February, 24 2020, 11:00pm EDT
350.org on JP Morgan Chase, Major Keystone XL Funder, Announcing Halt to Funding Arctic Refuge Drillingr
WASHINGTON
Today, on its annual investor day, JPMorgan Chase announced a new climate policy. The announcement comes at the heels of similar initiatives by Goldman Sachs and BlackRock, and in response to unrelenting pressure from activists criticizing JPMorgan chase for being the world's biggest banker of fossil fuels. Less than a week ago, a report by two of the bank's economists warning that "climate change could produce catastrophic outcomes" was leaked to the press.
In response, Tamara Toles O'Laughlin, 350.org North America Director, said:
"Today's announcement by a major Keystone XL funder, JP Morgan Chase, falls woefully short in responding to the climate crisis. Times up for empty or gradual commitments. This announcement would have never come without powerful pressure from groups like Rainforest Action Network, Sierra Club, Giniw Collective, 350 Seattle, and the 350 local group network.
"Fossil fuel billionaires and their enablers are robbing us of a safe, livable planet, clean air, drinkable water, and health accessible to all. Financial backers and insurers cannot continue to prop them up while they greenwash their bottom line with displays of consciousness. The reality of the crisis demands phase out of all fossil fuels, holding polluters accountable, and transitioning to 100% renewable energy for all.
"Chase's announcement on the heels of Goldman Sachs' might soothe some, but until they purge all fossil fuels they will have failed to answer the demands of the millions to meet the urgency of the climate crisis. We will not stop until the beneficiaries of the crisis make ways for tangible redistribution of resources from the industries causing climate chaos to communities on the frontlines of the impacts."
350.org's Head of Finance Campaigns, Brett Fleishman, added:
"Let's be clear, JPMorgan Chase is the biggest banker of fossil fuels by far. As such, Chase has the unique responsibility among private-sector banks to sharply reduce its fossil finance, and today's announcement wasn't that. We should read this as a signal that Jamie Dimon and the Chase executives are feeling the movement pressure and now is the time to double down.
"JPMorgan Chase's new policy is nowhere close to global best practice because while it restricts direct financing for new coal plants, it fails to restrict financing for the companies behind them. Moreover, by focusing only on coal, gas and Arctic oil, the bank can still continue pouring billions of dollars each year into other parts of the fossil fuel industry, including fracking, pipelines, tar sands and liquified gas terminals.
"Moreover, the new restriction on financing for companies whose businesses are more than 50% coal mining, and expanding coal-power prohibition worldwide, amounts to less than 0.6% of its overall $196 billion lending to the sector in the last three years. This loophole allows the bank to continue financing some of the biggest coal mining conglomerates that get less than half of their revenue from coal.
"Recently, BlackRock took the first step by announcing the divestment of funds of companies that it actively manages, with more than a quarter of revenue from thermal coal production. Despite JPMorgan Chase's new measures on coal, their asset management division still has zero divestment measures on coal or other fossil fuels."
Landry Ninteretse, 350.org's African Director, said:
"While there is a lot more work to be done, this is a first step from JP Morgan Chase. African banks like South Africa's Standard Bank that align themselves with projects like the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) need to follow and exceed the move made by JP Morgan Chase. and publicly commit to not funding the EACOP and fossil fuel projects. At 1443km, the EACOP would run like a fuse for a massive climate wrecking bomb across Uganda and Tanzania."
Eri Watanbe, 350.org's Japan Campaigner, said:
"Although there are many more improvements to be made by JP Morgan Chase in their new climate policy, consecutive moves by US banks have further isolated Japanese counterparts, Mizuho, Mitsubishi UFJ(MUFG) and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation due to their weak coal policies and virtually no policies on other fossil fuel financing. They are the world's first, second and third biggest lenders of coal developers and 7th(MUFG) and 10th(Mizuho) largest supporters of fossil fuel industries. Noting the growing greenhouse gas emissions in Asia, and the significant role that coal plays, Japanese banks must reinforce their efforts to align their business practices with the Paris Agreement and take concrete action by improving their climate policies."
This announcement comes as communities, groups, and youth everywhere are gearing up for a mass mobilization in April around Earth Day, including on April 23 for a Stop the Money Pipeline day of action in the US.
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
LATEST NEWS
Film Insiders Say Trump's Proposed Hollywood Tariffs Would 'Destroy' Entertainment Industry
"We won't be able to make movies for the same budgets, actors won't get paid the same fees, and the list goes on," said one film professional. "Simply, it would destroy the independent sector."
May 05, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump's announcement via social media Sunday evening that he would "begin the process of instituting a 100% Tariff" on films produced in foreign countries was met with confusion and shock in the U.S. entertainment industry and abroad, with filmmakers cautioning that such extreme levies would render many productions impossible and do nothing to save what the president called the "dying" movie industry.
On his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump took issue with "incentives" that have pushed filmmakers to shoot projects outside of the U.S., not only saying that the industry centered in Hollywood is "being devastated" but also suggesting that simply traveling to other countries to produce films leads to foreign "propaganda" being embedded in the final products.
"This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat," said Trump. "It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda!"
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick suggested the administration is moving to implement the president's plan, writing, "We're on it" in his own social media post.
While the vast majority of U.S. films are already produced mainly in the U.S.—providing jobs to actors, editors, and other production staff—many major studios including streaming giants Amazon and Netflix have brought their production shoots to cities like Toronto and Dublin, where local leaders have offered large tax breaks.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, is currently addressing the effects those foreign tax incentives have had on working film professionals in Southern California—including makeup artists, camera operators, electricians, and other middle-class workers—by pushing for a tax credit for studios to film locally. The state Legislature is currently considering that proposal.
"Putting a tariff on movies shot outside the U.S. will increase the cost of shooting and the studios will lobby the exhibitors to raise ticket prices and then the audience will skip the theater and then... well you see where this is going."
But by "instituting a 100% Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands," film industry veterans said Trump would not succeed in bringing production jobs back to the United States—but would rather make all but the biggest budget films impossible to produce.
"This is NOT the effect this is going to have," one industry professional toldDeadline. "It will make low- and mid-level productions completely unproducable, hence destroying many jobs from producer assistants to writers to post-production. Further, it will lessen the amount of big budget content created because the studios won't be able to make as much because the cost of production will be more."
An official at a top U.S. film company that produces movies both domestically and internationally told Deadline that international film distributors will be less likely to buy U.S. films under Trump's new tariff plan.
"It affects domestic distribution deals but it also impacts equity players who have money in movies because their films will suddenly be worth less money," they said. "We won't be able to make movies for the same budgets, actors won't get paid the same fees, and the list goes on. Simply, it would destroy the independent sector."
Exactly how the proposed policy would be implemented was unclear from Trump's social media post, but U.K.-based producer told Deadline that "leading independent distributors would all be out of business if it's them" who have to pay the tariffs.
A source close to the White House toldPolitico that the tariff policy originated with actor Jon Voight, a strong supporter of Trump who—along with Mel Gibson and Sylvester Stallone—has been named one of Trump's "special ambassadors" to Hollywood.
Deadlinereported last week that Voight was meeting with studios and union representatives in Hollywood to discuss a plan to revive the film industry, with "a federal tax incentive" expected to be a main component.
Voight's fellow ambassador, Gibson, is one Hollywood player who could be directly impacted by Trump's proposed tariffs; his film, a sequel to The Passion of the Christ, is scheduled to begin filming in Italy this summer.
"Putting a tariff on movies shot outside the U.S. will increase the cost of shooting and the studios will lobby the exhibitors to raise ticket prices and then the audience will skip the theater and then... well you see where this is going," wrote producer Randy Greenberg in a post on LinkedIn after Trump announced his plan.
The Washington Post reported that Trump could rely on a provision of a 1962 trade law that he has used in the past to impose tariffs on goods; the law gives the Commerce Department 270 days to complete an investigation into alleged national security threats created by certain imports.
"Other nations have stolen our movie industry," Trump told reporters on Sunday. "If they're not willing to make a movie inside the United States, we should have a tariff on movies that come in."
At The Guardian, film editor Andrew Pulver wrote that Trump's plan appears aimed at destroying "the international film industry":
The effect of any tariff is likely to be dramatic. Recent figures from the British Film Institute (BFI) show that in 2024 £4.8 billion ($6.37 billion) of production spend on film and high-end TV in the U.K. came from international sources, 86% of the total spent on film and TV made in Britain. In Australia, the film industry stands to lose up to AUS $767 million. A program of studio building in the U.K., designed to increase capacity and therefore revenue, is likely to feel the chill almost immediately. And the effect on the domestic industry in the U.S. is forecast to be adverse, as production costs rise without the injection of overseas tax incentives, with mid-level projects potentially wiped out.
Despite Trump's claim that the industry is "dying," according to the Motion Picture Association's latest economic impact report, the U.S. film industry had a $15.3 billion trade surplus in 2023 and $22.6 billion in exports.
An executive at a U.S. distribution company expressed hope to Deadline that Trump's threat would encourage "desperately needed increases in U.S. state tax incentives being implemented ASAP."
"Can't see his target here," they said, "other than confusion and distraction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Warren Asks the Fed to Reconsider Approval of Capital One-Discover Merger
"This decision will inflict serious harm on consumers and merchants, especially low-income consumers and small businesses," wrote Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Maxine Waters.
May 05, 2025
Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of California are urging the Federal Reserve to reconsider its approval of an impending merger between Capital One Financial Corporation and Discover Financial Services, a tie-up that critics have warned could harm consumers.
In a letter sent last week, Warren and Waters wrote that the decision to approve the merger by the Federal Reserve "was inconsistent with the legal requirements" under the Bank Holding Company Act. They also argued that it did not include a number of relevant assessments, including how the the merger would impact the "convenience and needs of the community" or the "competitive effects on the credit card market."
"This decision will inflict serious harm on consumers and merchants, especially low-income consumers and small businesses, and threaten the stability of the U.S. financial system," states the letter, which was addressed to Secretary of the Board Ann Misback and dated May 1.
Warren is the ranking member on the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and Waters is the ranking member on the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services.
The deal was announced in February 2024 and is valued at $35 billion. A report from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released right before the acquisition was announced found that the largest credit card firms charge much higher interest rates than smaller banks and credit unions.
The deal initially received some scrutiny around possible impacts to competition, but in April 2025 overcame a major obstacle when the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), now under the Trump administration, decided not to challenge the merger.
The Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency gave the deal the green light last month.
In response to the DOJ's decision not to challenge the merger, Morgan Harper, the director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, wrote that "if the Trump administration green-lights the Capital One-Discover merger, it will be a betrayal of working-class Americans and small businesses." The American Economic Liberties Project is an anti-monopoly research and advocacy group.
"If the deal goes through, Capital One will become the largest credit card lender in the country, the first major issuer in decades to control its own payments network, and entrench its striking dominance in subprime credit card lending," Harper continued.
One noteworthy aspect of the merger, which is expected to be finalized mid-May, is that Capital One is set to acquire Discover's card network. This means the combined firm would be akin to a larger version of American Express, "a stand-alone integrated system that could use its millions of customers to push higher fees onto merchants," according to The American Prospect.
Capitol One currently uses Visa and Mastercard credit card networks, which operate an effective duopoly of global payment processing, but has said it would transition to the Discover card network, according the outlet CNET.
This aspect of the merger is without clear precedent and raises concerns about competition, according to Jesse Van Tol, the chief executive of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a group that is opposed to the deal, who spoke to The New York Times in April.
"The market power it gives them, and the opportunity it gives them to set pricing in ways that captures a lot of value for the company at the expense of the consumer, is significant," Van Tol told the Times.
In their letter, Warren and Waters alleged that the Federal Reserve failed to adequately scrutinize the competitive effect of this aspect of the deal.
"The board argued that given 'the significant, larger competitors that would remain,' and that Capital One doesn't currently own a network, there aren't any competitive concerns. The board completely missed the fact that the merger would provide Capital One with significant market power to increase interchange fees charged to merchants and reduce rewards and other benefits for consumers. It didn't grapple with the implications of vertical integration and network effects," the two wrote.
When considering the conveniences and needs of the community, Warren and Waters said in their letter that the Federal Reserve did not perform the prospective analysis required by law, and instead "focused on each bank's past performance under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)," even though "the convenience and needs of the community is a distinct legal factor, separate and apart from banks' past performance under the CRA."
The two also said that the Federal Reserve appears to not have taken into consideration relevant findings from the CFPB, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the DOJ.
Bloombergreported last week that the Federal Reserve received the letter and plans to response, per a spokesperson.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Alcatraz Push 'No More Than a Sensational Distraction' From Trump's Attack on Public Safety
Less than two weeks ago, Trump's DOJ slashed nearly $1 billion from existing public safety grants that experts warn will "imperil public safety, not promote it."
May 05, 2025
Add "distraction" to the list of words being used to describe President Donald Trump's "psychotic," "deluded," and "unbefuckinglievable" talk about reopening the island prison of Alcatraz in California's San Francisco Bay.
In a statement to reporters on the White House lawn Sunday night, Trump said the idea for reopening Alcatraz—which he first floated in a social media post—was "just an idea I had" and that the prison was a "symbol of law and order."
But less than two weeks ago, the Trump administration ordered the cancellation of an estimated $811 million in grants for public safety from the Justice Department that experts and advocates say were proving successful at reducing crime and curbing harm in communities nationwide—all with bipartisan support.
"Alcatraz," said civil rights attorney Scott Hechinger in response to Trump's social media post—which sparked no shortage of headlines across the news media—is "no more than a sensational distraction from this: Trump just cut nearly $1 billion from bipartisan, proven, successful anti-crime, violence prevention programs around the country."
The various programs impacted by the grant cuts—including gun violence prevention and law enforcement trainings—said Hechinger, were designed to prevent crime "before people were ever harmed."
Arguing that Trump has made the country less safe, not more, by his policies, Hechinger added, "now he's stomping and parading around with big words and sensational capital letters about a wasteful reopening of a domestic torture complex that will never actually happen and do nothing to keep America safer. All while claiming to care about violence prevention. What a dangerous joke."
Lamenting the public safety grant cuts in a blog post last week, the Brennan Center for Justice's Rosemary Nidiry, senior counsel in the group's justice program, detailed how the grant funding slashed by Trump "filled critical gaps" in the nation's public safety infrastructure.
The grants, she noted, "supported victims of crime, trained law enforcement, offered treatment to people with behavioral health and substance issues, and helped people reintegrate into society after incarceration. They also promoted research used to create and guide effective policies. Many if not all were ended immediately and without warning, in the middle of a typical 3-year grant period, disrupting programs and creating financial strain for nonprofits."
"The slashed programs have been proven to make communities safer," wrote Nidiry, "and their end will in fact imperil public safety, not promote it."
When Alcatraz was closed by the Bureau of Prisons in 1963, the cost of running the crumbling facility was the primary driver of that decision.
As Newsweek reports, "Operating Alcatraz proved to be significantly more expensive than other federal prisons. In 1959, the daily per capita cost at Alcatraz was $10.10, compared with $3.00 at the U.S. Penitentiary in Atlanta, making it nearly three times more costly to operate. This high expense was largely due to the island's isolation, which necessitated that all supplies, including food, water, and fuel, be transported by boat. For instance, nearly one million gallons of fresh water had to be barged to the island each week."
In a letter on Friday, over three dozen Democratic lawmakers called on the Justice Department to reinstate $150 million in grants awarded for gun violence prevention.
"This funding, appropriated by Congress, directly contributes to making communities safer," the lawmakers stated in a letter. "We urge you to honor the grants already awarded and to implement this funding as Congress directed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular