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
as you sow
US Asset Managers Have 'Significant Investments' in Nuclear Weapons and Cluster Bombs: Analysis
"Many investors, given a choice, would not want to profit from companies that manufacture weapons of mass destruction," said As You Sow's Andrew Behar.
Jul 18, 2023
Amidst what the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists calls "an exceedingly dangerous nuclear situation" facing humanity today, the largest U.S. mutual funds—which manage the retirement and other savings of tens of millions of Americans—are profiting from investments in nuclear weapons, cluster munitions, and other banned or controversial arms, an analysis by a leading shareholder advocacy group revealed Tuesday.
Measured by dollars invested, the top 25 U.S. asset managers "all earn a D grade or worse, with significant investments in arms manufacturers and major military contractors, including companies involved with nuclear weapons and controversial weapons like cluster munitions, anti-personnel landmines, incendiary weapons, and depleted uranium," Berkeley, California-based As You Sow said in its new report.
Some of the largest corporate 401(k)s like American Funds, John Hancock Funds, and Franklin Templeton Investments were among the most heavily invested in these armaments, while "fund managers that focus on sustainable investing have less exposure to military weapons, on average."
"Nearly every retirement plan has nuclear and other controversial weapons embedded in their plan."
Seven funds profiled in the analysis—Eventide Funds, Ecofin, New Alternatives, Vert Asset Management, Aspiration Funds ,Thrivent, and Kayne Anderson—held no investments in the controversial weapons.
"Many investors, given a choice, would not want to profit from companies that manufacture weapons of mass destruction," As You Sow CEO Andrew Behar said in a statement. "Yet nearly every retirement plan has nuclear and other controversial weapons embedded in their plan. Our new ratings empower investors with the tools to know what they own so they can invest their money in alignment with their values."
As You Sow's mutual fund ratings are part of the group's Weapons Free Funds investment tool, "built to help responsible investors prioritize peace and people over war and violence."
Nuclear weapons, landmines, and cluster munitions are all banned under international law. However, the United States is not a signatory to any of the bans, and none of the world's nine nuclear powers have signed the landmark Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Common Dreams reported last month that nuclear-armed nations spent $82.9 billion on their arsenals last year, with the United States accounting for more than half of the global total, according to the Nobel Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.
Meanwhile, U.S. House Republicans last week blocked a bipartisan amendment to the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act that would have banned the export of cluster munitions. This, as the Biden administration was giving final approval to transfer cluster bombs to Ukraine's military—which, like its Russian enemy, has used the weapons during the ongoing war with devastating effects.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Insurance Giant Chubb Praised for Ban on Underwriting Arctic Refuge Drilling
While a Gwich'in Steering Committee leader said the policy "is a first for the American insurance industry and shows leadership to protect sacred lands," Chubb's board opposes climate and human rights shareholder resolutions.
Apr 10, 2023
An Indigenous organization on Monday applauded Chubb for joining global insurers and major banks in refusing to underwrite new fossil fuel development within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
"After the Arctic Refuge was opened for oil and gas development, we have met with and encouraged financial institutions and insurance companies to respect the people who live and thrive off this land, which we consider very sacred," explained Bernadette Demientieff, executive director of the Gwich'in Steering Committee.
"Since our first meeting, all corporate leaseholders have exited the refuge and every major U.S. and Canadian bank refuses to underwrite such projects," she said. "Chubb's policy is a first for the American insurance industry and shows leadership to protect sacred lands."
"The Gwich'in and the porcupine caribou herd depend upon Iizhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit," or the sacred place where life begins, "for our identity, our culture, and our ways of life," Demientieff added. "We and the animals we care for are intrinsically linked to this land, and we are grateful to Chubb for this policy."
The group pointed out Monday that though American International Group (AIG) early last month "announced a policy to not underwrite oil and gas projects in the Arctic, it was unclear whether this encompassed the Arctic Refuge," and the company "has not responded to outreach from the Gwich'in Steering Committee and allies" seeking clarification.
Chubb in late March announced new underwriting standards for oil and gas extraction projects. Along with adopting criteria for methane emissions, the company said at the time that "effective immediately, Chubb will not underwrite oil and gas extraction projects in protected areas designated by state, provincial, or national governments."
In Chubb's invitation and proxy statement for its upcoming annual general meeting, the company specifically mentions the Arctic Refuge:
Chubb has consistently been a proactive leader on climate risk management, including by being the first major insurer in the U.S. to announce a coal policy for its underwriting and investment activity in 2019; establishing an oil sands policy in 2022; adopting in 2023 a policy prohibiting underwriting oil and gas extraction projects in certain government-protected conservation areas, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and we intend to develop further conservation criteria for the Arctic, mangroves, peatlands, key biodiversity areas, and recognized conservation areas that allow for resource use by the end of 2023.
That section of the statement details the Chubb board of directors' opposition to a climate-related shareholder proposal from the legal advocacy group As You Sow, filed on behalf of Warren Wilson College and co-filers Jubitz Foundation and the Meyer Memorial Trust.
As You Sow's proposal would require Chubb to issue a report disclosing medium- and long-term greenhouse gas targets for its underwriting, insuring, and investment activities in line with the 1.5°C temperature goal of the Paris climate agreement.
The company's board claims that "Chubb shares the proponent's goal of achieving a net-zero economy by 2050. We disagree that forcing Chubb to set targets related to the emissions produced by its insureds, rather than Chubb's own emissions, would advance that goal."
After the insurer unveiled its new underwriting standards in March, As You Sow president Danielle Fugere responded that "we are pleased to see Chubb begin to focus on climate and conservation-focused underwriting standards, yet question the impact these announced standards will have."
"Most large oil and gas companies have programs in place for methane-related 'leak detection and repair' and programs related to the 'elimination of non-emergency venting,'" she noted. "Whether Chubb's policy will change the actions of oil and gas companies or Chubb's own underwriting of oil and gas projects is therefore unclear."
"Chubb's own reporting will not answer that question," Fugere added. "Chubb does not currently report the greenhouse gas emissions associated with its insuring, underwriting, and investing activities so the company remains largely unaccountable to investors with regard to its climate contribution or its reduction of greenhouse gas emissions."
Liz Marin, missing and surviving Indigenous peoples director with Seeding Sovereignty, stressed last month that "Chubb is recognizing the importance of protected land in this policy, but there are so many sacred ecosystems that do not have protected area designations facing threats from oil and gas drilling. For example, it's unclear if this policy would be applicable to the recently approved Willow project on the North Slope of Alaska, which poses major risks to Iñupiaq communities and the land, water, and wildlife."
The Chubb board of directors is also encouraging shareholders to vote against a proposal from Domini Impact Investments LLC, as representative of the Domini U.S. Impact Equity Fund, that would require a report "describing how human rights risks and impacts are evaluated and incorporated in the underwriting process."
The board argues in part that "Chubb reports extensively regarding its policies and actions that implicate human rights and, therefore, complying with the proposal would be repetitive and impose an unnecessary burden on the company."
The Gwich'in Steering Committee, meanwhile, expressed support for the Domini proposal on Monday.
"We call upon investors to vote in favor of the shareholder proposal on human rights at Chubb's annual general meeting on May 17," said Demientieff. "Companies cannot divide our people from this sacred place. We must be involved in all decisions where there are impacts to our land, animals, and communities. We call on Chubb and all companies to respect our rights, including our right to free, prior, and informed consent."
In 2021, the Biden administration launched a review of its predecessor's controversial decision to open up ANWR to fossil fuel drilling. While Indigenous and climate groups welcomed that move, they continue to call for permanent regional protections. More recently, many organizations and campaigners have also criticized the current administration for approving the Willow project.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Climate Coalition Targets Big Banks and Insurance Giants With New Shareholder Campaign
"The planet is running out of time and the banks are running out of excuses," said climate leader Bill McKibben.
Mar 01, 2023
A coalition of more than 240 advocacy groups on Wednesday launched a "Shareholder Showdown" campaign in support of shareholder resolutions urging climate action and respect for Indigenous rights at major U.S. and Canadian banks and insurance companies.
According to campaign coordinator Stop the Money Pipeline, the resolutions—which were filed by investors including the New York City and state pension funds, Sierra Club Foundation, and others—would require banks and insurance companies to "phase out their financing of companies engaged in fossil fuel expansion, report on projects that could violate Indigenous rights, use absolute emissions rather than emissions intensity targets, disclose 2030 transition plans, and hold directors accountable at banks that are not aligned with 1.5°C pathways."
The resolutions were timed to precede the companies' annual general meetings.
"This campaign is called Shareholder Showdown because we're in for a real fight—we're up against some globally powerful institutions," Arielle Swernoff, Stop the Money Pipeline's U.S. banks campaign manager, explained in an opinion piece published Wednesday by Common Dreams. "But organized people can achieve anything, and together we will stop the flow of money to fossil fuels and climate destruction."
Bill McKibben, co-founder of the climate group 350.org, said in a statement that "the planet is running out of time and the banks are running out of excuses—everyone from the pope to the secretary-general of the [United Nations] have called on them finally to act with clarity and conviction to help with the planet's greatest crisis, and shareholders should demand no less."
Among the resolutions filed are:
- An Indigenous rights reporting requirement filed by Sisters of St. Joseph for Peace at Citigroup;
- An absolute emissions target disclosure mandate filed by New York City Comptroller Brad Lander and three city pension systems at Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Royal Bank of Canada; and
- Measures filed by As You Sow requiring JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley to publicly disclose their 2030 plans for transitioning lending and investment portfolios away from fossil fuels.
" Climate change is an existential crisis that can overwhelm a person in scale and size, impossible to address," said Tara Houska of the Giniw Collective, an Indigenous women and two-spirit-led frontline resistance group fighting fossil fuel projects like Line 3 in Minnesota.
"Big bank shareholders possess an enormous amount of influence on the world's emissions," Houska added. "A roomful of people can impact the disastrous course we are currently on. No more lip service or empty greenwashing—we need action, now."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Shareholders Target Wall Street Banks With 'Groundbreaking' Climate Resolutions
"Investors are saying we can't conduct business in a world that is on fire, that has heatwaves and insufficient water. And I do think companies are beginning to understand that it's in their interest to take action."
Apr 26, 2022
A significant percentage of shareholders at three of the biggest U.S. banks voted Tuesday to endorse first-of-their-kind resolutions urging the companies to stop supporting new fossil fuel development amid a worsening climate emergency.
"Big banks have a responsibility to address their massive contribution to the climate crisis and protect their shareholders from climate risk."
Shareholders at Citigoup, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo voted 12.8%, 11%, and 11%, respectively, to support climate resolutions filed by the Sierra Club Foundation and other members of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility. According to the Sierra Club, any resolution that receives at least 5% of the vote can be refiled the following year, and those that get 10% or more are "considered difficult for a company to ignore."
"Big banks have a responsibility to address their massive contribution to the climate crisis and protect their shareholders from climate risk by aligning their policies with their own net-zero commitments and ending support for fossil fuel expansion," Adele Shraiman of the Sierra Club's Fossil-Free Finance campaign said in a statement. "The pressure on them to do so from shareholders and the public is only growing stronger."
The "groundbreaking" resolutions include a call for each bank to "build upon" its net zero commitments by adopting policies "to help ensure that its financing does not contribute to new fossil fuel supplies that would be inconsistent" with the International Energy Agency's "Net-Zero Emissions by 2050" scenario and other climate frameworks.
While shareholders have previously compelled companies to disclose the emissions impact of their operations and investments and set long-term climate targets, this is the first time they have called on banks to implement plans to achieve those objectives, according to Sierra Club.
"The fact that this first-of-its-kind effort gained as much support as it did should send a clear signal that the effort to push Wall Street to deal with its climate problem isn't going anywhere," said Shraiman.
As Danielle Fugere, president of the shareholder advocacy group As You Sow, told Grist: "Investors are saying we can't conduct business in a world that is on fire, that has heatwaves and insufficient water. And I do think companies are beginning to understand that it's in their interest to take action and that shareholders support that action."
Outlining Tuesday's votes, Sierra Club noted:
The resolutions were publicly supported by New York State Common Retirement Fund, the third-largest pension fund in the country, as well as three of New York City's pensions, and Rhode Island's and Seattle's funds.
However, the vote totals suggest that major asset managers like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, and Fidelity--which are by far the largest shareholders of the big banks, and are therefore uniquely positioned to make a huge impact on important votes--failed to support them, despite their own net-zero commitment and pledges to use their shareholder power to advance climate action.
"It's deeply disappointing that, once again, asset managers like BlackRock and Vanguard have failed to put their money where their mouth is and use their immense power to hold banks accountable to their climate pledges," Shraiman lamented.
"The rhetoric coming out of these big investors about climate leadership and engaging with their clients on a clean energy transition is worthless if it's not paired with meaningful accountability for clients that are clearly not interested in making that transition a reality," she added.
Paul Rissman, a Sierra Club board member and former executive vice president of an asset management firm, noted that all the largest U.S. banks have pledged to achieve net-zero financed emissions by 2050.
"Big U.S. banks have utterly failed to protect their shareholders' long-term interests."
"Despite their commitments," he wrote, "all of these banks have continued to fund the top 20 companies that are responsible for most fossil fuel development--to the tune of more than $445 billion combined in the six years since the Paris agreement was signed."
"This is recipe for disaster," warned Rissman. "The scientific consensus is clear that in order to achieve global net-zero emissions by 2050 and avert the worst of the climate crisis, the expansion of new fossil fuel development must stop immediately."
"Big U.S. banks have utterly failed to protect their shareholders' long-term interests as they renege on their net-zero commitments and fumble on adequately managing the risks associated with financing new fossil fuel development," he added.
In addition to denouncing companies for their inadequate climate action, critics have also condemned net-zero pledges that some argue are a dangerous form of greenwashing best avoided in favor of near-term commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Wells Fargo Sets New Financed Emissions Goal, Climate Campaigners Warn 'Net Zero Is Not Enough'
"What matters most now are concrete actions in 2021 to stop funding fossil fuel expansion and setting a timeline for phasing out fossil fuel financing overall."
Mar 07, 2021
Under pressure from investors, policymakers, and green groups, Wells Fargo on Monday followed the lead of other major U.S. banks and set a goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, including its financed emissions, by 2050--a move that climate campaigners welcomed as a positive step but not nearly enough.
"Wells Fargo--like all major U.S. banks--has a long way to go to stop fueling the climate crisis."
--Ben Cushing, Sierra Club
Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley have also made net-zero commitments for the middle of the century while JPMorgan Chase has pledged to align its financing with the Paris climate agreement, which aims to limit global temperature rise by 2100 to 2degC, though preferably 1.5degC.
"While we're encouraged to see Wells Fargo catch up to the pack making these long-term commitments, Wells Fargo--like all major U.S. banks--has a long way to go to stop fueling the climate crisis," said Sierra Club financial advocacy campaign manager Ben Cushing in a statement Monday.
"What's clear is that 'net zero by 2050' is the new baseline for climate action on Wall Street, but what matters most now are concrete actions in 2021 to stop funding fossil fuel expansion and setting a timeline for phasing out fossil fuel financing overall," he continued. "There's no time left for banks to ponder how to start addressing the biggest and most obvious drivers of the climate crisis."
Cushing--whose group is part of the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition--added in a tweet that activists will maintain pressure on the San Francisco-based big bank over its financing of fossil fuels, a key driver of the human-caused climate crisis:
In the wake of the Paris agreement, Wells Fargo was the world's second largest funder of fossil fuels, behind just Chase, according to Banking on Climate Change 2020, a report from advocacy organizations. From 2016 to 2019, Wells Fargo poured nearly $198 billion into the coal, oil, and gas industry. The next edition of the climate finance report is set to be released later this month.
Jamie Henn, who's also involved with Stop the Money Pipeline and co-founded the environmental advocacy group 350.org, responded to the bank's announcement by emphasizing that "net zero is not enough," adding that "we need the immediate end to financing of fossil fuels and deforestation."
CNN Business exclusively reported on the development Monday afternoon, noting that the bank's move comes shortly after an unusual winter storm in Texas--which experts tied to climate change--led to widespread power outages that increased attention on calls for transitioning from fossil fuels to 100% renewable energy.
"It doesn't take a scientist to notice our clients are affected by changes in climate," Jon Weiss, CEO of corporate and investment banking at Wells Fargo, told CNN. "When a wildfire burns down a major portion of California or a once-in-a-century flood occurs every five years, that implies risk to people and companies in its path."
While Weiss said that "too often it seems like the brunt of these climate events falls on the more vulnerable portions of society that either can't get out of its path or don't have the same type of stable housing," he also acknowledged the pressure that big banks like his are facing from investors.
"What's important to our investors is important to us. Ultimately, they own our company... And they are speaking pretty loudly," he said. Weiss further clarified that the bank isn't ditching the fossil fuel industry altogether, saying that "it is very much a client-driven strategy, not a declaration against our clients."
Wells Fargo said in a statement that it plans to "measure and disclose financed emissions for select carbon-intensive portfolios; set interim emission reduction targets; deploy more capital to finance climate innovation; and continue to work with its clients on their own emissions reductions efforts."
"The company will also launch an Institute for Sustainable Finance to manage the deployment of $500 billion of financing to sustainable businesses and projects by 2030, as well as support science-based research on low-carbon solutions and advocate for policies that enable client transitions," the bank added.
As Wells Fargo CEO Charlie Scharf put it: "Climate change is one of the most urgent environmental and social issues of our time, and Wells Fargo is committed to aligning our activities to support the goals of the Paris agreement and to helping transition to a net-zero carbon economy."
"The risks of not taking action are too great to ignore, and collective action is needed to avoid the significant impact on our most vulnerable communities," he said. "We have a responsibility to help find solutions and are committed to deploying our resources and working closely with our clients in this transition."
While some campaigners weren't blown away by the bank's new climate pledge, journalist David Roberts put it into the context of the broader trend.
"The scale and significance of the change sweeping finance has not sunk in for most folks," he said. "It's a sea change happening in a wildly compressed time frame."
Danielle Fugere, president of As You Sow, a nonprofit that promotes environmental and social corporate responsibility through shareholder advocacy and other activities, also pointed to the broader trend while urging Wells Fargo to share more about specific actions it will take.
"Wells Fargo's announcement establishes a clear bar for the banking sector--now that six of the top U.S. banks have made this commitment, we expect that others will join in demonstrating that their own financing is in line with the Paris agreement's global net-zero climate goal," Fugere said. "Frameworks like the Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials can help create global consistency in measuring and reporting progress. We look forward to seeing Wells Fargo take the next steps on this critical pathway."
"We underscore that a net-zero commitment is only the beginning of this important process," she added. "We will be looking to Wells Fargo to fill in the details of its climate plans by setting interim targets and transparently reporting progress toward those goals."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Expected Action Beyond Rhetoric': Climate Advocates Unimpressed by Morgan Stanley Net-Zero Announcement
"As long as Morgan Stanley invests in companies like Exxon, Chevron, and Shell, they're investing in disasters like wildfires, hurricanes, and floods."
Sep 22, 2020
While recognizing Morgan Stanley's newly announced commitment to reach net-zero financed emissions by 2050 as a historic step forward, climate campaigners highlighted that it is still among the top 12 fossil fuel financing banks in the world and demanded details about how such a goal might actually be met as well as more ambitious action.
"We'd like to hear less about what banks are committed to achieving 30 years from now and more about what they're doing today to address the climate crisis unfolding all around us," Amy Gray, co-coordinator of the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition, said Monday is response to the news. "As long as Morgan Stanley invests in companies like Exxon, Chevron, and Shell, they're investing in disasters like wildfires, hurricanes, and floods."
The coalition--made up of climate, youth, and Indigenous groups--came together in January to launch a campaign urging banks, insurers, and asset managers cut ties with companies that are destroying the planet. Morgan Stanley, according a Rainforest Action Network (RAN) report on banking and the climate crisis published earlier this year, has poured nearly $92 billion into the fossil fuel industry since the Paris agreement was signed in 2015.
As a member of the coalition, 350.org North America director Tamara Toles O'Laughlin said Monday that "Morgan Stanley's announcement is a step in the right direction--for a decade ago. As a major in finance and securities and a driver of funds toward environmental devastation, we expected action beyond rhetoric. This is not it. As the West burns and storms line up in the Atlantic, today's actions are late and little."
" Climate change is one of the most complex and interconnected issues of our time," Morgan Stanley chief sustainability Audrey Choi said Monday. "Morgan Stanley believes we have an important role to play in facilitating the transition to a low-carbon future, and we are proud to embark on this journey."
Though lacking in detail, Morgan Stanley's net-zero announcement made it the first major American bank to make such a commitment. The reaction from climate advocates resembled earlier this year, when Morgan Stanley became the first major U.S. bank to join the Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF).
Paddy McCull of RAN welcomed the bank's latest move as well as its decision to measure and disclose its climate footprint with the PCAF methodology, but also said that "we look forward to Morgan Stanley quickly putting meat on this bare-bones commitment by using the Principles for Paris-Aligned Financial Institutions, and in particular by setting an interim target to halve its emissions by 2030."
The principles (pdf) were released last week by dozens of climate and human rights groups, including 350.org, Amazon Watch, RAN, and Sierra Club.
"Given the inadequacy of Morgan Stanley's current sustainability policies, a commitment to net zero will require a complete policy overall," said Amazon Watch's Moira Birss. "As just one example, Morgan Stanley's current policy specifically allows for controlled burning as a practice in agribusiness, despite the fact that controlled burning is the primary cause of the fires currently destroying the Amazon rainforest--one of the most important ecosystems for climate stability."
Reaching the bank's goals and respecting groups' principles requires "an immediate end to financing for fossil fuel expansion and deforestation, and a plan to phase out financing for fossil fuels overall, while respecting human rights," McCull explained.
"It also means making clear that Morgan Stanley does not intend to hit 'net zero' by using shady carbon accounting schemes like forest offsets or large-scale reliance on untested technologies like carbon capture and storage," he said. "The spotlight is now on Morgan Stanley's Wall Street peers, which have higher fossil fuel financing footprints, to make commitments that align with the Paris agreement and the need to keep climate change under 1.5degC."
Sierra Club senior campaign representative Ben Cushing concurred that "Morgan Stanley's commitment to achieve net-zero financed emissions by 2050 is an important step forward that sets a new bar for other major U.S. banks to follow, but also needs to be followed up with critical next steps for actually getting there."
Urging other banks to follow suit, Lila Holzman of As You Sow declared, "Morgan Stanley's actions show that committing to net zero is good business."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Is Only the Beginning': JPMorgan Chase Faces Investor Revolt Over Financing Climate Destruction
"Shareholders today sent the message that it is past time for Chase to catch up with its peers, implement a strategy to decarbonize and de-risk its lending portfolio, and help build a more secure future for all."
May 19, 2020
Activist and shareholder frustrations with JPMorgan Chase's funding of global climate catastrophe were on full display Tuesday during the multinational investment bank's virtual Annual General Meeting.
"The pressure Chase faced on climate at today's meeting and the votes showing unprecedented support for climate accountability are proof that the movement to push Chase and other big banks to clean up their act on climate is only gaining momentum and power."
--Ben Cushing, Sierra Club
In a clear signal of support for reforming the lending practices of the world's largest private bank to ensure a habitable future planet, 49.6% of shareholders voted in favor of a resolution that asked JPMorgan to craft a plan to better align its operations with the Paris climate agreement's goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5degC.
Welcoming that vote in a statement Tuesday, Sierra Club campaigner Ben Cushing declared that "the days when Chase could quietly funnel money into the fossil fuel industry without the public taking notice are over."
"The pressure Chase faced on climate at today's meeting and the votes showing unprecedented support for climate accountability are proof that the movement to push Chase and other big banks to clean up their act on climate is only gaining momentum and power," Cushing said. "This is only the beginning, and we'll continue to demand meaningful changes to align Chase's investments with a climate-safe future."
The development was also celebrated by Danielle Fugere, president of the nonprofit shareholder advocacy group As You Sow. "Shareholders today sent the message that it is past time for Chase to catch up with its peers, implement a strategy to decarbonize and de-risk its lending portfolio, and help build a more secure future for all," she said.
Since the landmark Paris accord was adopted in late 2015, JPMorgan has provided over a quarter of a trillion dollars in fossil fuel financing. That has made the bank a top target of climate activists--including Stop the Money Pipeline, a campaign launched in January by a coalition of advocacy groups to pressure banks, insurers, and asset managers to cut ties with planet-wrecking companies.
"As the world's largest funder of fossil fuels, JPMorgan Chase has a decision to make--either recognize growing global climate risk and dramatically reduce its fossil fuel funding or continue irresponsibly driving global temperature rise to greater and more devastating impacts," said Fugere. She noted that As You Sow withdrew similar proposals at Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs after the banks made climate commitments.
"It is critical that financial heavyweight JPMorgan Chase accelerate ambition to clean up its fossil fuel financing," Fugere added. "JPMorgan's inaction in the face of the staggering risks of climate change is noteworthy and unacceptable. Investors can no longer tolerate business as usual in these unprecedented times."
JPMorgan announced in February that it would stop financing extraction projects in the Arctic and phase out loans for coal by 2024 but continue funding oil and gas developments. At the time, activists called the moves "small concessions" but also evidence that "citizen power can work."
Eli Kasargod-Staub, executive director of nonprofit shareholder advocacy group Majority Action, said Tuesday that "instead of vague professions of support of the Paris agreement, JPMorgan must commit to the goal of achieving net-zero CO2 financed emissions by 2050 and disclose their plans for how they will realign their lending and underwriting strategies to achieve this goal."
During the annual meeting, JP Morgan also faced pressure to oust from its board of directors Lee Raymond, an ex-CEO of oil giant ExxonMobil who was quietly demoted from his longtime leadership role at the bank earlier this month due to activist and investor demands. Additionally, 41.96% of shareholder voted to split the roles of board chair and CEO, which activists lauded as a rebuke to Jamie Dimon, who holds both positions.
"This shareholders' revolt against Jamie Dimon's failed record on climate change shows that JPMorgan Chase's days of acting as the house bank of the fossil fuel industry will have to end," Patrick McCully, Climate & Energy Program director at Rainforest Action Network, said in a statement.
"The unprecedented share of the votes against management," he said, "and the fact that JPMorgan had to demote climate denier Lee Raymond from his board leadership role, shows that investors agree with activists that business as usual in financing fossil fuels is no longer acceptable."
Although Raymond's demotion pleased activists, 350.org senior strategist Richard Brooks urged the bank to go further. As he put it: "While demoting climate-denying Lee Raymond as lead independent director after 19 years is a start, this is just the tip of the melting iceberg of what needs to happen at JPMorgan Chase."
"The future is not in financing risky, bankrupt prone fossil fuel companies wrecking our climate," Brooks added. "It is in investing in community driven climate solutions. The climate related shareholder votes signal it's time for an overhaul at JPMorgan and we aren't going to stop until we achieve that."
Brooks also took to Twitter Tuesday to share a Daily News op-ed called for Raymond's removal:
The op-ed was co-authored by Boston University fellow Neva Goodwin, Rockefeller Family Fund president Miranda Kaiser, and New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer; Goodwin and Kaiser are the daughter and granddaughter of former Chase chairman David Rockefeller. In the article, they also took aim at the bank's lending practices.
"In contrast, a coalition of 130 banks and competitors to JPMorgan, including Citigroup and Barclays, have committed to aligning their investment actions with the goals of the Paris climate agreement," the trio wrote. "Rather than trying to capitalize on a global energy transition, JPMorgan's financing of fossil fuels today locks in emissions for decades to come. This places JPMorgan at the back of the pack and drastically behind the curve."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Oil & Gas Companies Fail to Reign in Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Investors Must Demand Paris Compliant Plan
We no longer have the luxury of time.
Sep 07, 2018
The emissions of the oil and gas industry collectively account for approximately half of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. If fossil fuels continue to be extracted at the same rate over the next 28 years, as they were between 1988 and 2017, global average temperatures would be on course to rise 4degC by the end of the century. Such an increase will have catastrophic consequences.
To try and change this trajectory, shareholders of major oil & gas companies have filed 160 climate change shareholder resolutions at 24 U.S. oil & gas companies between 2012 and 2018, which is detailed in a new report, 2020: A Clear Vision for Paris Compliant Shareholder Engagement, released Friday.
These resolutions resulted in a range of successes--from appointing climate-competent board members to reducing some operational greenhouse gas emissions. Despite this movement, none of these U.S. oil & gas companies have adopted plans, or targets, to limit their full lifecycle contribution of greenhouse gas emissions.
"There is a short window of time to ensure that global temperature rise does not exceed 2degC. Moving oil and gas companies--one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions--to transition to Paris compliant, low carbon business plans is critical to meeting this goal."
Instead, the vast majority of these companies are continuing business as usual investments to maintain or expand production. Specifically, there has been no material progress in reducing the emissions that matter most, Scope 3 product emissions, in alignment with the Paris Climate Accord. These emissions, because of their size and scale, are the relevant proxy for assessing company progress on climate change goals, as is a company's disclosure of Paris compliant business plans to rapidly ramp down these emissions.
The fact that global greenhouse gas emissions, and oil & gas company capital expenditures on exploration and production, keep rising signals a fundamental limitation of the current shareholder engagement strategy. Shareholders must grapple head-on with the implications of an oil & gas business model that continues to invest unabated in products which, when used, run counter to science-based targets and the Paris Agreement.
Oil and gas companies' demand projections and rationales for continued capital expenditures are based on assumptions that are not in alignment with Paris goals. Too few companies are conducting true 2degC scenario planning and stress test analyses, or disclosing sufficient information when they do, including assumptions and outcomes. The result for the companies that have performed such analysis is generally projections of demand far beyond what can be burned while keeping global temperatures safely below 2degC. Company intentions to supply whatever demand exists irrespective of climate impact, and to continue investments in exploration and production of reserves that are likely to be stranded under Paris compliance, contributes directly to the world continuing to overshoot its Paris goals and is in defiance of accepted science-based targets
While many shareholders of oil & gas companies have divested or committed to divest, others remain steadfast in holding these investments in order to engage company management. For pension funds, university endowments, mutual funds, and foundations such investments are increasingly a financial risk.
Over the past 10 years, the energy sector has underperformed the benchmark, leading to significant portfolio underperformance and fiduciary risk for the trustees and investment committees of these institutions. While oil prices have recently increased, giving some performance relief, long-term risk for this sector continues to rise. An array of negative business indicators that increase performance risk include: high costs of capital expenditures on exploration and production; mounting debt, credit downgrades, increased litigation targeting oil & gas companies on climate; increased cost competitiveness of renewables and other low carbon technologies; the likelihood of declining demand as efficiency and climate policies move forward globally; and associated fiduciary risk to large institutional shareholders.
In addition, climate change negatively impacts the global economy threatening all sectors of shareholder portfolios--from supply chain blockages, to cycles of flood and drought, to lack of fresh water, to agriculture losses, to reduced global demand for products, among others. As global climate impacts rise, broader portfolios will suffer.
There is a short window of time to ensure that global temperature rise does not exceed 2degC. Moving oil and gas companies--one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions--to transition to Paris compliant, low carbon business plans is critical to meeting this goal. After seven years of shareholder advocacy focused on financial, risk-based climate engagement with the oil and gas industry, it is time for a strategic shift to increase impact. Having gained so little on material climate change, and given up so much in portfolio underperformance, a new course of action is needed.
Shareholders must therefore demand 2degC transition plans from oil & gas companies by 2020. This will mean that shareholders must unify and demand that oil and gas companies immediately undertake scenario analysis compatible with a 2degC demand level, with transparent methods of assessment and disclosure, and then adopt Paris compliant business plans with clear timelines for implementation. Such plans must provide sufficient detail that shareholders can review, understand, and compare companies' actions.
We no longer have the luxury of time. Shareholder engagement must focus on one last, fit for purpose demand, seeking 2-degree assessments from companies in year one and 2-degree action plans by 2020. If Paris compliant engagement fails, then investors must divest. It is the only way investors themselves can be Paris compliant.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Are You Funding Gun Violence?
Weapon-free investing can align your savings with your values
Jun 27, 2018
In the aftermath of the February mass shooting that killed 17 students and staff members at a Parkland, Florida, high school, people are pointing fingers at the gun companies who profit from flooding our streets with assault rifles and other firearms. On an average day, 96 Americans are killed with guns with seven of them being children or teens. And, in just the last year, there have been 16 school shootings that resulted in the deaths of students and faculty members.
Fortunately, people are realizing they need to cut investment ties with gun manufacturers as well as companies that profit from selling weapons of war. Companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman make hundreds of billions of dollars a year on their arms sales. Weapons are a big, bloody business.
A growing movement is taking a stand by divesting from gun companies and the military industry. But if you own mutual funds, whether in a personal portfolio or an employer-offered retirement plan like a 401(k), there's a good chance that you own shares of gun manufacturers, gun retailers and other weapon companies like military contractors.
At As You Sow, we think everyone should be able to leverage their personal economic power to create positive change, and that means knowing what you own. But it's almost impossible to know what individual companies you own if you're invested through mutual funds. We're starting to change that.
Weapon Free Funds is a new tool that enables you to find out if your money is being used to finance weapon manufacturers, and to find alternative options that avoid weapon investments. We are releasing this tool in partnership with CODEPINK, as a part of the organization's Divest from the War Machine campaign.
The tool screens the 3,000 most held U.S. mutual funds and exchange-traded funds for assault weapons, handguns, ammo, retailers, cluster munitions, landmines and nuclear weapons.
You probably own weapon investments
Unless you work directly with a financial advisor to pick stocks directly, you probably own weapon investments, most likely hiding in a broad-based index fund.
The largest asset managers all have significant investments in weapon companies. The five largest mutual fund managers in our database all have billions invested in gun makers, gun retailers and military contractors.
The investments in military contractors include companies that make cluster munitions and landmines-- weapons banned in more than 100 countries--as well as companies that build and maintain the nuclear arsenals of militaries around the world.
There are weapon-free options
Investing in weapons is a choice--though not always an intentional one for investors. Some funds actively choose to invest responsibly by deliberately avoiding companies that make military weapons and civilian firearms.
Responsible investment firms like Parnassus and Domini offer a number of funds that fit a wide range of investing circumstances while avoiding weapon companies.
We feature dozens of socially responsible funds that have a low risk of weapon investments in our database.
You don't have to give up returns to invest responsibly
A widespread myth is that divesting from morally problematic companies means making less money. According to the latest research, that's just not true. Sustainable and responsible investors do not have to pay more to align their investments with their values, or to avoid companies with poor environmental, social or governance practices.
Ethically and financially, you can make satisfying investment choices. With Weapon Free Funds, we're making that a whole lot easier. Make sure you're not contributing to the violence.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Who Is Making a Killing on Killing?
The merchants of war who have shaped U.S. foreign policy since the end of WWII have a foothold so strong, the act of extracting ourselves from the war economy has become incredibly complex.
Jun 26, 2018
Our investments are funding war, guns, and militarism at home and around the world. From our personal investments to state pension plans to university trusts, the money that individuals and communities are using for retirement, long-term planning, and even higher education is subsidizing violence in our backyards and other nations. The good news is we have the power to cut our ties to war, guns, and militarism by using a new web-based tool, Weapon Free Funds.
Most Americans have no idea that the U.S. maintains nearly 800 military bases around the world, or that the U.S. supplies the weapons that wreak havoc on innocent civilians and children in Yemen, Syria, Pakistan, and more.
The U.S. is engaged in endless wars around the world. For 17 years, we have been fighting in the Middle East, leading us into seven active conflict zones and countless other proxy wars. We are still fighting an invisible war on drugs that takes the war zone from Afghanistan to Mexico. Most Americans have no idea that the U.S. maintains nearly 800 military bases around the world, or that the U.S. supplies the weapons that wreak havoc on innocent civilians and children in Yemen, Syria, Pakistan, and more.
So why the constant drive to fuel more and additional conflict? As the saying goes, follow the money: who profits from all this death and devastation?
The merchants of war who have shaped U.S. foreign policy since the end of WWII have a foothold so strong, the act of extracting ourselves from the war economy has become incredibly complex. In 2017, the U.S. gave more than $750 billion to the Pentagon, which turned around and handed $350 billion of that to weapons manufacturers--companies like Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman, some of whom are also currently profiting from the construction of immigrant detention facilities. The CEOs of those companies took home a combined salary of $96 million. Meanwhile, a U.S. worker on minimum wage cannot afford a standard two-bedroom apartment, working 40 hours a week.
In 2017, the U.S. gave more than $750 billion to the Pentagon, which turned around and handed $350 billion of that to weapons manufacturers--companies like Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman, some of whom are also currently profiting from the construction of immigrant detention facilities.
Our communities are scrambling to find resources to pay for basic services. There's still no power in Puerto Rico. Flint, Michigan, doesn't have clean water. Our infrastructure is crumbling. Congress and the White House deal blow after blow to people and communities, slashing funding for SNAP, raising rent for those on Section 8 housing, and rolling back protections for LGBTQ+ students. Washington is simultaneously sowing instability, destruction, and poverty overseas and in our own backyard.
The military-industrial complex rewards Congress's continued cooperation with a constant stream of campaign contributions, ensuring an endless cycle of tax dollars to fund their activities--a deadly revolving door that has cornered nearly all of our elected officials on the state and federal level.
The militarization of our communities has manifested itself in countless ways--from weapons manufacturers receiving the aforementioned federal contracts to construct detention facilities, to the Pentagon giving away excess military equipment to our police forces. The popularity and accessibility of military-style assault rifles has resulted in mass shootings at our schools at unfathomable rates, while Congress refuses to act to curb gun violence. Why? Campaign contributions from the NRA.
The military-industrial complex rewards Congress's continued cooperation with a constant stream of campaign contributions, ensuring an endless cycle of tax dollars to fund their activities--a deadly revolving door that has cornered nearly all of our elected officials on the state and federal level.
But what role do we play in subsidizing war, death, and destruction? Employer-offered 401(k)s or personal mutual fund portfolios are likely invested in weapons manufacturers, including large defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, and gun companies such as American Outdoor Brands--the company that makes the assault rifle that was used in the Parkland, Florida, school shooting.
This is why As You Sow and CODEPINK have collaborated on Weapon Free Funds to allow individuals, communities, universities, foundations, faith-based institutions and others to search 3,000 commonly held mutual funds and ETFs to determine if they are invested in weapons and war, and if so, to find cleaner options.
While we continue to hold Washington accountable for its excess, we also encourage and celebrate the power of individuals, communities, and institutions to shift the conversation when they invest with their values.
Learn more and take action to divest from the war machine at www.weaponfreefunds.org and www.divestfromwarmachine.org
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy