Protesters picket outside a Chase Bank branch in November 2019.
'Criminal': Major Banks Funneled $1.8 Trillion to Carbon Bombs Between 2016 and 2022
JPMorgan Chase led the pack with more than $141 billion invested between 2016 and 2022, followed by Citi with $119 billion, and Bank of America with $92 billion.
Major banks funneled more than $150 billion in 2022 toward "carbon bomb" fossil fuel projects that would blow through the world's chances of limiting global heating to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
The data, published by The Guardian Tuesday, shows that major banks in the U.S., Europe, and China funded the companies behind these projects with a total of $1.8 trillion between 2016 and 2022, with U.S. banks contributing more than half a trillion of that total.
"Criminal," Nuclear Consulting Group chair Paul Dorfman tweeted in response to the news.
"We need to rapidly decline our production of fossil fuels and support for fossil fuels, whether that's regulatory or financial."
The "carbon bombs" are 425 fossil fuel extraction projects identified by The Guardian and other nonprofit and media organizations and compiled in an online database in 2022. Each bomb has the potential to release more than a gigaton of carbon dioxide over its lifetime. At first, it was calculated that igniting all 425 bombs would release emissions more than double the remaining carbon budget that scientists say humans can spend and still have a 50% chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C. However, research published Monday calculated that the remaining carbon budget is actually around 250 gigatons of carbon dioxide, not the 500 previously believed. The carbon bombs would release a combined total of more than 1,000 gigatons, or four times the revised number.
"The budget is so small, and the urgency of meaningful action for limiting warming is so high, [that] the message from [the carbon budget] is dire," study co-author Joeri Rogelj of Imperial College London told The Guardian Monday.
That narrowing window makes it all the more urgent that banks stop financing fossil fuels, yet that is not what they are doing, according to the analysis of the carbon bomb data completed by French nonprofits Data for Good and Éclaircies, along with European media partners.
The data includes a list of the top ten financial backers of companies operating carbon bombs.
JPMorgan Chase led the pack with more than $141 billion invested between 2016 and 2022, followed by Citi with $119 billion, Bank of America with $92 billion, the Chinese ICBC with $92.2 billion, and BNP Paribas with $71.9 billion. Last year alone, the banks directly or indirectly funded the projects with around $161 billion. This comes despite greenwashing rhetoric from financial institutions pledging to act on climate.
For example, JPMorgan has promised to set goals to reduce the emission intensity of its portfolios for key sectors, including oil and gas, electricity, and auto making.
"We provide financing all across the energy sector: supporting energy security, helping clients accelerate their low-carbon transitions, and increasing clean energy financing with a target of $1 trillion for green initiatives by 2030," a JPMorgan Chase spokesperson told The Guardian. "We are taking pragmatic steps to meet our 2030 emission intensity reduction targets in the six sectors that account for the majority of global emissions, while helping the world meet its energy needs securely and affordably."
The data suggests these institutions need to do more and faster.
"We need to rapidly decline our production of fossil fuels and support for fossil fuels, whether that's regulatory or financial," Shruti Shukla, a National Resources Defense Council energy campaigner who was not involved with the research, told The Guardian.
In a worse-case scenario, nothing will be done to limit emissions, these carbon bombs will be exploited and burned, and weather will turn ever more extreme. However, if world leaders do succeed in rapidly phasing out fossil fuels, these projects could become stranded assets for the companies and banks that invested in them, and if this happens all at once, it could trigger a financial crash, University of Witten-Herdecke sustainable finance research fellow Jan Fichtner told The Guardian.
To avoid this, the world must work to make fossil fuels less profitable, Fichtner said.
"In a capitalist system, profitability is the most important current," Fichtner told The Guardian. "You can try to swim against the current, it's possible, but it's very, very difficult."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just four days to go in our Spring Campaign, we are not even halfway to our goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Major banks funneled more than $150 billion in 2022 toward "carbon bomb" fossil fuel projects that would blow through the world's chances of limiting global heating to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
The data, published by The Guardian Tuesday, shows that major banks in the U.S., Europe, and China funded the companies behind these projects with a total of $1.8 trillion between 2016 and 2022, with U.S. banks contributing more than half a trillion of that total.
"Criminal," Nuclear Consulting Group chair Paul Dorfman tweeted in response to the news.
"We need to rapidly decline our production of fossil fuels and support for fossil fuels, whether that's regulatory or financial."
The "carbon bombs" are 425 fossil fuel extraction projects identified by The Guardian and other nonprofit and media organizations and compiled in an online database in 2022. Each bomb has the potential to release more than a gigaton of carbon dioxide over its lifetime. At first, it was calculated that igniting all 425 bombs would release emissions more than double the remaining carbon budget that scientists say humans can spend and still have a 50% chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C. However, research published Monday calculated that the remaining carbon budget is actually around 250 gigatons of carbon dioxide, not the 500 previously believed. The carbon bombs would release a combined total of more than 1,000 gigatons, or four times the revised number.
"The budget is so small, and the urgency of meaningful action for limiting warming is so high, [that] the message from [the carbon budget] is dire," study co-author Joeri Rogelj of Imperial College London told The Guardian Monday.
That narrowing window makes it all the more urgent that banks stop financing fossil fuels, yet that is not what they are doing, according to the analysis of the carbon bomb data completed by French nonprofits Data for Good and Éclaircies, along with European media partners.
The data includes a list of the top ten financial backers of companies operating carbon bombs.
JPMorgan Chase led the pack with more than $141 billion invested between 2016 and 2022, followed by Citi with $119 billion, Bank of America with $92 billion, the Chinese ICBC with $92.2 billion, and BNP Paribas with $71.9 billion. Last year alone, the banks directly or indirectly funded the projects with around $161 billion. This comes despite greenwashing rhetoric from financial institutions pledging to act on climate.
For example, JPMorgan has promised to set goals to reduce the emission intensity of its portfolios for key sectors, including oil and gas, electricity, and auto making.
"We provide financing all across the energy sector: supporting energy security, helping clients accelerate their low-carbon transitions, and increasing clean energy financing with a target of $1 trillion for green initiatives by 2030," a JPMorgan Chase spokesperson told The Guardian. "We are taking pragmatic steps to meet our 2030 emission intensity reduction targets in the six sectors that account for the majority of global emissions, while helping the world meet its energy needs securely and affordably."
The data suggests these institutions need to do more and faster.
"We need to rapidly decline our production of fossil fuels and support for fossil fuels, whether that's regulatory or financial," Shruti Shukla, a National Resources Defense Council energy campaigner who was not involved with the research, told The Guardian.
In a worse-case scenario, nothing will be done to limit emissions, these carbon bombs will be exploited and burned, and weather will turn ever more extreme. However, if world leaders do succeed in rapidly phasing out fossil fuels, these projects could become stranded assets for the companies and banks that invested in them, and if this happens all at once, it could trigger a financial crash, University of Witten-Herdecke sustainable finance research fellow Jan Fichtner told The Guardian.
To avoid this, the world must work to make fossil fuels less profitable, Fichtner said.
"In a capitalist system, profitability is the most important current," Fichtner told The Guardian. "You can try to swim against the current, it's possible, but it's very, very difficult."
- It Isn't Nice, But Climate Activists Will Block the Doorways ›
- 'Granholm You Are Killing Me': Climate Activists Disrupt Speech by Biden Energy Secretary ›
- Climate Insanity: The Biden Administration Wants to Drill on Alaska's North Slope ›
- Rahm Emanuel Slammed for 'Trying to Light the Fuse of a Massive Carbon Bomb' ›
- US Banks Pouring $23 Billion Into Russian 'Carbon Bomb' Projects ›
- Gulf Oil Spill Shows 'Danger of Banks Owning Energy Companies' ›
Major banks funneled more than $150 billion in 2022 toward "carbon bomb" fossil fuel projects that would blow through the world's chances of limiting global heating to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
The data, published by The Guardian Tuesday, shows that major banks in the U.S., Europe, and China funded the companies behind these projects with a total of $1.8 trillion between 2016 and 2022, with U.S. banks contributing more than half a trillion of that total.
"Criminal," Nuclear Consulting Group chair Paul Dorfman tweeted in response to the news.
"We need to rapidly decline our production of fossil fuels and support for fossil fuels, whether that's regulatory or financial."
The "carbon bombs" are 425 fossil fuel extraction projects identified by The Guardian and other nonprofit and media organizations and compiled in an online database in 2022. Each bomb has the potential to release more than a gigaton of carbon dioxide over its lifetime. At first, it was calculated that igniting all 425 bombs would release emissions more than double the remaining carbon budget that scientists say humans can spend and still have a 50% chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C. However, research published Monday calculated that the remaining carbon budget is actually around 250 gigatons of carbon dioxide, not the 500 previously believed. The carbon bombs would release a combined total of more than 1,000 gigatons, or four times the revised number.
"The budget is so small, and the urgency of meaningful action for limiting warming is so high, [that] the message from [the carbon budget] is dire," study co-author Joeri Rogelj of Imperial College London told The Guardian Monday.
That narrowing window makes it all the more urgent that banks stop financing fossil fuels, yet that is not what they are doing, according to the analysis of the carbon bomb data completed by French nonprofits Data for Good and Éclaircies, along with European media partners.
The data includes a list of the top ten financial backers of companies operating carbon bombs.
JPMorgan Chase led the pack with more than $141 billion invested between 2016 and 2022, followed by Citi with $119 billion, Bank of America with $92 billion, the Chinese ICBC with $92.2 billion, and BNP Paribas with $71.9 billion. Last year alone, the banks directly or indirectly funded the projects with around $161 billion. This comes despite greenwashing rhetoric from financial institutions pledging to act on climate.
For example, JPMorgan has promised to set goals to reduce the emission intensity of its portfolios for key sectors, including oil and gas, electricity, and auto making.
"We provide financing all across the energy sector: supporting energy security, helping clients accelerate their low-carbon transitions, and increasing clean energy financing with a target of $1 trillion for green initiatives by 2030," a JPMorgan Chase spokesperson told The Guardian. "We are taking pragmatic steps to meet our 2030 emission intensity reduction targets in the six sectors that account for the majority of global emissions, while helping the world meet its energy needs securely and affordably."
The data suggests these institutions need to do more and faster.
"We need to rapidly decline our production of fossil fuels and support for fossil fuels, whether that's regulatory or financial," Shruti Shukla, a National Resources Defense Council energy campaigner who was not involved with the research, told The Guardian.
In a worse-case scenario, nothing will be done to limit emissions, these carbon bombs will be exploited and burned, and weather will turn ever more extreme. However, if world leaders do succeed in rapidly phasing out fossil fuels, these projects could become stranded assets for the companies and banks that invested in them, and if this happens all at once, it could trigger a financial crash, University of Witten-Herdecke sustainable finance research fellow Jan Fichtner told The Guardian.
To avoid this, the world must work to make fossil fuels less profitable, Fichtner said.
"In a capitalist system, profitability is the most important current," Fichtner told The Guardian. "You can try to swim against the current, it's possible, but it's very, very difficult."
- It Isn't Nice, But Climate Activists Will Block the Doorways ›
- 'Granholm You Are Killing Me': Climate Activists Disrupt Speech by Biden Energy Secretary ›
- Climate Insanity: The Biden Administration Wants to Drill on Alaska's North Slope ›
- Rahm Emanuel Slammed for 'Trying to Light the Fuse of a Massive Carbon Bomb' ›
- US Banks Pouring $23 Billion Into Russian 'Carbon Bomb' Projects ›
- Gulf Oil Spill Shows 'Danger of Banks Owning Energy Companies' ›