

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
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.
"His campaign paired moral conviction with concrete plans to lower costs and expand access to services, making it unmistakable what he stood for and whom he was fighting for."
Amid calls for ousting Democratic congressional leadership because the party caved in the government shutdown fight over healthcare, a YouGov poll released Monday shows the nationwide popularity of New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's economic agenda.
Mamdani beat former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in both the June Democratic primary and last week's general election by campaigning unapologetically as a democratic socialist dedicated to making the nation's largest city more affordable for working people.
Multiple polls have suggested that Mamdani's progressive platform offers Democrats across the United States a roadmap for candidates in next year's midterms and beyond. As NYC's next mayor began assembling his team and the movement that worked to elect him created a group to keep fighting for his ambitious agenda, YouGov surveyed 1,133 US adults after his victory.
While just 31% of those surveyed said they would have voted for Mamdani—more than any other candidate—and the same share said they would vote for a candidate who identified as a "democratic socialist," the policies he ran on garnered far more support.
YouGov found:
Data for Progress similarly surveyed 1,228 likely voters from across the United States about key pieces of Mamdani's platform before his win. The think tank found that large majorities of Americans support efforts to build more affordable housing, higher taxes for corporations as well as millionaires and billionaires, and free childcare, among other policies.

"There's a common refrain from some pundits to dismiss Mamdani's victory as a quirk of New York City politics rather than a sign of something bigger," Data for Progress executive director Ryan O'Donnell wrote last week. "But his campaign paired moral conviction with concrete plans to lower costs and expand access to services, making it unmistakable what he stood for and whom he was fighting for. The lesson isn't that every candidate should mimic his style—you can't fake authenticity—but that voters everywhere respond when a candidate connects economic populism to clear, actionable goals."
"Candidates closer to the center are running on an affordability message as well," he noted, pointing to Democrat Mikie Sherrill's gubernatorial victory in New Jersey. "When a center-left figure like Sherill is running on taking on corporate power, it underscores how central economic populism has become across the political spectrum. Her message may have been less fiery than Mamdani's, but she drew from a similar well of voter frustration over rising costs and corporate influence. In doing so, Sherrill demonstrated to voters that her administration would play an active role in lowering costs—something that voters nationwide overwhelmingly believe the government should be doing."
"When guys like Jeffries and Schumer say 'effective' they're talking about effectively flattering large-dollar donors," said one critic.
Progressive anger and calls for primary challenges followed House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries' Monday endorsement of top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer—under whose leadership numerous Democratic lawmakers caved to Republicans to pave the way to ending the government shutdown without winning any meaningful concessions.
As progressives demanded the resignation or ouster of Schumer (D-NY), Jeffries (D-NY) was asked during a press conference whether the 74-year-old senator is effective and whether he should remain as the upper chamber's minority leader.
"Yes and yes," replied Jeffries. "As I've indicated, listen, Leader Schumer and Senate Democrats over the last seven weeks have waged a valiant fight on behalf of the American people."
"I don't think that the House Democratic Caucus is prepared to support a promise, a wing and a prayer, from folks who have been devastating the healthcare of the American people for years," he said.
Asked if he thinks Schumer is effective and should keep his job, Hakeem Jeffries replies: "Yes and yes."
[image or embed]
— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein.bsky.social) November 10, 2025 at 2:07 PM
Both Schumer and Jeffries say they will vote "no" on the the GOP bill to end the shutdown.
Activist and former Democratic National Committee Co-Vice Chair David Hogg said on social media that Schumer's "number one job is to control his caucus," and "he can't do that."
Eight members of the Senate Democratic caucus—Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), John Fetterman (Pa.), Maggie Hassan (NH), Tim Kaine (Va.), Angus King (I-Maine), Jacky Rosen (Nev.), and Jeanne Shaheen (NH)—enabled their Republican colleagues to secure the 60 votes needed for a cloture vote to advance legislation to end the shutdown.
Critics say the proposal does nothing to spare Americans from soaring healthcare premiums unleashed in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Donald Trump in July.
"Standing up to a tyrant—who is willing to impose pain as leverage to compel loyalty or acquiescence—is hard," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Monday. "You can convince yourself that yielding stops the pain and brings you back to 'normal.' But there is no 'normal.' Submission emboldens the tyrant. The threat grows."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said on X: "Sen. Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced. If you can’t lead the fight to stop healthcare premiums from skyrocketing for Americans, what will you fight for?"
New York City Councilman Chi Ossé (D-36)—who on Sunday said that Schumer and Senate Democrats "failed Americans" by capitulating to "MAGA fascists"—laughed off Jeffries' ringing endorsement of Schumer's leadership.
Former Democratic Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner called Jeffries and Schumer "controlled opposition" while demanding that they both "step down."
The progressive political action group Our Revolution published a survey last week showing overwhelming grassroots support for running primary challenges to Schumer and Jeffries. The poll revealed that 90% of respondents want Schumer to step down as leader, while 92% would support a primary challenge against him when he’s next up for reelection in 2028. Meanwhile, 70% of respondents said Jeffries should step aside, with 77% backing a primary challenge.
Turner also called for a ban on corporate money in politics and ousting "corporate politicians."
Left Reckoning podcast host Matt Lech said on X that "when guys like Jeffries and Schumer say 'effective' they're talking about effectively flattering large-dollar donors."
In a letter to the British public broadcaster, Trump cited a memo from a Conservative Party-linked former BBC adviser who claimed the network displayed an "anti-Israel" bias, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
The BBC in the United Kingdom is the latest target of US President Donald Trump's attempts to root out all unflattering portrayals of him from media coverage, with the president citing a memo penned by a former BBC adviser reported to have ties to the British Conservative Party.
Trump wrote to the BBC Monday, warning that he would file a lawsuit demanding $1 billion in damages unless the publicly funded broadcaster retracts a documentary film about him from last year, issues a formal apology, and pays him an amount that would “appropriately compensate President Trump for the harm caused.”
The president gave the network until Friday to act in regard to Trump's complaint about a section of the film Trump: A Second Chance? by the long-running current affairs series Panorama.
The film was broadcast days before the 2024 US election, and included excerpts from the speech Trump gave to his supporters on January 6, 2021 just before thousands of them proceeded to the US Capitol to try to stop the election results from being certified.
It spliced together three quotes from two sections of the speech that were made about 50 minutes apart, making it appear that Trump urged supporters to march with him to the Capitol and called for violence.
"We’re going to walk down to the Capitol... and I’ll be there with you... and we fight. We fight like hell," Trump is shown saying in the edited footage.
In the unedited quote, Trump said, "We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.”
BBC chairman Samir Shah said the network's standards committee had discussed the editing of the clips earlier this year and had expressed concerns to the Panorama team. The film is no longer available online at the BBC's website.
"The furor over the Trump documentary is not about journalistic integrity. It’s a power play... It’s a war over words, where the vocabulary of journalism itself is weaponized."
“We accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action," said Shah. "The BBC would like to apologize for that error of judgment.”
Two top executives, director general Tim Davie and head of news Deborah Turness, also resigned on Sunday under pressure over the documentary.
The uproar comes days after the right-wing Daily Telegraph published details from a memo by former BBC standards committee adviser Michael Prescott, "managing director at PR agency Hanover Communications, whose staff have gone on to work for the Conservative Party," according to Novara Media.
Prescott's memo took aim at the documentary as well as what he claimed was a pro-transgender bias in BBC news coverage and an anti-Israel bias in stories by the BBC's Arabic service.
According to the Guardian, Robbie Gibb, a member of the BBC board who previously worked as a communications official for former Tory Prime Minister Theresa May, "amplified" the criticisms in Prescott's memo in key board meetings ahead of Davie's and Turness' resignations.
Deadline reported Monday that "insiders" at the BBC have alleged that Prescott's memo, the resignations, and Trump's threat of legal action all stem from a right-wing "coup" attempt at the broadcaster.
Journalists including Mehdi Hasan of Zeteo News and Mikey Smith of The Mirror noted that while Panorama's editing of Trump's speech could be seen as misleading, the documentary wasn't responsible for accusations that the president incited violence on January 6, which pre-dated the film.
"To understand how insane it is that the BBC is being accused of ‘making it look like’ Trump was inciting violence with their bad edit, as opposed to Trump actually having incited violence, we know even his own kids that day were desperately trying to get him to call off the mob," said Hasan.
Others suggested the memo cited in Trump's letter to the broadcaster should be discredited entirely for its claim that the BBC has exhibited an anti-Israel bias—an allegation, said author and international relations professor Norrie MacQueen, that amounted to "an entirely new level" of George Orwell's "newspeak."
While the BBC "has been shaken by one of the smallest of its sins," wrote media analyst Faisal Hanif at Middle East Eye, "the greater one—its distortion of Palestinian reality—goes unpunished."
Hanif pointed to a report published in June by the Center for Media Monitoring, which showed that despite Gaza suffering 34 times more casualties than Israel since October 2023, the BBC "gave Israeli deaths 33 times more coverage per fatality and ran almost equal numbers of humanizing victim profiles (279 Palestinians vs. 201 Israelis)."
The network also used "emotive terms four times more for Israeli victims" and shut down allegations that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, as well as "making zero mention of Israeli leaders’ genocidal statements," even as Israel faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice.
"The furor over the Trump documentary is not about journalistic integrity," wrote Hanif. "It’s a power play: the disciplining of a public broadcaster that still, nominally, answers to the public rather than the billionaire-owned media. It’s a war over words, where the vocabulary of journalism itself is weaponized."
"The BBC is punished for the wrong things. It loses its leaders over an editing error, while escaping accountability for its editorial failures on Gaza," Hanif continued. "The Trump documentary might have been misedited, but the story of Gaza has been mistold for far longer. If the BBC still believes in its own motto—'Nation shall speak peace unto nation'—then peace must begin with honesty."