December, 14 2021, 10:13am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Gabby Brown (Sierra Club), gabby.brown@sierraclub.org
Julia Cusick (CAP), jcusick@americanprogress.org
Jason Schwartz (Sunrise Project), jason.schwartz@sunriseproject.
US Banks and Investors Responsible for Roughly the Emissions of Russia, Report Finds
Center for American Progress and the Sierra Club look at "financed emissions" to offer novel view of the large carbon footprint of US banks and asset managers.
WASHINGTON
A new report published today by Center for American Progress and the Sierra Club finds that the 18 largest US banks and asset managers alone were responsible for financing the equivalent of 1.968 billion tons of CO2 in 2020. This would make the US financial sector the 5th biggest emitter of CO2 in the world if it were a country - ranked just below Russia and ahead of Indonesia.1 The new research offers a novel picture of the enormous carbon footprint of American finance and calls for a suite of regulations to be introduced across the sector to bring US banks in line with the Paris Agreement target of 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming.
The analysis, carried out by leading climate solutions and project developer South Pole, used a market-leading carbon accounting methodology to calculate, for the first time, the aggregate carbon emissions associated with the lending and investment activities of the US financial sector, based on an indicative sample.2 While the analysis clearly demonstrates the scale of impact from financial institutions in driving climate change, it likely represents a gross underestimate, as it relies on public disclosures that exclude crucial data, including emissions related to advisory services and underwriting and estimations of Scope 3 emissions for bank clients. Scope 3 emissions account for 88% of emissions for oil and gas companies.
The timing of the report is meaningful because it demonstrates how the financial industry takes advantage of weak disclosure rules to obscure understanding of its contributions to global emissions. Narrow public disclosures by banks do not include transaction-level data in their estimations of credit exposure. In the coming weeks and months, both the OCC and SEC will be considering rules that can--and should--directly address this shortcoming. This report should inform their decision-making.
Ben Cushing, Campaign Manager for the Sierra Club's Fossil-Free Finance campaign: "Regulators can no longer ignore Wall Street's staggering contribution to the climate crisis. Wall Street's toxic fossil fuel investments threaten the future of our planet and the stability of our financial system and put all of us, especially our most vulnerable communities, at risk. Financial regulators have the authority to rein in this risky behavior, and this report makes it clear that there is no time to waste."
Andres Vinelli, Vice President of Economic Policy at the Center for American Progress: "Climate change poses a large systemic risk to the world economy. If left unaddressed, climate change could lead to a financial crisis larger than any in living memory," said "The U.S. banking sector is endangering itself and the planet by continuing to finance the fossil fuel sector. Because the industry has proven itself to be unwilling to govern itself, regulators including the SEC and the OCC must urgently develop a framework to reduce banks' contributions to climate change."
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in order to limit global warming to 1.5degC, global emissions need to fall by 45% from 2010 levels before 2030. This year, the International Energy Agency stated that for the world to reach net zero emissions by 2050, there must be no new oil and gas development. However, pledges from the finance sector at COP26 in Glasgow this November have been widely criticized for a lack of concrete targets or timelines, a failure to directly address banks' support of fossil fuel companies, and a reliance on watered down "intensity" targets on emissions, instead of absolute targets. Banks continue to pour money into the fossil fuel industry. In fact, since the signing of the Paris Agreement in 2015, the world's largest 60 banks alone have provided $3.8 trillion to the fossil fuel industry.
President Biden has set ambitious targets for emission reductions in the US, but so far his administration has fallen short of utilizing its regulatory and policymaking powers to address the role of corporations in driving climate change. The report recommends numerous immediate and specific steps federal financial regulators can take to account for the imminent systemic threat of climate change, including reforms to capital markets regulation and regulations regarding capital requirements and supervision of banks.
Fossil fuel investments represent a large systemic financial risk in and of themselves. As the climate changes and as the world moves towards cleaner and cheaper renewable energy, fossil fuel assets are increasingly at risk of being "stranded," whether because the world is forced to move to cleaner energy or because of the impacts of climate change itself. As the report notes: "According to insurance provider Swiss Re, climate change could reduce global GDP by 11 percent to 14 percent by 2050 as compared with a world without climate change. That amounts to a $23 trillion loss, causing damage that would far surpass the scale of the 2008 financial crisis."
The report replicates a similar approach to one by Greenpeace UK and WWF that found that the UK financial sector was responsible for over 800 million tons of CO2 equivalent, nearly double the UK's total emissions.
- New report finds that if US financial institutions were a country, they would be the fifth worst carbon emitter in the world, or just below Russia, in annual net emissions of CO2;
- The finance sector is driving greenhouse gas emissions, yet there is currently no requirement for it to reduce emissions in line with government targets - unlike other industries;
- CAP and the Sierra Club call for rules and regulations that would align the US finance sector with the Paris Agreement, including impending rulemaking at the SEC and OCC.
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
'The American People Do Not Want Oligarchy': Poll Shows Trump's Approval at Historic Low at 100-Day Mark
A whopping 72% of respondents said that they believe it is "likely" that Trump's policies will cause an economic recession in the short term.
Apr 28, 2025
As U.S. President Donald Trump nears the 100-day mark of his second term, a recent ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll shows that his approval rating now sits at a historic low of 39%, a nadir that prompted one prominent progressive to remark that the negative public sentiment comes as "the resistance is just beginning."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has mounted a highly successful "Fighting Oligarchy" tour across America in recent months, highlighted the findings of the poll on Sunday and wrote: "The American people do not want oligarchy, authoritarianism, or attacks on Social Security, Medicaid, or the VA," speaking of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
The poll, which conducted a random national sample of 2,464 adults in English and Spanish between April 18-22, found discontent among voters when it comes to Trump's handling of multiple policies issues, particularly on the economy.
A whopping 72% of respondents said that they believe it is "likely" that Trump's policies—such as sweeping tariffs—will cause an economic recession in the short term.
What's more, 53% say the economy is worse since Trump took office and 62% said that the prices for things they rely on have gone up.
Trump's overall approval on immigration policy, one of his core campaign issues, is also less than 50%. When it comes to his handling of immigration—an area where Trump has moved to roll back birthright citizenship, deported U.S. citizens, and invoked a rarely used wartime authority to deport Venezuelan nationals to a megaprison in El Salvador, among other measures—his approval rating sits at 46%, according to the ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll.
Additionally, over 55% of Americans say Trump is "going too far" when it comes to seeking to expand the power of the presidency, closing federal agencies, laying off federal employees to reduce the size of government, and taking measures agains this political foes.
Overall, his approval among Americans has dipped from 45% positive in February to 39% positive on the eve of the 100-day mark, which is on Tuesday.
According to The Washington Post's analysis of the poll results, Trump's approval at 100 days in both of his terms is lower than any other president's at or near the 100-day mark "since polls began." Polling data on this question stretches back to former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's (FDR) third term, per the Post, when his approval rating was at 68% at the 100-day point. ABC News' write up of the poll results says that "Trump has the lowest 100-day job approval rating of any president in the past 80 years."
Some have drawn parallels between Trump and FDR, whose first 15 weeks in office in 1933 were dominated by a push to work with Congress on economic recovery and relief for working people, the first phase of what's known as the "New Deal." However, historians have noted that in substance the two could not be more different.
In reporting piece published Monday, the Post noted that Roosevelt's push in the first 100 days led to major new laws, while Trump largely relies on executive order.
"Roosevelt spent an awful lot of time trying to craft constitutional justifications in legislation, and draft it in such a way that the courts might accept it," Anthony Badger, a historian and author of FDR: The First Hundred Days, told the Post. "He wasn't trying to do it by executive order."
The historian and author Eric Rauchway toldCNN recently that substantively Trump's policies are the "opposite of the New Deal."
Trump "seems to be taking apart regulatory mechanisms. He seems to be drawing down public investment in a variety of areas, including the arts and so forth. He seems to be, as far as I can tell, diminishing resources sent to the Social Security Administration, which of course is the central piece of the New Deal’s proto-welfare state," Racuhway told the outlet.
In a similar vein to Sanders, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote Monday that Trump's actions in his first 100 days serves as a call to mobilization and to "loudly and boldly sound the alarm."
"The U.S. Constitution is in peril. Civil and human rights are being trampled upon. The economy is in disarray," wrote Reich. "At this rate, we won't make it through the second hundred days."
Reich suggested that that answer is for Americans to speak out and urge lawmakers in Congress, both chambers of which are currently GOP-controlled, to launch impeachment proceedings against Trump.
"Americans must be mobilized into such a huge wave of anger and disgust that members of the House are compelled to impeach Trump (for the third time) and enough senators are moved to finally convict him," he concluded.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Majority of US Voters Support Third Trump Impeachment: Poll
"It's up to Congress to do their job, defend the Constitution, and impeach and remove Donald Trump from office for his grave abuses of power," said Free Speech for People's campaign director.
Apr 28, 2025
New polling shows a majority of U.S. voters support Congress impeaching U.S. President Donald Trump a third time, which would break a record the Republican set during his first term, when he was twice impeached by the House of Representatives but never convicted by the Senate.
Specifically, a polling memo published Friday by ASO Communications and Research Collaborative shows that just a few months into Trump's return to the White House, 52% of likely voters across the ideological spectrum somewhat or strongly support impeaching him—including 84% of Democrats, 55% of Independents, and even 20% of his fellow Republicans.
The survey was conducted from April 18-21 by Data for Progress. The polling firm also asked the 1,171 respondents, "Thinking of an impeachment effort led by Democrats in Congress, which of the following comes closest to your view, even if none are exactly right?"
The largest share of respondents (46%)—including 80% of Democrats, 52% of Independents, and 9% of Republicans—said that "Democrats in Congress should attempt to impeach Trump because they have a duty to remove a president that has violated Americans' constitutional rights and the law."
Another 38% said Democrats should not impeach Trump because he hasn't done anything worthy of that, while 17% said they should avoid impeachment "because it is a performative action that will likely fail and make the Democratic Party look weak."
The Friday memo notes that "support for impeachment is now on par with the levels seen during the two most recent impeachment proceedings—even before a full public case has been presented. This moment offers an opportunity to build that case for the American public and demonstrate that elected leaders are committed to upholding their oaths and are willing to act boldly to protect our freedoms, our families, and our futures."
In response to the polling, Free Speech for People campaign director Alexandra Flores-Quilty declared that "Americans across the country refuse to let Trump and his allies destroy our democracy."
Free Speech for People is leading a nonpartisan Impeach Trump Again campaign, which includes a petition that has now been signed by over 370,000 people nationwide. The group's constitutional lawyers have documented abuses of power by Trump and his billionaire allies since Inauguration Day, from illegal actions targeting immigrants and seeking retribution against perceived adversaries to attacking voting rights and having criminal charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams dismissed.
According to Flores-Quilty, "It's up to Congress to do their job, defend the Constitution, and impeach and remove Donald Trump from office for his grave abuses of power."
Although the GOP now narrowly holds both chambers of Congress, articles of impeachment against the president could still be coming soon from Rep. Al Green (D-Texas).
The Hillreported that Green said during an early April anti-Trump rally: "We need a Senate that will convict him this time, and I want you to know, from my heart, from my heart, I understand that he is a Goliath. He is a Goliath. He has control of the generals in the military. He has control of the Justice Department. He has control of the Republican Party, but my friends, my friends, for every Goliath, there is a David."
"And I want you to know, Mr. President, this David is going to bring articles of impeachment against you within the next 30 days," he told the crowd in Washington, D.C. "Within the next 30 days, I'm bringing articles of impeachment. I'm coming for you. Mr. President, this David is coming for you."
New NYT/Siena Poll: —Trump's approval rating is 42% vs. 54% disapprove —59% of voters think Trump's 2nd term in office is "scary" —54% say Trump is "exceeding the powers available to him" —Trump has negative approval in all policy areas www.nytimes.com/2025/04/25/u...
[image or embed]
— Yonah Freemark (@yonahfreemark.com) April 25, 2025 at 3:35 PM
Other recent surveys have also found that voters are alarmed by or unhappy with the president. For example, a New York Times/Siena College poll conducted from April 21-24 shows that 66% of voters describe his second term as "chaotic," 59% think it's "scary," 54% disapprove of how Trump is handling his job, and 53% believe that the United States is "headed in the wrong direction."
An ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll conducted April 18-22 similarly found that 55% of Americans disapprove of the president's job performance. A majority of voters also said that Trump is "going too far" in trying to expand the power of the presidency, closing federal agencies, laying off government employees, taking measures against political opponents, and trying to end efforts to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in workplaces.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Palestinian Envoy to ICJ: Israel Using Starvation as 'Weapon of War' in 'Genocidal Campaign'
"Israel is starving, killing and displacing Palestinians while also targeting and blocking humanitarian organizations trying to save their lives," said Palestinian envoy Ammar Hijazi.
Apr 28, 2025
With Israel's "total and complete blockade" leaving people across Gaza "slowly dying" if they aren't being "killed with bombs and bullets," according to one United Nations official, Palestinian envoy Ammar Hijazi was among those who described the reality on the ground to the U.N.'s top court on Monday as the body considered Israel's legal obligations in Palestine.
Ammar Hijazi, Palestinian ambassador to the Netherlands, warned the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that since October 2023, Israel's blockade on humanitarian aid "has progressively turned into a total siege."
"Israel is starving, killing, and displacing Palestinians, while also targeting and blocking humanitarian organizations trying to save their lives," he said, accusing the Israeli military of waging a "genocidal campaign" in Gaza.
On March 2, for the second time since the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) began bombarding Gaza in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack in October 2023, Israel halted all humanitarian aid into the enclave. The total blockade was followed by Israel's decision to end a cease-fire that has begun in January, conducting a bombing campaign that killed hundreds of Palestinians in its first day.
For nearly two months, food supplies have dwindled in Gaza, and the World Food Program announced last week that it had delivered its last remaining stocks of hot meals to food kitchens.
The siege has created conditions that are "incompatible with sustaining life or the continued existence of Palestinians in Gaza," Hijazi said.
The ambassador noted that the ICJ hearing was taking place to consider whether Israel is violating international law.
"It is not about the number of aid trucks Israel is or is not allowing into the Occupied Palestinian Territories, especially Gaza," said Hijazi. "It is about Israel destroying the fundamentals of life in Palestine while it blocks U.N. and other humanitarians from providing lifesaving aid to the population. It is about Israel unraveling fundamental principles of international law, including their obligations under the U.N. Charter."
"Starvation is here," Hijazi added. "Humanitarian aid is being used as a weapon of war."
The hearing on Monday was the first of several that will take place at the ICJ over the next five days, following a resolution passed by the U.N. General Assembly last year calling on the court to consider Israel's legal responsibilities after the government blocked the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) from operating in the Palestinian territories—cutting Palestinians off from the agency that has for years provided crucial food aid, cash assistance, and health services, among other necessities.
Elinor Hammarskjold, U.N. undersecretary-general for legal affairs, argued during the hearing that Israel's ban on UNRWA is "inconsistent with Israel's obligation under international law" and warned that Israel has an "overarching obligation to administer the territory for the benefit of the local population" and must "agree to and facilitate relief schemes."
As the hearing was underway, medical sources in Gaza toldAl Jazeera that at least 36 people had been killed in Israeli attacks since dawn while eight out of 12 ambulances in southern Gaza were no longer operating due to a lack of fuel.
The Palestinian Civil Defense said its capacity to respond to residents in need will be increasingly reduced by the blockade, "threatening the lives of hundreds of thousands of citizens and displaced persons in shelters."
"We hold the Israeli occupation responsible for the worsening suffering of our people in the Gaza Strip due to the ongoing war and the continued imposition of the blockade," said the civil defense.
In addition to describing to the court the impact of Israel's blockade, Hijazi spoke about the IDF's attacks that have killed hundreds of aid workers, including nearly 300 UNRWA staff members and dozens of paramedics.
"These killings are deliberate, not accidental," he said of the killing earlier this month of 15 paramedics who were found with bullet wounds in a mass grave, and whose vehicles were shown to be clearly marked in cellphone footage that was later released—despite Israeli claims that they had provoked suspicion by driving in the dark without headlights on.
One of the attorneys representing Palestine at the ICJ, Paul Reichler, said that "the inhumanity of this Israeli policy is compounded by its unlawful objective: to forever extinguish the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination."
"In these circumstances, there can be no doubt that Israel is violating its obligations under international humanitarian law, including obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention and customary international law," said Reichler.
Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh, another of the international human rights lawyers who represented Palestine at the ICJ on Monday, cataloged just some of Israel's recent displays of hostility to the rule of law, noting that Defense Minister Israel Katz said earlier this month that "Israel's policy is clear: No humanitarian aid will enter Gaza," and that the Israeli government is planning to annex 75 square kilometers of the southern Gaza city of Rafah as part of a so-called "buffer zone."
Ní Ghrálaigh emphasized that "despite the extraordinary efforts of Palestinian journalists, who are themselves repeatedly targeted and killed, so much remains undocumented."
"As stated by UNRWA's commissioner-general, I quote, 'I shudder to think of what will still be revealed about the horrors that have taken place in this narrow strip of land,'" she said.
Forty states and four international groups are scheduled to present in the upcoming ICJ hearings, which are separate from the genocide case filed at the court by South Africa. The ICJ said in January 2024 that Israel was required to take steps to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide and to provide humanitarian aid.
A ruling in the case that began Monday is expected to take several months to be announced.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular