

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.

A new scorecard and report released today by environmental advocacy groups Stand.earth and Amazon Watch fails global banks for their financing and investment in the oil and gas industry in the Amazon rainforest, revealing that despite sustainability commitments and risk management screening processes, banks remain highly exposed to the risk of funding corruption, human rights violations, environmental harms -- and ultimately, climate chaos -- due to their ongoing relationships with companies and traders operating in the region.
"Our research reveals the environmental and social risk frameworks banks rely on are inherently flawed. Banks might follow what they consider best practices in ESR, but these policies have loopholes that allow money to continue to flow to companies involved in oil expansion, deforestation, biodiversity loss, pollution, corruption, and the violation of Indigenous peoples' rights. To put it simply, banks' current ESR policies are failing them. These policies do not adequately manage risks, are not strong enough to avoid Amazon destruction, and do not meet the urgent need to stop fossil fuel expansion globally," said Angeline Robertson, Senior Investigative Researcher at Stand.earth Research Group and one of the lead authors of the report.
This new report, titled "Banking on Amazon Destruction", comes on the heels of an August 2020 investigation revealing European banks financing the trade of Amazon oil from the headwaters region of Ecuador and Peru. This led to commitments by top banks to uphold their policies and end trade financing in that region, but the 2020 investigation also revealed additional relationships between banks, oil companies, and oil traders in contradiction with banks' ESR policies and risk management screening processes in the broader Amazon rainforest.
BANK SCORES & KEY FINDINGS
The report evaluated banks' ESR policies (risk management) versus their finance and investment in the Amazon (risk exposure), giving each bank positive and negative scores combined into an overall risk rating identifying the potential for banks' investments and financing to contribute to Amazon destruction. Rabobank, ABN Amro, and ING are at "moderate" risk; BNP Paribas, Credit Suisse, UBS, Societe Generale, and Credit Agricole are at "high" risk; and Natixis, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, and HSBC are at "very high" risk. All banks were provided a summary of their scoring and given the opportunity to respond before the release of the report. Among the key findings:
Since the report text was finalized, Amazon Watch investigators have learned that JPMorgan Chase and Credit Suisse, along with another bank not listed in this report, recently helped arrange the issuance of a $150 million dollar bond for GeoPark, a Chilean oil company currently operating in the Colombian Amazon that is allegedly paying paramilitary groups to ensure the continuation of its operations on and near the territories of Indigenous groups that opposed oil operations.
RED FLAGS OVER EXCLUSIONS, REVOLVING CREDIT FACILITIES
The International Energy Agency's sweeping call for nations around the world to stop investing in new fossil fuel supply underscores the need for banks to take more stringent actions to decarbonize their portfolios. However, the report reveals most banks continue to rely on policies that don't curb oil expansion in the Amazon, preferring instead to "tilt" oil companies rather than divest or defund.
The report identified that many banks lack deforestation exclusions that include the oil and gas sector, and their biodiversity exclusions focus on traditionally protected areas such as UNESCO World Heritage Sites while ignoring the vital role that Indigenous territories play in protecting biodiversity. And despite a long legacy of pollution from the oil and gas industry in the Amazon, the report uncovered only three banks with pollution exclusions. The report also flags additional blind spots in banks' lending policies: the use of revolving credit facilities, the lack of Indigenous consent, and inadequate grievance processes.
"For centuries, Indigenous peoples have been responsible for the preservation of the largest forest on the planet. We are being killed for defending our home. An Amazon biome-wide exclusion of all oil and gas finance and investment, aimed at stopping oil expansion in the most biodiverse place on the planet, will keep the Amazon Rainforest off the precipice of a disastrous ecological tipping point, eliminate toxic oil-related disasters, and end rights violations perpetrated by the industry. This is the path for a possible planet and the way for us to guarantee that our rights are respected. The financial sector must invest in recovering what has already been lost and finance the solutions our peoples offer to humanity in the climate change era," said Jose Gregorio Diaz Mirabal, General Coordinator of the Coordinating Body of the Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin (COICA).
AMAZON AT A TIPPING POINT
The Amazon rainforest is nearing a tipping point thanks to the massive degradation of this interconnected ecosystem. Scientists define the tipping point as the moment at which enough deforestation occurs that the Amazon will no longer be able to sustain itself, which will trigger the dieback of the entire rainforest. Due to the looming nature of these threats, which would have massive implications in the region and for the global climate, advocacy groups Stand.earth and Amazon Watch are calling for:
"The Amazon rainforest is the last place on Earth that oil expansion should happen -- especially at a time when we know that no fossil fuel expansion should occur at all. If banks have Arctic exclusions to protect biodiversity and fragile ecosystems, and the same logic can be applied to the Amazon, then why don't banks have exclusions for the Amazon? The Amazon rainforest is at a tipping point. Are banks going to continue to rely on mediocre risk management policies that they don't even follow, or take a bold step that will actually end their contribution to the destruction of this critical ecosystem?" said Moira Birss, Climate and Finance Director at Amazon Watch.
Stand.earth (formerly ForestEthics) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with offices in Canada and the United States that is known for its groundbreaking research and successful corporate and citizens engagement campaigns to create new policies and industry standards in protecting forests, advocating the rights of indigenous peoples, and protecting the climate. Visit us at
"Effective populist messaging requires calling out the actors actually making life worse for Americans, and right now, that includes Big Tech and the billionaires behind it," said the head of Data for Progress.
After finding last fall that a majority of voters believe life in the United States is getting worse, and many are "extremely worried" about issues including cost of living, division, authoritarianism, wealth inequality, and the climate crisis, the polling firm Data for Progress decided to have Americans name the "bad actors" most responsible for the country's concerning conditions.
In a pair of surveys conducted last month, Data for Progress asked more than 2,000 Americans to rate the impact of various groups or industries on the US economy—"things like jobs, prices, and economic growth"—as well as American society, or "things like feelings of community, well-being, and social trust."
The top villains, according to respondents, are the nation's nearly 1,000 billionaires, then corporate landlords. Rounding out the top 10 were sports gambling marketplaces, artificial intelligence companies, cryptocurrency firms, payday lenders, the Republican Party, social media giants, the Democratic Party, and for-profit universities.

Respondents were asked to rank each group or industry on a seven-point scale from "extremely negative" to "extremely positive."
Those with the most positive views were small businesses, libraries, regional banks and credit unions, charitable organizations, hospitals, churches, public K-12 schools, online shopping platforms, large grocery companies, big box retailers, and urgent care clinics.
"Within categories, we see some meaningful differences between individual actors—mom-and-pop landlords, small regional banks, public K-12 schools, and renewable energy companies are viewed more positively than their counterparts: corporate landlords, multinational banks, charter K-12 schools, and oil and gas companies," the progressive polling firm noted.
With the November midterm elections just four months away, and Democrats trying to seize control of both chambers of Congress as progressives within the party notch key wins over more moderate candidates, Data for Progress executive director Ryan O'Donnell said that "effective populist messaging requires calling out the actors actually making life worse for Americans, and right now, that includes Big Tech and the billionaires behind it."
"As AI continues to impact people's lives directly—whether it's a data center in their backyard or a job replaced by automation—AI companies and tech billionaires are setting themselves up to be the next big villains in American politics," he added.
Earlier this week, as the US Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority "gave their blessing for billionaires to buy even more influence over the politicians who represent us," the watchdog Public Citizen released a report about soaring corporate political spending since the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, including $517 million in this cycle so far.
Some of the top villains from Thursday's polling were key contributors to that figure: "Cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence, Big Tech, and online betting corporations have collectively spent $294 million to influence federal elections in the 2026 midterm cycle."
Blasting the corporate spending as "a disaster for democracy," the report's author, Rick Claypool, said that "if the current, broken campaign finance system remains unchallenged—and corporate spending is allowed to drown out the voices of real voters and real people—these corporate campaigns will keep multiplying, even as voting rights for individual Americans face escalating attacks."
That report and the Data for Progress polling were notably published as more than 250 million people across the United States faced high temperatures tied to the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency—and, as Common Dreams reported earlier Thursday, residents of communities with data centers are being asked to make sacrifices due to strained power grids.
Americans are also awaiting the fate of the bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act—which includes a ban on corporate investors buying single-family homes to rent out—because Republican President Donald Trump has refused to sign it in an effort to bully GOP lawmakers into passing a legislative attack on voting rights.
In a comment that multiple congressional Democrats said shows Trump "does not care" about Americans' cost of living concerns, Trump on Monday called the affordable housing bill a "big yawn" compared with the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, or SAVE America, Act that he wants Congress to send to his desk.
“In November, California voters will at last have a chance to make billionaires pay their fair share," said the coalition behind the proposal.
It's official: The proposed California Billionaire Tax Act, which last week was certified for November's election, has a ballot designation—Proposition 40.
"The people of California now have the opportunity to decide what kind of future they want,” Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW) vice president Debru Carthan said on Thursday.
“Proposition 40 asks a simple question: At a time when hospitals are reducing services, working families are being squeezed, and essential services are under attack, should a few hundred billionaires contribute their fair share to protect the state that helped make their extraordinary wealth possible?" Carthan asked. "We believe Californians will answer with a resounding yes."
Drafted by SEIU-UHW, Prop 40 would impose a one-time 5% levy on people worth $1 billion or more, to be paid in annual installments of 1% over five years.
It’s official! The billionaire tax will be on the ballot as Prop 40. This November, Vote YES on Prop 40 to ensure billionaires pay their fair share to keep hospitals and ERs open. #BillionaireTaxNow
[image or embed]
— Billionaire Tax Now (@billionairetaxnow.bsky.social) June 30, 2026 at 1:31 PM
The bil would require the state to spend 90% of revenue from the tax on healthcare and the rest on food assistance and public education. Proponents say the tax would raise roughly $100 billion in revenue. Critics argue that it could drive wealthy residents and investment from California and stall economic growth.
Prop 40 supporters include the Teamsters union and progressive groups like the California Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and Our Revolution, as well as individual progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and Democratic congressional candidate Connie Chan, who is running to replace retiring longtime San Francisco Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
The measure is opposed by Republicans, business groups, the Democratic Party, and even some progressives, including Chan's opponent, state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11).
Prop 40's most prominent Democratic opponent is California Gov. Gavin Newsom, whom critics accuse of trying to bamboozle voters with his recently unveiled plan for a national billionaire income tax. Some observers skeptical of the presumed 2028 presidential hopeful contend that his support for an income tax is rooted in knowledge that very rich people actually have relatively little income when compared with their investments and other assets.
Some progressive groups opposing Prop 40—including the California Teachers Association (CTA) and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California—point out that it is a one-off tax on wealth, not income. CTA is backing a separate ballot measure, the Children’s Education and Health Care Protection Act, which would permanently extend Proposition 55, California’s existing high-income-earner tax, which is set to expire in 2030.
In response to Thursday's ballot designation, Billionaire Tax Now said in a statement that "the measure qualified for the ballot after supporters submitted more than 1.6 million signatures from Californians across the state—nearly twice the number required to qualify—making it one of the strongest citizen-led ballot qualification efforts in California history."
"Voters consistently support the billionaire tax by large, double-digit margins," the coalition continued. "For healthcare workers who have dedicated their lives to caring for patients, today’s news isn’t just welcome, it’s critical. With no other viable alternatives proposed by Gov. Newsom, the billionaire tax is the only available option to stop a cascade of hospital and clinic closures spurred by massive federal cuts in HR 1, known as President [Donald] Trump’s so-called 'Big, Beautiful Bill.'"
"In November," Billionaire Tax Now added, "California voters will at last have a chance to make billionaires pay their fair share to help prevent widespread hospital closures, through a commonsense ballot initiative that places a one-time 5% tax on the wealth of approximately 200 billionaires who reside in the Golden State."
"As families struggle to keep food on the table, Congress must prioritize work on efforts to lower costs and help Americans stay afloat," said the Washington Democrat.
As Americans face rising grocery prices under President Donald Trump and rally behind progressive policies and primary candidates, US Rep. Pramila Jayapal on Thursday introduced a bill that shows what kind of proposals could become reality with more Democrats like her in Congress.
Inspired by a program in her own district in Washington state, the chair emerita of the Congressional Progressive Caucus introduced the Fresh Bucks for Fresh Produce Act, which would create a pilot program at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) that gives households earning 80% or less of their area's median income $60 per month to buy fruits and vegetables.
The USDA pilot would be modeled on Seattle's Fresh Bucks initiative, in which enrolled households "experience a 31% higher rate of food security and consume at least three daily servings of fruits and vegetables 37% more often than those assigned to a program waitlist," according to University of Washington (UW) research published last August.
"I would classify both of those numbers as pretty large," study co-author Jessica Jones-Smith a professor at UW and University of California, Irvine, said at the time. "We don't routinely see interventions that work that well. It's a pretty big impact on diet in terms of what we can do from a policy perspective and expect to make a difference in food insecurity."
In Seattle—generally ranked as an expensive but livable metropolis—a single person living within city limits on a monthly income of $7,070, or $84,850 a year, can apply for the program. For a family of four, it's $10,095 per month, or $121,150 annually. In January, the city the welcomed over 4,500 more local households off its waitlist and increased monthly benefits from $40 to $60.
Those enrolled in Seattle's program can buy "fresh fruits and vegetables at supermarkets, and fresh, frozen, canned, and dried fruits and vegetables (with no added fats, sugars, or salt) at farmers markets and independent grocers" that accept Fresh Bucks cards.
Adam Porter, who directs the Meals on Wheels program at the Seattle-based Sound Generations, said Thursday that "older adults across King County are facing impossible choices as grocery prices continue to rise. Seattle's Fresh Bucks program has had a substantial impact on our clients' health and quality of life: We have seen firsthand how a targeted produce benefit can increase health equity, improve food security, and keep food dollars circulating locally.
"A USDA pilot modeled on that success would be a meaningful step toward healthier households and stronger community food systems nationwide," Porter continued. In addition to his organization, groups endorsing Jayapal's bill include the Center for Biological Diversity, Coalition for Organic and Regenerative Agriculture, Farm Action Fund, Food & Water Watch, National Education Association, Southern Poverty Law Center, White Center Community Development Association (WCCDA), and over a dozen more.
"In White Center and historically underinvested communities across King County, we see every day how rising grocery costs continue to strain working families, seniors, immigrants, and households already navigating increasing housing and living expenses," said WCCDA executive director Aaron Garcia. "Access to healthy, culturally relevant food should not be determined by income—it should not be considered a luxury."
"At WCCDA, we believe thriving communities require systems that make healthy food accessible, affordable, and attainable—and that investments in food access are investments in community health, economic stability, and opportunity," Garcia said. "We strongly support Congresswoman Jayapal's leadership in advancing innovative solutions that respond to the realities families face today while strengthening local food systems and neighborhood businesses that give us our vibrancy."
"Expanding the proven Seattle Fresh Bucks model through a federal pilot offers an opportunity to increase food security, support local producers and retailers, and help communities across the country build healthier, more resilient futures," he added.
Jayapal has celebrated recent primary wins by leftists in New York, and on Thursday, with the November midterms just four months away, she called out her Republican colleagues—who are trying to hang on to their narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress after using them to pass cuts to federal food and healthcare programs while giving more tax breaks to the rich.
"As families struggle to keep food on the table, Congress must prioritize work on efforts to lower costs and help Americans stay afloat," said Jayapal, who is joined in sponsoring the bill by Democratic Reps. Alma Adams (NC), Nanette Barragán (Calif.), Chris Deluzio (Pa.), Shomari Figures (Ala.), Jahana Hayes (Conn.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC), Andrea Salinas (Ore.), Adam Smith (Wash.), and Shri Thanedar (Mich).
"While Republicans in Congress enacted legislation to raise food prices and are hell-bent on cutting food assistance, Seattle is once again leading the way with the Fresh Bucks program, which is successfully keeping people fed with nutritious food and reducing hunger," she said. "We must pass this legislation to expand the program nationwide and get families in every corner of the country healthy produce they can afford."