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
Amazon Won't Display Tariff Costs After Trump Whines to Bezos
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said all companies should be "displaying how much tariffs contribute to the total price of products."
Apr 29, 2025
Amazon said Tuesday that it would not display tariff costs next to products on its website after U.S. President Donald Trump called the e-commerce giant's billionaire founder, Jeff Bezos, to complain about the reported plan.
Citing an unnamed person familiar with Amazon's supposed plan, Punchbowl Newsreported that "the shopping site will display how much of an item's cost is derived from tariffs—right next to the product's total listed price."
Many Amazon products come from China. While U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed Sunday that "there is a path" to a tariff deal with the Chinese government, Trump has recently caused global economic alarm by hitting the country with a 145% tax and imposing a 10% minimum for other nations.
According toCNN, which spoke with two senior White House officials on Tuesday, Trump's call to Bezos "came shortly after one of the senior officials phoned the president to inform him of the story" from Punchbowl.
"Of course he was pissed," one officials said of Trump. "Why should a multibillion-dollar company pass off costs to consumers?"
Asked about how the call with Bezos went, Trump told reporters: "Great. Jeff Bezos was very nice. He was terrific. He solved the problem very quickly, and he did the right thing, and he's a good guy."
Earlier Tuesday, during a briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called Amazon's reported plan "a hostile and political act," and said that "this is another reason why Americans should buy American."
Leavitt also asked why Amazon didn't have such displays during the Biden administration and held up a printed version of a 2021 Reutersreport about the company's "compliance with the Chinese government edict" to stop allowing customer ratings and reviews in China, allegedly prompted by negative feedback left on a collection President Xi Jinping's speeches and writings.
Asked whether Bezos is "still a Trump supporter," Leavitt said that she "will not speak to" the president's relationship with him.
As CNBCdetailed Tuesday:
Less than two hours after the press briefing, an Amazon spokesperson told CNBC that the company was only ever considering listing tariff charges on some products for Amazon Haul, its budget-focused shopping section.
"The team that runs our ultra low cost Amazon Haul store has considered listing import charges on certain products," the spokesperson said. "This was never a consideration for the main Amazon site and nothing has been implemented on any Amazon properties."
But in a follow-up statement an hour after that one, the spokesperson clarified that the plan to show tariff surcharges was "never approved" and is "not going to happen."
In response to Bloomberg also reporting on Amazon's claim that tariff displays were never under consideration for the company's main site, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick wrote on social media Tuesday, "Good move."
Before Amazon publicly killed any plans for showing consumers the costs from Trump's import taxes, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the chamber's floor Tuesday that companies should be "displaying how much tariffs contribute to the total price of products."
"I urge more companies, particularly national retailers that compete with Amazon, to adopt this practice. If Amazon has the courage to display why prices are going up because of tariffs, so should all of our other national retailers who compete with them. And I am calling on them to do it now," he said.
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) on Tuesday framed the whole incident as an example of how "Trump has created a government by and for the billionaires," declaring: "If anyone ever doubted that Trump, and Musk, and Bezos, and the billionaires are all [on] one team, just look at what happened at Amazon today. Bezos immediately caved and walked back a plan to tell Americans how much Trump's tariffs are costing them."
Casar also claimed Bezos wants "big tax cuts and sweatheart deals," and pointed to Amazon's Prime Video paying $40 million to license a documentary about the life of First Lady Melania Trump. In addition to the film agreement, Bezos has come under fire for Amazon's $1 million donation to the president's inauguration fund.
As the owner of
The Washington Post, Bezos—the world's second-richest person, after Trump adviser Elon Musk—also faced intense criticism for blocking the newspaper's planned endorsement of the president's 2024 Democratic challenger, Kamala Harris, and demanding its opinion page advocate for "personal liberties and free markets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Medicare for All, Says Sanders, Would Show American People 'Government Is Listening to Them'
"The goal of the current administration and their billionaire buddies is to pile on endless cuts," said one nurse and union leader. "Even on our hardest days, we won't stop fighting for Medicare for All."
Apr 29, 2025
On Tuesday, Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Debbie Dingell of Michigan reintroduced the Medicare for All Act, re-upping the legislative quest to enact a single-payer healthcare system even as the bill faces little chance of advancing in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives or Senate.
Hundreds of nurses, healthcare providers, and workers from across the country joined the lawmakers for a press conference focused on the bill's reintroduction in front of the Capitol on Tuesday.
"We have the radical idea of putting healthcare dollars into healthcare, not into profiteering or bureaucracy," said Sanders during the press conference. "A simple healthcare system, which is what we are talking about, substantially reduces administrative costs, but it would also make life a lot easier, not just for patients, but for nurses" and other healthcare providers, he continued.
"So let us stand together," Sanders told the crowd. "Let us do what the American people want and let us transform this country. And when we pass Medicare for All, it's not only about improving healthcare for all our people—it's doing something else. It's telling the American people that, finally, the American government is listening to them."
Under Medicare for All, the government would pay for all healthcare services, including dental, vision, prescription drugs, and other care.
"It is a travesty when 85 million people are uninsured or underinsured and millions more are drowning in medical debt in the richest nation on Earth," said Jayapal in a statement on Tuesday.
In 2020, a study in the peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet found that a single-payer program like Medicare for All would save Americans more than $450 billion and would likely prevent 68,000 deaths every year. That same year, the Congressional Budget Office found that a single-payer system that resembles Medicare for All would yield some $650 billion in savings in 2030.
Members of National Nurses United (NNU), the nation's largest union of registered nurses, were also at the press conference on Tuesday.
In a statement, the group highlighted that the bill comes at a critical time, given GOP-led threats to programs like Medicaid.
"The goal of the current administration and their billionaire buddies is to pile on endless cuts and attacks so that we become too demoralized and overwhelmed to move forward," said Bonnie Castillo, registered nurse and executive director of NNU. "Even on our hardest days, we won't stop fighting for Medicare for All."
Per Sanders' office, the legislation has 104 co-sponsors in the House and 16 in the Senate, which is an increase from the previous Congress.
A poll from Gallup released in 2023 found that 7 in 10 Democrats support a government-run healthcare system. The poll also found that across the political spectrum, 57% of respondents believe the government should ensure all people have healthcare coverage.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Advocates Warn GOP Just Unveiled 'Most Dangerous Higher Ed Bill in US History'
"This is the boldest attempt we've seen in recent history to segregate higher education along racial and class lines," said the Debt Collective.
Apr 29, 2025
At a markup session held by a U.S. House committee on the Republican Party's recently unveiled higher education reform bill Tuesday, one Democratic lawmaker had a succinct description for the legislation.
"This bill is a dream-killer," said Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) of the so-called Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan, which was introduced by Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) as part of an effort to find $330 billion in education programs to offset President Donald Trump's tax plan.
Tasked with helping to make $4.5 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans possible, Walberg on Monday proposed changes to the Pell Grant program, which has provided financial aid to more than 80 million low-income students since it began in 1972. The bill would allocate more funding to the program but would also reduce the number of students who are eligible for the grants, changing the definition of a "full-time" student to one enrolled in at least 30 semester hours each academic year—up from 12 hours. Students would be cut off from the financial assistance entirely if they are enrolled less than six hours per semester.
David Baime, senior vice president for government relations for the American Association of Community Colleges, suggested the legislation doesn't account for the realities faced by many students who benefit from Pell Grants.
"These students are almost always working a substantial number of hours each week and often have family responsibilities. Pell Grants help them meet the cost of tuition and required fees," Baime toldInside Higher Ed. "We commend the committee for identifying substantial additional resources to help finance Pell, but it should not come at the cost of undermining the ability of low-income working students to enroll at a community college."
The draft bill would also end subsidized loans, which don't accrue interest when a student is still in college and gives borrowers a six-month grace period after graduation, starting in July 2026. More than 30 million borrowers currently have subsidized loans.
The proposal would also reduce the number of student loan repayment options from those offered by the Biden administration to just two, with borrowers given the option for a fixed monthly amount paid over a certain period of time or an income-based plan.
At the markup session on Tuesday, Bonamici pointed to her own experience of paying for college and law school "through a combination of grants and loans and work study and food stamps," and noted that her Republican colleagues on the committee also "graduated from college."
"And more than half of them have gone on to earn advanced degrees," said the congresswoman. "And yet those same individuals who benefited so much from accessing higher education are supporting a bill that will prevent others from doing so."
“In a time when higher ed is being attacked, this bill is another assault,” @RepBonamici calls out committee leaders for wanting to gut financial aid.
“With this bill, they will be taking that opportunity [of higher ed] away from others. This bill is a dream killer.” pic.twitter.com/UjTYvnOEKv
— Student Borrower Protection Center (@theSBPC) April 29, 2025
Democrats on the committee also spoke out against provisions that would cap loans a student can take out for graduate programs at $100,000; the Grad PLUS program has allowed students to borrow up to the cost of attendance.
The Parent PLUS program, which has been found to provide crucial help to Black families accessing higher education, would also be restricted.
"Black students, brown students, first-generation college students, first-generation Americans, will not have access to college," said Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.).
“We cannot take away access to loans, and not replace it with anything else, not make the system better. We know the outcome here—Black, brown, and poor students will not figure it out. Instead, only elite students from the 1% will continue to access education.”@RepSummerLee🙇 pic.twitter.com/oGbRH154Ed
— Student Borrower Protection Center (@theSBPC) April 29, 2025
As the Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) warned last week, eliminating the Grad PLUS program without also lowering the cost of graduate programs would "subject millions of future borrowers to an unregulated and predatory private student loan market, while doing little to reduce overall student debt and the need to borrow."
Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director for SBPC, told The Hill that the draft bill is "an attack on students and working families with student loan debt."
"We've seen an array of really problematic proposals that are on the table for congressional Republicans," Canchola Bañez said. "Many of these would cause massive spikes for families with monthly student loan payments."
With the proposal, which Republicans hope to pass through reconciliation with a simple majority, the party would be "restructuring higher education for the worse," said the Debt Collective.
"It's the most dangerous higher ed bill in U.S. history," said the student loan borrowers union. "It strips the Department of Education of virtually every authority to cancel student debt. Eliminates every repayment program. Abolishes subsidized loans."
"This is the boldest attempt we've seen in recent history to segregate higher education along racial and class lines," the group added. "We have to push back."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular