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
climate emergency
Climate Denier Lee Raymond Left the World Hotter Than He Found It
I don’t believe a loving God consigns people to eternal damnation. But I do believe that Raymond, Exxon, and Chase have helped send the rest of us to a kind of hell.
Jun 12, 2026
Here’s how Lee Raymond’s hometown paper, the Houston Chronicle, remembered him Thursday morning.
The Texas paper was more direct, and more accurate, than anyone else covering the story. The Times obit gave top billing to the fact that he led the acquisition of Mobil and “cut costs relentlessly;” the Wall Street Journal waited till paragraph six to note that he was “openly skeptical” of climate science (much like The Wall Street Journal). But the Chron had it right—when people think back in a hundred years or a thousand or ten thousand, the one thing worth remembering about him will be the crucial role he played in holding back action on climate change.
I’m going to recount the lowlights of the story here, and add one that gets very little notice in the obituaries, but that ties directly to the ongoing crisis.
Raymond was a research engineer who spent his whole career at what was then the world’s largest company. He joined its board in 1984, already a leading candidate for CEO, which means he was near the top during the 1980s, the period when (as we now know thanks to great investigative reporting) the company’s scientists correctly identified the dangers of global warming and linked them directly to Exxon’s products. That research, as Inside Climate News reported in 2015,
laid the groundwork for a 1982 corporate primer on carbon dioxide and climate change prepared by its environmental affairs office. Marked “not to be distributed externally,” it contained information that “has been given wide circulation to Exxon management.” In it, the company recognized, despite the many lingering unknowns, that heading off global warming “would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion.”
Unless that happened, “there are some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered,” the primer said, citing independent experts. “Once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible.”
This was, of course, the same decade when Jim Hansen was carrying out his groundbreaking research at NASA (and I was writing The End of Nature). Exxon, as it turns out, was on precisely the same wavelength. Here’s, to me, one of the great historical what-ifs: Imagine that, on the night that Hansen made his remarks to Congress, an Exxon exec like Raymond had gone on the evening news and told Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, or Peter Jennings that “our research shows pretty much the same thing.” No one would have accused Exxon of climate alarmism; instead, we would have gotten to work as a civilization.
Instead, they chose denial. And it was Raymond who played a lead role, as Exxon helped form the Global Climate Coalition, first of the obfuscation fronts. He became the spokesman for anti-science in many ways: In 1997, as the world approached the first global climate talks in Kyoto, he gave what may be a speech second only in importance to Hansen’s original testimony. Speaking in Beijing to the Worl Petroleum Congress, he contended that the world was cooling, that there was no way to know if carbon dioxide was to blame, and that in any event “it is highly unlikely that the temperature in the middle of the next century will be significantly affected whether policies are enacted now or 20 years from now.”
These, of course, were exactly the things Exxon’s scientists had told them were not true. Indeed, they’d been explicitly warned that
man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.
And Exxon had believed its scientists. As a 2015 Los Angeles Times report made clear, they’d begun building drilling rigs higher to counteract rising sea levels, and plotting out what parts of the Arctic might be prime for oil drilling once they’d helped melt the ice.
Exxon, more than any single force on Earth, made sure that the planet didn’t address climate change while it had time. Given what it knew in the 1980s Exxon could have had a head start on building and owning the solutions like sun and wind. But, as one of Raymond’s successors said two years ago, that didn’t happen because “we don’t see the ability to generate above-average returns for our shareholders” with clean energy. And he was right. You can make money putting up solar panels, but you can’t make Exxon money, because the sun delivers energy for free. It doesn’t offer the same scope for greed.
And greed was the word here. For his role in helping wreck the Earth’s climate system, Exxon paid him $686 million, or $144,573 a day, during his tenure as CEO. His retirement package was $400 million.
And even when he finally left Exxon in 2005 he continued on doing damage—this is the often overlooked part of his story. He was the lead independent director at JP Morgan Chase, which had been the Exxon house bank, and which, as I chronicled for Rolling Stone in 2020, became the fossil fuel industry’s biggest lender—the “doomsday bank.”
Many of us ginned up a campaign to get him off that board (along with Rev. Lennox Yearwood and other protesters, and with Jane Fonda looking in through the glass windows, I was arrested at a DC Chase branch to help kick off that fight in 2020). It was eventually successful—that summer he was demoted as lead director, and left the board in December.
But Raymond’s legacy lives on. Just as Exxon has gone on pumping out oil (and climate nonsense), Chase has kept pumping out money. As the brand new edition of the Banking on Climate Chaos report pointed out last week, Chase remains the No. 1 financier of fossil fuels around the world, besting Mitsubishi, Citigroup, and Bank of America; since 2021 they’ve pumped a quarter-trillion dollars into this effort. Asked by The Guardian for a comment, a Chase spokesman said, “As one of the world’s largest financiers of energy, we support the full range of energy solutions and technologies, with a focus on reliability, affordability, security, and long-term resilience.” That kind of bland corporate-speak hides an almost unimaginable multitude of sins.
Like a great many Christians, I don’t believe a loving God consigns people to eternal damnation. But I do believe that Lee Raymond, Exxon, and Chase have helped send the rest of us to a kind of hell. As Jeff Masters just reported:
The world recorded its highest burned area for any January-May during the past 15 years, with more than 150 million hectares burned globally—22% higher than the previous high set in 2020 and about double the recent average for this period. In the US, the burned area so far in 2026 has been the highest for at least the past 10 years—about double the 10-year average—according to the National Interagency Fire Center.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Despite Trump's Relentless Attack on Renewables, Solar Surpassed Coal Energy in US for First Time in May
"Solar is cheaper, cleaner, more reliable," said Rep. Jared Huffman. "Trump needs to end his war on clean energy and get on board with what’s best for America."
Jun 11, 2026
Since taking office 16 months ago, President Donald Trump has gone to extreme lengths to try to reverse the undeniable trend in the direction of solar power and away from expensive, planet-heating coal—but two new reports reveal how, despite Trump's relentless efforts, Americans are using renewable solar energy to power their homes and businesses more than ever.
The global energy think tank Ember revealed Wednesday that in May, for the first ever, solar supplied more of the United States' electricity than coal, at 12.8%. Coal dropped to its fourth-lowest point last month, delivering just 12.2% of electricity. Solar also became the third-largest source of electricity in May, behind gas and nuclear power.
The previous month, coal hit an all-time low, according to data from the US Energy Information Administration analyzed by Ember.
Another report from the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and the analytics firm Wood Mackenzie found that solar and battery storage accounted for 91% of all new energy generation capacity in the first quarter of 2026.
The news comes a week after Trump announced $700 million in new funding for the nation's coal industry, some of which is planned for the building of two brand-new coal-fired plants, which would be the first to be built in the US in 13 years.
US Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) compared Trump's latest effort to "lighting $700 million taxpayer dollars on fire," but emphasized that "the proof is there."
"Solar is cheaper, cleaner, more reliable," he said. "Trump needs to end his war on clean energy and get on board with what’s best for America."
Last week's announcement is one of numerous steps Trump has taken to prop up coal, one of the fossil fuels that scientists warn are heating the planet and increasingly causing destructive extreme weather events.
In February the president ordered the Pentagon to sign taxpayer-funded contracts with coal plants that otherwise would have been retired in the coming years, to provide electricity to military installations.
The Department of Energy also pledged $625 million to "expand and reinvigorate America’s coal industry," an effort that has run into opposition even from the industry itself. In Colorado, two utilities, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association and the Platte River Power Authority, which co-own a coal-fired plant the administration has demanded stay in operation, filed a petition earlier this year asking the DOE to allow them to close the facility, saying they've built solar and wind farms and that being forced to buy coal and maintain the plant amounts to a violation of the US Constitution's takings clause.
While demanding that coal production continues, Trump has taken direct aim at the booming solar industry—canceling projects and terminating $7 billion in funding for an affordable renewable energy program.
On the online news show "Breaking Points," Ryan Grim noted that solar and wind power surged in the first quarter before Trump joined Israel in waging war on Iran, a decision that sent oil prices skyrocketing.
"I would imagine the second quarter is going to see 98%" of energy generating capacity coming from solar power, said Grim.
Despite the political attacks and regulatory slowdowns... solar and storage were still 91% of all new grid capacity added in Q1.
Why? "Because solar is cheaper."
Breaking Point's @RyanGrim and @emilyjashinsky explain👇 pic.twitter.com/lhppEVqAR1
— Solar and Storage Industry (@SEIA) June 11, 2026
"Who out there is like, 'You know, what we need to do is invest deeply in building out our fossil fuel infrastructure' at this point?" he said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Voluntary Pledges 'Aren’t Working,' Report Shows as Big Banks Continue to Sow Climate Chaos
"Banks keep telling us they’re committed to climate. Then they abandon their own policies the moment political pressure mounts. Voluntary pledges have had their chance. We need binding rules—not promises.”
Jun 09, 2026
Calls for an end to oil, gas, and coal extraction grew louder in 2025 as the impact of fossil-fueled planetary heating was starkly illustrated by devastating wildfires across the Los Angeles area, deadly flash floods in Texas, a European heatwave that was blamed for the deaths of more than 24,000 people, and cyclones and floods that killed thousands.
But as climate action groups demanded that governments and financial institutions end support for fossil fuel projects and companies last year, according to a report released Monday by several organizations, the world's largest banks only committed more financing to projects like the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a planned liquefied natural gas (LNG) "boom" in the Philippines, and fracking in the Permian Basin.
Last year, according to Banking on Climate Chaos—released by groups including the Rainforest Action Network, Sierra Club, and Oil Change International—the world's largest financial institutions committed $906 billion in financing to fossil fuel companies, representing an 8% increase over funding the previous year.
The groups emphasized that the banks financed pollution-causing oil, gas, and coal projects even as they made "voluntary commitments" to “aligning their lending, investment, and capital markets activities with net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050," as a now-defunct United Nations-backed scheme called the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) pledged.
More than a decade after countries agreed to the Paris climate accord and pledged to take action in a push to avert planetary heating over 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures, the report notes, "banks maintain and are expected to uphold climate policies independent of the NZBA."
However, it continues, "the collapse of the NZBA—culminating in its cessation of operations in October 2025—freed banks to further unwind from climate targets and other elements of their climate strategies."
"Notably, throughout 2025 and the first half of 2026, banks have further weakened their commitments to uphold 1.5˚C temperature rise limits, widened loopholes, and undercut sector policies for coal, oil, and gas energy or power supply primarily by removing or diluting exclusion criteria and commitments. Most policy changes in the past year were downgrades of existing policies rather than improvements," reads the report.
"Voluntary commitments aren’t working. No major oil and gas company is doing anything even close to what is needed to hold global heating to 1.5°C, and voluntary banking sector pledges like the Net Zero Banking Alliance aren’t cutting their pipeline of cash."
Diogo Silva, campaign lead for BankTrack and a co-author of the report, said: "Banks keep telling us they’re committed to climate. Then they abandon their own policies the moment political pressure mounts. Voluntary pledges have had their chance. We need binding rules—not promises.”
Banking on Climate Chaos highlights the banks that spent the most money investing in fossil fuel projects, with JPMorgan Chase named the leading financier of oil, coal, and gas. The Wall Street firm spent $58 billion in 2025, the same year it also "weakened" its own climate policy.
"Of the 15 North American banks in scope, 12 now have no meaningful fossil fuel commitments," said Rainforest Action network. "JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs abandoned their coal and Arctic exclusions entirely, converting them into case-by-case due diligence standards."
JPMorgan Chase is one of three US banks listed in the top five fossil fuel backers; Bank of America financed the second-largest amount of pollution-causing projects at $47 billion, while Citigroup poured more than $45 billion into fossil fuels. Two Japanese institutions, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group and Mizuho Financial, were also in the top five.
With President Donald Trump taking executive action last year aimed at pressuring companies to back fossil fuel interests and "disregard social or environmental considerations," the report notes, US banks' share of all global fossil fuel financing increased to 32%, representing "the single largest source of fossil capital in the world." In 2021, US banks provided 28% of fossil fuel investment.
Trump has also aggressively pushed for more coal production since taking office for his second term in January 2025, and financing for coal mining expansion surged 77% in 2025, to $84 billion. Funding for coal power also grew by 40%, with companies pouring $81 billion into coal-fired plants.
Even when asked about the report's findings, top banks pointed to their own voluntary commitments to finance renewable energy projects and "achieve net zero financed emissions by 2050," as a spokesperson for Citigroup said to The Guardian.
The spokesperson said the bank "supports clients in the low‑carbon transition while recognizing the real need for secure, affordable and reliable energy today. We are committed to... advancing our $1 trillion sustainable finance goal, with a focus on balancing the transition with global energy resilience”.
David Tong, global industry campaign manager for Oil Change International and a co-author of the report, warned that "every dollar of finance for oil and gas helps an industry of war profiteers squeeze out short-term profits, further trapping communities into paying higher fossil fuel energy bills, fueling war and conflict, and burning all our futures."
"Voluntary commitments aren’t working. No major oil and gas company is doing anything even close to what is needed to hold global heating to 1.5°C, and voluntary banking sector pledges like the Net Zero Banking Alliance aren’t cutting their pipeline of cash," he said. "Instead, banks have injected over staggering $900 billion into fossil fuel financing in 2025 alone. Governments must step in and take urgent action to hold financial institutions and fossil fuel companies accountable for their role in the climate crisis.”
Since the Paris climate agreement, the report says, banks have poured a staggering $8.7 trillion into the fossil fuel industry, with the "Dirty Dozen," as the authors call the 12 largest fossil fuel financial backers, providing nearly 40% of all investment for coal, oil, and gas extraction.
The report makes demands of banks, calling on them to "exclude all finance for fossil fuel expansion immediately" and "require robust, 1.5°C-aligned transition plans from all existing fossil fuel clients"—but emphasizes that governments must compel financial institutions to end financing for oil, gas, and coal.
"After two consecutive years of fossil fuel finance increases by global banks—especially the increase in fossil fuel expansion finance and the continued backtracking from banks on their climate pledges—it is clear that the banking sector will not voluntarily take the necessary steps to transition out of fossil fuel finance at the pace and scale needed for the world to deliver on the Paris Agreement goals," reads the report.
Instead, it says, governments must mandate transition planning by banks, private equity holders, insurers, and other companies; make polluters pay for climate damages; ensure public finance institutions are subject to transparent reporting and legal accountability to international standards, and rapidly wind down supply-side fossil fuel subsidies, tax exemptions, subsidies, guarantees or other public assistance for new oil, gas, and coal projects.
"A decade after Paris, just twelve banks now drive more than a third of the world’s fossil fuel financing—proof that this is no longer a problem of markets, but of a small set of decision-makers making active choices," said Niko Lusiani, research director for Rainforest Action Network. "They are choosing to lock in an energy system that hands record profits to a few fossil firms while passing the costs onto the three of every four people on Earth who depend on imported fuel."
"The good news is that what a handful of banks built," said Lusiani, "governments and people worldwide have the power to change.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular