March, 01 2023, 11:36am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Arielle Swernoff: arielle@stopthemoneypipeline.com,
Ginny Cleaveland: ginny.cleaveland@sierraclub.org,
Coalition of 240+ Organizations to Push for Yes Votes on Climate, Indigenous Rights Shareholder Resolutions at Financial Firms
Resolutions at major North American banks and several insurers push companies to phase-out financing of fossil fuel expansion, protect Indigenous rights, and institute better climate policies
NEW YORK
A coalition of over 240 climate, justice, and multi-issue organizations announced their support of four shareholder resolutions filed at major US and Canadian banks and insurance companies this spring. The resolutions include requiring banks and insurance companies to phase out their financing of companies engaged in fossil fuel expansion, report on projects that could violate Indigenous rights, use absolute emissions rather than emissions intensity targets, disclose 2030 transition plans, and hold directors accountable at banks that are not aligned with 1.5°C pathways. The resolutions were filed by a variety of investors, including the New York City and New York State pension funds, the Sierra Club Foundation, Trillium Asset Management, As You Sow, and others.
Ahead of the companies’ annual general meetings, Stop the Money Pipeline, a coalition of over 200 organizations, is launching a ‘Shareholder Showdown’ campaign to encourage investors to vote yes on the resolutions and against failing directors. Stop the Money Pipeline is also pushing banks and insurance companies to pass policies, ahead of their AGMs, that would prohibit lending, underwriting and insuring to corporations engaged in fossil fuel expansion.
“Shareholders have immediate opportunities to hold banks accountable for their role in the climate crisis by supporting this full slate of resolutions, and by voting against corporate directors failing to manage climate risks. Major investors like BlackRock and CalPERS must support these critical votes, and if they don’t, it will reveal their abject failure to understand both the systemic risk climate change poses to their portfolios and their fiduciary duty to address it. Their clients will be watching,” said Jessye Waxman, Senior Campaign Representative in the Sierra Club’s Fossil-Free Finance campaign.
FOSSIL FUEL PHASE OUT
The fossil fuel phase-out resolutions are updated versions of resolutions filed last year at the six largest American banks and three major insurers calling for an end to financing and underwriting of fossil fuel expansion. The resolutions clarify that the request is to phase-out new fossil fuel financing and insurance coverage, rather than abruptly end client relationships, which some banks and insurers used as an excuse the previous year. Proponents believe these updates will significantly boost shareholder support.
According to an influential report released by the International Energy Agency in 2021, as well as a growing consensus of the world’s leading scientists and energy experts, in order to have a fifty percent chance of curtailing global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and limiting the worst impacts of the climate crisis, investment in new fossil fuel supply needs to cease.
Despite this clear warning, and despite public pledges to be Paris-aligned, the six largest American banks – JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs – provided nearly $500 billion in lending and underwriting to the 100 corporations most aggressively expanding fossil fuel operations since 2016. Meanwhile, US-based insurance giants Chubb, The Hartford, and Travelers are among the top insurance providers to the global oil and gas industry..
These resolutions were filed by the Sierra Club Foundation at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo; by Trillium Asset Management at Bank of America; by Harrington Investments at Citigroup; by Stand.earth at Royal Bank of Canada; and by Green Century Funds at Chubb, The Hartford, and Travelers.
“Financial institutions are trying to project this image that they're good with money - but how good are you with money if you end up destroying your own house for profit? That's exactly what Wall Street is doing by financing unlimited fossil fuel expansion. People are fighting back, and now shareholders have a chance to amplify the demands of frontline communities. Curbing expansion is fiscally sound, socially responsible, and shows that they value investing in resilient communities and a just energy future." - Aditi Sen, Climate and Energy Program Director at Rainforest Action Network
"The planet is running out of time and the banks are running out of excuses--everyone from the Pope to the Secretary General of the UN have called on them finally to act with clarity and conviction to help with the planet's greatest crisis, and shareholders should demand no less,” said writer and activist Bill McKibben.
INDIGENOUS RIGHTS
The Indigenous rights resolution at Citigroup, filed by Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace calls for a report on the effectiveness of bank practices, policies, and performance indicators in respecting internationally-recognized human rights standards for Indigenous Peoples’ rights in its existing and proposed general corporate and project financing.
In recent years, Citi has provided financing for projects and companies that clearly violate Indigenous rights: they were the lead financier of the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016; provided over $5 billion to Enbridge, enabling the Line 3 and Line 5 pipelines; and helped GeoPark secure over $650 million for oil drilling in the Colombian Amazon despite a lack of consent from local Indigenous peoples and a clear history on behalf of the company of damaging Indigenous lands, health, and livelihoods.
Domini Impact Investments filed a resolution at Chubb requesting a report describing how human rights risks and impacts are evaluated and incorporated in the company’s underwriting process, specifically calling attention to the extent to which Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is considered in the underwriting process.
“Free Prior and Informed Consent means actual meaningful engagement with all impacted Indigenous communities and obtaining actual documented consent from impacted communities, otherwise the projects do not happen. The era of these financial institutions paying lip service to Indigenous rights, human rights, and environmental justice is over it is time to truly respect the rights of Indigenous peoples,” said Matt Remle from Mazaska Talks.
"Indigenous frontline environmental defenders continue to bear the brunt of the climate crisis, all while facing severe bodily threats for their collective resistance against the industries most responsible for it. Due to pervasive oil and gas extraction, made possible by unmitigated fossil financing, communities’ livelihoods and lands remain threatened. Investors and financial institutions must uphold Indigenous rights, human rights, and climate at the forefront of its agenda," said Mary Mijares, Fossil Finance Campaigner at Amazon Watch
ABSOLUTE EMISSIONS TARGETS
A third resolution, filed by the New York City Comptroller Brad Lander and three of the New York City Retirement Systems (the New York City Employees’ Retirement System, Teachers’ Retirement System, and Board of Education Retirement System) at Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Royal Bank of Canada calls on the banks to disclose absolute emissions targets for 2030. Citi and Wells Fargo already report absolute emissions reductions.
These banks currently have made emissions intensity pledges, an accounting trick that would allow banks to increase their financed emissions overall while reducing the amount of emissions per dollar financed in the fossil fuel sector. In order to be Paris-aligned, emissions must decrease absolutely. These resolutions would hold banks to a science-based standard for meeting their stated climate targets.
“Experts such as the United Nations High-Level Expert Group have made it clear that for climate commitments to be taken seriously companies must use absolute emissions metrics when setting climate targets,” said Stop the Money Pipeline coalition co-director, Alec Connon, “Yet, most of the country’s largest banks have set their climate targets using far weaker carbon intensity metrics. By voting yes on these resolutions, shareholders can help end this practice of greenwashing from some of the world’s largest funders of fossil fuels.”
TRANSITION PLANS
These resolutions, filed by As You Sow at JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley, call on banks to publicly disclose their 2030 plans for transitioning their lending and investment portfolios away from fossil fuels. A transition plan could include, for example, disclosure of clients’ estimated annual reductions and how the bank plans to achieve remaining reductions. Additional actions may include client and employee incentives or disincentives; setting requirements, including loan approval guidelines, investment and underwriting priorities or prohibitions; and policies or
guidelines that otherwise restrict, limit, or condition bank business activities, among others.
DIRECTOR VOTES
Investors are encouraged to vote against the reelection of directors responsible for climate oversight at institutions that have failed to align targets and lending and underwriting policies with credible 1.5°C low/no overshoot scenarios.
Directors are responsible for oversight of strategic planning, including management of climate risks. As climate risk grows both as an economy-wide systemic risk and as a sector-specific risk for banks, board directors are failing in their fiduciary duties when companies under their oversight fail to adopt and execute comprehensive climate risk management policies. Where issuers have failed to adopt and disclose climate policies that align with 1.5°C pathways, it indicates that directors responsible for such oversight are either unwilling or unable to successfully lead the company through the decarbonization transition. Investors are encouraged to vote against such directors.
Additional members of the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition released the following statements:
“Public pensions are meant to be the longest-term investors, yet they’re doing business with the very banks financing climate chaos,” said Amy Gray, Stand.earth Climate Finance Senior Strategist. “Pension funds must live up to their fiduciary duty, and protect pensioners and climate alike, by wielding their institutional investor power for climate resolutions at banks’ shareholder meetings this Spring.”
“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. This needs to stop. Our continued reliance on fossil fuels is unsustainable and damaging to our health and environment. We must shift our focus to renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydropower, which are cleaner, more efficient, and more sustainable in the long-term. Banks should invest in energy-efficiency measures, such as LED lighting and energy-efficient appliances, to reduce our energy consumption and carbon footprint. These steps are necessary to ensure a healthier and more sustainable future for all.” - Roishetta Ozane, Founder and CEO of the Vessel Project
"Climate change is an existential crisis that can overwhelm a person in scale and size, impossible to address. Big bank shareholders possess an enormous amount of influence on the world’s emissions. A roomful of people can impact the disastrous course we are currently on. No more lip service or empty greenwashing — we need action, now.” Tara Houska, Giniw Collective.
“Right now, people across Canada and North America are paying the costs of Royal Bank of Canada’s misguided fossil fuel financing through devastating fires and floods. Instead of greenwashing and redwashing, RBC has the opportunity to step into real leadership and end fossil fuel expansion financing at its April 5 shareholder meeting. Science and justice make it clear: for any shot at curbing the worst of climate destruction, there can be no new fossil fuel projects. We call on all shareholders – from retail investors to big pension funds – to support this resolution, and direct RBC to align its financing with its rhetoric of honoring Indigenous sovereignty and acting on the climate crisis.” - Richard Brooks, Stand.earth Climate Finance Director
“In Wells Fargo’s Indigenous People Statement it states that it “recognizes that the identities and cultures of Indigenous Peoples are inextricably linked to the lands on which they live and the natural resources, including air and water, upon which they depend”, and yet it finances projects that harm those lands and natural resources, including air and water, upon which they depend.” – Troy Horton, Extinction Rebellion Phoenix
“This shareholder season it’s crucial that investors support linked resolutions filed with banks and insurance companies: to ensure that Indigenous Peoples’ rights that are impacted by the fossil fuel industry are respected; to phase out financing and underwriting for the expansion of the fossil fuel sector; and to urge banks to align their financing with science-based emission reduction targets.” - Fran Teplitz, Executive Co-director, Green America
“At a time when financial institutions are STILL accelerating climate instability with their investments in new fossil fuel infrastructure, it is imperative that shareholders exercise their right to hold their directors accountable. In the short term, this is a moral necessity. In the long term, it is good business.” - John Seakwood, Organizer, Rivers & Mountains GreenFaith Circle
“As insurance companies fuel the climate crisis by continuing to invest in and underwrite new fossil fuel projects, shareholders are stepping up to hold the industry accountable. Insurers must adopt new policies that phase out insurance coverage for any new fossil fuel projects and align themselves with the Paris Accords. - Tom Swan, Executive Director of Connecticut Citizen Action Group (CCAG).
“Big banks must stop pumping money into an industry that is driving the climate crisis. As people around the world face extreme weather disasters, threats to public health, and systemic economic risk, institutions such as JPMorgan Chase are ignoring climate science by providing billions of dollars in financing to fossil fuel companies that continue to expand their production of oil and gas. To safeguard communities, investors, and the global economy, shareholders should insist that banks incentivize swift and deep cuts in heat-trapping emissions to limit climate change harms and facilitate a just transition to a clean energy economy,” said Kathy Mulvey, Director of the Climate Accountability Campaign at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
“It is time shareholders start looking at their families and how water and air pollution will affect them versus their bottom dollar. Money can’t buy clean, pure water.At a time in the world when climate change, seasons, disasters are moving at warp speed, we need these banks, corporations, funding institutions to stop being a machine. It is all across the globe, capitalism, consumerism, it’s all just superficial. These Banking Industry leaders, or CEO’s are not doing it for the right thing. They are all trendy and say they have diversity, equity, justice and inclusion committees, making words look great on paper, but are still plowing through BIPOC communities as warp speed, as the government looks on. I ask would you poison your own grandmother, then why do it to our grandmothers?” - Dr. Crystal Cavalier - Co Founder and CEO of 7 Directions of Service.
The Stop the Money Pipeline coalition is over 160 organizations strong holding the financial backers of climate chaos accountable.
LATEST NEWS
Congressional Report Calls Trump Deportation Plan 'Catastrophic' for Economy
"All it will do is raise grocery prices, destroy jobs, and shrink the economy," JEC Chair Martin Heinrich said of the president-elect's plan to deport millions of immigrants.
Dec 12, 2024
Echoing recent warnings from economists, business leaders, news reporting, and immigrant rights groups, Democrats on the congressional Joint Economic Committee detailed Thursday how President-elect Donald Trump's planned mass deportations "would deliver a catastrophic blow to the U.S. economy."
"Though the U.S. immigration system remains broken, immigrants are crucial to growing the labor force and supporting economic output," states the new report from JEC Democrats. "Immigrants have helped expand the labor supply, pay nearly $580 billion a year in taxes, possess a spending power of $1.6 trillion a year, and just last year contributed close to $50 billion each in personal income and consumer spending."
There are an estimated 11.7 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, and Trump—who is set to be sworn in next month—has even suggested he would deport children who are American citizens with their parents who are not and attempt to end birthright citizenship.
Citing recent research by the American Immigration Council and the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the JEC report warns that depending on how many immigrants are forced out of the country, Trump's deportations could:
- Reduce real gross domestic product (GDP) by as much as 7.4% by 2028;
- Reduce the supply of workers for key industries, including by up to 225,000 workers in agriculture and 1.5 million workers in construction;
- Push prices up to 9.1% higher by 2028; and
- Cost 44,000 U.S.-born workers their jobs for every half a million immigrants who are removed from the labor force.
Highlighting how mass deportations would harm not only undocumented immigrants but also U.S. citizens, the report explains that construction worker losses would "make housing even harder to build, raising its cost," and "reduce the supply of farmworkers who keep Americans fed as well as the supply of home health aides at a time when more Americans are aging and requiring assistance."
In addition to reducing home care labor, Trump's deportation plan would specifically harm seniors by reducing money for key government benefits that only serve U.S. citizens. The report references estimates that it "would cut $23 billion in funds for Social Security and $6 billion from Medicare each year because these workers would no longer pay into these programs."
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), who chairs the JEC, said Thursday that "as a son of an immigrant, I know how hard immigrants work, how much they believe in this country, and how much they're willing to give back. They are the backbone of our economy and the driving force behind our nation's growth and prosperity."
"Trump's plan to deport millions of immigrants does absolutely nothing to address the core problems driving our broken immigration system," Heinrich stressed. "Instead, all it will do is raise grocery prices, destroy jobs, and shrink the economy. His immigration policy is reckless and would cause irreparable harm to our economy."
Along with laying out the economic toll of Trump's promised deportations, the JEC report makes the case that "providing a pathway to citizenship is good economics. Immigrants are helping meet labor demand while also demonstrating that more legal pathways to working in the United States are needed to meet this demand."
"Additionally, research shows that expanding legal immigration pathways can reduce irregular border crossings, leading to more secure and regulated borders," the publication says. "This approach is vital for managing increased migration to the United States, especially as more people flee their home countries due to the continued risk of violence, persecution, economic conditions, natural disasters, and climate change."
The JEC report followed a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday that explored how mass deportations would not only devastate the U.S. economy but also harm the armed forces and tear apart American families.
In a statement, Vanessa Cárdenas, executive director of the advocacy group America's Voice, thanked Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) "for calling this important discussion together and shining a spotlight on the potential damage."
Cárdenas pointed out that her group has spent months warning about how Trump's plan would "cripple communities and spike inflation," plus cause "tremendous human suffering as American citizens are ripped from their families, as parents are separated from their children, or as American citizens are deported by their own government."
"Trump and his allies have said it will be 'bloody,' that 'nobody is off the table,' and that 'you have to send them all back,'" she noted, arguing that the Republican plan will "set us back on both border control and public safety."
Cárdenas concluded that "America needs a serious immigration reform proposal—with pathways to legal status and controlled and orderly legal immigration—which recognize[s] immigrants are essential for America's future."
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Rule From Agency Trump Wants Destroyed Would Save Consumers $5 Billion Per Year in Overdraft Fees
One advocate called the CFPB's new rule "a major milestone in its effort to level the playing field between regular people and big banks."
Dec 12, 2024
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, one of President-elect Donald Trump's top expected targets as he plans to dismantle parts of the federal government after taking office in January, announced on Thursday its latest action aimed at saving households across the U.S. hundreds of dollars in fees each year.
The agency issued a final rule to close a 55-year-old loophole that has allowed big banks to collect billions of dollars in overdraft fees from consumers each year,
The rule makes significant updates to federal regulations for financial institutions' overdraft fees, ordering banks with more than $10 billion in assets to choose between several options:
- Capping their overdraft fees at $5;
- Capping fees at an amount that covers costs and losses; or
- Disclosing the terms of overdraft loans as they do with other loans, giving consumers a choice regarding whether they open a line of overdraft credit and allowing them to comparison-shop.
The final rule is expected to save Americans $5 billion annually in overdraft fees, or about $225 per household that pays overdraft fees.
Adam Rust, director of financial services at the Consumer Federation of America, called the rule "a major milestone" in the CFPB's efforts "to level the playing field between regular people and big banks."
"No one should have to pick between paying a junk overdraft fee or buying groceries," said Rust. "This rule gives banks a choice: they can charge a reasonable fee that does not exploit their customers, or they can treat these loan products as an extension of credit and comply with existing lending laws."
The rule is set to go into effect next October, but the incoming Trump administration could put its implementation in jeopardy. Trump has named billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk to co-lead the Department of Government Efficiency, an advisory body he hopes to create. Musk has signaled that he wants to "delete" the CFPB, echoing a proposal within the right-wing policy agenda Project 2025, which was co-authored by many officials from the first Trump term.
"The CFPB is cracking down on these excessive junk fees and requiring big banks to come clean about the interest rate they're charging on overdraft loans."
"It is critical that incoming and returning members of Congress and President-elect Trump side with voters struggling in this economy and support the CFPB's overdraft rule," said Lauren Saunders, associate director at the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC). "This rule is an example of the CFPB's hard work for everyday Americans."
In recent decades, banks have used overdraft fees as profit drivers which increase consumer costs by billions of dollars every year while causing tens of millions to lose access to banking services and face negative credit reports that can harm their financial futures.
The Federal Reserve Board exempted banks from Truth in Lending Act protections in 1969, allowing them to charge overdraft fees without disclosing their terms to consumers.
"For far too long, the largest banks have exploited a legal loophole that has drained billions of dollars from Americans' deposit accounts," said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. "The CFPB is cracking down on these excessive junk fees and requiring big banks to come clean about the interest rate they're charging on overdraft loans."
Government watchdog Accountable.US credited the CFPB with cracking down on overdraft fees despite aggressive campaigning against the action by Wall Street, which has claimed the fees have benefits for American families.
Accountable.US noted that Republican Reps. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina and Andy Barr of Kentucky have appeared to lift their criticisms of the rule straight from industry talking points, claiming that reforming overdraft fee rules would "limit consumer choice, stifle innovation, and ultimately raise the cost of banking for all consumers."
Similarly, in April Barr claimed at a hearing that "the vast majority of Americans" believe credit card late fees are legitimate after the Biden administration unveiled a rule capping the fees at $8.
"Americans pay billions in overdraft fees every year, but the CFPB's final rule is putting an end to the $35 surprise fee," said Liz Zelnick, director of the Economic Security and Corporate Power Program at Accountable.US. "Despite efforts to block the rule and protect petty profits by big bank CEOs and lobbyists, the Biden administration's initiative will protect our wallets from an exploitative profit-maximizing tactic."
The new overdraft fee rule follows a $95 million enforcement action against Navy Federal Credit Union for illegal surprise overdraft fees and similar actions against Wells Fargo, Regions Bank, and Atlantic Union.
Consumers have saved $6 billion annually through the CFPB's initiative to curb junk fees, which has led multiple banks to reduce or eliminate their fees.
"Big banks that charge high fees for overdrafts are not providing a courtesy to consumers—it's a form of predatory lending that exacerbates wealth disparities and racial inequalities," said Carla Sanchez-Adams, senior attorney at NCLC. "The CFPB's overdraft rule ensures that the most vulnerable consumers are protected from big banks trying to pad their profits with junk fees."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Arrests of US Journalists Surged in 2024 Amid Crackdown on Gaza Protests
Police use of "catch-and-release" tactics is particularly worrying for press freedom advocates, according to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
Dec 12, 2024
Arrests and detainments of journalists in the United States surged in 2024 compared to the year prior, according to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, a project of the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
The tracker reports that journalists were arrested or detained by police at least 48 times this year—eclipsing the number of arrests that took place in the previous two years combined, and constituting the third highest number of yearly arrests and detentions since the project began cataloging press freedom violations in 2017. 2020, however, still stands as far and away the year with the most arrests and detentions.
The 48 arrests and detentions this year is also part of a larger list of "press freedom incidents" that the tracker documents, including things like equipment damage, equipment seizure, and assault.
While a year with a high number of protests typically leads to more arrests, "it was protests in response to the Israel-Gaza war that caused this year's uptick," according to the tracker.
The vast majority of the arrests and detainments out of the total 48 were linked to these sorts of demonstrations, and it was protests at Columbia University's Manhattan campus that were the site of this year's largest detainment of journalists.
The report also recounts the story of Roni Jacobson, a freelance reporter whose experience on the last day of 2023 was a harbinger of press freedom incidents to come in 2024. Jacobson was on assignment to cover a pro-Palestinian demonstration for the New York Daily News on December 31, 2023 when she was told to leave by police because she didn't have city-issued press credentials with her. She recounted that she accidentally bumped into an officer and was arrested. She was held overnight at a precinct and then released after the charges against her, which included disorderly conduct, were dropped.
Even five arrests that the tracker deems "election-related" took place at protests that were "at least partially if not entirely focused on the Israel-Gaza war." Three of those election-related arrests took place at protests happening around the Democratic National Convention in August.
One police force in particular bears responsibility for this year's crackdown: Nearly 50% of the arrests of journalists this year were at the hands of the New York Police Department (NYPD). Many of those taken into custody had their charges dropped quickly, but the tracker notes that the NYPD's use of "catch-and-release" tactics was particularly worrying to press freedom advocates.
Two photojournalists, Josh Pacheco and Olga Federova, were detained four times this year in both New York City and Chicago while photographing protests. They were both "assaulted and arrested and [had] their equipment damaged" while documenting police clearing a student encampment at Manhattan's Fashion Institute of Technology; however, they were released the next day and told their arrests had been voided.
"While [we are] glad that some common sense prevailed by the NYPD not charging these two photographers with any crime, we are very concerned that they are perfecting 'catch-and-release' to an art form,” Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, told the tracker.
"The fact that they took two photojournalists off the street, preventing them from making any more images or transmitting the ones they already had on a matter of extreme public concern, is very disturbing," he said.
Besides covering protests, 2024 also saw the continued practice of "criminally charging journalists for standard journalistic practices," according to the tracker. For example, one investigative journalist in Los Angeles was repeatedly threatened with arrest while attempting to cover a homeless encampment sweep in the city, and then was detained in October, though he was let go without charges.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular