December, 11 2017, 07:15am EDT
Banks and Investors Jeopardizing the Paris Climate Goals
Multi-billion Dollar Support for Top Coal Plant Developers
WASHINGTON
On the eve of the Paris Agreement's second birthday, two new reports reveal how large banks and investors are actively undermining the Paris climate goals. The reports provide data exposing how, between January 2014 and September 2017, big banks provided US $630 billion in financing to the 120 top coal plant developers, and major institutional investors are currently investing close to US$ 140 billion in the same companies.
The report 'Banks vs. the Paris Agreement' is available at www.banktrack.org/coaldevelopers
"With the Paris Agreement now in its second year, there is no excuse for banks and investors to support companies that are planning to build new coal-fired power plants, which fly in the face of the international commitments to limit global warming to 1.5degC," says Jason Disterhoft, Senior Campaigner at Rainforest Action Network. "The bottom-line is that we need an immediate halt to all coal infrastructure investment."
The complementary reports, 'Banks vs. the Paris Agreement' and 'Investors vs. the Paris Agreement' were launched by Rainforest Action Network, BankTrack, Urgewald, Friends of the Earth France, and Re:Common at the Climate Finance Day in Paris. The reports examine banks' and investors' involvement with the world's top 120 coal plant developers. These companies are responsible for two thirds of the new coal-fired power stations planned around the globe and aim to build over 550,000 megawatts - an amount equal to the combined coal fleets of India, the United States and Germany. [1]
Banks vs. the Paris Agreement
Bank financing of these companies in the period from January 2014 to September 2017 involved US$ 630 billion in lending and underwriting, with Chinese and Japanese banks responsible for 68% of the total.
In the two years since the Paris Agreement was signed, banks have provided US$ 275 billion to the top 120 coal plant developers.
17 of the top 20 underwriters for bond and share issues of coal plant developers are Chinese banks, led by the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China which provided over US$ 33 billion to coal plant developers through underwriting. "We have seen China take important steps to begin reducing its domestic coal use. It now needs to rein in the money going to Chinese coal expansion overseas. If China wants to have a claim to climate leadership, it needs to stop the huge financial flows from its banks to coal plant developers," says Yann Louvel, Climate and Energy Coordinator at BankTrack.
For lending the picture is quite different. The top two lenders to coal plant developers are the Japanese banks Mizuho Financial and Mitsubishi UFJ Financial with US$ 11.5 billion and US$ 10.2 billion respectively. Shin Furuno, divestment campaigner from 350.org Japan says, "Mizuho Financial Group, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation have provided US$ 25.3 billion to companies whose coal power plans threaten to put the 2degC goal out of reach. Japanese banks need to finally commit to lending policies that are in line with the Paris Agreement."
While an increasing number of Western banks have adopted policies to restrict direct financing of coal power projects, their financing of coal plant developer companies still continues. Almost half of the top 20 lenders to coal plant developers are Western banks, such as ING, Citi, Societe Generale, HSBC and Deutsche Bank. HSBC and Citi are also among the top 20 underwriters of coal plant developers. HSBC, in fact, announced during the recent UN climate summit that it would continue lending to coal power projects in developing countries, which is where 90% of new coal plants are planned. In 2016, the year after the signing of the Paris Agreement, nine large Western banks actually increased their financing for top coal plant developers. [2]
Yann Louvel from BankTrack comments: "In spite of banks' policies, the financing tap for companies aiming to build hundreds of new coal plants still remains very much open. Banks need to close that tap and start saying 'No' to coal plant developers".
Investors vs. the Paris Agreement
The report "Investors vs the Paris Agreement" identified 1,455 institutional investors with overall investments of almost US$ 140 billion in the top 120 coal plant developers. "Our research investigated the portfolios of pension funds, insurance companies, mutual funds, asset managers, sovereign wealth funds and the asset management arms of commercial banks. Data availability, however, was a real problem as many pension funds do not report on their holdings. The US$ 139.6 billion of institutional investments we identified in coal plant developers are likely only the tip of the iceberg," explains Schuecking.
The world's largest investor in coal plant developers is the US-based investment giant BlackRock, which holds shares and bonds worth US$ 11.5 billion in these companies. It is followed by Japan's Government Pension Investment Fund with investments of US$ 7 billion and US investment manager Vanguard, which holds investments of US$ 5.7 billion in coal power expansion companies.
"For BlackRock, its investments in coal plant developers are only a tiny part of its portfolio, less than 0.2% of its managed assets. For the rest of us, these investments are a giant step towards a de-stabilized climate and a 4degC world," says Schuecking. The 52 coal plant developers in which BlackRock in many cases holds significant stakes collectively account for coal power expansion plans of 340,622 MW - this is equal to the combined coal fleets of India, Japan, South Korea and Russia.
All in all, investors from the US account for 37% of the institutional investments in coal plant developers. Next in line are EU and Japanese investors (13% each), Malaysian investors (9%), Chinese Investors (7%) and Indian investors (6%).
"Many of the top investors in our ranking are members of the 'Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change' or similar initiatives that regularly issue warnings about the threat climate change poses to our economy and societies. These are, however, the very same institutions that invest billions of dollars in companies with enormous coal power expansion plans. It is time that BlackRock, Vanguard and other global investors acknowledge the inconvenient truth that their own investments are accelerating climate change," concludes Schuecking.
The report 'Investors vs. the Paris Agreement' can be downloaded at: https://coalexit.org/downloads
The reports were published to coincide with Climate Finance Day in Paris, which is meant to kick-start a global climate 'stocktake' process for the next UN climate summit in Katowice, Poland in December 2018.
NGOs from around the world are calling on banks and investors to take steps to exclude the top 120 coal plant developers from their portfolios by the time of the climate summit in Katowice in December 2018.
Notes for editors:
1. For the list of the top 120 coal plant developers, see https://coalexit.org/database
2. The nine western banks which increased their financing for coal plant developers between 2015 and 2016 are Barclays, BNP Paribas, Citi, Credit Agricole, ING, JPMorgan Chase, Societe Generale, Standard Chartered and UBS.
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
Critics Warn Manchin-Barrasso Permitting Bill 'Is Taken Straight From Project 2025'
"You thought Project 2025 was just a threat after the election? It's actually happening *right now,*" said one climate campaigner.
Jul 26, 2024
Climate and environmental defenders on this week implored U.S. senators to block a permitting reform bill introduced this week by Sens. Joe Manchin and John Barrasso that one campaigner linked to Project 2025, a conservative coalition's agenda for a far-right overhaul of the federal government.
Common Dreamsreported Monday that Manchin (I-W.Va.) and Barrasso (R-Wyo.)—respectively the chair and ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee—introduced the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) noted that although the proposal "includes several positive reforms for the accelerated development of transmission projects," it also advocates "limiting opportunities for communities to challenge projects, loosening oversight for drilling and mining projects, extending drilling permits and fast-tracking [liquified natural gas] permits, and several other provisions friendly to fossil fuel giants."
"This dangerous bill doesn't deserve a floor vote."
These are nearly identical policies to what's proposed in Project 2025's Mandate for Leadership. The plan, which was spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, calls for "unleashing all of America's energy resources," including by ending federal restrictions on fossil fuel drilling on public lands; limiting investments in renewable energy; and rolling back environmental permitting restrictions for new oil, gas, and coal projects, including power plants.
While Manchin has been trying—and failing—to pass fossil fuel-friendly permitting reform legislation for years, Brett Hartl, director of public affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that his "Frankenstein legislation is taken straight from Project 2025, and it's the biggest giveaway in decades to the fossil fuel industry."
Hartl said the bill "deprives communities of the power to defend themselves and gives that power to Big Oil by making it harder for communities to challenge polluting projects in court," and "prioritizes the profits of coal barons over public health."
"And it mandates oil and gas extraction in our oceans," he continued. "The insignificant crumbs thrown at renewable energy do nothing to address the climate emergency."
"Monday was the hottest day in recorded history," Hartl noted. "It's shocking that as the climate emergency continues to break records around us, the Senate continues to fast-track the fossil fuel expansion that is killing us. This dangerous bill doesn't deserve a floor vote."
Hartl added that "to preserve a livable planet," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) "must squash this legislation now."
Manchin—who has said this will be his last term in office—has been a steadfast supporter of the fossil fuel industry, partly because his family owns a coal company. The senator says his permitting reform bill "will advance American energy once again to bring down prices, create domestic jobs, and allow us to continue in our role as a global energy leader."
However, Allie Rosenbluth, Oil Change International's U.S. manager, warned Thursday that "this bill is yet another dangerous attempt by Sen. Manchin to line the pockets of his fossil fuel donors, sacrificing communities and our climate along the way."
"Don't be fooled: The Energy Permitting Reform Act is another dirty deal to fast-track fossil fuels above all else," she continued. "It would unleash more drilling on federal lands and waters, unnecessarily rush the review of proposed oil and gas export projects, and lift the Biden administration's pause on new LNG exports."
"We urge Congress to reject this proposal and commit to action that protects frontline communities from the impacts of fossil fuel development and the climate crisis," Rosenbluth added.
"Don't be fooled: The Energy Permitting Reform Act is another dirty deal to fast-track fossil fuels above all else."
NRDC managing director of government affairs Alexandra Adams said Wednesday that "this bill is a giveaway for the oil and gas industry that will ramp up drilling and environmental destruction at a time when we need to be putting a hard stop to fossil fuels."
"We cannot afford to roll back so many of our bedrock environmental and community legal protections and offer a blank check to the oil and gas industry," she stressed. "We need new solutions for permitting if we are going to meet our clean energy potential and address the climate challenge. But this is not it."
"This bill would altogether be a leap backward on climate, health, and justice if passed into law," Adams added. "The Senate should reject it and look toward alternative solutions already being considered."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Nothing To Eat': War-Torn Sudan Faces Mass Famine as Military Delays Aid
Both parties in Sudan's civil war are to blame for a looming mass famine, experts say, and the military's blocking of U.N. aid at a border crossing with Chad exacerbates the problem.
Jul 26, 2024
Sudan's military is blocking United Nations aid trucks from entering at a key border crossing, causing severe disruptions in aid in a country that experts fear may be on the brink of one of the worst famines the world has seen in decades, The New York Timesreported Friday.
The border city of Adré in eastern Chad is the main international crossing into the Darfur region of Sudan, but the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), the state's official military, which is engaged in a civil war with a paramilitary group called the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), has refused to issue permits for U.N. trucks to enter there, as it's an RSF-controlled area.
U.S. and international officials have issued increasingly alarmed calls for steady aid access to help feed the millions of severely malnourished people in Darfur and other areas of Sudan.
Last week, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the United States ambassador to the U.N., said that the SAF's obstruction of the border was "completely unacceptable."
Both warring parties in Sudan continue to perpetrate brazen atrocities, including starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. This piece focuses on the SAF's ongoing obstruction of essential aid. The situation is catastrophic. The policy is criminal. https://t.co/FKhqQh3EI9.
— Tom Dannenbaum (@tomdannenbaum) July 26, 2024
The Sudanese who've made it out of the country and into Adré reported dire and unsafe conditions in their home country.
"We had nothing to eat," Bahja Muhakar, a Sudenese mother of three, told the Times after she crossed into Chad, following a harrowing six-day journey from Al-Fashir, a major city in Darfur. She said the family often had to live off of one shared pancake per day.
Another mother, Dahabaya Ibet, said that her 20-month-old boy had to bear witness to his grandfather being shot and killed in front of his eyes when the family home in Darfur was attacked by gunmen late last year.
Now the mothers and their families are refugees in Adré, where 200,000 Sudanese are living in an overcrowded, under-resourced transit camp.
In addition to those that have made it out of the country, there are 11 million people internally displaced within Sudan, most of whom have become displaced since the civil war began in April 2023.
An unnamed senior American official told the Times that the looming famine in Sudan could be as bad as the 2011 famine in Somalia or even the great Ethiopian famine of the 1980s.
In April, Reutersreported that people in Sudan were eating soil and leaves to survive, and The Washington Postcalled it a nation in "chaos," reporting that World Food Program trucks had been "blocked, hijacked, attacked, looted, and detained."
In late June, a coalition of U.N. agencies, aid groups, and governments warned that 755,000 people in Sudan faced famine in the coming months.
The U.S. last week announced $203 million in additional aid to Sudan—part of a $2.1 billion pledge that world leaders made in April, which some countries have not yet delivered on.
Some officials including Thomas-Greenfield, who has dubbed the situation in Sudan "the worst humanitarian crisis in the world," have called for the U.N. Security Council to allow aid delivery into the country even in the absence of SAF approval; it's believed that Russia would veto such a measure.
Sudan's civil war has seen a great deal of international interference. Amnesty International on Thursday published an investigatory briefing showing that weapons from Russia, China, Serbia, Turkey, Yemen, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) had been identified in the country. And The Guardian on Friday reported that the passports of Emirati citizens had been found among wreckage in Sudan, indicating the UAE may have troops or intelligence officers on the ground, though the UAE denied the accusation.
The International Service for Human Rights on Friday warned that both the SAF and RSF were engaged in wrongful killings and arrests, especially targeted at lawyers, doctors, and activists. The group called for an immediate cease-fire.
The SAF and Sudanese government figures have cast doubt on international experts' claims about famine in the country.
Keep ReadingShow Less
JD Vance Doubles Down on Attack on 'Childless Cat Ladies'
Vance "meant no disrespect to cats, but he did mean to demean women and still holds the view in 2024 that they should be punished for not having children."
Jul 26, 2024
After days of condemnation from critics including actress Jennifer Aniston and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, U.S. Sen. JD Vance was given the opportunity on Thursday to clarify his remarks from 2021 in which he said the Democratic Party was run by "childless cat ladies."
Instead, the Ohio Republican and running mate of former President Donald Trump assured SiriusXM host Megyn Kelly on "The Megyn Kelly Show" that while he has "nothing against cats," he meant what he said in terms of "the substance" of his argument.
Vance made it clear, said Aaron Fritschner, deputy chief of staff for Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), "that he meant no disrespect to cats, but he did mean to demean women and still holds the view in 2024 that they should be punished for not having children."
The comments in question were made by Vance to then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson when Vance was running for the Senate.
Calling out Buttigieg—who, the secretary disclosed this week, was struggling at the time to adopt a child with his husband—and Vice President Kamala Harris, a stepmother of two and the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential nominee, Vance said people without biological children "don't really have a direct stake in" the future of the country and therefore shouldn't hold higher office.
In separate remarks that same year, Vance said parents should "have more power" at the voting booth and that "if you don't have as much of an investment in the future of this country, maybe you shouldn't get nearly the same voice."
He also specifically categorized people who don't have children as "bad" in an interview in 2021, saying the government should "reward the things that we think are good" and "punish the things that we think are bad," with people taxed at a lower rate if they have children.
While a spokesperson for Vance told ABC News that the senator's taxation proposal was "basically no different" than the child tax credit supported by the Democratic Party, Democrats who have pushed for the credit have heralded its proven ability to slash child poverty rates and help families afford groceries, childcare, and other essentials, rather than viewing the tax savings as a way to reward people for procreating.
In his interview with Kelly on Thursday, Vance attempted to pivot away from his own comments, saying his point was to criticize "the Democratic Party for becoming anti-family and anti-child" and claiming without evidence that the Harris campaign had "come out against the child tax credit"—a signature policy of the Biden-Harris administration.
"I'm proud to stand for parents and I hope that parents out there recognize that I'm a guy who wants to fight for you," said Vance. "The Democrats, in the past five, 10 years, Megyn, they have become anti-family. It's built into their policy, it's built into the way they talk about parents and children. I don't think we should back down from it, I think we should be honest about the problem."
Vance and Kelly went on to lament the anxiety "hardcore environmentalists" and progressive lawmakers such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have expressed about the damage fossil fuel extraction is doing the planet, accusing them of pushing people to forgo having families—but said nothing about Republican policies that have made child-rearing less accessible.
In recent years, the entire Republican caucus in Congress was joined by conservative then-Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia in blocking the extension of the enhanced child tax credit, which had been credited with cutting the national child poverty rate in half. Republicans also allowed a pandemic-era universal school meal program to expire, while several Democratic-led states have passed state-level programs to ensure all children can have meals at school, regardless of their family's income.
Under Republican abortion bans, numerous stories have cropped up of pregnant people who have been forced to carry pregnancies to term despite finding out that their fetuses had fatal abnormalities and would die soon after birth—as have stories of children who were forced to give birth or had to cross state lines in order to get abortion care.
As with his position that nonparents should be "punished" for not having children, "who else does 'pro-child/family' Vance think should 'face consequences and reality' by way of curtailing choices, rights, and freedoms?" asked writer Alheli Picazo. "Women and girls who become pregnant through rape/incest."
University of North Carolina law professor Carissa Byrne Hessick said that one could test "empirically" Vance's claim that Democratic policies are anti-family.
"But I haven't heard the GOP talk much about things that would help my family and my kids," she said, "like reducing childcare and tuition costs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular