Latest news with #AllisonFajans-Turner
Euronews
9 hours ago
- Business
- Euronews
Banks ‘show true colours' with fossil fuel financing surge last year
The world's biggest banks increased their fossil fuel financing last year for the first time since 2021, a new report reveals. The top 65 banks provided $869 billion (€751bn) to thousands of oil and gas majors in 2024 - the hottest year on record - representing a $162.5 billion (€141bn) jump from 2023. Released today by a coalition of green groups, the annual Banking on Climate Chaos report ties this backwards trend to banks' rapid retreat from climate commitments. 'Distract, delay, deflect, and finally defect. If needed, rinse and repeat. Banks have used this playbook to keep themselves and the fossil fuel industry flush with cash, while loading the financial system with risk and running out the clock on keeping global temperatures from rising above 1.5C,' says co-author Allison Fajans-Turner, Policy Lead at Rainforest Action Network. In total, banks have financed fossil fuels to the tune of $7.9 trillion (€6.9tn) since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2016. Last year, they lent or underwrote $429 billion (€371bn) for companies actively expanding fossil fuel extraction. American banks tend to play a leading role in syndicating the loans and bonds for global fossil fuel companies, the researchers explain. They committed $289 billion (€250bn) in fossil fuel financing in 2024, one-third of the total. JPMorgan Chase supplied $53.5 billion (€46bn) of that, making it the world's largest fossil fuel financier. Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Japan's Mizuho Financial also take a place in the top five worldwide. In Europe, UK bank Barclays was 2024's largest fossil fuel financier again, stumping up $35.4 billion (€30.6bn). Barclays also joins JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup among the top four banks with the largest absolute increase in fossil fuel financing last year. Spain's Santander, France's BNP Paribas, Germany's Deutsche Bank, and the UK's HSBC each contributed between $14 and $17.3 billion (around €12 and €15bn) to the industry. '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,' says co-author Lucie Pinson, Director and Founder at Reclaim Finance. 'A few European banks may have inched forward, but for most, the lure of dirty money has proven too strong.' France's La Banque Postale stands out as having the strongest fossil fuel exclusion policy of any European bank. It financed no oil, gas, or coal producers in 2024 - though it still provided $36.9 million (€32mn) in financing to three companies with fossil fuel business activities in refining, fossil power generation, or fossil fuel logistics, the report found. 'Every cruel dollar that still goes to fossil fuels is a death sentence to our climate-vulnerable peoples,' says Gerry Arances, co-author and Executive Director at Center for Energy, Ecology & Development (CEED), describing the impact of recent heatwaves across Southeast Asia. 2021 was a high point for 'climate action' from banks. At the UN climate summit in Glasgow, COP26, hundreds of financial institutions joined the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net-Zero (GFANZ) to reach net zero by 2050. It followed the formation of the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) earlier that year, a smaller group of banks which also had the 2050 goal in sight. But the terms were voluntary, and geopolitical turbulence in the years since has seen banks lose their focus. Six of the biggest banks in North America pulled out of the NZBA late last year following US President Trump's election. 'Only rapid and robust binding government regulation and oversight can make banks change course,' says Fajans-Turner. 'Without binding regulation, banking on climate chaos will remain banks' dominant investment strategy, tanking our economy and our planet.' Climate change has tripled the frequency of atmospheric wave events linked to extreme summer weather in the last 75 years, a new study has found. It may explain why long-range computer forecasts keep underestimating the surge in killer heatwaves, droughts and floods. In the 1950s, Earth averaged about one extreme weather-inducing planetary wave event a summer, but now it is getting about three per summer, according to the study in Monday's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) journal. Planetary waves are connected to 2021's deadly and unprecedented Pacific Northwest heat wave, the 2010 Russian heatwave and Pakistan flooding and the 2003 killer European heatwave, the study said. 'If you're trying to visualise the planetary waves in the northern hemisphere, the easiest way to visualise them is on the weather map to look at the waviness in the jet stream as depicted on the weather map,' said study co-author Michael Mann, a University of Pennsylvania climate scientist. Planetary waves flow across Earth all the time, but sometimes they get amplified, becoming stronger, and the jet stream gets wavier with bigger hills and valleys, Mann said. It's called quasi-resonant amplification or QRA. This essentially means the wave gets stuck for weeks on end, locked in place. As a result, some places get seemingly endless rain while others endure oppressive heat with no relief. 'A classic pattern would be like a high pressure out west (in the United States) and a low pressure back East and in summer 2018, that's exactly what we had,' Mann said. 'We had that configuration locked in place for like a month. So they (in the West) got the heat, the drought and the wildfires. We (in the East) got the excessive rainfall.' 'It's deep and it's persistent,' Mann said. 'You accumulate the rain for days on end or the ground is getting baked for days on end.' The study finds this is happening more often because of human-caused climate change, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels, specifically because the Arctic warms three to four times faster than the rest of the world. That means the temperature difference between the tropics and the Arctic is now much smaller than it used to be and that weakens the jet streams and the waves, making them more likely to get locked in place, Mann said. 'This study shines a light on yet another way human activities are disrupting the climate system that will come back to bite us all with more unprecedented and destructive summer weather events,' said Jennifer Francis, a climate scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research Center who wasn't involved in the research. 'Wave resonance does appear to be one reason for worsening summer extremes. On top of general warming and increased evaporation, it piles on an intermittent fluctuation in the jet stream that keeps weather systems from moving eastward as they normally would, making persistent heat, drought, and heavy rains more likely,' Francis said. This is different than Francis' research on the jet stream and the polar vortex that induces winter extremes, said Mann. There's also a natural connection. After an El Nino, a natural warming of the central Pacific that alters weather patterns worldwide, the next summer tends to be prone to more of these amplified QRA waves that become locked in place, Mann said. And since the summer of 2024 featured an El Nino, this summer will likely be more prone to this type of stuck jet stream, according to Mann. While scientists have long predicted that as the world warms there will be more extremes, the increase has been much higher than what was expected, especially by computer model simulations, Mann and Francis said. That's because the models 'are not capturing this one vital mechanism,' Mann said. Unless society stops pumping more greenhouse gases in the air, 'we can expect multiple factors to worsen summer extremes,' Francis said. 'Heatwaves will last longer, grow larger and get hotter. Worsening droughts will destroy more agriculture.'
The Herald Scotland
20 hours ago
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
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.
WIRED
08-03-2025
- Business
- WIRED
The Biggest US Banks Have All Backed Out of a Commitment to Reach Net Zero
Mar 8, 2025 7:00 AM In the lead up to the inauguration, the six largest US banks left a voluntary alliance with the UN to reach net zero by 2050. Now, critics are calling for new climate laws. The brass Wall Street Bull sculpture stands near the Financial District in New York City. Photograph:This story originally appeared on Grist and is part of the Climate Desk collaboration. In the lead-up to Inauguration Day, all six of the United States' largest banks backed away from a United Nations–sponsored climate initiative amid attacks from conservative lawmakers and regulators. Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo left the Net Zero Banking Alliance between December and January in what was perceived to be a concession to right-wing criticism of so-called ESG—decisionmaking driven by environmental, social, and corporate governance considerations. Nineteen Republican attorneys general had issued 'civil investigative demands' to those banks in 2022, demanding that they turn over information about their ESG practices. They argued that the alliance was beholden to 'the woke climate agenda' and that it violated antitrust laws. While the banks' exodus from the alliance certainly looks like a setback for the banking sector's climate progress, environmental advocates say it is a reminder that voluntary initiatives have never been sufficient to drive the sector's decarbonization. 'There are other levers that we can use to hold banks accountable,' said Allison Fajans-Turner, a senior energy finance campaigner at the nonprofit Rainforest Action Network, which publishes an annual report on how much money banks commit to fossil fuel projects. In light of the Trump administration's pro-oil-and-gas agenda, she said that over the next four years, activists and policymakers will have to keep the pressure on and, critically, push for stricter legislation at the state and international levels. 'It is quite clear that major US banks will not police themselves,' she added. The Net Zero Banking Alliance, or NZBA, launched in 2021 under the aegis of the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative and has about 140 members after the six American banks—and four Canadian ones—exited. The alliance asks member banks to commit to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions across their operations and 'lending and investment portfolios' by 2050, and to set intermediary emission-reduction targets for 2030 and every five years thereafter. It also asks banks to disclose their annual emissions and sets some recommendations to limit the application of carbon offsets toward banks' climate goals. A Bank of American branch in Chicago. Photograph:However, much like the Paris Agreement to limit global warming, the NZBA relies on voluntary participation and compliance, and does not have any enforcement authority. It's been criticized for not asking enough from its members, which are allowed to participate even if they continue underwriting the expansion of oil and gas infrastructure. UN proposals that would tighten its requirements—particularly around financing of fossil fuels—faced strong opposition from recently departed banks like JP Morgan and Bank of America. Even some of the NZBA banks themselves have acknowledged the alliance's limitations in the face of government inaction. In 2023, Amalgamated Bank's chief sustainability officer, Ivan Frishberg, told the business publication Responsible Investor that NZBA signatories were 'being left alone at the altar' as governments around the world failed to legislate a transition away from fossil fuels. GLS Bank, based in Germany, quit the alliance that same year in protest of other NZBA members' support for fossil fuel projects in Africa. Wells Fargo declined to comment on the rationale behind its departure from the NZBA. Goldman Sachs said it had made 'significant progress' on its net-zero goals but did not explain why it left the alliance. The other four recently departed banks did not respond to inquiries from Grist. Unlike voluntary initiatives, governments have the authority to ensure that banks live up to their stated climate promises and to push them to do more. At an event in New York City last November—notably, even before the NZBA shake-up—the former deputy secretary to the US Treasury, Sarah Bloom Raskin, suggested that states should take on this role. States 'have a unique opportunity to lead,' she said, noting the incoming presidential administration's hostility to climate action. At the time, California had already passed two laws requiring large businesses, including banks, to report their greenhouse gas emissions annually and disclose their climate-related financial risks biannually. Those laws recently survived a legal challenge from the US Chamber of Commerce, and New York state lawmakers introduced similar bills in January. A Democratic state representative in Illinois introduced a disclosure bill last month. Former deputy secretary to the U.S. Treasury, Sarah Bloom Raskin, speaks in front of a Senate committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs in 2022. Photograph:Danielle Fugere, president and chief counsel for the shareholder advocacy nonprofit As You Sow, said disclosure is a prerequisite for holding banks to their climate goals. 'We want to understand what it is they're doing,' she said. Laws like California's bring to light the financial instability wrought by fossil-fuel-driven climate change and—in theory, at least—discourage financing that would exacerbate it. Of course, merely requiring that banks disclose their emissions and climate-related risks isn't likely to prevent the worst impacts of global warming. According to a landmark 2021 report from the International Energy Agency, no new oil, gas, and coal infrastructure can be built if the world is to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). That's why Patrick McCully, a senior energy transition analyst for the French nonprofit Reclaim Finance, which advocates for a more sustainable banking sector, said legislators should be 'pushing the banks to reduce their financing of fossil fuels.' 'These companies are acting against the interests of humanity, and we need to stop them,' he told Grist. Fajans-Turner, however, said a policy of this nature would be difficult to write into law and would likely face legal challenges even in the most progressive states, where natural gas bans on new construction have been beaten back by industry groups. Ann Lipton, a business law professor at Tulane University, said a better way for policymakers to limit new fossil fuel projects is to look beyond the banking sector. For instance, lawmakers could require insurance companies to factor in climate-related financial risks when designing their policies—which could make it harder for fossil fuel projects to get coverage. 'We would love banks to stop financing risky activities, but at the end of the day, the job of a bank is to finance things that are predictably profitable,' she said. 'It's the job of the rest of society to make that [thing] not profitable.' Another strategy is to require that banks publish a clear decarbonization plan, which can, in theory, be a sort of back door to blocking new fossil fuel investments. 'Implicit in having a target is that the bank is taking some kind of action to ensure that it meets that target,' Fugere said. If a plan mentions 'net-zero' by a certain date, then to be credible it must involve some sort of scaling back of fossil fuel financing. If it claims to align with a pathway to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C, then it must not enable the expansion of fossil fuels. A Wells Fargo building in Walnut Creek, California. Photograph:In the US, investors like As You Sow have pressured several big banks into voluntarily offering more information about their plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but requests for greater detail were rebuffed last year. (At least one bank, Wells Fargo, has done an about-face, recently dropping its net-zero target altogether.) Legislation to require detailed decarbonization plans has seen more success on the international stage. The European Union, for instance, is beginning to use two corporate sustainability directives approved by its parliament to require financial institutions to adopt a 'transition plan for climate change mitigation.' The laws require institutions to make their 'best efforts' to ensure that their plans are compatible with a pathway toward achieving climate neutrality by 2050 and limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C. McCully said these regulations are promising but noted growing opposition to them from right-wing governments in Europe. 'We need to defeat that pushback to make sure that legislation is going to be able to survive,' he said. Even as they push for stronger government oversight of the banking industry, organizations like the Rainforest Action Network and Reclaim Finance say they plan to continue drawing connections between the financing of fossil fuel projects and the harm these projects may cause to communities—whether directly, because of the risk of oil spills and explosions, or indirectly because of accelerating climate change. Mass demonstrations and research publications like Rainforest Action Network's annual report can theoretically increase the public's appetite for state, national, and international regulation. 'It's hard to be optimistic,' said Quentin Aubineau, a policy analyst at the nonprofit BankTrack, which does research and advocacy around banks' role in the climate crisis and human rights violations. 'But we have a lot of people working on the ground, doing a lot of research, and putting a lot of effort together to try to make a change. I think we will get there, even if it's not the best environment to work in at the moment.'
Yahoo
03-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Big banks abandoned a voluntary climate alliance. Now, critics are calling for new laws.
In the lead-up to Inauguration Day, all six of the United States' largest banks backed away from a United Nations-sponsored climate initiative amid attacks from conservative lawmakers and regulators. Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo left the Net Zero Banking Alliance between December and January in what was perceived to be a concession to right-wing criticism of so-called ESG — decision-making driven by environmental, social, and corporate governance considerations. Nineteen Republican attorneys general had issued 'civil investigative demands' to those banks in 2022, demanding that they turn over information about their ESG practices. They argued that the alliance was beholden to 'the woke climate agenda' and that it violated antitrust laws. While the banks' exodus from the alliance certainly looks like a setback for the banking sector's climate progress, environmental advocates say it is a reminder that voluntary initiatives have never been sufficient to drive the sector's decarbonization. 'There are other levers that we can use to hold banks accountable,' said Allison Fajans-Turner, a senior energy finance campaigner at the nonprofit Rainforest Action Network, which publishes an annual report on how much money banks commit to fossil fuel projects. In light of the Trump administration's pro-oil and gas agenda, she said that over the next four years activists and policymakers will have to keep the pressure on and, critically, push for stricter legislation at the state and international levels. 'It is quite clear that major U.S. banks will not police themselves,' she added. The Net Zero Banking Alliance, or NZBA, launched in 2021 under the aegis of the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative and has about 140 members after the six American banks — and four Canadian ones — exited. The alliance asks member banks to commit to achieving net-zero greenhouse emissions across their operations and 'lending and investment portfolios' by 2050, and to set intermediary emissions reduction targets for 2030 and every five years thereafter. It also asks banks to disclose their annual emissions, and sets some recommendations to limit the application of carbon offsets toward banks' climate goals. However, much like the Paris Agreement to limit global warming, the NZBA relies on voluntary participation and compliance, and does not have any enforcement authority. It's been criticized for not asking enough from its members, which are allowed to participate even if they continue underwriting the expansion of oil and gas infrastructure. U.N. proposals that would tighten its requirements — particularly around financing of fossil fuels — faced strong opposition from recently departed banks like JP Morgan and Bank of America. Even some of the NZBA banks themselves have acknowledged the alliance's limitations in the face of government inaction. In 2023, Amalgamated Bank's chief sustainability officer, Ivan Frishberg, told the business publication Responsible Investor that NZBA signatories were 'being left alone at the altar' as governments around the world failed to legislate a transition away from fossil fuels. GLS Bank, based in Germany, quit the alliance that same year in protest of other NZBA members' support for fossil fuel projects in Africa. Wells Fargo declined to comment on the rationale behind its departure from the NZBA. Goldman Sachs said it had made 'significant progress' on its net-zero goals but did not explain why it left the alliance. The other four recently departed banks did not respond to inquiries from Grist. Unlike voluntary initiatives, governments have the authority to ensure that banks live up to their stated climate promises and to push them to do more. At an event in New York City last November — notably, even before the NZBA shakeup — the former deputy secretary to the U.S. Treasury, Sarah Bloom Raskin, suggested that states should take on this role. States 'have a unique opportunity to lead,' she said, noting the incoming presidential administration's hostility to climate action. At the time, California had already passed two laws requiring large businesses, including banks, to report their greenhouse gas emissions annually and disclose their climate-related financial risks biannually. Those laws recently survived a legal challenge from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and New York state lawmakers introduced similar bills in January. A Democratic state representative in Illinois introduced a disclosure bill last month. Danielle Fugere, president and chief counsel for the shareholder advocacy nonprofit As You Sow, said disclosure is a prerequisite for holding banks to their climate goals. 'We want to understand what it is they're doing,' she said. Laws like California's bring to light the financial instability wrought by fossil fuel-driven climate change and — in theory, at least — discourage financing that would exacerbate it. Of course, merely requiring that banks disclose their emissions and climate-related risks isn't likely to prevent the worst impacts of global warming. According to a landmark 2021 report from the International Energy Agency, no new oil, gas, and coal infrastructure can be built if the world is to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). That's why Patrick McCully, a senior energy transition analyst for the French nonprofit Reclaim Finance, which advocates for a more sustainable banking sector, said legislators should be 'pushing the banks to reduce their financing of fossil fuels.' 'These companies are acting against the interests of humanity, and we need to stop them,' he told Grist. Fajans-Turner, however, said a policy of this nature would be difficult to write into law and would likely face legal challenges even in the most progressive states, where natural gas bans on new construction have been beaten back by industry groups. Ann Lipton, a business law professor at Tulane University, said a better way for policymakers to limit new fossil fuel projects is to look beyond the banking sector. For instance, lawmakers could require insurance companies to factor in climate-related financial risks when designing their policies — which could make it harder for fossil fuel projects to get coverage. 'We would love banks to stop financing risky activities, but at the end of the day the job of a bank is to finance things that are predictably profitable,' she said. 'It's the job of the rest of society to make that [thing] not profitable.' Another strategy is to require that banks publish a clear decarbonization plan, which can, in theory, be a sort of back door to blocking new fossil fuel investments. 'Implicit in having a target is that the bank is taking some kind of action to ensure that it meets that target,' Fugere said. If a plan mentions 'net-zero' by a certain date, then to be credible it must involve some sort of scaling back of fossil fuel financing. If it claims to align with a pathway to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C, then it must not enable the expansion of fossil fuels. In the U.S., investors like As You Sow have pressured several big banks into voluntarily offering more information about their plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but requests for greater detail were rebuffed last year. (At least one bank, Wells Fargo, has done an about-face, recently dropping its net-zero target altogether.) Legislation to require detailed decarbonization plans has seen more success on the international stage. The European Union, for instance, is beginning to use two corporate sustainability directives approved by its parliament to require financial institutions to adopt a 'transition plan for climate change mitigation.' The laws require institutions to make their 'best efforts' to ensure that their plans are compatible with a pathway toward achieving climate neutrality by 2050 and limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C. McCully said these regulations are promising but noted growing opposition to them from right-wing governments in Europe. 'We need to defeat that pushback to make sure that legislation is going to be able to survive,' he said. Even as they push for stronger government oversight of the banking industry, organizations like the Rainforest Action Network and Reclaim Finance say they plan to continue drawing connections between the financing of fossil fuel projects and the harm these projects may cause to communities — whether directly, because of the risk of oil spills and explosions, or indirectly because of accelerating climate change. Mass demonstrations and research publications like Rainforest Action Network's annual report can theoretically increase the public's appetite for state, national, and international regulation. 'It's hard to be optimistic,' said Quentin Aubineau, a policy analyst at the nonprofit BankTrack, which does research and advocacy around banks' role in the climate crisis and human rights violations. 'But we have a lot of people working on the ground, doing a lot of research, and putting a lot of effort together to try to make a change. I think we will get there, even if it's not the best environment to work in at the moment.' This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Big banks abandoned a voluntary climate alliance. Now, critics are calling for new laws. on Mar 3, 2025.
