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
January, 24 2023, 01:28pm EDT
Contact:
Malik Russell:,malik.russell@gmail.com
Stop the Money Pipeline coalition members respond to investors filing climate shareholder resolutions at major US and Canadian banks
Resolutions call for top banks and insurance companies to make significant progress on their climate commitments; will require support from major asset managers and other investors
Today, several institutional investors — including the New York City Comptroller, As You Sow (AYS), Sierra Club Foundation (SCF), Trillium Asset Management, and Harrington Investments — announced the filing of climate-related shareholder resolutions at major fossil fuel financing banks in the US and Canada, including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley.
· Reuters coverage of NYC resolutions
· Bloomberg coverage of SCF & AYS resolutions
The resolutions call on the banks to:
· Adopt policies to
phase out financing of new fossil fuel exploration and development (filed by Sierra Club Foundation, Trillium Asset Management, and Harrington Investments at JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley);
· Disclose robust transition plans on how the banks intend to align financing activities with their near-term emissions reduction targets (filed by As You Sow at JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley);
· Set 2030 absolute emissions reduction targets for energy sector financing (filed by the New York City Comptroller at JPMorgan
Chase, Bank of America (co-filed with the New York State Comptroller), Goldman Sachs, and the Royal Bank of Canada).
A slate of resolutions calling for policies to phase out financing for fossil fuel expansion was filed by the same investors at US banks in 2022. They received between 9 and 13% support, which was a significant milestone for these first-of-their-kind proposals. This year's fossil fuel financing proposals have been updated to encourage banks to finance clients' low-carbon transition so long as those plans are credible and verified. The previous resolutions were supported by many major institutional investors, including the New York State and New York City Common Retirement Funds.
New in 2023 are the resolutions on absolute emissions reductions targets for energy sector financing filed by the New York City and New York State Comptrollers, and the resolutions calling for disclosure of climate transition plans filed by As You Sow. The day before the resolutions were filed, Denmark's largest bank, Danske, announced a phase out of corporate financing for companies engaged in new coal, oil and gas development.
Royal Bank of Canada and the six US banks have committed to align their financing with the goals of the Paris Agreement and to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. However, scientific consensus shows that fossil fuel expansion is incompatible with keeping global warming below 1.5C, and the big US banks continue to provide billions of dollars every year for new fossil fuel development — a fact underscored by a new report released just last week.
In response to the news, coalition members with the Stop the Money Pipeline issue the following statements:
Arielle Swernoff, US Banks Campaign Manager with Stop the Money Pipeline, said, "Any climate commitment from a bank that is still financing fossil fuel expansion is greenwashing, pure and simple. By supporting these resolutions, shareholders can hold banks accountable to their own climate commitments, effectively manage risk, and protect people and the planet."
Michael Esealuka, Louisiana organizer with Healthy Gulf, said: "The Gulf South is ground zero for environmental racism and climate chaos. Every year we face worsening hurricanes, freezes and floods. Big banks are directly fueling this crisis by financing a massive expansion of petrochemical plants and gas exports in our communities. Bank CEOs like Brian Moynihan, David Solomon and Jamie Dimon made climate commitments — that should mean something. Instead they profit off climate chaos as the Gulf South is made into a sacrifice zone for fossil fuels."
Jeffrey Jacoby, Deputy Director of Texas Campaign for the Environment, said: "Shareholders at big banks need to know that continuing to fund the fossil fuel projects that drive climate change also means perpetuating environmental racism in the Gulf South – the very same communities who've experienced devastating impacts from climate disasters again and again."
Adele Shraiman, Campaign Representative with the Sierra Club's Fossil-Free Finance campaign, said: "Major US banks have fallen behind their global peers by setting weak emissions reduction targets and continuing to pour billions of dollars into fossil fuel expansion every year. Investors are uniquely positioned to push these big banks to stop stalling and finally take meaningful steps to address the climate crisis. We look forward to rallying support behind the investors that are leading the way on these shareholder resolutions to ensure the biggest banks are aligning their practices with their commitment to the goals of the Paris Agreement."
Richard Brooks, Stand.earth Climate Finance Program Director, said: "This action from the New York City Comptroller is exactly the kind of climate leadership institutional investors around the world must take. Banks' lending and underwriting practices must align with science and justice. It's time to cut greenwashed net-zero rhetoric once and for all."
Ruth Breech, Senior Campaigner for Climate and Energy with Rainforest Action Network, said: "Our data shows that US banks like Chase, Citi, BofA and Wells Fargo fuel climate disasters and are the biggest funders of the fossil fuel industry. They try to dismiss this truth through greenwashing, lack of transparency, and moving the goalposts on progress. These resolutions allow shareholders to make sound long-term decisions on their investments. Fossil fuel companies like Exxon, who have misled the public for decades, can no longer be allowed to get rich at our expense—as they export the losses of climate chaos onto the rest of us. Globally we are moving towards a sustainable energy future. Shareholders can lead the way."
Moira Birss, Climate Finance Director with Amazon Watch, said: "The Amazon rainforest—an ecosystem essential to global climate stability—is on the brink of collapse, and yet big banks like Citi, BoA, and JPMorgan continue pouring money into the companies destroying the forest to extract more fossil fuels. This financing not only destroys forests, the climate, and Indigenous livelihoods, but also the credibility of these banks' climate commitments, and it's well past time shareholders hold them to account."
Mary Cerulli, Executive Director of Climate Finance Action, said: The largest banks have all made significant long-term climate commitments. However, they continue to fund fossil fuel companies through bonds and loans locking in new infrastructure projects for decades. These shareholder resolutions will require banks to disclose their transition plans, set specific emission targets, and ensure they hit their long-term net zero goals to mitigate the systemic risk of climate change.
Resolutions at insurance companies
Shareholders have also filed climate resolutions at Chubb, Travelers, The Hartford, and Berkshire Hathaway – four majors in the U.S. insurance sector, another financial pillar of the fossil fuel industry.
Green Century Funds filed resolutions with Chubb, The Hartford, and Travelers, calling on the companies to phase out underwriting of new fossil fuel projects. As You Sow filed resolutions at Chubb, Travelers, and Berkshire Hathaway requesting a report on how each company will measure, disclose, and reduce insured emissions (i.e., emissions from their clients).
Elana Sulakshana, Senior Campaigner with Rainforest Action Network, said, "Shareholders are concerned about the material risks that climate change poses to the insurance industry, as well as the risks posed by insurers' unchecked support for new oil and gas projects. Some Republican state officials are attempting to turn financial institutions' responsible efforts to mitigate risk into a culture war, but investors know that climate risk cannot be ignored, especially within the insurance sector. In the midst of mounting losses from Hurricane Ian and other climate disasters, Green Century Funds is sending a clear message to Chubb, The Hartford, and Travelers: phase out support for fossil fuel expansion and underwrite a clean energy future."
Organizations are gearing up to support the climate resolutions at both banks and insurance companies this spring. Last year, members of the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition mobilized tens of thousands of everyday people to push major investors, such as state pension funds, BlackRock and Vanguard, to support climate action across corporate America. They are promising to double their efforts this year.
BACKGROUND
Comptroller Brad Lander manages the five New York City pension funds, which are valued at approximately $242 billion, making it the fourth largest public pension fund in the US. Comptroller Tom DiNapoli manages the New York State pension fund, which is valued at approximately $272 billion, making it the third largest public pension fund in the US. New York State led the resolution filing at Bank of America.
The resolutions follow a series of recent reports underscoring the scale of bank financing for fossil fuel expansion, and the lack of credible targets and plans to align with the banks' climate commitments:
· A Stand.earth report revealed RBC's surging fossil finance surpassed CAD $9.2 billion within one year of joining GFANZ, despite its public commitments to reach net-zero financed emissions. Since the 2016 Paris Climate Agreement was signed, RBC has pumped more than USD $201 billion (CAD $262 billion) into fossil fuel companies, making it the fifth worst fossil fuel financier in the world, and #1 in Canada.
· A Rainforest Action Network report showed that the big six US banks provided about $445 billion in financing for the top 100 companies expanding fossil fuels between 2016-2021, which accounted for one-third of the financing from the world's 60 largest banks to those top expanders.
· A Sierra Club report analyzing the net-zero pledges of US banks revealed that their commitments and actions fall far short of what's needed to meet global climate goals. The report outlines why it is essential for banks to set absolute emissions reduction targets instead of intensity-only targets, especially in high-polluting sectors. At present, Citi and Wells Fargo are the only major US banks to have set absolute emissions reduction targets for their financing of the oil and gas sector.
· The 2022 Banking on Climate Chaos report, to be updated this coming March, revealed in the six years following the Paris Agreement (2016-2021), the five largest bankers of fossil fuels in the world were:
· JPMorgan Chase: USD $382 billion;
· Citigroup: USD $285 billion;
· Wells Fargo: USD $272 billion;
· Bank of America: USD $232 billion;
· RBC: USD $201 billion;
· Two others – Morgan Stanley (USD $137 billion) and Goldman Sachs (USD $119 billion) – were in the top 15 globally.
· Citigroup: USD $285 billion;
· Wells Fargo: USD $272 billion;
· Bank of America: USD $232 billion;
· RBC: USD $201 billion;
· Two others – Morgan Stanley (USD $137 billion) and Goldman Sachs (USD $119 billion) – were in the top 15 globally.
The Stop the Money Pipeline coalition is over 160 organizations strong holding the financial backers of climate chaos accountable.
LATEST NEWS
'Big Day... for Justice': US Jury Finds Contractor CACI Liable for Abu Ghraib Torture
"This victory is a shining light for everyone who has been oppressed and a strong warning to any company or contractor practicing different forms of torture and abuse," said one of the Iraqi plaintiffs.
Nov 12, 2024
In a landmark verdict cheered by human rights defenders around the world, a federal jury in Virginia found a U.S. military contractor liable for the torture of three prisoners at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison during the invasion and occupation of Iraq in the early 2000s.
The jury ordered CACI Premier Technology to pay each of the three Iraqi plaintiffs $3 million in compensatory damages and $11 million in punitive damages, for a total of $42 million. It is the first time that a civilian contractor has been found legally responsible for abusing Abu Ghraib detainees.
The lawsuit against CACI—filed in 2008 by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) on behalf of Suhail Al Shimari, Asa'ad Al Zuba'e, and Salah Al-Ejaili—alleged that company officials conspired with U.S. military personnel in subjecting the plaintiffs to torture and other crimes.
As CCR noted Tuesday:
The plaintiffs brought their case under the Alien Tort Statute, a 1789 federal law that allows foreign nationals to seek redress in U.S. courts for certain violations of international law. This historic outcome follows 16 years of litigation, more than 20 attempts by CACI to have the case dismissed, and a previous trial in which the jury was unable to reach a verdict. Never before this case had survivors of U.S. post-9/11 torture testified in a U.S. courtroom. It also featured testimony from U.S. generals, CACI employees, and former [military police officers] involved in the torture.
"Today is a big day for me and for justice," said Al-Ejaili. "I've waited a long time for this day."
"This victory isn't only for the three plaintiffs in this case against a corporation," he added. "This victory is a shining light for everyone who has been oppressed and a strong warning to any company or contractor practicing different forms of torture and abuse."
CCR legal director Baher Azmy said that "our clients have fought bravely for 16 years in search of justice for the horrors they endured at Abu Ghraib, against all of the challenges this massive private military contractor threw in their way over the years to avoid basic accountability for its role in this shameful episode in American history."
"We are awed by our clients' courage and by the power of their testimony in court, and we are grateful that this jury knew enough to credit their story over the deflections of CACI," Azmy added. "We thank the jury for affording our clients the measure of justice they came to a United States court to seek."
Like Guantánamo Bay, Abu Ghraib became a byword for U.S. torture during the Bush administration as it waged a worldwide war on terrorism following the September 11, 2001 attacks. The prison's worldwide notoriety stems from the leak and publication in 2004 of photos showing U.S. troops torturing and abusing Abu Ghraib detainees, both living and dead, often with smiles on their faces.
A 2004 investigation by U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Anthony Jones and Maj. Gen. George Fay found that CACI employees participated in and encouraged the torture of Abu Ghraib prisoners.
Investigators found that employees of CACI and Titan Corporation (now L3 Technologies) tortured Abu Ghraib detainees and encouraged U.S. troops to do likewise. Dozens of Abu Ghraib detainees died in U.S. custody, some of them as a result of being tortured to death. Abu Ghraib prisoners endured torture ranging from rape and being attacked with dogs to being forced to eat pork and renounce Islam.
A separate U.S. Army report concluded that most Abu Ghraib prisoners were innocent, with the Red Cross estimating that between 70-90% of inmates there were wrongfully detained. These include women who were held as bargaining chips to induce suspected militants to surrender.
Eleven low-ranking U.S. soldiers were convicted and jailed for their roles in Abu Ghraib torture. Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the prison's commanding officer, was demoted. No other high-ranking military officer faced accountability for the abuse. Senior Bush administration officials—who had authorized many of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" used at prisons including Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay—lied about their knowledge of the torture. None of them were ever held accountable.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'No Excuses': Tlaib Says Every House Dem Should Vote to Defend Nonprofits
The Michigan Democrat warned that the bill "gives Trump and his incoming administration dictatorial powers to target nonprofit organizations as political enemies without due process."
Nov 12, 2024
U.S. Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib on Tuesday was among multiple progressives and other Democrats who forcefully spoke out against legislation that would empower President-elect Donald Trump to strip nonprofits of their tax-exempt status.
Highlighting a letter that a diverse coalition led by the ACLU sent to Congress in September, Tlaib (D-Mich.) took aim at H.R. 9495, or the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, on social media.
"No excuses," she said. "Every single one of my Democratic colleagues should be voting against this bill that gives Trump and his incoming administration dictatorial powers to target nonprofit organizations as political enemies without due process."
Tlaib, the only Palestinian American in Congress, has been a leading critic of U.S. support for the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip. H.R. 9495 is widely seen as an effort to further crack down on protests against the ongoing assault, though opponents of the proposal warn it could also be used to target groups advocating for issues including the environment and reproductive freedom.
The bill would let the Treasury secretary designate an organization as "terrorist-supporting" without any explanation or proof, and then end its 501(c)(3) status. That language is paired with legislation to provide tax relief for people detained or held hostage abroad and their spouses, a decision that critics say was made to force through the nonprofit policy.
Multiple members of Congress spoke out against the proposed attack on nonprofits both online and on the House floor, where the bill was debated and then a recorded vote was requested and postponed on Tuesday evening.
"H.R. 9495 is a giant threat to free speech," declared progressive Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.). "It gives Trump unchecked power to label any nonprofit as 'terrorist-supporting' without evidence or due process—opening the door to crush his opposition and silence dissent."
Tlaib and Lee's fellow "Squad" member Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) similarly warned that "this is a dangerous threat to free speech. No one person should have the authority to silence organizations that dare to challenge government policies or speak uncomfortable truths."
Congresswoman Delia C. Ramirez (D-Ill.) stressed that "dissent is a fundamental part of democracy."
"Emboldened by the possibility of an unchallenged campaign of retaliation and persecution, Republicans are bringing H.R. 9495 to the floor AGAIN to give Trump the power to brand any organization that opposes him or his administration as a 'terrorist,'" she said. "I voted no once, and I will be voting NO again!"
A version of the policy targeting nonprofits previously passed the Republican-held House in April but stalled in the Democrat-controlled Senate. In addition to a White House victory in last week's election, the GOP won both chambers of Congress—meaning that even if H.R. 9495 fails now, it could be revived again next year.
Two outgoing House progressives who lost primaries to candidates backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.)—also blasted H.R. 9495 on Tuesday.
"H.R. 9495 would give Donald Trump unprecedented power to shut down any nonprofit or group that he disagrees with," said Bush. "This is a dangerous threat to our democracy. Congress must vote NO and stop it in its tracks."
Bowman argued that it "will sink us further into authoritarianism. It is an extremely dangerous bill that would give the government unlimited power to stop the work of humanitarian groups and target political enemies. All without transparency or evidence."
"This bill puts organizations like American Muslims for Palestine, American Immigration Council, and ColorOfChange at risk along with so many others doing the critical work of advocating for human rights and making sure starving children are fed and cared for," he continued. "The effects of H.R. 9495 aren't limited to just those organizations. Any nonprofit that crosses the executive branch could be targeted."
"This is authoritarianism and no Democrat should support this bill," Bowman added. "The unchecked powers granted by H.R. 9495 are ripe for abuse and any member of Congress who votes yes on it cannot honestly claim to support peace, justice, and freedom of speech."
Advocacy groups also continued to sound the alarm about the legislation ahead of the anticipated House vote.
"In any other context, this legislation would be seen for what it is, a play from the authoritarian leader's playbook," Paul O'Brien, executive director at Amnesty International USA, said in a Tuesday statement. "Members of Congress must recognize the danger posed and vote down this bill that could shrink civic space and silence civil society organizations."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Global Fury After State Dept Claims Israel Not Violating US Law by Blocking Gaza Aid
"This will be the Biden administration's legacy: unconditional support for war crimes and complicity in genocide," said one group.
Nov 12, 2024
Human rights advocates around the world reacted angrily to Tuesday's U.S. State Department determination that Israel is not violating humanitarian law—even as its forces annihilate Gaza and block aid from entering the embattled Palestinian enclave.
Last month, the Biden administration—which has approved tens of billions of dollars in military aid for Israel and provided nearly unconditional diplomatic support since October 2023—sent a letter to the Israeli government threatening to cut off U.S. arms transfers if it failed to take "urgent and sustained actions" to improve humanitarian conditions in Gaza within 30 days.
Asked during a Tuesday press conference if the Israeli government has met the letter's demands, State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel said that "we have not made an assessment that they are in violation of U.S. law."
"The overall humanitarian situation in Gaza continues to be unsatisfactory," Patel continued. "But in the context of the letter, it's not about whether we find something satisfactory or not; it's what are the actions that we're seeing."
"These actions that we have seen, we think that these are steps in the right direction," he added, citing the limited reopening of the Erez border crossing between Gaza and Israel. "We want to see more steps. We want to see these steps sustained over a significant period of time, and ultimately, we want to see these steps have a result on the situation."
Patel insisted that the Biden administration is "not giving Israel a pass."
However, humanitarian aid groups accuse Israel of causing " apocalyptic" conditions in northern Gaza, where thousands of civilians including many women and children have been killed or wounded while others face imminent famine under a plan to starve out the population in order to ethnically cleanse the area.
On Tuesday, a coalition of eight international humanitarian groups including Oxfam International, CARE, Norwegian Refugee Council, Save the Children, and others published a report titled The Gaza Scorecard: Israel Fails to Comply With U.S. Humanitarian Access Demands in Gaza, which found that Israel has failed to fully comply with any of the 19 specific demands in the Biden administration's letter.
The scorecard noted:
The principals of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee now assess that "the entire Palestinian population in North Gaza is at imminent risk of dying from disease, famine, and violence." The findings of this scorecard underscore Israel's failure to comply with U.S. demands and international obligations. Israel should be held accountable for the end result of failing to ensure the adequate provision of food, medical, and other supplies to reach people in need.
"While Israel manipulates the U.S. by allowing some aid trucks into other parts of Gaza in the days leading up to the deadline, the performative act did not bring any humanitarian aid to the besieged northern neighborhoods of Gaza," said Raed Jarrar, advocacy director at Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN). "Even more concerning, no forcibly displaced Palestinian from the northern neighborhoods of Gaza has been allowed to return home."
Indeed, the IDF said it has "no intention of allowing the residents of the northern Gaza Strip to return to their homes."
At the same time, relief workers describe deadly dangers faced by Palestinians who try to flee besieged areas including the Jabalia refugee camp, site of some of the war's worst massacres, including indiscriminate Israeli targeting of refugees without regard for age or gender.
The International Court of Justice in The Hague is in the lengthy process of determining if Israel's atrocities amount to violations of the Genocide Convention. While it is weighing the evidence in the South Africa-led case, the ICJ has issued a series of provisional orders directing Israel to prevent genocidal acts, halt its assault on Rafah, and stop blocking humanitarian aid from entering Gaza. Critics accuse Israel of flouting all three orders.
"As a signatory to the Genocide Convention, the U.S. is obligated to prevent acts of genocide and to avoid complicity in them," DAWN stressed on Tuesday. "The U.S. should halt its military support for Israel to comply with its convention obligations and uphold international legal norms."
This is not the first time that the Biden administration has officially denied that Israel has violated humanitarian law during the Gaza war. In March, the State Department accepted Israel's assertion that the country is using U.S.-supplied arms in compliance with international law, even as more than 100,000 Palestinians had been killed or wounded in Gaza up to that date. The casualty figure has since increased by about 50%.
Congressional progressives and human rights groups pushed back on the Biden administration's claim. In April, a leaked memo revealed that officials at the United States Agency for International Development warned Secretary of State Antony Blinken that Israel was indeed breaking the law by blocking aid from entering Gaza. Another leaked State Department memo raised "serious concern" over Israeli noncompliance with humanitarian law and slammed Israel's claims of legal U.S. weapons use as "neither credible nor reliable."
Palestine advocates fear the Biden administration's refusal to suspend arms shipments to Israel—as experts argue is required under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and Leahy Laws—will open the door for Republican President-elect Donald Trump to back Israeli crimes such as the annexation of Palestinian territories including the West Bank.
"By spending over a year ignoring U.S. law on supplying arms, the Biden administration has handed Trump an excuse to ignore any law he wants," Center for International Policy executive vice president Matt Duss said Tuesday on social media. "And they will have nothing to say about it."
Duss called the Biden administration's new determination "predictable, pathetic, and blatantly illegal."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular