March, 20 2020, 12:00am EDT
COVID-19 Recovery Must Help Prevent a Future Climate Crash on Wall Street: Policymakers Need to Ensure COVID-19 Stimulus Plans Better Protect the Financial System and Economy From the Risks of Climate Change
The broad coalition of organizations that comprise Stop the Money Pipeline are warning against any immediate measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic that would exacerbate the ongoing threat of catastrophic climate change. Instead, recovery measures must prepare the financial sector for the threats posed by the climate crisis.
WASHINGTON
The broad coalition of organizations that comprise Stop the Money Pipeline are warning against any immediate measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic that would exacerbate the ongoing threat of catastrophic climate change. Instead, recovery measures must prepare the financial sector for the threats posed by the climate crisis.
"Now is not the time to relax rules on financial institutions' ability to weather future crises, particularly the climate crisis, the impacts of which continue to unfold even as we deal with COVID-19. Instead, policymakers should be bolstering the resilience of the financial system to safely handle the climate shock that is barreling towards us by requiring banks, asset managers, and other financial institutions to responsibly phase out financing and investments in fossil fuels and transition to a green economy," said Moira Birss, Climate and Finance Director, Amazon Watch.
Time and again the financial sector has proven itself incapable of self-regulation. In fact, the global banking industry is reportedly already trying to use this crisis to roll back common-sense climate risk measures.
"Wall Street's record is horrible -- they've been pouring money into fossil fuels even after the Paris climate accords," said Bill McKibben, a leader of the Stop the Money Pipeline campaign. "If bankers need the help of society, then society can demand that they commit to helping with the other grave crisis we face."
Now, in this moment of crisis, policymakers have a unique opportunity to bolster the resiliency of the financial system and reduce the risk of a climate crash -- which could happen even as we're dealing with the COVID-19 crisis. Doing so will require that lawmakers resist the calls from Wall Street to relax regulations and instead take clear, decisive actions that require banks, asset managers, and other financial institutions to phase out investments in fossil fuels.
These actions must include:
- Restricting the ability of financial institutions to invest in fossil fuel extraction and production.
- Repealing the authority for banks to own physical assets like oil refineries, pipelines, tankers, power plants, and coal mines and trade commodities, specifically including such fossil fuels as crude oil, fracked gas, and coal.
- Establishing a Community Climate Investment Mandate: Financial institutions with a federal charter have a duty to invest a certain percentage into climate change mitigation and resilience efforts.
- Incorporating climate risk into the prudential regulatory and supervisory framework for systemically important financial institutions.
Just last week, Senate Democrats hosted a hearing on the "Economic and Financial Risks of Climate Change," during which a series of financial experts explained how the climate crisis poses a catastrophic risk to the financial sector and overall economy. Experts have published several recent papers demonstrating the risks posed by financial institutions' investments in fossil fuels and the urgent need for policymakers to mitigate those risks.
"Big banks have continually increased their funding for fossil fuels in the years since the Paris Agreement, putting our communities and our economy at risk of massive disruption due to climate change," said Sierra Club campaign representative Ben Cushing. "As Washington and communities across the country are working to address the pandemic, it's critical that Congress ensures that relief efforts go to protecting the most vulnerable and in need, not corporate polluters or those financing their operations."
The banking sector in particular has been fueling climate risk by increasing its support for fossil fuels. As detailed in Banking on Climate Change: Fossil Fuel Finance Report 2020, released earlier this week, major U.S. banks have overall increased their financing of fossil fuels over the last year. Since the Paris Agreement, the big six U.S. banks have funneled almost $1 trillion into fossil fuels. JPMorgan Chase, far and away the world's biggest banker of fossil fuels, has provided nearly $269 billion in lending and underwriting for fossil fuels in the last four years. The top four fossil banks in the world are all U.S.-based: Chase, Wells Fargo, Citi and Bank of America.
"We've seen this movie before," said Jason Opena Disterhoft, climate and energy senior campaigner with Rainforest Action Network. "Big banks always do their best not to waste a crisis, and they're reportedly already trying to shirk their basic climate responsibility. In this recovery we face a clear choice: bail out the fragile fossil financial system and lock in the next climate crash, or keep building a resilient green financial infrastructure that will serve as a stable foundation going forward. Wall Street has already shown us they will choose profit over prudence. Lawmakers, regulators and civil society must ensure that we make the safe choice for all of our futures."
Over the coming weeks, Stop the Money Pipeline will continue to pressure lawmakers and financial institutions to take decisive action during this crisis to help prevent the future threats posed by climate disruption.
LATEST NEWS
New Poll Shows Platner Romping in Dem Primary and Comfortably Ahead of Collins for Maine Senate Seat
"Platner stomping Mills in the primary, then cruising to a double-digit win in the general election... wouldn’t just be a Senate-seat victory but a narrative earthquake," said one writer.
Feb 24, 2026
The progressive candidate Graham Platner has a commanding lead in the Democratic primary for Maine's US Senate seat over the state's centrist Gov. Janet Mills. Come November, he's also much more likely than Mills to defeat the Republican incumbent, Sen. Susan Collins.
The University of New Hampshire's Pine Tree State Poll, released Tuesday morning, showed that Platner has built momentum since October. Five months ago, 58% of likely Democratic voters said the 41-year-old oyster farmer was their first choice to be the state's next senator, compared with 24% who preferred the governor.
Now, with the June primary less than four months away, undecided voters have broken hard in Platner's favor: 64% said he’s their first choice, while Mills has only jumped up to 26%.
It's perhaps an unsurprising result, as Democratic voters overwhelmingly support the kind of economically populist anti-oligarchy politics that Platner—a proponent of Medicare for All and a federal billionaires' tax, with backing from labor unions and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—has unapologetically championed.
But Tuesday's poll suggests his message is not only resonating with Democrats. Where a race between Mills and Collins has the Democrat leading by a single point, within the margin of error, Platner would be expected to win the general election comfortably with 49% of the vote to just 38% for Collins.
The steady shift toward Platner comes as affordability issues have become increasingly salient to Maine voters. A full 35% of voters said that either the cost of living or housing was the most important problem facing Maine.
As President Donald Trump suffers historic unpopularity amid a flailing economy, the most marked shift has been concern about the cost of living. Where just 4% of Mainers said it was their No. 1 issue in March 2025, that number has shot up to 20% this month.
Collins' popularity has been in a dramatic freefall in the era of Trump 2.0, to the point where a late January Morning Consult poll showed her to be the second-least popular US senator, behind only the former longtime GOP leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
While Democratic Party insiders have long argued that voters prefer a safer, moderate candidate when ousting a hated incumbent, observers say Platner's success over the candidate backed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and much of the party establishment is redefining what it means to be "electable" in a swing state.
"The fatal part of this poll for Mills isn’t even the massive lead Platner has," said Drop Site News co-founder Ryan Grim. "It’s that he is 10 points more electable against Collins, which is the real priority for Maine voters who don’t want her in office anymore."
New York Times columnist David Wallace-Wells said: "This is a small-sample poll, and there’s a long way to go. But if something like this comes to pass—Platner stomping Mills in the primary, then cruising to a double-digit win in the general election—it wouldn’t just be a Senate-seat victory but a narrative earthquake."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ahead of State of the Union Address, Progressive Caucus Leader Tells Trump: ‘We Need Our Money Back’
"Spare us the speech," said Rep. Greg Casar. "Pay up or shut up."
Feb 24, 2026
Now that the US Supreme Court has ruled President Donald Trump levied illegal tariffs on US businesses and consumers for more than a year, progressive Democrats are escalating demands that Americans get their money back.
Days after the Supreme Court shut down Trump's ability to unilaterally enact tariffs through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) said on Tuesday that during the State of the Union address, Trump should announce refunds for Americans he unlawfully taxed.
"Americans don’t need a rambling, two hour lecture from Trump," Casar wrote in a social media post. "We need our money back. He owes us: $1,700 in illegal tariffs per family; $4 billion he’s profited off the presidency; $1 trillion he stole in tax breaks for the ultra-rich. Spare us the speech. Pay up or shut up."
Casar's demands for tariff refunds aren't isolated.
Politico reported on Monday that Democrats have pounced on the Supreme Court ruling to deliver a simple message to voters: Trump wrongfully took your money and should return it.
Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.), who along with Rep. Janelle Bynum (D-Ore.) introduced legislation mandating tariff refunds on Friday, accused Trump of outright thievery.
"When someone takes money that wasn’t authorized and does it in a way that harms you," Horsford told Politico, "they’ve stolen from you, and that is what the Trump administration has done for the last year."
Horsford's rhetoric echoed a statement made by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who said in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling last week that Trump "illegally stole your money" and "should give it back to you" instead of trying to cook up new ways to slap tariffs on imported goods.
Groundwork Collaborative on Tuesday previewed Trump's State of the Union speech by noting the president has totally failed to keep his promise to bring down prices, adding that his tariffs "cost the average working family nearly $1,200 last year."
"No matter what Trump says in the upcoming State of the Union address," Groundwork Collaborative said, "it won’t change the fact that working families know that the president and his lackeys in Congress alone bear responsibility for painfully high prices and a dragging economy."
Although the Supreme Court clipped Trump's power to levy tariffs via the IEEPA, he has since announced plans to issue a 15% global tariff using his authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to levy tariffs to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits with foreign nations.
However, as a recent analysis by the libertarian Cato Institute explained, any tariffs enacted through Section 122 expire after 150 days without authorization from Congress, which in theory could put vulnerable congressional Republicans on the spot to vote for or against the president’s signature economic policy this summer right before the 2026 midterm elections.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Israeli Analysis Affirms Gaza Health Ministry’s Official Palestinian Death Count
One Israeli expert placed discrepancies in the list at "around 1%." Another said the error rate appears even lower.
Feb 24, 2026
An Israeli analysis published Tuesday examining the Gaza Health Ministry's list of Palestinians killed during Israel's US-backed annihilation of the Gaza Strip largely affirmed the official death count, while noting some imperfections in the 2,000-page document.
Haaretz, Israel's oldest daily newspaper, dissected the Gaza Health Ministry's (GHM) database of Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in Gaza, which at the time contained nearly 70,000 names—it's now over 72,000—in part by using artificial intelligence to analyze the massive file.
"A consensus has taken shape: Even if the list has weaknesses, including the fact that it does not differentiate between combatants and civilians, it reflects the scale of the disaster inflicted on Gaza and its people," article author Nir Hasson wrote. "It also forms the basis for allegations that Israel committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and even genocide."
Lee Mordechai, a historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem who says Israeli is committing genocide in Gaza, told Hasson, "It's clear that the list isn't 100% accurate and that it has errors, but I think they're around 1%."
Gabriel Epstein, an associate at the US-based Israel Policy Forum who was formerly skeptical of the GHM list, "now believes it is largely accurate and may even slightly undercount the dead," according to Hasson.
"Epstein reviewed the list obtained by Haaretz," the article states. "He found 24 duplicates and 38 entries with problems in the ID numbers. That means 99.91% of the entries were complete, with verified ID numbers. He also found that 64 deaths that had appeared on earlier lists were later removed, while 158 names removed by March of last year were added back."
The GHM list notably only contains the names of people who died from combat-related violence, not from "hunger, disease, accidents, or the collapse of the health system."
It also does not include the thousands of people who are missing and likely dead and buried beneath the rubble of the 80% of Gaza's buildings that have been destroyed or damaged during the war.
Other research, including multiple peer-reviewed studies in the prestigious British medical journal the Lancet, have also concluded that the ministry was undercounting the number of people killed by Israel's war on Gaza.
As for the issue of Hamas not differentiating between combatants and civilians on the ministry's death list, an investigation last year by Israeli journalist and filmmaker Yuval Abraham and Guardian senior international affairs correspondent Emma Graham-Harrison analyzed classified Israel Defense Forces intelligence data showing that 5 in 6 Palestinians killed by Israeli troops through the first 19 months of the war were civilians. The probe obliterated IDF claims of a historically low civilian-to-combatant kill ratio.
Last September, Former IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi—who was in command for much of the war—said that “over 10%” of Gaza’s approximately 2.2 million people “were killed or injured” since October 2023. Halevi’s acknowledgment tracked with GHM figures showing at least 228,815 people killed or wounded at the time.
In January, Israeli media outlets including Haaretz, the Jerusalem Post, and the Times of Israel reported that the IDF accepted the accuracy of GHM's death count, which at the time stood at over 71,000.
Israeli officials and media, along with their supportive US counterparts during both the Biden and Trump administrations, once cast doubt upon or outright denied GHM figures because the ministry is under Hamas' control. These aspersions came in addition to widespread Israeli and US denials of Israel’s forced famine and starvation deaths and IDF war crimes in Gaza.
"As the months have passed, claims of fabrication and exaggeration have largely remained confined to Israeli television panels," Hasson wrote in the new analysis. "At the end of January, an apparent dispute over the number of dead seemed to end in Israel when a senior army source confirmed that the IDF recognizes that 70,000 people died, precisely the figure cited by Gazan authorities."
"Even if the argument over the total number of dead is, for now, largely settled, disagreement in Israel continues over who the dead were," he continued. "How many were gunmen, how many were affiliated with Hamas, how many were killed under circumstances that meet the conditions of international law?"
"None of this alters the stark figures in the table," Hasson added. "Of the recorded deaths, 20,876, about 30%, are young girls, teenage girls, and women. Another 3,220 were aged 65 and over, including the final name on the list, Tamam al-Batsh, who was 110 when she died."
While Israel officials continue to insist that GHM figures are "misleading and unreliable"—or even "fake"—Hasson noted the general consistency between Israeli and Palestinian tallies across past Israeli attacks on Gaza. During Operation Cast Lead (2008-09), the Palestinian count was 23% higher than Israel's. For Operation Pillar of Success (2012), Israel's tally of Gazan deaths was 11% higher than the Palestinian figure. In Operation Protective Edge (2014), the Palestinian count was 8% higher. And during 2021's Operation Guardian of the Walls, Palestinian officials counted 10% more Gaza deaths than Israel.
The United Nations and US administrations of both major political parties have long acknowledged the GHM's accounting of Palestinian casualties in Israeli attacks, including the assault that began in October 2023.
Hasson noted that "it has been increasingly harder to find Israeli officials commenting on the subject" of the GHM death count in the ongoing war as evidence of its accuracy mounts.
"Since the war began," he said, "Israel has made no serious effort to demonstrate that the list is false or to present an alternative. It has not proven even once that a person listed as deceased is in fact alive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


