February, 07 2021, 11:00pm EDT

Climate Activists Target Major Banks in Fight to Defund Toxic Line 3 Pipeline
Over 150 Groups Call on 18 Major Banks to Walk Away From $2.2 Billion Loan
NEW YORK
In an effort to draw a proverbial "line in the sand" against continued investment in fossil fuel projects, activists are taking their fight once again to Wall Street. They are demanding 18 major banks walk away from a $2.2 billion loan with Enbridge, the corporation that is currently attempting to build the Line 3 tar sands pipeline across indigenous lands in Minnesota.
"Less than two months from now, on March 31st, 18 banks have a $2.2 billion loan to Enbridge due for renewal. Between now and then, we are going to do everything in our power to make it loud and clear to bank executives: They must walk away from Line 3 -- or there will be consequences," said Amy Gray, a Co-Coordinator of Stop the Money Pipeline.
Beginning today, Stop the Money Pipeline -- a diverse coalition of over 150 organizations pushing financial institutions to end support for fossil fuels and other climate-harming industries -- will initiate a campaign aimed at banks to #DefundLine3. They will deluge CEOs and board members of targeted banks with emails and phone calls, organize Covid-safe street protests, rallies and social media campaigns to ratchet up the pressure.
Enbridge Inc., a Canadian energy infrastructure company operating across North America, has been pushing to replace its existing Line 3 pipeline with a larger pipe that would carry 760,000 barrels of tar sands oil per day from Edmonton, Alberta, through Minnesota, to Superior, Wisconsin. Instead of safely decommissioning the existing Line 3, Enbridge wants to abandon it in the ground and build an entirely new $7 billion pipeline.
As indigenous activists in Minnesota continue to fight a brutal on-the-ground battle to stall construction by chaining themselves to equipment, standing in front of tractors and using any means available, including the creative use of pianos - to stop construction activities, STMP plans to take its fight directly to the banks.
The banks that activists are targeting include US banks JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, as well as TD Bank, the Royal Bank of Canada and the European banks Barclays Bank, HSBC, Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank. (See full list banks funding Line 3 here.)
For many activists Line 3 represents a watershed moment in the United States ability to move ahead of the impending Climate Emergency in a transformative way. Upon entering office, President Joe Biden cancelled the Keystone XL as promised and the current Dakota Access Pipeline has been derailed by legal challenges - and if they are able to force banks to end financial support to Line 3, it could serve as the death blow to the entire idea of fossil fuels as environmentally sound or acceptable investments.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) groundbreaking report all nations must cut global greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030 and to net zero by 2050, if we are to keep global warming below the dangerous level of 1.5 degree Celsius above pre industrial levels. This small window becomes even smaller and some argue impossible unless we shift dramatically from fossil fuel investments and usage.
"If built, Line 3, a massive toxic tar sands pipeline, would destroy the sacred wild rice beds my people depend on for our food, our culture and our way of life. It would contribute as much to the climate crisis as 50 new coal-fired power plants and bring thousands of out-of-state workers to northern MN in the middle of a deadly pandemic, threatening already vulnerable rural, Indigenous communities with the virus even more. It would also endanger 800 wetlands and 200 waterways," said Tara Houska, (Couchiching First Nation) tribal attorney to STMP supporters in an email letter today.
Tara's struggle has drawn national attention and increased hope, particularly after President Biden cancelled Keystone XL. Major figures including Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN) have visited the front lines and Rep. Omar recently penned a letter to President Biden saying "Under even the best-case scenarios for climate change, we cannot afford to build more fossil fuel infrastructure. That is especially true for projects like Line 3, which are designed for the dirtiest and most carbon-intensive fossil fuel there is, tar sands crude oil. Climate change is not just a risk, but a risk multiplier - all of the other known and unknown impacts of Line 3 will be greatly exacerbated by climate change."
In a release from the Congresswoman's office, she voiced the concerns of Indigenous communities and activists are also extremely worried about Enbridge's track record of toxic spills which shows "Enbridge has presided over some of the worst pipeline catastrophes in our nation's history. They amassed over 800 spills between 1999 and 2010 alone, including the devastating Kalamazoo River disaster, the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history. They've been sued by multiple states for failing to adequately inspect and operate their pipelines."
The Congresswoman's worries about the environmental impact of Line 3 are not without merit.
For climate activists, Line 3 is symbolic of Donald Trump's toxic legacy to indigenous people and our nation. Its construction would add another 193 million tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere annually, which would be as bad as putting another 38 million vehicles on the road.
While increasing numbers of notables are joining the struggle to end Line 3, STMP will utilize the building momentum to engage in a series of protests, as well as media and social media campaigns designed to highlight the role of banks in funding the climate crisis and to reinforce the idea that the return on investments in fossil fuels no longer serves our best interests as a planet and is certainly not worth our future.
"Funding Line 3 is an unconscionable act at any time, but especially during a time when there is but a small window for us to move toward a zero-carbon economy in a way that ensures a future for the next generation simply because some JP Morgan or Bank of America executive prioritize profits over people is sickening. We won't let them take our future - not without a fight," noted Alec Connon, Co-Coordinator at Stop the Money Pipeline.
The Stop the Money Pipeline coalition is over 160 organizations strong holding the financial backers of climate chaos accountable.
LATEST NEWS
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular