Banks significantly increased fossil fuel financing in 2024, analysis finds
The top 65 lenders – which include UK giants Barclays, HSBC, Natwest and Lloyds Banking Group – committed 869 billion dollars (£639 billion) in financing to fossil fuels, the 16th annual Banking on Climate Chaos report said.
A coalition of research and campaign groups, including the Rainforest Action Network and Reclaim finance, analysed the banks' lending and underwriting to 2,730 companies active across the fossil fuel industry.
These were reported in sources such as Urgewald's Global Oil and Gas Exit List (GOGEL) and Global Coal Exit List (GCEL), Bloomberg and London Stock Exchange Group (LSEG).
According to this year's findings, the top banks increased fossil fuel financing by 162 billion dollars (£120 billion) from 2023 to 2024.
This marks a shift in direction after fossil fuel financing had been decreasing over the previous years since 2021.
Since Donald Trump's election victory in the US last year, companies across many sectors have been weakening their climate commitments, cutting ESG investments and pulling out of climate groups.
Major US lenders have left the Net Zero Banking Alliance, the sector's top climate coalition, and an increasing number of banks have watered down, or abandoned, past commitments regarding fossil fuels.
The Banking on Climate Chaos report found that since the 2015 UN Paris Agreement – an international deal secured in 2015 in France to limit rising temperatures – banks have now financed fossil fuels by 7.9 trillion dollars (£5.8 trillion).
The analysis also suggests that loans were the top form of financing last year, with an increase to 467 billion dollars (£343 billion) from 422 billion dollars (£310 billion) in 2023.
The International Energy Agency has said that no new fossil fuel projects should be developed beyond existing fields to remain within the temperature limit.
However, the report found that banks have financed companies that are expanding fossil fuels with 1.6 trillion dollars (£1.1 trillion) since 2021, and 429 billion dollars (£315 billion) alone in 2024 – a rise of 85 billion dollars (£62 billion) from the year before.
The report also identifies JP Morgan Chase as the largest fossil fuel financier in the world, committing 53.5 billion dollars (£39.3 billion) to fossil fuel companies in 2024.
British bank Barclays was the largest fossil fuel financier Europe in 2024, at 35.4 billion dollars (£26.0 billion), according to the report, which also found it to be among the top four with the largest absolute increase in fossil fuel financing.
For the other UK banks on the list, HSBC provided a total of 16.2 billion dollars (£11.9 billion) in fossil fuel financing, Natwest provided 2.7 billion dollars (£1.9 billion), and Lloyds provided 1.6 billion dollars (£1.1 billion) – although the latter comes as a decrease from 2.3 billion dollars (£1.7 billion) in 2023, according to the analysis.
Banking on Climate Chaos is authored by Rainforest Action Network, BankTrack, the Centre for Energy, Ecology, and Development, Indigenous Environmental Network, Oil Change International, Reclaim Finance, Sierra Club, and Urgewald.
Allison Fajans-Turner, policy Lead at Rainforest Action Network, said: 'Even in the face of worsening disasters and increasingly dire warnings of scientists and policy experts, banks actually increased their financing to fossil fuels between 2023 and 2024 and still poured billions into expanded fossil infrastructure.
'Only rapid and robust binding government regulation and oversight can make banks change course.
'Without binding regulation, banking on climate chaos will remain banks' dominant investment strategy, tanking our economy and our planet.'
Tom BK Goldtooth, executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, said: 'Despite their greenwashing and false promises, these banks continue to bankroll the expansion of the fossil fuel industry and the false solutions that deepen climate injustice, land grabbing, and human rights abuse.
'From carbon markets to carbon capture to geoengineering techno-fixes, these schemes are distractions from the real solutions rooted in Indigenous sovereignty, traditional Indigenous knowledge, land and oceans defence, and a just and energy transition away from extractive capitalism.
'Our lands and waters are not sacrifice zones, and our Peoples are not collateral damage.'
David Tong, global industry campaign manager at Oil Change International, said: 'In 2025, banks have no excuse to keep financing fossil fuel companies.
'No major oil and gas companies we analyse plan to do anything even close to what is needed to hold global warming to 1.5C.'
Lucie Pinson, director and founder at Reclaim Finance, said: 'This year, banks have shown their true colours — many have walked away from climate commitments and doubled down on financing fossil fuel expansion, even as global temperatures break records.
'A few European banks may have inched forward, but for most, the lure of dirty money has proven too strong.'
The PA news agency has contacted JP Morgan Chase, Barclays, HSBC, Natwest and Lloyds for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
39 minutes ago
- NBC News
Companies ask Supreme Court to quickly hear Trump tariffs challenge
WASHINGTON — Two educational toy companies on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to quickly take up their challenge to tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump. The companies, Learning Resources and hand2mind, filed a joint appeal arguing that Trump had no power to impose the tariffs on goods from China under a law called the International Economic Powers Act. They asked the court to leapfrog over a federal appeals court, which has yet to rule on the case, and agree to take the dispute up this month so it can schedule oral arguments this fall, possibly as early as September. A federal judge in Washington had ruled the tariffs were unlawful, but that ruling is on hold. In a separate case, the Court of International Trade ruled against the administration over the president's tariffs authority. That decision is also blocked for now, meaning all the tariffs remain in effect while litigation continues. "Even as these punishing tariffs cause American businesses and consumers to bleed billions of dollars each month, there will be no relief any time soon," the toy companies' lawyers said in court papers. The issue is one of national consequence that the Supreme Court has to decide, they added, noting that it concerns whether the president can "unilaterally reshape the national economy and global trade policy."
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Fed announces meeting to discuss easing bank leverage rules
WASHINGTON, June 17 (Reuters) - The Federal Reserve will consider plans to ease leverage requirements on larger banks at a meeting later this month, kicking off what is expected to be a broad effort to reconsider bank rules. The U.S. central bank announced the board meeting, scheduled for June 25, to discuss changes to the so-called "supplementary leverage ratio," which requires banks to set aside capital against assets regardless of their risk. The meeting will be the first following Fed Governor Michelle Bowman's confirmation as the central bank's top regulatory official. It could be the first of several rule-easing projects at the Fed as Bowman, a Republican tapped by President Donald Trump, has charted an ambitious plan for overhauling how the central bank regulates and monitors some of the nation's largest and most complex banks. The Fed did not provide any details on the proposal under consideration, but banks have clamored for years for changes to the supplementary leverage ratio, potentially by exempting traditionally safe assets or revising the formula used to calculate the requirement. The industry has argued the requirement was meant to serve as a baseline, requiring banks to hold capital against even very safe assets, but has grown over time to become a binding constraint on lending, and can actually hinder their abilities to intermediate Treasury markets during times of stress.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Starmer's trade deal with Trump is an unforgivable betrayal of British farmers
Great showman that he is, Donald Trump casually dropped papers containing the tariff deal on the ground and waited for the Prime Minister to pick them up – or so it appeared. If it was deliberate it was smart. It served to underline to his core voters in US farming states that the president had their backs, and had the Brits scrabbling around for crumbs beneath his table. The White House statement on the deal unequivocally paints American farmers as the winners: 'The deal includes billions of dollars of increased market access… especially in agriculture, dramatically increasing access for American beef, ethanol, and virtually all of the products produced by our great farmers.' It is not hard to see who the losers are. The import of 1.4 billion litres of bioethanol annually – spookily the exact size of the UK market – is a direct threat to the UK's two bioethanol plants in Hull and Teesside. There is already talk of closure. It would be surprising if our US competitors, with their lower costs and greater economies of scale, did not ensure that they undercut our producers so that they do fold and we become reliant on US imports for evermore thereafter. So much for Labour's commitment to national fuel security. The Government has so far avoided publishing impact statements that must surely have been produced before the deal was agreed. The knock-on effect on our agricultural base will be even more serious. Vivergo Fuels, our largest bioethanol producer, estimates that 1,220 farming jobs are at risk on the 12,000 farms that supply them with wheat. More seriously, many arable farmers are already thinking of giving up. When the subsidy was often the only profit and that has now all but been removed. And when the reliable bioethanol market for wheat that fails to meet the milling standard, usually for weather related reasons, disappears along with a much needed floor in the wheat price, the risk of carrying on growing cereals will be too great for many. The price of bread may well rise as a result. The option for many farmers would have been to go into beef production instead, but with 13,000 tons of tariff free US beef coming our way that industry also looks shaky. One can forgive the Government for deciding that the greater good lay in protecting jobs in manufacturing industries and that farmers had to take one for the team. What is unforgivable is leaving our farmers at a huge disadvantage. The unilateral disarmament approach to subsidies had already left our farmers vulnerable to well subsidised overseas competitors. The imposition of inheritance tax on family farms – but, significantly, not on institutionally owned ones – has then loaded a massive cost onto farmers. Meanwhile only US farmers with assets over $27.22 million (for married couples) need to pay it. Prime Minister, if you are going to shaft us in trade deals, at least acknowledge it and look at what can be done to compensate through other policies. Jamie Blackett is a farmer and the author of Red Rag to a Bull and Land of Milk and Honey
