March, 20 2019, 12:00am EDT

Report Finds Global Banks Poured $1.9 Trillion into Fossil Fuel Financing Since the Paris Agreement was Adopted, with Financing on the Rise Each Year
Findings reveal U.S. banks dominated fossil fuel funding, with JPMorgan Chase the worst on climate change by an astonishingly wide margin
WASHINGTON
A report released today by Rainforest Action Network, BankTrack, Indigenous Environmental Network, Oil Change International, Sierra Club, and Honor the Earth, and endorsed by over 160 organizations around the world, reveals that 33 global banks have provided $1.9 trillion to fossil fuel companies since the adoption of the Paris climate accord at the end of 2015. The amount of financing has risen in each of the past two years.
Of this $1.9 trillion total, $600 billion went to 100 companies that are most aggressively expanding fossil fuels. Alarmingly, these findings reveal that the business practices of the world's major banks continue to be aligned with climate disaster and stand in sharp contrast to the recent IPCC special report on global warming. That report, Global Warming of 1.5 degC, clearly outlined the critical need for a rapid phase-out of fossil fuelsand estimates that the world's clean energy investment needs are $2.4 trillion per year up to 2035.
Banking on Climate Change 2019 is the tenth annual fossil fuel report card and the first ever analysis of funding from the world's major private banks for the fossil fuel sector as a whole. Expanded in scope, the report adds up lending and underwriting to 1,800 companies across the coal, oil and gas sectors globally over the past three years. The report also tracks fossil fuel expansion by aggregating data on which banks are financing the 100 companies most aggressively expanding fossil fuels.
Banking on Climate Change 2019 reveals that the four biggest global bankers of fossil fuels are all U.S. banks -- JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citi, and Bank of America. Barclays of England, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) of Japan and RBC of Canada are also massive funders in this sector. Notably, JPMorgan Chase is by far the worst banker of fossil fuels and fossil fuel expansion -- and therefore the world's worst banker of climate change. Since the Paris Agreement, JPMorgan Chase has provided $196 billion in finance for fossil fuels, 10% of all fossil fuel finance from the 33 major global banks.
JPMorgan's volume of finance for fossil fuels 2016-2018 is a shocking 29% higher than the second placed bank, Wells Fargo. The bank stands out even more from its peers in its volume of financing for the top companies expanding fossil fuel extraction and infrastructure: since the Paris climate agreement, JPMorgan Chase's $67 billion in finance for the expanders is fully 68% higher than that of Citi, in distant second place.
With Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs in 11th and 12th places respectively in the fossil fuel financing league table, all of the big six U.S. banking giants are in the top "dirty dozen" bankers of climate change.Together, U.S. banks account for 37% of all global fossil fuel financing. Collectively, the U.S. banks are the biggest source of funding for fossil fuel expansion since the Paris Agreement was adopted.
Barclays, the top European banker of fracking and coal, leads as the worst European bank, with $85 billion poured into fossil fuels and $24 billion into expansion. Japan's worst fossil fuel bank, MUFG, funded $80 billion in fossil fuels overall and $25 billion in fossil fuel expansion. RBC, the world's top banker of tar sands, leads in Canada, banking fossil fuels at $101 billion. The world's top banker of coal power, Bank of China, qualifies as China's worst banker of fossil fuels, with $17 billion funneled into expansion from 2016-2018.
The report also grades banks' future-facing policies regarding specific fossil fuel sectors and fossil fuels overall. In assessing restrictions on financing for fossil fuel expansion, no banks scored above a C-range grade, and most bank grades were in the D range. No banks have made commitments to phase-out fossil fuel financing in alignment with a 1.5degC-aligned Paris-compliant trajectory, despite the fact that numerous banks and bankers -- including JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon -- have declared their support for the Paris Agreement.
The report also analyzes the banks' unacceptably poor performance on human rights, particularly Indigenous rights, as it relates to the impacts of specific fossil fuel projects, and climate change in general. The case studies detailed in the report -- from the Indigenous-led opposition to each of the three major proposed tar sands oil pipelines in North America, to the fragile Arctic National Wildlife Refuge under threat from drilling, to German utility RWE's plans to expand an open-pit lignite coal mine while destroying the 12,000-year-old Hambach Forest -- all highlight that banks lack effective energy and human rights policies to prevent them from financing these highly problematic projects and the companies behind them.
Statements:
Alison Kirsch, Climate and Energy Lead Researcher at Rainforest Action Network:
"Alarming is an understatement. This report is a red alert. The massive scale at which global banks continue to pump billions of dollars into fossil fuels is flatly incompatible with a livable future. It's an insult to logic, to science and to humanity that since the groundbreaking Paris Climate Agreement, financing for fossil fuels continues to rise. If banks don't rapidly phase out their support for dirty energy, planetary collapse from man-made climate change is not just probable -- it is imminent."
Rainforest Action Network has a 30+ year history challenging corporate power and systemic injustice topreserve forests, protect the climate and uphold human rights through frontline partnerships and strategic campaigns.
Johan Frijns, Director of BankTrack:
"We're faced with ever worsening climate change impacts worldwide, and the latest IPCC report provides a stark 2030 deadline for the deep cuts in global CO2 emissions needed to avoid full climate breakdown. Yet banks continue to throw their billions at the fossil fuel industry, while announcing minor policy tweaks here and endorsements of the latest toothless 'responsible finance' initiative there. One wonders what on earth it will take for banks to finally change course and fully abandon the fossil fuel sector. Campaigners will be demanding exactly this at this year's upcoming bank AGMs, armed with this report's shocking new findings."
BankTrack is the global tracking, campaigning and NGO support organisation targeting the operations and investments of commercial banks.
Tom Goldtooth, Executive Director of Indigenous Environmental Network:
"These banks are funding a future that will cost the well-being of the next seven generations of life and beyond. Indigenous prophecy now meets scientific prediction. Mother Earth and Father Sky are out of balance. Indigenous knowledge and western science both clearly demand that we must rapidly divest from fossil fuels in order to avoid complete climate disaster. Any financial institution that refuses to take action should be stripped of its social license to operate and be held accountable for its investments."
The Indigenous Environmental Network works with Indigenous Peoples nationally and globally on a rights-based approach addressing environmental, economic and energy injustices of an extractive economy and developing the power and capacity for a just transition for building sustainable indigenous communities.
Stephen Kretzmann, Executive Director of Oil Change International:
"We're deep in a hole on climate. There are people making ladders, and they think we can make it to the top - but - there are also people making shovels, and every day they dig the hole deeper. The people with the ladders don't think they'll be able to reach the top if the hole gets much deeper. The banks in this report are funding the people with shovels, devoting billions to the expansion of fossil fuel reserves which, when burned, will ensure the failure of the Paris Climate Agreement. Financing the expansion of any part of the oil, gas, or coal industry is now clearly climate denial, and we demand that it stop."
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.
Ben Cushing, Sierra Club Beyond Dirty Fuels Campaign Representative:
"At a time when science tells us we need to rapidly transition to clean energy, major American banks are placing themselves on the wrong side of history by continuing to offer a blank check to the fossil fuel industry. The global outcry for financial institutions to stop financing climate destruction will only grow louder and more powerful until these banks get the message and pull their support for 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.
Tara Houska, Campaigns Director of Honor The Earth:
"Financial institutions are funding the destruction of our planet. Climate crisis is a reality that will be shared by every living being -- we need change, we need it now. It is a question of our shared survival that banks must respond to. We cannot drink money."
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.
List of 33 Global Banks
Agricultural Bank of China | China |
Bank of America | USA |
Bank of China | China |
Bank of Montreal | Canada |
Barclays | U.K. |
BBVA | |
BNP Paribas | |
BPCE/Natixis | France |
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) | Canada |
China Construction Bank | China |
Citi | USA |
Credit Agricole | France |
Credit Suisse | |
Deutsche Bank | Germany |
USA | |
HSBC | U.K. |
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) | China |
ING | Netherlands |
JPMorgan Chase | USA |
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG / Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ) | Japan |
Mizuho | Japan |
Morgan Stanley | USA |
Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) | Canada |
Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) | U.K. |
Santander | Spain |
Scotiabank | Canada |
SMBC Group (Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group / SMFG) | Japan |
Societe Generale | France |
Standard Chartered | U.K. |
Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) | Canada |
UBS | Switzerland |
UniCredit | Italy |
Wells Fargo | USA |
The Sierra Club is the most enduring and influential grassroots environmental organization in the United States. We amplify the power of our 3.8 million members and supporters to defend everyone's right to a healthy world.
(415) 977-5500LATEST NEWS
Trump Plans to Make 250th US Birthday 'All About Himself' With Long Speech, Late Fireworks
One journalist said that "this is like the epitome of personalist rule—turning this into an imperial, dictatorial display of self-glorification."
Jun 30, 2026
As the desolate debacle of President Donald Trump's "Great American State Fair" continues against a backdrop of an empty National Mall and Shrek-green Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, criticism of the president's plans for his "most spectacular Trump rally" and record-seeking fireworks show mounted this week as new details of his self-aggrandizing extravaganza emerged.
"Our luck has it that America's 250 was when Trump is president, and we know that a big thrust of these 250 commemorations are in a lot of ways a celebration of Trump and Trumpism, and if it's not direct, it's the vision that Trump and the MAGA movement has of America," Center on Conscience & War executive director Mike Prysner told BreakThrough News on Tuesday.
Media Matters for America senior fellow Matt Gertz told Greg Sargent, who hosts The New Republic's The Daily Blast podcast, that "the fact that we are not going to be able to have a real celebration of America’s 250th birthday—one that respects how far we have traveled, how far we have to go... it’s a real shame that this is what we’re going to get instead: a would-be authoritarian ruler trying to make it all about himself."
On Monday, the Federal Aviation Administration made a late announcement that it would be shutting down air traffic at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport for three hours on July 3 and 12 hours on the Fourth of July "to help ensure the safe and efficient movement of air traffic during celebrations of America's 250th birthday, including the iconic flyovers and fireworks."
During a rally planned for July 4, Trump is expected to speak for at least 45 minutes starting at 9:00 pm. While attendees are advised to arrive very early, they're reportedly not allowed to bring coolers, lawn chairs, bags, or more than one bottle of water on a day when temperatures are forecast to soar to triple-digits.
Trump said earlier this month that a military flyover featuring a 17-aircraft formation will include the $400 million Boeing 747-8 "flying palace" gifted to Trump by the repressive Qatari monarchy.s
US Interior Secretary Doug Burgum told Fox News on Sunday that the Trump administration is then planning the "greatest and biggest celebration of fireworks ever."
The Washington Post reported Tuesday that 850,000 fireworks will be detonated in a 40-minute show scheduled to start unusually late—after 10:30 and possibly even 11:00 pm. That's 50 times as many explosions over twice the length of a typical Fourth of July fireworks show, which even in a typical year can spark severe anxiety in dogs and other pets and post-traumatic stress disorder in veterans.
Trump DC fireworks won't start until at least 10:30 p.m. Heavy TSA-like security, so people will have to get there way early. It's going to be one-billion degrees. No coolers, no metal/thermal water containers. Enjoy your $20 bottles of Trump water and your tearful, exhausted children! Happy Fourth!
— Rex Huppke (@rexhuppke.bsky.social) June 29, 2026 at 10:52 AM
If Trump's so-called "Great American State Fair" is any indication, there should be plenty of lawn space available on the National Mall for the July 4 events.
While the president posted a self-congratulatory message to his Truth Social Network on Monday, praising the "fantastic job" his administration has done during the first week of the event and claiming the National Mall was "packed with happy people," attendees and journalists reported "light crowds, short lines, and plenty of open space."
This, despite a nationwide ad blitz on Fox and other networks and websites viewed by scores of millions of people.
Some called it the "Great American Fail."
Former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger of Illinois said in a video posted Monday on Bluesky that "10 years ago I voted to create 'America 250.' But here's the truth: Trump started 'Freedom 250' to replace it, and made it about himself. Trump’s newest stunt? Trying to convince us there’s a big crowd for Freedom 250. But our eyes don't lie."
María José Gutierrez Chavez, trending news writer at the business magazine Fast Company, described "the unbearable emptiness of the Great American State Fair," writing that the purported celebration "looks more like a liminal space."
Gutierrez cited one TikTok user who commented, “I’ve seen graveyards with more people," and another who said that “there were more people in line for the Trader Joe’s summer tote bags."
Meanwhile, the iconic Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, a focal point of the semiquincentennial festivities, remains what Common Dreams columnist Abby Zimet described Tuesday as a "fetid debacle" as cleaning up the algae-choked centerpiece proves more difficult than anticipated.
Instead of blaming the no-bid contracted company owned by a Trump donor for the emerald embarrassment, detractors say the president has humiliated himself even further by attempting to pin the blame for his administration's failure on elusive vandals and former President Barack Obama.
Even some Trump supporters have had enough.
"This sucks," Fox News columnist David Marcus said earlier this month following an event featuring daredevil dirtbike jumps and Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) cage matches on the White House lawn that critics said looked like they were inspired by the classic Mike Judge dystopian satire Idiocracy.
"This pisses me off," Marcus said after one of the UFC fighters called former First Lady Michelle Obama a man. "You wanna throw out this nonsense at a rally? Fine. Not at an official Freedom 250 event. Disgraceful."
Some are calling on people to eschew the July 4 event in favor of local celebrations.
"This is like the epitome of personalist rule—turning this into an imperial, dictatorial display of self-glorification," Sargent said. "It’s important that Americans reject this and not show up to this."
Gertz concurred, replying, "I think what we have here is a president who does not respect any sort of separation between himself and the country at large."
"He views the idea of celebrating the nation’s birthday as one and the same with celebrating himself," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Premiums Soar and Millions Lose Coverage, Over Half of Americans Say End Private Health Insurance
"As working families continue to get squeezed left and right by GOP-driven healthcare cost hikes and bureaucratic red tape, millions more Americans will lose the care they rely on to stay alive and healthy."
Jun 30, 2026
On the heels of data revealing that millions of people have lost health insurance coverage during US President Donald Trump's second term amid a series of GOP attacks on access to care, polling published Monday shows that a majority of Americans support eliminating private insurers.
The 1,606 adult US citizens surveyed by The Economist/YouGov June 26-29 were asked: "Do you support or oppose a national health plan in which all Americans get their health insurance from the federal government and private health insurance companies are eliminated?"
Fifty-two percent expressed support, and the proposal was even more popular than that among respondents under age 45 as well as registered Democrats and Independents. Just 30% of those polled were opposed, while the rest said that they were "not sure."

The polling follows the administration's quiet release of data showing that 4.2 million lost Affordable Care Act (ACA) coverage as of February. Trump and his Republican allies in Congress have come under fire for letting ACA subsidies expire at the end of last year—as well as for enacting the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which is expected to leave more working-class Americans uninsured over the next decade. Already, Protect Our Care estimates that 3.8 million people have lost coverage under Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, bringing the total for Trump's term to around 8 million.
"A mind-boggling number of Americans have found themselves joining the ranks of the uninsured," Protect Our Care president Brad Woodhouse said in a Tuesday statement. "And this is just the beginning. As working families continue to get squeezed left and right by GOP-driven healthcare cost hikes and bureaucratic red tape, millions more Americans will lose the care they rely on to stay alive and healthy."
"These are diabetic patients rationing insulin and parents skipping cancer screenings," he continued. "These are small business owners and farmers shutting down their life's work because they can no longer afford to buy insurance on their own. These are moms, veterans, and seniors. These are the millions who will hand Trump and Republicans in Congress a withering rebuke at the ballot box in November for making healthcare unaffordable so they could make billionaires and big corporations richer."
As premiums soar and Americans begin to endure the consequences of the national Republican healthcare agenda, a sweeping coalition of groups that support a universal single-payer system declared earlier this month that "now is the time for Medicare for All."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) have repeatedly introduced the Medicare for All Act in Congress, and support for it has grown among elected Democrats and the US public—as suggested by the new polling.
In a statement about the healthcare findings, the pollsters explained:
While eliminating insurance companies may sound like a radical change to healthcare, the share of Americans who want to replace private insurance with a government health plan (52%) is larger than the share who want to expand the existing Obamacare (the health coverage system established by the Affordable Care Act) (38%). The share who favor repealing Obamacare (28%) is about as large as the share who oppose replacing private insurance with a government plan (30%).
Americans who support a national healthcare plan do not universally see expanding Obamacare as a step in the right direction. Only a little more than half (56%) of the Americans who support creating a national health plan also support expanding Obamacare. On the other hand, most Americans who support expanding Obamacare would also support a national health plan that replaces private insurance (77%).
Although "only 8% of Americans would describe themselves as socialists," which is "smaller than the shares who describe themselves with several other ideological adjectives offered in a poll question, including progressive (17%), liberal (23%), and conservative (34%)," the pollsters also noted, "many policy proposals championed by democratic socialists draw significant support from Americans."
For example, majorities of respondents endorsed the government covering the cost of college tuition for all students (55%) and building public housing (57%).
When asked, "Do you think Donald Trump has had the right priorities or hasn’t paid enough attention to the country's most important problems?" 60% of respondents said the president "hasn't paid attention to the most important problems."
The polling comes just over four months away from the November midterm elections, in which Democrats hope to reclaim majorities in both chambers of Congress. Some Democratic candidates, including US Senate hopefuls Graham Platner in Maine and Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, are explicitly running on support for Medicare for All.
After multiple progressives running to represent various New York districts in the US House of Representatives won their primaries last week, Sanders called their victories proof that Americans "are sick and tired of status quo politics," while Jayapal similarly celebrated that "bold, people-powered candidates took on the Democratic establishment and won."
"They ran on Medicare for All. On a public option for housing. On a foreign policy that centers human dignity over political convenience. And they won," Jayapal said. "This is what happens when movements build power. People-powered movements win."
Keep ReadingShow Less
22 Democrats Join GOP to Block Lebanon War Powers Resolution, Enabling Netanyahu's Sabotage of US-Iran Ceasefire
"The United States is not a bystander to these war crimes. It's an active participant," said the resolutions sponsor Rep. Rashida Tlaib.
Jun 30, 2026
Nearly two dozen Democrats joined almost every Republican on Tuesday to vote down a war powers resolution that would have halted US military participation in Israel's assault on Lebanon, which is threatening to derail President Donald Trump's peace negotiations with Iran.
"More than 1.3 million people have already been forced to leave their homes or be killed, with the Israeli military telling them they will not be allowed to return," said the resolution's sponsor, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), on the House floor Tuesday. "Eighty-one Lebanese neighborhoods have been violently depopulated and demolished—erased from the map entirely."
Along with Republican Reps. Thomas Massie (Ky.) and Lauren Boebert (Colo.), the resolution received support from 187 Democrats on Tuesday, more than double the number who supported a similar resolution introduced by Tlaib earlier this month.
Despite top House Democrats, including Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY) and Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Gregory Meeks (NY), giving rhetorical backing to the resolution this time around, The Intercept reported that they did not formally whip the vote.
Twenty-two Democratic hawks joined the GOP to vote against ending cooperation with Israel's war, which has killed more than 4,000 people since March.
Among them were a clique of Democrats who have signed on to the centrist "Promise to America" aimed at countering the momentum of progressive and democratic socialist candidates within the party—including Reps. Donald Davis (NC), Laura Gillen (NY), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Adam Gray (Calif.), Susie Lee (Nev.), and Tom Suozzi (NY).
Others include favorites of the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), including Reps. George Latimer (NY), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Jared Golden (Maine), and Brad Schneider (Ill.), who have each received over a million dollars from it and other pro-Israel lobbying groups over their careers, according to FEC reports reviewed by Track AIPAC.
Other Democratic opponents include Reps. Steny Hoyer (Md.), Greg Landsman (Ohio), Jared Moskowitz (Fla.), Donald Norcross (NJ), Jimmy Panetta (Calif.), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.), Brad Sherman (Calif.), Darren Soto (Fla.), Norma Torres (Calif.), Juan Vargas (Calif.), and Marc Veasey (Texas), many of whom have also received extensive support from the lobby.
As voting began on Tuesday afternoon, Lebanese-American journalist Rania Khalek said that "how people vote on this is a big indicator of who is bought and paid for by the war machine and Israel lobby."
In a comment to Axios, the staunch pro-Israel centrist Golden justified his vote against the measure by claiming that "to the best of my knowledge, we're not engaged in a conflict with Lebanon."
Latimer made a similar statement on social media, claiming that the resolution was only good for "messaging" since the US did not have any active troops in Lebanon.
But Tlaib argued on the House floor that "the United States is not a bystander to these war crimes. It's an active participant."
"The United States is currently engaged in illegal and unauthorized hostilities supporting the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in violation of the War Powers Act," she said. "The Trump administration is providing intelligence, coordinating strikes, demonstrating overt command over the Israeli military decisions, including greenlighting specific Israeli attacks and operations."
Other supporters of the resolution emphasized that ending Israel's occupation of Lebanon is a precondition for ending Trump's war with Iran.
"Ending Israeli military action in Lebanon is a key part of ensuring that the negotiation process with Iran continues and peace prevails in the Middle East," said Rep. Betty McCullom (D-Minn.).
The memorandum of understanding signed by the US and Iran earlier this month states that, for peace to be achieved, it must be implemented on "all fronts," including in Lebanon.
Iranian negotiators have repeatedly emphasized that they will not allow Trump to pull back from the war he's desperate to end unless Israel fully withdraws troops from Lebanon, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has emphatically refused to do.
Janet Abou-Elias, a researcher at the Democratizing Foreign Policy Project at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Common Dreams earlier this month that without US military participation, Israel could likely continue its occupation “only for a limited period of time."
Just Foreign Policy, an anti-war group that has agitated for the passage of Tlaib's war powers resolution, lambasted the 22 Democrats who voted against it.
"These 22 fringe House Democratic hawks revealed today that they don't actually want the Iran War to end," the group wrote in a post to social media. "By failing to end US participation in the Israeli war in Lebanon, they are undermining a peace deal."
Noting that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has caused oil prices to spike and inflation to ripple across the economy, the group said these Democrats were "keeping prices high for Americans."
Just Foreign Policy's executive director Erik Sperling told The Intercept that although the resolution did not pass, the vote signaled that things were moving in the right direction.
“Democrats have been pretty unified about speaking out against the killing of innocents and all of the harm by the Iran War, but there has been less vocal outrage about the mass killing and occupation in Lebanon,” Sperling said. “This is just an important signal that Democrats are aware of the way the Lebanon war is a humanitarian crisis and is the key roadblock to ending this war and delivering the peace that Americans are demanding.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


