

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.

Gabby Brown (Sierra Club), gabby.brown@sierraclub.org
Julia Cusick (CAP), jcusick@americanprogress.org
Jason Schwartz (Sunrise Project), jason.schwartz@sunriseproject.
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.
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) 977-5500“A Palestinian vice presidency at the General Assembly would not change power realities on the ground, but it would normalize Palestinian statehood claims... That is precisely what the United States is attempting to block.”
The Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations withdrew his bid to become a vice president of the UN General Assembly on Thursday following threats from the Trump administration to strip the visas of the entire Palestinian delegation, according to NPR.
The Palestinian envoy, Riyad Mansour, has been an outspoken critic of Israel's actions toward Palestinians, particularly since the beginning of the genocidal war in Gaza, which he said has entailed "the collective punishment of over two million Palestinians."
He has been Palestine’s permanent UN observer for more than two decades and had earlier this year planned to run for president of the General Assembly, though he bowed out following US pressure.
The Guardian reported that on Tuesday, the US State Department sent a diplomatic cable to the US embassy in Jerusalem instructing it to pressure the Palestinian Authority (PA)—the governing body of the occupied West Bank—to withdraw its bid for one of the 21 vice presidencies of the General Assembly as well.
General Assembly vice presidents have a role in setting the body’s agenda and filling in when the president is absent. The UN is scheduled to hold elections amongst Assembly members on June 2.
The US cable said Mansour “has a history of accusing Israel of genocide"—as leading human rights groups and experts have—and that his presence would “undermine” the objectives of President Donald Trump’s so-called “Board of Peace” in Gaza, which a recent Human Rights Watch report said has fallen fall short of its promises to provide aid to Palestinians and has allowed Israeli forces to continue killing them with little pushback despite a ceasefire.
The cable said, “We will hold the PA responsible if the Palestinian delegation does not withdraw its [vice presidential] candidacy” by Friday, “and consequences will follow.”
The cable threatened to revoke the US visas of all Palestinian officials. The US already revoked most of them back in August, but rolled back the ban on those who were visiting as part of the annual UN summit. “It would be unfortunate to have to revisit any available options,” the cable said.
It also threatened that Israel would continue to withhold tax revenue that it owes to the Palestinian Authority, which was blocked by Israel's far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, at the beginning of the war in October 2023. The money being withheld by Israel accounts for 60% of the PA's revenue.
A person familiar with the matter told NPR that Mansour specifically would refrain from running for the position for the next two years, which was interpreted as a reference to the end of Trump's term as president.
The US is prohibited from blocking UN officials from visiting the body's New York headquarters under a 1947 agreement. However, the US has blocked visas for officials from enemy countries, including Russia and Iran, as well as the former leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Yasser Arafat.
Hady Amr, who served as a senior State Department official on Palestinian affairs under the Obama and Biden administrations, told NPR that expelling diplomats is extremely rare outside of "extreme situations like Russian espionage or election interference."
Amr said, "Generally, it's counterproductive because you need diplomats to work out problems between countries, and by expelling diplomats, you're undermining not only their ability to solve problems, but the abilities of the United States as well."
Tawfiq Al-Ghussein, a London-based researcher who specializes in modern Middle Eastern history and the displacement of Palestinians, said on social media that "the significance of this is not merely procedural."
"Washington is effectively trying to prevent even symbolic Palestinian institutional visibility within the UN system because it understands that international legitimacy matters politically, legally, and diplomatically," Al-Ghussein said. "A Palestinian vice presidency at the General Assembly would not change power realities on the ground, but it would normalize Palestinian statehood claims within the architecture of international governance itself. That is precisely what the United States is attempting to block."
“The irony is extraordinary: The same power that lectures the world endlessly about democracy and international order is reportedly threatening visas and diplomatic consequences to stop Palestinians from holding a largely ceremonial UN role,” he continued. "It reveals once again that the issue was never 'peace negotiations' as such, but control over who is permitted institutional legitimacy in the international system."
The goal of these political action committees, explained one journalist, is to make sure voters “never find out who is funding ads before a campaign happens.”
Corporate interests are meddling in Democratic primaries by setting up what are being described as "pop-up super PACs" aimed at taking down candidates who are critical of Big Tech.
During a Friday episode of The Intercept Briefing podcast, political reporter Matt Sledge outlined how US campaign finance law allows for moneyed interests to swoop into political campaigns at the last minute and flood the airwaves with misleading ads about progressive candidates.
Specifically, Sledge said that Big Tech-affiliated groups have figured out how to "game campaign finance deadlines and create super PACs, or political action committees, to funnel money to other super PACs so that reporting deadlines are missed."
As a result, said Sledge, these “pop-up super PACs" can bombard voters with last-minute propaganda in the closing days of campaigns—and voters will "never find out who is funding ads before a campaign happens."
"Some of these newer industries that are getting in on the campaign spending game, like crypto and artificial intelligence, are also setting up entire networks of super PACs," Sledge added, "sometimes a mama or a papa super PAC, and then a Democratic-affiliated super PAC and a Republican-affiliated super PAC so that both donors can channel their money to one party affiliate and to make it a little harder for voters to track where all the money is coming from."
A Thursday report from Politico documented how a mysterious super PAC called Lead Left has been been spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to benefit Maureen Galindo, a Democratic candidate for US Congress in Texas who has been broadly condemned for comments about transforming a local immigration detention facility into a "prison for American Zionists."
Democrats have accused GOP-backed interests of funding Lead Left, which they say is misleadingly posing as a progressive organization, to boost the prospects of fringe candidates such as Galindo.
In a video posted to social media on Friday, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) noted that members of his caucus from across the ideological spectrum had condemned Galindo, and said that "Republicans must immediately stop boosting her candidacy."
"This candidate is being propped up by a Republican shadowy super PAC to elevate her in the primary," Jeffries said, "because they know she'll be an incredibly weak general election candidate."
People of goodwill have forcefully rejected the antisemitic and anti-American candidate in the TX-35 run-off.
Republicans must immediately stop boosting her candidacy. pic.twitter.com/CUFhqvEdLQ
— Hakeem Jeffries (@hakeemjeffries) May 22, 2026
According to Politico, such operations have been occurring throughout the country.
"Shady PACs have become a staple of the cycle, and modern campaigns generally," Politico reported. "In two House special elections last year in Virginia and Arizona, pop-up PACs spent on ads and avoided having to disclose who was behind them until after primary contests were complete. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has used shell PACs to shield its involvement in some races this year. Another group, Real Change PAC, started spending in New Jersey’s 7th District on Wednesday."
Last week, the Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission, accusing Lead Left of both "strategically gaming federal reporting deadlines to avoid disclosing the sources of its election spending," while also violating "federal campaign finance laws requiring full transparency about the recipients of that spending" in a scheme to conceal "crucial information about how it is spending its money."
"She never should've had this job to begin with," said one Democratic lawmaker.
Tulsi Gabbard resigned on Friday after serving as US President Donald Trump's Director of National Security during his second term in the White House.
"Good riddance," said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) in response. "She never should've had this job to begin with."