March, 30 2022, 07:23am EDT
![Oil Change International](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012638/origin.png)
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Collin Rees, Oil Change International, collin@priceofoil.org
Laurel Sutherlin, Rainforest Action Network, laurel@ran.org
New Report: Despite 'Net Zero' Rhetoric, World's Biggest Banks Continued to Pour Billions into Fossil Fuel Expansion in 2021
Annual Banking on Climate Chaos report follows the money and details massive bank support for the world’s worst climate-destroying corporations
SAN FRANCISCO
Released today, the 13th annual Banking on Climate Chaos report, the most comprehensive global analysis on fossil fuel banking to date, underscores the stark disparity between public climate commitments being made by the world's largest banks, versus the reality of their largely business-as-usual financing to the fossil fuel industry.
The report documents that in the six years since the Paris Agreement was adopted, the world's 60 largest private banks financed fossil fuels with USD $4.6 trillion, with $742 billion in 2021 alone. 2021 fossil fuel financing numbers remained above 2016 levels, when the Paris Agreement was signed. Of particular significance is the revelation that the 60 banks profiled in the report funneled $185.5 billion just last year into the 100 companies doing the most to expand the fossil fuel sector.
Banking on Climate Chaos was authored by Oil Change International, BankTrack, Indigenous Environmental Network, Rainforest Action Network, Reclaim Finance, Sierra Club, and Urgewald, and is endorsed by over 500 organizations from more than 50 countries around the world.
The report shows that overall fossil fuel financing remains dominated by four U.S. banks, with JPMorgan Chase, Citi, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America together accounting for one quarter of all fossil fuel financing identified over the last six years. JPMorgan Chase remains the world's worst funder of climate chaos, while JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Mizuho, MUFG, and all five Canadian banks were among those that increased their fossil financing from 2020 to 2021. As global oil and gas markets are rocked by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the data reveal JPMorgan Chase to be the biggest banker covered in this report for Russian state energy giant Gazprom, both in terms of 2016-2021 totals and when looking only at last year. JPMorgan Chase provided Gazprom with $1.1 billion in fossil fuel financing in 2021.
The report includes a timeline that lays out how banks that joined the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA, part of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero) last year simultaneously financed some of the most egregious oil and gas expansion companies, potentially helping to lock the planet into decades of climate-warming emissions. Immediately following the April 2021 launch of the NZBA, many signatory and soon-to-be-signatory banks engaged in huge transactions completely counter to achieving "net zero," including: May 2021: $10B to Saudi Aramco (Citi, JPMorgan Chase), $1.5B to Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. (Citi); June 2021: $12.5B to QatarEnergy (Citi, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs); August 2021: $10B to ExxonMobil (Citi, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley). Out of the 44 banks in this report currently committed to net-zero financed emissions by 2050, 28 still don't have a meaningful no-expansion policy for any part of the fossil fuel industry.
The world's leading climate scientists have concluded that existing reserves of fossil fuels contain more than enough carbon pollution to break our remaining 'carbon budget' and thrust the world past 2 degrees Celsius of warming -- let alone the 1.5 degree aspirations of the Paris Agreement -- and the climate catastrophe that entails.
The new Global Oil and Gas Exit List exposes the fact that upstream oil and gas expansion is remarkably concentrated: the top 20 companies are responsible for more than half of fossil fuel development and exploration. Today's report shows that bank support for those companies is also remarkably concentrated: the top 10 bankers of those top 20 companies are responsible for 63% of the companies' big-bank financing since Paris. Each of those top ten bankers is formally committed to net zero by 2050: JPMorgan Chase, Citi, Bank of America, BNP Paribas, HSBC, Barclays, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Credit Agricole, Societe Generale.
Fossil Fuel Sector Trends:
Alarmingly, tar sands saw a 51% increase in financing from 2020-2021 to $23.3 billion, with the biggest jump coming from Canadian banks RBC and TD, with JPMorgan Chase still a major player. Fracking saw $62.1 billion in financing last year, dominated by North American banks with Wells Fargo at the top. JPMorgan Chase, SMBC Group, and Intesa Sanpaolo were the top bankers of Arctic oil and gas last year, with $8.2 billion in funding to the sector in 2021. Morgan Stanley, RBC, and Goldman Sachs were 2021's worst bankers of LNG, a sector that is looking to banks to help push through a slate of enormous infrastructure projects. Big banks funneled $52.9 billion into offshore oil and gas last year, with U.S. banks Citi and JPMorgan Chase providing the most in 2021. Coal mining financing is led by the Chinese banks, with China Everbright Bank and China CITIC Bank as the worst in 2021. Big banks overall provided $17.4 billion to the sector last year.
In the next two months, all six Wall Street banks are expected to face shareholder resolutions calling on them to stop financing fossil fuel expansion and otherwise truly align their business practices with limiting global warming to 1.5degC.
David Tong, Global Industry Campaign Manager at Oil Change International, said:
"It is past time to stop financing fossils. Oil, gas, and coal companies will not manage their own decline. The simple reality is that the fundamental arithmetic of 1.5oC requires oil and gas production to decline by at least 3-4% per year, starting now. But no major oil and gas company has committed to ending expansion, and banks around the world continue to pour billions into fossil fuels. That must stop now. If the banks' responses to the climate crisis are to be taken seriously, they must commit to ending finance for fossil fuels."
Maaike Beenes, Campaign lead Banks and Climate at BankTrack, said:
"Climate science has made it inescapably clear that there can be no expansion of fossil fuels if we are to limit global warming to 1.5? C. But banks have continued to fund companies planning to open up new fossil fuel frontiers, including by financing disastrous projects like the East African Crude Oil Pipeline, expansion of fracking in Argentina's Vaca Muerta and the expansion of the Trans Mountain tar sands pipeline. Any serious 'Net Zero by 2050' commitment must also mean excluding all fossil fuel expansion projects and companies from financing."
Mea Johnson, Divestment Campaign Coordinator, Indigenous Environmental Network, said:
"These banks are funding climate chaos by financing fossil fuel extraction to the tune of $742 billion in 2021 alone. Indigenous peoples have long been leading the fight for the sacredness of the land, water and Earth. Mother Earth has always given us what we need to thrive. We will not back down until our natural balance is restored and anyone helping fund the extractive destruction of our communities will be held accountable."
Alison Kirsch, Research and Policy Manager at Rainforest Action Network, said:
"Any further expansion of fossil fuels risks locking humanity into generations of climate catastrophe, yet the top fossil clients of the world's largest banks are still being showered with tens of billions of dollars even as they actively expand drilling, mining, fracking and other fossil fuel development unabated. With Wall Street banks leading the charge, these financial institutions are directly complicit in undermining a climate stable future for us all and must immediately end their support of any further fossil fuel infrastructure expansion."
Lucie Pinson, Director at Reclaim Finance, said:
"The data is clear: despite their net zero pledges and restrictions on fossil fuel financing, French banks BNP Paribas, Credit Agricole, Societe Generale and Natixis are still massively supporting oil and gas expansion, at odds with what climate science requires. No surprises there: as recently revealed by the Oil and Gas Policy Tracker, the many flaws in their oil and gas policies enable the banks to support major expansionists such as Gazprom, TotalEnergies, Saudi Aramco and BP despite their toxic fossil fuel plans. The war on Ukraine is another stark reminder that oil and gas are at the root of both war and climate change. It's high time banks close the policy gaps and turn off the taps."
Adele Shraiman, campaign representative for the Sierra Club's Fossil-Free Finance campaign, said:
"Despite their splashy climate pledges, big banks have largely continued with business-as-usual and actually increased their overall fossil fuel financing since the Paris Agreement. This report makes it clear that banks must clean up their act and stop funding the expansion of dirty fossil fuel projects like fracked gas exports, tar sands pipelines, and offshore drilling in order to align with what the science demands and what their own commitments require. As we look ahead to shareholder season, we'll be keeping up the pressure on the banks and their investors to take these critical reforms seriously and stop bankrolling the fossil fuel industry's reckless expansion plans."
Katrin Ganswindt, Head of Finance Research at Urgewald, said:
"On top of unleashing climate chaos around the globe, our continued reliance on fossil fuels is propping up some of the world's most heinous political regimes. Russia is waging a brutal war on Ukraine where it treats civilians as legitimate military targets. Saudi Arabia still maintains its violent stranglehold on Yemen, and at home, it put 81 men to death by beheading in a single day. Yet the rest of the world turns a blind eye and keeps sending such oppressive regimes bloody fossil fuel checks. We desperately need to direct global financial flows away from destructive fossil fuels and the cruel and corrupt governments that weaponize them against our environment and ourselves."
Rainforest Action Network (RAN) is headquartered in San Francisco, California with offices staff in Tokyo, Japan, and Edmonton, Canada, plus thousands of volunteer scientists, teachers, parents, students and other concerned citizens around the world. We believe that a sustainable world can be created in our lifetime and that aggressive action must be taken immediately to leave a safe and secure world for our children.
Oil Change International is a research, communications, and advocacy organization focused on exposing the true costs of fossil fuels and facilitating the ongoing transition to clean energy.
(202) 518-9029LATEST NEWS
Tens of Thousands Call for Federal Marijuana Decriminalization
"When it comes to the DOJ's proposal to reschedule marijuana, public opinion could not be clearer," said a campaigner with Drug Policy Alliance, which analyzed public comments on the pending change.
Jul 23, 2024
Shortly after the public comment period for the Biden administration's proposed rule to reschedule marijuana closed, a reform group on Tuesday released an analysis showing that the majority of submissions advocate for federal decriminalization.
When President Joe Biden pardoned U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents convicted of simple federal marijuana possession in October 2022, he also ordered the departments of Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services to review how cannabis is treated under the Controlled Substances Act.
Marijuana is currently Schedule I, the federal law's most restrictive category, despite dozens of states allowing adult recreational or medicinal use. In May, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which is part of the DOJ, proposed a shift to Schedule III and initiated the public comment period that ended Monday.
"Participation in public comment processes gives the American public a chance to speak from personal experience and provide feedback on proposed legal changes—and it gives the federal government an opportunity to adjust their proposals to reflect public opinion," said Cat Packer of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), which reviewed submissions.
"When it comes to the DOJ's proposal to reschedule marijuana, public opinion could not be clearer," added Packer, DPA's director of drug markets and legal regulation. "Rescheduling is simply not enough."
As DPA detailed in a statement, after analyzing the 42,910 public comments, the group found:
- 69.3% or 29,750 of comments support descheduling, decriminalizing, or legalizing marijuana at the federal level;
- 42.4% or 18,207 commentsmention the need for federal marijuana reform to advance racial justice or social equity; and
- 24% or 10,327 comments were submitted through a public comment tool hosted by United for Marijuana Decriminalization (UMD), a coalition that DPA convenes. These comments were the result of months of grassroots outreach to communities that have been impacted by marijuana criminalization.
"The people are demanding the Biden administration do more to deliver on the marijuana reforms that communities deserve," Packer said, pointing to previous promises from Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic nominee to face former Republican President Donald Trump and U.S. Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) in the November election.
Packer highlighted that nearly half of the comments "recognize that ending federal criminalization is key to achieving racial justice and social equity," and "this is something that the Biden administration has repeatedly identified as a priority in their marijuana reform efforts."
"However, under Schedule III, communities of color would still face disproportionate harms and lifelong consequences from federal marijuana criminalization," she explained. "Under Schedule III, people could still be jailed or deported for marijuana violations, even in states where it is legal. Under Schedule III, people could lose their jobs, their housing, their... food stamp benefits, or even lose custody of their children for marijuana violations."
Earlier this month, DPA and Human Rights Watch released a 91-page report detailing how the U.S. War on Drugs has impacted the lives of immigrants, "punishing people with deep connections to the United States, where they have formed families, attained education, and built their lives."
Packer argued Tuesday that "if the Biden administration wants to be responsive to public opinion and live up to their own stated values of racial justice and repair, marijuana must be federally decriminalized and additional actions must be taken to end the lifelong collateral consequences that result from marijuana criminalization."
"This is a galvanizing moment for our movement for drug policies grounded in health, equity, and reinvestment," she stressed. "Even if marijuana is ultimately rescheduled through this process, there are additional actions that President Biden and Congress can take. In the coming weeks and months, we will continue working with our allies to urge President Biden to take a whole government approach to advance equity in federal marijuana policy and mitigate the harms of criminalization."
"That means expanding pardons and commutations, protecting state marijuana programs, and directing federal agencies to cease punishing people for marijuana use," she said. "We know that the people and the evidence are on our side. It is time that our federal government listened."
Despite support from top figures including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), there is little hope that the current divided Congress would decriminalize marijuana. As Marijuana Momentreported shortly before House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) was voted into his role last year, he "has consistently voted against cannabis-related legislation."
The cannabis industry analytics firm Headset on Tuesday also reviewed public submissions for the new proposal and noted that "this comment period has shattered previous DEA records, surpassing even the highly contentious 2020 telemedicine rules that garnered approximately 38,000 comments."
"To put this into perspective, that's roughly equivalent to the entire population of Juneau, the capital city of Alaska," the firm highlighted. "It's as if every resident of a small state capital took the time to voice their opinion on this crucial issue."
Headset found that 92.45% of comments were in favor of changing cannabis' schedule, with 61.7% of them advocating for descheduling and 38.3% supporting a shift to a less restrictive category. Just 7.55% wanted to retain Schedule I.
"Those supporting rescheduling emphasized potential medical benefits, increased research opportunities, and alignment with state laws," Headset said. "Proponents of descheduling, the largest group, advocated for complete legalization, citing social justice concerns, economic opportunities, and personal liberty."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Woah!': FTC Applauded for Launching Inquiry Into Surveillance Pricing
"Firms that harvest Americans' personal data can put people's privacy at risk," FTC Chair Lina Khan said. "Now firms could be exploiting this vast trove of personal information to charge people higher prices."
Jul 23, 2024
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday launched an investigation into surveillance pricing and requested information from eight companies on the practice.
The FTC inquiry will look at the effect of surveillance pricing—using data on consumers' behavior or characteristics to manipulate the price for them as individuals—on privacy, competition, and consumer protection.
The agency asked Mastercard, JPMorgan Chase, Accenture, and McKinsey for information on the practice, as well as four less well-known companies that service major corporations.
"Firms that harvest Americans' personal data can put people's privacy at risk," FTC Chair Lina Khan said in a statement. "Now firms could be exploiting this vast trove of personal information to charge people higher prices."
"Americans deserve to know whether businesses are using detailed consumer data to deploy surveillance pricing, and the FTC's inquiry will shed light on this shadowy ecosystem of pricing middlemen," she added.
1. Firms harvest a trove of Americans’ personal data, from your browsing history to your biometrics. Now firms could be using this data to target you with an individualized price.
Today @FTC launched an inquiry into these surveillance pricing tactics. https://t.co/G4uc8lHWOV
— Lina Khan (@linakhanFTC) July 23, 2024
Progressive advocacy groups, which have long considered Khan to be one of their strongest allies in the Biden administration, and which argue that discriminatory pricing is unfair, celebrated the FTC's announcement.
"We're thrilled to see the FTC crack down on the dystopian practice of surveillance pricing," Lee Hepner, legal counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project, said in a statement. "It's chilling to think that companies have so much control over our lives that they can leverage personal data they've harvested—including your location, demographic, and shopping history—to turn our habits against us and hike up prices on essential goods. But it's already happening."
Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens also praised the FTC move, warning that "a personalized price might sound nice, but it is actually a three-part corporate strategy to spy on you, isolate you, and overcharge you."
"Today's investigation is an important step in cracking down on the methods big corporations use to spy on consumers to rip them off," Owens said in a statement.
Emily Peterson-Cassin, a director at Demand Progress Education Fund, said in a statement that Tuesday's announcement was "another strong sign that the FTC is fighting for consumer power over corporate power."
Zephyr Teachout, a law professor at Fordham University who has helped lead the opposition to surveillance pricing, reacted with excitement on Tuesday.
"Woah!" she wrote on social media. "The FTC is going there! So excited to see the FTC launching a full study into how companies use data to serve different prices to different people. We know the incentive and capacity is there, but the reality of surveillance pricing has been a triple-locked black box!"
Advocates of surveillance pricing sometimes call it personalized pricing and argue that it efficiently allocates resources. Such pricing questions are the subject of great interest among business school academics, especially at elite institutions such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, according to a detailed article in The American Prospect last month.
A crackdown on the practice could conceivably have support across the political spectrum. Stock guru Jim Cramer of CNBC—a frequent and vociferous critic of Khan—praised the FTC's announcement on air on Tuesday, while expressing disbelief that he was doing so.
7/ Even @jimcramer agrees that surveillance pricing is not an honest or ethical way to treat customers.
“How could you live with yourself?” if you’re a business that uses this strategy, he asked this morning.
“That is a great report. I agree with [@FTC].” pic.twitter.com/23HEDk8Yqf
— American Economic Liberties Project (@econliberties) July 23, 2024
All five FTC commissioners, including two Republicans, voted to move forward with the investigation, which will focus on intermediary firms—"the middlemen enabling firms to algorithmically tweak and target their prices," according to a blog post the FTC also published Tuesday.
The requests for information don't indicate that the eight firms engaged in wrongdoing, but rather that they can be useful sources of information, an unnamed FTC official toldThe Hill.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'What's the Holdup?' Menendez to Resign Next Month
"It's time for New Jersey to move forward," said U.S. Rep. Andy Kim, who is running to replace the senator.
Jul 23, 2024
One day after the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee notified Sen. Bob Menendez that it had voted to move toward a potential vote on expelling him from the upper chamber of Congress, the New Jersey Democrat told Gov. Phil Murphy that he would resign, effective August 20.
Menendez announced his resignation a week after he was convicted of 16 counts of bribery and acting as a foreign agent.
But with senators and members of the U.S. House long having called on the lawmaker to resign over the federal bribery charges, one leading ethics group asked why Menendez was waiting nearly a month to leave office.
"What's the holdup?" asked Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
Menendez was convicted last week of accepting bribes from three businessmen and acting as a foreign agent on behalf of the Egyptian government. He pleaded not guilty.
CREW promptly called on Menendez to resign after his conviction, saying he had spent years "ducking accountability for corruption."
"There is no room in the Senate for a convicted felon, especially not one convicted of taking bribes," said CREW president Noah Bookbinder last week. "He must resign today or be immediately expelled."
Manu Raju of CNN pointed out that the August 20 resignation date allows Menendez "to collect another taxpayer-funded paycheck."
Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.), the chair and vice chair of the Senate Ethics Committee, respectively, said Monday that the panel had voted to begin "an adjudicatory review of [Menendez's] alleged violations of Senate Rules."
"An adjudicatory review is required when the committee considers disciplinary actions, such as expulsion or censure," said the senators.
Bloomberg reporter Steven Dennis noted that lawmakers' resignation before their colleagues have a chance to recommend their expulsion is "a pattern throughout history."
Menendez was convicted of using his influence to meddle in three state and federal criminal cases to protect his associates, as well as taking actions that benefited the government of Egypt in exchange for bribes. Prosecutors said he ghostwrote a letter to his Senate colleagues about lifting a hold on military aid to Egypt. He did the favors in exchange for stacks of gold bars and $480,000 in cash that he hid in his home.
The senator wrote to Murphy that "I fully intend to appeal the jury's verdict, all the way and including to the Supreme Court."
Menendez's term was set to expire in January 2025; following his resignation, Murphy will be empowered to appoint someone to serve for the remainder of the senator's term. U.S. Rep. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) is running to replace Menendez and is favored to win against Republican Curtis Bagshaw. The disgraced senator also launched a bid last month to run for his seat as an Independent.
Kim said Tuesday that Menendez had "made the right decision for New Jersey by agreeing to step down next month."
"It's time for New Jersey to move forward," he said. "We have big challenges ahead of us, and we can only tackle them if we show the people of our state that this is the beginning of a new era of politics built on integrity, service, and delivering for all families."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular