January, 19 2022, 05:44pm EDT
Stop the Money Pipeline Coalition Members Respond to Citigroup's New Climate Targets
WASHINGTON
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.
LATEST NEWS
Privacy Defenders Decry 'Spy Draft' in Section 702 Renewal Advanced by Senate
"It's not about who RISAA allows the government to spy on, it's about who RISAA allows the government to force to spy," explained one critic.
Apr 18, 2024
Civil liberties defenders on Thursday decried the U.S. Senate's advancement of the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act, which critics say lawmakers are trying to ram through without protection against warrantless surveillance and with a provision that would effectively make every American a spy whether they like it or not.
Senators voted 67-32 in favor of a cloture motion to begin voting on RISAA, a bill to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which expires on Friday. FISA—a highly controversial law that has been abused hundreds of thousands of times—allows warrantless surveillance of non-U.S. citizens but also often sweeps up Americans' communication data in the process.
In a 273-147 vote last week, House lawmakers passed RISAA, including an amendment critics say dramatically expands the government's unchecked surveillance authority by compelling a wide range of individuals and organizations—including businesses and the media—to cooperate in government spying operations.
This so-called "Make Everyone a Spy" clause would allow the attorney general or director of national intelligence to force electronic communication service providers to "immediately provide... all information, facilities, or assistance" the government deems necessary.
"This bill would basically allow the government to institute a spy draft," Seth Stern, director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, warned Thursday. "It will lead to significant distrust between journalists and sources, not to mention everyone else."
"It's not about who RISAA allows the government to spy on, it's about who RISAA allows the government to force to spy," he added. "Regardless of whether the end target of the surveillance is a foreigner, it's indisputable that the people the government can enlist to conduct the surveillance are Americans. And what's more, these civilians ordered to spy would be gagged and sworn to secrecy under the law."
In addition to the "Make Everyone a Spy" provision, civil libertarians have sounded the alarm over the House lawmakers' rejection of an amendment that would have added a warrant requirement to the legislation.
Critics accuse Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and colleagues including Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.) of trying to rush a vote on RISAA while disingenuously claiming Section 702's powers will expire with the law on Friday. That's a misleading claim, as a national security court earlier this month approved the government's request to continue a disputed surveillance program even if Section 702 lapses.
"There is simply no defense of Majority Leader Schumer and Sen. Warner's duplicity," Sean Vitka, policy director at the progressive advocacy group Demand Progress, said in a statement. "House Intelligence Committee leaders poisoned this bill with one of the most repugnant surveillance expansions in history, and apparently the administration was too busy attacking commonsense privacy protections to notice. They know it, we know it, and now the American people know it."
"There can be no mistake: Sens. Schumer and Warner just helped hand the next president an unspeakably dangerous weapon that will be used against their own constituents," Vitka added. "And there is only one vote left to stop it."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)—who
said earlier this week that the bill would dragoon the American people into becoming "an agent for Big Brother"—on Thursday argued that "this issue demands a debate about meaningful reforms, not a rushed vote to rubber-stamp more warrantless government surveillance powers."
In an attempt to tackle the warrantless surveillance issue, Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) on Thursday proposed a RISAA amendment that would require the government to obtain a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before accessing Americans' private communications.
However, the amendment contains exceptions to the warrant requirement in the event of unspecified emergencies and cyberattacks.
"If the government wants to spy on the private communications of Americans, they should be required to get approval from a judge—just as our Founders intended," Durbin said in a statement. "Congress has a responsibility to the American people to get this right."
The Biden administration and U.S. intelligence agencies vehemently oppose the Durbin-Cramer amendment. The White House called the measure "a reckless policy choice contrary to the key lessons of 9/11 and not grounded in any constitutional requirement or statute."
"The amendment outright bars the government from gaining access to lawfully collected information using terms associated with U.S. persons," the administration added. "Exceptions to that prohibition are narrow and unworkable. They are insufficient to protect our national security."
On Wednesday, the House also passed the Fourth Amendment Is Not for Sale Act, which would prohibit the government from buying Americans' information from data brokers if it would otherwise need a warrant to obtain the data, which includes location and internet records. The Senate will now take up FANFSA.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Opposite of Leadership': US Vetoes Palestine's UN Membership
Palestine's permanent observer at the United Nations said the resolution's failure "will not break our will, and it will not defeat our determination."
Apr 18, 2024
U.S. President Joe Biden's administration on Thursday used the country's veto power at the United Nations Security Council to block Palestine's bid to become a full member of the U.N.
While 12 nations voted in favor of Palestinian membership and two abstained, the United States is one of five countries—along with China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom—who have veto authority at the Security Council.
Since Israel launched what the International Court of Justice has said is a "plausibly" genocidal assault of the Gaza Strip in response to a Hamas-led October attack, the Biden administration has blocked three cease-fire resolutions at the Security Council. Under mounting global pressure, the U.S. finally abstained last month, allowing a cease-fire measure to pass.
In the lead-up to Thursday's vote, the Biden administration was pressuring other countries to oppose the Palestinian Authority's renewed membership effort so it could possibly avoid a veto, according to leaked cables obtained by The Intercept.
"Take a moment to ponder how isolated Biden has made the U.S.," said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, after the veto. "Biden lobbied Japan, South Korea, and Ecuador HARD to oppose the Palestine resolution so that the U.S. wouldn't have to veto. They refused. So Biden cast his fourth veto in seven months (!!) This is the opposite of leadership."
In addition to the nations Parsi highlighted, Algeria, China, France, Guyana, Malta, Mozambique, Russia, Sierra Leone, and Slovenia voted for giving Palestine full U.N. membership while Switzerland and the United Kingdom abstained.
After the vote, U.N. Newsreported on remarks from Riyad Mansour, a U.N. permanent observer for the state of Palestine:
"We came to the Security Council today as an important historic moment, regionally and internationally, so that we could salvage what can be saved. We place you before a historic responsibility to establish the foundations of a just and comprehensive peace in our region."
Council members were given the opportunity "to revive the hope that has been lost among our people" and to translate their commitment towards a two-state solution into firm action "that cannot be maneuvered or retracted," and the majority of council members "have risen to the level of this historic moment, and they have stood on the side of justice and freedom and hope, in line with the ethical and humanitarian and legal principles that must govern our world and in line with simple logic."
"The fact that this resolution did not pass will not break our will, and it will not defeat our determination," Mansour added. "We will not stop in our effort. The state of Palestine is inevitable. It is real. Perhaps they see it as far away, but we see it as near, and we are the faithful."
Parsi said that "a Western-friendly senior Global South diplomat" told him of Biden's veto: "Whatever agonizing claim the U.S. had to lead a self-appointed free world has died a very loud public death on the Security Council horseshoe tonight. YOU CAN'T LEAD IF YOU CAN'T LISTEN."
Biden, a Democrat seeking reelection in November, has faced fierce criticism in the United States and around the world for U.S. complicity in Israel's war on Gaza—which Hamas, not the Palestinian Authority, has controlled for nearly two decades. In under seven months, Israeli forces have killed 33,970 Palestinians, injured another 76,770, displaced most of the besieged enclave's 2.3 million population, devastated civilian infrastructure, and severely limited the flow of lifesaving humanitarian assistance.
Israel—which already got $3.8 billion in annual U.S. military aid before October 7—continues to receive weapons support from the Biden administration, even as a growing chorus of critics, including some Democrats in Congress, argues that the arms transfers violate U.S. and international law.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Shameful': Columbia Greenlights Police Crackdown on Anti-War Encampment
Even after dozens of students were arrested, hundreds "rushed to take the place of their classmates" and continued the protest.
Apr 18, 2024
The arrests of dozens of Columbia University and Barnard College students on Thursday "galvanized" other supporters of Palestinian rights on the campuses, as hundreds of students occupied the school's western lawn after New York City police filled at least two buses with protesters who had been detained for setting up an encampment.
"Disclose, divest, we will not stop, we will not rest," chanted hundreds of students as they marched around the area where organizers had set up a tent encampment early Wednesday morning.
Columbia President Minouche Shafik informed the campus community on Thursday that she had authorized the police to clear the encampment.
As it has been in the past, the school has become a center of anti-war protests—and crackdowns by school officials and the police—since Israel began its bombardment of Gaza in October.
Pro-Palestinian students and alumni have demanded that Columbia divest from companies that profit from Israel's apartheid policies in the occupied Palestinian territories and cancel its dual degree program with Tel Aviv University.
In response to pro-Palestinian demonstrations, Columbia in November suspended the campus chapters of Jewish Voice for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine—an action that pushed the New York Civil Liberties Union and Palestine Legal to file a lawsuit on behalf of the students last month.
On Thursday, police and Columbia employees took down about 50 tents that had been up for more than a day and disposed of them in trash cans and alleyways—but The New York Times reported later that "demonstrators repitched a couple of tents, and ... recovered the main signage from the encampment as well," while hundreds of students were "still gathered and chanting on the south side of the grass."
The arrests came a day after Shafik testified before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce about antisemitism on campus.
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), whose daughter, Isra Hirsi, was among the Barnard students who were suspended on Thursday for participating in the encampment protest, questioned Shafik about whether antisemitic protests have actually taken place at Columbia, prompting the president to say there have not.
"There has been a rise in targeting and harassment against anti-war protesters, because it's been pro-war and anti-war protesters is what it seems, like, correct?" asked Omar.
"Correct," replied Shafik.
On Thursday, Omar posted on social media two images of protesters at Columbia: one from the encampment this week, and one from 1968, when students protested the U.S. war in Vietnam.
New York City Council member Tiffany Cabán was among those who condemned the university's crackdown on the protests on Thursday.
"Suspending and arresting Columbia/Barnard student activists and disbanding student organizations—including Jewish students and organizations—doesn't combat antisemitism or increase safety," said Cabán. "All it does is punish and intimidate those who believe in human rights for Palestinians. Shameful."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular