

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.

Jackie Fielder, jackie@stopthemoneypipeline.
Today Citigroup launched its initial roadmap to achieve net-zero in its energy and power portfolios. With these targets, Citigroup becomes the first major US bank to set an absolute emissions target for its energy portfolio.
Climate advocates have repeatedly criticized other banks' intensity-only targets, which are compatible with increases in absolute emissions.
However, the policy still allows their biggest fossil fuel clients such as Exxon, Saudi Aramco, and Chevron to lag in 2022 and 2023-leaving just six years for the company to slash its financed emissions by 2030.
"Citi's new climate plan is a small step forward, but there is much more to be done," said Jackie Fielder, Stop the Money Pipeline Coalition Co-Director. "Failure to immediately end the bank's support for fossil fuel companies that are ignoring climate science and expanding their operations is the most glaring gap. As the second-largest funder of the fossil fuel industry since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015, it is a gap that Citi should fill without delay."
The unprecedented: Citigroup's climate plan uses absolute emissions rather than carbon intensity metrics to judge progress in the energy sector. By measuring financed (absolute) emissions to measure its progress in its energy portfolio, Citi breaks rank with three other major US banks (JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley) that have used carbon intensity metrics in their 2030 net zero plans. The carbon intensity metric is a cheap accounting trick that enables banks to appear as if they are decarbonizing, even as they continue to expand their support of the fossil fuel industry and corporations driving deforestation around the globe. Additionally, Citi is the first US bank to publish its baseline energy sector financed emissions in absolute terms, broken down by scope.
However, the plan still allows for fossil fuel expansion, in direct contrast to the International Energy Agency's assessment. Last year, the International Energy Agency's special report, Net Zero by 2050, concluded that there must be "no investment in new fossil fuel supply projects" starting from 2021 if the world is to avert catastrophic climate change. Instead, Citi's 2030 climate goals include a two year grace period of engaging with their biggest fossil fuel clients to assess their alignment with net zero. Citigroup says:
We will also encourage the responsible retirement of carbon-intensive assets rather than divestment as part of these transition plans. We will continue to assess our client relationships -- a regular part of how we manage our business -- and prioritize partnering on transition strategies before turning to client exits as a last resort.
Stop the Money Pipeline coalition maintains its demand of an immediate start to a fossil fuel financing phaseout, including our demand of Citigroup to stop financing fossil fuel companies that have plans to expand their operations.
SEE THE DATA: Check out the Global Oil & Gas Exit List (GOGEL), an extensive public database that enables users to readily identify the largest oil and gas expansion companies, as well as those which are responsible for the dirtiest and most controversial forms of oil and gas production.
Member organizations of the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition released the following statements in reaction to the news:
"With these new commitments, Citigroup has surpassed the low bar set so far by its peers and taken an important first step toward aligning its lending practices with a climate-stable future," said Sierra Club Fossil-Free Finance Campaign Manager Ben Cushing. "The targets Citi has laid out aren't achievable if it continues to fund the expansion of fossil fuel development, and we are hopeful that this assessment period over the next two years will lead to cutting ties with polluters that are failing to change their practices accordingly."
"While an absolute target for energy represents a step forward, Citi has not ruled out expansion of fossil fuels -- sidestepping the headline requirement of the IEA net-zero scenario that Citi's energy target is based on," said Rainforest Action Network Climate and Energy Senior Campaigner Jason Opena Disterhoft. "The bank should require companies to end fossil fuel expansion and deforestation as explicit criteria in its client assessment, in line with climate science. This should also apply to power, where an intensity-only target leaves the door open for new fossil gas -- when the IEA has underlined the need for decarbonized power by 2035 in the rich world and 2040 worldwide."
"While it's great that Citi is breaking rank with other fossil fuel funding giants by setting absolute emissions targets for its portfolio, they simply cannot continue to allow fossil fuel expansion," said Amy Gray, Senior Climate Finance Strategist at Stand.earth. "Our planet just cannot afford anymore stalling tactics, frontline communities just can't wait for these banks to appease the fossil fuel industry while our homes burn and flood, while our bodies are polluted and our children's futures are destroyed for profit. It's time to set the standard for the banking industry and Citi should step up to the plate and lead the way."
"Citi cannot call itself a climate leader as it continues to pour financing into oil and gas expansion projects in critical biomes like the Amazon," said Pendle Marshall-Hallmark, Climate and Finance Campaigner at Amazon Watch, "Without a clear commitment to end financing for fossil fuels, Citi's new targets fall short. If Citi is serious about aligning its portfolio with its stated values, it must commit to end fossil fuel expansion immediately, in line with IPCC and IEA science."
"With these new 'targets,' Citi is likely expecting praise from the environmental community, but we can't praise any plan that still allows for funding fossil fuel expansion," said Erika Thi Patterson, Campaign Director for Climate and Environmental Justice with the Action Center on Race and the Economy. "Citi is straight up ignoring the demands of frontline Black, Brown and Indigenous communities that have been targeted by fossil fuel corporations for generations to end the fossil fuel era. We need to see Citi align its commitments with the demands of frontline communities by ending fossil fuel expansion immediately."
The Stop the Money Pipeline coalition is over 160 organizations strong holding the financial backers of climate chaos accountable.
"Senate Democrats will not help pass the SAVE Act under any circumstances," vowed the Senate Minority Leader.
The extremes to which the Republican Party will go to sway the 2026 elections in their favor was highlighted again on Sunday after US President Donald Trump said he will sign no other legislation into law this year until the SAVE Act—a bill that would deeply erode voting rights and threatens ballot access for tens of millions of Americans—is passed by Congress.
"It must be done immediately," Trump declared in a characteristically unhinged social media post on Sunday, referring to the SAVE Act, versions of which have passed the Republican-controlled House but so far stalled in the Senate.
"It supersedes everything else. MUST GO TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE," Trump continued in an all-caps tantrum. "I, as President, will not sign other Bills until this is passed, AND NOT THE WATERED DOWN VERSION - GO FOR THE GOLD: MUST SHOW VOTER I.D. & PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP: NO MAIL-IN BALLOTS EXCEPT FOR MILITARY - ILLNESS, DISABILITY, TRAVEL: NO MEN IN WOMEN’S SPORTS: NO TRANSGENDER MUTILIZATION FOR CHILDREN! DO NOT FAIL!!!"
Voting rights experts and Democratic lawmakers have denounced the SAVE Act as a dangerous threat to millions of eligible voters, calling it a clear effort by the GOP to tip the scales in their favor by depressing voter turnout in 2026 and beyond.
"In every form, the SAVE Act would require American citizens to show documents like a passport or birth certificate to register to vote. Our research shows that more than 21 million Americans lack ready access to those documents," warned Eliza Sweren-Becker and Owen Bacskai of the Brennan Center for Justice, which advocates for robust voting rights, in a blog post last week.
"Roughly half of Americans don’t even have a passport," Sweren-Becker and Bacskai continued. "Millions lack access to a paper copy of their birth certificate. The SAVE Act would disenfranchise Americans of all ages and races, but younger voters and voters of color would suffer disproportionately. Likewise, millions of women whose married names aren’t on their birth certificates or passports would face extra steps just to make their voices heard."
In response to Trump's threat on Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) characterized the SAVE Act as "Jim Crow 2.0" as he condemned the president and his GOP allies.
"If Trump is saying he won’t sign any bills until the SAVE Act is passed, then so be it: there will be total gridlock in the Senate," said Schumer. "Senate Democrats will not help pass the SAVE Act under any circumstances."
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, said Sunday that the SAVE Act—which Trump said last week must be passed "at the expense of everything else"—is not a voter ID bill, but rather "voter suppression" legislation bill masquerading as a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
"If it was a voter ID bill, it would provide people with the proper IDs to vote, with no barriers — but it doesn’t," noted D'Arrigo. "The voter fraud rate is .0001%, and this bill would potentially prevent up to 69 million women, 40 million who don’t have access to their birth certificate, and 140 million without a passport, from voting."
"The American people don't want this war," said Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut. "Virtually nothing good happened from sending thousands of Americans to die in Iraq in the 2000s and if we don't learn that lesson then shame on every single one of us."
Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut offered immediate push back on Sunday when CNN anchorJake Tapper said a vote against an expected $50 billion request by President Donald Trump to fund his attack on Iran would be seen as "voting against the troops."
"Oh come on," said Murphy, incredulous. "I mean, the American people don't want this war. They don't want this war—they have seen what happens when American troops go into places like Iraq, places like Afghanistan. Ultimately we get a lot of people killed, we waste a lot of dollars. The one thing the people of the American people have been clear about is that they don't want the United States dragged into another long-term war in the Middle East."
Polling has shown that Murphy is correct, with only one out of four people—a mere 25%—in a Reuters/Ipsos poll released last week showing any kind of support for Trump's war of choice against Iran.
"If you support the troops," said Murphy, "then you should vote against this war so that we get our troops out of harm's way. Virtually nothing good happened from sending thousands of Americans to die in Iraq in the 2000s and if we don't learn that lesson then shame on every single one of us."
TAPPER: "You have said you're a 'hell no' on funding the war. We have seen this movie before. We know that vote will be cast as - especially if you run for higher office - you voting against the troops."
MURPHY: "Oh come on I mean, the American people don't want this war." pic.twitter.com/lTB5isM8I7
— State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) March 8, 2026
Trump has yet to make the formal request for the $50 billion in funding, but estimates for just one week of fighting have put the cost of the military operations thus far at something close to $1billion per day.
Murphy has said he is a "hell no" on any additional funding and other members of the Democratic caucus have echoed that message.
"Trump is already spending $1 BILLION PER DAY on his illegal regime change war of choice in Iran," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) on Thursday. "Now, he's going to ask Congress to give him up to $50 BILLION MORE. My vote: hell NO."
"We could be lowering the cost of health care, but instead Trump is spending BILLIONS on his reckless war with Iran," said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) on Thursday. "Trump is blowing YOUR taxpayer dollars on war and causing gas prices to spike while he's at it."
Senator Susan Collins, said Platner outside the Republican senator's office in Portland, Maine, is more interested in the profits of weapons contractors "than the shame that we bring upon ourselves when we kill children."
Graham Platner, the Democratic hopeful running for the US Senate in Maine to unseat Republican Sen. Susan Collins, delivered a sharp rebuke Saturday to the war of choice launched against Iran last week by President Donald Trump—the kind of messaging, say anti-war progressives, that every lawmaker or politician seeking office should be giving in the face of a military campaign that a majority of Americans, across the political spectrum, adamantly oppose.
"We can all see what is happening right now," said Platner outside Collins' offices in downtown Portland, Maine on Saturday. "At least with the war in Iraq, they had the decency to try to trick us for months. At least they made Colin Powell go sully his name in front of the UN to try to trick us into thinking WMDs were real. At least then they tried to convince us that it was necessary. This time around, they're just doing it."
And the Trump administration is doing it, he continued, "because we have a system that does not hold people accountable. We have a Congress that for decades has abdicate its constitutional role in war making. It never should have been an option that a president can just start a huge regional conflict because he's afraid we're going to find out he might be a pedophile."
In a vote in the Senate on Wednesday, Collins sided against a War Powers Resolution that would have curbed Trump's ability to wage the war that has already killed more than 1,300 civilians, a large portion of them children. While the joint US-Israeli operation has unleashed chaos across the Middle East and been denounced as a criminal war of aggression by experts, Collins argued that passing the resolution "would send the wrong message to Iran and our troops."
"At least with the war in Iraq, they had the decency to try to trick us for months... This time around, they're just doing it."
Platner, who served multiple tours of combat duty in Afghanistan and Iraq as both a Marine and Army infantry soldier, expressed outrage at how willing politicians like Collins are to send young Americans off to kill and die for wars that bring such horror and carnage abroad while costing US taxpayers billions at home.
"Susan Collins is more interested in protecting the wealthy and the powerful. She is more interested in protecting the profits of the defense industry. She's more interested in protecting the interests of her AIPAC donors," Platner told the crowd, ripping Collins for her vote against the resolution. "She is more interested in all of that, than in protecting the sacred resource that is the lives of young American men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line for this country. She is more interested in their profits than the shame that we bring upon ourselves when we kill children."
On the first day of US bombing last week, a school in the southeastern town of Minab was struck, killing an estimated 165 civilians, most of them young students.
"She [Susan Collins] is more interested in their profits [AIPAC donors and the defense industry] than the shame that we bring upon ourselves when we kill children."
Watch Maine Democratic U.S. Senate candidate @grahamformaine confront Republican Senator Susan Collins. pic.twitter.com/9uaKqBcKix
— Zeteo (@zeteo_news) March 7, 2026
Norman Solomon, national director of the progressive advocacy group RootsAction, said "the content and location" of Platner’s remarks made them "doubly vital" and that other lawmakers and politicians would be wise to follow his lead and that others in the US should replicate such rallies where they live.
Across the country, Solomon told Common Dreams, "members of Congress who’ve voted for more high-tech slaughter in Iran are smugly going on with routine business in their offices, insulated from the murderous effects of their political positions. They do not deserve insulation, they deserve nonviolent and militant confrontation."
Showing up at local district offices of their members of Congress, "to protest with clear moral messaging" like those in Maine over the weekend, said added Solomon, "is long overdue and should become widespread. Most of us don’t live far from such offices. Why should politicians who enable mass murder from the skies be able to run their offices every day as though nothing is amiss?"
"Antiwar speeches and picket lines with moral clarity should become standard aspects of the political environment at the decentralized congressional offices," he said, "that for far too long have been aloof from the carnage and human anguish that craven elected officials continue to inflict."
Platner has emerged as potent anti-war voice in the week since Trump launched the US assault on Iran, repeatedly invoking the trauma he suffered and the horrors of war he witnessed as a soldier as a way to condemn repeating history, especially by lawmaker like Collins who appeared to have learned no lessons from the experience of the disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Talking to reporters after Saturday's rally, Platner referred to both Trump and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth as "morons" with no plan to get out of the mess they've created.
"I don't think these people have any idea what they're doing," Planter said. "And the problem with that is that that incompetent leadership is going to result in dead Americans—and it already has—and it's going to result in a region thrust into chaos and bloodshed."
If lawmakers won't stand up to stop Trump's war, Platner told News Center Maine in an interview that it will ultimately be up to the American people to organize and force an end to the conflict.
"The people who are going to send their sons and daughters off to fight, the people who are going to see their friends and families maimed and killed in combat, the people who are going to have to pay for all of this instead of getting health care," said Platner, "we need to stand together and show the political class in this country that we are not going to stand another foreign war."
In a separate post on Saturday, Platner reached out to Trump voters who may be disappointed or disillusioned after the warmongering of a president who told voters he would act to end wars in his second term, not start them.
"To all of those who voted for Trump," said Platner, "hoping for an end to stupid foreign wars: We may not agree on everything, but I promise to never waste your hard-earned money on a pointless quagmire in the Middle East."