May, 05 2022, 07:39am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Travis Nichols | travis@stand.earth
Ada Recinos | ada@amazonwatch.org
Pendle Marshall-Hallmark | pendle@amazonwatch.org
Statement on BNP Paribas Pledge To End New Financing for Amazon Oil Drilling
Bank involved in industry deals worth 13.3 billion USD, move follows investigation by Stand.earth and Amazon Watch pushing firm to take a lead role in excluding Amazon oil and gas
SAN FRANCISCO
Yesterday, BNP Paribas became the first major bank to adopt a geographical exclusion of oil and gas from the Amazon rainforest. The commitment follows sustained pressure and engagement by Indigenous leaders and campaigners at Amazon Watch and Stand.earth since 2020. Through the Exit Amazon Oil & Gas campaign, advocates are demanding banks stop backing fossil fuel extraction in the world's largest rainforest, given its biodiversity, cultural importance, and vital role in regulating the Earth's climate. BNP Paribas' pledge to "no longer finance or invest in companies producing out of oil and gas reserves in the Amazon" or in [companies] "developing related infrastructures" is a momentous move for the rainforest currently at a tipping point of ecological collapse. The bank has also committed to "no longer finance any oil and gas projects and related infrastructure in the Arctic and in the Amazon regions."
If BNP follows through on its new commitment, it will have a significant impact on oil and gas operations on the ground in the Amazon. Soon to be released research by Stand.earth Research Group (SRG), in partnership with Stand.earth and Amazon Watch, reveals that BNP Paribas is involved in deals worth 13.3 billion USD for the oil and gas industry in the Amazon. This includes all loans and bond underwriting for active (open) deals and deals that have matured in the last 3 years.
The Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of the Ecuadorian Amazon (CONFENIAE) President Marlon Vargas made the following statement in response to the pledge:
"BNP Paribas's decision to stop financing new oil production in the Amazon is the first of its kind and a major milestone for us as Indigenous peoples. We are on the front lines in the forest, and live with the daily contamination, deforestation, and rights violations of the oil industry. This decision affirms what we have been calling for - that financing oil extraction in the Amazon is putting our lives, lands, and cultures at risk, and the health of our entire planet, and must stop. But we need other banks to follow suit. No one should be bankrolling oil extraction and destruction in the Amazon."
Tyson Miller, Amazon Program Director at Stand.earth, made the following statement in response to the pledge:
"BNP Paribas' commitment reinforces a growing understanding in the financial sector that oil drilling in the Amazon must end. Banks that are silent on this issue or continue to fund oil in the Amazon are out of touch with the immense climate, Indigenous rights, and biodiversity concerns that the world is facing."
Pendle Marshall-Hallmark, Amazon Watch Climate Campaigner, made the following statement in response to the pledge:
"Banks are realizing that the fossil fuel industry is a terrible financial investment, linked not only to climate chaos and environmental devastation but also gross human rights violations. Frontline communities have borne the brunt of BNP Paribas' history of support for the Amazon oil and gas industry, so this trail-blazing commitment to pull out of Amazon oil and gas is a wise and welcome one. We will be watching closely to see whether BNP Paribas actually excludes laggard companies that fail to decarbonize before the termination of their existing contracts."
Background:
This updated commitment builds off of a January 2021 commitment from BNP Paribas, following a groundbreaking report from the Exit Amazon Oil & Gas campaign that highlighted over $10 billion USD in trade financing provided to Amazon oil by European banks. In response to this report, BNP Paribas pledged to immediately exclude new oil trade from the Ecuadorian coastal port of Esmereldas, the largest exporter of oil and gas from the western Amazon region.
Campaigners are concerned about whether the firm will sell its current holdings in oil and gas companies operating in the Amazon given that BNP Paribas' Asset Management arm has been found to hold shares in GeoPark. GeoPark is a notorious Chilean oil company operating in the Putumayo region of the Colombian Amazon that has alleged ties to paramilitary groups terrorizing local campesino and Indigenous environmental activists. The situation in Putumayo is illustrative of a broader pattern tying support for the oil and gas industry in the Amazon to environmental and human rights violations throughout the rainforest.
In its pledge, BNP Paribas did not adopt the working definition of the "Amazon Biome" used by the Exit Amazon Oil and Gas campaign, defined by RAISG. Instead, it commits to exclude all financing and investment in new oil and gas projects located in regions designated as categories I to IV by the IUCN in either Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia, or Venezuela, or in the Amazon Sacred Headwaters region.
The bank has also stated that it will not exclude financing for oil and gas companies "with the most credible transition plans towards a net-zero economy by 2050." BNP defined such "plans" as containing: a public commitment to align with a 1.5degC strategy; intermediary targets; a consistent capex program to back its diversification strategy away from fossil fuel production; a level of GHG emissions being measured and reported annually; strong leadership of the Board
Campaigners are wary that such vague criteria creates a loophole that will enable the bank to continue financing some of its largest oil and gas clients in the region. BNP Paribas must use the time remaining in its existing binding contracts to push clients to decarbonize and then follow through on its commitment to exclude if and when existing clients fail to adopt adequate transition plans within the remaining duration of their binding contracts.
Stand.earth and Amazon Watch launched the Exit Amazon Oil & Gas campaign after releasing the Banking on Amazon Destruction report. The report compared banks' environmental and human rights policy commitments to the impacts of their on-the-ground financing and found that BNP Paribas was at "high risk" of driving Amazon destruction due to its investment exposure and participation in RCFs (Revolving Credit Facilities) in Amazon oil and gas. The report's analysis found that BNP's policies related to deforestation and Indigenous rights (including the right of Indigenous peoples to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent) were lacking, and pushed the bank to re-examine its exposure to companies with records of poor behavior in these areas.
Amazon Watch is a nonprofit organization founded in 1996 to protect the rainforest and advance the rights of indigenous peoples in the Amazon Basin. We partner with indigenous and environmental organizations in campaigns for human rights, corporate accountability and the preservation of the Amazon's ecological systems.
Stand.earth (formerly ForestEthics) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with offices in Canada and the United States that is known for its groundbreaking research and successful corporate and citizens engagement campaigns to create new policies and industry standards in protecting forests, advocating the rights of indigenous peoples, and protecting the climate. Visit us at
LATEST NEWS
'How Authoritarians Reshape Society': Critics Denounce Trump Order Targeting College Accreditation
"Threats to remove accreditors from their roles are transparent attempts to consolidate more power in the hands of the Trump administration in order to stifle teaching and research," said the American Association of University Professors.
Apr 24, 2025
Critics and education voices were quick to criticize several executive orders signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday which target college accreditation, endeavor to foster artificial intelligence "competency" in K-12 schools, and more—the latest move in the president's quest to reshape American education.
With his order focused on the accreditation procedure, Trump is aiming to shake up the process that determines whether colleges and universities provide a quality education. For higher education institutions to access federal grants, loans, and other federal funds, they must be accredited, and for students to access federal loans and grants, they must attend an accredited school.
Accreditors "have remained improperly focused on compelling adoption of discriminatory ideology," according to the executive order. Per an accompanying White House fact sheet, the order directs Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to suspend or terminate an accreditor's federal recognition in order to hold it accountable if it violates federal civil rights law.
The order itself states that "requiring institutions seeking accreditation to engage in unlawful discrimination in accreditation-related activity under the guise of 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives" would constitute a violation of federal civil rights law.
The American Association of University Professors (AAUP), a nonprofit membership association, said Wednesday that the order focused on accreditation is yet "another attempt to dictate what is taught, learned, said, and done by college students and instructors."
"Threats to remove accreditors from their roles are transparent attempts to consolidate more power in the hands of the Trump administration in order to stifle teaching and research. These attacks are aimed at removing educational decision-making from educators and reshaping higher education to fit an authoritarian political agenda," AAUP continued.
Max Flugrath, the communications director for the free and fair elections group Fair Fight Action, echoed this sentiment on Wednesday, writing on X: "This is how authoritarians reshape society: control what we're allowed to learn."
In the past, Trump has called reshaping college accreditation his "secret weapon."
"Revoking accreditation is an existential threat for these universities," Andrew Gillen, a research fellow at the Cato Institute, toldThe Wall Street Journal, evoking how changes to the accreditation process could be broadly felt. "If you lose Pell grants and lose student loans, for most colleges that means you're done."
Prior to Wednesday's actions, higher education was already a key focus for the Trump administration.
The Trump administration has announced investigations into several colleges over their handling of alleged anti-semitism, detained multiple noncitizens who have participated in the pro-Palestine student movement, and targeted funding at multiple universities.
President of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten, highlighted that Trump's executive orders focused on K-12 run counter to its own professed goal of ceding federal control over education. David Axelrod, who was once a senior adviser to former President Barack Obama, made this same point.
"The Trump administration really does want to be in the business of education after all. It just wants to pick and choose who it helps and who it hurts, rather than build on six decades of bipartisan efforts to improve public education," Weingarten said.
One order is aimed at bringing AI technology into schools to prepare students to be "responsible participants in the workforce of the future" and rolls back guidance issued under Obama and former President Joe Biden that compelled schools to take racial equity into account when disciplining students.
On the discipline order, "we need a commonsense approach and to give teachers authority, but this fails to create a safe and welcoming environment," said Weingarten. "It simply ignores a history where Black and brown students were disproportionately suspended or expelled from school rather than provided the opportunity to thrive."
On the artificial intelligence order, Wingarten said that it's "a transparent attempt to open up schools to unaccountable tech companies, with wholly inadequate safeguards to protect our kids."
Among the other executive actions issued on Wednesday, Trump signed an order to enhance the capacity of Historically Black Colleges and Universities to deliver "high-quality education," and an order aimed at modernizing workforce programs to prepare workers for desirable trade jobs, like through bolstering apprenticeship programs.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Study Estimates Fossil Fuel Giants Have Inflicted $28 Trillion in Climate Damage Worldwide
As people around the world cope with the worsening effects of planetary heating, "the veil of plausible deniability doesn't exist anymore scientifically" for fossil fuel giants.
Apr 24, 2025
As planetary heating has fueled increasingly damaging hurricanes, wildfires, and dangerous heatwaves, fossil fuel giants have long been shielded by plausible deniability: Despite scientists' consensus that oil, gas, and coal extraction are polluting the planet and causing global temperatures to rise, they couldn't prove that specific corporations were to blame for worsening climate destruction.
A study published on Wednesday could change that.
Using modeling techniques that have been utilized for more than a decade to explain how climate change is fueling weather disasters, researchers at Dartmouth College estimated that 111 of the world's largest fossil fuel companies have caused $28 trillion in heat-related climate damages so far—slightly less than the value of all goods and services produced in the United States last year.
"The global economy would be $28 trillion richer," reads the study, "were it not for the extreme heat caused by the emissions from the 111 carbon majors considered here."
The study, published in Nature, found that more than half of that amount—which doesn't include damages from hurricanes and other extreme climate events—could be attributed to just 10 oil, coal, and gas companies including Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Russia's state-owned Gazprom, and Saudi Aramco.
"Everybody's asking the same question: What can we actually claim about who has caused this?" Dartmouth climate scientist Justin Mankin, co-author of the study, told Euronews.
The researchers pursued that question as climate advocates pushed policymakers to adopt the "polluters pay principle": the idea that companies that produce pollution should pay for the damages it causes. Earlier this year, a California Democratic lawmaker introduced legislation that would allow homeowners and businesses to recoup losses caused by climate disasters like the wildfires that devastated parts of the Los Angeles area.
"The global economy would be $28 trillion richer were it not for the extreme heat caused by the emissions from the 111 carbon majors considered here."
New York and Vermont have enacted laws that would hold fossil fuel companies accountable for greenhouse gas emissions and require them to pay for climate damages and adaptation, and other states are considering similar proposals—with oil and gas companies fighting back in court.
Mankin told Euronews that Dartmouth's new research shows that "the veil of plausible deniability doesn't exist anymore scientifically."
In the past, he said, carbon emitters could ask, "Who's to say that it's my molecule of CO2 that's contributed to these damages versus any other one?"
"We can actually trace harms back to major emitters," he said.
The research team examined the final emissions of the products produced by the 111 largest fossil fuel giants and used 1,000 distinct computer simulations to determine how those emissions impacted changes in the Earth's global average surface temperature, comparing the results to a simulation in which each company's emissions did not exist.
Epidemiologist Ali Khan said the method represented "great improvements in attribution" as at least 68 lawsuits have been filed globally demanding that polluters pay for damages. About half of those lawsuits have been filed in the United States.
"So far, attorneys and litigants have often named defendants as part of the initial legal process, under the assumption that knowing a defendant's emissions is sufficient to make a claim," reads the study. "Science can help claimants assess potential defendants in a transparent and low-cost way."
The researchers determined that Chevron's oil and gas extraction has raised the Earth's temperature by 0.025°C. The company is to blame for an estimated $1.98 trillion in climate damage, behind only Saudi Aramco, which is liable for an estimated $2.05 trillion, and Gazprom, which is responsible for $2 trillion.
Kevin Reed, a professor at Stony Brook University's School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, toldThe Washington Post that Dartmouth's research into climate damage attribution is "the real deal."
"This is the first time I've seen this done in a really comprehensive way that isn't just for one specific event," Reed said.
The European Green Party cataloged a number of steps that policymakers could take if $28 trillion had been saved by forcing companies to end their climate-wrecking emissions.
Financing 100% renewable energy would cost just $4 trillion, while guaranteeing universal housing and energy efficiency would cost $3 trillion, said the political party.
"Polluters," said the European Greens, "need to start paying for the damage they are causing to our planet."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Groups to UN: Trump Tactics Bear 'Hallmarks of Fascist Regimes'
"The human rights violations described in the report make clear that the U.S. is in an authoritarian political reality."
Apr 24, 2025
A coalition of human rights organizations on Wednesday submitted a report to the United Nations warning that U.S. President Donald Trump's far-right administration is exploiting a decades-long erosion of American democracy to consolidate power and undercut basic freedoms.
The report—crafted by the Center for Constitutional Rights, Muslim Advocates, and other organizations—argues that a "central feature" of the Trump administration's intensifying repression of dissent "is a metastasizing 'terrorism' framework that escalated in the aftermath of September 11th."
The report points to the administration's invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport immigrants en masse without due process and its use of the notorious Guantánamo Bay military prison to detain potentially thousands of migrants.
"The methods deployed in the name of 'counter-terrorism' and 'national security' evolved from emergency measures to common practices, ensnaring new populations and cannibalizing a broader range of issues," the report states. "Today, university students and professors that challenge support for Israel's genocide of Palestinians are being targeted. Environmental activists that oppose the plan to build a police training facility in a clear-cut forest outside of Atlanta, Georgia have been prosecuted as 'domestic terrorists.' And key to the administration advancing its anti-democratic and anti-rights agenda is the expansion of a vast surveillance infrastructure of law enforcement agencies with the aid of unaccountable tech magnates."
The report, which was submitted to the U.N. Human Rights Council ahead of a formal review of U.S. compliance with human rights obligations, calls on the international community do whatever it can to push back against the Trump administration's agenda, including by pressuring the White House to end its use of the Alien Enemies Act and cease targeting Palestinian rights advocates.
"In just 100 days, the Trump administration has inflicted enormous damage to human rights in the United States and around the world."
Nadia Ben-Youssef, advocacy director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said in a statement that "the human rights violations described in the report make clear that the U.S. is in an authoritarian political reality where the Trump administration, Congress, and state governments have fully suspended international human rights and are engaging in tactics of repression that are hallmarks of fascist regimes."
"Our hope is that the report sounds the alarm for the international community to act with greater urgency to challenge this administration and its belligerent efforts to dismantle constitutional protections and international norms," said Ben-Youssef.
The coalition delivered its report to the U.N. as human rights organizations took stock of the Trump administration's devastating assault on civil liberties, the climate, workers, public health, immigrants, and more during the first 100 days of his second term.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) said Thursday that "since January, the administration has unlawfully transferred Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national, to his home country, deported other immigrants to El Salvador under circumstances that amount to enforced disappearance, and removed asylum seekers with various nationalities to Panama and Costa Rica in violation of international law."
"The administration has also attacked the rights to freedom of speech and assembly, including by arbitrarily detaining and seeking to deport noncitizens because of their activism related to Palestine," the group added. "These damaging policies are reverberating globally as the Trump administration has slashed support for human rights beyond U.S. borders. The administration abruptly ended US foreign aid programs, putting many people who were benefiting from them in life-threatening peril."
Tanya Greene, U.S. program director at HRW, said that "in just 100 days, the Trump administration has inflicted enormous damage to human rights in the United States and around the world."
"We are deeply concerned that these attacks on fundamental freedoms will continue unabated," Greene added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular