October, 28 2022, 03:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Ginny Cleaveland, Deputy Press Secretary, Fossil-Free Finance, Sierra Club, ginny.cleaveland@sierraclub.
Global Financial Alliance Must Ensure Credible Net-Zero Plans After Severing Ties With UN Campaign
Sierra Club calls on GFANZ to stay committed to robust, science-aligned policies after initiative drops requirement for its members to follow Race to Zero’s criteria.
WASHINGTON
The Global Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) announced yesterday it would no longer require its members -- including major financial sector net-zero alliances -- to sign on to the emissions reduction criteria set by the UN's Race to Zero campaign.
GFANZ said in a progress report that its alliances "are independent initiatives subject only to their individual governance structures" with "sole responsibility" for changes to their membership criteria, and that the alliances would "take note of the advice and guidance" of Race to Zero and other bodies, including the International Energy Agency.
The move came after US banks JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley reportedly reportedly threatened to leave GFANZ, and the associated Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), over concerns that updated Race to Zero criteria around financing of new fossil fuel projects may make the banks vulnerable to legal challenges from fossil fuel-aligned politicians.
In response to the news, Adele Shraiman, Campaign Representative with the Sierra Club's Fossil-Free Finance campaign, called on GFANZ to ensure its members stay committed to credible, robust, science-aligned policies on net zero.
The updated Race to Zero criteria affirmed what has been obvious for years: in order for banks' net-zero commitments to be credible, they must explicitly commit to phase out financing for new fossil fuels. Now, GFANZ and its associated alliances, including NZBA, must decide how to guide some of the world's largest banks toward the credible, robust, and science-aligned policies that are necessary for meeting the climate goals they have committed to.
Without explicit commitments to phase out financing for fossil fuel expansion, financial institutions will not be aligned with what leading climate scientists and energy experts tell us will be necessary to keep global temperature rise below 1.5C. If the various alliances in GFANZ want to maintain credibility and enforce robust standards on their membership, their guidance must reflect this reality. What's most important is for banks and other financial firms to actually meet their own net-zero commitments, and for global alliances like GFANZ to uphold high standards for its members. Whether NZBA holds its members accountable via its own governance or via Race to Zero's criteria isn't what matters most -- the strength of banks' commitments, and their plans to meet those commitments, is.
Ultimately, global alliances and initiatives like GFANZ and Race to Zero are just a means to an end. What's most important is the outcome: getting the financial sector to make strong commitments, and actually have credible plans to follow through on those commitments. Moving forward, GFANZ and its associated alliances face the challenge of upholding robust, credible, science-backed guidance, without alienating its members or diluting the impact.
The Sierra Club is the most enduring and influential grassroots environmental organization in the United States. We amplify the power of our 3.8 million members and supporters to defend everyone's right to a healthy world.
(415) 977-5500LATEST NEWS
How Trump's $1,000 for 'Voluntary Self-Deportation' Could Harm Undocumented Immigrants
One legal expert warned the offer from DHS "would sabotage" pending or future cases people might have in immigration court.
May 05, 2025
The Trump administration on Monday announced what it called "historic travel assistance and stipend for voluntary self-deportation," prompting one expert to issue a warning to undocumented immigrants who may consider the offer.
"If you are here illegally, self-deportation is the best, safest, and most cost-effective way to leave the United States to avoid arrest," said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, a key leader of President Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda. "This is the safest option for our law enforcement, aliens, and is a 70% savings for U.S. taxpayers."
According to a statement from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), immigrants who use the CBP Home smartphone application to self-deport will receive "financial and travel assistance" as well as "a stipend of $1,000 dollars, paid after their return to their home country has been confirmed through the app."
DHS framed the offer as "a dignified way to leave" the United States without encountering Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and claimed people who submit their intent to self-deport in the app "will also be deprioritized for detention and removal ahead of their departure as long as they demonstrate they are making meaningful strides in completing that departure."
"DHS's claim that people who do this will be able to return is, in many cases, an outright LIE that will trap people into WORSE outcomes for them than if they stayed and fought a case in immigration court."
Responding to the announcement on social media, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, stressed that "it is incredibly important for all reporting on this to emphasize that DHS's claim that people who do this will be able to return is, in many cases, an outright LIE that will trap people into WORSE outcomes for them than if they stayed and fought a case in immigration court."
Reichlin-Melnick explained that "when a person is in immigration court proceedings, if they don't appear for a hearing, they get ordered deported—even if they're provably outside the country already. And having a deportation order makes it VERY hard to ever come back legally. DHS's offer would sabotage cases!"
"This move also raises VERY serious questions about statutory authority and funding sources. No law directly authorizes DHS to pay plane tickets and offer reimbursements to people leaving the country," he added. "The closest legal authority which might apply here is 8 USC § 1260, which authorizes using funding to deport 'aliens falling into distress' who are 'desirous of being so removed.' But that law also imposes a near-total ban on reentry, so if DHS is using that it's even worse!"
Prism immigration reporter Tina Vasquez shared a message from the app on social media Monday.
The CBP Home app features this flyer, with the many supposed benefits of self-deportation.
[image or embed]
— Tina Vasquez (@tinavasquez.bsky.social) May 5, 2025 at 10:40 AM
"I previously reported on how the Biden administration's attempt to modernize the immigration system through tech actually made things for immigrants more difficult," Vasquez noted. "I'm anxious to see how this app plays out in the deeply unfortunate cases where $1,000 is an incentive to self-deport."
"I also know that if the Biden [administration] offered $1,000 to undocumented immigrants—even for self-deportation—right-wing media would have screamed that Democrats were paying 'illegal aliens' with taxpayer dollars," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Film Insiders Say Trump's Proposed Hollywood Tariffs Would 'Destroy' Entertainment Industry
"We won't be able to make movies for the same budgets, actors won't get paid the same fees, and the list goes on," said one film professional. "Simply, it would destroy the independent sector."
May 05, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump's announcement via social media Sunday evening that he would "begin the process of instituting a 100% Tariff" on films produced in foreign countries was met with confusion and shock in the U.S. entertainment industry and abroad, with filmmakers cautioning that such extreme levies would render many productions impossible and do nothing to save what the president called the "dying" movie industry.
On his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump took issue with "incentives" that have pushed filmmakers to shoot projects outside of the U.S., not only saying that the industry centered in Hollywood is "being devastated" but also suggesting that simply traveling to other countries to produce films leads to foreign "propaganda" being embedded in the final products.
"This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat," said Trump. "It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda!"
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick suggested the administration is moving to implement the president's plan, writing, "We're on it" in his own social media post.
While the vast majority of U.S. films are already produced mainly in the U.S.—providing jobs to actors, editors, and other production staff—many major studios including streaming giants Amazon and Netflix have brought their production shoots to cities like Toronto and Dublin, where local leaders have offered large tax breaks.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, is currently addressing the effects those foreign tax incentives have had on working film professionals in Southern California—including makeup artists, camera operators, electricians, and other middle-class workers—by pushing for a tax credit for studios to film locally. The state Legislature is currently considering that proposal.
"Putting a tariff on movies shot outside the U.S. will increase the cost of shooting and the studios will lobby the exhibitors to raise ticket prices and then the audience will skip the theater and then... well you see where this is going."
But by "instituting a 100% Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands," film industry veterans said Trump would not succeed in bringing production jobs back to the United States—but would rather make all but the biggest budget films impossible to produce.
"This is NOT the effect this is going to have," one industry professional toldDeadline. "It will make low- and mid-level productions completely unproducable, hence destroying many jobs from producer assistants to writers to post-production. Further, it will lessen the amount of big budget content created because the studios won't be able to make as much because the cost of production will be more."
An official at a top U.S. film company that produces movies both domestically and internationally told Deadline that international film distributors will be less likely to buy U.S. films under Trump's new tariff plan.
"It affects domestic distribution deals but it also impacts equity players who have money in movies because their films will suddenly be worth less money," they said. "We won't be able to make movies for the same budgets, actors won't get paid the same fees, and the list goes on. Simply, it would destroy the independent sector."
Exactly how the proposed policy would be implemented was unclear from Trump's social media post, but U.K.-based producer told Deadline that "leading independent distributors would all be out of business if it's them" who have to pay the tariffs.
A source close to the White House toldPolitico that the tariff policy originated with actor Jon Voight, a strong supporter of Trump who—along with Mel Gibson and Sylvester Stallone—has been named one of Trump's "special ambassadors" to Hollywood.
Deadlinereported last week that Voight was meeting with studios and union representatives in Hollywood to discuss a plan to revive the film industry, with "a federal tax incentive" expected to be a main component.
Voight's fellow ambassador, Gibson, is one Hollywood player who could be directly impacted by Trump's proposed tariffs; his film, a sequel to The Passion of the Christ, is scheduled to begin filming in Italy this summer.
"Putting a tariff on movies shot outside the U.S. will increase the cost of shooting and the studios will lobby the exhibitors to raise ticket prices and then the audience will skip the theater and then... well you see where this is going," wrote producer Randy Greenberg in a post on LinkedIn after Trump announced his plan.
The Washington Post reported that Trump could rely on a provision of a 1962 trade law that he has used in the past to impose tariffs on goods; the law gives the Commerce Department 270 days to complete an investigation into alleged national security threats created by certain imports.
"Other nations have stolen our movie industry," Trump told reporters on Sunday. "If they're not willing to make a movie inside the United States, we should have a tariff on movies that come in."
At The Guardian, film editor Andrew Pulver wrote that Trump's plan appears aimed at destroying "the international film industry":
The effect of any tariff is likely to be dramatic. Recent figures from the British Film Institute (BFI) show that in 2024 £4.8 billion ($6.37 billion) of production spend on film and high-end TV in the U.K. came from international sources, 86% of the total spent on film and TV made in Britain. In Australia, the film industry stands to lose up to AUS $767 million. A program of studio building in the U.K., designed to increase capacity and therefore revenue, is likely to feel the chill almost immediately. And the effect on the domestic industry in the U.S. is forecast to be adverse, as production costs rise without the injection of overseas tax incentives, with mid-level projects potentially wiped out.
Despite Trump's claim that the industry is "dying," according to the Motion Picture Association's latest economic impact report, the U.S. film industry had a $15.3 billion trade surplus in 2023 and $22.6 billion in exports.
An executive at a U.S. distribution company expressed hope to Deadline that Trump's threat would encourage "desperately needed increases in U.S. state tax incentives being implemented ASAP."
"Can't see his target here," they said, "other than confusion and distraction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Warren Asks the Fed to Reconsider Approval of Capital One-Discover Merger
"This decision will inflict serious harm on consumers and merchants, especially low-income consumers and small businesses," wrote Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Maxine Waters.
May 05, 2025
Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of California are urging the Federal Reserve to reconsider its approval of an impending merger between Capital One Financial Corporation and Discover Financial Services, a tie-up that critics have warned could harm consumers.
In a letter sent last week, Warren and Waters wrote that the decision to approve the merger by the Federal Reserve "was inconsistent with the legal requirements" under the Bank Holding Company Act. They also argued that it did not include a number of relevant assessments, including how the the merger would impact the "convenience and needs of the community" or the "competitive effects on the credit card market."
"This decision will inflict serious harm on consumers and merchants, especially low-income consumers and small businesses, and threaten the stability of the U.S. financial system," states the letter, which was addressed to Secretary of the Board Ann Misback and dated May 1.
Warren is the ranking member on the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and Waters is the ranking member on the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services.
The deal was announced in February 2024 and is valued at $35 billion. A report from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released right before the acquisition was announced found that the largest credit card firms charge much higher interest rates than smaller banks and credit unions.
The deal initially received some scrutiny around possible impacts to competition, but in April 2025 overcame a major obstacle when the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), now under the Trump administration, decided not to challenge the merger.
The Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency gave the deal the green light last month.
In response to the DOJ's decision not to challenge the merger, Morgan Harper, the director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, wrote that "if the Trump administration green-lights the Capital One-Discover merger, it will be a betrayal of working-class Americans and small businesses." The American Economic Liberties Project is an anti-monopoly research and advocacy group.
"If the deal goes through, Capital One will become the largest credit card lender in the country, the first major issuer in decades to control its own payments network, and entrench its striking dominance in subprime credit card lending," Harper continued.
One noteworthy aspect of the merger, which is expected to be finalized mid-May, is that Capital One is set to acquire Discover's card network. This means the combined firm would be akin to a larger version of American Express, "a stand-alone integrated system that could use its millions of customers to push higher fees onto merchants," according to The American Prospect.
Capitol One currently uses Visa and Mastercard credit card networks, which operate an effective duopoly of global payment processing, but has said it would transition to the Discover card network, according the outlet CNET.
This aspect of the merger is without clear precedent and raises concerns about competition, according to Jesse Van Tol, the chief executive of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a group that is opposed to the deal, who spoke to The New York Times in April.
"The market power it gives them, and the opportunity it gives them to set pricing in ways that captures a lot of value for the company at the expense of the consumer, is significant," Van Tol told the Times.
In their letter, Warren and Waters alleged that the Federal Reserve failed to adequately scrutinize the competitive effect of this aspect of the deal.
"The board argued that given 'the significant, larger competitors that would remain,' and that Capital One doesn't currently own a network, there aren't any competitive concerns. The board completely missed the fact that the merger would provide Capital One with significant market power to increase interchange fees charged to merchants and reduce rewards and other benefits for consumers. It didn't grapple with the implications of vertical integration and network effects," the two wrote.
When considering the conveniences and needs of the community, Warren and Waters said in their letter that the Federal Reserve did not perform the prospective analysis required by law, and instead "focused on each bank's past performance under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)," even though "the convenience and needs of the community is a distinct legal factor, separate and apart from banks' past performance under the CRA."
The two also said that the Federal Reserve appears to not have taken into consideration relevant findings from the CFPB, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the DOJ.
Bloombergreported last week that the Federal Reserve received the letter and plans to response, per a spokesperson.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular