Support Common Dreams Today
Journalism that is independent, non-profit, ad-free, and 100% reader-supported.
#
For Immediate Release
September, 21 2020, 12:00am EDT
Contact:
Gabby Brown, gabby.brown@sierraclub.org
Morgan Stanley Sets Net-Zero Financed Emissions Target Without Key Details
Commitment does not include interim targets or plans to phase out fossil fuels or deforestation.
WASHINGTON
Today, Morgan Stanley announced a new commitment to reach net-zero financed emissions by 2050. Morgan Stanley is the first major American bank to set such a target, though the announcement did not include details on the bank's plan to get there.
Last week, 60 climate and human rights groups, led by Rainforest Action Network, released a set of "Principles for Paris-Aligned Financial Institutions: Climate Impact, Fossil Fuels and Deforestation" to clarify necessary elements for financial institutions' climate plans to align with the goals laid out in the Paris Agreement.
On October 1st, the Science-Based Targets Initiative will release its methodology for validating financial institutions' climate targets. Advocates expect banks and other financial institutions to use this framework for ensuring that long-term and interim targets align with 1.5-degree climate scenarios.
Advocates recently acknowledged Morgan Stanley for becoming the first major US bank to join the Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF), but the 2020 Banking on Climate Change report shows that Morgan Stanley is still one of the top dozen fossil fuel financing banks in the world, and it financed nearly $11 billion in fossil fuel expansion in 2019 alone.
Members of the Stop the Money Pipeline Coalition released the following statements in response:
"Morgan Stanley's commitment to achieve net-zero financed emissions by 2050 is an important step forward that sets a new bar for other major US banks to follow, but also needs to be followed up with critical next steps for actually getting there," said Sierra Club Senior Campaign Representative Ben Cushing. "In order to translate this commitment into meaningful action in line with the Paris Agreement, Morgan Stanley needs to set a near-term target for emissions reductions and lay out a clear plan to phase out financing for fossil fuels immediately."
"Morgan Stanley has just become the first major US bank to commit to net-zero emissions. We recognize the bank's leadership on this and on agreeing to measure and disclose its climate footprint with the PCAF methodology. We look forward to Morgan Stanley quickly putting meat on this bare-bones commitment by using the Principles for Paris-Aligned Financial Institutions, and in particular by setting an interim target to halve its emissions by 2030," said Rainforest Action Network Climate and Energy Director Paddy McCully. "This will require an immediate end to financing for fossil fuel expansion and deforestation, and a plan to phase out financing for fossil fuels overall, while respecting human rights. It also means making clear that Morgan Stanley does not intend to hit "net zero" by using shady carbon accounting schemes like forest offsets or large-scale reliance on untested technologies like carbon capture and storage. The spotlight is now on Morgan Stanley's Wall Street peers, which have higher fossil fuel financing footprints, to make commitments that align with the Paris Agreement and the need to keep climate change under 1.5degC."
"This net-zero commitment is a step forward, but a destination isn't worth much without a roadmap to get there. We'd like to hear less about what banks are committed to achieving 30 years from now and more about what they're doing today to address the climate crisis unfolding all around us. As long as Morgan Stanley invests in companies like Exxon, Chevron and Shell, they're investing in disasters like wildfires, hurricanes, and floods," said Amy Gray, co-coordinator of the Stop the Money Pipeline Coalition.
"It's long past time for US banks to acknowledge their responsibility for cutting financed emissions, and Morgan Stanley has become the first to do so with today's net-zero announcement; however, this announcement sorely lacks details necessary for advocates and impacted communities to evaluate the effectiveness of Morgan Stanley's plans," said Moira Birss, Amazon Watch's Climate & Finance Director. "Given the inadequacy of Morgan Stanley's current sustainability policies, a commitment to net-zero will require a complete policy overall. As just one example, Morgan Stanley's current policy specifically allows for controlled burning as a practice in agribusiness, despite the fact that controlled burning is the primary cause of the fires currently destroying the Amazon rainforest - one of the most important ecosystems for climate stability."
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
Biden Reportedly on Verge of Approving 'Climate Disaster in Waiting'
One climate writer said letting the Willow Project proceed in Alaska would be "morally abhorrent, and bad politics, to boot."
Feb 01, 2023
The Biden administration is reportedly expected in the coming days to release an environmental analysis that will endorse partial approval of a massive oil drilling initiative on the North Slope of Alaska, alarming climate advocates who say the so-called Willow Project poses a dire threat to the environment, local communities, and wildlife.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that the legally required environmental assessment, which is set for publication this week, "will trigger a final decision from the Interior Department in a years-long showdown between the federal government and ConocoPhillips about its legal right to drill one of the largest oil and gas developments on federal territory."
According to the Post, which cited unnamed sources briefed on the process, the report "is being drafted to lay out a preferred alternative that allows three well pads, down from the originally requested five."
The New York Times also cited anonymous sources familiar with White House plans to report that the Biden administration is "expected to propose a scaled-down version" of Willow, a project that "has the potential to eventually unlock 600 million barrels of crude oil."
Green groups have warned that the drilling project—which is seen as a key climate litmus test for the Biden administration—could unleash hundreds of millions of metric tons of greenhouse gas pollution, emitting the equivalent of dozens of new coal-fired power plants and worsening the climate emergency.
Last month, environmentalists rallied outside the White House to pressure the Biden administration to block the project, which they characterized as a "climate bomb."
"The best way to describe the Willow Project is a climate disaster in waiting," CAP Energy Policy tweeted earlier this week.
Climate writer Alex Steffen tweeted late Tuesday that letting the project proceed would be "morally abhorrent, and bad politics, to boot."
"It is unconscionable to green-light the single largest proposed oil and gas project on American public lands and open up the western Arctic to further destruction."
Once the Bureau of Land Management's environmental assessment of the project and recommendations are made public, U.S. Interior Secretary Deb Haaland—who vocally opposed Willow as a member of Congress—will be tasked with granting final approval or rejecting the drilling plan.
The Post noted that "Haaland has wide discretion, including the right to choose from other options or to mix and match options from the assessment. Those possibilities also include blocking one pad and deferring decisions on up to three more."
"ConocoPhillips needs approval to start the project within weeks, while Arctic weather is still cold enough for the company to make the ice roads and ice platforms they build on to drill through tundra. Missing that window would put drilling off until the deep freeze returns next winter, opening the chance for court fights or other delays that may block Willow entirely," the Post observed. "Company leaders have also threatened to abandon the project if Haaland’s choice is too restrictive. A green light for any less than three pads would prevent Willow from being profitable enough to justify the company’s investment."
Progressive Democratic lawmakers have joined climate advocacy groups in urging the Biden administration to reject the drilling project, pointing to rapidly warming temperatures in the Arctic.
"The Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the world," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) tweeted earlier this month. "It is unconscionable to green-light the single largest proposed oil and gas project on American public lands and open up the western Arctic to further destruction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Exxon Touted Record Profits, House GOP Used First Energy Hearing to Parrot Big Oil Lies
"If today was a sign of what's to come, future House Energy and Commerce Committee hearings will be reduced to GOP members regurgitating Big Oil's false talking points."
Feb 01, 2023
On the same day that the largest oil company in the United States reported record profits for 2022, Republicans used the first House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing of the new year to promote the further expansion of climate-wrecking fossil fuel production and attack efforts to build out renewable energy infrastructure.
The energy panel is chaired by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the top recipient of oil and gas PAC money in the last election cycle and a longtime advocate of opening U.S. public lands and waters to fossil fuel drilling.
In keeping with her record, Rodgers kicked off Tuesday's hearing by touting the House's passage of legislation that would require the federal government to lease a certain percentage of public lands and waters for fossil fuel extraction for every non-emergency drawdown of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Rodgers touted last week's vote as "bipartisan," but just one House Democrat—Rep. Jared Golden of Maine—joined Republicans in passing the bill, which is unlikely to become law. Climate advocates have warned that, if enacted, the measure "could lock in at least a century of oil drilling."
"We need to be doing more to secure and unleash American energy," Rodgers said Tuesday, attacking so-called "rush-to-green" policies and falsely blaming Europe's energy crisis on renewables.
Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), chair of the panel's subcommittee on energy, climate, and grid security, toed a similar line during his opening remarks at Tuesday's hearing, decrying "the Democrats' 'rush-to-green policies'" and condemning science-backed calls to phase out fossil fuels.
Duncan also praised surging oil exports, which experts say have driven up costs for U.S. consumers while padding the profits of fossil fuel giants and contributing to the rise of global carbon emissions.
Jordan Schreiber, the director of energy and environment with the progressive watchdog group Accountable.US, said in a statement Tuesday that "if today was a sign of what's to come, future House Energy and Commerce Committee hearings will be reduced to GOP members regurgitating Big Oil's false talking points while openly advocating for energy policies that favor wealthy executives and shareholders over their own constituents."
The hearing began hours after ExxonMobil reported a record-shattering $56 billion in profits for the full year of 2022.
The corporation, whose scientists accurately predicted global warming decades ago as the company publicly lied about climate change, said it distributed nearly $30 billion to shareholders last year as U.S. households struggled to pay their energy bills.
Days before Exxon's earnings release, Chevron—the second-largest oil company in the U.S. by market cap—reported $35.5 billion in 2022 profits, an all-time high for the company.
"Even on a day when three of the country's largest oil companies posted a whopping $82.5 billion in profits for 2022, thanks to the unrelenting price gouging of American consumers, the MAGA majority can not stop themselves from doing the industry’s bidding," said Schreiber, referring to the combined profits of Exxon, Marathon Petroleum, and Phillips 66.
During Tuesday's hearing, Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee slammed their Republican colleagues for prioritizing the interests of the ultra-profitable fossil fuel industry over U.S. consumers and the environment.
"We've all heard the slogans: 'Drill baby, drill,' 'energy dominance,' and now 'energy expansion,'" said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.). "But don't be fooled. These policies will not expand our potential for new renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, and will only increase our dependence on oil and gas."
"They're nothing more than a giveaway to the oil industry," DeGette said of the House GOP's fossil fuel-centered energy agenda.
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the top Democrat on the committee, pushed back on the GOP narrative that energy prices are high because the Biden administration is hindering the oil and gas industry's ability to drill—something that climate groups have pressured the administration to do, with little success.
"Republicans have pushed this idea that somehow Big Oil wanted to pump more but couldn't," said Pallone. "In reality, they wanted to keep the price artificially high."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Wife of Chief Justice Causes Latest Ethics Concerns at US Supreme Court
"It's clear that the ultraconservative justices in particular cannot be trusted to hold themselves to the same ethical standard as other federal judges," said one advocate, calling for congressional action.
Jan 31, 2023
Fresh calls for federal lawmakers to pass new ethics rules for the U.S. Supreme Court mounted after The New York Times on Tuesday revealed that a former colleague of Chief Justice John Roberts' wife raised concerns to Congress and the U.S. Department of Justice.
After her husband joined the nation's top court, Jane Sullivan Roberts left her job as a law firm partner to work as a legal recruiter. Though Roberts is now the managing partner of the Washington office of Macrae Inc., she and Kendal Price, the author of a letter obtained by the Times, worked as recruiters for the global firm Major, Lindsey & Africa.
"No wonder public trust in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low."
In his letter, Price "argued that the justices should be required to disclose more information about their spouses' work," the newspaper reported. "He did not cite specific Supreme Court decisions, but said he was worried that
a financial relationship with law firms arguing before the court could affect justices' impartiality or at least give the appearance of doing so."
As the Times detailed:
According to the letter, Mr. Price was fired in 2013 and sued the firm, as well as Mrs. Roberts and another executive, over his dismissal.
He lost the case, but the litigation produced documents that he sent to Congress and the Justice Department, including spreadsheets showing commissions attributed to Mrs. Roberts early in her headhunting career, from 2007 to 2014. Mrs. Roberts, according to a 2015 deposition in the case, said that a significant portion of her practice was devoted to helping senior government lawyers land jobs at law firms and that the candidates' names were almost never disclosed.
Patricia McCabe, a spokesperson for the Supreme Court, told the paper that all the justices were "attentive to ethical constraints" and complied with financial disclosure laws, and that the chief justice and his wife had consulted the code of conduct for federal judges.
The reporting comes after Justice Clarence Thomas—one of the Supreme Court's six right-wing members—ignored calls to resign over efforts by his wife, activist Ginni Thomas, to help former President Donald Trump overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. It also follows a September survey showing that U.S. adults' confidence in the court hit a record low.
"No wonder public trust in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low," Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs for Stand Up America, said Tuesday. "Jane Roberts is just the latest Supreme Court spouse to raise questions about potential conflicts of interest and influence peddling before the nation's highest court."
\u201cThe Roberts Court is corrupt, illegitimate, and undemocratic\n\n\u201cI do believe that litigants in U.S. courts, and especially the Supreme Court, deserve to know if their judges\u2019 households are receiving six-figure payments from the law firms"\nhttps://t.co/meehrlhwgf\u201d— The Debt Collective \ud83d\udfe5 (@The Debt Collective \ud83d\udfe5) 1675199600
Edkins argued that "while she did not join a seditious conspiracy to overthrow the government, as Ginni Thomas did, her actions may nonetheless undermine Chief Justice Roberts' impartiality when his wife's clients argue before the court."
"It's clear that the ultraconservative justices in particular cannot be trusted to hold themselves to the same ethical standard as other federal judges," he added. "It's time for Congress to step up and pass meaningful reforms to fix the Supreme Court, including a code of ethics that would require justices to recuse themselves from cases where they have an actual or apparent conflict of interest."
In a Tuesday tweet, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), lead sponsor of the Judicial Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act, pointed to the reporting as "example #4,394 of why the Supreme Court needs a binding code of ethics."
Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) did not say how his panel may respond to Price's letter but told the Times that it raised "troubling issues that once again demonstrate the need" for ethics reforms to "begin the process of restoring faith in the Supreme Court."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.