October, 23 2017, 10:45am EDT
Indigenous People Lead Global Divestment Protest of Banks' Investment in Fossil Fuels as Banks Discuss Equator Principles
SEATTLE
Today 91 banks will meet at the annual meeting of the Equator Principles Association (EPA) in Sao Paulo, Brazil. At this time, the indigenous-led divestment campaign, Mazaska Talks, is leading a global 3-day protest known as #DivestTheGlobe. On Monday, there will be actions in at least 44 cities in the United States and Canada. On Tuesday and Wednesday, there will be actions in Africa, Europe and Asia.
The protests are designed to galvanize people to divest their households, institutions, and cities from banks that finance desecration projects, such as tar sands pipelines. The protests are being supported by many national organizations such as 350.org, Rainforest Action Network, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, some of whom have added their names to a letter promising to boycott the banks until they stop investing in tar sands.
As part of the protests, Mazaska Talks urges banks to follow the example of BNP Paribas, the second largest bank in Europe, which last week promised to cease all funding of companies whose primary business is tar sands, fracking, or Arctic drilling.
In conjunction with BankTrack's campaign, the protests draw attention to the failure of the Equator Principles to align with the Paris Agreement and uphold internationally-recognized indigenous rights to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) in the case of the Dakota Access Pipeline, Line 3, Keystone XL, Trans Mountain, and other fossil fuel projects around the world.
The demonstrations come two months after the Energy Transfer family of companies sued Greenpeace and BankTrack for supporting the #NoDAPL movement and calling on people to divest from banks financing the Dakota Access Pipeline. Energy Transfer received project-level financing for the project by assuring banks they had consulted with the tribe, thus aligning the project with the Equator Principles. Consultation is merely an exchange of information, not consent. Indigenous people have a right to consent, recognized in the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.
Energy Transfer inadvertently admitted the effectiveness of #DefundDAPL divestment campaigns in their SLAPP suit, pointing out, "the damage to Plaintiffs' relationships with the capital markets has been substantial, impairing access to financing and increasing their cost of capital and ability to fund future projects at economical rates."
Since the Standing Rock Tribe passed a resolution ending business with Wells Fargo in October 2016, more than a dozen cities have taken some step towards moving their money out of Wall Street, affecting dozens of billions of dollars in annual cash flow.
Divest the Globe: Quotes and Support
" Big oil, multinational corporations and their financial backers are not persuaded by moral and environmental arguments. Nor do they even care for following the rule of law, as we have witnessed violation after violation of Tribal Nations' treaty rights. They're capitalist and they are persuaded by one thing, money. So Indigenous Nations and their allies are rising up to create a future with clean water and respect for human rights," Matt Remle, co-Founder of Mazaska Talks
"Until these banks start investing in the future of Mother Earth, we will bring attention to the injustice they contribute to and we will continue to use divestment as a tool to help end these atrocities," Rachel Heaton, co-Founder of Mazaska Talks
"Making the transition from fossil fuels to green power is no longer a matter of financial capital, but of political will. These banks have learned nothing from Standing Rock or the Great Recession, so it's up to us to make our own public banks and finance our own communities," Jackie Fielder, Organizer with Mazaska Talks
"In order to create a better future for our next generation, we must encourage the banks who hold the worlds funds to divest from fossil fuels which destroy the environment. We must stand up and empower ourselves to divest, because divestment is empowerment," Ladonna Brave Bull Allard, Founder of Sacred Stone Village
"We have the right to Free Prior and Informed Consent of projects impacting our survival, our cultures and our futures. We want the global financial community to realize that investing in projects that harm us is really investing in death, genocide, racism and does have a direct effect on not only us on the frontlines but every person on this planet. They have a moral obligation to listen to us, to invest in sustainable energy projects which bring lasting growth and jobs not built on dying industries like coal and oil," Joye Braun, Community Organizer with Indigenous Environmental Network
"The social license for fossil fuel companies to poison our lands, communities and water must be removed. Divestment is a means to remove that license, it is a means of exerting our economic power as citizens for the betterment of Mother Earth and future generations," Dallas Goldtooth, Keep it in the Ground Campaign Organizer with Indigenous Environmental Network
"Anyone with a brain, not to mention a conscience, should put their money in a bank that actually thinks the planet has a future, instead of one that scrambles for the shortest of short term gains at any cost," Bill McKibben, Founder of 350.org
" Wells Fargo and other big banks that finance dirty fossil fuel projects should take notice: this movement isn't going anywhere," said Sierra Club Beyond Dirty Fuels campaign director Kelly Martin. "Communities across the country are calling on their local governments and institutions to divest from banks that support fossil fuels, and thousands of people have already committed to moving their own money out of these banks. We will not back down until banks commit to investing in a future that benefits our communities, our economies, and our health."
"Responsible banks don't put their money into projects that bulldoze Indigenous rights, jeopardize clean water, threaten wildlife and destabilize our climate. As the world's biggest banks meet to discuss Indigenous rights in Brazil, we're standing with Mazaska Talks and Indigenous leaders everywhere who are resisting destructive fossil fuel projects. Contested oil pipelines pose too many risks and face too many hurdles to succeed long-term. Already, some of the world's biggest banks such as BNP Paribas, ING, and US Bank are stepping away from these projects. It's time for the rest of the financial sector to follow suit," Alex Speers-Roesch, Finance campaigner, Greenpeace Canada
"Major fossil fuel infrastructure projects like the Teck Resources Frontier Mine, KXL, Kinder Morgan and Line 3 pipelines require outside funding to be completed, giving banks an outsized role in shaping our collective climate future," said Ruth Breech with Rainforest Action Network. "For too long financial institutions have escaped accountability for the real world consequences of their investments, the time for that impunity has come to an end."
"Ever since the City of Seattle broke ties with Wells Fargo, it's been crystal clear that the banks stand to lose billions of dollars because of their funding of projects that both abuse the rights of Indigenous communities and are a disaster for our climate," said 350 Seattle organizer Alec Connon
"Holding big banks accountable by closing accounts is addressing a root cause of outdated and dangerous fossil fuel infrastructure development and egregious human rights violations," said Vanessa Green, Director of DivestInvest Individual. "People, public institutions and private businesses all moving money means real impact on banks and the broader finance industry, as evidenced by updated or new standards, policies, products and services. As finance industry leaders respond, the laggards are exposed and will be the biggest losers."
LATEST NEWS
Nigerian Village Bombed by Trump Has 'No Known History' of Anti-Christian Terrorism, Locals Say
“Portraying Nigeria’s security challenges as a targeted campaign against a single religious group is a gross misrepresentation of reality,” said Nigeria's information minister.
Dec 27, 2025
When President Donald Trump launched a series of airstrikes in Nigeria on Christmas, he described it as an attack against "ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians."
But locals in a town that was hit during the strike say terrorism has never been a problem for them. On Friday, CNN published a report based on interviews with several residents of Jabo, which was hit by a US missile during Thursday's attack, which landed just feet away from the town's only hospital.
The rural town of Jabo is part of the Sokoto state in northwestern Nigeria, which the Trump administration and the Nigerian government said was hit during the strike.
Both sides have said militants were killed during the attack, but have not specified their identities or the number of casualties.
Kabir Adamu, a security analyst from Beacon Security and Intelligence in Abuja, told Al Jazeera that the likely targets are members of “Lakurawa,” a recently formed offshoot of ISIS.
But the Trump administration's explanation that their home is at the center of a "Christian genocide" left many residents of Jabo confused. As CNN reported:
While parts of Sokoto face challenges with banditry, kidnappings and attacks by armed groups including Lakurawa–which Nigeria classifies as a terrorist organization due to suspected affiliations with [the] Islamic State–villagers say Jabo is not known for terrorist activity and that local Christians coexist peacefully with the Muslim majority.
Bashar Isah Jabo, a lawmaker who represents the town and surrounding areas in Nigeria's parliament, described the village to CNN as “a peaceful community” that has “no known history of ISIS, Lakurawa, or any other terrorist groups operating in the area.”
While the town is predominantly Muslim, resident Suleiman Kagara, told reporters: "We see Christians as our brothers. We don’t have religious conflicts, so we weren’t expecting this."
Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation with more than 237 million people, has a long history of violence between Christians and Muslims, with each making up about half the population.
However, Nigerian officials have disputed claims by Republican leaders—including US Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas)—who have claimed that the government is “ignoring and even facilitating the mass murder of Christians.”
The senator recently claimed, without citing a source for the figures, that "since 2009, over 50,000 Christians in Nigeria have been massacred, and over 18,000 churches and 2,000 Christian schools have been destroyed" by the Islamist group Boko Haram.
Cruz is correct that many Christians have been killed by Boko Haram. But according to reports by the US-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project and the Council on Foreign Relations, the majority of the approximately 53,000 civilians killed by the group since 2009 have been Muslim.
Moreover, the areas where Boko Haram is most active are in northeastern Nigeria, far away from where Trump's strikes were conducted. Attacks on Christians cited in October by Cruz, meanwhile, have been in Nigeria's Middle Belt region, which is separate from violence in the north.
The Nigerian government has pushed back on what they have called an "oversimplified" narrative coming out of the White House and from figures in US media, like HBO host Bill Maher, who has echoed Cruz's overwrought claims of "Christian genocide."
“Portraying Nigeria’s security challenges as a targeted campaign against a single religious group is a gross misrepresentation of reality,” said Nigerian information minister Mohammed Idris Malagi. “While Nigeria, like many countries, has faced security challenges, including acts of terrorism perpetrated by criminals, couching the situation as a deliberate, systematic attack on Christians is inaccurate and harmful. It oversimplifies a complex, multifaceted security environment and plays into the hands of terrorists and criminals who seek to divide Nigerians along religious or ethnic lines."
Anthea Butler, a religious scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, has criticized the Trump administration's attempts to turn the complex situation in Nigeria into a "holy war."
"This theme of persecution of Christians is a very politically charged, and actually religiously charged, theme for evangelicals across the world. And when you say that Christians are being persecuted, that’s a thing," she told Democracy Now! in November. "It fits this sort of savior narrative of this American sort of ethos right now that is seeing itself going into countries for a moral war, a moral suasion, as it were, to do something to help other people."
Nigeria also notably produces more crude oil than any other country in Africa. Trump has explicitly argued that the US should carry out regime change in Venezuela for the purposes of "taking back" that nation's oil.
Butler has doubted the sincerity of Trump's concern for the nation's Christians due to his administration's denial of entry for Nigerian refugees, as well as virtually every other refugee group, with the exception of white South Africans.
She said: "I think this is sort of disingenuous to say you’re going to go in and save Christianity in Nigeria, when you have, you know, banned Nigerians from coming to this country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Russia Launches Drone Barrage on Kyiv Ahead of Zelenskyy-Trump Meeting
The attacks came as Trump and Zelenskyy are expected to discuss critical questions in a Ukraine-Russia peace deal, including its territorial sovereignty, NATO protections, and control over its natural resources.
Dec 27, 2025
As Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made his way to Florida for a pivotal set of talks this weekend with US President Donald Trump, Russia launched a barrage of drone and missile attacks on Kyiv early Saturday morning.
At least two people were killed in the Ukrainian capital during the 10-hour attack, with 44 more—including two children—injured. Hundreds of thousands of residents are left to brave near-freezing temperatures without heat following the attack, which cut off power supplies.
The attack came as Zelenskyy prepared to stop in Canada before meeting with Trump on Sunday to discuss a 20-point plan to end the nearly four-year war with Russia that has been the subject of weeks of negotiation between US and Ukrainian emissaries.
Zelenskyy is seeking to maintain Ukraine's territorial sovereignty without having to surrender territory—namely, the eastern Donbass region that is largely occupied by Russian forces. He also hopes that any agreement to end the war will come with a long-term security guarantee reminiscent of NATO.
On Friday, Zelenskyy told reporters that the peace deal was 90% complete. But Trump retorted that Zelenskyy "doesn't have anything until I approve it."
Trump has expressed hostility toward Zelenskyy throughout his presidency. In February, before berating him in a now-infamous Oval Office meeting, Trump insisted falsely that Ukraine, not Russia, was responsible for starting the war in 2022.
Zelenskyy's latest peace proposal was issued in response to Trump's proposal last month, which was heavily weighted in Russia's favor.
It called for Ukraine to recognize Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and cede the entirety of the Donbass, about 2,500 square miles of territory, to Russia, including territory not yet captured. Trump's plan puts a cap of 600,000 personnel on Ukraine's military and calls for Ukraine to add a measure in its constitution banning it from ever joining NATO.
Earlier this year, Trump demanded that Ukraine give up $500 billion worth of its mineral wealth in what he said was "repayment" for US military support during the war (even though that support has only totalled about $175 billion).
In his latest proposal, Trump has pared down his demands to the creation of a "Ukraine Development Fund" that would include the "extraction of minerals and natural resources" as part of a joint US-Ukraine reconstruction effort.
While those terms appear less exploitative, the reconstruction program is expected to be financed by US loans from firms like BlackRock, which have been heavily involved in the diplomatic process.
"The infrastructure rebuilt with these loans—ports, rail lines, power grid—won’t be Ukrainian in any meaningful sense. It’ll be owned by international consortiums, operated for profit, with revenues flowing out to service the debt," wrote the Irish geopolitical commentator Deaglan O'Mulrooney on Tuesday. "In other words, Ukraine will be gutted."
Despite the criticism, Zelenskyy has signaled support in principle for the US reconstruction proposal as an alternative to direct expropriation.
The "red lines" for Zelenskyy heading into his talk with Trump are related to Ukraine's territorial integrity. He has said he will not recognize Russian control of the Donbass, or the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, the largest nuclear facility in Europe, which Russia currently controls. He has also demanded that all terms of a peace agreement come up for a referendum among the Ukrainian people, which is strongly against territorial concessions.
At the same time, however, he insisted Saturday that "Ukraine is willing to do whatever it takes to stop this war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
British Activist Blasts 'Sociopathic Greed' of Big Tech After US Judge Blocks His Detention
"I chose to take on the biggest companies in the world, to hold them accountable, to speak truth to power. There is a cost attached to that," said Imran Ahmed, one of five Europeans targeted by the Trump administration.
Dec 26, 2025
After a US judge on Thursday blocked President Donald Trump's administration from detaining one of the European anti-disinformation advocates hit with a travel ban earlier this week, Imran Ahmed suggested that he is being targeted because artificial intelligence and social media companies "are increasingly under pressure as a result of organizations like mine."
Ahmed is the CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). The 47-year-old Brit lives in Washington, DC with his wife and infant daughter, who are both US citizens. While the Trump administration on Tuesday also singled out Clare Melford of the Global Disinformation Index, Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg of HateAid, and Thierry Breton, a former European commissioner who helped craft the Digital Services Act, Ahmed is reportedly the only one currently in the United States.
On Wednesday, Ahmed, who is a legal permanent resident, sued top Trump officials including US Attorney General Pam Bondi, Immigration and Customs Enforcement acting Director Todd Lyons, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio in the District Court for the Southern District of New York.
"Rather than disguise its retaliatory motive, the federal government was clear that Mr. Ahmed is being 'SANCTIONED' as punishment for the research and public reporting carried out by the nonprofit organization that Mr. Ahmed founded and runs," the complaint states. "In other words, Mr. Ahmed faces the imminent prospect of unconstitutional arrest, punitive detention, and expulsion for exercising his basic First Amendment rights."
"The government's actions are the latest in a string of escalating and unjustifiable assaults on the First Amendment and other rights, one that cannot stand basic legal scrutiny," the filing continues. "Simply put, immigration enforcement—here, immigration detention and threatened deportation—may not be used as a tool to punish noncitizen speakers who express views disfavored by the current administration."
Just a day later, Judge Vernon Broderick, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, issued a temporary restraining order, blocking the administration from arresting or detaining Ahmed. The judge also scheduled a conference for Monday afternoon.
The US Department of State said Thursday that "the Supreme Court and Congress have repeatedly made clear: The United States is under no obligation to allow foreign aliens to come to our country or reside here."
Ahmed's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, said that "the federal government can't deport a green-card holder like Imran Ahmed, with a wife and young child who are American, simply because it doesn't like what he has to say."
In the complaint and interviews published Friday, Ahmed pointed to his group's interactions with Elon Musk, a former member of the Trump and administration and the richest person on Earth. He also controls the social media platform X, which sued CCDH in 2023.
"We were sued by Elon Musk a couple of years ago, unsuccessfully; a court found that he was trying to impinge on our First Amendment rights to free speech by using law to try and silence our accountability work," Ahmed told the BBC.
Months after a federal judge in California threw out that case last year, Musk publicly declared "war" on the watchdog.
CCDH's work is being targeted by the U.S. State Department trying to sanction and deport our CEO, Imran Ahmed. This is an unconstitutional attempt to silence anyone who dares to criticize social media giants. But a federal judge has temporarily blocked his detention.More in BBC ⤵️
[image or embed]
— Center for Countering Digital Hate (@counterhate.com) December 26, 2025 at 4:05 PM
"What it has been about is companies that simply do not want to be held accountable and, because of the influence of big money in Washington, are corrupting the system and trying to bend it to their will, and their will is to be unable to be held accountable," Ahmed told the Guardian. "There is no other industry, that acts with such arrogance, indifference, and a lack of humility and sociopathic greed at the expense of people."
Ahmed explained that he spent Christmas away from his wife and daughter because of the Trump administration's track record of quickly sending targeted green-card holders far away from their families. He said: "I chose to take on the biggest companies in the world, to hold them accountable, to speak truth to power. There is a cost attached to that. My family understands that."
The British newspaper noted that when asked whether he thought UK politicians should use X, the former Labour Party adviser told the Press Association, "Politicians have to make decisions for themselves, but every time they post on X, they are putting a buck in Mr. Musk's pocket and I think they need to question their own consciences and ask themselves whether or not they think they can carry on doing that."
Ahmed also said that it was "telling that Mr. Musk was one of the first and most vociferous in celebrating the press release" about the sanctions against him and the others.
"He said it was great, and it is great, but not for the reasons that he thinks," the campaigner said. "Because what it has actually done is give a chance for the system to show that the advocacy that we do is both important and protected by the First Amendment."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


