March, 28 2018, 11:00am EDT
Report Finds Major Banks Ramped Up Fossil Fuel Financing to $115 billion in 2017
Despite 2017 being the costliest year on record for weather disasters, the report reveals that banks increased extreme fossil fuel financing last year, led by a more than doubling in lending to tar sands companies and pipelines.
SAN FRANCISCO
A report released today by Rainforest Action Network, BankTrack, Indigenous Environmental Network, Oil Change International, Sierra Club, and Honor The Earth, endorsed by over 50 organizations around the world, reveals that in spite of the urgent climate crisis, 2017 was a year of backsliding by private banks. The report, Banking on Climate Change 2018, is the ninth annual report ranking bank policies and practices related to the financing of some of the most carbon-intensive, financially risky, and environmentally destructive fossil fuel sectors. The report also details the negative impacts of these sectors on human rights, Indigenous rights and community health and well-being.
Tracking 36 of the world's biggest banks, the report finds that the institutions funneled $115 billion into extreme fossil fuels in 2017, an increase of 11% from 2016. The single biggest driver of the increase in financing came from the tar sands sector, where financing grew by 111% from 2016 to 2017. The massive hike in bank support for tar sands to nearly $47 billion, led tar sands to overtake coal power as the most heavily funded extreme energy sector.
With some of the sharpest upticks in financing since 2016, Royal Bank of Canada, Toronto Dominion Bank, and JPMorgan Chase all passed the coal-heavy Chinese banks to become the biggest bankers of extreme fossil fuels last year. JPMorgan Chase increased funding to coal mining by a shocking 21 times and quadrupled its financing of tar sands oil.
The report finds that while some European banks have realized the risks and put policy restrictions on some of their fossil fuel financing, major players elsewhere have done little to adopt policies that would bring their activities in line with the Paris Agreement.
The case studies detailed in the report -- from Enbridge's proposed Line 3 tar sands pipeline in Minnesota, to the proposed Jordan Cove LNG export terminal and associated pipeline in Oregon, to the fleet of coal plants that Japanese company Marubeni is planning in Southeast Asia -- all highlight that banks lack effective policies to prevent them from financing these highly polluting projects and companies.
The report focuses on financing for extreme fossil fuels, defined as: tar sands, Arctic, and ultra-deepwater oil; coal mining and coal-fired power; and liquefied natural gas (LNG) export in North America.
Statements:
Alison Kirsch, Climate and Energy Research Coordinator at Rainforest Action Network:
"At a time when some European banks like BNP Paribas and ING are adopting policies that sharply restrict their lending to some of the worst fossil fuels, US and Canadian banks like JPMorgan Chase and TD are moving backwards in lockstep with their wrongheaded political leaders. If we are to have any chance of halting catastrophic climate change, there must be an end of expansion and complete phaseout of these dangerous energy sources. Banks need to be accountable and implement policies guarding against extreme fossil fuel funding."
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
Johan Frijns, Director of BankTrack:
"Despite the introduction of some restrictions in their coal financing policies over the last few years, the 14 European banks assessed in the Report Card managed in 2017 to collectively increase their financing by more than $2 billion for companies in the coal mining and coal power sectors. Europe's top banks have got to stop their coal-focused assault on the Paris Agreement, and it's now vital that they move to stamp out their financial support for companies developing new coal-fired power plants around the world. Just as the European bank AGM season gets under way, campaigners now have ample evidence to present to bank shareholders and decision-makers about exactly how deep the dirty energy financing still runs across the European banking sector, in spite of some new sustainability commitments and a blizzard of sustainability hype."
BankTrack is the global tracking, campaigning and NGO support organisation targeting the operations and investments of commercial banks. For more information, please visit: www.banktrack.org
Tom Goldtooth, Executive Director of Indigenous Environmental Network:
"Banks investing in fossil fuel development should be stripped of their social license to operate in our cities, states, provinces, tribal nations, and countries. These dirty investments are not only threatening the sacred integrity of Mother Earth, but are forcing Indigenous peoples into life or death scenarios with no adherence or accountability to human rights policies and/or Indigenous Rights protections. What is most distressing is a seemingly world-wide labeling of defenders of the environment and opposition to fossil fuel development as 'terrorists' much as was described in the report regarding Standing Rock Water Defenders. Not only in Honduras and Brazil, but in the Philippines even the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples herself is on a government list of 'terrorists'. By financing these unwanted and damaging projects, banks themselves are complicit in human rights abuses. As such, continued bank investment in fossil fuel development should only be seen as promotions of crimes against humanity and Mother Earth, and nothing less."
The Indigenous Environmental Network is an international environmental justice nonprofit that works with tribal grassroots organizations to build the capacity of Indigenous communities.www.ienearth.org
Stephen Kretzmann, Executive Director of Oil Change International:
"Every single dollar that these banks provide for the expansion of the fossil fuel industry is a dollar going to increase the climate crisis. The World Bank, which understands the deep threat that climate change poses to poverty alleviation, has gotten the message and is ending its financing of upstream oil and gas projects. Meanwhile it seems some commercial banks appear intent on going in the opposite direction. It's time banks like Chase and TD and US Bank took the World Bank's lead and stop funding fossils. Until they do, these banks will be complicit in our climate catastrophe, plain and simple."
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
Kelly Martin, Sierra Club Beyond Dirty Fuels Campaign Director:
"The days of banks quietly funneling money into dirty, dangerous fossil fuel projects without the public taking notice are over. Tar sands and other fossil fuel projects threaten our climate, public health, and communities, and until they stop supporting them financially, banks like Chase and Wells Fargo are complicit in this destruction. There is a growing international movement calling on our financial institutions to do better, and we will not stop until they pull their support of dirty fossil fuels once and for all."
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.
Tara Houska, National Campaigns Director of Honor The Earth:
"Since the dog attacks and water cannons used on unarmed citizens at Standing Rock, indigenous people have been heavily engaged in divestment efforts around the world. These banks fund the projects that are killing the planet, destroying indigenous sacred sites, and violating the human rights of citizens. The financial industry is on notice -- the human rights policies banks claim are in place must be enforced. Stop funding fossil fuels and move into a green economy."
Honor The Earth is an indigenous women-led organization focused on protecting Mother Earth through the arts, music, advocacy, supporting grassroots efforts and empowering tribal nations with renewable energy solutions. For more information, visit www.honorearth.org
This report was endorsed by:350.org, 350 Eugene, 350 Seattle, Amazon Watch, Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development, Bank Information Center, Bold Alliance, Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, Catskill Mountainkeeper, CEE Bankwatch Network, Center for Sustainable Economy, CHANGE, Christian Aid, Citizens Against LNG, Clean Water Action, Divest, Invest, Protect, DivestInvest, Earthworks, FairFin, Foundation for GAIA, Friends of the Earth Scotland, Friends of the Earth U.S., Fundacja "Rozwoj TAK Odkrywki NIE" (Foundation Development YES - Open-Pit Mines NO), Greenpeace Japan, Greenpeace USA, Hair on Fire Oregon, Indigenous Climate Action, Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy Program, Les Amis de la Terre France, Market Forces, Mazaska Talks, MN350, People & Planet, Philippine Movement for Climate Justice, Pipeline Awareness Southern Oregon, RAVEN (Respecting Aboriginal Values & Environmental Needs), Re:Common, Rogue Climate, Rogue Riverkeeper, Save RGV from LNG, Stand.earth, SumOfUs, Treaty Alliance Against Tar Sands Expansion, UK Tar Sands Network, Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, urgewald, Waterkeeper Alliance, We Are Cove Point, WECAN (Women's Earth and Climate Action Network), West Coast Environmental Law, Western Environmental Law Center
Profundo calculated the segment adjusters to weight financial transactions according to a company's involvement in a given industry. For more information, please visit: www.profundo.nl
Additional statements from endorsing organizations:
Donna Lisenby, Clean & Safe Energy Campaign Manager, Waterkeeper Alliance:
"This report is an important tactical and strategic target list for activists worldwide. It not only has Waterkeeper Alliance's full endorsement but we intend to use it as an action plan."
Allie Rosenbluth, No Pipeline Organizer, Rogue Climate:
"This report further shows that the Jordan Cove LNG Export Terminal and Pacific Connector fracked gas pipeline, along with other new fossil fuel projects, is a bad investment. Our communities need good-paying jobs in improving energy efficiency and in the expanding clean energy industry, not new fossil fuel projects that hurt us all. Communities across the region will continue to ask Oregon's leaders to stand up against the Jordan Cove LNG proposal and for a just transition to clean energy."
Osprey Orielle Lake, Executive Director of the Women's Earth & Climate Action Network (WECAN) International:
"This report offers vital documentation to demonstrate the destructive role of financial institutions who are complicit in the violation of the rights of Indigenous Peoples, human rights, and Earth rights. Investing in dirty fossil fuels is an investment in climate chaos and against future generations.Women are building bridges across communities and across countries - committed to using our voices and actions to expose and oppose the abhorrent violations perpetuated by banks everyday that they choose to continue to finance fossil fuel extraction. It is far past time to transition to a clean energy future and care for our children's future and Mother Earth."
Chris Saltmarsh, Fossil Free Campaigns Coordinator, People & Planet:
"As fossil fuel divestment goes mainstream the industry driving climate injustice is at its weakest point in history, it is time to strip of them of the finance they need to continue operating. There can be no new fossil fuel infrastructure anywhere from Lancashire to La Guajira and everywhere in between. The People & Planet network will organise for institutional boycotts of Barclays until they show the progressive leadership they have historically avoided and ditch all fossil fuel finance."
Hong Hoang, Executive director of CHANGE:
"South-east Asia is now the final frontier for the coal industry, and many of the banks featured in this report continue to support coal power expansion in the region in spite of the huge impacts on public health and the climate. HSBC, Standard Chartered, Citi, DBS and several Japanese banks are lining up to finance various coal plant projects in Vietnam in the coming months. These banks have got to show some basic climate change common sense by cutting off, once and for all, this reckless coal financing, and by pulling out of these projects in Vietnam."
Diana Best, Senior Climate and Energy Campaigner at Greenpeace USA:
"At a time when the world must be moving rapidly away from fossil fuel expansion, we see major global banks like JPMorgan Chase doubling down on their support of extreme fossil fuels like tar sands. It is unacceptable. It is time for these banks to put their money where their mouth is. Continued financing of fossil fuel projects and infrastructure like tar sands pipelines undermines any credibility they have as leaders on climate and human rights."
Brett Fleishman, Finance Campaign Lead of 350.org:
"Major movement players are turning to focus on "the money" as there is a clear understanding that capital flow needs to shift quickly for any chance at a just transition off fossil fuels. Not a penny more! Fossil free finance! are becoming a primary part of the social movement outcry. It is clear, big banks are driving the economy in the wrong direction and it's high time we hold them accountable."
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 Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular