Banks significantly increased fossil fuel financing in 2024, analysis finds
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
Reuters
17 minutes ago
- Reuters
Forecaster says US House version of Trump bill to cost $2.8 trillion despite economic gains
WASHINGTON, June 17 (Reuters) - The nonpartisan U.S. Congressional Budget Office projected on Tuesday that President Donald Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending bill would lead to a $2.8 trillion deficit increase over a decade, despite an increase in economic output. The budget watchdog issued its dynamic analysis of the legislation that passed the House of Representatives in May, as Senate Republicans considered a revised version of the measure. Two weeks ago, CBO projected that Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act would add another $2.4 trillion to the federal government's $36.2 trillion debt over a decade, without considering the potential economic effects. With interest payments from the new debt included, the cost would rise to $3 trillion. Independent analysts have estimated that the debt increase could reach $5 trillion over a decade under the Senate version, which makes permanent a number of business tax breaks that would sunset under the House bill.
The Independent
19 minutes ago
- The Independent
Toy company challenges Trump's tariffs before the Supreme Court in long shot bid for quick decision
An Illinois toy company challenged President Donald Trump's tariffs in front of the Supreme Court on Tuesday in a long shot bid to press the justices to quickly decide whether they are legal. Learning Resources Inc. filed an appeal asking the Supreme Court to take up the case soon rather than let it continue to play out in lower courts. The company argues the Republican president illegally imposed tariffs under an emergency powers law rather than getting approval from Congress. While the company won an early victory in a lower court, the order is on hold as an appeals court considers a similar ruling putting a broader block on Trump's tariffs. The appeals court has allowed Trump to continue collecting tariffs under the emergency powers law ahead of arguments set for late July. The company argued in court documents the case can't wait that long, 'in light of the tariffs' massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the Nation, and the unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the President claims.' The Supreme Court is typically reluctant to take up cases before appeals courts have decided them, lowering the odds that the justices will agree to hear it as quickly as the company is asking. Still, Learning Resources CEO Rick Woldenberg said tariffs and uncertainty are taking a major toll now. He's looking ahead to the back-to-school and holiday seasons, when the company usually makes most of its sales for the year. 'All the people that are raising their prices are doing it with a sense of dread,' Woldenberg told The Associated Press. But, 'we do not have a choice. We absolutely do not have a choice.' The company's attorneys suggested the court could hear arguments in late summer or early fall. The Trump administration has defended the tariffs by arguing that the emergency powers law gives the president the authority to regulate imports during national emergencies and that the country's longtime trade deficit qualifies as a national emergency. Trump has framed tariffs as a tool to lure factories back to America, raise money for the Treasury Department and strike more favorable trade agreements with other countries. Woldenberg said he's putting 'enormous resources' into shifting his company's supply base but the process is time-consuming and uncertain. 'I think that our case raises uniquely important questions that this administration won't accept unless the Supreme Court rules on them,' he said. Based in Vernon Hills, Illinois, the family-owned company's products include the Pretend & Play Calculator Cash Register for $43.99 and Botley the Coding Robot for $57.99.
NBC News
an hour 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."
