May, 02 2014, 09:15am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Julien Vincent, Lead Campaigner, Market Forces Ph: +61419 179 529
Charlie Wood, Campaigns Director, 350.org Australia Ph: +61427 485 233
Australia's Big Four banks Feel the Wrath of the Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement
On the 2nd and 3rd of May, hundreds of customers with Australia's Big Four Banks will close their accounts in a statement against the banks' investments in new coal and gas projects. These customers will be taking part in Australia's first 'National Days of Divestment Action' organised by Market Forces and 350.org Australia. Since May last year, hundreds of customers have 'put their bank on notice' and pledged to move more than AUD $100 million out of the Big Four banks unless they commit to ruling out future loans to coal and gas projects.
Sydney, Australia
On the 2nd and 3rd of May, hundreds of customers with Australia's Big Four Banks will close their accounts in a statement against the banks' investments in new coal and gas projects. These customers will be taking part in Australia's first 'National Days of Divestment Action' organised by Market Forces and 350.org Australia. Since May last year, hundreds of customers have 'put their bank on notice' and pledged to move more than AUD $100 million out of the Big Four banks unless they commit to ruling out future loans to coal and gas projects.
This is the first time that customers of Australia's largest banks have been mobilised for a divestment action of this scale. Since 2008, Westpac, ANZ, NAB and the Commonwealth Bank have loaned a collective AUD $19 billion [1] to new coal and gas projects, including the controversial Abbot Point coal terminal and the Maules Creek coal mine.
Julien Vincent, Lead Campaigner for Market Forces commented, "The rapid expansion of coal and gas in our country at the expense of communities, other industries and the environment is cause for concern for a great many Australians."
"By moving their money to banks which do not fund fossil fuel projects, individuals are making a statement that it is not socially acceptable to profit from the destruction of our planet."
The key objective of the 'National Days of Divestment Action' is to cause a social stigma around fossil fuel investments in a similar manner to the boycotts against the South African apartheid regime and the tobacco industry.
This is the latest phase in the rapidly growing fossil fuel divestment movement, which has won support from high profile individuals such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu [2], World Bank President Dr Jim Yong Kim [3] and Head of the UNFCCC Christiana Figueres [4].
Tim Ratcliffe, 350.org European Divestment Coordinator said, "Banks worldwide are fuelling the climate crisis with investments in fossil fuels that also expose them to a huge financial risk. The global divestment movement is challenging this gamble with our money and our future."
"To prevent climate catastrophe, 80% of the known fossil fuel reserves need to remain underground. The days where it was acceptable to invest in fossil fuels are over. There is a groundswell movement building up and the banks need to start listening," Ratcliffe added.
Fossil fuel companies are currently grossly overvalued. The vast majority of their carbon reserves is unlikely to be exploited, which will turn them into stranded assets [5]. For example, a report commissioned by the Greens/ European Free Alliance Group of the European Parliament assessed the risk the exposure to high-carbon assets poses to Europe's top 43 banks and pension funds [6]. It concluded that more than EUR1 trillion in European financial institutions is at risk from the growing carbon bubble.
According to a study conducted by Oxford University, the fossil fuel divestment movement is the fastest growing divestment movement in history [7]. It has already seen numerous institutions committing to divest [8] and is making an impact in the financial community, as well. The Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund, the world's largest investment fund, recently announced an investigation into whether it should divest entirely from fossil fuels. Similarly, just this week, the world's largest fund manager BlackRock teamed up with London's FTSE Group to create a new set of indices excluding fossil fuel companies [9].
Last month's report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also recommended that $30 billion be moved out of fossil fuels each year to keep warming below the two degree threshold that international governments have committed to [10].
Said Blair Palese, CEO of 350.org Australia, "Companies are becoming increasingly sensitive to the financial and reputational risks associated with investing in fossil fuels. At the end of the day, no company wants their logo displayed on a weapon of mass destruction."
