

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.
“Consumers are getting really screwed by all of this,” said one critic.
Political appointees installed by President Donald Trump are overruling career attorneys inside the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, intervening to weaken or halt investigations into major corporate mergers in a way never seen before, MS NOW reported Thursday.
Three unnamed sources told the outlet "that DOJ staff have privately complained that the Trump administration is essentially deciding not to enforce antitrust laws that are critical to keeping companies from becoming single-source providers and being able to charge enormous sums for their product or service."
According to MS NOW:
The two mergers that DOJ leaders are ramming through include two low-cost Mexican air carriers, Viva Aerobus and Volaris, who announced their plans to merge last year, and the proposed merger of the Italian firm Saipem and UK firm Subsea7, who together control a sizable portion of sales for equipment used for subsea oil operations. Major oil companies, including ExxonMobil, Petrobras and TotalEnergies, have filed formal objections with federal regulators about the latter merger, arguing to antitrust regulators that the combined firms will create a subsea monopoly that will increase costs, delay critical projects and force clients into expensive, long-term contracts.
Experts say the aforementioned mergers are likely to drive up prices US consumers pay for airfare to Mexico and at the gas pump, yet again giving the lie to Trump's "America First" pledge.
Current and former DOJ officials described Trump's interference as without precedent.
“It’s unilateral surrender on antitrust enforcement; it’s absolutely unprecedented,” Bill Baer, the former assistant attorney general for the antitrust division during the Obama administration. “It’s definitely going to hurt consumers. It means prices will go up, concentration is going to increase—and quality often diminishes when you have only a few firms operating in the same market.”
The DOJ Antitrust Division was originally launched more than a century ago during the tail-end of the Progressive Era to combat monopolies and enforce antitrust legislation like the Clayton Antitrust Act and the Gilded Age-era Sherman Act. It was formally created during the Great Depression following weak enforcement of the Sherman and Clayton acts, as the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration viewed concentrated corporate power as a threat not only to consumers but to democracy itself.
While the postwar decades saw relatively aggressive antitrust enforcement by presidents of both major parties, the Reagan administration adopted a much more permissive merger philosophy that laid the groundwork for decades of consolidation across industries that has continued to this day, despite limited antitrust revivals during the Obama and Biden administrations.
Biden-era Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan and DOJ officials pursued a more aggressive antitrust agenda that Trump has been rolling back in favor of deregulation. Critics have pointed out that Trump has sometimes used antitrust mechanisms selectively, targeting certain media or technology companies for political reasons rather than consistently applying a broad anti-monopoly approach.
According to an article published last month in The Wall Street Journal, Stanley Woodward, the senior DOJ official now overseeing antitrust enforcement, has told department lawyers that he favors resolving cases through settlements rather than taking corporations to trial. Some antitrust attorneys interpreted the remarks as a directive to avoid litigation and seek settlements in ongoing and future cases. Critics say Woodward’s posture could weaken the DOJ's ability to challenge monopolistic mergers in favor of fast-tracked settlements.
"He's taking litigation off the table, and you don’t get a settlement absent a litigation threat,” one person with knowledge of Woodward's actions told MS NOW. “I can’t think of an administration in history that would want to run antitrust policy like this.”
“Consumers are getting really screwed by all of this,” the person continued. “We’re talking 10 years of consumer harm that can’t be undone.”
A Gaza trucker's association leader called it "a deliberate killing of a civilian driver who had complied with all instructions."
A soldier with the Israel Defense Forces reportedly shot and killed a Palestinian driver delivering aid to Gaza on Wednesday in what witnesses described as a "field execution."
Based on accounts from three witnesses, The Guardian reported that the driver, Ahmad Nasser Saleem, was shot in the head at close range shortly after his convoy entered Gaza to deliver food supplies from the World Central Kitchen.
They said the four-truck convoy had stopped along the Philadelphi Corridor on the edge of Gaza after one of the vehicles broke down. Israeli soldiers then ordered the drivers to dismount before one of them shot Saleem in the head when his hands were raised.
The other drivers in the convoy stressed that every movement made by the World Central Kitchen is coordinated with the Israeli government.
“After the truck broke down, we waited for authorization to get out and inspect it, because every movement we make has to be coordinated in advance,” said one of the other drivers, Diaa Mansour.
He said that while they were awaiting authorization, an Israeli military vehicle arrived and soldiers ordered him, Saleem, and another driver, Alaa Shaat, to get out of their trucks.
“They made us stand by the side of the road. They ordered me to take off my clothes and forced me to sit under the sun,” Mansour said. “Then they brought Ahmad out of his truck. One of the soldiers began talking to Ahmad while he stood with his hands raised. Ahmad did not speak Hebrew, and it seemed the soldiers did not understand his Arabic."
"Suddenly, they shot him. He was hit in the head and died at the scene," Mansour said. "It appeared they were trying to find out why we had stopped, but they did not understand the situation and opened fire immediately, without any discussion or attempt to communicate.”
Jihad Saleem, the deputy head of the Association of Transport Companies in Gaza, identified as a distant relative of the aid worker who was killed, said that the transportation of aid was "100%" coordinated with Israel through the UN World Food Program and WCK.
"The moment Ahmad raised his hands in surrender, one of the soldiers drew his M16 rifle and shot him directly in the head,” he said. “It was a field execution and a deliberate killing of a civilian driver who had complied with all instructions. He was wearing his orange safety vest and carried all the required permits, security clearances, and coordination that had been approved by the IDF."
The IDF confirmed the shooting, but disputed the series of events. A military spokesperson said the convoy "had stopped along the Philadelphi Corridor and exited their trucks contrary to established procedures" and that one of the drivers "ran toward the troops" who "initiated the suspect apprehension protocol and, after perceiving an immediate threat, opened fire toward him."
Jihad Saleem said that “drivers are subjected to daily violations, including beatings, abuse, humiliation, and being forced to stand for long hours under the sun."
“Even more disturbing," Saleem said, "the soldier who shot Ahmad talked to the three surviving drivers afterward and threatened them, saying they would meet the same fate as Ahmad. This clearly indicates that the attack was deliberate.”
Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza, which began in October 2023, has included the systematic restriction of humanitarian aid entering the strip, which has caused widespread starvation, which humanitarian groups have said Israel is using as a "weapon of war" against the Palestinian population.
The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said as of April 29, 2026, that it had recorded the killing of 593 aid workers in the territory, including eight since a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas in October 2025.
The shooting of Ahmad Saleem follows the shooting of two other Palestinian aid drivers in May under similar circumstances. According to The Guardian, the two men had been detained by the IDF for days before being released near a roundabout in Rafah where they were each shot.
The month before, two drivers working for the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) were killed by Israeli fire as they were filling their water trucks at an established distribution point.
Saleem is at least the 11th documented worker with WCK to have been killed by Israeli forces during the conflict. In April 2024, an Israeli strike hit a convoy clearly marked with the WCK logo and killed seven workers after the drivers had similarly coordinated their movements with the IDF.
That November, Israel bombed another vehicle, killing three WCK workers and two others, claiming that one of them had been involved in Hamas' October 7, 2023 attack against Israel, which was not independently confirmed and which the WCK said it had no knowledge of.
WCK said in a statement that it was "devastated" to learn of Saleem's killing on Wednesday.
"Ahmad Nasser Saleem was doing what so many of our partners do every day in Gaza—working to get food to hungry people," the group said. "We are in contact with his family, and our deepest grief is with them. WCK expects a full accounting of what happened. Humanitarian aid deliveries should never be a target."
US Sen. Amy Klouchar said that the housing bill has "been sitting on President Trump’s desk long enough."
With President Donald Trump still refusing to sign bipartisan legislation aimed at lowering the cost of housing, fresh outrage erupted Thursday as new data shows buying a home in the US has never been more expensive.
The National Association of Realtors (NAR) on Thursday released its monthly report on home sales showing that the median sales price of existing homes grew to $440,600, a record high.
Lawrence Yun, chief economist at the NAR, said that housing supply remains a major barrier to making owning a home more affordable.
"Progress on long-term housing affordability could be hampered if inventory growth continues to stall," said Yun. "Without consistent gains in inventory, home prices can accelerate. It is critical to introduce more supply to the market to widen the opportunity for homeownership."
The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the US Congress last month, was designed specifically to address the housing shortage in the US.
Among other things, the bill prohibits large Wall Street investors from buying up new single-family homes, streamlines environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and creates a $200 million annual competitive grant program to benefit communities that have demonstrated success in expanding their housing supplies.
Trump, however, refused to sign the legislation, insisting that it be paired with the SAVE America Act, a voter suppression bill that will curb ballot access but Republicans in Congress do not currently have enough power to pass.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who co-wrote the housing bill alongside Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), took to social media on Thursday and pointed to a poll showing that the legislation has overwhelming support throughout the country.
"The American people have a message for President Trump," Warren wrote. "Sign the damn bill."
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) also took a shot at the president for dragging his feet on the legislation.
"Over two weeks ago, Congress passed the ROAD to Housing Act with overwhelming bipartisan support," Klobuchar wrote. "It will pave the way for more housing, make it easier to build, and help more Americans find a place to call home. It’s been sitting on President Trump’s desk long enough. Sign the bill."
Rep. Chris Pappas (D-NH), currently a candidate for the US Senate running in New Hampshire, urged Trump to finally take action.
"It's never been more expensive to buy a home," wrote Pappas. "I helped pass a bipartisan housing bill to bring down home prices, and I'm calling on the President to get it over the finish line."
Trump's illegal war of choice with Iran has also not helped the housing affordability crisis, as it has led to an inflation spike that has left the Federal Reserve with little room to lower interest rates without risking further price acceleration.