

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 fight seemingly isn't over, with a spokesperson for the president pledging that he will "refile this powerhouse lawsuit," which critics have called part of his war on free speech.
A Florida-based federal judge on Monday dismissed President Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal over its reporting on a "bawdy" birthday letter the Republican allegedly gave to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Trump denies writing the letter or drawing the outline of a naked woman around the text. He sued the journalists behind the July report—Joseph Palazzolo and Khadeeja Safdar—and the newspaper, plus its parent company News Corp, chief executive Robert Thomson, and founder Rupert Murdoch.
The US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform subsequently subpoenaed the Epstein estate for all materials that now-imprisoned co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell allegedly compiled for the dead financier's birthday book, including the letter attributed to Trump—and in September, the panel published those documents online.
US District Judge Darrin P. Gayles, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, found on Monday that Trump's "complaint fails to adequately allege actual malice." However, Gayles also gave Trump the opportunity to amend his filing within the next two weeks.
While The Wall Street Journal did not immediately respond to CNN's request for comment, a spokesperson for Trump's legal team said in a statement that the president intends to continue the case.
"President Trump will follow Judge Gayles' ruling and guidance to refile this powerhouse lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and all of the other defendants," the spokesperson said. "The president will continue to hold accountable those who traffic in Fake News to mislead the American People."
CNN noted that despite the legal battle, "the 95-year-old Murdoch has maintained a cozy if complicated relationship with the president, including multiple meetings at the White House in recent months."
The suit over the birthday letter to Epstein—whom Trump was publicly friends with in the 1980s and '90s until a reported falling out in the early 2000s—is just part of a sweeping effort by the president and his political enablers "to undermine and chill the most basic freedoms protected under the First Amendment," as the advocacy group Free Press put it in a December analysis.
In addition to the Journal case, examples included Trump's legal battles with the BBC and The New York Times, the White House taking control of the presidential press pool, the administration blocking The Associated Press from the Oval Office over its refusal to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, ABC temporarily suspending late-night host Jimmy Kimmel following comments from Trump's Federal Communications Commission chair, and the Pentagon's legally contested media policy.
Such attacks continue. Last month, as the costs of his unconstitutional war on Iran mounted, Trump floated "treason" charges against media outlets that he accused of reporting false information about the conflict.
"It’s one more episode in this whole downward spiral into which we’ve been dragged,” said Spain's foreign minister.
Contrary to President Donald Trump's claim that "other countries will be involved" in imposing a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz after ceasefire talks ended over the weekend without a deal with Iran, North Atlantic Treaty Organization member countries on Monday made clear they did not plan to join Trump's effort as the news of the blockade sent global oil prices skyrocketing once again.
“We are not supporting the blockade," British Prime Minister Keir Starmer told the BBC Monday before the closure began at 10:00 am Eastern time. “It is in my view vital that we get the strait open and fully open, and that’s where we’ve put all of our efforts in the last few weeks, and we’ll continue to do so."
Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan called for the Strait of Hormuz to be reopened through diplomatic means, while Spanish Defense Minister Margarita Robles told Al Jazeera that Trump's decision to block ships “entering or departing Iranian ports and coastal areas" in the strait "makes no sense."
"It’s one more episode in this whole downward spiral into which we’ve been dragged,” said Robles, who along with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has vehemently condemned the US and Israel's decision to go to war with Iran and has refused to involve Spain's military assets in the conflict.
Starmer called the closure of the strait "deeply damaging" and said that this week the UK and France will convene a summit "to advance work on a coordinated, independent, multinational plan to safeguard international shipping when the conflict ends."
US Central Command said Monday that US forces “will not impede freedom of navigation for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz to and from non-Iranian ports," appearing to step back from Trump's original Sunday statement, which he reiterated Monday on Fox News, that he would impose a "complete blockade" on the key trade waterway.
The news of the blockade came after Iranian negotiators accused Vice President JD Vance of acting in bad faith in the high-level ceasefire talks and Vance claimed Iran would not comply with US demands regarding nuclear development.
The two-week ceasefire deal that was announced last Tuesday—just before a deadline Trump had imposed, saying the US would obliterate Iran's "whole civilization" unless the government struck a deal—sent oil and gas prices tumbling blow $100 per barrel, but prices rose again after Trump's new threat of a blockade.
Brent crude prices were at $102.52 per barrel on Monday, a 7.7% increase, while US crude also rose nearly 8% to $104.02. The UK's wholesale gas contract for the month of May rose by 11.7%.
About 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies passed through the Strait of Hormuz before Iran effectively closed the waterway after the US and Israel began the war, as well as major shipments of fertilizer.
Priyanka Sachdeva, a senior market analyst at the broker Phillip Nova, told The Guardian that "the market reaction" to Trump's threat "underscores a simple but powerful reality: Hormuz risk is not theoretical; it is structural, and it is real.”
“In today’s environment, every barrel of risk added to oil markets carries an inflation price tag for the global economy," Sachdeva said.
Trump's threat of a blockade included any ship that has paid Iran a toll to pass through the strait since the Middle Eastern country began its blockade, with the president accusing Iran of "extortion."
At Responsible Statecraft, Kelley Beaucar Vlahos wrote on Sunday that under Trump's threat, the US is now planning to block "major allies."
"The Philippines is a treaty ally and gets 98% of its energy resources through the strait," Vlahos wrote. "A Japanese vessel carrying liquefied natural gas reportedly passed through the strait two weeks ago."
Sarang Shidore, director of the Global South program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said the US blockade "is another step toward a might-makes-right world."
"Illegalities are being heaped on top of illegalities. The attack on Iran that started this war was compounded by Tehran's seizure of the Strait of Hormuz. Washington's blockade of the strait has further upped the ante," said Shidore.
An adviser to Iranian Supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei said that Iran has "large, untouched levels" to fight back against a US blockade, while Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of the Iranian Parliament, said that Americans will soon "be nostaligic for $4-$5 gas."
At The Conversation, international law professor Donald Rothwell of Australian National University wrote that Trump's blockade would "certainly" imperil the fragile temporary ceasefire while roiling international markets.
"In purely legal terms, if the US imposes a blockade then the ceasefire is over and hostilities have resumed," wrote Rothwell.
The Trump administration's boat strikes have now killed at least 168 people, according to NPR.
The United States military has killed five more people suspected of drug smuggling in the latest boat bombing operation that many international law experts consider to be acts of murder.
In a Sunday social media post, US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) announced it had "conducted two lethal kinetic strikes on two vessels" that it had deemed to be run by "designated terrorist organizations." As with the dozens of other boat bombings the Trump administration has conducted since last September, the military did not provide evidence that the vessels were involved in drug trafficking.
"Intelligence confirmed the vessels were transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and were engaged in narco-trafficking operations," SOUTHCOM said. "Two male narco-terrorists were killed, and one narco-terrorist survived the first strike. Three male narco-terrorists were killed during the second strike."
SOUTHCOM said that it had alerted the US Coast Guard to conduct a search and rescue operation of the lone survivor of the two strikes, although it provided no further details of his well-being.
According to NPR, the US has now killed at least 168 people with its strikes on suspected drug boats, which began in September and have since continued despite being denounced by human rights organizations such as Human Rights and Amnesty International.
Brian Finucane, senior adviser with the US Program at the International Crisis Group, took note of the latest boat strike by remarking, "The lawless killing spree at sea continues."
A coalition of rights organizations led by the ACLU last year sued the Trump administration to demand it release documents that provide legal justification for its boat-bombing campaign.
The groups said that the Trump administration’s rationales for the strikes deserve special scrutiny because their justification hinges on claims that the US is in an “armed conflict” with international drug cartels akin to past conflicts between the US government and terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda.
The groups argued there is simply no way that drug cartels can be classified under the same umbrella as terrorist organizations, given that the law regarding war with nonstate actors says that any organizations considered to be in armed conflict with the US must be an “organized armed group” that is structured like a conventional military and engaged in “protracted armed violence” with the US government.
Before President Donald Trump's Pentagon began conducting the lethal boat strikes last year, drug trafficking in international waters was treated as a criminal offense, with law enforcement agencies and the US Coast Guard intercepting boats suspected of carrying drugs and arresting suspects.
Trump's bombings of boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific have been called "extrajudicial killings" by advocacy groups including Amnesty International.