

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.

Collin Rees, collin@priceofoil.org
Jamie Henn, jamie@jamiehenn.com
The news that major U.S. banks like JPMorgan Chase are preparing to ask regulators to allow them to take direct ownership of oil and gas companies should ring major alarm bells on Capitol Hill and across the nation, according to organizations with the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition.
The news that major U.S. banks like JPMorgan Chase are preparing to ask regulators to allow them to take direct ownership of oil and gas companies should ring major alarm bells on Capitol Hill and across the nation, according to organizations with the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition.
On Thursday evening, Reuters reported that JPMorgan Chase & Co, Wells Fargo & Co, Bank of America Corp, and Citigroup Inc are each preparing to set up independent companies that could directly own oil and gas assets.
"So Chase and Wells Fargo want to cut out the middleman and go into the oil business, directly destroying the climate? Greed does weird things to your mind and your heart," said Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org.
These plans are in direct contradiction to the banks' stated goals of addressing the climate emergency. The only possible justification for taking an ownership stake in an oil and gas company would be to immediately begin winding down production and retiring existing assets, while taking care of workers by providing full benefits and pension guarantees. According to the Reuters reporting, however, banks seem to be planning to do just the opposite, attempting to move the companies back into profitability, likely by taking advantage of federal bailout money that should go to working families.
"Allowing private banks to start an unholy marriage with bankrupt fossil fuel companies would be a catastrophic mistake for communities and climate," said Collin Rees, Senior Campaigner at Oil Change International. "Any words JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Citi have ever said about climate action would be instantly meaningless. The fossil fuel industry needs a just transition for workers and a swift phase-out of production, not a transfer of the keys to predatory financial institutions focused on profits for billionaires."
"This is like a bookie purchasing the track, only the track is a dying industry killing our chance at a future. Clearly these banks' climate commitments aren't worth the 'recycled' paper they were written on," said Tara Houska (Couchiching First Nation), founder of Giniw Collective. "It's our money in their vaults -- hitting 'withdrawal' is long overdue."
There is little reason to believe that the four banks mentioned in the article have any intention of mitigating the climate impact of their actions. JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citi, and Bank of America are, in that order, the four largest global bankers of fossil fuels, as detailed in the recently released Banking on Climate Change: Fossil Fuel Finance Report 2020.
"JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and Citi are the top four fracking banks in the world, and the top four fossil fuel banks in the world. This development exposes the central role of banks in fossil fuels and clearly illustrates the riskiness of fossil finance," said Jason Opena Disterhoft, Senior Campaigner with Rainforest Action Network. "As the COVID recovery goes forward, a common-sense guardrail should be: banks can't take public money without committing to zero out their fossil financing. No bailout without fossil phaseout."
Along with the terrible climate and public health impacts of funding these oil and gas companies to continue to pollute, allowing financial institutions to directly own fossil fuel assets is an open invitation to corruption. In 2013, JPMorgan Chase paid a $410 million fine for manipulating electricity markets in the Midwest. The same year, Goldman Sachs was caught fixing aluminum prices by hoarding it in warehouses owned by the bank. Allowing banks to own companies in an industry already known for its corruption, disregard for public safety, and flagrant violation of environmental laws is a recipe for disaster.
"No way no how should regulators bail out climate-destroying banks like JPMorgan Chase from bankrupt investments by letting them become oil and gas holding corporations," said Pete Sikora, Climate Campaigns Director, New York Communities for Change. "The government should take over bankrupt oil and gas assets in order to rapidly retire them while protecting dependent workers and communities, not bank profits."
Elected officials and regulators have raised the alarm before about financial institutions taking direct ownership of fossil fuel companies. This session in Congress, Reps. Jesus 'Chuy' Garcia (IL-04) and Rashida Tlaib (MI-13) have introduced the Protecting Consumers Against Market Manipulation Act to set stronger limits separating banking and commerce, including by limiting banks' ownership of commodities. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) have also warned of the risks of bank ownership of physical commodities, including fossil fuel assets.
"Particularly at this moment, banks should be using their balance sheets to support small businesses and workers, not trying to spin a profit by propping up a dying industry that's the leading cause of climate change. If the banks are going to own oil and gas companies, the only acceptable outcome is to wind down the companies, retire their polluting assets, and take care of their workers," said Moira Birss, Climate and Finance Director at Amazon Watch.
The Stop the Money Pipeline coalition is calling on Congress and federal regulators to take immediate action to ensure the response to the coronavirus pandemic doesn't worsen the ongoing climate emergency. First, they must prevent all banks from taking ownership stakes in fossil fuel companies and assets. Second, they must ensure that no bailout money goes to banks, asset managers, or insurers unless these institutions commit to phasing out their support for fossil fuels and deforestation. Third, they must pass meaningful regulations that safeguard the financial system and the climate, including by limiting financial institutions' ability to finance fossil fuels and deforestation.
"The Fed should be intervening to make sure that fossil fuel companies are wound down and their workers and environmental obligations taken care of, not passing them off to banks who will look to spin a quick profit at the expense of both people and planet," said Alec Connon with the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition.
Stop the Money Pipeline will be engaging hundreds of thousands of Americans to send this message directly to Congress and Wall Street on April 23 as part of Earth Day Live, three days of online action around the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day.
###
Additional Quotes:
"Over the last decade, US oil and gas producers have racked up more than $200 billion in corporate debt in a failed effort to make fracking profitable and keep expanding production while fossil fuel prices and prospects decline. With demand and revenue projections now collapsing at the precise moment when the bill is coming due, the banks that financed this massive and failed gamble are poised to seize assets to cover their losses. Not content to merely bankroll climate destruction and human rights abuses on a global scale, major banks are now moving to own the climate crisis outright. This is, to put it mildly, a very bad investment," said Carroll Muffett, President of the Center for International Environmental Law.
"At a moment when local people and communities need urgent government relief from the global pandemic it is downright criminal that Wall Street wants to buy out failing fossil fuel companies. There should be no bailout for polluters, from either Wall Street or Trump. We demand that government resources go directly to support communities directly." said Liz Butler, Vice President of Organizing and Strategic Alliances at Friends of the Earth.
"This is the exact opposite of what the financial industry needs to be doing at this moment," said Caroline Henderson, Senior Climate Campaigner with Greenpeace USA. "In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, banks should be supporting small businesses and workers, as well as investing in climate resiliency -- not becoming oil and gas corporations. We know we need to shift 90 percent of Wall Street's fossil fuel investments to low-carbon energy and renewables if we're going to keep the Earth's warming under 1.5 C. That means banks must stop financing destructive industries, and should certainly not be purchasing them in order to try and make them profitable again."
"After decades of financing climate destruction, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Citigroup got what they paid for: defaulting loans, declining assets, and a dangerously warming climate." said Tamara Toles O'Laughlin, 350.org's North America Director. "Now, in a desperate attempt to recoup what costs they can, these banks are taking ownership over oil and gas companies -- clarifying what many in the climate movement have known all along: our financial institutions are in bed with fossil fuels for short-term gains and long-term destruction. Sadly, it will be the workers, our communities, and those on the frontlines of dangerous fossil fuel projects who will bear the true cost of the damage."
"As Colorado's residents brace for the peak of coronavirus we are faced with increased vulnerability due to pollution from the massive amount of fracking and oil and gas operations such as frontline communities around the Suncor tar sands refinery and fracking operations in neighborhoods throughout the front range, bailing out these companies is a human rights violation of incredible proportions. We demand our government protect our most vulnerable and put a halt to these bail outs immediately," said Amy Gray Volunteer Coordinator with 350 Colorado.
Oil Change International is a research, communications, and advocacy organization focused on exposing the true costs of fossil fuels and facilitating the ongoing transition to clean energy.
(202) 518-9029The experts laid out various policies they argued are "required to prevent avoidable deaths, stabilize a sanctioned economy, and allow Venezuelans to rebuild with dignity."
With at least 3,535 people dead, 16,740 injured, and tens of thousands still missing after a pair of major earthquakes hit Venezuela last month, over 100 economists and scholars on Tuesday jointly called for "immediate action to unfetter Venezuela's humanitarian response and reconstruction from ongoing economic and financial sanctions, asset freezes, and onerous debt burdens."
Such demands began to emerge shortly after the 7.2- and 7.5-magnitude quakes, both centered in Yaracuy, on June 24. The new letter, shared with Common Dreams by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, follows a similar message sent to President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio last week by CEPR, Just Foreign Policy, Latin America Working Group, Venezuelan American Community Action, Peace Action, the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, and a dozen other organizations.
The academics and economists, including several experts at CEPR as well as James Galbraith, Jayati Ghosh, Jason Hickel, Ann Pettifor, Jeffrey Sachs, Robert Wade, and Isabella Weber, highlighted that "Venezuela enters this disaster after years of unilateral coercive measures, financial sanctions, and export controls that have damaged its economy and infrastructure."
That includes decades of US sanctions. On top of those economic moves, Trump earlier this year sent troops into Venezuela to abduct President Nicolás Maduro, then took control of the South American country's nationalized oil industry. The New York Times reported earlier this week that the Trump administration has seized at least $8 billion worth of Venezuela's oil wealth this year.
In a Tuesday piece for Just Security, a pair of experts who signed the new letter—George Lopez, professor emeritus of peace studies at the University of Notre Dame, and Venezuelan economist and CEPR senior Research Fellow Francisco Rodríguez—noted that post-earthquakes, "the United States pledged $300 million to relief agencies, mobilized civilian and military teams to Venezuela that are trained on disaster relief, and issued a limited sanctions waiver for earthquake relief activities.
"But these measures are far from enough," they stressed, explaining that "the United Nations estimates the losses from the quakes stand at $37 billion," or 32% of Venezuela's gross domestic product. They suggested that "the United States should spearhead a major reconstruction effort and lift all remaining sanctions on the Venezuelan economy."
The US was eager to take control in Venezuela earlier this year.Now that the country is facing devastating loss after twin earthquakes, the US should spearhead a major reconstruction effort and lift all remaining sanctions.From Francisco Rodríguez and George A. Lopez:
[image or embed]
— Just Security (@justsecurity.org) July 7, 2026 at 9:06 AM
The broader group argued that "whatever one's position on Venezuela's internal politics, the current set of coercive economic measures directed at the country is an indiscriminate instrument. Sanctions on the central bank, public banking, oil industry, and debt transactions do not land surgically on officials; they incapacitate payment systems, raise import costs, block correspondent banking, freeze reserves, deter suppliers, and produce scarcity across an entire society. This is precisely the moment to remove any economic and financial obstacles to relief and reconstruction."
They called on the Trump administration specifically to lift all economic sanctions, "including any that may impact the Banco Central de Venezuela (BCV), government institutions, Petróleos de Venezuela, SA (PDVSA), public financial institutions, the oil and mining sectors, banking, transportation, shipping, telecommunications, travel, and all related activities," and to immediately issue "the Section 25B certification that is required to enable the BCV to receive, control, use, and transact through its accounts and assets at the Federal Reserve and US banks."
The experts also took aim at the United Kingdom and the Portuguese, calling on the governments to respectively work with "the Bank of England to ensure the immediate unfreezing of the BCV's gold reserves, worth about $5 billion and representing a third of the central bank's reported assets," as well as with Novo Banco, "to return $1.2 billion belonging to Venezuela's development bank, BANDES, and PDVSA affiliates, as set out in a 2023 court decision."
They further pressured the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to "ensure that Venezuela has full access to its approximately $5 billion in special drawing rights (SDRs) for emergency stabilization and imports," and to approve a $4 billion rapid financing instrument (RFI) disbursement immediately, using its emergency and natural disaster rationale, with no conditions."
Beyond those specific recommendations, the economists and scholars urged "a coordinated debt jubilee for Venezuela," writing that "all official bilateral creditors, multilateral creditors to the extent legally possible, and public agencies holding claims should cancel or suspend debt service, interest, penalties, and arrears, and pursue a comprehensive debt reduction consistent with a rights-based recovery and climate-resilient reconstruction."
"A new fund should be established—perhaps financed by the IMF's Resilience and Sustainability Trust (RST)—to repurchase distressed debt from the secondary market, with legal protections against holdout litigation and asset seizures," they proposed. "Money owed to creditors cannot at the same time rebuild hospitals, schools, housing, water systems, and the grid. A debt crisis in these conditions is a developmental and humanitarian crisis."
"Venezuela's people must not be made to pay twice: first through disaster, and then through sanctions, frozen reserves, and unsustainable debt servicing," they concluded. "We urge governments, international financial institutions, and creditors to act now, on the principle that lives, public health, and economic recovery take precedence over coercion and collection. Emergency liquidity, full sanctions relief, SDR access, RFI financing, and debt cancellation are not acts of charity. They are the minimum policy response required to prevent avoidable deaths, stabilize a sanctioned economy, and allow Venezuelans to rebuild with dignity."
"This will not happen," Denmark's prime minister said for the umpteenth time.
President Donald Trump on Tuesday renewed his calls for US control of Greenland—an autonomous territory of NATO member Denmark—in remarks delivered at the Atlantic alliance's summit in Türkiye.
Greenland "doesn't help Denmark," Trump told reporters in Ankara. "Denmark doesn't really spend money to help Greenland. But it's an important part for the United States."
Trump falsely claimed that the Arctic island "is surrounded by China ships and Russian ships" and "should be controlled by the United States, not by Denmark."
"With all the money we spend to help [Europe] with Russia, we don't have to spend any money, we can remove all of our soldiers out of Europe," he said.
"Because as you probably noticed, Europe's a very different place than it was 20 years ago... and they better be careful with immigration and energy; if they're not careful with those two things, you're not gonna have a Europe anymore," Trump added.
Hours later, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said at the Ankara summit that she expected allies to respect her country's sovereignty and understand that Greenland is not for sale.
"I have heard what the American president has said," Frederiksen told Danish media. "It is a well-known position of the United States that it wishes to own and acquire Greenland. And I hope that it will continue to be, as always, a well-known position of the kabingdom of Denmark that this will not happen."
Trump has publicly floated acquiring Greenland since his first term, when he even reportedly mulled swapping the island for the hurricane-ravaged US territory of Puerto Rico. The president renewed talk of gaining control of Greenland "whether they like it or not" after returning to the White House last year, while threatening allies who opposed his plans with additional punitive tariffs amid his roller-coaster global trade war.
Greenlanders, Danes, NATO allies, and much of the world were alarmed by Trump's threats to take Greenland by any means necessary—including armed invasion—which came amid a surge in "Donroe Doctrine" militarism.
Trump ordered dubious airstrikes on boats his administration claimed without evidence were transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, as well as the brief invasion of Venezuela and abduction of President Nicolás Maduro on what critics called trumped-up narcoterrorism charges. The self-proclaimed "peace president" also threatened to retake the Panama Canal, launch armed attacks on Cuba, Colombia, and Mexico, and make Canada the "51st state."
Leaders of the European Union and NATO nations warned that any US attack on Greenland would effectively mean the end of the Atlantic alliance.
Only a handful of Greenland's 57,000 inhabitants want to join the United States. More than 8 in 10 favor independence amid often strained relations with Denmark and the legacy of a colonial history rife with abuses. Greenlanders enjoy a Nordic-style social welfare system that features universal healthcare; free higher education; and income, family, and employment benefits and protections that Americans lack.
In the United States, only 17% of those surveyed in a January Reuters/Ipsos poll said they favored acquiring Greenland by any means, and just 4% said it would be a "good idea" for Trump to seize the island by force.
Trump also said Tuesday that he "was very disappointed with NATO."
"We weren’t treated well because we did something in Iran," he said, referring to the illegal US-Israeli war of choice on the Mideast nation. "We don’t need anybody’s help, but before I asked they said they wouldn’t be there."
Sources told CNN that warnings were ignored due to "expediency."
US military commanders "bypassed warnings" indicating that their database of strike targets inside Iran was badly out of date shortly before launching a deadly attack on an Iranian primary school in the city of Minab, according to a Tuesday report from CNN.
Three sources told CNN that senior military officials received messages informing them that the intelligence behind the target list had been gathered years ago and "needed to be re-vetted."
Regardless, the proposed Iranian targets were added to a strike list shortly before the US launched an attack on the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School, killing more than 150 schoolchildren along with over a dozen teachers.
Two of CNN's sources said senior commanders ignored the warnings out of "expediency," as they did not want to significantly delay providing target lists during the outset of the war, which Trump illegally launched in February without any authorization from the US Congress.
For months, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has repeatedly dodged questions about the strike on the school, insisting that he didn't want to comment on an ongoing Pentagon investigation.
However, one of CNN's sources said that US military officials "knew within days how the mistake happened," as the school was targeted based on "obviously old info."
CNN noted that old satellite images showed the school once belonged to the same compound as an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps facility. However, as recently as 2016, images showed "that a fence had been erected to separate the school from the rest of the base, and that a separate entrance to the school had been built."
Rutgers Law School Professor Adil Haque, noting that intelligence on many of the targets was more than a decade old, called the US decision to proceed with attacks "inexcusable."
The US Department of Defense has still not released its investigation into the bombing, drawing criticism from Palestinian-American policy analyst Yousef Munayyer, who reacted to the CNN report by describing the US military as being "quick to bomb, slow to investigate."
The slow pace of the investigation has also drawn criticism from Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.
During a May congressional hearing, Smith grilled Adm. Brad Cooper about why the US hasn't taken responsibility for the school strike despite clear evidence that it was at fault.
"In the past, when we’ve had these type of mistakes, they’ve been quickly acknowledged," Smith said, "even if a further investigation is necessary to figure out prevention methods."
Smith also criticized Hegseth for showing a "callous disregard for any sort of rules of engagement or protecting of civilian life" during his tenure as defense secretary.
Last month, President Donald Trump brushed off responsibility for the strike on the school, stating that "mistakes are made" and "war is nasty."