

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.
Blair Fitzgibbon, 202-503-6141, blair@soundspeedpr.com
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.
"Everyone in Canada deserves to be safe and healthy," said one organization leader. "Instead, our government is putting people at risk by dismantling key climate policies without a credible plan to reduce emissions."
"You cannot abandon the map and still expect to reach your destination. Yet that's exactly what the federal government has done with its 2030 climate plan."
That's according to Charlie Hatt, climate director at Ecojustice, Canada's largest environmental law charity and one of the groups that partnered with a trio of young citizens this week to challenge Prime Minister Mark Carney's "failure" to bring the country's 2030 emissions reduction plan into compliance with a key federal law.
"Right now, its only climate plan is a plan to fail—and that's not just irresponsible, it's unlawful under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act," said Hatt. "Neither the climate nor the law can tolerate rollbacks today in exchange for promises of action many years from now."
The act requires the federal government to set science-based climate goals, create a plan to achieve them, and report on its progress. However, Carney has recently pursued various rollbacks and boosted fossil fuel development, putting his nation's 2030 emissions reduction target out of reach—which the groups and young people argued violates the law.
"Everyone in Canada deserves to be safe and healthy," said Dr. Samantha Green, president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. "Instead, our government is putting people at risk by dismantling key climate policies without a credible plan to reduce emissions. Climate change is not an abstract future threat: It is a public health emergency that is already harming patients and communities across Canada. That's why CAPE is joining this lawsuit."
The fossil fuel-driven climate emergency isn't just a danger to public health. As Environmental Defence's Julia Levin noted, Canadians "are paying the price through wildfires, heat domes, rising food insecurity, and high costs of living."
"PM Carney is betraying Canadians by taking a wrecking ball to our hard-fought climate progress," Levin declared, accusing the Liberal Party leader of following in the footsteps of Big Oil-backed Republican US President Donald Trump.
"The rest of the world is rapidly adopting clean energy systems that are already more reliable, affordable, and secure than fossil fuels," she said. "Meanwhile, our prime minister is copying President Trump's playbook, ensuring that Canada will be left behind."
Carney's climate policies as prime minister—especially compared with how he talked about the crisis before rising to his current position last year—have frustrated many citizens and left "climate-anxious voters... feeling a major case of buyer's remorse, disoriented by the dissonance between who they thought they were supporting and a climate plan that is now a complete shambles," as Canadian climate writer and activist Seth Klein wrote for The Guardian last month.
Youth applicants in the new legal fight made that frustration clear on Tuesday. Montréal, Quebec-based climate organizer Shirley Barnea said that "the Carney government's gutting of climate policy is a massive insult. After presenting himself as a climate leader, our prime minister is now abdicating responsibility—to Canadians, to future generations, to the law. As long as governments continue ignoring climate science and rolling back protections for our futures, young people will continue taking them to court."
Marie Maltais, who is from Sainte-Catherine-de-la-Jacques-Cartier, Québec, and has advocated for the climate since her early teens, said that "my generation has grown up surrounded by climate disasters and broken political promises to address them. We're told to trust the government's climate commitments—but commitments mean nothing without a real plan behind them."
Sudbury, Ontario-based Sophia Mathur, an early participant in Greta Thunberg's Fridays for Future movement who recently met with Carney and urged him to keep his climate promises, added that "young people are being handed the consequences of decisions we didn't make. We are going to live with the impacts of unchecked climate change for the rest of our lives—so we're standing up for our futures, now."
The young citizens and advocacy groups are seeking a court order that would compel Carney to comply with the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, stressing that "climate change is an existential threat to all Canadians."
Trump now faces a choice: Ending the war or giving Israel what it wants.
President Donald Trump is facing a choice: Ending the war with Iran, which is tanking his popularity and the economy, or continuing his deference to Israel.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi made it clear on Tuesday that he cannot have both.
Following assertions from Israeli leaders that it would not end its occupation of Lebanon, Araghchi reiterated that the memorandum of understanding signed virtually by the US and Iran required in no uncertain terms that "war will be ending everywhere, on all fronts, including Lebanon."
"Due to the relations between war in Lebanon and the aggression of Israel on south Lebanon and the war on Iran, these two fronts—Iran and Lebanon—are quite connected to each other," he said.
“End of the war will be the end of the occupation,” he continued. “And without retreating and withdrawing from the Lebanese occupied territories, then there will not be an end to the war.”
"So any military attack from the Zionist entity against Lebanon will never be accepted," he said. "The continuation of the Israeli occupation of the Lebanese territories is a violation of the memorandum of understanding."
It was a shot across the bow from Tehran following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion the day before that Israeli forces would remain in Lebanon "for as long as necessary” regardless of any US-Iran agreement.
“We established deep security zones around the state of Israel," he said, referring to the roughly 230 square mile occupation area where Israel has forcibly expelled more than 1 million Lebanese civilians and systematically demolished dozens of villages. "I want to make it clear: We will remain in these security zones… to protect our country.”
Other ministers were even blunter. Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said flatly that “Trump’s agreement does not bind us. Israel is not subordinate to the United States. We are an independent and sovereign country.”
Defense Minister Israel Katz said the occupation would go on “without any time limit" while villages would continue to be “cleared of local residents.” He said there would be no withdrawal "despite all the existing pressures" from the US, adding that, "we are committed only to our citizens and to the security of the state of Israel."
Trump has regularly deferred to Israel's preferences and sided with Netanyahu as he's derailed previous ceasefire talks. But during a news conference at the Group of Seven summit in France on Tuesday, Trump took a noticeably different tone with his obstinate ally.
Trump: "Without me, there would be no Israel ... I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon ... I'm not happy with the way Israel has handled themselves with Lebanon and Hezbollah." pic.twitter.com/xvLlEhYqWj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump criticizes Netanyahu and Israel: "Israel has been fighting Hezbollah too long and too many people are being killed. You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody. I suggested to Israel to let Syria take care of Hezbollah, because too be… pic.twitter.com/NAmqoNkhpj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
The president said he "didn't like" the attack Netanyahu launched against the southern suburbs of Beirut on Sunday, where Israeli forces bombed a five-story apartment building, killing three people. "I saw that attack. I saw where that bomb went," he said, describing the attack as "vicious" and "too much."
"You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody," he said, making perhaps his most forceful criticism ever of Israel's rampant attacks on civilian infrastructure. He continued that "if Israel can't do the job without killing everyone else, Syria should do the job" of fighting Hezbollah.
"Without the United States, there would be no Israel," he went on. "Without me, there would be no Israel, because no other president was willing to do what I did."
Referring to Netanyahu, he said, "I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon," adding that the ongoing invasion "throws a negative light on the big deal, and that's the deal with Iran."
Commentators noted this is hardly the first time a US president has vented their anger with Netanyahu, only for nothing to materially change.
Noting Trump's previous description of Netanyahu as a "very difficult guy" after he attempted to blow up ceasefire talks on Sunday, Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said, "The question is: why does Trump facilitate this obstruction by continuing to provide Israel with arms and military aid?"
Zeteo News editor Mehdi Hasan said: “Such is the madly erratic nature of Trump, that he can go from sounding like the most hawkish, pro-Israel president one day, to the most dovish, anti-Israel president the next day. Which is why listening to Trump is pointless; what matters is paying attention to what he does.”
Trump's comments served as an admission, said one observer, that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
President Donald Trump and his top advisers have spent months insisting that extracting and confiscating highly enriched uranium from Iran was the top objective of the unprovoked war he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began in February—but on Tuesday at the Group of Seven summit in France, he shrugged off the need to rapidly obtain the nuclear reactor component.
There is "no rush" to retrieve uranium from nuclear sites the US bombed in June 2025, Trump said, adding that taking the highly enriched uranium is something the US wants "psychologically," but not enough to prioritize extracting it right away.
One could make the argument, he said, that it wasn't worth the effort to take the material at all.
"Frankly, to go get it—we're going to go get it—but to go get it is a big deal, because they say only China and us have the equipment," said the president. "You could make the case, 'Why do you even bother?' because it's not very valuable, you know. It's probably half a million dollars worth, it's not very valuable stuff."
Trump is backing away from getting Iran's enriched material: "You could make the case, why even bother? It's not very valuable stuff." pic.twitter.com/CgNgnZCaMQ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump's comments came a day after he and the Iranian government announced they had reached a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to end the war. The president told The New York Times that the agreement includes a requirement that Iran will be limited to enriching uranium only to levels that "could never be used by the military."
White House officials, though, told The Washington Post that details of Iran's nuclear program will be subject to negotiations over the next two months. The question of whether talks on the nuclear program could be held separately, after a deal to end the war was reached, had been a major sticking point for the US leading up to the MOU.
Trump brushed off suggestions that the deal to end the war, in which Iran demonstrated its economic might by effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz and sending energy prices skyrocketing—obtained no guarantees on Iran's nuclear program that hadn't already been secured in 2015 in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which was brokered by the Obama administration and which limited Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump exited the JCPOA during his first term.
Iran will only be able to enrich uranium “for nonmilitary purposes. Forever," said Trump on Monday.
On Fox News on Monday, former National Security Council chief of staff Alex Gray insisted the president had secured a deal that, for the first time, would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Before the US and Israel began attacking Iran in February, the Middle Eastern country maintained that its nuclear power program was not for military purposes.
While Trump's supporters insisted the war and the MOU had made clear Trump had drawn a hard line on Iran's nuclear capacity, his comments on Tuesday were taken by foreign policy analyst Logan McMillen as an admission that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
"The real purpose was to punish Iran for the crime of being an independent economic power that refused to participate in America’s petro economy," said McMillen.
At CNN, Aaron Blake noted that Trump has spent weeks sending inconsistent messages about his demand that Iran end its nuclear program.
Late last month, the president said on social media that Iran's uranium "will be unearthed by the United States... in close coordination and conjunction with the Islamic Republic of Iran, plus the International Atomic Energy Agency, and DESTROYED.”
But in April, Trump told Reuters that US strikes last year had left Iran's uranium "so far underground, I don’t care about that."
Two weeks later, he again said that the US had "to take that nuclear dust," before telling Fox News last month that destroying the uranium was not "necessary except from a public relations standpoint."