

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.

Ginny Cleaveland, Deputy Press Secretary, Fossil-Free Finance, Sierra Club, ginny.cleaveland@sierraclub.org
Annual report details massive bank support for climate-destroying corporations
Released today, the 14th annual Banking on Climate Chaos report is the most comprehensive global analysis on fossil fuel banking. Endorsed by over 625 organizations from 75 countries, it reveals the truth of banks’ commitments to the climate by examining their financing of the fossil fuel industry.
For the first time since 2019, a Canadian bank is the #1 annual financier of fossil fuels rather than US bank JP Morgan Chase. Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) showered fossil fuel projects with $42.1 billion dollars in 2022, including $4.8 billion for tar sands and $7.4 billion into fracking. Canadian banks are becoming the banks of last resort for fossil fuels, providing $862 billion to fossil fuel companies since the Paris Agreement. RBC continues to bankroll expansion projects like the Coastal GasLink fracked gas pipeline. That project violates human rights and Indigenous sovereignty, and has proceeded without consent from Wet’suwet’en Hereditary leadership.
The report shows that overall, U.S. banks dominate fossil fuel financing, accounting for 28% of all fossil fuel financing in 2022. JPMorgan Chase remains the world’s worst funder of climate chaos since the Paris Agreement. Citi, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America are still among the top 5 fossil financiers since 2016.
“In a critical year for climate action, fossil fuel giants doubled down on reckless expansion projects and walked back their climate commitments. Meanwhile, major US banks stalled on their net-zero plans and failed to adopt stronger and more robust financing restrictions for companies pushing unsustainable fossil fuel expansion. As big banks face shareholder votes in the coming weeks, we will keep up pressure on banks and investors to adopt credible policies to achieve their climate commitments and take real steps to accelerate the clean energy transition,” said Adele Shraiman, senior campaign representative for the Sierra Club's Fossil-Free Finance Campaign.
In the seven years since the Paris Agreement was adopted, the world’s 60 largest private banks financed fossil fuels with USD $5.5 trillion. The report lays bare the shocking fact that even as fossil fuel companies made $4 trillion in profits in 2022, banks still provided $673 billion in financing. Remarkably, this happened while oil majors like Exxon Mobil and Shell PLC asked for $0 financing from banks in 2022.
While Europeans and Ukrainians called for a transition to renewables to stop funding Russian atrocities, fossil fuel companies doubled down on expansion and weakened their climate commitments. The top 30 companies expanding LNG used the crisis to secure nearly 50% more financing in 2022 compared to 2021 from the banks in the report — even as most energy experts agree that the LNG expansion plans in Europe are unnecessary, and new projects would contribute to a supply glut and long-term dependence on this fossil fuel.
The report includes detailed maps of this explosion of expansion projects in the US Gulf Coast and the Philippines. It also features case studies of climate leaders in Myanmar and the Philippines who are resisting the devastating effect of fossil fuel expansion.
Global banks’ net zero pledges have netted nothing so far, according to the report. Forty nine of the 60 banks profiled in the report made net zero commitments, but most are not paired with rigorous policies excluding finance for fossil fuel expansion. The policies contain many loopholes that allow banks to continue financing fossil fuel clients. Banks with restrictions on Arctic project financing, for example, nevertheless financed ConocoPhillips, which is developing the Willow project in the Arctic, the largest proposed oil project in the United States.
As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change affirmed in its March 2023 report, to give humanity a chance at avoiding unacceptable harm to millions of people alive today and countless generations to come, fossil fuel expansion must stop, and use of fossil fuels across all sectors must decline sharply. They assert that the window of opportunity to remain below 1.5˚C and to build a secure, liveable, and sustainable future is rapidly closing.
“Our window of opportunity for keeping global warming below 1.5ºC is closing fast. We need a people-centered energy transition now. Profits now are a false economy because we simply cannot afford to continue burning fossil fuels – the costs down the road will be devastating. Fossil fuel companies are the ones dousing the planet in oil, gas, and coal, but big banks hold the matches. Without financing, fossil fuels won’t burn,” said April Merleaux , Research and Policy Manager at Rainforest Action Network.
Banking on Climate Chaos is authored by Rainforest Action Network, BankTrack, Indigenous Environmental Network, Oil Change International, Reclaim Finance, Sierra Club, and Urgewald. Over 550 organizations from more than 70 countries around the world endorsed the report and are calling on banks to stop funding climate destruction.
Full data sets – including fossil fuel finance data, policy scores, and stories from the frontlines – are available for download at bankingonclimatechaos.org.
Additional quotes from authoring, frontline, and key organizations including Center for Energy, Ecology & Development, BankTrack, Indigenous Environmental Network, Oil Change International, Reclaim Finance, Stand.earth, and Urgewald, are available at bankingonclimatechaos.org.
“Corporate greed is killing us. Despite the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel companies making $4 trillion in profits in 2022, the world’s largest banks still provided $673 billion in financing for projects that are poisoning our communities and destroying the planet. This report makes it clear that banks’ ‘net zero’ commitments aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on – they’re simply cheap PR cover for pouring fuel on the climate crisis. Banks will not act in the public interest unless we force them to, and while grassroots movements around the world continue to build pressure, it’s long past time that the Federal Reserve, White House, and Congress take more aggressive action that meets this critical moment for the planet.” -Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich)
“Climate risk is a financial risk that poses an existential threat to our economy. As this important new report shows, big banks are financing fossil fuels by the billions, contributing to the climate crisis, and threatening the stability of our financial systems. That is why Congress must pass my Fossil Free Finance Act — to protect Americans’ savings, reject backwards-looking and risky investments into fossil fuels, and move toward a clean energy future that supercharges our economy.” -Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass)
“Big banks continue to funnel money into risky fossil fuel investments, ignoring the looming costs and economic risks of climate upheaval we are documenting in the Senate Budget Committee. By turning their backs on their climate pledges and doubling down on their support for the fossil fuel industry, Wall Street banks are increasing the likelihood of systemic risks to the economy, including a coastal property values collapse, a carbon bubble crash, and insurance market turmoil. Neither our planet nor our economy can afford these massive investments in new fossil fuel projects." -Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee
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) 977-5500Despite the strait's closure, Trump insisted it was "open as far as we're concerned."
US President Donald Trump on Sunday twice told journalists to stop asking him about the status of the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran once again closed after the president declared an end to the ceasefire deal between the two countries.
The first instance came during an interview with NBC News' Kristen Welker, who pointed to conflicting statements from the Iranian government and US Central Command about the status of the strait, which is an essential shipping lane for global petroleum supplies.
Trump replied that "it's open, and I don't want to talk about it because I want to honor the life" of the late Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who died on Saturday from what his office described as "a brief and sudden illness."
"So I don't want to talk about it," Trump continued. "I told you that before the call."
WELKER: Iran says the Strait of Hormuz is closed. CENTCOM says it's open. Which is it?
TRUMP: It's open, and I don't want to talk about because I want to honor the life of Lindsey Graham, so I don't want to talk about it. I told you that before the call. pic.twitter.com/3ed7dN1bhK
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 12, 2026
Shortly after, during an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Trump was again asked whether the strait was still open.
"It's open as far as we're concerned," Trump told Tapper. "Don't talk about it. Talk about the reason you asked me to speak."
"Okay," Tapper replied. "We appreciate your time, sir."
TAPPER: Iran has declared the Strait of Hormuz closed. Is that true?
TRUMP: It's open as far as we're concerned. Don't talk about it. Talk about the reason you asked me to speak. pic.twitter.com/TwssTycQdF
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 12, 2026
Iran shut down shipping traffic in the strait after Trump launched an illegal war against the country in late February. The strait's closure resulted in spiking oil and gasoline prices, which coincided with further erosion in Trump's approval ratings.
Although traffic through the strait initially picked up in the wake of a June memorandum of understanding signed by the US and Iran, it has since slumped as the ceasefire between the two nations has fallen apart.
Ana Marie Cox, contributing editor at The New Republic, bashed both Welker and Tapper for heeding the president's requests and not pushing him to answer questions about the war he unlawfully started.
"Frankly astonished that supposed news sources agreed to terms to interview Trump and appeared to be deferential to them," Cox wrote in a social media post, "enough that they were apologetic in brining up other topics."
Cox's sentiment was echoed by Kai Ryssdal, host of NPR's Marketplace, who remarked that "the guy being interviewed doesn’t get to pick the questions."
Journalist Helen Kennedy challenged Trump's assertion that asking about the status of the Iran war was irrelevant when talking about Lindsey Graham.
"Making war with Iran was Lindsey Graham's favorite thing," Kennedy observed. "It's not like it's unrelated."
"Lindsey Graham will forever be remembered as an enabler of a regime that has murdered people, destroyed democratic norms, and caused irreparable harm to this county. What a horrific legacy," said one critic.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the most relentless proponents for using US military force overseas, died on Saturday night at the age of 71.
In a statement posted on Graham's (R-SC) social media account, the senator's office said that he "passed away from a brief and sudden illness."
"Sen. Graham's family appreciates prayers at this time," the office added, "and asks for privacy during this incredibly difficult period."
During his life, Graham advocated either starting or getting involved in multiple wars across the world, and he was reportedly instrumental in convincing President Donald Trump to launch an illegal attack on Iran without any authorization from the US Congress.
Although Graham was once a Trump critic—he infamously declared in 2016 that the Republican Party would get "destroyed" if it made the former Celebrity Apprentice host its presidential nominee—the South Carolina Republican grew to become one of the president's staunchest allies.
Some critics of Graham reacted to his death by rehashing what they considered to be his least admirable traits.
David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, remarked that Graham "never met a war he didn't want to send your kids to."
Alejandra Caraballo, clinical instructor at the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic, also reflected on Graham's lifetime of war mongering.
"You can say a lot about Lindsey Graham," Caraballo wrote, "but at least he got to see the thing he most wanted before he died, bombing school children in Iran."
Princeton historian Kevin Kruse predicted that Graham would leave behind a decidedly poor legacy.
"When Lindsey Graham appears in a history book," wrote Kruse, "it'll be his prediction in 2016 that the Republican Party would be destroyed for supporting Donald Trump and then a few lines about how he proved it by becoming Trump's toady. That's pretty much it. That's his legacy. Pathetic lickspittle."
Steve Schmidt, a former Republican strategist who left the party due to its embrace of Trump, wrote that Graham was "a simple, tragic man" who "lacked a moral core."
"The great empty spaces of his life were filled with an insatiable need for 'relevance,'" Schmidt observed. "He found it as a cast member in the most malignant reality show ever made."
Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, had a similar analysis of Graham's character.
"Lindsey Graham supported the International Criminal Court when it charged [Russian President Vladimir] Putin but turned on it when it charged [Israeli Prime Minister] Netanyahu," wrote Roth. "Principled, he wasn't."
Nicholas Grossman, professor of international relations at the University of Illinois, wrote that Graham "spent the last decade of his life in public service... trying hard to be remembered as an enemy of the Constitution who worked to destroy American democracy."
Grossman added that Graham "exhibited occasional signs that he knew why that was bad but kept doing it anyway."
Ruth Zakarin, CEO of the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, offered a grim assessment of the late senator.
"Lindsey Graham will forever be remembered as an enabler of a regime that has murdered people, destroyed democratic norms, and caused irreparable harm to this county," wrote Zakarin. "What a horrific legacy."
"Trump has turned Venezuela into an effective US colony," said one critic.
Some critics of the Trump administration are reacting with horror to revelations that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been serving as the de facto ruler of Venezuela.
According to a Saturday report in The New York Times, Rubio for the last several months has been acting informally as the "viceroy" of Venezuela ever since its recognized president, Nicolás Maduro, was abducted by the American military in January and brought to the US to face charges related to "narco-terrorism."
The Times' sources revealed that Rubio "effectively controls Venezuela’s finances, the distribution of its natural resources, and its government" and "is deeply involved in the country’s day-to-day operations," while maintaining regular contact with acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez.
Under current arrangements, the US Treasury Department takes in revenue from Venezuela's exports, including its petroleum, and then disperses the money back to the country through its private banks with strict conditions set by Rubio over what it can be spent on.
In explaining the system, the Times likened it to "parents handing out allowances to children," adding that it gives Rubio "immense leverage over... Rodríguez, who depends on the money to pay workers and prop up the national currency."
Elizabeth Saunders, professor of political science at Columbia University, described Rubio's power over Venezuela as "insane," as well as "derelict, unconscionable, and impeachable."
"The secretary of state's time is scarce, valuable, and not outsourcable," Saunders emphasized.
Orlando J. Pérez, professor of Political Science at the University of North Texas at Dallas, said the Times report made a mockery of Rubio's professed claims to want to bring democracy back to Venezuela.
"It appears Rubio has transformed from democracy promotion warrior," Pérez commented, "to transactional realpolitik operative!"
Kenneth Roth, former executive director at Human Rights Watch, wrote that US control over Venezuela appeared similar to the kind of imperial power wielded by European nations in the 19th Century.
"Trump has turned Venezuela into an effective US colony," said Roth, "with Marco Rubio as the viceroy and Washington controlling the country’s oil revenue and dictating major foreign and domestic policies. Democracy has been relegated to the distant future."
Bradley Simpson, historian at the University of Connecticut, also saw the current US arrangement with Venezuela as a return to overt imperialism.
"We are literally back in the Dollar Diplomacy days of the 1910s," Simpson wrote, "when the United States invaded countries and took over their financial systems and ran them as effective colonies. Flagrantly illegal, enormously corrupt. Where is the organization of American states or UN in denouncing this?"