April, 21 2023, 08:27am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Arielle Swernoff, arielle@stopthemoneypipeline.com
Climate, Indigenous Rights Shareholder Resolutions at Citi, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo AGM’s
Resolutions a “litmus test” for investors
NEW YORK, CHARLOTTE, SAN FRANCISCO
This coming Tuesday, April 25, shareholders at Citi, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America, the second, third, and fourth largest global funders of fossil fuels, respectively, will vote on climate and Indigenous rights resolutions at their annual shareholder meetings. These three banks have provided over $789 billion in financing to fossil fuel companies since 2016.
Shareholders at Citi, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America will be voting on four resolutions related to climate and Indigenous rights. Those resolutions include:
· Fossil Fuel Phase Out: Calls on banks to adopt a time-bound phase-out of financing for projects and companies engaged in fossil fuel expansion. Filed at Citigroup, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo. A version of this resolution was filed last year at the same companies, and received 12.8% support at Citi and 11% support at Bank of America and Wells Fargo.
· Indigenous Rights Report: Filed at Citigroup, this resolution urges the company to issue a report on the efficacy of their current practices in ensuring their financing respects internationally-recognized standards for respecting Indigenous rights. A version of this resolution was filed last year at Citi and Wells Fargo, where it received 34% and 26%, respectively.
· Absolute Emissions Targets: Filed by New York City and New York State at Bank of America, these resolutions call on the banks to set absolute emission reduction targets. Banks currently use Intensity-based targets, which allow them to increase the amount of greenhouse gas emissions financed so long as the emissions per dollar or per unit goes down; absolute targets require companies to decrease emissions funded overall.
· 2030 Transition Plan: Filed at Bank of America and Wells Fargo, these resolutions urge the respective banks to publish a comprehensive plan detailing how they will meet their 2030 climate targets.
Significance of the Results
Shareholder voting is not like a Presidential election; the outcomes and impacts of the vote carry different weight. In the US the results of shareholder votes are non-binding. Resolutions that receive more than 50% of the vote are not automatically adopted, nor are those which fail to receive a majority vote considered a failure. Votes represent capital and power. Votes in support of climate resolutions at Citi, Bank of America and Wells Fargo last year, which received 11-13% support, represent tens of billions of dollars in shareholder equity.
It’s also worth noting that the largest bank shareholders are other Wall Street institutions and other banks. For example, asset managers Vanguard, Blackrock, and State Street, and banks JP Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, hold over 24% of shares at Citi. If these companies are trying to block accountability by shareholders at their own annual general meetings, they are hardly going to support similar resolutions at Citi’s.
Grassroots Action
On April 5, Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) – now the world’s #1 fossil fuel financing bank of 2022 – harassed and segregated Black and Indigenous land defenders at its AGM in Saskatoon, and dodged accountability for its financing of toxic fossil fuel projects including the Coastal GasLink fracked gas pipeline through unceded Wet’suwet’en Hereditary territory without consent from the rightful titleholders.
Citi, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs are expected to face intense grassroots protest over their fossil fuel financing and violations of Indigenous rights in the lead up to the AGMs. Groups in New York City, Charlotte, San Francisco and Dallas have announced their intention to shut down the headquarters of the three banks leading up to the AGM.
“Hiding behind “green” lingo and playing at hapless, innocent lender of billions to the fossil fuel industry is the kind of BS that got us to full-on climate crisis. Our actions have consequences. Funding the destruction of what remains is unconscionable. Indigenous peoples are on frontlines all over the earth, bringing the voice of nature to those who have forgotten and threatening big oil profit margins.” said Tara Houska, Giniw Collective. “Respect Indigenous rights, respect our only home. For our children and yours.”
“It’s despicable, in this time of extreme flooding, droughts, and fires, that the likes of Citibank continue to be the top financiers of fossil fuels in the world,” said Amy Gray, Senior Climate Finance Strategist with Stand.earth, and coordinator of the Climate Safe Pensions Network. “They clearly don’t care about communities, particularly Black and Indigenous communities facing the brunt of climate chaos. While bank executives greenwash and lie about supporting coal, oil and gas companies transitioning, big oil is raking in record profits and increasing pollution. It's time for shareholders, especially public pension funds, to wield voting power for Indigenous sovereignty and climate action."
"There is no more time for banks to delay addressing the urgent demands of frontline communities and climate science,” said Ernesto Archila, Strategy and Engagement Manager at the Rainforest Action Network. “This year's crop of resolutions demonstrate that a critical mass of investors are demanding clear limits and reporting on fossil fuel financing and indigenous rights. These responsible investors are not fooled by the continuous greenwashing and evasion we have seen from the banks, to the tune of $5.5 trillion in financing for fossil fuels since the Paris Agreement was signed."
“As communities of color are literally fighting for our lives on the frontlines of the climate crisis, U.S banks continue funding the fossil fuel industry. These banks target communities, like mine, treating us as collateral damage to corporate profiteering. By funding the fossil fuel industry these banks are also funding environmental racism and climate chaos. Our communities don’t have clean air or drinkable water. Our children have asthma and eczema. Our elders are dying of cancer and other health issues caused by methane and other pollutants being emitted. Enough is enough.” Said Roishetta Ozane, founder, director and CEO of The Vessel Project of Louisiana and Gulf Fossil Finance Coordinator for Texas Campaign for the Environment.
“Wall Street banks continue to sacrifice Black and Indigenous communities for profit. At some point the people who lead these banks will have to decide what is more important: their children’s future & the future of our planet, or another dollar in their pocket. History will judge us all by the actions we take today,” said Michael Esealuka, organizer with Healthy Gulf and True Transition
“Indigenous communities have bore the brunt of energy colonization. From the exploitation of traditional homelands, forced removal, pollution, the exploitation of resources, forced labor and the crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous peoples, financial are not only complicit in these human and environmental rights abuses, but are directly financing it,” said Matt Remle (Lakota), co-founder of Mazaska Talks. “Financial institutions can, and must, do better.”
“Banks’ financing decisions have a significant outcome on whether the world will meet its climate goals. It is imperative for banks to adopt science-based policies that translate to real-world emissions reductions. They cannot hide behind accounting tricks to shield themselves and their shareholders from climate-related financial risks,” said Jessye Waxman, Senior Campaign Representative at the Sierra Club. “Prudent investors recognize the threats climate change poses to our economy and to their investments, and will support these resolutions that help shield banks from future risk.”
“As shareholders consider resolutions on climate and Indigenous rights, we’re organizing grassroots protests at Citi, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo in order to give them a glimpse into the destruction people are experiencing because of climate chaos,” said Alice Hu, Lead Climate Campaigner at New York Communities for Change. “Banks like Citi like to say verbally that they are funding the energy transition, but in reality it’s business as usual: pumping money into the fossil fuels driving worsening extreme weather, droughts, and food shortages that hit working class communities of color like ours the worst.”
The Stop the Money Pipeline coalition is over 160 organizations strong holding the financial backers of climate chaos accountable.
LATEST NEWS
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular