Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results 1 - 4 of 4. Search took: 0.026 seconds
|Sort by: date | relevance|
[en] A new report from Reclaim Finance and seven partner NGOs reveals that the Powering Past Coal Alliance (PPCA) has failed to trigger a wide coal exit movement. The analysis of the progress of the 111 PPCA members shows that many of them are failing to phase out coal support. Among these members, financial institutions stand out since the vast majority continue to finance coal. Created in 2017, the PPCA has grown rapidly, bringing together states, local governments, financial institutions, and companies. However, while some of its members are planning to shut down their power plants in line with the Paris Agreement - i.e. by 2030 in the EU and OECD and 2040 worldwide - others have put this ambition on hold. In fact, only 2 out of the 23 financial institutions in the alliance have adopted a policy that would allow them to exit coal within these time frames. In contrast, 18 - including Aviva, L and G, CalPERS and Swiss Re - do not restrict funding to companies developing new projects and 8 - including Schroders - have no minimum criteria limiting their support to the sector. The PPCA's financial members are found to have $38 billion invested in companies significantly involved in the coal sector. Moreover, the report points out that the foundation of the alliance - the PPCA declaration and Finance Principles - itself contained major loopholes that allow its members to satisfy its criteria while remaining important players in the coal sector. The limits of the initiative also stem from the behavior of certain member states, including its co-chairs Canada and the United Kingdom. Indeed, while Canada will close all its power plants by 2030, it is increasing its coal exports and plans to open 13 new mines in Alberta and British Columbia, two regions that are also individual members of the Alliance. On the other side, the United Kingdom is considering the development of a new coal mine. Similarly, Mexico is planning to open new coal-fired power plants, Germany will continue to use them until 2038 and Senegal did not adopt any phase-out date. The report presents recommendations for the PPCA to achieve its objective of becoming a vehicle for a global exit from coal. The PPCA must demand that its members exit the entire coal sector - including mines and infrastructure - to consider the specificities of financial actors. Its members need to align with a coal exit timetable compatible with the Paris Agreement, which means for financial institutions adopting coal exit policies following the Coal Policy Tool criteria.
[en] One Planet Summit, Climate Finance Days... At France's initiative, the number of major events aimed at mobilizing finance for the climate has increased since COP21 in 2015. However these put communication above action, suggesting that the climate challenge is being taken care of thanks to finance industry self-regulation. But the figures made public today reflect a different reality. Friends of the Earth France and Oxfam France stress that guaranteeing decent living conditions on Earth and preventing new systemic financial crises are the prerogatives of public authorities. They denounce the passivity of the government, which positions itself as a leader in green finance at the international level, but relinquishes its responsibilities onto private actors. NGOs point to the influence of the banking industry on policy decisions, resulting from aggressive direct lobbying and the numerous shifts of senior officials from the public to the private sector and vice versa. As financial actors meet again in Paris on Friday 29 November as part of the Climate Finance Day, Friends of the Earth France and Oxfam France call on the French government to put in place as of 2020 binding standards to ensure that the activities of French banks align with the goals of the Paris Agreement, with the objective of limiting global warming to 1.5 deg. C. Such standards should ensure that banks end their support for expanding fossil fuels and plan for a full exit from coal, oil and gas. The State must guarantee as a priority a coal phase out by 2030 at the latest in European and OECD countries, and by 2040 worldwide. In 2018, greenhouse gas emissions from major French banks reached more than 2 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent, 4.5 times France's emissions that same year. BNP Paribas, Credit Agricole and Societe Generale each have a higher carbon footprint than France. In 2018, the carbon intensities of Societe Generale and BNP Paribas were three times higher than those of the BPCE group. This report also contains a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the influence of the banking lobby: In 2018, the entire financial industry spent more than Euros 15 million on lobbying activities in France alone, with 190 interest representatives. Within the financial industry, the four main French banks spent Euros 5.5 million to exert their influence in the public sphere. Among the top executives of banks and their professional associations, 30 of them are former officials of the Ministry of Economy and Finance
[en] This publication proposes several contributions which notably discuss systemic issues which are at the origin of the climate crisis by addressing the various aspects and components of a production-oriented and mercantile model, by discussing the weakness of inter-governmental processes for climate, and by criticising some technological and financial lures. It also sheds a light on local mobilisations for a transition towards fair and sustainable post-carbon societies by discussing the emergence of other models of urban and energy governance, and of alternate agriculture and food systems. The last set discusses convergencies and regulations for a climate justice by addressing convergence trends of citizen mobilisations for climate, and actions undertaken at the political, financial and legal level to transform the system
[en] This report analyzes fossil fuel financing from the world's 60 largest commercial and investment banks - aggregating their leading roles in lending and underwriting of debt and equity issuances - and finds that these banks poured a total of $3.8 trillion into fossil fuels from 2016-2020.1 Fossil fuel financing dropped 9% last year, parallel to the global drop in fossil fuel demand and production due to the COVID-19 pandemic.2 And yet 2020 levels remained higher than in 2016, the year immediately following the adoption of the Paris Agreement. The overall fossil fuel financing trend of the last five years is still heading definitively in the wrong direction, reinforcing the need for banks to establish policies that lock in the fossil fuel financing declines of 2020, lest they snap back to business-as-usual in 2021. JPMorgan Chase remains the world's worst banker of fossil fuels over this time period, though its funding did drop significantly last year. Citi follows as the second-worst fossil bank, followed by Wells Fargo, Bank of America, RBC, and MUFG. Barclays is the worst in Europe and Bank of China is the worst in China. This report also tracks funding for 100 top fossil fuel expansion companies and finds JPMorgan Chase, Citi, and Bank of America to be their biggest bankers over the last half decade, all with significant increases in funding last year despite voicing their support for the Paris Agreement. Banking on Climate Chaos 2021 also assesses banks' future-facing policies to restrict financing for fossil fuels, and finds that UniCredit has the strongest policy overall, though it only earned about half of the available points - underscoring that the banking sector remains far from committing to a complete exit from fossil fuel financing. The report also assesses bank financing for and policies regarding top companies in key fossil fuel sectors, and details case studies where this financing has resulted in harmful impacts on communities around the world. Tar sands oil: 2016-2020 financing was dominated by the Canadian banks, led by TD and RBC, as well as JPMorgan Chase. The Line 3 pipeline is an example of how bank financing backs tar sands expansion and Indigenous rights violations. Arctic oil and gas: Banks have made recent policy progress in this area by restricting direct financing for projects in the region. JPMorgan Chase, ICBC, China Minsheng Bank, and Sberbank are the biggest funders since the Paris Agreement of companies with major operations in the Arctic. Offshore oil and gas: Though it has strong policies on unconventional oil and gas, BNP Paribas's largely unrestricted financing for the supermajors allowed it to emerge as the world's worst banker of offshore oil and gas over the last five years. Fracked oil and gas: From development of Argentina's Vaca Muerta shale field, to pipelines like Mountain Valley and Coastal GasLink, the fracking sector presents health hazards to local communities on top of rights and climate impacts. U.S. banks like Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase dominate fracking financing, with Barclays, MUFG, and Mizuho as the biggest funders outside of North America. Liquefied natural gas (LNG): Reflecting the misguided notion that gas will serve as transition fuel for the coming decades, bank financing for the 30 largest LNG companies was higher in 2020 than in any year since the Paris Agreement's adoption. The sector's biggest bankers over the last half decade, Morgan Stanley, Citi, and JPMorgan Chase, don't have policies restricting financing for LNG. Coal mining: Chinese banks Industrial Bank, China Construction Bank, and Bank of China lead financing for coal mining, and lack policies to rein in this financing. BNP Paribas, BPCE/Natixis, Credit Mutuel, and UniCredit have best-in-class coal mining policy restrictions. Coal power: Coal power financing post- Paris Agreement is led by Bank of China, ICBC, and China CITIC Bank. Multiple coal power case studies are highlighted in the pages that follow, demonstrating in particular Chinese and Japanese bank support for new coal projects even in our climate-constrained world. This year's report also assesses the current wave of bank commitments to reduce their financed emissions to 'net zero by 2050', as well as related policies like measuring and disclosing financed emissions, and emphasizes that no bank making a climate commitment for 2050 should be taken seriously unless it also acts on fossil fuels in 2021. Moreover, until the banks prove otherwise, the 'net' in 'net zero' leaves room for emissions targets that fall short of what the science demands, based on copious offsetting or absurd assumptions about future carbon-capture schemes, as well as the rights violations and fraud that often come hand in hand with offsetting and carbon markets.
[fr]Le rapport Banking on Climate Chaos 2021 a revele que les 60 plus grandes banques du monde ont accorde $3 800 milliards aux entreprises actives dans les secteurs du petrole, du gaz et du charbon depuis l'Accord de Paris, avec des financements plus hauts en 2020 qu'en 2016, et ce surtout en France. Issu de la collaboration entre Reclaim Finance, Rainforest Action Network, BankTrack, Indigenous Environmental Network, Oil Change International et le Sierra Club, le rapport a ete soutenu par plus de 300 organisations de 50 pays du monde entier. Le nombre de banques analysees globalement passe de 35 a 60 dans cette 12eme edition du rapport. Avec un montant de $86 milliards, les banques francaises atteignent la 4eme place mondiale du classement en 2020 en termes de soutien aux energies fossiles (et 1ere en Europe). Les financements de ces grandes banques ont presque double entre 2016 et 2020 (soit en moyenne de 19% par an), avec un montant total de $295 milliards, en pleine contradiction avec l'objectif de s'aligner avec 1,5 deg. C. Avec pres de $41 milliards de financements aux energies fossiles en 2020, BNP Paribas est la banque qui a le plus augmente ses soutiens entre 2019 et 2020 au niveau international. Malgre ses politiques sectorielles considerees comme etant plus ambitieuses que les autres, en 2020, BNP Paribas est 4eme principal pourvoyeur de financements aux energies fossiles, et 1ere en Europe. Barclays reste neanmoins a la premiere place europeenne et donc egalement anglaise pour l'ensemble de la periode 2016-2020. Les banques basees aux etats-Unis continuent d'etre les plus grands moteurs mondiaux d'emissions en 2020, JPMorgan Chase restant la pire banque fossile au monde. Les politiques des banques chinoises et japonaises en matiere de petrole, gaz et charbon sont egalement tres problematique, avec MIFG et la Bank of China etant en tete du classement des banques polluantes dans ces deux pays. Le rapport revele que ces banques ont verse la somme $1 500 milliards dans 100 grandes entreprises a l'origine de projets d'expansion des energies fossiles - ce qui represente une augmentation alarmante de 10 % en 2020 par rapport a l'annee precedente, et ce en depit de la recession suscitee par la pandemie qui a entraine une baisse de pres de 9 % des financements aux energies fossiles au niveau international. Cela comprend les entreprises a l'origine de projets tres controverses comme l'oleoduc de sables bitumineux Line 3 d'Enbridge, qui fait partie des 20 etudes de cas du rapport. Alors que le financement des sables bitumineux a poursuivi une tendance a la baisse, diminuant de 27% en 2020 pour atteindre 16 milliards de dollars, le financement des mines de charbon a lui legerement augmente en 2020 pour atteindre $25,4 milliards; c'est 25% de plus qu'en 2016. Le financement des banques pour le petrole et le gaz de schiste a diminue de 8 % et reste encore domine par les banques americaines. Le financement bancaire des 30 plus grandes entreprises de GNL etait plus eleve en 2020 qu'au cours de toute autre annee depuis l'Accord de Paris, a $28,8 milliards, ce qui reflete une idee erronee selon laquelle le gaz sert d'energie de transition. Selon les auteurs du rapport, les banques doivent adopter des plans d'action effectifs pour 2021 et remplacer les promesses lointaines de 'net-zero' (faites par 17 de ces banques) par des politiques significatives promulguant une tolerance zero pour les developpeurs des energies fossiles. Avant la COP26 a Glasgow, il est egalement crucial que les pays rendent compte du role que jouent leurs banques dans les emissions. En France, le gouvernement devrait agir et obliger les banques a adopter des politiques de sortie du petrole et du gaz non conventionnels.