

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
"Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food," one lawyer said.
As the Trump administration continued its illegal freeze on food assistance, the US Department of Agriculture sent a warning to grocery stores not to provide discounts to the more than 42 million Americans affected.
Several grocery chains and food delivery apps have announced in recent days that they would provide substantial discounts to those whose Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits have been delayed. More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the program, and 39% of them are children.
But on Sunday, Catherine Rampell, a reporter at the Washington Post published an email from the USDA that was sent to grocery stores around the country, telling them they were prohibited from offering special discounts to those at greater risk of food insecurity due to the cuts.
"You must offer eligible foods at the same prices and on the same terms and conditions to SNAP-EBT customers as other customers, except that sales tax cannot be charged on SNAP purchases," the email said. "You cannot treat SNAP-EBT customers differently from any other customer. Offering discounts or services only to SNAP-eligible customers is a SNAP violation unless you have a SNAP equal treatment waiver."
The email referred to SNAP's "Equal Treatment Rule," which prohibits stores from discriminating against SNAP recipients by charging them higher prices or treating them more favorably than other customers by offering them specialized sales or incentives.
Rampell said she was "aware of at least two stores that had offered struggling customers a discount, then withdrew it after receiving this email."
She added that it was "understandable why grocery stores might be scared off" because "a store caught violating the prohibition could be denied the ability to accept SNAP benefits in the future. In low-income areas where the SNAP shutdown will have the biggest impact, getting thrown off SNAP could mean a store is no longer financially viable."
While the rule prohibits special treatment in either direction, legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold argues that it was a "perverted interpretation of a rule that stops grocers from price gouging SNAP recipients... charging them more when they use food stamps."
The government also notably allows retailers to request waivers for programs that incentivize SNAP recipients to purchase healthy food.
Others pointed out that SNAP is currently not paying out to Americans because President Donald Trump is defying multiple federal court rulings issued Friday, requiring him to tap a $6 billion contingency fund to ensure benefit payments go out. Both courts, in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, have said his administration's refusal to pay out benefits is against the law.
One labor movement lawyer summed up the administration's position on social media: "Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food."
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy.
After failing to use the government's might to bully Jimmy Kimmel off the air earlier this fall, President Donald Trump is once again threatening to bring the force of law down on comedians for the egregious crime of making fun of him.
This time, his target was NBC late-night host Seth Meyers, whom the president said, in a Truth Social post Saturday, "may be the least talented person to 'perform' live in the history of television."
On Thursday, the comedian hosted a segment mocking Trump's bizarre distaste for the electromagnetic catapults aboard Navy ships, which the president said he may sign an executive order to replace with older (and less efficient) steam-powered ones.
Trump did not take kindly to Meyers' barbs: "On and on he went, a truly deranged lunatic. Why does NBC waste its time and money on a guy like this??? - NO TALENT, NO RATINGS, 100% ANTI TRUMP, WHICH IS PROBABLY ILLEGAL!!!"
It is, of course, not "illegal" for a late-night comedian, or any other news reporter or commentator, for that matter, to be "anti-Trump." But it's not the first time the president has made such a suggestion. Amid the backlash against Kimmel's firing in September, Trump asserted that networks that give him "bad publicity or press" should have their licenses taken away.
"I read someplace that the networks were 97% against me... I mean, they’re getting a license, I would think maybe their license should be taken away,” Trump said. "All they do is hit Trump. They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.”
His FCC director, Brendan Carr, used a similar logic to justify his pressure campaign to get Kimmel booted by ABC, which he said could be punished for airing what he determined was "distorted” content.
Before Kimmel, Carr suggested in April that Comcast may be violating its broadcast licenses after MSNBC declined to air a White House press briefing in which the administration defended its wrongful deportation of Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on social media following Trump's tirade against Meyers. "Why? Because Trump believes he—not the people—decides the law. This is why we are in the middle of, not on the verge of, a totalitarian takeover."
"An ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship—including a birth certificate—if the app says the person is an alien," said the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.
Immigration agents are using facial recognition software as "definitive" evidence to determine immigration status and is collecting data from US citizens without their consent. In some cases, agents may detain US citizens, including ones who can provide their birth certificates, if the app says they are in the country illegally.
These are a few of the findings from a series of articles published this past week by 404 Media, which has obtained documents and video evidence showing that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents are using a smartphone app in the field during immigration stops, scanning the faces of people on the street to verify their citizenship.
The report found that agents frequently conduct stops that "seem to have little justification beyond the color of someone’s skin... then look up more information on that person, including their identity and potentially their immigration status."
While it is not clear what application the agencies are using, 404 previously reported that ICE is using an app called Mobile Fortify that allows ICE to simply point a camera at a person on the street. The photos are then compared with a bank of more than 200 million images and dozens of government databases to determine info about the person, including their name, date of birth, nationality, and information about their immigration status.
On Friday, 404 published an internal document from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) which stated that "ICE does not provide the opportunity for individuals to decline or consent to the collection and use of biometric data/photograph collection." The document also states that the image of any face that agents scan, including those of US citizens, will be stored for 15 years.
The outlet identified several videos that have been posted to social media of immigration officials using the technology.
In one, taken in Chicago, armed agents in sunglasses and face coverings are shown accosting a pair of Hispanic teenagers on bicycles, asking where they are from. The 16-year-old boy who filmed the encounter said he is "from here"—an American citizen—but that he only has a school ID on him. The officer tells the boy he'll be allowed to leave if he'll "do a facial." The other officer then snaps a photo of him with a phone camera and asks his name.
In another video, also in Chicago, agents are shown surrounding a driver, who declines to show his ID. Without asking, one officer points his phone at the man. "I’m an American citizen, so leave me alone,” the driver says. "Alright, we just got to verify that,” the officer responds.
Even if the people approached in these videos had produced identification proving their citizenship, there's no guarantee that agents would have accepted it, especially if the app gave them information to the contrary.
On Wednesday, ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), told 404 that ICE agents will even trust the app's results over a person's government documents.
“ICE officials have told us that an apparent biometric match by Mobile Fortify is a ‘definitive’ determination of a person’s status and that an ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship—including a birth certificate—if the app says the person is an alien,” he said.
This is despite the fact that, as Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told 404, “face recognition technology is notoriously unreliable, frequently generating false matches and resulting in a number of known wrongful arrests across the country."
Thompson said: "ICE using a mobile biometrics app in ways its developers at CBP never intended or tested is a frightening, repugnant, and unconstitutional attack on Americans’ rights and freedoms.”
According to an investigation published in October by ProPublica, more than 170 US citizens have been detained by immigration agents, often in squalid conditions, since President Donald Trump returned to office in January. In many of these cases, these individuals have been detained because agents wrongly claimed the documents proving their citizenship are false.
During a press conference this week, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem denied this reality, stating that "no American citizens have been arrested or detained" as part of Trump's "mass deportation" crusade.
"We focus on those who are here illegally," she said.
But as DHS's internal document explains, facial recognition software is necessary in the first place because "ICE agents do not know an individual's citizenship at the time of the initial encounter."
David Bier, the director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, explains that the use of such technology suggests that ICE's operations are not "highly targeted raids," as it likes to portray, but instead "random fishing expeditions."