SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
December, 03 2018, 11:00pm EDT
Contact:
Blair Fitzgibbon, 202-503-6141, blair@soundspeedpr.com
As World Gathers for COP24, Chase Bank Found Undermining Paris Agreement by Financing Coal Power Expansion in Poland
As global leaders convene in Katowice to strengthen climate commitments at COP24, a briefing paper released today by
Katowice
As global leaders convene in Katowice to strengthen climate commitments at COP24, a briefing paper released today by Rainforest Action Network(RAN) and Fundacja Rozwoj Tak - Odkrywki Nie(Foundation Development Yes - Open-Pit Mines No, or RT-ON) underscores the counterproductive role of major financial institutions like JPMorgan (Chase) to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement. Chase is enabling the Polish coal industry to continue to grow even while other countries across Europe make commitments to phase out coal. The planned Ostroleka C coal-fired power plant has attracted particular controversy.
Read paper here: https://www.ran.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Chase_Financing_Coal_Power_Expansion_in_Poland_2018_vPOL_vWEB-1.pdf
Chase, already the target of a growing international climate accountability campaign due to its role as the #1 U.S. banker of extreme fossil fuels, is supporting Ostroleka C via financing for Energa, one of the two state-controlled companies behind the project. The Ostroleka C power plant is projected to burn two million tons of coal per year from 2023 to 2063, emitting six million tons of CO2annually and causing serious public health impacts.
Last year, Chase underwrote a EUR300 million bond issuance for Energa at a time when Ostroleka C was a key strategic project for the company, despite a Chase policy ruling out direct finance for new coal plants in OECD countries, including Poland. This bond issuance constituted the only private bank financing for either Energa or Enea since the adoption of the Paris climate agreement in 2015.
"From a climate context, new coal power should not be happening, and Chase knows it. Yet, Chase is actively promoting the expansion of coal power in Poland by exploiting a glaring loophole in its coal policy that goes totally against its stated commitment not to fund the expansion of coal-fired power plants," said Jason Opena Disterhoft with Rainforest Action Network (RAN). "Chase's financing of Ostroleka C is flatly incompatible with the Paris Agreement or supporting a 1.5 degree world."
" JPMorgan Chase should know better," said Kuba Gogolewski, Senior Finance Campaigner at Foundation "Development YES - Open-Pit Mines NO". "They should look beyond the very short-term interest in providing finance to the Polish coal industry. The energy system in Poland must undergo a rapid transformation, and JPMorgan Chase is slowing down this change by financing coal utilities and coal power plants."
Chase has been the target of widespread, escalating protests calling on the bank to end its massive financing of the most destructive and polluting forms of fossil fuelsand to align its policies and practices with the 1.5 degree goal of the Paris Agreement.
The October 2018 report from the IPCC has brought unprecedented attention to the urgency of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. To meet that goal, global carbon emissions would have to fall by about 45% below 2010 levels by 2030, reaching zero around 2050. New Coalswarm and Greenpeace analysis has shown that OECD countries -- including Poland -- must lead the way by ending coal power by 2030. By contrast, any new coal-fired power plants are flatly incompatible with limiting climate change to 1.5 degrees. These would drive expanded extraction, when potential emissions from currently operating coal, oil and gas reserves takes the world beyond 2degC, and emissions even from currently operating oil and gas alone takes the world past 1.5degC.
Shareholders, investors, financial analysts, and lawmakers increasingly recognize how financially tenuous and environmentally disastrous the Ostroleka C project--and Poland's coal industry--is. Carbon Tracker projects that the power plant, if built, would be "permanently unprofitable," with a net loss of EUR1.7 billion over its lifetime. Furthermore, Ostroleka C is facing challenges in the courts. ClientEarth, a shareholder in Enea, has sued the company for approving the project, and one of Enea's trade unions has filed a parallel lawsuit.
Ostroleka C is slated to be the last coal-fired power plant in Poland, and major international insurers have already stated that they will have nothing to do with the project. Chase has, to date, made no such commitment, and, on the contrary, appears to be committed to facilitating the construction of a climate-destructive coal plant in a tenuous financial situation.
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
Watchdog Sues Trump Interior Dept, Demanding Transparency on Freedom 250 Funding
"America’s 250th anniversary celebration is supposed to be an occasion for strengthening public trust in our democratic institutions," said one advocate. "Freedom 250 is a privately managed slush fund."
May 12, 2026
As the 250th anniversary of the United States' independence approaches, a government watchdog group is warning that the Trump administration has refused to release key documents regarding President Donald Trump's Freedom 250 project, in which the White House has partnered with corporations including Palantir and ExxonMobil to organize what it's called "a celebration of America like no other."
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed a lawsuit Monday against the Department of Interior (DOI) in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on Tuesday, more than two months after the group filed multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests regarding the funding of the "controversial and secretive" Freedom 250 initiative.
As the agency that oversees the National Parks Service, DOI and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum are playing a major role in the organization of Freedom 250, with the celebration including projects like the National Garden of American Heroes, the proposed Freedom 250 Grand Prix at the National Mall, and the proposed Independence Arch.
In late February, PEER's FOIA requests sought information from DOI on reports that public funds are being directed to Freedom 250 through the congressionally chartered National Park Foundation, "with no transparency, no accountability, and no guardrails."
“America’s 250th anniversary celebration is supposed to be an occasion for strengthening public trust in our democratic institutions, not eroding it,” Tim Whitehouse, PEER’s executive director, said late Monday. “In contrast, Freedom 250 is a privately managed slush fund... It epitomizes what is wrong with politics today."
In its lawsuit, PEER said the DOI "has failed to make a final determination on any of PEER’s FOIA requests and has failed to disclose any of the requested records within the time stipulated under FOIA."
The department has failed to respond to the requests as reports have mounted that Trump is using Freedom 250 to:
- Divert $100 million in taxpayer funds from America 250, the congressionally mandated 250th anniversary entity, without congressional approval;
- Sell access to the president for up to $2.5 million;
- Seek foreign donations, including at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland where Freedom 250 CEO Keith Krach was seen promoting the project to foreign state actors in a leaked video;
- Use public employees to promote the private entity, including by pressuring DOI employees to include Freedom 250 logos and links in their official email signatures—a possible violation of the Hatch Act as well as workers' First Amendment rights; and
- Use taxpayer funds to push a partisan agenda, with DOI removing a slavery exhibit from Independence Park in Philadelphia as well as references to the internment of Japanese Americans and the oppression of Native Americans from other National Park Service sites ahead of the anniversary.
In its lawsuit, PEER noted that the DOI was required to respond to the FOIA requests by March 20, but communications from the department have indicated officials plan to respond no sooner than August 3—after the main 250th anniversary celebrations occur.
Whitehouse said DOI's failure disclose information about the funding mechanisms for Freedom 250 continue "a pattern of Secretary Doug Burgum dispensing with a variety of legal safeguards to improperly facilitate Trump projects—particularly around the nation’s capital."
"Just look no further than his more than $1 billion ballroom or vanity projects, such as the arch," said Whitehouse.
Burgum has pushed for the construction of a 250-foot arch in Washington, saying it "embodies American freedom." Trump has said the project could be paid for by private donors, while veterans groups and historians have filed legal challenges over the proposed project, arguing Congress needs to approve its construction.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Effort to Stifle and Intimidate': Trump DOJ Subpoenas News Outlets Over Iran War Coverage
"The government’s subpoenas to The Wall Street Journal and our reporters represent an attack on constitutionally protected newsgathering," said the newspaper's publisher.
May 12, 2026
The US Justice Department has reportedly subpoenaed The Wall Street Journal and other news outlets at the urging of President Donald Trump, who has complained incessantly about coverage of his illegal and disastrous Iran war.
The Journal reported Monday that it received grand jury subpoenas dated March 4 for records of its journalists as Trump pushed the Justice Department—now led by his former personal attorney, Todd Blanche—to investigate war-related leaks. "Blanche vowed to secure subpoenas specifically targeting the records of reporters who have worked on sensitive national security stories," the Journal reported, citing an unnamed administration official.
During one meeting, the Journal reported, "Trump passed a stack of news articles he and other senior officials thought threatened national security to Blanche with a sticky note on it that said 'treason.'"
Trump and other top administration officials, including Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth, have publicly voiced outrage over the US media's Iran war coverage and threatened reporters who publish classified information—a common journalistic practice.
In April, Trump said he would work to imprison journalists involved in reporting on a US fighter jet shot down in Iran and subsequent efforts to rescue the warplane's crew. The previous month, Trump floated "charges for treason" against journalists he accused of circulating "false information" about the Iran war.
Don't like the press coverage of your disastrous war with Iran?Just sic DOJ on the press.www.wsj.com/politics/nat...
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) May 11, 2026 at 5:50 PM
Ashok Sinha, the chief communications officer of Dow Jones, the Journal's publisher, said in a statement that "the government’s subpoenas to The Wall Street Journal and our reporters represent an attack on constitutionally protected newsgathering."
"We will vigorously oppose this effort to stifle and intimidate essential reporting," said Sinha.
The subpoena targeting Journal reporters pertained to "a February 23 article that reported that Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and others at the Pentagon warned the president about the risks of an extended military campaign against Iran," the newspaper reported Monday.
"Other news outlets, including Axios and the Washington Post, published similar stories that day," the Journal added. "Trump launched the war five days later, on February 28."
CNN reported Monday that "in addition to The Journal, other news outlets have also received subpoenas in recent months."
"But some of the news organizations have chosen not to comment on the matter for the time being," CNN added.
Scott Stedman, an investigative journalist with The Newsground, accused the leaders of targeted outlets of "cowardice" for not speaking out against the Trump administration's brazen assault on press freedom.
"The president uses the DOJ to target your news organization with subpoenas because he wants to out your sources and you don’t even have the guts to say anything," Stedman wrote. "Grow a fucking spine!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Temporarily Extends Abortion Pill Access, But 'Care Is Still Under Attack Every Day'
"Mifepristone is safe and effective, and women should be able to get abortion medication through the mail or telehealth if they need," said Sen. Patty Murray.
May 11, 2026
Defenders of reproductive rights, including key Democrats in Congress, reiterated the safety of mifepristone on Monday after the US Supreme Court temporarily extended access to the medication—commonly used in abortion and miscarriage care—by mail while the justices review a ruling from a notoriously right-wing appellate court.
The US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit blocked a federal rule allowing mifepristone to be dispensed by mail at the beginning of the month. Drugmakers quickly appealed to the high court, where Justice Samuel Alito, who is part of the right-wing supermajority, issued a one-week stay to give himself and colleagues time to review the case.
As Alito's initial Monday evening deadline approached, he extended the stay until 5:00 pm ET on Thursday. The move means that "for now, mifepristone is still available via telehealth, mail order, and pharmacy while the case proceeds," noted the Democratic Women's Caucus in the US House of Representatives.
However, pro-choice advocates and policymakers are still sounding the alarm and arguing that, as the caucus put it in a social media post, "reproductive freedom should not depend on emergency rulings or political attacks."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said in a statement that "mifepristone has been safe, effective, and trusted for decades. Today's order keeps access in place for now, but it's not cause for celebration—it's a reminder that basic reproductive care is still under attack every day. Anti-abortion extremists are trying to use the courts to roll back access to medication abortion nationwide, and Senate Dems will keep fighting to protect women's freedom to make their own healthcare decisions."
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) similarly wrote on social media: "Another extension, but this shouldn't be complicated. Mifepristone is safe and effective, and women should be able to get abortion medication through the mail or telehealth if they need. Extremist judges shouldn't get to decide how women get healthcare."
This case traces back to early 2023, when the Biden administration's Food and Drug Administration permanently lifted mifepristone's in-person dispensing requirement, just months after the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority overturned Roe v. Wade. Louisiana, which has among the most restrictive abortion policies in the country, sued over the FDA's policy change.
Medication abortions account for the majority of abortions provided in the United States, and those patients generally take both mifepristone and another drug, misoprostol. Demand for abortion pills by mail increased after Roe's reversal, as advocates of forced pregnancy policies in Republican-controlled states ramped up attacks on reproductive freedom.
"With the Supreme Court punting a decision on access to mifepristone—a safe, effective medication used in abortion care—until later this week, patients and providers are left facing continued uncertainty," said Rachel Fey, interim co-CEO of Power to Decide. "Wondering day by day whether you'll have access to an essential medication is not practical, and the confusion only deepens the barriers people already face when seeking abortion care."
"Access to mifepristone should be based on scientific evidence, not ideology," Fey declared. "We urge the Supreme Court to follow that science and maintain current telehealth access to mifepristone—not just for a few days at a time, but permanently."
Alito's extensions in recent days are not necessarily signals of where the conservative will ultimately come down. The Associated Press pointed out Monday that "the current dispute is similar to one that reached the court three years ago," when the justices blocked another 5th Circuit ruling "over the dissenting votes of Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas," and then unanimously dismissed that case due to lack of standing, or a legal right to sue.
The battle comes as the Trump administration's FDA is conducting a review of mifepristone that Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, has said seems "designed to manufacture an excuse for further restricting medication abortion across the country."
The New York Times noted Monday that US Department of Justice "lawyers have not said in court proceedings or publicly whether they back regulations that allow people to be prescribed the pills through telehealth appointments. Instead, they have asked the lower courts to pause the litigation to give the FDA time to complete a review of the safety of mifepristone, which was first approved in 2000."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular