

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.

Collin Rees, Oil Change International, collin@priceofoil.org
Laurel Sutherlin, Rainforest Action Network, laurel@ran.org
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) 518-9029Despite denials of being involved in the Texas state senate special election, Trump endorsed the losing candidate on three separate occasions over the last three days.
Hours after the Republican Party suffered an upset defeat in a special election in a deep-red district in Texas, President Donald Trump falsely claimed he had nothing to do with the race.
While speaking to reporters at his Mar-a-Lago resort on Sunday, Trump was asked what he made of the GOP losing a Texas state senate election in a district that he carried by 17 percentage points in 2024.
"I'm not involved in that, that's a local Texas race," Trump replied.
Reporter: A Democrat won a special election in Texas in an area that you won by 17 points
Trump: I’m not involved in that. That’s a local race. I don’t know anything about it. I had nothing to do with it. pic.twitter.com/MfWU1DZkar
— Acyn (@Acyn) February 1, 2026
In fact, Trump endorsed losing Republican candidate Leigh Wambsganss on three separate occasions in just the last three days, including a Saturday post on Truth Social where he called her "a phenomenal Candidate" and "an incredible supporter of our Movement to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN."
Trump's attempt to distance himself from someone whom he enthusiastically endorsed just one day ago elicited instant ridicule from many of his critics on social media.
"Two days ago, the president used his social media platform to endorse this 'phenomenal candidate' and to urge 'all America First Patriots' in the district to get out and vote for her," remarked Princeton historian Kevin Kruse. "Today, he says he doesn't know anything about it and had nothing to do with it. He's lying or demented or both."
Zak Williams, a political consultant at Zenith Strategies and a native Texan, wrote that Trump was "intimately involved" in the campaign, noting that Republicans outspent Democrats in the race by a margin of 10 to 1.
Joe Walsh, a former Republican congressman who left the GOP over his disgust with Trump, expressed astonishment at the president's blatant dishonesty.
"He’s such a horrible person," wrote Walsh. "And such a dishonest person. Yes, he was involved in that race. He endorsed the losing candidate, and she lost 100% because of him. She lost 100% because of this past year of his chaos, his cruelty, and his incompetence. Her loss was a total rejection of him."
Journalist James Barragán of TX Capital Tonight, argued that the Wambsganss loss calls into question just how effective Trump's endorsements will be in moving voters in the 2026 midterm elections.
"President Trump says he’s 'not involved' in SD 9 race where his endorsed candidate (who he boosted multiple times in the runup) lost a +17 Trump district," wrote Barragán. "He’s either not being truthful or it makes you question how much stock people should put into his social media endorsements."
"This was a bribe," said one critic.
A bombshell Saturday report from the Wall Street Journal revealed that a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family secretly backed a massive $500 million investment into the Trump family's cryptocurrency venture months before the Trump administration gave the United Arab Emirates access to highly sensitive artificial intelligence chip technology.
According to the Journal's sources, lieutenants of Abu Dhabi royal Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan signed a deal in early 2025 to buy a 49% stake in World Liberty Financial, the startup founded by members of the Trump family and the family of Trump Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.
Documents reviewed by the Journal showed that the buyers in the deal agreed to "pay half up front, steering $187 million to Trump family entities," while "at least $31 million was also slated to flow to entities affiliated with" the Witkoff family.
Weeks after green lighting the investment into the Trump crypto venture, Tahnoon met directly with President Donald Trump and Witkoff in the White House, where he reportedly expressed interest in working with the US on AI-related technology.
Two months after this, the Journal noted, "the administration committed to give the tiny Gulf monarchy access to around 500,000 of the most advanced AI chips a year—enough to build one of the world’s biggest AI data center clusters."
Tahnoon in the past had tried to get US officials to give the UAE access to the chips, but was rebuffed on concerns that the cutting-edge technology could be passed along to top US geopolitical rival China, wrote the Journal.
Many observers expressed shock at the Journal's report, with some critics saying that it showed Trump and his associates were engaging in a criminal bribery scheme.
"This was a bribe," wrote Melanie D’Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, in a social media post. "UAE royals gave the Trump family $500 million, and Trump, in his presidential capacity, gave them access to tightly guarded American AI chips. The most powerful person on the planet, also happens to be the most shamelessly corrupt."
Jesse Eisinger, reporter and editor at ProPublica, argued that the Abu Dhabi investment into the Trump cypto firm "should rank among the greatest US scandals ever."
Democratic strategist David Axelrod also said that the scope of the Trump crypto investment scandal was historic in nature.
"In any other time or presidency, this story... would be an earthquake of a scandal," he wrote. "The size, scope and implications of it are unprecedented and mind-boggling."
Tommy Vietor, co-host of "Pod Save America," struggled to wrap his head around the scale of corruption on display.
"How do you add up the cost of corruption this massive?" he wondered. "It's not just that Trump is selling advanced AI tech to the highest bidder, national security be damned. Its that he's tapped that doofus Steve Witkoff as an international emissary so his son Zach Witkoff can mop up bribes."
Former Rep. Tom Malinkowski (D-NJ) warned the Trump and his associates that they could wind up paying a severe price for their deal with the UAE.
"If a future administration finds that such payments to the Trump family were acts of corruption," he wrote, "these people could be sanctioned under the Global Magnitsky Act, and the assets in the US could potentially be frozen."
In a speech before cheering supporters, Democrat Taylor Rehmet dedicated his victory "to everyday working people."
Democrats scored a major upset on Saturday, as machinist union leader Taylor Rehmet easily defeated Republican opponent Leigh Wambsganss in a state senate special election held in a deep-red district that President Donald Trump carried by 17 percentage points in 2024.
With nearly all votes counted, Rehmet holds a 14-point lead in Texas' Senate District 9, which covers a large portion of Tarrant County.
In a speech before cheering supporters, Rehmet dedicated his victory "to everyday working people" whom he credited with putting his campaign over the top.
This win goes to everyday, working people.
I’ll see you out there! pic.twitter.com/kPWzjn2LhW
— Taylor Rehmet (@TaylorRehmetTX) February 1, 2026
Republican opponent Wambsganss conceded defeat in the race but vowed to win an upcoming rematch in November.
“The dynamics of a special election are fundamentally different from a November general election,” Wambsganss said. “I believe the voters of Senate District 9 and Tarrant County Republicans will answer the call in November.”
Republican Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick reacted somberly to the news of Rehmet's victory, warning in a social media post that the result was "a wake-up call for Republicans across Texas."
"Our voters cannot take anything for granted," Patrick emphasized.
Democratic US Senate candidate James Talarico, on the other hand, cheered Rehmet's victory, which he hinted was a sign of things to come in the Lone Star State in the 2026 midterm elections.
"Trump won this district by 17 points," he wrote. "Democrat Taylor Rehmet just flipped it—despite Big Money outspending him 10:1. Something is happening in Texas."
Steven Monacelli, special correspondent for the Texas Observer, described Rehmet's victory as "an earthquake of Biblical proportions."
"Tarrant County is the largest red county in the nation," Monacelli explained. "I cannot emphasize enough how big this is."
Adam Carlson, founding partner of polling firm Zenith Research, noted that Rehmet's victory was truly remarkable given the district's past voting record.
"The recent high water mark for Dems in the district was 43.6% (Beto 2018)," he wrote, referring to Democrat Beto O'Rourke's failed 2018 US Senate campaign. "Rehmet’s likely to exceed 55%. The heavily Latino parts of the district shifted sharply to the left from 2024."
Polling analyst Lakshya Jain said that the big upset in Texas makes more sense when considering recent polling data on voter enthusiasm.
"Our last poll's generic ballot was D+4," he explained. "Among the most enthusiastic voters (a.k.a., those who said they would 'definitely' vote in 2026)? D+12. Foreseeable and horrible for the GOP."
Bud Kennedy, a columnist for the Forth Worth Star-Telegram, argued that Rehmet's victory shows that "Democrats can win almost anywhere in Texas" in 2026.
Kennedy also credited Rehmet with having "the perfect résumé for a District 9 Democrat" as "a Lockheed Martin leader running against a Republican who had lost suburban public school voters, particularly in staunch-red Republican north Fort Worth."