SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
A report released today by Rainforest Action Network, BankTrack, Sierra Club and Oil Change International, in partnership with 28 organizations around the world, reveals that the world's biggest banks are continuing to fuel climate change through the financing of extreme fossil fuels. The report finds that 2016 actually saw a steep fall in bank funding for extreme fossil fuels -- however despite this overall reduction, banks are still funding extreme fossil fuel projects at a rate that will push us beyond the 1.5 degrees climate change limit determined by the Paris Climate Agreement.
In 2014, the banks analyzed in the report funneled USD $92 billion to extreme fossil fuels. In 2015, that number rose to $111 billion. 2016 was the first full calendar year to be studied since the signing of the Paris Climate Agreement -- and the $87 billion figure represents a 22 percent drop from the previous year. While the drop-off is a move in the right direction, it is vital that this become an accelerating trend and not a blip. The findings show that if we are to have any chance of halting catastrophic climate change and reaching the Paris goal of limiting climate change to 1.5 degrees, there must be a complete phaseout of these dangerous energy sources and banks must implement policies against extreme fossil fuel funding.
"Right now, the biggest Wall Street funder of extreme fossil fuels is JPMorgan Chase. In 2016 alone they poured $6.9 billion into the dirtiest fossil fuels on the planet," said Lindsey Allen, executive director of Rainforest Action Network. "On Wall Street they are number one in tar sands oil, Arctic oil, ultra-deepwater oil, coal power and LNG export. Even in this bellwether year when overall funding has declined, Chase is funneling more and more cash into extreme fossil fuels. For a company that issues statements in favor of the Paris Climate Accord, they are failing to meet their publicly stated ambitions."
The report, Banking on Climate Change, is the eighth edition of this fossil fuel finance report card that ranks bank policies and practices related to financing in the most carbon-intensive, financially risky, and environmentally destructive sectors of the fossil fuel industry. Those sectors are: extreme oil (tar sands, Arctic, and ultra-deepwater oil), coal mining, coal power, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) export.
Yann Louvel, BankTrack's climate and energy campaign coordinator said, "There is simply not enough time left for more excuse-making, more fiddling at the policy edges and more egregious bank investments in extreme infrastructure projects like pipelines that transport tar sands oil. When we sit in meetings with bank staff, we hear of their revulsion to Trump's stance on climate change and of their support for clean investments, yet their actions of continued investments in extreme fossil fuels demonstrate that they actually side with the Trump approach. The climate and profit imperatives for banks can coincide when it comes to clean energy investing, but as they continue to prove with their shortsighted fossil fuel investments, they're at complete odds with the world's long-term climate targets."
The report also explores bank failures when it comes to protecting human rights. The most glaring example of this in 2016 was the financing for the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) and the rampant violations of Indigenous rights associated with that project -- which triggered an Indigenous-led defund and divest movement that targets banks that finance dirty energy projects.
"The movement standing up to fossil fuel projects wherever they are proposed has gotten so large that these investments are now not only problematic from a climate and human rights perspective, but they're also risky investments from an economic perspective too," said David Turnbull, campaigns director at Oil Change International. "Our research has shown that any new fossil fuel development runs counter to our climate goals. If banks want to truly be leaders in their field, they need to stop ignoring climate risk and ensure their investments pass the climate test."
In this past year alone, San Francisco, Seattle, WA, and Davis, CA, pulled their money out of Wells Fargo because of the bank's various misdeeds including the funding of DAPL. Caving into public pressure, multiple major banks have announced that they are pulling out of DAPL, which emphasizes the need for proactive bank policies that restrict financing to fossil fuels and the human rights abuses associated with their extraction and transport.
"As the Trump administration continues to make reckless decisions that threaten our climate, it is more important than ever that the public is informed about whether the financial institutions we trust with our money are making investments that will worsen this crisis," said Lena Moffitt, senior campaign director of the Sierra Club's Our Wild America campaign. "The people are watching where and what banks sink their funds into, and they will not back down until every last one commits to investing in a future that benefits their communities, their economies, and their health."
Additional quotes from partner organizations in support of the report:
Shin Furuno, 350.org Japan Divestment campaign comments: "The research shows that major Japanese banks are failing to integrate climate risk in their investment decisions. Starting with an immediate freeze on new fossil fuel financing, banks should divest from fossil fuels in line with keeping global warming well below 2 degrees. If Japanese banks continue to invest in coal and extreme fossil fuels, they risk becoming saddled with stranded assets and will face a backlash from investors and customers alike. "
Jenny Marienau, 350.org's US campaigns director said: "There's no question that funding climate change is a deadly investment strategy. Yet banks around the world are funneling billions of dollars into the fossil fuel projects leading us closer to catastrophic warming every day. Movements like the Indigenous-led effort to Defund DAPL are rightfully pressuring banks to divest from infrastructure like the Dakota Access pipeline that puts profits before human rights and a livable future. It's up to us to resist these disastrous projects, push back on these fatal investments, and build the renewable energy solutions we need."
Kuba Gogolewski, finance campaigner at Polish Foundation "Development YES - Open-Pit Mines NO" said: "Funding companies that are developing new coal mines and power plants and planning more projects in the future is clearly at odds with climate science. It is just a question of time when communities impacted by climate change will start suing not only the companies developing coal projects but also the banks providing finance to build them."
Vanessa Green, director of DivestInvest Individual said: "This report is a well-timed reality check for the executive leadership at these banks, and for their investor and retail consumer audiences. While policies and promises can land in gray areas, these extreme fossil fuel financing numbers show that in practice banks are saying one thing about meeting Paris Agreement goals, and doing another. Fortunately, investors and consumers are paying close attention and moving their money to financial institutions with more integrity."
Diana Best, senior climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace US added: "People across the planet are waking up to the role and responsibility of large banks in the proliferation of fossil fuel extraction, development, and transport. In many cases, these very same banks have policies acknowledging the urgency of climate change and their commitment to the rights of indigenous communities. It is time for these banks to put their money where their mouth is and stop financing projects and companies that contribute to climate change, undermine clean air and water, and violate the rights of Indigenous people and frontline communities. Their words are only as strong as their actions and their actions are simply not enough."
Matt Remle (Lakota), editor of Last Real Indians and co-founder of Mazaska Talks said: "It is our collective duty towards Ina Maka (Mother Earth) and the next generations that we hold financial institutions responsible in ensuring that they are not financing projects like DAPL, tar sands pipelines, fracked gas plants, coal and other institutions that adversely impact Indigenous, low-income and communities of color such as private prisons and immigration detention centers. It is important, and necessary, to illuminate just exactly where these institutions are investing our money."
Julien Vincent, Market Force's executive director, said: "The banks featured in this report have it within their power to avoid runaway climate change if they decided to. They have power of life or death over polluting fossil fuel companies. Their decisions make or break coal, oil and gas projects that threaten our chances of a safe climate future. But the banks are still accountable to us, and citizens need to engage these institutions to demand that they keep our money away from destructive new fossil fuel projects, investing instead in the clean, renewable energy future we desperately need."
Rachel Heaton, a member of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and co-founder and organizer for Mazaska Talks, said: "It is up to us to make sure we are securing a future for our generations to come. We are here to put pressure on these financial institutions and hold them responsible to act in morally and socially productive ways that support Mother Earth. At a minimum there should be standards in place to support the well-being and survival of Indigenous peoples of the world, communities of color, and those negatively impacted by the decisions of these institutions -- standards that are not only limited to fossil fuel investments, but also shady banking practices, the financing of private prisons, and other harmful impacting situations."
Sonia Hierzig, research officer at ShareAction said: "ShareAction warmly welcomes the launch of this report. It will present a useful resource for investors engaging with their holdings in the banking sector on climate change, as it will allow them to scrutinise the banks' exposures to extreme oil, coal mining and power, and LNG export."
Christina Beberdick, coal campaigner at the German NGO Urgewald, adds: "In countries like the Philippines and Vietnam we see that banks are financing companies that build entirely new coal-fired power plants, making these countries dependent on coal for decades to come. Banks and investors must stop financing coal expansion companies immediately. The climate targets of Paris will otherwise not be met. Next week, Urgewald and partners will launch the first ever list of major companies planning new coal power plants worldwide. This new forward-looking divestment tool helps banks and investors to get rid of coal."
Donny Williams, from We Are Cove Point, commented: "It's important to hold banks accountable for the roles they play in taking away people's health, safety and well-being through these energy projects. A loss or change in financing can be enough to cancel a project that would negatively impact broad swaths of people and ecosystems. Through creative direct actions, public protest and educational tools, We Are Cove Point has worked to make it harder for Dominion to find the funding it needs to build its export terminal in our community. We're happy to see this report come out, which will hopefully make it easier for banks to stop funding these harmful projects and easier for impacted people to more effectively attack the finances behind them."
###
Rainforest Action Network has a 30+ year history challenging corporate power and systemic injustice to preserve forests, protect the climate and uphold human rights through frontline partnerships and strategic campaigns. For more information, please visit: www.ran.org
BankTrack is the global tracking, campaigning and NGO support organisation targeting the operations and investments of international commercial banks. For more information, please visit: www.banktrack.org
The Sierra Club is America's largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization, with more than 3 million members and supporters nationwide. In addition to creating opportunities for people of all ages, levels and locations to have meaningful outdoor experiences, the Sierra Club works to safeguard the health of our communities, protect wildlife, and preserve our remaining wild places through grassroots activism, public education, lobbying, and litigation. For more information, visit https://www.sierraclub.org.
Oil Change International is a research, communication, and advocacy organization focused on exposing the true costs of fossil fuels and facilitating the ongoing transition to clean energy. For more information, please visit: www.priceofoil.org
This report was written In collaboration with: 350.org, Bold Alliance, CHANGE, CoalSwarm, DivestInvest Individual, Earthworks, FairFin, Friends of the Earth Scotland, Friends of the Earth U.S., Fundacja "Rozwoj TAK Odkrywki NIE" (Foundation Development YES - Open-Pit Mines NO), Greenpeace USA, Honor the Earth, Indigenous Climate Action, Indigenous Environmental Network, Last Real Indians, Les Amis de la Terre France, Market Forces, Mazaska Talks, MN350, People & Planet, Re:Common, Save RGV from LNG, ShareAction, Stand.earth, SumOfUs, urgewald e.V., We Are Cove Point, and West Coast Environmental Law.
Experts agree that the climate emergency caused by the burning of fossil fuels is making extreme rainfall events on the islands wetter and more common, reigniting the debate about who should foot the bill.
Hawaii was inundated by its worst flooding in 20 years over the weekend, in another reminder of how the climate crisis disrupts the lives of ordinary people by increasing the likelihood and frequency of extreme weather events.
Hawaii Gov. Josh Green on Tuesday formally requested federal aid for a series of storms this month that he said could cost the state more than $1 billion in debris clearing and repairs to homes, roads, and infrastructure.
“These storms have impacted every county in our state and stretched our emergency response capabilities,” Green said in a statement.
Hawaii's waterlogged woes began on March 10 with the first in a series of winter Pacific rainstorms known as Kona lows. The initial storm caused upwards of $400 million in damages, including to Maui's Kula Hospital, and left the ground saturated when another storm rolled in beginning March 19, leading to what Green told Hawaii News Now was “the largest flood that we’ve had in Hawaii in 20 years."
“Should the residents just consider it an act of God and open up their checkbooks whenever this happens when the record is clear about who knew what and when they knew it?”
This second storm inundated Oahu's North Shore on Friday night, necessitating more than 230 rescues and placing 5,500 people under an evacuation order at one point, according to The Associated Press. The storm damaged hundreds of homes as well as schools, airports, and highways. All told, the two storms dumped a total of four feet of rain on parts of Oahu and Maui, Green said, as CBS reported.
"We lost everything," Oahu resident Melanie Lee told CBS News after visiting her flood-damaged home on Monday. "My children's pictures. Just real sentimental stuff. Now it's like, now where we go from here?"
The agricultural sector was also hard hit, with farmers on Oahu, Maui, Molokai, and the Big Island reporting over $10.5 million in damages, according to Honolulu Civil Beat.
Yet Friday's storm was not the end. On Monday, another downpour brought flash flooding to southern Oahu, as rain fell at a rate for 2-4 inches per hour, shocking even meteorologists.
“When you think it’s over, it’s not quite over,” National Weather Service forecaster Cole Evans told AP on Tuesday.
Oahu Emergency Management Agency spokesperson Molly Pierce told AP: “Most of us have not seen something that just keeps going like this... We feel like we keep getting punched down. But we’ll keep getting back up.”
Experts agree that the climate emergency is making extreme rainfall events on the islands wetter and more common.
As Honolulu Today reported:
The intense flooding in Hawaii highlights the growing threat of extreme weather events driven by climate change. The frequency and intensity of heavy rainfall have increased in the islands, leading to devastating impacts on infrastructure, homes, and communities.
Retired University of Hawaii professor Tom Giambelluca, who now supervises weather monitoring towers, told Honolulu Civil Beat that scientists have observed Hawaii's weather getting dryer generally, while storms tend to drop more rain that causes more flooding.
“It’s not like we never had extremes before. You know, something like this could have happened with no warming, probably,” Giambelluca said. “But these kinds of events seem to be getting more frequent.”
US Rep. Jill Takuda (D-Hawaii) told Maui Now: “We are accustomed to saying, ‘Well, this was a 100-year flood,’ right?... Well, 100-plus-year floods are happening every few years. We literally have to throw away the book in terms of the way we used to look at weather patterns in Hawaii.”
The flooding is also an example of how the impacts of climate disasters can build on each other. Some of the rains fell on Lahaina in Maui, where soil is less absorbent due to scarring from 2023's deadly climate-fueled wildfires.
“We think about evacuation routes when it comes to a fire,” Maui resident Kaliko Storer told Maui Now. “And now we say, when are we going to really sit down and talk about these (flood) controls?”
The connection between the burning of fossil fuels and the uptick in extreme weather events is reigniting the debate about who should pay for the damages from storms like those that swamped Hawaii this month.
State lawmakers are working to pass legislation that would allow insurers to recoup some storm costs from oil and gas companies directly, as Honolulu Civil Beat reported Tuesday.
"This is the third generational rain event we’ve had in the last four weeks,” state Sen. Jarrett Keohokalole (D-24) said. Referring to reporting that large fossil fuels companies have known for decades about the climate-heating impacts of their products and chose to lie to the public instead of act, he added, “Should the residents just consider it an act of God and open up their checkbooks whenever this happens when the record is clear about who knew what and when they knew it?”
Hawaii is also one of several states that has sued Big Oil for climate damages.
Even as oil prices climb due to the US and Israeli war on Iran, Emily Atkin of Heated argued that disasters like Hawaii's prove that the cost is still deflated.
"This is what the true price of oil looks like: Hawaiians wading through their flooded homes while the state scrambles to find a billion dollars for cleanup," she wrote.
Electricity costs increased by nearly 7% last year, more than twice the rate of overall inflation, and cost Americans $123 more on average.
President Donald Trump ran on promises to cut energy prices "in half" within his first year in office. But according to a report released Wednesday, he's done the exact opposite, and it's expected to get much worse as oil prices soar from his war with Iran.
Electricity prices increased more than twice as fast as overall inflation in 2025, according to a fact sheet by the Groundwork Collaborative.
According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, electricity costs increased by nearly 7% last year, compared with an overall consumer price index increase of 2.7%.
In January, a report by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, found that Americans spent an extra $2,120 in 2025 due to inflation across the economy. Electricity cost the average family an additional $123.
Groundwork's report attributed these price increases to Trump's aggressive tariffs, which the group said have raised the costs of building and maintaining electric grids—costs that energy companies pass directly to consumers.
It also noted the Trump administration's support for the swift build-out of artificial intelligence data centers, which have dramatically increased energy demand in places where they've been constructed.
Costs for consumers connected to America's largest power grid, PJM, for example, increased by a collective $9.4 billion last year—more than a 180% increase. Meanwhile, Bloomberg found that in areas near data centers, wholesale electricity costs had jumped by as much as 267% over the past five years.
That pinch is being felt by consumers, 66% of whom said their electricity bills increased over the past year, compared with just 5% who said they decreased, according to a poll earlier this month from Data for Progress.
Groundwork found that "rising energy prices hit working families the hardest," with those earning under $50,000 spending nearly 7% of their annual income on energy, compared with just 1.2% for those earning above $150,000, according to a 2025 report from the Bank of America Institute.
Rising costs have been a growing source of anger among voters who elected Trump to bring them down, but now give him just a 29% approval rating on the economy, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Tuesday.
It's a historic low that Trump hit for the first time this month as gas prices in the US have soared to an average of $3.98 per gallon as a result of oil price hikes caused by Trump's war with Iran, which resulted in Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route.
Groundwork noted that the pain of the war goes far beyond the pump: The price of residential heating oil is already up 35% since the war began. Meanwhile, rising diesel costs for trucks and disruptions to the global shipment of fertilizer are expected to jack up food prices.
Short of ending the war altogether, the group pointed out that Trump has options to reduce energy costs by tapping into increasingly cheap and abundant wind and solar energy.
Instead, however, the president has delayed hundreds of solar projects by introducing new review requirements that have slowed construction and backed lawsuits to gut efficiency standards.
Earlier this month, at the Trump administration's urging, a federal judge sided with 15 red states to strike down Biden administration energy standards, which were estimated to reduce costs by more than $950 per year for families living in federally funded housing.
While Trump has taken actions aimed at curbing the global fuel shock, including tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and pausing the federal gas tax, a poll from Groundwork and Data for Progress this week found that more than half of Americans, 52%, would prefer to simply see the war end rather than these emergency measures.
"Government must deliver for working people—and every dollar in our budget should work as hard as they do," said the mayor.
Cutting government "waste" and increasing "efficiency" have long been rallying calls of the right, most recently with President Donald Trump's "slash-and-burn" methods through the so-called Department of Government Efficiency—which rapidly cut hundreds of thousands of federal jobs and threatened lives across the Global South by terminating billions in foreign aid—and his cuts to Medicaid and federal food assistance.
But New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Wednesday appeared intent on "co-opting" the idea of efficiency, as one organizer said, as the progressive Democrat provided an update on his plan to save more than $1.7 billion in public funds "without compromising essential services."
The targets of Mamdani's savings plan aren't crucial healthcare programs like Medicaid—which even some Democrats like his erstwhile rival, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, have attacked as "wasteful"—and education, but major government contracts with companies like consulting firm McKinsey.
Cutting the Department of Social Services IT contract will save the city $9 million per year, said Mamdani. McKinsey has contracted with the New York City government several times, including between 2014-17 when it was paid $27.5 million to reduce violence at the jail complex on Rikers Island—only to report "bogus" numbers as the problem worsened—and in 2022 when it was paid $1.6 million to research garbage disposal.
"The city was paying for a lot of work from outside contractors that was costing us far too much, so we're bringing a lot of that work in-house and saving our budget millions on things like IT services and software," said Mamdani in a video he posted to social media. "A contract with McKinsey at the Department of Social Services: no more. That's $9 million that we won't be spending next year.
Government must deliver for working people—and every dollar in our budget should work as hard as they do.That’s why I directed every agency to cut waste and help close our budget gap.Here’s some of what we found.
[image or embed]
— Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@mayor.nyc.gov) March 25, 2026 at 10:14 AM
Other savings identified by city agencies, which were directed by Mamdani to find $1.7 billion in public funds that could be saved to fill what city Comptroller Mark Levine called "the biggest budget gap since the Great Recession," include $1.15 million at the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, which has been "overcharged for lifesaving medicine like naloxone."
"We're renegotiating that contract and saving another million dollars," said Mamdani.
Millions will be saved on leases as the city shrinks its "physical footprint" and stops renting spaces it doesn't need, and an estimated $13 million per year will be saved as officials strengthen its verification process to make sure homeowners are actually living in homes for which they get tax breaks.
Other contracts will be terminated or renegotiated at New York City Public Schools, generating more than $30 million in savings next year; the city's public hospitals system, saving about $40 million over the next two years; and the Department of Corrections, resulting in $4.3 million in savings.
Mamdani emphasized that to confront the city's deficit, "we need to tax the rich and end the drain that's been our relationship with the state for far too long."
"As we pursue that, though, we also have to take a close look at our own spending and cut waste wherever we can," the mayor said. "Because to deliver public goods you have to first deliver public excellence."
Organizer and writer Cole Sandick said Mamdani's "co-opting of efficiency from the right will be seismic for the American socialist project" and expressed hope that the mayor could begin "a national campaign against The Contractor State—neoliberalism's grand, massively inefficient outsourcing of government functions to private contractors."
Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at the think tank Groundwork Collaborative, said it was "really exciting that NYC is generating operational efficiencies by in-sourcing needlessly outsourced public services and functions, building city capacity."
"More of this!" he added.