NOTES TO EDITORS
[1] Loans to coal and gas ports
[2] The Guardian, Desmond Tutu: "We need an anti-apartheid style boycott to save the planet"
[3] Jim Yong Kim remarks at the World Economic Forum
[4] BBC World,Get your cash out of fossil fuel backed funds says UN climate chief
[5] Carbon Tracker report: Unburnable Carbon
[6] Report: "The price of doing too little too late"
[7] Oxford University, Smith School: Stranded assets and the fossil fuel divestment campaign
[8] List of divestment commitments
[9] Financial Times, "FTSE joins Blackrock to help investors avoid fossil fuels"
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
LATEST NEWS
Roughly 900 US Troops Still in Syria as Rebels Close in on Damascus
"Whether the Pentagon wants to admit it or not," U.S. troops "are likely involved in the broader conflict unfolding there right now," warned one analyst.
Dec 07, 2024
Syrian rebel groups' rapid advance on the nation's capital city of Damascus and the possible collapse of President Bashar al-Assad's government after more than a decade of civil war has brought renewed attention to the continued presence of U.S. forces in the country, despite the absence of a clear legal authorization.
The U.S. is believed to have around 900 troops deployed to Syria, mostly in the northeast, as well as an unknown number of private contractors. Nick Turse, a contributing writer for The Intercept, observed Thursday that American forces in Syria "have, on average, come under fire multiple times each week since last October," according to internal Pentagon statistics.
"Keeping military personnel in harm's way for the sake of foreign policy credibility has become increasingly risky with the Gaza war and the flare-up of the Syrian civil war," Turse wrote.
Kelley Vlahos, senior adviser to the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote Saturday morning that "whether the Pentagon wants to admit it or not," U.S. troops "are likely involved in the broader conflict unfolding there right now."
Reutersreported Tuesday that as rebels advanced toward the city of Hama, "fighters from a U.S.-backed, Kurdish-led coalition battled government forces in the northeast, both sides said, opening a new front along a vital supply route" and "compounding Assad's problems."
As the coalition of groups led by the Islamist organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and factions of the Turkey-backed Syrian National Army has quickly seized control of large swaths of territory, the White House National Security Council (NSC) said in a statement last weekend that the U.S.—which has previously armed and trained Syrian rebels—"has nothing to do with this offensive."
"The United States, together with its partners and allies, urge de-escalation, protection of civilians and minority groups, and a serious and credible political process that can end this civil war once and for all with a political settlement consistent with UNSCR 2254," said NSC spokesperson Sean Savett. "We will also continue to fully defend and protect U.S. personnel and U.S. military positions, which remain essential to ensuring that ISIS can never again resurge in Syria."
On Friday, the White House said in a letter to Congress that "a small presence of United States Armed Forces remains in strategically significant locations in Syria to conduct operations, in partnership with local, vetted ground forces, to address continuing terrorist threats emanating from Syria."
President-elect Donald Trump, who during his first term opted to keep U.S. troops in Syria for the openly stated purpose of exploiting the country's oil fields, wrote in a social media post on Saturday that "the United States should have nothing to do with" the current conflict.
"This is not our fight," he wrote in all caps. "Let it play out. Do not get involved!"
Trump's post, as The Associated Pressreported, came as rebels' "stunning march across Syria gained speed... with news that they had reached the suburbs of the capital and with the government forced to deny rumors that President Bashar al-Assad had fled the country."
Hassan Abdul-Ghani, an insurgent commander, said in a Telegram post that rebels are entering the "final stage" of their offensive as they began to encircle Syria's capital. Citing unnamed local sources, Al Jazeerareported that "a state of panic has spread as army troops withdraw from their positions around Damascus."
"They also confirmed that opposition forces had advanced in the western Damascus countryside and the withdrawal of army forces from cities and towns in Eastern Ghouta," the outlet added. "There was a rush for food items in markets in the capital."
Government forces have been backed by Russian airstrikes, Hezbollah, and Iraqi militia fighters.
Reutersreported that "Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said in an Arabic-language interview that Tehran would consider sending troops to Syria if Damascus asked, and Russian President Vladimir Putin urged an end to 'terrorist aggression' in Syria."
In a video statement on Saturday, a Syrian military commander said that "our valiant army continues to carry out its operations against terrorist gatherings at high rates in the directions of the Hama and Homs countrysides and the northern Daraa countryside, inflicting hundreds of deaths and injuries on the terrorists."
Anti-war lawmakers in the U.S. have repeatedly questioned the role of American troops in Syria in recent years and launched efforts to force their withdrawal.
In March 2023, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the U.S. House put forth a resolution that would have required full withdrawal of American forces from Syria within 180 days of passage in the absence of congressional action authorizing their continued presence.
The resolution was voted down by 170 Republicans and 150 Democrats.
Months later, the U.S. Senate tanked a similar effort.
Erik Sperling, executive director of the advocacy group Just Foreign Policy, told The Intercept on Thursday that the Biden administration hasn't "put the war in Syria up for debate because they know the American people don't want another war in the Middle East."
"They know there is no popular support for putting U.S. troops at risk for this," said Sperling, who warned that "many of Trump's advisers will try to drag him deeper into this regional conflict in the Middle East."
The explosion of Syria's civil war in recent days has been disastrous for civilians in the crossfire.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) said Wednesday that "the outbreak of major hostilities... raises concerns that civilians face a real risk of serious abuses at the hands of opposition armed groups and the Syrian government."
"The bloody record of atrocities by all parties to the conflict in Syria is bound to persist until leaders go beyond words and support accountability efforts," said Adam Coogle, HRW's deputy Middle East director. "Without credible justice, there will be no end in sight to the suffering Syrians have endured, no matter who controls the land."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fury as South Korea's Conservative Party Thwarts Impeachment Vote
"Today, citizens witnessed democracy taking a step backward," said the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions.
Dec 07, 2024
A bid to impeach South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol over his short-lived imposition of martial law failed Saturday after lawmakers from his conservative party left the National Assembly chamber and refused to take part in the vote.
Supporters of impeachment needed at least eight members of Yoon's People Power Party (PPP) to support removing the president, who apologized to the nation in a one-minute-long address Saturday morning but refused to step down after he briefly instituted martial law in a stated attempt to "eradicate shameful pro-North Korea" forces, plunging the country into a political crisis.
Yoon's gambit sparked immediate and sustained protests and was widely seen as a coup attempt.
Saturday's impeachment effort drew a massive number of people into the streets outside the National Assembly building despite below-freezing temperatures, and demonstrators voiced outrage when they learned that Yoon's allies thwarted the initial attempt to oust him. Just two PPP members returned to the National Assembly chamber to cast a ballot Saturday.
"I am so angry. I can't find the words to describe my frustration," 23-year-old Kim Hyo-lim toldThe New York Times. "I am devastated, but I feel honored to be a part of this historic moment for my country."
Another demonstrator said they intend to protest "every weekend" until Yoon is removed.
(Photo: Daniel Ceng/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Organizers said roughly a million people took part in demonstrations Saturday in support of Yoon's impeachment. Many also demanded his arrest.
The Financial Timesreported following the failed impeachment effort that Yoon—whose term expires in 2027—and PPP leaders "appeared to have reached a deal whereby the president would hand over political direction of the country to his party and agree to stand down at a time of the party's choosing, in return for support in the impeachment vote."
The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), which has over 1.1 million members, called PPP lawmakers who boycotted Saturday's vote "accomplices in treason."
"The People Power Party has turned its back on the people's wishes, effectively admitting their complicity," KCTU said in a statement posted to social media. "More than one million citizens gathered in front of the National Assembly. They came together because they cannot forgive a president who declared martial law and aimed weapons at his own people. Despite the cold winter weather, they took to the streets hoping desperately for the impeachment to pass."
"Today, citizens witnessed democracy taking a step backward," KCTU added. "They saw clearly who stands with those who would harm our democracy. The People Power Party must be dissolved. Those who protect Yoon must face consequences. It would be a grave mistake to think this can be resolved through compromise or constitutional amendments for an early resignation. Through the people's judgment, Yoon, his associates, and the People Power Party will face severe consequences."
Opposition lawmakers are expected to file a fresh impeachment motion next week as pressure mounts for Yoon to step down.
Additionally, as The Washington Postreported, "the national police have opened an investigation into Yoon on treason accusations by opposition parties and activists."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Top Democrat Issues Warning Over Trump Plot to 'Steal' From Federal Programs
"The Constitution provides no impoundment power to the president to unilaterally withhold funds appropriated by Congress," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro.
Dec 07, 2024
The top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee warned Friday that President-elect Donald Trump is planning to "steal from the programs and services that affect middle-class, working, and vulnerable families" by refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said in a statement that Trump's strategy, known as "impoundment," is "uninformed and unconstitutional," adding that "the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, and the Government Accountability Office are all in agreement—the Constitution provides no impoundment power to the president to unilaterally withhold funds appropriated by Congress."
"It is the sworn duty of the president of the United States to faithfully execute the law," DeLauro added, "and appropriations laws are no exception."
In a new fact sheet, Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee note that "the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, and nowhere does it give the president any unilateral power to either temporarily or permanently impound—steal, withhold, or prevent from being spent—funds appropriated by Congress."
"The Framers were right to give Congress the power of the purse," the fact sheet states. "If the president had the unilateral power to decline to spend resources as directed by Congress, then those who rely on Social Security, Medicare, Veterans Medical Care, and other federal spending programs would be subject to the whims of the executive branch. The American people would be unable to depend on promises made by Congress in appropriations laws."
Trump has explicitly vowed to use impoundment to "squeeze the bloated federal bureaucracy for massive savings," a plan endorsed by the billionaire pair tapped by the president-elect to run a new commission tasked with identifying spending and regulations to slash.
"With impoundment, we can simply choke off the money," Trump declared in a campaign ad.
"They have no authority. Does anybody get that?"
Following Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's visit to Capitol Hill on Thursday to discuss their plans for the "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) with GOP lawmakers, The Washington Postreported that Republicans are "keen on expanding the president's power to impound spending—or refuse to spend money Congress authorizes."
"Musk and Ramaswamy said they were eager to test the constitutional limits of Trump's ability to unilaterally control spending decisions," the Post reported, citing two unnamed lawmakers. "Republicans largely left the more than two-hour meeting giddy."
Analysts argue Trump's plan to withhold federal spending would run afoul of the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The law, as Propublica's Molly Redden explained, "forbids presidents from blocking spending over policy disagreements."
"A similar power grab led to his first impeachment," Redden wrote. "During his first term, Trump held up nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine while he pressured President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to open a corruption investigation into Joe Biden and his family. The U.S. Government Accountability Office later ruled his actions violated the Impoundment Control Act."
Democrats on the House Budget Committee recently pointed out that "although decided after the ICA passed, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Train v. City of New York that even without the ICA, the president does not have unilateral authority to impound funds."
That hasn't stopped Trump, Musk, and Ramaswamy from exploring ways to cut or block spending without congressional approval.
In a Wall Street Journalop-ed published last month, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that "even without relying on" the view that the ICA is unconstitutional, "DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion-plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood."
Housing assistance, childcare aid, student loan programs, and other spending would also be vulnerable under such an approach.
"They want [to cut] $2 trillion," DeLauro told reporters Thursday. "Think about the discretionary budget. It's $1.7 trillion. Where are they going for the money? Where are they going?"
"They have no authority," she added. "Does anybody get that?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular