. Trump himself was found liable last year for sexual abuse in a case filed by writer E. Jean Carroll.
Putting McMahon in charge of overseeing Title IX protections, which prohibits sex discrimination and sexual harassment and assault at schools that receive federal funding, "is like handing keys to an arsonist to run the fire department," said Caroline Ciccone, president of government watchdog Accountable.US.
"Donald Trump's nomination of Linda McMahon to lead the Department of Education is indefensible," said Ciccone. "This is someone accused of ignoring rampant sexual abuse under her watch... It's an insult to survivors and a blatant attack on the safety of students nationwide."
Trump chose McMahon to lead the Education Department after President Joe Biden expanded Title IX protections to cover discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. Trump has pledged to roll back the expanded policy, and has called for the entire department to be dismantled.
"McMahon and her colleagues were reportedly aware of abuse happening right under their noses—and they did nothing," Ciccone said. "Now she's been chosen to oversee, and likely overhaul, the very protections designed to stop this kind of harm? The Senate must put an end to this sham of a nomination. She lacks the experience, the judgment, and the track record to protect students from harm."
Parham said McMahon's nomination signals "a calculated agenda to dismantle the protections afforded by Title IX."
"Appointing someone with such a compromised background is a direct attack on these hard-won rights and threatens to leave countless students vulnerable," she said. "We urge policymakers and fellow advocates to unite against this nomination and demand accountability—to join us in this critical fight to uphold and strengthen the protections that every student deserves."
"It is imperative that leaders are appointed who will genuinely champion the safety and rights of every student," she added, "regardless of their identity and background."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular