SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
June, 14 2016, 03:15pm EDT
Contact:
Nell Greenberg,media@ran.org
New Report Finds Banks Betting on Climate Change
Seventh Annual Bank Finance Report Card Reveals Major Banks Poured Hundreds of Billions into Extreme Fossil Fuels
SAN FRANCISCO, Calif.
A report released today by Rainforest Action Network (RAN), BankTrack, Sierra Club and Oil Change International provides the first look at bank financing for fossil fuels since the Paris Climate Agreement, showing that the world's biggest banks are driving climate change by pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into extreme fossil fuels.
The seventh edition of an annual report, Shorting the Climate: Fossil Fuel Finance Report Card 2016 embarks on new territory to evaluate the bank policies and exposure of 25 U.S., European, and Canadian banks in extreme fossil fuels - the most carbon intensive, financially risky, and environmentally destructive sub-sectors. This includes coal mining, coal power, extreme oil (tar sands, Arctic oil, ultra-deep drilling) and North American liquefied natural gas export.
The report card, which also graded banks on their human rights policies, shows that banks performed poorly in all sectors. Levels of exposure were high across the board on the order of tens or hundreds of billions of finance for extreme fuel companies, demonstrating that banks are locking the world onto a path of major climate instability. Grades on policies were also poor, with an overall D average for the Report Card, showing that a vast majority of banks have no significant policies in place to stop funding extreme fossil fuels.
"In finance terms, 'short-selling' or 'shorting' is when an investor profits if a company or asset declines in value. It means betting on failure. After the Paris agreement, financing extreme fossil fuels amounts to shorting the climate. These bets are also at the expense of some of the most vulnerable communities living in fossil fuel 'sacrifice zones' around the world. We need banks to move now to help pivot the economy away from extreme fossil fuels for the sake of the planet and its people," said Jason Opena Disterhoft, Senior Campaigner with Rainforest Action Network.
Yann Louvel, BankTrack's climate and energy coordinator, said, "Many banks announced a move away from coal in the run up to COP21 and after, but most of these focused only on coal mining. Our assessment clearly shows that they still have a long way to go to concretely exit this industry, and even more for the other extreme fossil fuel sectors. None of these banks can claim to support the Paris Agreement, to be aligned with a 2deg scenario or to be fighting climate change - as we too often read in their sustainability reports - if they continue to finance these destructive sectors."
At a time when the world's nations have agreed to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change, leading financial institutions have continued business as usual investment in fossil fuels in direct contradiction of global consensus. In just the past three years, these banks have sunk $42 billion for companies active in coal mining; $154 billion for the 20 largest coal-fired power producers; $306 billion for companies that drill extreme oil; and $282 billion for companies building liquefied natural gas export infrastructure. If governments follow through on the Paris agreement and limit carbon emissions, these investments could likely result in stranded assets and significant losses.
The report card does reflect bank movement on coal mining, where ten of the biggest U.S. and European banks committed to reduce funding for the coal mining sector in the last year. Based on their ability to quickly switch their stance on coal over the last year alone, banks are capable of making the critical choice to cut out extreme fossil fuel investments. Not only can they do it, it is a critical step to follow through on promises made in Paris to stabilize the climate.
Rainforest Action Network (RAN) is headquartered in San Francisco, California with offices staff in Tokyo, Japan, and Edmonton, Canada, plus thousands of volunteer scientists, teachers, parents, students and other concerned citizens around the world. We believe that a sustainable world can be created in our lifetime and that aggressive action must be taken immediately to leave a safe and secure world for our children.
LATEST NEWS
House GOP Vote to Take Back Funds for NPR/PBS Imperils 'Future of Public Broadcasting'
"President Trump is determined to destroy any news outlets that hold him accountable for his actions," said one free press advocate.
Jun 13, 2025
The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday narrowly approved a rescission package that would take back funding for PBS and NPR, as well international aid programs—a move that supporters of public media quickly decried.
Earlier in June, the Trump White House formally asked Congress to rescind over $9 billion in approved spending, the vast majority of which would go toward foreign aid programs. However, it also includes a take back of more than $1 billion in already approved funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the congressionally funded and created company that supports public media in the United States. CPB distributes nearly all of those funds to local television and radio stations, according to NPR. The funding clawback impacts funding for the next two fiscal years.
"Public media delivers unmatched value to the American taxpayer," said Patricia Harrison, president and CEO of CPB, in a statement on Thursday. "It serves every family in every part of America."
The package passed with a 214 to 212 vote. All House Republicans except for four voted in favor of the measure, and all Democrats voted against it. It now heads to the Senate.
"From life-saving emergency alerts to local reporting and storytelling, and educational resources that support families, job seekers and teachers—these services exist because public media is committed to serving everyone, regardless of income or zip code. In many rural and underserved areas, the loss could be total," Protect My Public Media, a grassroots advocacy campaign focused on preserving federal funding for public media stations, wrote in response to the House vote. The group is driving emails to the Senate to urge lawmakers to vote against the package.
Co-CEO of the advocacy group Free Press Action, Craig Aaron, said Thursday that there is broad support for federal funding for public broadcasting.
"President [Donald] Trump is determined to destroy any news outlets that hold him accountable for his actions. As they prepare to vote on his request, senators need to know that supporting public media is healthy for their communities and our democracy. Publicly funded news outlets act as counterbalances to a commercial media system that too often puts profits before the public interest," Aaron said.
Big picture, Free Press Action says that the House vote puts the "future of public broadcasting in doubt."
In addition to slashing federal funding for NPR and PBS, the package would cut money for peacekeeping efforts, dollars for health programs that fund activities related to child and maternal health, HIV/AIDS, and infectious diseases, and funding for climate projects.
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, highlighted some of these other cuts, as well as those to public media, and added that "Republican senators should reflect on how the rescission package threatens to blow up the annual appropriations process."
"The minority party has no reason to agree to bipartisan appropriations legislation if the president and one party alone can undo the deal," she said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
War Profiteers Benefit as Nuclear Weapons Spending Soared Above $100 Billion Last Year
New analysis reveals that global nuclear weapons spending "could feed all of the 345 million people currently facing the most severe levels of hunger globally, including starvation, for nearly two years."
Jun 13, 2025
The world's nine nuclear-armed nations spent more than $100 billion on their atomic arsenals last year—up 11% from 2023—with the United States accounting for both the largest share and biggest increase in expenditures, a report published Friday by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons reveals.
The new ICAN analysis identifies a $9.9 billion increase in global nuclear weapons spending in 2024, with the U.S.—the only country to ever carry out a nuclear attack on another nation—spending $56.8 billion, more than the combined expenditures of the eight other countries with nukes. In addition to the U.S., Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea have nuclear arsenals. The $5.3 billion annual spending increase by the U.S. was also more than any other nuclear power.
All that spending on doomsday weapons padded the profits of major arms makers. According to the report:
In 2024, at least twenty-six companies working on nuclear weapons development and maintenance held significant contracts for their work. These companies earned at least $43.5 billion in the year and hold at least $463 billion in outstanding contracts. In 2024, new contracts worth around $20 billion were awarded to these companies. The companies identified in this report paid lobbyists in France and the United States more than $128 million to represent their interests last year. They also had 196 meetings with high-level U.K. officials including 18 with the prime minister's office in 2024.
"Nuclear-armed countries could have paid the United Nations' budget 28 times with what they spent to build and maintain nuclear weapons in 2024," the report states. "They could feed all of the 345 million people currently facing the most severe levels of hunger globally, including starvation, for nearly two years."
Noting that "98 countries have signed, ratified, or acceded" to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), ICAN—which was awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its work on the landmark accord—asserted that "it is up to each government, and the citizens of that country, to decide which path they will choose."
ICAN asserted that the stakes are higher than at any time in a generation.
"With two major wars involving nuclear-armed states in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as nuclear tensions escalating between India and Pakistan and on the Korean Peninsula, the risk that nuclear weapons could be used in combat is widely regarded as the highest it has been since the Cold War and possibly ever," the group warned Friday in a separate statement. "In response, the nuclear-armed states are clinging to the doctrine of deterrence which is based on brinkmanship and the threat to use nuclear weapons, exacerbating the risk of conflict."
Susi Snyder, ICAN program coordinator and report co-author, said Friday that the global crisis of nuclear proliferation and out-of-control spending can be solved, but that "doing so means understanding the vested interests fiercely defending the option for nine countries to indiscriminately murder civilians."
"The good news," she added, "is a majority are going in another direction. Ninety-eight states, supported by over 700 civil society organizations, have either signed, ratified, or directly acceded to the... TPNW that came into force four years ago."
This year's ICAN report highlighted the "hidden costs" of nuclear weapons.
"It's an affront to democracy that citizens and lawmakers in countries that boast of their democratic credentials are not allowed to know that nuclear weapons from other countries are based on their soil or how much of their taxes is being spent on them," ICAN policy and research coordinator and report co-author Alicia Sanders-Zakre said. "It is time for these democratically elected leaders to heed the call of their people to remove nuclear weapons from their countries and work for their total elimination."
Responding to the report, Oliver Meier, policy and research director at the European Leadership Network, a London-based think tank, said, "At a time when better transparency and accountability of nuclear weapon states range high on the agenda of many non-nuclear weapon states, the absolute secrecy and lack of engagement on the costs of Russian and NATO nuclear sharing arrangements are an anachronism."
"In democratic societies, legislators and other stakeholders must have opportunities to review these arrangements, including relevant expenditure," he added.
The day before ICAN published the report, Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry's ice cream, was joined by retired military officers and national security experts in Washington, D.C. for the launch of Up In Arms, a four-year campaign "to bring common sense to the Department of Defense and the country's budgetary bottom line."
"There will be no peace, there will be no security, until we start using our resources to provide for the needs of our people at home and around the world," said Cohen. "And we have the money to do it, at no additional taxpayer expense. If we take half the money budgeted for the Pentagon and invested in the things people need and want, the American Dream can become a reality again."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump-GOP Budget Bill 'Takes From the Poor and Gives Most to the Rich,' CBO Analysis Confirms
A new report from the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Republican legislation would cut household resources for the bottom 10% and boost them for the richest 10%, making it "uniquely regressive."
Jun 13, 2025
A new distributional analysis released Thursday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office provided the latest confirmation that the GOP's sprawling budget bill would be highly regressive, further enriching the wealthiest households while leaving low-income families significantly worse off.
The CBO estimated that, if enacted, the House-passed Republican reconciliation package backed by President Donald Trump would slash household resources for the bottom 10% of the income distribution by roughly $1,600 per year over the next decade, primarily due to the bill's massive cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Households in the top 10%, by contrast, would see their resources increase by around $12,000 annually, the CBO found.
On the left: Bill Clinton’s 1993 deficit reduction bill - taxed the rich and gave to the poor while reducing deficits
On the right: Donald Trump’s 2025 deficit increase bill - takes from the poor and gives most to the rich while increasing deficits pic.twitter.com/mdUiBiTR7u
— Bobby Kogan (@BBKogan) June 13, 2025
Chuck Marr, vice president for federal tax policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, toldThe New York Times that the extent to which the Republican bill would redistribute wealth upward is unprecedented in his experience.
"I've never seen anything that simultaneously really goes after poor people and then really helps rich people," said Marr.
The new CBO analysis adds to the growing body of reports detailing the harms the Republican reconciliation bill would inflict on poor households. Last week, the nonpartisan body estimated that the Republican bill would strip health coverage from nearly 11 million Americans while exploding the national debt by $2.4 trillion to give tax breaks to the ultra-rich.
The CBO has also found that the Republican attack on SNAP would take food benefits from more than a million people across the United States.
"The GOP reconciliation bill is something we haven't really seen before, and as a result it's uniquely regressive," wroteNew York Times reporter Emily Badger, the lead author of an analysis contrasting the Republican bill that's currently before the U.S. Senate with past legislation dealing with the U.S. tax code and safety net.
"To the extent that some prior bills have also been regressive," wrote Badger and her co-authors, "they still haven't looked quite like this."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular