

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.

Shawna Ambrose, Rainforest Action Network, shawna@ran.org
Banking on Climate Chaos reveals banks financed $429B in companies expanding fossil fuels in 2024
Released today, the 16th annual Banking on Climate Chaos (BOCC) report covers the lending and underwriting activities of the world’s top 65 banks to more than 2,700 fossil fuel companies. While the world’s top scientists from the International Energy Agency (IEA) and others have repeatedly stated there can be no new fossil fuel expansion in a net-zero by 2050 scenario, banks have ignored this climate risk and continue to increase their financing for dirty energy companies expanding fossil fuel infrastructure. This financing comes amid a rapid retreat from climate commitments made by many banks at COP26 in Glasgow in 2021.
“The retreat by U.S. banks from robust climate commitments is unacceptable, deeply irresponsible, and a clear capitulation to political pressure. Banks must shift away from risky financing and commit to reducing emissions via the companies they finance, with a genuine focus on helping to decarbonize the economy and support the urgent and necessary clean energy transition. For example, it’s indefensible that US banks reject direct project finance as too risky, only to support the same projects indirectly through corporate lending—these loopholes must be closed,” said Jessye Waxman, Campaign Advisor for the Sierra Club’s Sustainable Finance campaign.
See more quotes from report co-authors.
OVERALL TRENDS
The report shows that global banks increased their fossil fuel financing by $162 billion from 2023 to 2024. This is a new trend, since overall fossil fuel finance had been decreasing since 2021. Global banks have financed $7.9 trillion in fossil fuels since 2016, when the Paris Agreement was signed.
In 2024, loans were the top form of financing with an increase to $467 billion from $422 billion from 2023. Bonds saw the largest increase to $401 billion from $284 billion in 2023. Acquisition financing also rose to $82.9 billion from $63.7 billion in 2023.
COMPANIES EXPANDING FOSSIL FUELS
The report reveals that global banks have financed companies expanding fossil fuels with $1.6 trillion since 2021. In 2024, global banks financed these companies with $429 billion alone — a rise of $84.8 billion from 2023.
Some of the top companies that received 2024 financing to expand fossil fuels from the 65 global banks listed in the report include:
BANK FINANCING: BY THE NUMBERS
JP Morgan Chase is the largest fossil fuel financier in the world, committing $53.5 billion to fossil fuel companies in 2024. Four banks increased their fossil fuel financing by more than $10 billion. The top four banks with the largest absolute increase are JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Barclays.
U.S. banks committed $289 billion in fossil fuel financing in 2024, one third of the global financing for that year in the scope of the report. JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo, the top four U.S. banks, alone represent 21% of total global fossil fuel financing in the scope of this report.
Japanese companies Mizuho, MUFG, and SMBC contributed 12% of this report’s overall financing for that year. Nearly half of that financing went to companies headquartered in the United States.
In Europe, the UK bank Barclay’s is the largest fossil fuel financier in 2024 with $35.4 billion. Spain’s Santander, France’s BNP Paribas, Germany’s Deutsche Bank, and the UK’s HSBC each contributed between $14 and $17.3 billion to the industry in 2024.
BACKGROUND
The Banking on Climate Chaos report is authored by Rainforest Action Network, BankTrack, the Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development, Indigenous Environmental Network, Oil Change International, Reclaim Finance, Sierra Club, and Urgewald. It has been endorsed by 480 organizations in 69 countries. Learn more at www.bankingonclimatechaos.org.
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) 977-5500A new poll from Politico found that only 5% of respondents disagree that there is too much money in politics, and 61% think billionaires have too much influence on elections.
A significant majority of Americans agree that there is too much money in the US political system and that the super rich have more influence over election outcomes than ordinary citizens, a poll published by Politico on Saturday found.
The poll comes after outside spending in the 2024 election broke records, with richest-man-alive Elon Musk pouring over $250 million into President Donald Trump's campaign.
"In 2024, the maximum individual donation per candidate was $3,300. Elon Musk donated $277 million to elect Trump because of the loopholes Citizens United created for billionaires to buy elections," Campaign for New York Health executive director Melanie D'Arrigo wrote on social media Sunday in response to the results.
"Elon has increased his wealth by $235 billion during Trump’s second term, and was allowed to gut the federal agencies overseeing and investigating him," she continued. "Big money in politics is a direct threat to democracy and the working class."
“This type of astronomical spending corrodes people’s faith in our system of government."
According to the poll, 72% of Americans agree that there is too much money in politics, while only 5% disagree. There is broad partisan consensus on this issue, with 80% of 2024 Kamala Harris voters and 77% of 2024 Trump voters also agreeing.
At the same time, 61% think that billionaires have too much influence on US politics. There was a larger partisan gap on this issue, with 75% of Harris voters and 55% of Trump voters agreeing
A total of 67% of respondents think that there is too much special interest money specifically in elections, and 53% see it as a form of corruption that should be restricted. There is also bipartisan support for the idea that special interest money is corruption, with 61% of Harris voters and 56% of Trump voters backing this position.
There is slightly more concern about money in politics from Democratic voters, with 49% of 2024 Harris voters stating it could outright buy elections compared with 33% of Trump voters.
In response to the results, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) argued that the Democratic Party should do more to take advantage of this concern.
"Dems shy away from the issue, despite voting 100% to get rid of dark money when given the chance. (Republicans 100% defend dark money.)," he wrote on social media.
The Democratic National Committee passed a resolution condemning dark money election spending last month, but some lawmakers including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have called for it to go further by banning dark money contributions to Democratic primaries all together.
Election spending skyrocketed in the US following the Supreme Court's controversial decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010. Dark money spending increased dramatically, reaching $1.9 billion in 2024.
“This type of astronomical spending corrodes people’s faith in our system of government, and I think people are really looking for changes to take some of this outrageous amount of spending and rein it in,” Michael Beckel, the Money in Politics reform director at Issue One, told Politico.
The pair were among the at least 24 people killed by Israeli strikes on Lebanon on Saturday despite a nominal ceasefire.
An Israeli drone killed a Syrian laborer and his 12-year-old daughter in a double-tap attack in southern Lebanon on Saturday, in what the Lebanon Health Ministry described as part of a continuing pattern “of grave violations of International Humanitarian Law.”
The man was riding with his daughter on a motorcycle in Nabatiyeh when the pair were targeted by three drone strikes, according to the ministry.
The Associated Press reported:
The ministry said that after the initial strike, the man and his daughter managed to move away from the site only to be attacked again by the drone instantly killing the man. The girl then moved about 100 meters (yards) away and was hit again by the drone after she had been already wounded.
The girl was taken to the hospital, but did not survive her injuries, according to Lebanon's National News Agency.
"What does terrorism mean to you? If it’s [not] double-tap killings of paramedics, journalists, and today a 12 year old girl, then what is it?"
“The Ministry of Public Health denounces this barbaric targeting and the deliberate violence against civilians and children in Lebanon,” the ministry said, as AP reported.
The father and daughter were among a total of at least 24 people in Lebanon who were killed by Israeli strikes on Saturday, according to Al Jazeera.
One strike on the town of al-Saksakieh killed seven, among them a child. The strike also wounded 15 people including three children.
The bombings continue despite a nominal ceasefire between Lebanon and Hezbollah that went into effect April 17. However, Israel has killed almost 500 people in Lebanon since April 16, raising the death toll since its March 2 invasion to over 2,750.
War correspondent Courtney Schellekens shared the story of the 12-year-old girl and her father in a video on social media on Saturday.
What does terrorism mean to you? If it’s no double-tap killings of paramedics, journalists, and today a 12 year old girl, then what is it?
Westerners, where is your humanity?
Cameraman: @aliezzedine7 pic.twitter.com/ntXIwz4s6H
— courtneybonneauimages (@cbonneauimages) May 9, 2026
"What does terrorism mean to you? If it’s [not] double-tap killings of paramedics, journalists, and today a 12 year old girl, then what is it?" she wrote above the video.
At the conclusion of the video itself, she continued the same line of questioning.
"To my Western followers, I really want you to think critically about the definition of terrorism, to whom it gets applied and who does it benefit," she said. "Because where I've been sitting for the last 18 months, this mass murder and mass, you know, look at this," she gestured to the ruble behind her, "this mass destruction, this ethnic cleansing of south Lebanon, this looks a lot like terrorism to me."
"Drug suspects should be arrested and prosecuted, not summarily executed," a human rights expert said.
The Trump administration continued its illegal bombing of small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific on Friday, killing two and leaving one survivor in its third such strike in five days.
US Southern Command announced the attack on social media, claiming that "intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations."
"Under [President Donald] Trump's illegal orders, the US military conducted its third boat strike in five days against supposed drug smugglers, killing at least two. Each of these is a murder. Drug suspects should be arrested and prosecuted, not summarily executed," former Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth wrote on social media Saturday in response to the news.
Friday's strike marks the 57th by the Trump administration and raises the death toll from the boat-strike campaign, which experts say is illegal even if every boat targeted is ferrying drugs, to 192.
"Really absurdly, there’s been no impact on flows of drugs toward the United States."
"What do you call a US citizen who smuggles drugs, SOUTHCOM? A 'narco-terrorist'?" social media user Andrew Marinelli said in response to the Southern Command announcement. "If a US citizen [allegedly] drove drugs into Canada and they blew him away with a drone strike, would you accept it?"
The administration has also not provided evidence for its claims that the boats belong to drug traffickers, and relatives of the victims say at least some of those killed were simply on the water to fish.
Friday's strike was notable in that it left behind a survivor and that US Southern Command said it had activated the US Coast Guard to conduct a search and rescue operation.
The announcement may reflect a response to backlash after news broke last year that, in the administration's first such strike, commanders had ordered a vessel bombed twice when it became clear there were survivors, in keeping with Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth's directive to "kill everybody."
Despite scrutiny, the campaign has continued and even escalated in the past few weeks. There have been three such bombings since the beginning of May, according to The Intercept: One on May 4 in the Caribbean that killed two, one on May 5 in the Pacific that killed three, and the Pacific strike on May 8 that killed two. The reported survivor remains missing.
While the Trump administration claims the strikes have dramatically reduced the flow of illegal drugs into the US, evidence reveals this is not the case, according to an Intercept analysis published May 4.
For example, Trump claimed that drugs entering the US by sea had decreased by 97%, but the administration's own data contradicts this claim, retired Rear Adm. William Baumgartner told The Intercept.
Adam Isacson, the director for defense oversight at human rights group Washington Office on Latin America, said, "Really absurdly, there’s been no impact on flows of drugs toward the United States,” noting that Customs and Border Protection seized 6,000 pounds more cocaine at all US borders in the seven months following the strikes than in the seven months before.
As Sanho Tree, who directs the Institute for Policy Studies' Drug Policy Project, put it, "It wouldn’t be the first time this administration just made up something out of whole cloth."