January, 24 2023, 01:28pm EDT
Stop the Money Pipeline coalition members respond to investors filing climate shareholder resolutions at major US and Canadian banks
Resolutions call for top banks and insurance companies to make significant progress on their climate commitments; will require support from major asset managers and other investors
Today, several institutional investors — including the New York City Comptroller, As You Sow (AYS), Sierra Club Foundation (SCF), Trillium Asset Management, and Harrington Investments — announced the filing of climate-related shareholder resolutions at major fossil fuel financing banks in the US and Canada, including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley.
· Reuters coverage of NYC resolutions
· Bloomberg coverage of SCF & AYS resolutions
The resolutions call on the banks to:
· Adopt policies to
phase out financing of new fossil fuel exploration and development (filed by Sierra Club Foundation, Trillium Asset Management, and Harrington Investments at JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley);
· Disclose robust transition plans on how the banks intend to align financing activities with their near-term emissions reduction targets (filed by As You Sow at JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley);
· Set 2030 absolute emissions reduction targets for energy sector financing (filed by the New York City Comptroller at JPMorgan
Chase, Bank of America (co-filed with the New York State Comptroller), Goldman Sachs, and the Royal Bank of Canada).
A slate of resolutions calling for policies to phase out financing for fossil fuel expansion was filed by the same investors at US banks in 2022. They received between 9 and 13% support, which was a significant milestone for these first-of-their-kind proposals. This year's fossil fuel financing proposals have been updated to encourage banks to finance clients' low-carbon transition so long as those plans are credible and verified. The previous resolutions were supported by many major institutional investors, including the New York State and New York City Common Retirement Funds.
New in 2023 are the resolutions on absolute emissions reductions targets for energy sector financing filed by the New York City and New York State Comptrollers, and the resolutions calling for disclosure of climate transition plans filed by As You Sow. The day before the resolutions were filed, Denmark's largest bank, Danske, announced a phase out of corporate financing for companies engaged in new coal, oil and gas development.
Royal Bank of Canada and the six US banks have committed to align their financing with the goals of the Paris Agreement and to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. However, scientific consensus shows that fossil fuel expansion is incompatible with keeping global warming below 1.5C, and the big US banks continue to provide billions of dollars every year for new fossil fuel development — a fact underscored by a new report released just last week.
In response to the news, coalition members with the Stop the Money Pipeline issue the following statements:
Arielle Swernoff, US Banks Campaign Manager with Stop the Money Pipeline, said, "Any climate commitment from a bank that is still financing fossil fuel expansion is greenwashing, pure and simple. By supporting these resolutions, shareholders can hold banks accountable to their own climate commitments, effectively manage risk, and protect people and the planet."
Michael Esealuka, Louisiana organizer with Healthy Gulf, said: "The Gulf South is ground zero for environmental racism and climate chaos. Every year we face worsening hurricanes, freezes and floods. Big banks are directly fueling this crisis by financing a massive expansion of petrochemical plants and gas exports in our communities. Bank CEOs like Brian Moynihan, David Solomon and Jamie Dimon made climate commitments — that should mean something. Instead they profit off climate chaos as the Gulf South is made into a sacrifice zone for fossil fuels."
Jeffrey Jacoby, Deputy Director of Texas Campaign for the Environment, said: "Shareholders at big banks need to know that continuing to fund the fossil fuel projects that drive climate change also means perpetuating environmental racism in the Gulf South – the very same communities who've experienced devastating impacts from climate disasters again and again."
Adele Shraiman, Campaign Representative with the Sierra Club's Fossil-Free Finance campaign, said: "Major US banks have fallen behind their global peers by setting weak emissions reduction targets and continuing to pour billions of dollars into fossil fuel expansion every year. Investors are uniquely positioned to push these big banks to stop stalling and finally take meaningful steps to address the climate crisis. We look forward to rallying support behind the investors that are leading the way on these shareholder resolutions to ensure the biggest banks are aligning their practices with their commitment to the goals of the Paris Agreement."
Richard Brooks, Stand.earth Climate Finance Program Director, said: "This action from the New York City Comptroller is exactly the kind of climate leadership institutional investors around the world must take. Banks' lending and underwriting practices must align with science and justice. It's time to cut greenwashed net-zero rhetoric once and for all."
Ruth Breech, Senior Campaigner for Climate and Energy with Rainforest Action Network, said: "Our data shows that US banks like Chase, Citi, BofA and Wells Fargo fuel climate disasters and are the biggest funders of the fossil fuel industry. They try to dismiss this truth through greenwashing, lack of transparency, and moving the goalposts on progress. These resolutions allow shareholders to make sound long-term decisions on their investments. Fossil fuel companies like Exxon, who have misled the public for decades, can no longer be allowed to get rich at our expense—as they export the losses of climate chaos onto the rest of us. Globally we are moving towards a sustainable energy future. Shareholders can lead the way."
Moira Birss, Climate Finance Director with Amazon Watch, said: "The Amazon rainforest—an ecosystem essential to global climate stability—is on the brink of collapse, and yet big banks like Citi, BoA, and JPMorgan continue pouring money into the companies destroying the forest to extract more fossil fuels. This financing not only destroys forests, the climate, and Indigenous livelihoods, but also the credibility of these banks' climate commitments, and it's well past time shareholders hold them to account."
Mary Cerulli, Executive Director of Climate Finance Action, said: The largest banks have all made significant long-term climate commitments. However, they continue to fund fossil fuel companies through bonds and loans locking in new infrastructure projects for decades. These shareholder resolutions will require banks to disclose their transition plans, set specific emission targets, and ensure they hit their long-term net zero goals to mitigate the systemic risk of climate change.
Resolutions at insurance companies
Shareholders have also filed climate resolutions at Chubb, Travelers, The Hartford, and Berkshire Hathaway – four majors in the U.S. insurance sector, another financial pillar of the fossil fuel industry.
Green Century Funds filed resolutions with Chubb, The Hartford, and Travelers, calling on the companies to phase out underwriting of new fossil fuel projects. As You Sow filed resolutions at Chubb, Travelers, and Berkshire Hathaway requesting a report on how each company will measure, disclose, and reduce insured emissions (i.e., emissions from their clients).
Elana Sulakshana, Senior Campaigner with Rainforest Action Network, said, "Shareholders are concerned about the material risks that climate change poses to the insurance industry, as well as the risks posed by insurers' unchecked support for new oil and gas projects. Some Republican state officials are attempting to turn financial institutions' responsible efforts to mitigate risk into a culture war, but investors know that climate risk cannot be ignored, especially within the insurance sector. In the midst of mounting losses from Hurricane Ian and other climate disasters, Green Century Funds is sending a clear message to Chubb, The Hartford, and Travelers: phase out support for fossil fuel expansion and underwrite a clean energy future."
Organizations are gearing up to support the climate resolutions at both banks and insurance companies this spring. Last year, members of the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition mobilized tens of thousands of everyday people to push major investors, such as state pension funds, BlackRock and Vanguard, to support climate action across corporate America. They are promising to double their efforts this year.
BACKGROUND
Comptroller Brad Lander manages the five New York City pension funds, which are valued at approximately $242 billion, making it the fourth largest public pension fund in the US. Comptroller Tom DiNapoli manages the New York State pension fund, which is valued at approximately $272 billion, making it the third largest public pension fund in the US. New York State led the resolution filing at Bank of America.
The resolutions follow a series of recent reports underscoring the scale of bank financing for fossil fuel expansion, and the lack of credible targets and plans to align with the banks' climate commitments:
· A Stand.earth report revealed RBC's surging fossil finance surpassed CAD $9.2 billion within one year of joining GFANZ, despite its public commitments to reach net-zero financed emissions. Since the 2016 Paris Climate Agreement was signed, RBC has pumped more than USD $201 billion (CAD $262 billion) into fossil fuel companies, making it the fifth worst fossil fuel financier in the world, and #1 in Canada.
· A Rainforest Action Network report showed that the big six US banks provided about $445 billion in financing for the top 100 companies expanding fossil fuels between 2016-2021, which accounted for one-third of the financing from the world's 60 largest banks to those top expanders.
· A Sierra Club report analyzing the net-zero pledges of US banks revealed that their commitments and actions fall far short of what's needed to meet global climate goals. The report outlines why it is essential for banks to set absolute emissions reduction targets instead of intensity-only targets, especially in high-polluting sectors. At present, Citi and Wells Fargo are the only major US banks to have set absolute emissions reduction targets for their financing of the oil and gas sector.
· The 2022 Banking on Climate Chaos report, to be updated this coming March, revealed in the six years following the Paris Agreement (2016-2021), the five largest bankers of fossil fuels in the world were:
· JPMorgan Chase: USD $382 billion;
· Citigroup: USD $285 billion;
· Wells Fargo: USD $272 billion;
· Bank of America: USD $232 billion;
· RBC: USD $201 billion;
· Two others – Morgan Stanley (USD $137 billion) and Goldman Sachs (USD $119 billion) – were in the top 15 globally.
· Citigroup: USD $285 billion;
· Wells Fargo: USD $272 billion;
· Bank of America: USD $232 billion;
· RBC: USD $201 billion;
· Two others – Morgan Stanley (USD $137 billion) and Goldman Sachs (USD $119 billion) – were in the top 15 globally.
The Stop the Money Pipeline coalition is over 160 organizations strong holding the financial backers of climate chaos accountable.
LATEST NEWS
Democrat Eva Burch Shares With Arizona Senate Her Plans to Get an Abortion
"I stand with those who have had to grapple with and navigate Arizona's restrictive laws surrounding abortion," the state senator said. "I'm with them. I appreciate them. I am them."
Mar 18, 2024
As Arizonans prepare for a potential vote on an abortion rights ballot measure, Democratic state Sen. Eva Burch on Monday took to the chamber's floor to announce that she plans to terminate her current pregnancy, explain why, and condemn harmful restrictions.
"A few weeks ago, I learned that against all odds, I am pregnant," said Burch (D-9). "Many of you know that I've had kind of a rough journey with fertility. I had my first miscarriage more than 13 years ago, and I have been pregnant many times. Since then, twice, I was lucky enough to successfully carry to term and I have two beautiful healthy little boys."
"But two years ago, while I was campaigning for this Senate seat, I became pregnant with what we later determined was a nonviable pregnancy. It was a pregnancy that we had been trying for, and we were heartbroken over it," she continued, referencing an abortion she has previously discussed publicly. "After numerous ultrasounds and blood draws, we have determined that my pregnancy is once again not progressing and is not viable And once again, I have scheduled an appointment to terminate my pregnancy."
"My experiences in this space, both as a provider and as a patient, have led me to believe that this Legislature has failed the people of Arizona."
Burch, who has worked as an emergency nurse and a nurse practitioner in a women's health clinic, stressed that "I don't think people should have to justify their abortions but I'm choosing to talk about why I made this decision because I want us to be able to have meaningful conversations about the reality of how the work that we do in this body impacts people in the real world."
After acknowledging some of the risks of pregnancy and that she accepted them to carry her two sons, she said: "I don't know how many of you have been unfortunate enough to experience a miscarriage before but I am not interested in going through it unnecessarily. And right now, the safest and most appropriate treatment for me and the treatment that I choose is abortion."
The Democrat then took aim at the Arizona Legislature for passing laws that restrict access to care for people like her. The state bans most abortions after 15 weeks, imposes a 24-hour waiting period between in-person counseling containing misinformation and the procedure, and forces patients to get medically unnecessary ultrasounds.
Detailing her trip to an abortion clinic on Friday, Burch said:
I didn't have an ultrasound because my doctor thought I needed one. I had one because legislation has forced me to do that, an invasive transvaginal ultrasound that I didn't want or need to have, performed by someone who didn't want to have to do it. I am safe and loved and protected in my marriage. But I cannot imagine how inappropriate that would be for a victim of sexual assault or for someone who has an abusive or coercive relationship with their partner—another unwanted vaginal penetration, but this time by the state, by the people who are commissioned to protect us.
Then I got to sit through an exhaustive list of absolute disinformation that was read off to me. I was told that there were alternatives to abortion, parenting or adoption among them, as if delivering a healthy baby is an option for me. It is not. My medical provider was forced to tell me multiple things that don't apply to my situation, and some that are just transparently factually false. And they do this because of laws passed by this Legislature in opposition to medical expert testimony and advice. From where I sat, the only reason I had to hear those things was in a cruel and really uninformed attempt by outside forces to shame and coerce and frighten me into making a different decision other than the one that I knew was right for me.
Burch explained that "the last time that I had an abortion, I started to miscarry that night before it was scheduled to take place. And I was denied a procedure in the hospital because I was deemed not critical enough, in spite of the fact that my embryo had died, and that my miscarriage had stalled."
"The clauses for emergencies aren't good enough. These laws can serve to intimidate doctors and it muddies the waters when they're trying to make complex decisions in situations that are really volatile," she argued. "I had been bleeding and passing huge clots for hours, but I wasn't bleeding out. And I was still pregnant. So I was offered medication to make me start bleeding again and told that I could have a procedure when I had bled enough. A waiting period is often totally inappropriate and potentially dangerous."
The lawmaker got an abortion at the clinic the following day—just two weeks before the right-wing majority of the U.S. Supreme Court reversedRoe v. Wade in June 2022, setting off a new wave of efforts by state legislators to pass forced-pregnancy legislation.
Burch highlighted some negative impacts of being denied an abortion—from heightened risks of domestic violence and eviction to long-term health consequences. She also noted the "sensitive feelings surrounding pregnancy" and "philosophical questions that people cannot agree on," while stressing that decisions should be made by patients and providers.
"My experiences in this space, both as a provider and as a patient, have led me to believe that this Legislature has failed the people of Arizona, in the laws that restrict and dictate abortion and in the resources that it cuts and strangles and denies at every opportunity," she said of her time in the state Senate. "Our decision-making should be grounded in expert testimony and in consensus from both the medical community and from constituents, and free from political posturing and partisan bias, but that's not what I see happening."
"So I truly hope that Arizonans have the opportunity to weigh in on abortion on the ballot in November. We know that the majority of Arizonans support the right to abortion and if we can't operate in that reality in this chamber, then it is critical that everyone have the opportunity for their voices to be heard elsewhere," she concluded. "I stand with those who have had to grapple with and navigate Arizona's restrictive laws surrounding abortion at a time when the decisions being made were complicated enough. I'm with them. I appreciate them. I am them."
Among those who praised her 10-minute speech was Sam Paisley, national press secretary of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC), which works to elect state lawmakers in the party.
"Arizona Sen. Eva Burch sharing her decision to get an abortion is the epitome of courage," said Paisley. "No woman should have to go through the emotional and physical hurdles she described—Arizona Republicans have passed unnecessary burdens on abortion care that put women in danger. Sen. Burch's story is powerful, but it is sadly not unique—patients across Arizona have to jump through hoops to get the care they need."
"There are very real, and sometimes even deadly, consequences to the attacks on reproductive freedom that Republicans across the country have launched," Paisley added. "The DLCC commends Sen. Burch for her advocacy and stands ready to defeat alarming GOP extremism in state legislatures in Arizona and across the country."
Jodi Liggett, founder of the Arizona Center for Women's Advancement, similarly said on social media: "Today, Sen. Eva Burch shared her heart-wrenching story of nonviable pregnancy. AZ laws... have complicated her access to care. Her situation is one of thousands; personal and complicated. Conservatives, butt out and let patients and doctors handle these decisions. Privately."
Keep ReadingShow Less
EPA Announces 'Long-Overdue' Asbestos Ban
"Today's EPA rule to ban the use of chrysotile asbestos is a groundbreaking, landmark protection," said AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler. "Unions have been sounding the alarm on this dangerous substance for decades."
Mar 18, 2024
Labor and environmental advocates on Monday applauded the Environmental Protection Agency for finalizing a ban on the last remaining type of asbestos used in the United States eight years after Congress amended the nation's chemical safety law to accelerate the phaseout of the carcinogenic substance.
The EPA announced a final rule to prohibit ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos, which is found in a wide range of products including asbestos diaphragms, sheet gaskets, brake blocks, and aftermarket automotive brakes and linings. In a rare display of election-year bipartisanship, Congress voted nearly unanimously in 2016 to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to update and strengthen the nation's chemical safety laws.
"Today's rule is a positive first step to give all Americans a future free of exposure to asbestos—a carcinogen that has killed far too many."
Asbestos exposure can cause mesothelioma as well as laryngeal, lung, and ovarian cancer. Banned in more than 50 countries, the substance is linked to more than 40,000 U.S. deaths each year.
"The science is clear—asbestos is a known carcinogen that has severe impacts on public health," said EPA Administrator Michael Regan. "President [Joe] Biden understands that this concern has spanned generations and impacted the lives of countless people. That's why EPA is so proud to finalize this long-needed ban on ongoing uses of asbestos."
The Congressional Progressive Caucus said on social media that "this new asbestos ban is long-overdue and will save thousands of lives."
U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said in a statement that "today's rule is a positive first step to give all Americans a future free of exposure to asbestos—a carcinogen that has killed far too many."
"An immediate ban on the import of chrysotile asbestos for the chlor-alkali industry is a long-overdue step forward for public health," he added.
Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO union, hailed the EPA's "groundbreaking, landmark protection," adding that "unions have been sounding the alarm on this dangerous substance for decades."
Green groups echoed labor unions in welcoming the EPA move. Environmental Working Group senior vice president Scott Faber said that "it's been more than 50 years since EPA first sought to ban some uses of asbestos and we're closer than ever to finishing the job."
"For too long, polluters have been allowed to make, use, and release toxins like asbestos and PFAS without regard for our health," Faber added, referring to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly called forever chemicals. "Thanks to the leadership of the Biden EPA, those days are finally over."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US State Department Claims It Hasn't Seen Reports of Israel Torturing UNRWA Staff
"The U.S. cut funding to a vital aid agency during a crisis, but isn't up to speed on reports that directly impact that funding?" asked one observer.
Mar 18, 2024
A Biden administration spokesperson on Monday attempted to avoid addressing allegations by employees of the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees that they were tortured while in Israeli detention by claiming the U.S. State Department has not seen any media reporting on the accusations.
Ryan Grim, The Intercept's Washington, D.C. bureau chief, asked deputy State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel if he believes the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) staff members who say they were tortured by Israeli interrogators into making false confessions about involvement with the Palestinian militant group Hamas, which led the October 7 attacks on Israel. Israeli officials claimed that at least 12 out of UNRWA's 13,000 staff in Gaza had ties to Hamas and October 7.
"The U.S. cut funding to a vital aid agency during a crisis, but isn't up to speed on reports that directly impact that funding?"
"When you originally talked about the allegations against the 12 staff, you have said that UNRWA itself was the one who forwarded those allegations alone. You said you found them credible, but since then UNRWA itself has said that its staff were tortured by Israel in order to get some of those confessions extracted," said Grim. "Does that change your view of the evidence that was presented by Israel, and if UNRWA was credible enough for you believe the allegations the first time, is UNRWA credible enough when they make an allegation of torture against its staff?"
Patel replied, "I've not seen that reporting, Ryan," adding that "we continue to find the allegations that were laid out a number of months ago to be credible."
The U.S. and more than a dozen other nations suspended funding for UNRWA in the wake of the Israeli allegations. In what UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini later called an act of "reverse due process," the agency terminated nine employees in response to Israel's claims, despite admitting to having no evidence to support their firing.
The European Union and nations including Canada, Sweden, and Australia subsequently reinstated funding for UNRWA, which Lazzarini said "is facing a deliberate and concerted campaign to undermine its operations."
The controversy over UNRWA has unfolded as the agency struggles to provide shelter and humanitarian aid to Gazans, who are suffering not only Israeli bombs and bullets but also a genocidal siege and blockade that are exacerbating growing famine in the embattled enclave.
U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) this week called Israeli claims that UNRWA is a Hamas proxy a "flat-out lie."
"If you cut off funding for UNRWA in Gaza entirely, it means more people will starve, more people won't get the medical assistance they need, and so it would be a huge mistake," the senator warned.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular