TABLE OF CONTENTS
Disclaimer

3

Fossil Fuel Expansion

52

Summary Findings

4

No Oil and Gas company is Transitioning in Line with 1.5ºC

52

Introduction

6

Pathways

League Table: Banking on Fossil Fuels

12

League Table - Banking on Fossil Fuel Expansion

Fossil Fuel Financing Trends

16

The Dirty Dozen – 2023

20

The Largest Fossil Fuel Financiers since the Paris Agreement

21

Bank Client Profile: San Miguel Corporation

24

Tar Sands Oil
League Table - Banking on Tar Sands Oil
Arctic Oil & Gas
League Table - Banking on Arctic Oil & Gas
Amazon Oil & Gas
League Table - Banking on Amazon Oil & Gas
Bank Fossil Fuel Policies: 2023 Trends

26

Facilitated Emissions

31

Big North American Banks Roll Back Climate Commitments

32

even as they Bankroll Fossil Fuels
32

Rollbacks on Exclusion Policies for Coal, Arctic Oil & Gas

33

All Four Major Wall Street Banks Withdraw from the33

Equator Principles
Net Zero? Policy Gaps & Climate Collapse

League Table - Banking on Ultra-Deepwater Oil & Gas
Fracked Oil & Gas
League Table - Banking on Fracked Oil & Gas

JPMorgan Chase’s “Energy Mix” Target

Integrating Human Rights Policies with Climate Policies

Ultra-Deepwater Oil & Gas

34
35

Methane Gas Import and Export
League Table - Banking on Liquefied Natural Gas

Frontline Stories

40

Map

42

Ending Extractive Economics: Just Transition Now

44

Appendices106

Banks Included

106

58

Methodology Appendix

108

70
72
74
76
78
82

86
88
90

Spotlight: Pulling the Plug on Fossil Utilities

92

Health Impacts of Coal

93

Methane Gas Power Dominates in Southeast Asia

94

Southeast Asia: at a Critical Juncture

46

Slow Progress Among North American Utilities

95

Methodology

48

Coal Mining

96

League Table - Banking on Thermal Coal Mining

Acknowledgments

119

66
68

League Table - Banking on Gas Power

Thermal Coal Mining

115

62

84

League Table - Banking on Metallurgical Coal Mining

110

Endorsements

64

Coal Power

Metallurgical Coal Mining

Endnotes60

84

Gas Power

104

54

Coal and Gas Power
League Table - Banking on Coal Power

Conclusion and Demands

DISCLAIMER
The authors believe the information in this report comes from reliable

The information reported herein is, to the best of our knowledge,

sources and that the data analysis is sound, but do not guarantee

accurate as of May 13, 2024. We do not maintain Banking on Climate

the accuracy, completeness, or correctness of any of the information

Chaos as a dynamic data set, nor is the pdf report intended to reflector analysis. The authors disclaim any liability arising from use of thisnew facts that emerge after publication. We may issue occasional

report and its contents. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed

corrections, which are intended to correct errors of fact consistent withas an offering of investment advice. You should determine on yourinformation that could have been known at the time of publication.

own whether you agree with the content of this document and any

Except under extraordinary circumstances, our published report does

information or data provided.

not reflect updates in the underlying data that occur after publication.

96
98
100
102

P U B L I S H E D : May 13, 2024

2

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

3

SUMMARY FINDINGS

Financing for acquisitions climbed to $63.3 billion in 2023, its highest since 2020, as the oil andgas industry undergoes a wave of consolidations and acquisitions.
The big six US banks, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup,and Morgan Stanley, are the top 6 financiers of fracked gas activities. The next five companies are
Canada and US-based: Royal Bank of Canada, CIBC, US Bancorp, Scotiabank, and Toronto-

The 60 biggest banks globally committed $705 B USD to companies conducting business in fossil

Dominion Bank.

fuels in 2023, bringing the total since the Paris agreement to $6.9 T.
15.4 % of the financing by dollar value issued in 2023 matures after 2030; 3.7 % matures after
These banks committed $347 billion in 2023 and $3.3 trillion total since 2016 to expansion

2050. Financing for fossil fuel extraction or infrastructure that matures after 2030 faces a risk ofcompanies – those companies that the Global Oil & Gas Exit List and the Global Coal Exit List

becoming stranded. Financing that matures after 2050 raises serious questions about issuers’ andreport having expansion plans.

banks’ climate commitments.

In 2023, JPMorgan Chase ranks #1 as the worst financier of fossil fuels. The bank increased its

In terms of banks’ policies, only a few banks added new fossil fuel exclusion policies in 2023. A few

financing from $38.7 billion in 2022 to $40.8 billion in 2023.

new policies among European and Australian banks restrict project financing to new conventional
oil and gas fields, which is a positive development. Unfortunately, several banks, including Bank ofMizuho ranks #2 for financing overall. Mizuho increased its financing commitments for all fossil

America and PNC, rolled back their previous exclusions in 2023 (see p. 32).

fuels between 2022 and 2023 from $35.4 billion to $37 billion. Mizuho rose 4 places in the overall
annual ranks, from 6th in 2022.

Banks continue to prioritize net zero targets, though early research suggests that these targets, likeother bank policies, leave loopholes for ongoing fossil fuel finance (see p. 35).

JPMorgan Chase ranks worst among banks committing financing in 2023 to companies with fossil
fuel expansion plans according to the Global Oil & Gas Exit List and the Global Coal Exit List. Theirfinancing commitments increased from $17.1 billion in 2022 to $19.3 in 2023. Mizuho ranks second
for financing to companies with expansion plans ($18.8 billion).
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) ($15.4B) ranks third worst among financiers of fossil
expansion companies last year. Fourth place is shared by Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) ($14.9B),
Scotiabank ($14.8 B), Bank of America ($14.7), and Citi ($14.6), each of which committed morethan $14.5 billion to expansion companies. Citi ranks as the worst financier of fossil fuel expansion
companies for the period 2016-2023.

U.N. climate chief says two years tosave the planet
Governments, business leaders and development banks have two years
to take action to avert far worse climate change, the U.N.'s climate chief
said on Wednesday, in a speech that warned global warming is slipping
down politicians' agendas.

Total financing committed for companies with methane gas (LNG) import and export capacity
under development, increased from $116.0 billion in 2022 to $121.0 billion in 2023.
Mizuho and MUFG, two of the three big Japanese banks, dominate the methane import/export(LNG) finance tables, providing $10.9 billion and $8.4 billion to companies expanding in the
sector, respectively.
Loans comprise 58% of the financing in this report in 2023, down from 65% in 2022. Total
underwriting of bonds supporting fossil fuels increased from 2022 to 2023 by $24.3 billion, whileloans decreased by $97.1 billion over the same period.

4

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

5

"Every day, finance ministers, CEOs, investors, and development bankers direct trillions of dollars.
It’s time to shift those dollars from the energy and infrastructure of the past, towards that of acleaner, more resilient future. And to ensure that the poorest and most vulnerable countries benefit."
Simon Stiell, UN Climate Change Executive Secretary, April 2024
Even at half of that temperature increase,

Even as climate chaos mounts, fossil fuelClimate change only exacerbates inequalities

the human impacts of climate change arecompanies are doubling down on theirbetween the tiny minority of highly-wealthy

tremendous. Worse, the United Nations

expansion plans while their executives

people and the rest of the world.16 Over theEnvironment Program reports that adaptationand shareholders enjoy extravagant

next 25 years, average incomes globally arefinancing lags, even as people face thecompensation.

likely to drop by a fifth as a result of the climate

14

consequences of a changing environment,chaos already locked in by existing emissions,

including displacement, health impacts, andBank executives are also cashing in on dirty

the costs of rebuilding.

investments on a scale that puts climate

13

with worse impacts across the Global South.17
This loss of income will hit hardest for thosemitigation & adaptation financing to shame.

15

who contributed the least to the problem.

Financing for fossil fuel projects causes destruction of communities and

FROM THE FRONTLINESINTRODUCTION

UN Secretary-General António Guterres, March 20231
Ending the era of fossil fuels on an ambitious

the European Parliament, hundreds of elected

impacts are intensifying: 2023 saw heat waves,timeline is the only way to mitigate climate

officials, civil society organizations, scientists,droughts, stronger storms, atmospheric rivers,change. António Guterres, United Nations

and faith communities.5

flooding, record low global sea ice, tropicalIn the United States, hundreds of thousands of people will
be impacted by sea level rise in coming decades.

cyclones, and a global wildfire crisis.9 These

Secretary General, made this clear at the
UN Climate Ambition Summit in September

The message is clear: fossil fuels are a dead

impacts could quadruple heat deaths and2023. Hundreds of thousands of climate

end for people and the planet.

create food insecurity for over half a billion
people on the planet.10 Unless action is taken

activists said the same in the streets, in banklobbies, and at sites of fossil fuel extraction,

The fossil fuel industry continues doing its best

now, it's estimated that climate change willtransportation, and use in 2023.3 And finally,

to ignore the facts, evidenced by their reckless

kill an additional 250,000 people annually,

for the first time in the treaty’s history, parties toexpansion plans (see p. 52) and rollbacks onespecially in areas deprived of adaptive

the United Nations Framework Convention on

their already weak climate commitments.6

infrastructure.11

Climate Change Conference of the Parties inGreenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels

December 2023 (COP28) agreed to “transition

increased in 2023, following increases in 2022.7

Without drastic cuts in fossil fuels, the climateaway” from fossil fuels. Six new countries

And 2023 was the hottest year on record,

will reach a catastrophic 3°C of warming

endorsed the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation

with an average global surface temperatureby 2100.12 There is still time to save lives andTreaty, bringing the total to twelve countries,

1.4°C above 19th century averages.8 Climate

protect future generations -- people are worth

4report you will find the words of courageous leaders from the frontlines of thefight to phase out fossil fuels.

"In short, our world needs climate action on all fronts —everything, everywhere, all at once"2

ecosystems living closest to the projects on the frontlines. Throughout thismore than profits.
P H O T O S : Duncan Selby / Alamy Stock Photo; Parilov / shutterstockP H O T O : Eric McGregor

6

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

7

2023 TOP FOSSIL FUEL CLIENTS' EXPANSION PLANS
Inside Climate News

Financing Committed by BOCC
Banks in 2023 (USD)

Expansion Plans*$35.00 BILLION

Developing 2399.24 km of pipelines and .63 mtpa** ofmethane gas (LNG) capacity, primarily in Canada andthe United States. Financing supported the acquisitionof three gas utilities, making it the largest North
American gas provider.18$15.77 BILLION

Short term expansion plans include 210.66 mmboe**of upstream resources under development and field
evaluation, 85% of which would overshoot the IEA NZE
2021 scenario. Expansion countries include Azerbaijan,
Ghana, Kazakhstan, Russia, USA.

Trans MountainCorp

TC Energy Corp

$15.25 BILLION

Developing 3165.58 km of pipelines, primarily in
Canada.

Sempra$13.85 BILLION

Developing 559.99 km of pipelines and 78.13 mtpa**
of new methane gas (LNG) capacity in Mexico and theUnited States.

$11.69 BILLION

Short term expansion plans include 392.12 mmboe**of upstream resources under development and field
evaluation, 56% of which would overshoot the IEA
NZE 2052 scenario. 3-year average (2021-2023)
capital expenditure on exploration is $US 1.15 billion.
Expansion in Algeria, Angola, Australia, China, Republicof the Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Egypt, Ghana, Indonesia,
Iraq, Italy, Kazakhstan, Libya, Mexico, Mozambique,
Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Timor-Leste, Tunisia,
Turkmenistan, UAE, United Kingdom, USA, Venezuela.

Fossil Fuel Company

Enbridge Inc

Vitol Holding BV

Eni SpA

China Huaneng
Group Co Ltd$11.50 BILLION

Banks Say They’re Acting on Climate, But
Continue to Finance Fossil Fuel Expansion
Two new reports say banks are not shifting away from fossil fuels fast enough.
While lending declined last year, it was likely because oil companies were
“swimming in profits.”$9.54 BILLION

Developing 1984 km of pipelines, primarily in Canada.

Venture Global
LNG Inc$8.87 BILLION

Developing 1197.4km of pipelines, 142.26 mtpa** ofnew methane gas (LNG) capacity, and 3500MW** ofnew methane gas-fired power, primarily in the UnitedStates for export.

State PowerInvestment Corp
Ltd

$7.63 BILLION

Developing 2757 MW** of new methane gas-fired
power capacity, primarily in China.

$7.24 BILLION

Short term expansion plans include 332.87 mmboe
upstream resources under development and field
evaluation, 71% of which would overshoot the IEA NZE
2021 scenario. Expansion primarily in the United States.

$7.18 BILLION

Short term expansion plans include 979.0 mmboe**of upstream resources under development and field
evaluation, 72.7% of which would overshoot the IEA
NZE 2021 scenario. 3-year average (2021-2023)
capital expenditure on exploration is $US millions 93.6.
Expansion primarily in Canada and the United States.

Permian Resources
Corp

Ovintiv Inc

Developing 144.64 km of pipelines, 3.69 mtpa** of new
methane gas (LNG) capacity, and 9519.9 MW** of newgas-fired power capacity. Expansion primarily in China.
* Source for expansion metrics: Global Oil & Gas Exit List, Urgewald, 2023

NextDecade Corp
/ Rio GrandeValley LNG

8

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

$10.29 BILLION

C H A O S 2024** mpta = megatons per annum
mmboe = million barrels of oil equivalent
MW = megawatts
km = kilometers

Developing 44.88 mtpa** of new methane gas (LNG)
capacity, primarily in the United States for export.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

9

“Every day, finance ministers, CEOs, investors, and development bankers
direct trillions of dollars. It’s time to shift those dollars from the energy andinfrastructure of the past, towards that of a cleaner, more resilient future.
And to ensure that the poorest and most vulnerable countries benefit."– Simon Stiell,19 UN Climate Change Executive Secretary, April 2024

It is time to accelerate a transition to a more just and equitable

While there are signs that financial institutions are beginning to heedenergy system that prioritizes human rights, defends frontline

the warnings about the climate, human rights, and financial risks ofcommunities, reduces energy poverty, protects labor, and redresses

continuing to finance fossil fuel expansion, significant work lies ahead

historically unequal contributions to climate change.20 Future

if they are to effectively play their part in mitigating climate chaos. Now

generations are depending on us to get it right.

is the time to make strong, ambitious climate commitments, thereby
locking in the transition to new, fossil-free business models. Banks can’t
afford the risks – financial and reputational – from continuing to support
fossil fuels.21

UN warns Earth 'firmly on track toward
an unlivable world'
Temperatures on Earth will shoot past a key danger point unless greenhouse gas
emissions fall faster than countries have committed, the world’s top body of climate
scientists said Monday, warning of the consequences of inaction but also noting hopefulsigns of progress.

P H O T O : Mark-Wu / iStock10

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

11

LEAGUE TABLE - BANKING ON FOSSIL FUELSThe Banking on Climate Chaos report includes significant methodological changes for 2024.
Results published here are not directly comparable to data published in previous years.
See explanation in the Methodology section on p. 48
and in the Methodology Appendix on p.106.

Bank financing for approximately 2435 group-level companies that are either independent or a parent company. Including
subsidiaries of those companies, this report covers a total of 4228 companies active across the fossil fuel life cycle.

M = Millions

T = Trillions

Table sorted by 2023 financing.

TOTAL

BANK

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

1

JPMORGAN CHASE$62.531 B$61.663 B$55.168 B$54.469 B$55.649 B$61.832 B$38.739 B$40.875 B$430.926 B

2

CITIGROUP$50.415 B$57.543 B$55.100 B$57.735 B$56.835 B$51.315 B$37.121 B$30.268 B$396.331 B

3BANK OF AMERICA$41.859 B$40.214 B$40.048 B$47.444 B$49.612 B$42.987 B$37.314 B$33.682 B$333.159 B

4

MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL$36.561 B$38.188 B$39.739 B$43.068 B$35.716 B$43.360 B$37.786 B$33.247 B$307.666 B

5WELLS FARGO$40.373 B$37.405 B$46.149 B$39.202 B$26.208 B$38.913 B$37.619 B$30.378 B$296.247 B

6

MIZUHO FINANCIAL$29.648 B$26.331 B$35.279 B$37.494 B$34.222 B$37.078 B$35.389 B$37.037 B$272.477 B

7

ROYAL BANK OF CANADA$30.777 B$36.875 B$35.808 B$31.341 B$24.674 B$35.069 B$33.666 B$28.235 B$256.445 B

8BARCLAYS$34.999 B$35.641 B$31.825 B$31.409 B$32.519 B$22.951 B$21.625 B$24.221 B$235.189 B

9SMBC GROUP$19.383 B$22.539 B$28.300 B$30.147 B$28.976 B$28.584 B$27.452 B$26.775 B$212.158 B

10

UBS

$36.839 B$38.865 B$37.627 B$29.410 B$20.712 B$22.802 B$15.634 B$8.839 B$210.728 B

11

SCOTIABANK$22.384 B$22.744 B$25.697 B$26.113 B$19.253 B$26.697 B$25.872 B$24.016 B$192.777 B

12

HSBC

$23.752 B$30.141 B$24.485 B$32.235 B$28.954 B$23.863 B$15.928 B$12.864 B$192.221 B

13

BNP PARIBAS$24.989 B$23.585 B$22.694 B$25.268 B$35.073 B$23.617 B$19.339 B$12.227 B$186.793 B

14

GOLDMAN SACHS$25.467 B$24.583 B$26.839 B$27.468 B$22.844 B$22.940 B$15.969 B$18.818 B$184.927 B

15

MORGAN STANLEY$25.712 B$29.360 B$25.518 B$27.865 B$19.216 B$22.030 B$14.740 B$19.104 B$183.547 B

16

TORONTO-DOMINION BANK

$20.990 B$23.518 B$22.868 B$25.271 B$17.127 B$23.023 B$25.286 B$20.358 B$178.439 B

17

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA$19.567 B$13.811 B$15.687 B$24.037 B$21.744 B$19.250 B$24.256 B$14.454 B$152.806 B

18

BMO FINANCIAL GROUP$17.283 B$20.514 B$21.524 B$21.194 B$17.055 B$18.639 B$16.650 B$15.754 B$148.613 B

19

BANK OF CHINA$25.013 B$13.914 B$16.095 B$22.574 B$17.126 B$19.350 B$16.574 B$14.449 B$145.094 B

20

CITIC

$11.799 B$10.298 B$15.941 B$18.632 B$18.342 B$22.037 B$20.548 B$17.602 B$135.199 B

21

CIBC

$15.694 B$16.668 B$16.514 B$17.113 B$12.079 B$22.886 B$18.436 B$15.489 B$134.879 B

22

DEUTSCHE BANK

$28.625 B$23.165 B$18.057 B$12.765 B$13.428 B$12.982 B$10.043 B$13.374 B$132.439 B

23

SOCIETE GENERALE$15.867 B$15.398 B$17.542 B$18.789 B$21.721 B$18.446 B$11.409 B$8.765 B$127.937 B

24

CREDIT AGRICOLE$15.832 B$15.106 B$16.437 B$16.422 B$23.858 B$14.754 B$12.654 B$11.714 B$126.779 B

25

PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES$10.682 B$12.812 B$16.500 B$14.889 B$10.433 B$12.562 B$18.283 B$12.149 B$108.312 B

26

ING GROUP$13.533 B$14.729 B$16.097 B$18.256 B$10.446 B$12.055 B$8.847 B$12.479 B$106.442 B

27

TRUIST FINANCIAL$10.981 B$11.069 B$15.416 B$13.664 B$7.263 B$15.409 B$17.318 B$14.232 B$105.352 B

28

US BANCORP$11.354 B$9.966 B$11.889 B$11.667 B$10.446 B$14.656 B$14.517 B$12.779 B$97.274 B

29

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

$11.530 B$4.922 B$8.945 B$7.989 B$10.024 B$15.545 B$13.652 B$11.481 B$84.089 B

30

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA$9.894 B$5.990 B$7.503 B$14.085 B$16.781 B$14.023 B$11.011 B$3.623 B$82.910 B

RANK

B = Billions
12

B = Billions

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

M = Millions

C H A O S 2024

2016-2023

T = Trillions

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

13

LEAGUE TABLE - BANKING ON FOSSIL FUELS
B = Billions

T = Trillions

TOTAL

BANK

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

31

SANTANDER$10.781 B$8.122 B$7.856 B$10.542 B$10.462 B$9.371 B$8.204 B$14.544 B$79.881 B

32

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

$14.856 B$8.737 B$9.298 B$11.560 B$9.740 B$9.014 B$9.032 B$5.566 B$77.803 B

33

STANDARD CHARTERED$5.889 B$8.393 B$11.116 B$10.983 B$10.761 B$10.763 B$6.230 B$7.287 B$71.421 B

34

GROUPE BPCE

$9.231 B$7.734 B$11.700 B$10.065 B$9.105 B$9.397 B$6.742 B$6.836 B$70.810 B

35

UNICREDIT$9.104 B$9.484 B$6.904 B$9.291 B$11.032 B$6.433 B$8.597 B$6.500 B$67.343 B

36

INDUSTRIAL BANK COMPANY$7.505 B$5.397 B$8.689 B$6.653 B$8.977 B$13.138 B$7.625 B$8.045 B$66.028 B

37

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

$5.416 B$4.407 B$7.359 B$8.101 B$9.763 B$11.159 B$9.721 B$9.192 B$65.118 B

38

CHINA EVERBRIGHT GROUP$6.951 B$5.604 B$6.719 B$7.501 B$11.265 B$10.013 B$7.941 B$7.398 B$63.393 B

39

BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA (BBVA)$6.735 B$6.194 B$6.019 B$12.468 B$8.461 B$6.444 B$7.530 B$7.182 B$61.033 B

40

PING AN INSURANCE GROUP$5.716 B$4.747 B$7.395 B$5.569 B$9.517 B$11.155 B$5.802 B$6.207 B$56.109 B

41

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS$6.043 B$4.270 B$4.744 B$4.651 B$7.518 B$9.320 B$10.428 B$4.448 B$51.421 B

42

INTESA SANPAOLO$7.858 B$3.985 B$6.580 B$6.691 B$4.759 B$6.716 B$4.745 B$5.947 B$47.281 B

43

CHINA MINSHENG BANKING$4.109 B$2.996 B$5.111 B$6.795 B$9.243 B$3.511 B$3.016 B$5.302 B$40.084 B

44

DBS$4.950 B$4.335 B$5.318 B$6.537 B$4.543 B$3.960 B$3.246 B$3.933 B$36.823 B

45

STATE BANK OF INDIA$4.709 B$5.834 B$3.384 B$6.745 B$4.081 B$3.958 B$1.998 B$2.979 B$33.688 B

46

NATWEST$4.635 B$4.783 B$4.009 B$3.369 B$3.120 B$3.191 B$2.211 B$2.088 B$27.407 B

47

LA CAIXA GROUP$1.812 B$1.108 B$2.348 B$3.262 B$2.170 B$7.997 B$3.993 B$4.334 B$27.023 B

48

ANZ$4.061 B$3.820 B$4.164 B$3.488 B$3.477 B$2.033 B$2.536 B$1.696 B$25.276 B

49

RABOBANK$3.105 B$2.792 B$2.750 B$2.421 B$2.360 B$2.877 B$2.631 B$3.858 B$22.794 B

50

LLOYDS BANKING GROUP$3.444 B$3.974 B$2.963 B$2.779 B$3.050 B$1.814 B$1.710 B$1.889 B$21.623 B

51

NORDEA$4.953 B$2.508 B$3.114 B$2.769 B$2.667 B$1.530 B$943 M$1.632 B$20.116 B

52

COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA$3.799 B$3.660 B$2.915 B$2.186 B$2.645 B$1.193 B$520 M$567 M$17.485 B

53

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK

$2.241 B$2.119 B$2.338 B$2.006 B$2.279 B$2.809 B$1.381 B$1.563 B$16.735 B

54

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA$873 M$1.289 B$1.760 B$2.318 B$2.416 B$3.259 B$2.766 B$1.618 B$16.299 B

55

DANSKE BANK

$3.690 B$1.739 B$2.208 B$2.561 B$1.692 B$1.357 B$893 M$1.199 B$15.338 B

56

KB FINANCIAL GROUP$1.144 B$1.614 B$1.992 B$2.175 B$2.459 B$1.303 B$1.003 B$1.222 B$12.912 B

57

DZ BANK$1.567 B$1.021 B$1.326 B$1.936 B$1.006 B$1.163 B$1.893 B$2.448 B$12.360 B

58

WESTPAC$1.403 B$1.490 B$1.817 B$1.396 B$1.591 B$757 M$1.571 B$696 M$10.720 B

59

CREDIT MUTUEL$281 M$377 M$657 M$673 M$169 M$375 M$86 M$241 M$2.860 B

60

LA BANQUE POSTALE

$7 M

$30 M

$160 M$44 M$146 M$309 M$9 M$113 M$819 M$910.007BB$799.212$955.548 B$878.810 B$915.975 B$778.682 B$705.816 B$6.896 T

RANKGRAND TOTAL
B = Billions
M = Millions

14

M = Millions

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

T = Trillions$891.197
B$723.468B$860.120$737.561
B B

B A N K I N G

O N

2016-2023

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

15

FOSSIL FUEL FINANCE TRENDS

While 33 banks decreased their financing for companies with fossil

at all. Despite borrowing on average $6.0 billion per year in previous

fuel exposure from 2022 to 2023, notably, 27 banks bucked that trend

years, Valero Energy Corp, TotalEnergies SE, Hess Corp, and Exxon Mobil

and increased their fossil finance commitments in that period. Among

Corp show $0 financing for 2023. Total borrowing by majors Eni SpA,these include top ranking JPMorgan Chase, Mizuho, Morgan Stanley,

BP PLC, Phillips 66, Marathon Petroleum Corp, ConocoPhillips, Chevron

Barclays, Goldman Sachs, and ING Group. For many of these banks –Corp, Shell PLC, Saudi Arabian Oil Co, China National Petroleum Corp,

financing for liquefied methane gas (LNG), including fracking, import,

Valero Energy Corp, TotalEnergies SE, Hess Corp, and Exxon Mobil Corp

export, transport, and gas-fired power – is driving the increase. For

declined by 5.24% in 2023 from the previous year.

more on the risks of methane gas expansion, see p. 78.
When considering asset size, some medium-sized and smaller banks
The 60 biggest banks globally committed $705.8 BUSD to companies

to $40.9 billion in 2023. It also ranks worst among banks committing

Generally, unconventional sectors tracked in this report have seen ain our report are disproportionately financing fossil fuels. Truist, for

conducting business in fossil fuels in 2023, bringing the total since thefinancing to companies with fossil fuel expansion plans.

year-on-year decrease in financing but the liquefied methane gas

example, is newly included in Banking on Climate Chaos this year. With

Paris agreement to $6.9 T. Of this, $347.5 B in 2023 and $3.3 T overall(LNG) sector is an exception. In 2023, companies in the sector received$555 billion, it ranks 58th in terms of its assets, and 20th in terms ofis committed to companies that the Global Oil & Gas Exit List (GOGEL)Japanese mega-bank Mizuho ranks second for financing overall and$121.0 billion from BOCC banks, up slightly from $116.0 billion in 2022.

its total financing to fossil fuels, $14.2 billion, in 2023. Yet Truist ranks

and the Global Coal Exit List (GCEL) indicate have expansion plans.22

also second for financing to companies with expansion plans. Mizuho

Japanese banks Mizuho and MUFG top the list of methane gas (LNG)

1st for its fossil fuel financing as a percentage of its assets. Likewise,

increased its financing commitments between 2022 and 2023 fromfinanciers, followed by Santander, RBC, and Morgan Stanley. For more

PNC, another US bank with $557.3 billion in assets, ranks 26th for total

North American and Japanese banks dominate the top of the league$35.4 billion to $37.0 billion. Mizuho rose 4 places in the annual ranks,on the false promises of this fuel, see p. 78.

financing to fossil fuels in 2023, with $12.15 billion. However, PNC ranks

table. In 2023, JPMorgan Chase ranks #1 as the worst financier of fossil

from 6th in 2022.

4th when banks’ financing is divided by their 2023 assets. Canadianfuels. Its financing commitments increased from $38.7 billion in 2022

“We cannot save a burning planetwith a firehose of fossil fuels"– UN Secretary-General António Guterres, December 2023

24

The list of top borrowers for 2023 (see chart, p. 8) is dominated bybanks Scotiabank, CIBC, Bank of Montreal, and Royal Bank ofcompanies with significant fossil fuel expansion plans, including

Canada also carry this unfortunate distinction, even outranking theirsignificant methane gas expansion. Top clients include only a few major

U.S. counterparts like JPMorgan Chase, Citi, and Bank of America on

oil companies, such as Eni SpA, Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex), andthis metric. This finding is consistent with recent reporting that suggests

Enbridge. In 2023, once again, several of the oil majors did not borrow

regional and smaller banks are increasingly important for the sector.23

2023 Fossil Financing
as % of assets

Rank

Bank

1

Truist Financial

2.56%

2

Scotiabank

2.33%

3

CIBC

2.24%

4

PNC Financial Services

2.18%

5

Mizuho Financial

1.94%

6

US Bancorp

1.89%

7

BMO Financial Group

1.83%

8

Royal Bank of Canada

1.83%

9

Morgan Stanley

1.62%

10

Wells Fargo

1.61%

For the full list of banks and fossil financing as a % of assets, see Appendix, p. 106.
16

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

17

Canadian banks are also continuing their oversized investment in the

In 2023, BOCC banks underwrote $276.1 billion in corporate bonds fortar sands sector. While financing to tar sands activities for companies

fossil fuels, $29.5 billion more than in 2022. Loans decreased by $97.1

on the GOGEL has steadily dropped for the last two years, Canadianbillion between the two years, falling from $509.0 billion to $411.8 billion.

banks CIBC, RBC, Scotiabank, and TD financed $2.09 billion to tar

Share underwriting also decreased from $23.2 to $17.9 billion.

sands activities, just under half of the financing from all 60 BOCC banks
that year. Tar sands remain a destructive, dangerous, and dirty energy
source that have scarred vast areas of land in Canada and faced yearsof concerted resistance by Indigenous First Nations groups.25

LENDING VS. UNDERWRITING (BONDS AND EQUITIES)
100%
90%

An increase in financing by a handful of European banks is one offor a quarter of the global coal trade.27 Only a handful of banks restrict

the surprising trends of 2023. When grouped geographically, banks

finance to the sector, though it carries climate impacts comparable toin North America, Asia, Europe, and Oceania all show year on year

thermal coal. This year’s report includes rankings of bank financing for

declines from 2022. While all Chinese banks continue to finance fossil

48 companies doing business in metallurgical coal (see p. 98). CITIC

fuels, two Chinese banks – Agricultural Bank of China and Bank of(China), China Everbright Group, Bank of America, Ping An Insurance

Communications – show significant decreases in financing and inGroup (China), and MUFG (Japan) are the top five banks supporting

overall league table rankings between 2022 and 2023. Notably, thethese companies in 2023. It can be used in place of thermal coal anddecline among European banks is quite small, driven by an increase

any bank financing a metallurgical coal company could be financing

in fossil finance by banks in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, andthermal coal. Lower-carbon steel making techniques are becoming

Denmark. Financing for methane gas, and to a lesser extent, utilities,

technologically feasible, and, increasingly, scalable. Meanwhile,drives this increase. While European utilities are making progress in thedevelopers have planned 116 new metallurgical coal mines and 52

shift to renewables, oil, gas, and coal continue to be part of the energy

mine expansions, enough to supply the world with more steelmaking

mix.

coal than it can afford.28

Financing for thermal coal mining increased slightly in 2023 from $39.7

The rise in rankings by Mizuho and the prominence of the other two

billion to $42.5 billion. 81% of financing for thermal coal mining cameJapanese megabanks - MUFG and SMBC - is a notable fossil fuelfrom Chinese banks in 2023. Nonetheless, several North American

finance trend for 2023. Mizuho ranks as the second worst financier ofbanks have committed finance to companies operating in this sector.

fossil fuel expansion among this year’s banks. Much of this expansion

For example, Bank of America is the only bank among a consortium offinance is related to the buildout of methane gas infrastructure. That

private lenders participating in a $1.1 B bridge loan to Whitehaven Coal

private financial institutions in Japan are financing gas expansion

in Australia.26 This transaction would have violated the spirit of Bank ofshould come as no surprise given the public financing and other policy

America’s policy excluding finance for thermal coal mining, except that

support offered by the Japanese government.29 In addition, in 2023 thethey rolled back their exclusion policy in late 2023 (see p. 33).

three Japanese banks are the largest financiers of ultra-deepwater80%

extraction and Mizhuo and MUFG are the top methane gas.
Whitehaven was seeking financing to acquire two metallurgical coal70%

mines. Metallurgical coal, which is coal used for steelmaking, accounts

60%“Japan's energy strategy relies heavily on liquefied natural gas (LNG),
burning ammonia and hydrogen at coal and gas power plants, andcarbon capture and storage. These technologies are insufficient to keep
global warming under the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold established by
the Paris climate agreement.”

50%
40%
30%

– Gerry Arances and Elizabeth Bast, April 2024

30

20%
10%
0%
2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2023

2022

UnderwritingLoans

P H O T O S : STOCKFOLIO / Alamy Stock Photo; Bill Chizek / shutterstock

18

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

19

THE LARGEST FOSSIL FUEL FINANCIERS
SINCE THE PARIS AGREEMENT(2016 - 2023 )(US$ BIL )THE DIRTY DOZEN - 2023

$430 B

JPMorgan Chase$396 B

Citigroup$333 B

Bank of America

Rank

Bank

Country2023 Financing Commitments(USD millions)$307 B

MUFG$296 B

Wells Fargo$272 B

Mizuho$256 B

RBC

JPMorgan Chase1

20$40.88 BILLION

2

Mizuho Financial$37.04 BILLION

3

Bank of America$33.68 BILLION

4

MUFG

$33.25 BILLION

5

Wells Fargo$30.38 BILLION

6

Citigroup$30.27 BILLION

7

RBC$28.23 BILLION

8

SMBC

$26.78 BILLION

9

Barclays$24.22 BILLION

10

ScotiaBank$24.02 BILLION

11

Toronto-Dominion Bank

$20.36 BILLION

12Morgan Stanley$19.11 BILLION

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

$235 B

Barclays
SMBC$212 B

UBS$210 B

HSBC$192 B

Scotiabank$192 B
$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

FROM THE FRONTLINES“Bank financing enables Ameren, a monopoly utility, to keep power plants like Labadie, the second
deadliest coal plant in the country, open and polluting Missouri communities well into the 2040s. Ameren
customers are demanding a swift transition to safe, affordable, renewable energy, and it's high time that
big banks stop trading human lives and the future of our planet for short-term, ill-gotten gains.”–Jenn DeRose, Campaign Representative, Missouri Sierra ClubB A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 202421

ns ‘kills 5 millio
el
fu
il
ss
fo
om
fr
n
tio
llu
po
ir
A
people a yearths worldwide
Of more than 8 million dea
to fossil fuels, finds study

from outdoor air pollution,

61% linked

The trend of decreased financing from traditional banks to fossil fuelare providing some capital, such as a loan in 2023 when NextDecade,companies is good news, tempered by the reality that financing for fossil

the developer of Rio Grande LNG, took out a $356 million loan infuel expansion should be 0. But there is little evidence that the decline

which all of the lenders are insurance companies.33 Private equity andis driven by voluntary commitments by the banks, especially given theother private capital transactions also appear to have filled some ofpolicy rollbacks among major banks (see p. 32).31 Instead, broader

the gap left by banks, which is problematic because these actors lag

macroeconomic and geopolitical factors are likely impacting corporatein their climate commitments.34 These actors also operate with lessfinance and the capital-seeking practices of fossil fuel companies.

transparency and fewer financial regulations, often making it harder forUnless banks take action to rule out finance for such clients, the decline

civil society groups to hold them accountable. This points to the urgent

may not be permanent.

need for stronger government regulations focused not just on banks,

Modern ‘Sixth Mass Extinction’ Event Will Be
Worse Than First Predicted: Report
The report argues that nearly half of the planet’s animal species are now in decline, but
unlike past mass extinctions, this one has been entirely caused by humans

but on other financial actors, stronger financial reporting requirements,
Meanwhile, fossil fuel companies are seeking capital from non-and a global commitment to do what it takes to make a speedy, justtraditional sources beyond banks, and they are self-financing some oftransition.

their activities.32 Though not analyzed in this report, non-bank financiers

P H O T O S : TR STOK / iStock; Design Pics Inc / Alamy Stock Photo

22

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

23

BANK CLIENT PROFILE:
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION (SMC)San Miguel Corporation (SMC) is one of the Philippines’ largest andoil spill.36 A recent investigation by Institute for Energy Economics andmost diversified conglomerates with a bad track record for fossil fuelFinancial Analysis (IEEFA) revealed financial risks for the company,

expansion. Incorporated in 1913, the company’s revenues accountstemming in part from their accounting practices and in part from theirfor about 7.6% of the 2022 national gross domestic product (GDP).

high fossil fuel exposure.37

35

It employs over 70,000 workers worldwide. SMC’s five key businessgroups are food and beverage, packaging, fuel and oil, power, andIn the energy landscape, subsidiary San Miguel Global Power, controls

infrastructure. In addition, SMC has investments in other businesses such

4,719 MW of total national installed capacity including coal and gas

as property development and leasing, cement, car distributorship, andpower plants.38 It has played a big role in the massive expansion ofbanking services. As of March 2023, the majority shareholder of SMC

coal in the last decade – and continues to do so despite a national

is Top Frontier Investment Holdings, Inc., also based in the Philippines,

coal moratorium. SMC is now behind the biggest planned capacity

which owns 59.8% of the total outstanding shares.

expansion of fossil gas in Southeast Asia. In what is considered to bea landmark deal, SMC partnered with Aboitiz Power and Meralco for

Banks committing finance to SMC in 2023 include Standard Chartered,

the $3.3 billion large-scale integrated methane gas (LNG) facility in

Mizuho, MUFG, SMBC, DBS, Rabobank, and Bank of China.

the Verde Island Passage, the most biodiverse marine ecosystem in theworld.39

SMC is long mired in controversies for its continued investments in fossil
fuels, its legal battle against electric consumers for pushing higher

San Miguel Corporation and its subsidiaries have received $9.7 billion

power rates, and its involvement in the 900,000-liter Oriental Mindoro

in financing commitments from banks in this report since 2016.

“Though Japan publicly committed to ending fossil fueldevelopment abroad, behind-the-scenes it continues the
expansion of gas and LNG across Asia and globally.”– Gerry Arances and Elizabeth Bast, April 202440

P H O T O S : CEED24

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

25

BANK FOSSIL FUEL POLICIESRegarding Coal, out of the 60 largest banks:
43 have thermal coal exclusion policies

KEY 2023 TRENDS
In 2023, major banks made slow progress on adopting new thermal

Banks appear to have reached a plateau with their policies, which, taken

coal policies. They picked up the pace of new oil & gas policies, though

as a whole, remain too weak to tackle oil and gas expansion. Only La

the quality of policies has not improved. The last important oil and gas

Banque Postale and Danske Bank have the best policies.

only 18 banks explicitly exclude (at least some)thermal coal developers, among which 3
exclude all developers

Crédit Mutuel, La Banque Postale, Unicredit

policy issued by a bank dates back to January 2023 – Danske Bank.
Overall, a number of banks have preferred decarbonization targets
New commitments among European and Australian banks restrict

over exclusion policies. These medium- and long-term commitments toproject financing to new oil and gas fields. More banks broadened their

reduce their financed emissions unfortunately do not prevent banks fromexclusions to include conventional oil and gas, which goes further thanfueling fossil expansion in the short term (See additional analysis, p. 35).

previous policies focused only on unconventional oil and gas. While

while 38 have at least a minimal company-levelexclusion

are beginning to recognize the risks from conventional oil and gas

25 have some thermal coal phase-out
commitments, among which 17 will phase-out
thermal coal by 2030/2040 and only 7 request

expansion.

a mandatory exit plan

unconventionals such as tar sands and fracking were once the only typeof oil and gas deemed risky enough for exclusion policies, a few banks

Regarding Oil & Gas, out of the 60 largest banks:

8 banks have a metallurgical coal mining
policy, among which only 2 indirectly target
metallurgical coal developers

Crédit Mutuel, Unicredit, Nordea

Société Générale, Lloyds Banking Group

38 have some restriction on financing oil andgas

Only 2 significantly restrict financing tocompanies expanding oil and gas

La Banque Postale, Danske Bank

Banks appear to have reached a plateau with their“new normal” policies, which, taken as a whole,remain too weak to tackle oil and gas expansion.

While 19 oil and gas policies restrict
corporate-level financing(most restrictions being very limited)

20 have a policy addressing conventional oil
and/or gas

And 13 have a policy restricting financing
to methane gas (LNG), among which only 1
excludes both project and corporate financing
to LNG expansion.
26

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

La Banque Postale

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

27

PROJECT-LEVEL RESTRICTIONS VSCORPORATE-LEVEL RESTRICTIONSPOLICY LOOPHOLES
Last year’s report found that only a few banks strengthened their fossil

with expansion plans. The real world impact of many of these policy

Most banks that restrict their support to the fossil fuel industry do so by

fuel exclusion policies. This trend continued, with only nine of the 60

changes is likely to be minimal since many banks lack processes andending direct financial support to new projects. But these restrictions

banks significantly strengthening their fossil fuel exclusion policies insystems to implement those policies. A target without a credible

miss the mark. Even the strongest project policies would only apply

2023. Among these, Danske Bank represents the highest ambition; itpathway to implementation is a policy gap.

to a small percentage of the fossil fuel financing between 2016 andexcluded finance for oil and gas exploration and production companies

2023. Because fossil fuel companies tend to take on debt for general

Expansion of oil, gas, or coalcan never be part of a credible
transition plan.

corporate purposes, or with no specified use of proceeds, banks must
adopt oil, gas, and coal commitments that include both project andcorporate finance. Yet, less than half of the banks with a policy actually

A target without a credible pathway toimplementation is a policy gap.

cover both. Hence, European and Australian banks committing toending project finance for new oil and gas fields is not enough if money
still flows to the companies developing these projects.

NEW CLIENTS
Some banks do have policies that restrict corporate finance, thoughthese typically only exclude new clients while leaving existing customers
unaffected by the policy’s provisions. North American banks TD, RBC,
and Citi, and a few others use this approach. Among European banks,
BBVA and Deutsche Bank apply restrictions only to new clients. Suchpolicies are extremely hard to monitor since proving whether a client
is new would require exhaustive financial data from the past decades.
If one sets aside policies applying only to new clients, the number ofcorporate-level commitments that restrict financing for thermal coaldrops from 40 to 25. Corporate-level exclusions for fossil fuel expansion
should apply to both new and existing clients, without exceptions.

CREDIBLE TRANSITION PLANS
Bank policies restricting corporate finance for existing clients often

countries. A credible phase out plan should include a detailed asset-

include exceptions for companies with “credible transition plans,” whichby-asset closure plan, a commitment not to convert plants to methane

is not a well-defined term. This vague terminology leaves the door open

gas and/or biomass, and a sustainable transition plan for workers, local

to future lending or underwriting to virtually every company in the bank’s

communities, and the environment. On oil and gas, a credible transition

portfolio. Such is the case with, for example, UBS, which allows financing

plan should consist of a commitment to significantly reduce oil and gas

for companies with a “transition strategy that aligns with the goals of the

production in the short term. Expansion of oil, gas, or coal can neverParis Agreement.” The bank does not explicitly describe the components

be part of a credible transition plan.

of such an aligned strategy. Deutsche Bank and CaixaBank makecomparable exceptions.
Companies must phase out thermal coal mining and coal power by
2040 worldwide, with an end date of 2030 for European and OECD28

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

29

NEW OIL AND GAS FIELDS AND ASSOCIATEDINFRASTRUCTURE

FACILITATED EMISSIONSThe Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF) is a global

The final PCAF guidance requires signatory banks to report theirfavoring the development of new oil and gas fields. These policies do notpartnership of more than 450 financial institutions aiming to standardize

facilitated emissions using a 33% weighting factor and to account foralign with climate science.41 Like new oil and gas fields, any new fossil

climate reporting. In December 2023, PCAF published a new standard

capital markets transactions in the year the facilitation occurs. Banksof Ukraine in early 2022, developers have rallied support for theirfuel infrastructure puts the world at risk of overshooting our remaining

for how its signatory banks should account for “facilitated emissions”

can optionally use a 100% weighting, which is seen as an improvement

methane projects under the banner of energy security. Major banks arecarbon budget, thereby jeopardizing environments, and threatening– those greenhouse gas emissions resulting from their underwritingon the consultation draft. Though far from perfect due to this watering

actively backing this active sector. Few banks have any restrictions on

local communities. New midstream infrastructure incentivizes fossil

of bonds and equities.44 PCAF requires banks to report 100% of thedown, the final PCAF standard will support greater transparency andfinance for liquefied methane expansion. Those scant policies applying

fuel extraction, and threatens to lock in methane gas use. Most ofemissions from activities they finance through loans, typically referred

accountability for banks as they reduce underwriting for fossil fuelto liquefied methane are imaginative in making restrictions that allow

the few existing restrictions only concern liquefied methane export

to as “financed emissions.” By contrast, there has not been a standard

expansion. The reality is that fossil fuel companies depend on banks

business-almost-as-usual. Several banks, such as ING and HSBC,

terminals, also known as liquefaction terminals. Only La Banque Postale

practice for reporting “facilitated emissions” resulting from underwriting.

underwriting new bond and equity issuances to fund their expansion

completely restricts financing for new methane import terminals.

The guidance was subject to protracted debate and followed pressure

plans. Without fully weighting their underwriting, banks are undermining

from shareholders and advocacy groups for banks to disclose and set

their own net zero commitments. Banks who downplay the importanceambitious targets for reducing facilitated emissions.

of capital markets in their climate strategies are sidestepping a major

Developers around the world continue to expand liquefied methane gas,
sometimes called liquefied “natural” gas (LNG). Since Russia's invasion

exclude financing for terminals linked to, directly associated to, or

43source of real-world emissions. Now that PCAF’s guidance is final, banks

COAL EXCLUSIONS ONLY APPLY TO THERMAL COAL

Debate focused mainly on how heavily to weigh banks’ facilitation
activity in their overall carbon accounting — essentially, how much

Most banks’ coal policies only apply to thermal coal and do not

restrict companies with metallurgical coal expansion plans. On the

responsibility do banks carry for the emissions that result from their

include metallurgical coal – coal used in the steelmaking processes,

bright side, out of the nine banks with metallurgical coal commitments,

underwriting? Advocacy groups, shareholders, and several major banks

which includes higher grade coking coal in addition to other lower

three – BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole, and ING – adopted their policy

advocated for banks to take full responsibility by applying a 100%after November 2023. If this recent trend continues, other banks may

weighting to these transactions. Meanwhile, according to some reports,

metallurgical coal mines are sufficient to meet demand through 2050.

adopt metallurgical coal policies. As noted earlier in this report, ana few banks involved in the development of the PCAF methodology

The few existing policies for metallurgical coal focus on specific mining

effective policy must address all coal, not just thermal because supply

pushed for a lower weighting.45

projects and only Société Générale and Lloyds Banking Group exclude

chain complexities make it impossible to know if a policy that is meantcompanies deriving revenues from metallurgical coal. No policies

just for metallurgical coal could allow the support of thermal coal.

grades. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has stated that existing42

have no excuse for delay on facilitated emissions.

The reality is, fossil fuel companies depend on banks
underwriting new bond and equity issuances to fund their
expansion plans. Without fully weighting their underwriting,banks are undermining their own net zero commitments.

30

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

31

BIG NORTH AMERICAN BANKSROLL BACK CLIMATE COMMITMENTSROLLBACKS ON EXCLUSION POLICIES FOR COAL,
ARCTIC OIL & GAS

EVEN AS THEY BANKROLL FOSSIL FUELSIn late 2023, Bank of America quietly published its updated

policy placed these types of projects under the category of “business

Environmental and Social Risk Policy Framework. The updated

restrictions” and stated that the bank was “unable to engage” in theseframework was significantly different from previous versions, which

activities. The policy document appears to have been updated quietly,

explicitly stated that the bank would not directly finance oil and gas

with no discernable announcement from Bank of America, and wasprojects in the Arctic, new or expanded coal-fired power plants, andfirst reported publicly by the New York Times.50 PNC’s Responsible

new or expanded thermal coal mines.

Lending Practices 2023 shows a similar policy shift; their policy no longer

49

explicitly rules out coal power or Arctic projects.51 Bank of Montreal
The new policy now states that such projects, among others, will go

made a similar change.52

through “enhanced due diligence” and senior-level review, placing
them under a new category of “business escalations.” The previous

FOUR MAJOR WALL ST BANKS WITHDRAW FROM THE
EQUATOR PRINCIPLES
Early 2024, the four biggest U.S. banks— JPMorgan Chase, Bank ofenvironmental standards that banks agreed would underpin financing

America, Citi, and Wells Fargo— all announced that they would leave

for polluting projects. While certainly not perfect, the departure of thethe Equator Principles, which set minimum standards on risks to thefour US banks has severely weakened the Principles as a global industry

environment and local communities in countries where they financestandard.54 Major global banks such as Barclays, HSBC, Deutsche Bank,oil, gas, coal, infrastructure, and mining projects.53 The Equatorand Royal Bank of Canada continue to be signatories to the Principles.

Principles were developed over 20 years ago as a binding framework of

JPMORGAN CHASE’S “ENERGY MIX” TARGETIn late 2023, JPMorgan Chase published its new climate report,

less transparent metric means it will now be easier for the firm to reportwhich included updated emissions reductions targets and additional

progress on the target without decreasing — or even while increasing

disclosures.46 In this report, the bank disclosed its absolute financed— financing for oil and gas expansion by increasing financing for low-emissions for the first time, an improvement over its previous disclosure

carbon energy. Of course, financing for sources of energy not based

only of emissions intensity. It also adjusted its sectoral emissions

on fossil fuels is needed. But such financing cannot eclipse the need

reduction targets to align with the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050

to decrease fossil fuel finance. In response to a shareholder resolution

scenario, which is widely regarded as a highly credible transition

filed by the New York City pension systems, JPMorgan Chase agreed topathway to keep global warming below 1.5°C.47

disclose its relative levels of financing for low-carbon energy versus fossil
fuels — also known as an energy supply financing ratio.48 This should

While these steps were notable, they were eclipsed by thegive much-needed clarity into the bank’s financing activities, but still

announcement of the bank’s new approach to the oil and gas sector.

does not address the obfuscation caused by this new combined target.

Previously, JPMorgan Chase had a relatively weak 15% financed

JPMorgan Chase is the only bank to alter its emissions reduction target

emissions intensity reduction target for oil and gas clients’ end-use

in this way as of publication of this report. Distinct targets for oil and gas

emissions. In its new report, the bank scraps this target in favor of an

offer greater transparency and enable more ambitious targets.

Surge of new US-led oil and gas activity threatens to
wreck Paris climate goals
World’s fossil-fuel producers on track to nearly quadruple output from newly
approved projects by decade’s end, report finds“energy mix” target, through which the bank reports financing for solar,
wind, hydro, biomass, nuclear, and geothermal — in addition to oil andgas. Though the bank claims that the updated target represents anincrease in ambition, the reality is that this new target is a step back. This32

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

P H O T O : LYagovy / iStockB A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

33

INTEGRATING HUMAN RIGHTS POLICIESWITH CLIMATE POLICIESThe climate crisis is a human rights crisis. Climate change is already

Legal theorists and UN human rights experts are winning legal cases

harming rights-holders around the world, while local impacts ofthat name fossil fuel expansion as human rights violations for which

fossil buildouts continue to devastate local communities. Indigenous

fossil fuel companies and their bankers might be held accountable

Peoples and communities in the Global South disproportionately fightunder human rights laws.57 As climate chaos and the associated harmthese burdens, which increases with each degree of warming. Higher

to people increases, legal risk also increases

temperatures bring greater violations of future generations’ rights. Banks
financing fossil fuel expansion therefore share complicity in the global

Human rights violations and harm to Indigenous communities does not

human rights violations brought by climate change.

solely happen at the local level, associated with particular projects.
The global effects of climate change – intensified by the emissions ofBank policies on human rights, Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC),

countless local projects – bring global human rights impacts. Banksand climate currently do not effectively address the intersection between

must recognize their complicity in global human rights violations by

climate chaos, human rights, and Indigenous rights. Extreme weather

ceasing to finance fossil fuel expansion, or find themselves on theevents continue to cause climate-driven tragedies that are shocking

receiving end of expensive lawsuits that make financing in the fossil fueland yet increasingly common.55 Fossil infrastructure is a public healthsector unprofitable.

hazard, causes pollution, devastates ecosystems, and undermines
land rights. Fossil fuel projects are associated with violence and threats

A climate-integrated human rights due diligence approach is the best

against land defenders, climate activists, and indigenous leaders; andway to address the interrelated issues of climate and human rights. Thisare frequently implemented in violation of indigenous sovereignty andmeans bringing climate impacts into human rights due diligence andthe right to FPIC.

FPIC architecture. Likewise, climate policies are incomplete without a

56

NET ZERO? POLICY GAPS & CLIMATE COLLAPSE
Global warming exceeded 1.5ºC for the first time in 2023, an alarming

Scenario, neither are new coal mines, mine extensions, or new unabatedmilestone given the Paris Agreement’s commitment to “pursue efforts tocoal plants.”61 Three years after this clear statement, many banks have

limit it to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”58 Since 2021, many banks

set decarbonization targets, but real short and medium-term policies

have made commitments to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, widely

are scarce.

understood to be the minimum aspiration if the world is to achieve
the goal of keeping global warming below 1.5°C. But banks still have

The Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) is “a group of leading global

wide policy gaps that, if not challenged, will keep financing the way tobanks committed to financing ambitious climate action to transition

climate collapse.

the real economy to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.”62
Three years after its launch in April 2021, 144 banks have joined the

The widest policy gap is the one between net-zero-by-2050 targets,alliance, committing to achieve net-zero emissions in their lending andand the banks’ current fossil fuel finance decisions, which do not reflect

investment portfolios by 2050 at the latest.63 Of the 60 banks featured

the urgent need to stop fossil fuel expansion.

in this report, 42 are NZBA members, and 12 others have independently59

adopted net-zero commitments.64
In 2021, the International Energy Agency (IEA) published its “Net Zeroby 2050” roadmap, which stated that in its scenario “there are no new

In 2023, NZBA member banks featured in this report have provided

oil and gas fields approved for development” and “no new coal mines$253.1 billion to companies expanding fossil fuels. Only one – Laor mine extensions” required “beyond projects already committed

Banque Postale – committed to phase-out all fossil fuel finance. Anyas of 2021.” In a 2023 update, the IEA again asserted that “No newbank financing fossil fuel expansion is setting a course for failure.

60

long-lead time upstream oil and gas projects are needed in the NZE

human rights and FPIC lens.

Banks financing fossil fuel expansion share complicity
in the global human rights violations brought byclimate change.

Climate scientists: concept of
net zero is a dangerous trap

P H O T O S : Zenske Omi / Fossil Free Media; Alexander Gerst / ESA / NASA34

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

Prominent academics, including a former IPCC chair,round on governments worldwide for using the conceptof net zero emissions to ‘greenwash’ their lack ofcommitment to solving global warming.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

35

NZBA’s guidance to banks on target-setting and implementation leaves several glaring
holes, including:»

Targets that cover only a fraction of banks’ exposure. The NZBA does not requirebanks to include all asset classes, nor does it require banks to define fossil fuels consistently.65 For
their lending portfolio, and then only from upstream oil and gas. Many banks leave midstream oil
and gas expansion projects out of their targets. Many also exclude emissions associated with bondunderwriting (see “Facilitated Emissions,” p. 31).

Unambitious decarbonization scenarios. Banks develop emissions reductions targets basedon one of several decarbonization scenarios, such as the IEA’s NZE 2050. Banks that set targets using
a less-ambitious scenario risk falling short in their net zero aspirations.

»commitments will fail if emissions from fossil fuels do not rapidly fall.

target-related challenges faced by banks,” but it has few tools at its

Bank targets not based on “deep, rapid and, in most cases, immediate”

disposal to demand compliance.68 What is more, some major banks

emissions cuts across the full value chain are little more than delay

have threatened to leave the alliance if its requirements become tootactics.73

ambitious, sometimes citing the risk of antitrust investigations. Indeed,69

HSBC and Standard Chartered left the more ambitious Science Based

Increasingly, reporting and target-setting requirements represent a

Targets Initiative (SBTi) in November 2023 because its standards would

bare-minimum for financial institutions, especially in the Global North.

have hampered their ability to continue financing fossil fuels.

For example, in June 2023, the Organization for Economic Cooperation70

instance, many NZBA members’ oil and gas decarbonisation targets cover only emissions from»The NZBA has recently acknowledged these issues as “common

and Development (OECD), an important multinational organization
These issues point to broader concerns about corporations using

representing 50 industrialized and emerging-economy governments,“net zero” as the north star for climate action. Too often, net zero

updated its Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible

commitments assume that fossil fuel and other emissions can be offset

Business Conduct.74 The OECD’s guidelines are a leading internationalwith purchased credits or through risky and unproven technologies (seestandard on human rights and environmental due diligence. The“Ending Extractive Economics,” p. 44). Corporate proponents of net

guidelines call for companies - including financial institutions - to set

zero often advocate for carbon offsets – planting more trees, capturingand monitor short-, medium-, and long-term absolute emissions targets

carbon from the air and burying it, or any of a number of otherfor Scopes 1, 2, and 3, among other actions. While its guidelines are

unproven schemes to ‘net’ out ongoing emissions from fossil fuels. The

voluntary, the update represents a significant government-backed

UN High-Level Expert Group on the Net-Zero Emissions Commitments

recommendation for corporations to increase their climate ambition,of Non-State Entities stated unequivocally in 2022 that, “Non-stateand is especially notable given OECD countries’ significant historicalactors cannot buy cheap credits that often lack integrity instead ofcontributions to climate change.75

immediately cutting their own emissions across their value chain.” Net
71

Failure to comply with NZBA guidelines. As a voluntary initiative, the NZBA can not enforce

zero commitments too often ignore the value chain, applying only to

Banks must close their policy gaps if they are to keep their climate

their guidelines. For example, the NZBA states that “It is critical that members disclose their emissions

emissions scopes 1 and 2, leaving aside the far more significant scopepromises. Only a fossil free world will protect future generations. Net

footprint in both intensity and absolute terms.” Yet member banks continue to report only intensity

3 emissions. Frontline groups and many scientists argue that net zero

zero is not yet zero.

66

72

metrics. Absolute emissions disclosure is critical to measure whether banks’ policies are having a67»

real-world impact.

CHINESE BANK CLIMATE REGULATION UPDATESIn February 2024, China’s leading stock exchanges in Shanghai,data (with Scopes 1 and 2 mandatory and Scope 3 recommended

Shenzhen, and Beijing introduced groundbreaking sustainability

under certain conditions), and carbon reduction measures. This

disclosure guidelines. These regulations mandate 458 listed companies,

directive also applies to 52 significant financial institutions, of which

nearly half of A-share listed companies, to issue detailed sustainability

21 are commercial banks, including all 13 Chinese banks mentioned

reports for the year of 2025, including transition plans, GHG emissions

in the Banking on Climate Chaos report. In response to theseFor a detailed assessment of NZBA banks’ net-zerocommitments, see the tracker and summary developedby BankTrack at: BankingonClimateChaos.org. 76"Climate chaos is fanning the flames of injustice. Global heating is busting budgets,ballooning food prices, upending energy markets, and feeding a cost-of-living crisis"
UN Secretary-General António Guterres, December 202377

stringent regulations, Chinese banks will set transition targets, develop
1.5°C-aligned transition plans, critically assess and minimize their
engagements with the fossil fuel sector, particularly in the coal sector,
and halt financing to fossil fuel companies without a robust 1.5°Caligned transition plan.

36

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

37

KEY TAKEAWAYS
54 out of 60 banks have set long-term, institution-wide targets to achieve net zero emissions
by 2060 at the latest.

43 banks have set intermediate targets for specific fossil fuel sectors:
8 banks’ targets apply to underwriting AND lending
41 banks have adopted a target for conventional upstream oil and gas
6 banks have adopted a target for coal
42 banks have adopted a target for the power sector

Of the 41 banks with oil and gas targets, 27 banks use an absolute emission metric, threebanks use an absolute portfolio metric, and 10 banks use an intensity-based metric. La
Banque Postale set a fossil fuel phase-out policy. KB Financial Group is the only NZBA
member featured in this report that has not set an oil and gas decarbonisation target. The
six banks with coal targets do not have coal phase-out policies, though all of them use an
absolute portfolio metric. Of the 42 banks with a power sector emissions reduction target, 40
use intensity-based metrics, KB Financial uses an absolute emissions metric, and La BanquePostale uses a temperature rating metric.
Only eight banks include both lending and underwriting in the scope of their targets, whereas
over 40% of the financing for the fossil fuel industry identified in this report is in the form ofunderwriting. Underwriting has been recently included in the new version of NZBA Guidelines,
but it still needs to be implemented by member banks.78

P H O T O S : RAN Japan; Tyson Gifford

38

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

39

FRONTLINE STORIESBanking on Climate Chaos 2024 highlights the hundreds of billions of

Whether it is protecting ancestral lands, fighting environmental racism,

dollars that flow to the fossil fuel companies systematically polluting

cutting through corporate greenwash, preventing pollution aroundthe planet and communities across the globe. These financing

schools and homes, prioritizing good green jobs, or saving species

numbers can seem abstract and the analysis technical. But the impacts

from human overconsumption, people on the frontlines win justice forare visceral for the millions of people living on the frontlines of thetheir communities and the planet by organizing and standing up to

extraction, processing, and transportation of fossil fuels. This report

powerful financial interests. For a just future, people must follow the

spotlights the resistance of people opposing fossil fuel projects in theirlead of those who are the most directly affected by fossil fuel extraction

communities and territories. It is clear: bank financing for fossil fuels

and the harmful pollution it produces. The featured frontline stories showcauses destruction in the everyday lives of people worldwide. Fossil

how the world must meet this moment.

fuel companies and their financiers must be held accountable for theadverse impacts on communities from their actions.

This map highlights some of the most devastating examples of fossil
fuel expansion and the strongest community resistance. These fossil

Climate change hits the frontlines first and worst. People living on thefuel projects harm the health and safety of local communities. The map

frontlines of climate chaos are predominantly Indigenous Peoples,

notes the top companies involved in the projects and highlights which

Black and Brown communities, low-wage workers, women, fishers orbanks in this report’s scope support each destructive project.

smallholder farmers, often living in poverty. Sometimes, as in the casesof the Amazon and the Arctic, the same people living with worsening
hurricanes, stronger storm surges, rising sea levels, and the lasting
effects of racial and gender injustice, and inequality are also at theepicenter of the massive, dirty, health-harming fossil fuel industry.

»

To learn more about these frontline stories directly from the impacted
communities, visit: BankingonClimateChaos.org/frontline-stories.

FROM THE FRONTLINES“The fossil fuel industry is trying to hold onto control of thestatus quo. We know another way is possible. It's critical to linkinternational communities, to grow our independence off fossil
fuels. 500 years later, the powers that be are still trying to colonize
our communities by extracting & exporting resources from ourlands, along with their accomplices-the banks and insurancecompanies.”–Juan Mancias, Tribal Chair, Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas

P H O T O : Jes Azner / Getty Images

40

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 202441

1

East African Crude Oil Pipeline (Uganda & Tanzania)
Key companies: TotalEnergies from France and China National Offshore Oil
Corporation (CNOOC)
Key banks: ICBC and Standard Bank (financial advisors)

2

Fracking in Vaca Muerta (Argentina)
Key companies: YPF, Pan American Energy, Shell
Key banks: HSBC, Santander, JPMorgan Chase3

Coastal GasLink Pipeline (Canada)
Key companies: TC Energy, KKR, AIMCo
Key banks: RBC, TD, Bank of Montreal

4

Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion (Canada)
Key companies: Trans Mountain Corp.
Key banks: RBC, TD, Bank of Montreal

22

Excelerate Energy L.P. (Phillippines)
Status: planned/proposed

23

Vires Energy Corporation (Phillippines)
Status: planned/proposed

24

Batangas Clean Energy, Inc. (Phillippines)
Status: planned/proposed

Mountain Valley Pipeline Southgate Extension (United States)
Key companies: Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, a joint venture of the following
partners: Equitrans Midstream Corporation; NextEra Energy Holdings; Con Edison
Transmission; WGL Midstream and RGC Midstream
Key banks: Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, PNC, BNP Paribas

25

Shell Energy, Philippines, Inc. (Phillippines)
Status: planned/proposed

26

CNOOC Phoenix Petroleum Philippines, Inc. (Phillippines)
Status: planned/proposed

Plaquemines LNG (United States)
Key companies: Venture Global LNG
Key banks: Over 20 banks worldwide financed this project, but the following banks
provided over $1.4 Billion to the both phases of the project: Bank of China, ING,
Mizuho, MUFG & Scotia Bank.

27

PNOC (Phillippines)
Status: planned/proposed

28

8 Proposed Proposed Power Plants in the Verde Island Passage(Phillippines)
Key companies: SMC Global PowerKey banks: UBS, Credit Suisse (Hong Kong) Limited, DBS Bank Ltd,
Mizuho Securities Asia Limited, Standard
Chartered Bank, Deutsche Bank & JPMorgan Chase

12

Trans Adriatic Pipeline (Turkey & Greece)
Key companies: BP, SOCAR, Snam
Key banks: Intesa Sanpaolo, UniCredit, ING

13

Mountain Valley Pipeline (United States)
Key companies: Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, a joint venture of the following
partners: Equitrans Midstream Corporation; NextEra Energy Holdings; Con Edison
Transmission; WGL Midstream and RGC Midstream
Key banks: Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, PNC, BNP Paribas

14

15

5

Offshore Cape Three Points (Ghana)
Key companies: Eni, Vitol, GNPC
Key banks: HSBC, Société Générale, Standard Chartered

6

Drilling Offshore Guyana/One Guyana FPSO (Guyana)
Key companies:ExxonMobil, CNOOC, Hess
Key banks: ING, SMBC, MUFG, Mizuho

16

Cirebon 2 Coal Plant (Indonesia)
Key companies: Marubeni, Samtan, IMECO
Key banks: MUFG, Mizuho, SMBC, ING

Rio Grande LNG (United States)
Key companies: NextDecade
Key banks: MUFG, Mizuho, Intesa Sanpaolo, Banco Santander & RBC

17

Jawa 9 and 10 Coal Plants (Indonesia)
Key companies: KEPCO, Barito Pacific, PT LN
Key banks: Bank of China

Corpus Christi Stage III (United States)
Key companies: Cheneire
Key banks: Société Générale, SMBC, RBC, Mizubo, MUFG

18

Kobe Coal Power plant (Japan)
Key companies: KOBELCO (Kobe Steel)Key banks: Mizuho, SMBC, MUFG

19

8 Proposed LNG Terminals in the Verde Island Passage (Phillippines)
Key companies: First Gen Corporation, Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co., Energy World
Corp Ltd. (Australia), A Brown Company, Inc., GEN X Energy LLC, LCT Energy andResources Inc., Udenna Corp.
Key banks: ING Bank NV
Financiers of AG&P’s LNG Terminal: China Bank Capital & China Bank

7

8

9

10

11

Mozambique LNG/Rovuma LNG (Mozambique)
Key companies: Mozambique LNG: TotalEnergies, Mitsui
Key banks Mozambique LNG: Société Générale, SMBC, Standard Chartered;
Key companies: Rovuma LNG: Eni, ExxonMobil
Key banks: Rovuma LNG: Crédit Agricole (financial advisor)
Nigeria LNG (Train 7, expansion proposed) (Nigeria)
Key companies: Nigerian National Petroleum Corp., Shell, TotalEnergies, Eni
Key banks: SMBC Group, DZ Bank, Société Générale

Philippines LNG Terminal (Phillippines)
Key companies: Linseed Field Power Corp, part of Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co.
Status: in construction

20

Thar Block-I Coal Plant (Pakistan)
Key companies: Shanghai Electric Group Corporation
Key banks: ICBC

21

FGEN LNG Corporation (Phillippines)
Status: in construction
Key banks: RBC, TD, Bank of Montreal

29

SMC-EERI Batangas Combined Cycle Power Plant (Phillippines)
Status: proposed

30

Batangas Clean Energy Natural Gas-Fired power plant (Phillippines)
Status: proposed

31

Lloyds Energy Ph, Floating Power plant (Phillippines)
Status: proposed

32

SMC Ilijan Power Plant (Phillippines)
Status: in operation

33

Batangas Clean Energy Natural Gas-Fired Power Plant (Phillippines)
Status: proposed

34

VIRES LNG-fired power plant barge (Phillippines)
Status: proposed floating gas plant in Batangas Bay

35

First Gen Santa Maria Natural Gas-Fired Combined Cycle (Phillippines)
Status: proposed

36

AC Energy Stealler Dual-Fired Power Plant Project (Phillippines)
Status: proposed

37

Carmichael Coal Project (Australia)
Key companies: Adani
Key banks: Deutsche Bank, Standard Chartered, JPMorgan Chase38

Ostiglia Gas Power Power Plant Expansion (Italy)
Key companies: EPH
Key banks: UniCredit, ING, Société Générale

39

Obi Island Captive Coal Plant (Indonesia)
Key companies: PT Trimegah Bangun Persada Tbk (Harita Group, Indonesia), Ningbo
Lygend (China)
Key banks: BNP Paribas, Agricultural Bank of China

40

North Kalimantan Aluminium Plant Captive Coal Power Station (Indonesia)
Key companies: Adaro, Hyundai
Key banks: MUFG, UBS, Citi

41

Jambi-2 (Indonesia)
Key companies: China Huadian GroupKey banks: Postal Savings Bank of China

42

Papua LNG (Papua New Guinea)
Key companies: TotalEnergies, ExxonMobil, Santos
Key banks: Crédit Agricole (financial advisor)

43

Barossa Gas Project (Australia)
Key companies: Santos
Key banks: MUFG, Rabobank, SMBC, Natixis

44

Elk Valley Resources Coking Coal Mines (Canada)
Key companies: Teck Resources, Glencore
Key banks: Barclays, SMBC, RBC

45

Greenhills Coal Mine (Canada)
Key companies: Teck Resources, Glencore
Key banks: Barclays, SMBC, RBC

46

Line Creek Coal Mine (Canada)
Key companies: Teck Resources, Glencore
Key banks: Barclays, SMBC, RBC

47

Elkview Coal Mine (Canada)
Key companies: Teck Resources, Glencore
Key banks: Barclays, SMBC, RBC

3444,45,
46,47

38

14
17

12

13

18

15

16
11

of fossil fuel expansion. These projects harm the health and

5

10

1

40

safety of local communities. The map notes the top companies

39

41

involved in the projects and highlights which banks in this5

report’s scope support each destructive project.

42

19, 20, 21, 22,
23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33, 34,
35, 36,

6This map highlights some of the most devastating examples

»

19

9

8

7

43

42

To learn more about these frontline stories directlyfrom the impacted communities, visit
BankingonClimateChaos.org/frontline-stories.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

37

2
B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

43

that have undermined the sovereignty and rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Another attempt at addressing the climate crisis is through the REDD+

For over 20 years these mechanisms have demonstrated that theinitiative, which is generally aimed at compensating tropical forest

World Bank fails to take into consideration the immediate needs ofnations for forest preservation. Ironically, we have seen that this canimpacted communities on the frontlines in the Global South. This fundincentivize land clearing for monocrops and eminent domain land

will almost certainly become another example of its hypocrisy; thegrabs, with devastating impacts on Indigenous Peoples’ territories.

World Bank’s development plan is rooted in the expectation of profit

So far, REDD+ has not followed the necessary protocols of Free, Prior,and the financialization of life, as has been true of all Bretton Woods

Informed Consent (FPIC) in relation to Indigenous communities and their

institutions since inception. The fund is already controversial because it

sovereign territories.86

receives voluntary rather than mandatory pledges, many pledges are

ENDING EXTRACTIVE ECONOMICS:JUST TRANSITION NOW

missing, and it lacks solid targets or deadlines to hold the Global North

Among the myriad of false solutions being proposed at the UNFCCC,

accountable for historical emissions even as the Global South navigates

debt swaps for nature and climate are a form of restructuring debt in

the impacts and inequality of climate change.81 The World Bank’s

exchange for debtor governments committing to predetermined climate

track record on debt-fueled loans and dodgy development programs

change mitigation investments. This process can be mediated by third-in the Global South raises many doubts on how it will handle such aparties, which raises a serious question of bias towards the creditor in

crucial fund. Rather than distributing funds to Indigenous Peoples andthe agreed upon investments. This power dynamic is undemocratic,

impacted communities, the World Bank will likely perpetuate economic

lacks transparency, and can lead to violations of Indigenous Peoples’

development plans that lead to the accumulation of wealth in therights of self-determination and sovereignty. None of these initiatives cut

Global North, allowing a privileged few to continue profiting from theemissions at source. Carbon markets are a smokescreen to maintainsuffering of others, while exploiting a crisis they created for short-term'business as usual', continuing the cycles of extraction and violence wefinancial gain.

must decisively reject.

The UNFCCC promotes market-based initiatives, exemplified by Article

We say enough is enough! We can’t wait for or expect leaders within

6 of the Paris Agreement, which proposes to exponentially expand thethis corrupt system to fix the very problems they created and continue

scale of carbon markets and offset schemes.82 This approach fails toto profit from. Disrupting the destructive core of carbon markets

challenge the infinite growth paradigm driving emissions and ecologicalnecessitates nonviolent direct action and requires us to center

breakdown. Countries like Bolivia called out this facade during COP28

Indigenous leadership, solutions, and sovereignty. We must continue

negotiations because it is glaringly obvious how greenwashing theto stand in solidarity with frontline communities. We must create vitalclimate crisis only creates the illusion of environmental responsibility

spaces for amplifying our voices, pushing policymakers, and ensuring

without meaningfully addressing the realities of climate collapse.

our future is free from fossil fuels.

83

By Marcello Federico, Tamra Gilbertson, and Tom B.K. Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental Network

Carbon markets in Article 6 are financial feedback loops for polluters

Ending the destructive capitalistic economy is a process of systemic

At a moment in our history when the collective window for action on

lobbyists outnumbered any single country delegation and attended

to further justify their desecration of Mother Earth. It was clear duringchanges that include embracing Traditional Indigenous Knowledge,

climate change is narrowing, fossil fuel companies continue to extract

exclusive closed door meetings to strike their oil deals, highlighting

the negotiations on Article 6 at COP28 that markets enable countries

including Indigenous agriculture and agroecology, and phasing out

profit from Mother Earth who is yearning for a phasing out of fossil

exactly who wields the most power in these spaces.80 At COP28 weand corporations, particularly polluters in the Global North, to purchasefossil fuels at source. We must recognize that exploitation does not

fuels. We are rapidly running out of time to resolve the climate crises.

witnessed ongoing political games, an abdication of accountability,

pollution 'offsets' rather than directly cut emissions. Currently being

simply disappear by offsetting it away within an “improved” or “dressed

Despite the global agreement to limit warming to below 1.5C in the Parisand grotesque displays of hypocrisy. This stark disconnect from thenegotiated in Article 6 is the use of carbon dioxide removals (CDR).84

up” market-based model. We must demand an Indigenous Just

Agreement, Article 6 of this agreement disguises the perpetuation of

suffering of marginalized communities exposes the hollow core ofEngineered removals including carbon capture and storage (CCS),

Transition to realize the end of the fossil fuel era.

the fossil fuel projects destroying Indigenous Peoples, communities, andthese negotiations. Without directly challenging the powerful interests

bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and direct air

territories through a veneer of “green economics.” The carbon market

perpetrating the systems of harm, these events simply provide a facade

capture (DAC) are unproven and expensive technologies that promisemechanisms embedded in Article 6 would create the largest globalof action amidst ongoing complicity, failing all those who know firstdelayed action in exchange for a continuation of the status quo.

carbon market and offset system in history. We must do everything in ourhand that climate change is not a distant threat because they are

Biological removals include ocean, forest, and soil carbon sequestration,

power to fight against any current or future loopholes that extend the life

directly impacted now.

and will financialize ecosystems, potentially creating long-term land79

conflicts and likely failing to deliver significant carbon storage. CDR areof extractive industries.

44

At COP 28, the parties agreed to the Loss and Damage Fund on theharmful false solutions that disguise and perpetuate a colonial legacy

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

first day and appointed the World Bank to serve as its interim trusteeof exploitation, disproportionately inflicting damage on Indigenous(UNFCCC), backed by international financial institutions and otherfor the next four years. Within the UNFCCC, the World Bank has beencommunities at the frontlines of the climate crisis.85 Instead of using

corporations presents itself as the urgently-needed antidote toat the center of jump-starting the Clean Development Mechanism

unproven technologies to continue unsustainable extractive industries,

an unfolding ecological crisis. At the recent twenty-eighth session(CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol, and the Reducing Emissions fromwe should be prioritizing a systems change driven by the urgent need toof the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP28), fossil fuelDeforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanisms, activities

reduce emissions at their source.

E S S AY :T H E

V E N E E R

O FAG R E E N

E C O N O M YE S S AY :T H E

V E N E E R

O FAG R E E N

E C O N O M Y

45

FROM THE FRONTLINES

SOUTHEAST ASIA:“Fossil fuels harm our environment and go against our principles ofsustainable development. Our life depends on nature, so we work
together towards a future that protects it. In Chana, Thailand, we believe
in a future shaped by our community’s values and way of life, charting apath towards a more sustainable future.”–Khairiyah Rahmanyah of Chana Local Reservation Network96

Banks in this report financed $27.6 billion in 2021-2023 to fossil fuel activities at 15 companies
expanding methane (LNG) import and export in Southeast Asian countries. These companies have100.1 mpta of methane gas terminal expansion plans in place worldwide, including terminals in thePhilippines, Thailand, Vietnam, and Indonesia.
Likewise, BOCC banks financed $39.0 billion in 2021-2023 to fossil fuel activities at 40 companies
with methane gas-fired expansion plans in SEA countries. These companies have 105 GW of gasfired power expansion plans worldwide, including Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia,
Singapore, and Myanmar.

The Banking on Climate Chaos Coalition welcomes the Center for Energy,
Ecology, and Development (CEED) to our core partner group. Based in thePhilippines, CEED advocates for transformative energy policies, ecologicaljustice, and people-centered development across Southeast Asia.
Southeast Asia (SEA) is at a crossroads in its energy transition.87 The

terminals and received their first liquified methane gas deliveries.91 The

region is at the cusp of becoming a hub for methane gas import

two countries lead in planned gas power and methane gas importand export as many countries are developing massive gas projects,

terminal capacity as together they comprise about 63% of the power

regional banks played a prominent role in financing methane gas power

There is good news, though. The same financial backers are also

facilitated by private and public financial institutions. This is particularly

plant and import capacity in the region.

expansion, the Japanese megabanks SMBC, MUFG, and Mizuho rank

financing renewables across the region. Even with 139 GW of newvery high in their report, as they do in Banking on Climate Chaos.

methane gas capacity in the pipeline – over a quarter of all gas power

problematic because over the last two decades, countries in this region
have been among the most climate-affected in terms of fatalities andWith 96.3 mtpa of proposed methane gas import capacity, SEA also

economic losses.88

hosts some of the biggest global exporters of methane.92 In 2022,

Some of the largest financiers come from historically carbon-polluting

being developed in Asia – renewable energy growth amounts to 328
GW, more than twice as much as the proposed methane gas capacity.

Malaysia and Indonesia ranked fifth and sixth among countries fornations such as the United States, Europe, and Japan. Those financiers

Since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015, 29 GW of combined

methane gas exports, together accounting for roughly 10% of the global

are enabled by policies that falsely tout methane gas as a bridge

Southeast Asia is at a critical juncture at which the choice of

methane gas power plant capacity has come into operation acrossmethane exports. The two countries have proposals to add 13.5 mtpa offuel and encourage the sector by providing public finance. The

development path could enable the 1.5°C global climate goal andSoutheast Asia. Thailand has doubled down on methane gas, adding

new methane gas export capacity.93

Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) channeled $7 billion

ensure the survival of the region’s own people. There is only one way

13.7 GW, the biggest capacity addition in the region. In 2022, Thailand
89

from public funds to the methane gas industry, which accounted

forward. Renewables, not methane gas, hold promise for a just energy

was the biggest importer of methane gas in the region, buying from top

Contradictions abound in SEA’s energy landscape. Based on researchfor 47% of all public finance for the energy sector.95 As a result, thetransition. A just energy transition is, ultimately, not a matter of how but

global methane gas (LNG) exporters, including Qatar, Australia, theconducted by CEED, financial institutions have channeled at least $60.3

Japanese government is the biggest financier of the methane gas

when. The tools and technologies needed to accelerate this transition

United States, Russia, and its neighboring country, Malaysia.90 Vietnam

billion in the form of loans and underwriting to the methane gas industry

industry in Southeast Asia. Multilateral Development Banks – the Asianare available now, but the window is narrowing. Southeast Asia deserves

and the Philippines officially joined the methane gas (LNG) trade insince 2016, led by Thai and Japanese banks. The majority of thisDevelopment Bank and the World Bank – also channeled $1.2 billion to

greater ambition and stronger collaboration.

2023, as both countries commissioned their first methane gas importfinance was in the form of loans (63%). While CEED found that smaller,

support methane gas expansion.

94

P H O T O : CEED46

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

47

METHODOLOGYThe Banking on Climate Chaos report includes several important methodological changes for 2024. Our research
now encompasses deals reported in two databases: Bloomberg LP and in London Stock Exchange Group (LSEG),
formerly known as Refinitiv. In previous years, this report used Bloomberg’s league credit to assign credit to each bank for
its participation in a deal; this year the report uses a new approach. League tables for unconventional sectors this year
include more companies compared with previous years’ reports. As a result of methodology changes, results publishedhere are not directly comparable to data published in previous years. See below for details.

Banking Industry Scope»

For additional details about our report methodology, see Methodology
Appendix, p. 108 and our Methodology FAQ, available for download at:
BankingonClimateChaos.org/methodology2024.

The company list begins with Urgewald’s Global Oil and Gas Exit Listand gas (44 companies), ultra deepwater oil and gas (65 companies),

Profundo. For the second year, Amazon biome rankings are included(GOGEL) and Global Coal Exit List (GCEL). Additional companies werefracked oil and gas (237 companies), thermal coal mining (211

(24 companies), which are developed in collaboration with Stand.earth

according to S&P Global’s annual rankings. Due to year-on-year

identified using Bloomberg, LSEG, the Global Energy Monitor, Enerdata,companies), coal-fired power (456 companies), and, newly, gas-fired

Research Group.99

changes in bank sizes, 58 of these banks were included in last year’s

and previous years’ research. This list is narrowed down to companies for

power (252 companies). For these sectors, financing for any company

report, while two – Truist and DBS – are new this year. Three banks thatwhich there is data on fossil fuel involvement and which have received

GOGEL or GCEL lists as active in the sector is reported. In previous

Companies with a variety of industry classifications are included if

are in the S&P top 60 list but that are not significant actors in corporate

corporate financing between 2016 and 2023.

years, financing for only the top 30 companies in each sector were

there is evidence of fossil fuel business activities. This means that thisreported; this year each sector list thus represents more companies. All

report contains not merely pure play oil, gas, and coal companies. ThisAs in the 2023 edition, the report assesses private bank financing forcompanies listed as liquified methane gas (LNG) expansion companies

is important because all fossil fuels must be phased out and especiallyfinancing is aggregated at the level of banks’ parent companies, based

and policies regarding the fossil fuel sector in general and for selectedin the GOGEL were researched and 129 of them are included in the

all fossil fuel expansion must stop, regardless of how the company ison ownership as of March 2024.98

spotlight sectors. These sectors are spotlighted due to their highmethane gas (LNG) league table. The all fossil fuels league tableclassified or what percentage of that company’s business is in fossil

environmental, social, and climate impacts, and/or their heightened risk

includes additional companies in methane gas (LNG) shipping, import,

fuels. Companies with names that include the words “renewable,”of becoming stranded assets. This year, the fossil fuel expansion league

export, and trading identified using the Global Energy Monitor’s Global“clean,” or “green” are exposed to fossil fuels, sometimes significantly, as

Banking on Climate Chaos 2024 estimates the financing commitments

table reports financing for any company that the GOGEL or GCEL

Gas Infrastructure Tracker and Enerdata. Exposure to metallurgicalevidenced by data on revenue, assets, income, or capital expenditurefrom financial institutions to 4228 companies active across the fossil

indicates has expansion plans, approximately 873 companies. Other

coal mining is included this year, a new addition (48 companies). The

related to fossil fuels. Banks ought to scrutinize their clients closely to

unconventional sectors are: tar sands oil (37 companies), Arctic oil

company list and adjusters for metallurgical coal were developed

understand their diverse operations.

This year’s report again analyzes the world’s 60 largest banks by assets
97

finance are excluded; they are replaced by the next three banks on
the S&P Global’s list to bring the total to 60 banks. Bank subsidiaries’

Fossil Fuel Company Scopefuel industry, which are organized within 2435 group-level companies.

through a collaboration between Reclaim Finance, BankTrack, and48

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

49

METHODOLOGY (CONT’D)ULTRA-DEEPWATER
OIL & GASAMAZONOIL & GASARCTIC OIL & GAS

TAR SANDS OILFRACKED OIL & GAS

EXPANSION

THERMAL
COAL MININGMETHANE GASIMPORT & EXPORTMETALLURGICALCOAL MINING

COAL POWER
GAS POWER

Fossil Fuel Adjusters

Finance Data

As in previous years, to address the fact that some companies

All transactions were sourced from either Bloomberg LP or LSEG

Profundo.100 Previous years of this report relied on Bloomberg’s league

have comparatively small fossil business, adjusters are applied to

between December 2023 and February 2024. Loans, bonds, andcredit allocation. The methodology change allows the incorporation of

reduce the deal value for diversified companies. Adjusters reflect theshare issuance underwriting were researched in both databases andresearch from multiple data sources. Importantly, it makes it possible

estimated proportion of the company’s business devoted to fossil

merged through a multi-step deduplication process. Previous Banking

to credit all banks making financial contributions to a deal instead

fuels. For adjusters, the research draws on Urgewald’s research for

on Climate Chaos reports included deals reported only in Bloomberg,of only crediting banks in leading roles. Roles that do not involve

the GOGEL and the GCEL, as well as Bloomberg revenue, assets, andsupplemented with select project finance reported in IJGlobal. Using

financial contributions are excluded. For details on the credit allocation

income data and company reports. When data on a company is notboth Bloomberg and LSEG enables the identification of more deals andmethodology, see Methodology Appendix, p. 108.

readily available, data is adjusted using information on the parent

more companies in scope, and enables a cross-check for validating thecompany and, in select cases, averages derived from Bloomberg data

data.

2023. It is thus possible to make consistent year on year comparisons ofand industry classifications. More details on our adjuster logic are

50

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

The 2024 report applies this methodology to all data from 2016 throughavailable in the Methodology FAQ, posted on the report’s website at:This year’s report uses an updated approach to crediting banks for their

how much banks have financed fossil fuels since the Paris Agreement

BankingonClimateChaos.org/methodology2024.

participation in corporate finance deals, including bonds, loans, andwent into effect. However, Banking on Climate Chaos 2024 financeshare issuances, an approach developed by the research company

figures do not compare directly to totals published in previous years.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

51

FROM THE FRONTLINES“As local communities and organizations hosting oil projects in Uganda that aresupported by irresponsible banks like ICBC who acts as a financial advisor, we havealready had dark moments. Our lives and livelihoods have been threatened and wehave been arrested for speaking out on Human and Environmental rights violations

FOSSIL FUEL
EXPANSION

caused by the East African Crude Oil Pipeline. We want an end to these impacts and toharassment. The solution is for banks and (re)insurers to refuse support for the EACOP
and to favor a just transition towards clean energy instead.”– Maxwell Atuhura, GreenFaith Uganda organizer and member at Tasha ResearchInstitute Africa (TASHA)107“The expansion of the petrochemical and fossil fuel industry in Rayong, Thailand, has
inflicted significant harm on both the environment and local health, with pollution fromvolatile organic compounds, depletion of resources, and adverse health impacts being
notable concerns. Development must encompass not only economic growth but also
environmental sustainability. To achieve this, policies must protect people’s rights, safeguard
natural resources, and ensure equitable distribution of wealth. Involving local communities indecision-making processes is essential to ensure their concerns are heard and considered.
Building a sustainable future requires us to prioritize the well-being of individuals and theenvironment, without compromising health, livelihoods, or ecological balance.”– Phwat Kanchanawong, Researcher at EEC Watch108

NO OIL AND GAS COMPANY
IS TRANSITIONING IN LINE WITH 1.5°C
The industry that has done the most to cause the climate crisis will not

IMP-LD oil and gas production must decline even faster – by nearly 50%

solve it. Multiple independent analyses have confirmed that no major

by 2030, relative to 2020 levels.

GLOBAL OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION,
BASED ON OTHER SELECTED 1.5°C PATHWAYS
25

New fields andexploration

oil and gas company has adopted a plan to transition their businessmodels away from oil and gas expansion.101 A number of companies

In this context, several big oil and gas companies published misleading

abandoned previous climate pledges over the last two years, doubling‘net zero’ emissions pledges that contain vast loopholes. Many of thesedown on oil and gas expansion in the face of higher returns in thepledges completely exclude the emissions from the end use of theirsector.

102

No major oil and gas company is committed to ending new

expansion beyond existing fields.

products. For example, ExxonMobil’s ‘net zero’ pledge includes only its
Scope 1 and 2 emissions from its operated assets – even though over

Under development
and producing fields

20

Selected IPCC
1.5°C pathways

15

IEA NZE pathway

85% of its corporate emissions come from its customers burning the oil
This is significant because peer reviewed research shows that the oiland gas it sells.106

BP Net-Zero
IRENA

10

and gas industry has already invested in producing more oil and gas
than can be burned if humanity is to limit warming to 1.5ºC.103 In theConsequently, any investment in companies expanding oil and gas

World Energy Outlook 2023, the International Energy Agency (IEA) again

is inconsistent with limiting warming to 1.5ºC. Any finance to thesereconfirmed its 2021 finding that no new oil or gas fields are “needed”

companies risks fueling more fossil fuel expansion beyond 1.5ºC, evenbeyond those already producing or under development in a 1.5ºC-

when it is not tied to one specific project.

aligned scenario.104 Other scenarios have reached similar conclusions.105

DNV Net-Zero
IMP-Ren
BNEF

5IMP-LD
Navigant0

The IPCC low-demand illustrative mitigation pathway (IMP-LD) is a

2020

scenario that avoids unrealistic and risky reliance on carbon capture

OECM

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

and storage (CCS) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR). In the IPCC’s
P H O T O : Avigator Fortuner / shutterstock

52

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

53

LEAGUE TABLE

and downstream oil, gas, and coal. Bank financing is adjusted for companies’ total percentage
of business done in the fossil fuel sector.

- BANKING ON FOSSIL FUEL EXPANSION

The Banking on Climate Chaos report includes significant methodological changes for 2024.
Results published here are not directly comparable to data published in previous years.
Bank financing for oil, gas, and coal companies expanding fossil fuels in 2023, based on research by Urgewald for the
Global Oil & Gas Exit List 2023 and the Global Coal Exit List 2023. The list is comprised of 873 companies in up-, mid-,

TOTAL

BANK

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

1

CITIGROUP$25.992 B$24.748 B$25.891 B$34.437 B$33.198 B$27.980 B$17.600 B$14.614 B$204.460 B

2

JPMORGAN CHASE$33.178 B$24.911 B$22.297 B$25.860 B$33.431 B$26.727 B$17.069 B$19.312 B$202.785 B

3

BANK OF AMERICA$21.937 B$17.041 B$16.910 B$27.755 B$33.756 B$20.179 B$16.021 B$14.742 B$168.341 B

4MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL$15.924 B$18.188 B$18.228 B$19.717 B$17.631 B$18.144 B$14.678 B$15.417 B$137.928 B

5

MIZUHO FINANCIAL$13.951 B$12.737 B$17.482 B$17.453 B$15.186 B$18.728 B$16.030 B$18.810 B$130.375 B

6

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA$13.133 B$7.724 B$9.205 B$16.566 B$16.512 B$14.502 B$19.030 B$10.074 B$106.745 B

7

CITIC

$9.247 B$7.757 B$13.089 B$15.376 B$14.528 B$16.720 B$16.391 B$12.731 B$105.838 B

8ROYAL BANK OF CANADA$9.309 B$14.062 B$14.729 B$12.465 B$9.557 B$14.702 B$15.563 B$14.924 B$105.309 B

9BARCLAYS$13.730 B$12.941 B$15.351 B$15.034 B$19.151 B$9.927 B$9.563 B$9.219 B$104.916 B

10

HSBC

$12.057 B$15.480 B$11.185 B$16.632 B$18.597 B$12.545 B$7.962 B$5.164 B$99.622 B

11

WELLS FARGO$11.164 B$10.411 B$14.809 B$13.959 B$9.727 B$14.228 B$13.085 B$11.752 B$99.136 B

12SMBC GROUP$8.127 B$10.781 B$13.091 B$16.090 B$15.088 B$11.881 B$12.100 B$11.463 B$98.621 B

13

SCOTIABANK$9.433 B$11.036 B$12.254 B$12.928 B$8.197 B$12.222 B$13.674 B$14.671 B$94.416 B

14

MORGAN STANLEY$12.715 B$10.131 B$12.597 B$15.375 B$12.868 B$11.326 B$6.438 B$11.361 B$92.812 B

15

GOLDMAN SACHS$12.242 B$10.548 B$11.005 B$15.043 B$12.562 B$13.583 B$7.461 B$9.330 B$91.774 B

16

UBS$17.016 B$15.978 B$14.172 B$13.889 B$9.317 B$8.839 B$5.508 B$2.680 B$87.398 B

17

BNP PARIBAS$10.452 B$9.689 B$11.340 B$11.361 B$20.298 B$10.093 B$9.855 B$3.961 B$87.048 B

18

BANK OF CHINA$15.886 B$7.049 B$9.242 B$12.438 B$9.255 B$11.320 B$10.000 B$8.434 B$83.623 B

19

TORONTO-DOMINION BANK

$7.925 B$9.201 B$8.623 B$8.774 B$6.771 B$9.889 B$10.909 B$9.587 B$71.679 B

20

CIBC

$7.032 B$7.653 B$6.855 B$7.843 B$4.859 B$10.306 B$10.097 B$9.211 B$63.856 B

21

BMO FINANCIAL GROUP$6.447 B$8.998 B$8.185 B$9.001 B$7.109 B$7.763 B$8.293 B$7.601 B$63.398 B

22

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

$8.541 B$3.678 B$6.478 B$5.453 B$7.436 B$11.385 B$10.824 B$8.685 B$62.478 B

23

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA$7.862 B$3.679 B$4.648 B$10.333 B$12.674 B$10.468 B$9.495 B$2.435 B$61.593 B

24

DEUTSCHE BANK

$11.803 B$10.071 B$6.206 B$5.485 B$8.409 B$7.713 B$4.842 B$5.699 B$60.228 B

25

CREDIT AGRICOLE$6.146 B$6.817 B$7.143 B$7.308 B$13.920 B$6.223 B$5.688 B$5.064 B$58.309 B

26

SOCIETE GENERALE$7.123 B$6.249 B$6.959 B$8.378 B$13.155 B$7.577 B$5.004 B$3.054 B$57.499 B

27

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

$4.510 B$3.636 B$5.609 B$6.569 B$8.490 B$8.613 B$8.514 B$7.327 B$53.267 B

28

INDUSTRIAL BANK COMPANY$5.093 B$4.105 B$6.627 B$5.292 B$7.243 B$9.961 B$6.159 B$6.356 B$50.836 B

29

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

$9.672 B$4.775 B$5.080 B$6.679 B$6.812 B$5.971 B$6.299 B$3.605 B$48.894 B

30

CHINA EVERBRIGHT GROUP$5.026 B$3.183 B$4.214 B$6.436 B$9.101 B$7.754 B$6.044 B$5.702 B$47.460 B

RANK

B = Billions

54

See explanation in the Methodology section on p. 48
and in the Methodology Appendix on p.106.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

M = Millions

C H A O S 2024

2016-2023

T = Trillions

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

55

LEAGUE TABLE - BANKING ON FOSSIL FUEL EXPANSION
B = Billions

Bank financing for the top 100 key oil, gas, and coal companies expanding fossil fuels in 2022, based on research by
RANK for theBANK
2017
2018
UrgewaldGlobal Oil & Gas Exit List 2022 and the Global Coal2016
Exit List 2022.

T = TrillionsB= BILLIONS
2019

M = MILLIONS
2020

T = TRILLIONS 2022
2021

2023

TOTAL

2016-2023

31

PING AN INSURANCE GROUP$4.379 B$4.108 B$6.943 B$5.127 B$7.759 B$9.441 B$4.615 B$4.376 B$46.748 B

32

SANTANDER$6.752 B$3.766 B$3.787 B$5.307 B$7.137 B$5.191 B$3.666 B$9.677 B$45.283 B

33

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS$3.980 B$3.192 B$2.906 B$3.514 B$4.870 B$7.003 B$8.192 B$2.907 B$36.564 B

34

US BANCORP$4.394 B$2.552 B$3.613 B$5.530 B$3.015 B$5.421 B$4.270 B$4.933 B$33.728 B

35

PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES$3.071 B$3.253 B$5.222 B$5.093 B$2.883 B$4.014 B$5.426 B$4.271 B$33.232 B

36

TRUIST FINANCIAL$2.811 B$2.953 B$4.991 B$3.396 B$1.935 B$5.343 B$6.677 B$4.967 B$33.073 B

37

STANDARD CHARTERED$2.095 B$3.702 B$4.758 B$5.771 B$4.483 B$5.086 B$3.766 B$2.645 B$32.306 B

38

BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA (BBVA)$3.867 B$2.633 B$3.505 B$8.334 B$3.918 B$3.014 B$2.777 B$3.967 B$32.013 B

39

UNICREDIT$3.644 B$3.994 B$3.105 B$5.120 B$5.979 B$2.827 B$3.684 B$2.986 B$31.338 B

40

ING GROUP$3.100 B$4.089 B$4.056 B$4.787 B$2.614 B$4.875 B$3.925 B$3.433 B$30.878 B

41

CHINA MINSHENG BANKING$2.867 B$1.606 B$2.807 B$5.586 B$8.018 B$1.897 B$1.570 B$3.918 B$28.269 B

42

GROUPE BPCE

$2.467 B$2.616 B$3.262 B$3.860 B$3.628 B$4.067 B$3.215 B$2.419 B$25.535 B

43

INTESA SANPAOLO$2.677 B$1.907 B$3.953 B$3.176 B$2.272 B$3.078 B$2.588 B$4.168 B$23.819 B

44

STATE BANK OF INDIA$1.721 B$2.215 B$2.519 B$4.171 B$2.797 B$2.555 B$1.666 B$1.591 B$19.236 B

45

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA$738 M$586 M$724 M$1.574 B$2.062 B$2.562 B$2.172 B$1.098 B$11.516 B

46

NATWEST$1.170 B$2.515 B$1.164 B$1.632 B$1.717 B$1.454 B$1.256 B$376 M$11.283 B

47

LA CAIXA GROUP$795 M$739 M$1.122 B$1.706 B$698 M$1.228 B$1.855 B$1.986 B$10.129 B

48

DBS$1.714 B$1.186 B$1.675 B$2.134 B$1.134 B$405 M$1.026 B$555 M$9.827 B49

ANZ$647 M$1.447 B$1.261 B$1.380 B$1.402 B$252 M$652 M$176 M$7.216 B

50

KB FINANCIAL GROUP$322 M$966 M$1.586 B$1.019 B$1.201 B$592 M$327 M$925 M$6.938 B

51

LLOYDS BANKING GROUP$278 M$1.358 B$677 M$1.284 B$1.672 B$636 M$494 M$51 M$6.449 B

52

COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA$842 M$1.034 B$816 M$926 M$842 M$315 M$74 M$136 M$4.984 B

53

NORDEA$601 M$837 M$485 M$690 M$681 M$816 M$80 M$569 M$4.759 B

54

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK

$569 M$775 M$602 M$460 M$750 M$313 M$205 M$661 M$4.337 B

55

DANSKE BANK$200 M$551 M$306 M$1.023 B$412 M$752 M$108 M$149 M$3.501 B

56

DZ BANK$341 M$142 M$517 M$446 M$339 M$334 M$134 M$956 M$3.209 B

57

RABOBANK$531 M$597 M$550 M$344 M$151 M$261 M$402 M$176 M$3.012 B

58

WESTPAC$445 M$414 M$487 M$619 M$370 M$210 M$194 M$85 M$2.825 B

59

CREDIT MUTUEL$97 M$104 M$218 M$259 M-$130 M$30 M$214 M$1.052 B

60

LA BANQUE POSTALE--$142 M$44 M$116 M$309 M-$113 M$724 M$799.212$407.261BB$484.237 B$489.692 B$451.647 B$385.241 B$347.468 B$3.344 T

GRAND TOTAL
B = Billions
M = Millions

56

M = Millions

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

T = Trillions$409.784B$723.468B$369.097$737.561
B B

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

57

TAR SANDS OIL

Each step of tar sands oil extraction – mining, refining, andof Yale University and the Environment and Climate Change Canada

accumulation of tailings waste – contributes to the toxic mix of

Air Pollution program revealed that emissions from the Alberta tar

chemicals in the air, water, and land. The process is energy andsands are grossly underrepresented, exposing carbon emissions thatemissions intensive, not to mention the emissions from burning theexceed industry reported values by 1900% to 6300%.112 Despite these

extracted fossil fuel.109 The earliest development of the tar sands in thealarming impacts, banks continue to finance the tar sands industry.

late 1960s in Canada happened without companies obtaining Free,
Prior, and Informed Consent, and First Nations communities continue

Finance for tar sands companies declined in 2023 compared withto live with the toxic consequences.110 Tar sands extraction devastates

previous years. Canadian banks dominate the tar sands league table.

First Nations’ health, forests they inhabited, and hunting grounds

CIBC, RBC, Scotiabank, and TD top the chart.

through Alberta, Canada.111 In January 2024, research led by a team»For a detailed assessment of banks’ Tar Sands policies, see the Oil and Gas Policy Tracker
at OilGasPolicyTracker.org and excerpted at: BankingonClimateChaos.org

Number of policies covering Tar Sands

27

Number of very weak policies

4

Number of weak policies

21

Number of comprehensive policies

1

Number of strong policies

1

P H O T O : dan_prat / iStock58

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

59

LEAGUE TABLE - BANKING ON TAR SANDS OIL

The Banking on Climate Chaos report includes significant methodological changes for 2024.
Results published here are not directly comparable to data published in previous years.

Bank financing for 37 tar sands production companies in 2023, based on research by Urgewald for the Global Oil & Gas
Exit List 2023. Bank financing is adjusted for the percentage of each company’s fossil fuel production that is in tar sands oil
according to the GOGEL.

RANK

TOTAL

BANK

2023

2016-2023

RANK

1ROYAL BANK OF CANADA$523 M$13.413 B

31

GROUPE BPCE

-

$55 M

2

JPMORGAN CHASE$311 M$10.443 B

32

INTESA SANPAOLO

-

$55 M

3

BMO FINANCIAL GROUP$101 M$9.061 B

33

DBS

-

$48 M

4

TORONTO-DOMINION BANK

$517 M$8.251 B

34

BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA (BBVA)

$1 M

$47 M

5

CIBC

$523 M$7.964 B

35

ANZ

-

$36 M

6

SCOTIABANK$523 M$5.876 B

36

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA

-

$30 M

7

BANK OF AMERICA$363 M$5.709 B

37

UNICREDIT

-

$30 M

8

SMBC GROUP$365 M$5.327 B

38

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

-

$22 M

9

BARCLAYS$1 M$5.313 B

39

NATWEST

<$1 M

$22 M

10

CITIGROUP$283 M$4.406 B

40

CHINA MINSHENG BANKING

-

$19 M

11

MIZUHO FINANCIAL$378 M$4.072 B

41

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

-

$17 M

12

MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL$73 M$3.877 B

42

CHINA EVERBRIGHT GROUP

-

$15 M

13

HSBC

$29 M

$2.533 B

43

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK

-

$14 M

14

MORGAN STANLEY$255 M$2.032 B

44

WESTPAC

-

$11 M

15

GOLDMAN SACHS$20 M$1.987 B

45

INDUSTRIAL BANK COMPANY

-

$10 M

16

WELLS FARGO$2 M$1.491 B

46

NORDEA

-

$6 M

17

UBS

$27 M

$1.114 B

47

PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES

-

$6 M

18

BNP PARIBAS$2 M$1.027 B

48

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA

-

$5 M

19

SOCIETE GENERALE$1 M$759 M

49

PING AN INSURANCE GROUP

-

$4 M

20

DEUTSCHE BANK

$3 M

$627 M

50

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

-

$1 M

21

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

$71 M

$611 M

51

COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA

-

-

22

LLOYDS BANKING GROUP-$530 M

52

CREDIT MUTUEL

-

-

23

CREDIT AGRICOLE$28 M$521 M53

DZ BANK--

24

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA$1 M$391 M54

DANSKE BANK

-

-

25

ING GROUP$12 M$359 M

55

KB FINANCIAL GROUP

-

-

26

STANDARD CHARTERED$12 M$302 M

56

LA BANQUE POSTALE

-

-

27

BANK OF CHINA-$262 M57

LA CAIXA GROUP

-

-

28

US BANCORP-$215 M

58

RABOBANK

-

-

29

CITIC

-

$133 M

59

STATE BANK OF INDIA

-

-

30

SANTANDER$2 M$129 M

60

TRUIST FINANCIAL--$4.430 B$99.187 B

B = Billions

60

TOTAL

See explanation in the Methodology section on p. 48 and in the Methodology Appendix on p. 108.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

M = Millions

C H A O S 2024

T = Trillions

2023

BANK

GRAND TOTALB A N K I N G

2016-2023

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

61

The Gwich’in Steering Committee & Indigenous community partners(AMAP).115 They are also able to continue providing finance for “generalacross the Arctic region advocated for many years that banks adopt

corporate purposes” to companies such as ConocoPhillips, developer ofArctic oil and gas exclusions. As a result, 35 of the 60 banks covered in

the controversial Willow project, which received financing in 2022.116

this report have an Arctic oil and gas policy.

113

ARCTICOIL AND GAS

Unfortunately, Bank ofAmerica recently rolled back its Arctic exclusion policy.114 That policy,

Finance for Arctic oil & gas declined in 2023, though several companies

like many other Arctic policies, was already severely limited in scope.

made discoveries in the region or recommitted to drilling, especially in

It applied only to project finance, and it defined the Arctic narrowly.

Norway.117 Notable companies receiving financing in 2023 include Eni

By including only oil and gas assets within the Arctic Circle, banks

SpA and its subsidiary Var Energi, along with Aker BP.118 Unicredit andare potentially still exposed to more than 100 projects in the Arctic

Citi top the list of banks financing these companies.

as holistically defined by the Monitoring and Assessment Programme»

For a detailed assessment of banks’ Arctic oil and gas policies, see the Oil and Gas Policy
Tracker at OilGasPolicyTracker.org and excerpted at: BankingonClimateChaos.org

Number of policies covering Arctic

35

Number of very weak policies

18

Number of weak policies

15

Number of comprehensive policies

1

Number of strong policies

1

P H O T O : sarkophoto / iStock62

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

63

LEAGUE TABLE - BANKING ON ARCTIC OIL AND GAS

The Banking on Climate Chaos report includes significant methodological changes for 2024.
Results published here are not directly comparable to data published in previous years.

Bank financing for 44 Arctic production companies in 2023, based on research by Urgewald for the Global Oil & Gas Exit
List 2023. Bank financing is adjusted for the percentage of each company’s fossil fuel production that is in Arctic oil & gas.

RANK

BANK

2023

2016-2023

RANK

1JPMORGAN CHASE$122 M$3.650 B

2

CITIGROUP$246 M

3

CREDIT AGRICOLE

4

TOTAL

BANK

2023

31

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA<$1 M$195 M$3.460 B

32

CIBC

-

$172 M$191 M$3.286 B

33

NATWEST<$1 M$165 M

UNICREDIT$266 M$2.838 B

34

LLOYDS BANKING GROUP-$143 M

5

BARCLAYS$201 M$2.698 B

35

BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA (BBVA)$7 M$138 M

6

BNP PARIBAS$33 M$2.424 B

36

SCOTIABANK-$127 M

7

INTESA SANPAOLO$210 M$2.396 B

37

TORONTO-DOMINION BANK-

$116 M

8

SOCIETE GENERALE$65 M$2.257 B

38

LA CAIXA GROUP-$114 M

9

BANK OF AMERICA$145 M$2.084 B

39

DZ BANK-$103 M

10

HSBC

$12 M

$1.673 B

40

WESTPAC

-

$91 M

11

ING GROUP$174 M$1.651 B

41

US BANCORP

-

$87 M

12

SMBC GROUP$162 M$1.582 B

42

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA

$7 M

$85 M

13

MIZUHO FINANCIAL-$1.560 B

43

CHINA MINSHENG BANKING

-

$78 M

14

BANK OF CHINA-$1.518 B

44

ANZ

-

$69 M

15

MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL$61 M$1.466 B

45

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

-

$67 M

16

DEUTSCHE BANK

$17 M

$1.307 B

46

CITIC

-

$47 M

17

GOLDMAN SACHS$34 M$1.090 B

47

PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES

-

$21 M

18

MORGAN STANLEY$41 M$1.087 B

48

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

-

$19 M

19

GROUPE BPCE

$152 M$946 M

49

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK

-

$18 M

20

STATE BANK OF INDIA-$889 M

50

PING AN INSURANCE GROUP

-

$7 M

21

UBS

-

$793 M

51

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA

-

$7 M

22

WELLS FARGO$63 M$780 M

52

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

-

$5 M

23

NORDEA$47 M$595 M

53

INDUSTRIAL BANK COMPANY

-

$3 M

24

STANDARD CHARTERED$104 M$560 M

54

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

-

$1 M

25

DANSKE BANK

$11 M

$491 M

55

CHINA EVERBRIGHT GROUP

-

-

26

SANTANDER$33 M$430 M

56

CREDIT MUTUEL

-

-

27

DBS

-

$403 M

57

KB FINANCIAL GROUP

-

-

28

BMO FINANCIAL GROUP-$386 M

58

LA BANQUE POSTALE

-

-

29

COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA-$257 M

59

RABOBANK--30

ROYAL BANK OF CANADA-$209 M

60

TRUIST FINANCIAL--$2.402 B$46.646 B

B = Billions

64

TOTAL

See explanation in the Methodology section on p. 48 and in the Methodology Appendix on p. 108.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

M = Millions

C H A O S 2024

T = Trillions

GRAND TOTALB A N K I N G

2016-2023

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

65

FROM THE FRONTLINES“We have traveled (to the United States) from far away to explain to the banks that have invested in Petroperú that this company is trying to open
new oil wells in our territories in order to pay them back. The desperation to pay back the money lended by the banks for the construction of theirrefinery is causing conflicts and even death threats among those of us who reject the activity.”–Senar Irar, President of the Peruvian Federation of Achuar Nation

Banking on Amazon Oil and Gas is presented in

AMAZONOIL AND GAS

collaboration with Stand.earth Research Group.
“The more than 85 communities that make up the integral territory of the Wampís Nation oppose the entry of oil operations into their territories.
In our territory we suffered the irresponsibility of Petroperú in the past, which caused the largest oil spill in all of Latin America. Now we face a new
threat. Petroperú needs to activate oil wells in our territory to pay the debts it has acquired from commercial banks such as JPMorgan Chase.”–Neil Encinas, Leader for the Autonomous Territorial Government of the Wampís Nation“Citi talks about respecting the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous communities as set down by the UN, but it has clients like
Petroperú which refuse to recognize the right to say no of seven Indigenous nations in the Peruvian Amazon. Petroperu’s disregard for Indigenous
rights should mean something to the banks that lend them money, but in reality their mutual business continues. If they are serious about
Indigenous rights, Citi must hold its clients accountable to ensure that their due diligence adheres to international standards of Free, Prior andInformed Consent.”–Olivia Bisa, President of the Autonomous Territorial Government of the Chapra Nation

This report analyzes transactions with 24 companies for which there

Bank commitments to protect the Amazon biome do not go far

is evidence of direct involvement in oil and gas extraction in theenough, especially given the ecological significance of the biome

Amazon biome in Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, and Colombia as defined byand the significant, sustained opposition from Indigenous Peoples.

Amazonian Georeferenced Socio-Environmental Information Network

BNP Paribas, HSBC, Société Générale, Intesa Sanpaolo, Barclays(RAISG).

119

Companies with a direct relationship to the region include

and Standard Chartered are the only banks that restrict financing toblock operators and state-run oil companies. These companies werecompanies active in Amazon oil and gas extraction, though all but

either assigned a 100% direct relationship or given a proportion based

HSBC and Barclays have definitions of the region that fall short of theon the capital expenditures, operating costs, and production costs

RAISG standard. Bank policies should define the region according toassociated with any Amazon oil and gas projects. To qualify as 100%

the definition of Amazonia detailed by RAISG. BNP Paribas, ING, anddirect, a company must have the majority of its oil and gas projects andNatixis exclude trade financing for Ecuadorian Amazon oil from their

all of its major producing blocks in the Amazon. Research on companies

portfolios.120

operating in the Amazon was conducted by Stand.earth ResearchGroup, which also provided bank policy assessment.

66

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

P H O T O : Santiago Cornejo / Amazon WatchP H O T O : Amazon WatchB A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

67

LEAGUE TABLE - BANKING ON AMAZON OIL AND GAS

The Banking on Climate Chaos report includes significant methodological changes for 2024.
Results published here are not directly comparable to data published in previous years.

Bank financing for 24 companies with direct involvement in oil and gas extraction in the Amazon biome in 2023, based on
research by Stand.earth Research Group.

RANK

BANK

2023

2016-2023

RANK

1CITIGROUP$124 M$1.981 B

31

STANDARD CHARTERED

2JPMORGAN CHASE$130 M$1.595 B

32

3BANK OF AMERICA$162 M$1.397 B

4

HSBC

-

5

SANTANDER

6

TOTAL

2023

BANK

2016-2023

-

$11 M

DZ BANK

$1 M

$6 M

33

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

$1 M

$6 M

$1.094 B

34

ANZ

-

$5 M

$35 M

$1.065 B

35

CITIC

<$1 M

$2 M

GOLDMAN SACHS$2 M$844 M

36

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA

<$1 M

$1 M

7

UBS

$5 M

$550 M

37

LLOYDS BANKING GROUP

<$1 M

<$1 M

8

SCOTIABANK$19 M$472 M

38

STATE BANK OF INDIA

<$1 M

<$1 M

9

BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA (BBVA)$5 M$423 M

39

BMO FINANCIAL GROUP

-

-

10

SOCIETE GENERALE$2 M$240 M

40

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

-

-

11

ROYAL BANK OF CANADA-$208 M

41

CHINA EVERBRIGHT GROUP

-

-

12

GROUPE BPCE

$3 M

$160 M

42

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

-

-

13

DEUTSCHE BANK

$104 M$118 M

43

CHINA MINSHENG BANKING

-

-

14

BNP PARIBAS-$111 M

44

COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA

-

-

15

MIZUHO FINANCIAL$2 M$105 M

45

CREDIT MUTUEL

-

-

16

LA CAIXA GROUP

<$1 M

$98 M

46

DANSKE BANK

-

-

17

CIBC

-

$93 M

47

INDUSTRIAL BANK COMPANY

-

-

18

MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL

$6 M

$78 M

48

KB FINANCIAL GROUP

-

-

19

CREDIT AGRICOLE

$4 M

$73 M

49

LA BANQUE POSTALE

-

-

20

SMBC GROUP

$11 M

$63 M

50

NATWEST--

21

MORGAN STANLEY

-

$62 M

51

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK

-

-

22

INTESA SANPAOLO

-

$61 M

52

NORDEA--

23

UNICREDIT

$2 M

$60 M

53

PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES

-

-

24

ING GROUP

$4 M

$54 M

54

PING AN INSURANCE GROUP

-

-

25

BANK OF CHINA

$1 M

$31 M

55

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA

-

-

26

BARCLAYS

-

$21 M

56

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

-

-

27

RABOBANK

$2 M

$17 M

57

TRUIST FINANCIAL

-

-

28

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA

$5 M

$16 M

58

US BANCORP

-

-

29

TORONTO-DOMINION BANK

-

$13 M

59

WELLS FARGO

-

-

30

DBS

$2 M

$13 M

60

WESTPAC--$632 M$11.148 B

B = Billions

68

TOTAL

See explanation in the Methodology section on p. 48 and in the Methodology Appendix on p. 108.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

M = Millions

C H A O S 2024

T = Trillions

GRAND TOTALB A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

69

ULTRA DEEPWATER
OIL AND GAS

Fossil fuel industry analysts project significant increases in deepwater

Opening up new ultra-deepwater oil and gas blocks is inconsistent withoil and gas extraction through 2030.121 Wood Mackenzie projects thatphasing out fossil fuels. All offshore drilling is risky and can devastate

ultra-deepwater production – extraction at depths greater than 1500

marine environments and communities dependent on fishing. Highmeters – will account for more than half of all deepwater production

wave activity can make it impossible to clean up oil spills, and effects

in 2024.

122

While this sector is heavily consolidated – there are only

on wildlife and corals can be severe. The impact on workers exposeda handful of active companies – the number of projects that haveto spills is high, and many face prolonged legal battles with little

reached or are scheduled to reach a final investment decision (FID) is

restitution.124 While proponents point to less emissions in the extraction

growing. Notably, Australia’s Woodside Energy Group $7.2 billion Trionprocess, this reasoning ignores the decades-long lock-in from opening

ultra deepwater oil project and Shell Offshore’s Sparta development,

new reserves.

both in the Gulf of Mexico, reached FID in 2023.123»

P H O T O : landbysea / iStockFor a detailed assessment of banks’ Ultra-Deepwater oil and gas policies, see the Oil
and Gas Policy Tracker at OilGasPolicyTracker.org and excerpted at:
BankingonClimateChaos.org

Number of policies covering Ultradeep

20

Number of very weak policies

10

Number of weak policies

8

Number of comprehensive policies

1

Number of strong policies

1

FROM THE FRONTLINES“The offshore natural gas extraction project spurred actions on land (and along the coast) that culminatedin the loss of communities' livelihoods, forced resettlement, and the outbreak of a bloody (civil) conflict. The
environmental impacts on the high seas are irreversible, in an area close to a UNESCO World Biosphere
Reserve. The change in the health and availability of marine resources, the landscape, and the climate in
the region means that our fight is for the protection of nature, social well-being and peace. Banks who havesigned a loan agreement for Mozambique LNG should distance themselves from this bloody conflict andwithdraw their financing.”–Kete Fumo, Justiça Ambiental (JA!)

70

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

71

LEAGUE TABLE - BANKING ON ULTRA DEEPWATER OIL AND GASBank financing for 65 companies with ultra deepwater oil & gas activity, based on research by Urgewald for the Global Oil& Gas Exit List 2023. Bank financing is adjusted for the percentage of each company’s fossil fuel production that is in ultra
deepwater oil & gas.

RANK

See explanation in the Methodology section on p. 48 and in the Methodology Appendix on p. 108.

BANK

2023

2016-2023

RANK

1BANK OF AMERICA$114 M$9.243 B

2CITIGROUP$259 M

3

JPMORGAN CHASE

4

TOTAL

BANK

2023

31

DBS

$63 M

$340 M$7.478 B

32

LLOYDS BANKING GROUP-$318 M$115 M$7.299 B

33

NATWEST$12 M$313 M

MORGAN STANLEY$53 M$5.357 B

34

US BANCORP$6 M$299 M

5

BNP PARIBAS$103 M$4.996 B

35

INTESA SANPAOLO$30 M$211 M

6

SANTANDER$166 M$4.685 B

36

CIBC

$10 M

$195 M

7

HSBC$118 M$4.518 B

37

WESTPAC$8 M$163 M

8

BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA (BBVA)$22 M$4.239 B

38

PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES$6 M$139 M

9

MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL$512 M$3.888 B

39

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

$24 M

$123 M

10

BARCLAYS$78 M$3.812 B

40

LA CAIXA GROUP-$118 M

11

GOLDMAN SACHS$167 M$3.594 B

41

BMO FINANCIAL GROUP

-

$96 M

12

UBS

$118 M$3.541 B

42

TRUIST FINANCIAL

-

$96 M

13

MIZUHO FINANCIAL$337 M$3.251 B

43

KB FINANCIAL GROUP

$41 M

$84 M

14

CREDIT AGRICOLE$82 M$2.864 B

44

COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA

-

$83 M

15

SMBC GROUP$281 M$2.746 B

45

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA

$5 M

$74 M

16

SOCIETE GENERALE$35 M$2.443 B

46

DZ BANK

$8 M

$59 M

17

SCOTIABANK$184 M$2.423 B

47

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

-

$51 M

18

DEUTSCHE BANK

$72 M

$1.896 B

48

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

-

$50 M

19

STANDARD CHARTERED$78 M$1.604 B

49

CHINA EVERBRIGHT GROUP

-

$44 M

20

BANK OF CHINA$98 M$1.543 B

50

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK

$8 M

$44 M

21

WELLS FARGO$41 M$1.097 B

51

CHINA MINSHENG BANKING

-

$39 M

22

ROYAL BANK OF CANADA$25 M$998 M

52

INDUSTRIAL BANK COMPANY

-

$22 M

23

STATE BANK OF INDIA$238 M$981 M

53

NORDEA

-

$14 M

24

GROUPE BPCE

$38 M

$854 M

54

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA

-

$11 M

25

ANZ

$84 M

$732 M

55

PING AN INSURANCE GROUP

-

$7 M

26

ING GROUP$28 M$576 M

56

CREDIT MUTUEL

-

$5 M

27

UNICREDIT$14 M$488 M

57

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

-

$3 M

28

CITIC

-

$416 M58

DANSKE BANK

-

-

29

TORONTO-DOMINION BANK

$13 M

$370 M

59

LA BANQUE POSTALE

-

-

30

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA$26 M$366 M

60

RABOBANK--$3.724 B$91.301 B

B = Billions

72

TOTAL

The Banking on Climate Chaos report includes significant methodological changes for 2024.
Results published here are not directly comparable to data published in previous years.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

M = Millions

C H A O S 2024

T = Trillions

GRAND TOTALB A N K I N G

2016-2023

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

73

FRACKEDOIL AND GASHydraulic fracturing or “fracking” is a harmful way to extract

2023. They “uncovered no evidence that fracking can be practiced

underground oil and methane gas by injecting water and chemicals into

in a manner that does not threaten human health directly or without

the ground at high pressure. The process is water-intensive and highly

imperiling climate stability upon which human health depends.”133

polluting.129 Evidence of devastating human health impacts continues
to accumulate. A study published in 2023 found that older adults living

Fracked gas – also called “natural” gas – is 95% methane (see box, p.

near fracking sites in Pennsylvania were more likely to be hospitalizedx). While its promoters suggest that it provides jobs, evidence suggests

for cardiovascular diseases.

130

In 2022, researchers reported that

otherwise.134

children born within 2km of a fracking well were nearly twice as likely
to develop acute lymphoblastic leukemia.131 Fracking contributes toAmong the banks in scope of this report, 24 have a policy on fracking.135

preterm births, low birth weight, and worsened asthma, among otherproblems.132 Concerned Health Professionals of NY and Physiciansfor Social Responsibility released the 9th edition of their 600+ page
review of scientific, medical, and media findings on fracking in October

P H O T O : grandriver / iStock»For a detailed assessment of banks’ Fracked oil and gas policies,
see the Oil and Gas Policy Tracker at OilGasPolicyTracker.org andexcerpted at: BankingonClimateChaos.org

Number of policies covering Fracking

25

Number of very weak policies

11

Number of weak policies

12

Number of comprehensive policies

1

Number of strong policies

1

FROM THE FRONTLINESMETHANE“Fracking in Vaca Muerta leads to water pollution, the loss of animals, and fruit

This greenhouse gas is a key contributor to climate change because it has a warming potential 80
times higher than carbon dioxide, over a 20 year period.125 Research reveals that the fracked gas

plants wither. The public hearings have been closed to dissenting voices, and wehaven't been able to participate. It's the same colonialist process as five hundredyears ago. In the midst of an overwhelming process of unbridled capitalism,boom has increased global methane emission by an estimated 33% over the last decade.126 One

which plunders territories and produces climate change, we are calling for an

major source of emissions is methane releases along the supply chain.

awakening to think about other models of development, more compatible with

127

Between 3-9% of fracked

gas produced is released into the atmosphere through extraction and transportation methods.

128

the earth.”–Orlando Carriqueo, Werquen (Messenger) of the Mapuche Tehuelche
Parliament of Rio Negro74

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

75

LEAGUE TABLE - BANKING ON FRACKED OIL AND GAS

The Banking on Climate Chaos report includes significant methodological changes for 2024.
Results published here are not directly comparable to data published in previous years.

Bank financing for 237 companies with fracking activity, based on research by Urgewald for the Global Oil & Gas Exit List
2023. Bank financing is adjusted for the percentage of each company’s fossil fuel production that is in fracking.

RANK

BANK

2023

2016-2023

RANK

1JPMORGAN CHASE$6.071 B$55.951 B

2

CITIGROUP$3.300 B

3

WELLS FARGO

4

TOTAL

BANK

2023

31

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

$1.116 B$4.181 B$49.452 B

32

ING GROUP$167 M$3.774 B$4.275 B$48.471 B

33

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA$226 M$3.367 B

BANK OF AMERICA$3.896 B$48.389 B

34

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

$699 M$2.758 B

5

ROYAL BANK OF CANADA$2.954 B$31.942 B

35

PING AN INSURANCE GROUP$527 M$2.735 B

6SCOTIABANK$2.548 B$28.463 B

36

SANTANDER$455 M$2.652 B

7

MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL$1.603 B$27.235 B

37

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

$242 M$2.052 B

8

CIBC$2.846 B$26.322 B

38

CHINA MINSHENG BANKING$32 M$1.595 B

9

TORONTO-DOMINION BANK

$2.368 B$24.202 B

39

RABOBANK$131 M$1.181 B

10BMO FINANCIAL GROUP$1.328 B$23.731 B

40

UNICREDIT$3 M$1.016 B

11

GOLDMAN SACHS$3.854 B$23.174 B

41

NATWEST$27 M$1.004 B

12

MIZUHO FINANCIAL$2.188 B$22.501 B

42

DBS

-

$968 M

13

UBS$555 M$22.069 B

43

INDUSTRIAL BANK COMPANY$32 M$932 M

14

BARCLAYS$2.178 B$19.852 B

44

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA-$777 M

15

TRUIST FINANCIAL$2.309 B$18.439 B

45

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS$185 M$754 M

16

MORGAN STANLEY$3.043 B$17.602 B

46

CHINA EVERBRIGHT GROUP$32 M$640 M17

PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES$2.155 B$17.424 B

47

INTESA SANPAOLO$23 M$571 M

18

US BANCORP$2.627 B$16.128 B

48

LLOYDS BANKING GROUP-$550 M

19

SMBC GROUP$975 M$14.007 B

49

COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA<$1 M$527 M

20

HSBC$335 M$13.783 B

50

ANZ

-

$437 M

21

CITIC$815 M$9.533 B

51

STATE BANK OF INDIA-$359 M

22

SOCIETE GENERALE$174 M$9.300 B

52

NORDEA-$248 M

23

BNP PARIBAS$111 M$9.095 B

53

KB FINANCIAL GROUP$81 M$167 M

24

CREDIT AGRICOLE$276 M$9.064 B

54

LA CAIXA GROUP-$156 M

25

DEUTSCHE BANK

$346 M$8.666 B

55

WESTPAC

<$1 M

$91 M

26

BANK OF CHINA$838 M$5.551 B

56

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK

<$1 M

$35 M

27

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA$578 M$5.521 B

57

DZ BANK

<$1 M

$9 M

28

STANDARD CHARTERED$165 M$4.806 B

58

CREDIT MUTUEL

-

-

29

GROUPE BPCE

$131 M$4.754 B

59

DANSKE BANK

-

-

30

BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA (BBVA)$210 M$4.275 B

60

LA BANQUE POSTALE--$59.033 B$653.243 B

B = Billions

76

TOTAL

See explanation in the Methodology section on p. 48 and in the Methodology Appendix on p. 108.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

M = Millions

C H A O S 2024

T = Trillions

GRAND TOTALB A N K I N G

2016-2023

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

77

The global gas market is deeply affected by the Russian invasion offuel. We look at it as being a destination fuel for decades to come.”140

Ukraine in 2022, resulting in record purchases of liquefied methane

For years the industry has described methane gas as a “bridge” orgas by European and Asian consumers, raising prices to record“transition” fuel that could contribute to climate change mitigation.

highs.137 Communities impacted by both import and export continue

Neff’s statement exposes the truth behind the gas industry’s strategy.

to challenge methane gas as a false solution, even as developers pushClimate advocates have long called out this flawed logic.141 Indeed,ahead with their disastrous plans.

building methane gas infrastructure now will lock us into decades of138

climate chaos.							METHANE GASIMPORT AND EXPORTIn January 2024, the U.S. White House and the Department of Energy		(DOE) announced that it will halt new approvals of liquefied methane

Despite the climate impacts, community resistance, and landmark

gas export terminals while the agency reviews its criteria for determining

export pause from the Biden-Harris Administration, new terminals —whether an application is in the public interest.

139

In the United States,

both export and import — continue to reach FID, finish construction,

there are 12 terminals actively waiting for DOE approval, which would

and are becoming active. A wave of new projects coming online in 2025

have lifecycle emissions of over 830 MMT CO2e/year, or the equivalent

could create conditions for a supply glut after 2026.142 Global Energyof 223 coal plants.

Monitor estimates that the overall liquified methane gas buildout is $1
trillion around the world.143			

This announcement signals a recognition of the risks of methane, which
include the clear and growing evidence that methane gas exports are

Coal is not called “natural” rock. It’s a fossil fuel. Likewise,inconsistent with global climate targets, they drive up domestic U.S.

there is no such thing as “natural” gas. It’s methane, and it’s aenergy prices, and they harm local communities and critical ecosystems.

fossil fuel. For transport, methane gas is super-cooled to around

This re-evaluation of public interest determination criteria could lead

-160°C, at which point it condenses into a liquid. Liquefaction,

to significant limitations on the approval of new methane gas (LNG)

which reduces the gas’s volume for shipping, happens at methane

exports from the United States.

export terminals situated on the coast or on offshore floating
terminals.144 From there, tanker ships carry the liquefied methane“During this period, we will take a hard look at the impacts of
LNG exports on energy costs, America’s energy security, and ourenvironment. This pause on new LNG approvals sees the climate
crisis for what it is: the existential threat of our time"– U.S. President Joe Biden, on decision to pause
pending approvals of liquified natural gas exports136

In March 2024, Clay Neff, president of international exploration andto its destination. At a methane import terminal, it is regasified

production for Chevron, criticized the Biden administration action to— or turned back into a gas form — and piped to power plants,pause methane gas export permits by saying, “It’s not just a transition

where it is burned for energy. See also “Methane”, p. 74.

FROM THE FRONTLINES
Sulphur, Louisiana resident and mom of 6, Roishetta Ozane, Founderand Director of the Vessel Project of Louisiana and Finance Coordinator
for Texas Campaign for the Environment, sheds light on the devastatingconsequences of fossil fuel buildout: “As major banks and insurancecompanies continue to finance and insure projects such as LNG andPetrochemical Industries that pose a threat to our communities, it isimperative that we educate our communities and fight back."145

P H O T O : Aerial-motion / RAN

78

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

79

WHERE IS ALL OF THIS METHANE GOING?
CLIENT PROFILE: KEPCO
On the import side of the methane gas business, banks have provided

As part of another consortium, KEPCO is planning the 3000 MW Longsignificant financing to support methane gas expansion acrossAn methane power plant which, again, will be coupled with a massive

Asia, and to a lesser extent other parts of the world. South Korea’s

new methane gas import terminal.147 As a result of political conditions

state-owned KEPCO is the world’s biggest methane gas-fired powerin Vietnam, the methane gas build-out in that country has been largely

developer. The company plans to build more than 17 GW of new

unchallenged.

P H O T O : Shawna Ambrose / RAN

methane gas-fired power plants. Out of this total, 14.9 GW are planned
domestically to replace parts of KEPCO's giant coal plant fleet.

Banks providing finance to KEPCO in 2023 include UBS, Bank of

KEPCO’s other expansion projects are mainly located in Southeast Asian

America, Mizuho, JPMorgan Chase, and Citi.

countries including Indonesia, Vietnam, and Malaysia. They are alsosponsoring projects in Nigeria, Jamaica, and Saudi Arabia. Gas-fired

The rise in rankings among the three Japanese mega-banks - Mizuho,

Enbridge Inc

power plants will be fed by massive new methane gas import terminals.

MUFG, and SMBC - is driven in no small part by financing for methane

NextDecade Corp - Rio Grande LNG

gas expansion across Asia. Public financial institutions are playing a key
KEPCO and its peers KOGAS and Hanwha Energy formed a joint venturerole in driving this expansion, alongside these three private banks whichwith Vietnam’s T&T to build a 1500 MW methane gas fired power plant

together provided $13.34 billion in commitments to methane gas (LNG)

at Hai Lang.146 The plant is located on the shores of the East Vietnam

companies in 2023 alone.148

top methane Gas
Clients 2023:– Gerry Arances and Elizabeth Bast, April 2024149

80

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

SempraEni SpA

Sea. Fuel supply would come by ship to an import terminal at Hai Lang.

“Japan is one of the world's top providers of public financefor gas, spending $4.3 billion on average each year from2020-2022. In Southeast Asia, the Japanese government
and megabanks have plowed $9.7 billion into methane gas
projects over the last decade"

Venture Global LNG Inc

Number of policies covering methane gas (LNG)

13

Number of very weak policies

8

Number of weak policies

4

Number of comprehensive policies

0

Number of strong policies

1
B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

81

LEAGUE TABLE - BANKING ON LIQUEFIED METHANE GAS (LNG) EXPANSIONBank financing for 129 liquefied methane gas companies in 2023, based on research by Urgewald for the Global Oil & Gas
Exit List 2023. This table summarizes all financing to companies with expansion plans for liquefaction and regasification
terminals listed on the GOGEL. Note that additional companies with current operations but no expansion plans are also
included in the all fossil fuels league table, but not included in this expansion ranking.
RANK

See explanation in the Methodology section on p. 48 and in the Methodology Appendix on p. 108.

TOTAL

BANK

2023

2016-2023

RANK

BANK

2023

1

CITIGROUP$4.318 B$55.415 B

31

CIBC

$2.056 B$11.187 B

2

JPMORGAN CHASE$5.341 B$54.543 B

32

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

$1.680 B$10.374 B

3

BANK OF AMERICA$4.605 B$49.576 B

33

CHINA EVERBRIGHT GROUP$449 M

$9.644 B

4MIZUHO FINANCIAL$10.944 B$40.032 B

34

BMO FINANCIAL GROUP$2.116 B$9.214 B

5

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA$2.954 B$37.614 B

35

ING GROUP$1.607 B$8.872 B

6

MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL$8.362 B$37.534 B

36

BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA (BBVA)$2.028 B$8.750 B

7

BARCLAYS$2.475 B$34.239 B

37

STANDARD CHARTERED$1.455 B$8.332 B

8

SMBC GROUP$4.934 B$31.957 B

38

GROUPE BPCE

$1.488 B$8.288 B

9MORGAN STANLEY$5.245 B$30.341 B

39BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS$350 M$7.874 B

10BANK OF CHINA$2.748 B$28.020 B

40

TRUIST FINANCIAL$1.342 B$5.726 B

11

CITIC

$1.928 B$27.534 B

41

PING AN INSURANCE GROUP$56 M$5.382 B

12

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA$806 M$26.797 B

42

PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES$575 M$4.477 B

13

HSBC$2.051 B$25.952 B

43

STATE BANK OF INDIA-$4.003 B

14

BNP PARIBAS$1.784 B$25.300 B

44

NATWEST$134 M$3.810 B

15

ROYAL BANK OF CANADA$6.219 B$25.218 B

45

US BANCORP$207 M$3.562 B

16

SOCIETE GENERALE$1.994 B$22.524 B

46

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA$273 M$3.399 B

17

SCOTIABANK$4.415 B$20.904 B

47

LA CAIXA GROUP$853 M$2.861 B

18

GOLDMAN SACHS$2.052 B$20.812 B

48

LLOYDS BANKING GROUP-$2.284 B

19

CREDIT AGRICOLE$3.352 B$20.703 B

49

DBS

$92 M

$2.071 B

20

DEUTSCHE BANK

$2.662 B$19.751 B

50

DZ BANK$689 M$1.771 B

21

UBS$1.113 B$18.657 B

51

ANZ

-

$1.462 B

22

SANTANDER$6.821 B$18.588 B

52

NORDEA$200 M$1.103 B

23

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

$1.986 B$17.893 B

53

KB FINANCIAL GROUP$195 M$1.020 B

24

WELLS FARGO$3.462 B$15.465 B

54

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK$200 M$761 M

25

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

$674 M$15.066 B

55

RABOBANK-$711 M

26

TORONTO-DOMINION BANK

$1.929 B$13.841 B

56

LA BANQUE POSTALE$113 M$552 M

27

INTESA SANPAOLO$3.411 B$13.227 B

57

CREDIT MUTUEL$151 M$373 M

28

UNICREDIT$2.102 B$12.903 B

58

COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA-$136 M

29

INDUSTRIAL BANK COMPANY$1.467 B$12.834 B

59

WESTPAC

-

$98 M

30

CHINA MINSHENG BANKING$492 M$11.819 B

60

DANSKE BANK--

$120.952 B$913.156 B

B = Billions

82

TOTAL

The Banking on Climate Chaos report includes significant methodological changes for 2024.
Results published here are not directly comparable to data published in previous years.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

M = Millions

C H A O S 2024

T = Trillions

GRAND TOTALB A N K I N G

2016-2023

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

83

COAL POWER

The coal power transition looks bleak. New coal-fired power plants​​Some coal power companies greenwash their transitions by sellingare still being built, and most coal companies are mishandling theiror reorganizing their coal plants instead of closing them. The Czech

transitions away from coal.

utility Energetický a Průmyslový Holding (EPH) has an especially creative
greenwashing strategy. While EPH declares that it will “completely

The scientific consensus, reiterated in guidance from the International

abandon coal as a power generation source by 2030,” in practice theEnergy Agency (IEA), is that all existing coal-fired power plants must becompany will achieve the goal only transferring all of its coal assets to aclosed in OECD countries by 2030 and in the rest of the world by 2040.

new entity, EP Energy Transition. EP Energy Transition’s coal phase out is

But according to the Global Coal Exit List 2023, 577 companies are still

later, in 2038. The companies will retain the same existing shareholder

building new coal-fired power plants.

structure, meaning the owners stay the same.

Much of the new coal-fired capacity is being developed in Asia,

Other coal power companies are turning to an unproven technology toespecially China and India, but also Japan and South Korea.

reduce emissions: ammonia co-firing. In Japan, Kobe Steel has added

Developers from those countries are also building coal-fired power

1,300 MW of coal fired power, and since 2016 it has received $897

plants in Indonesia, Vietnam, South Africa, and Mozambique.

million in commitments from MUFG, Mizuho & SMBC.153 The company's

152

decarbonization strategy relies on co-firing with ammonia. Ammonia’s
The transition away from coal is all but failing. Western European

lifecycle emissions are high, the technology is not cost effective, and it

countries — except Germany — have adopted Paris-aligned coal

undermines a rapid transition to renewables.154 Residents of Kobe City

exit dates. Most Central and Eastern European countries have either

have resisted the construction of coal-fired power plants for years.155

not set a coal exit date, or set a date after 2030. Japan, Australia, andCiting public health and climate risks, Kobe residents call for a justthe United States also have no realistic phase-out plans. For example,

transition away from coal, with a clear phase out date.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy, subsidiary of billionaire Warren Buffet’s
conglomerate, operates 14 coal power plants in the United States. On its

There is a glimmer of hope: 31 companies have published plans to close

website, the company declares that it is striving ”for net zero greenhousetheir coal plants by 2030 or, in case of non-OECD countries, by 2040.156

gas emissions, environmental stewardship and compliance.” But the

The majority of these companies, 27, are from the historically highcompany also states that it will exit coal power in 2049, 19 years too

emitting countries in Europe, North America, and Oceania. However,late. For more on U.S. utilities’ inadequate transition plans, see p. 95.

there are already first movers in Asia: Cirebon Electric Power and South
Luzon Thermal Energy from the Philippines, and HK Electric from Hong
Kong in China.

P H O T O : Schroptschop / iStock

Number of Policies Covering Coal-fired Power Plants

43

Number of very weak policies

10

Number of weak policies

17

Number of comprehensive policies

14

Number of strong policies

2

FROM THE FRONTLINES“The Adaro corporation is building a new, gigantic 1.1 GW coal-“The Indonesian government, investors, and the banks who

fired power plant in North Kalimantan, Indonesia, with impacts ofprovided finance committed severe violations during construction

severe pollution and community displacement. Our communitiesof the PLTU 9 and 10 coal power plant in Cilegon City, Banten

are concerned that beaches like Tanah Kuning and Mangkupadi

Province. Java 9 and 10 will have devastating impacts for thewill be covered in black smoke and that the traffic of the coalenvironment, and living ecosystems of several species and thebarges will disrupt the fishermen's livelihoods further, beyond what

livelihoods of communities. The impacts include damage to coral,

has been done already.”

crop failure and decreased fish catch. Stop building Java 9 and 10
immediately and safeguard all living creatures around the site.”– Yosran Efendi, Campaign Manager, Perkumpulan Lingkar Hutan
Lestari (PLHL) (Association of Sustainable Rainforest)150

84

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

– Mad Haer Effendi, PENA Masyarakat151

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

85

LEAGUE TABLE - BANKING ON COAL POWER

The Banking on Climate Chaos report includes significant methodological changes for 2024.
Results published here are not directly comparable to data published in previous years.

Bank financing for 456 coal power companies in 2023, based on research by Urgewald for the Global Coal Exit List 2023
(GCEL). Bank financing is adjusted for each company’s proportion of business done in coal power.

RANK

BANK

2023

2016-2023

RANK

1

CITIC

$8.651 B$68.976 B

2

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA$4.989 B

3

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

4

TOTAL

BANK

2023

31

TORONTO-DOMINION BANK

$1.067 B$5.327 B$46.963 B

32

HSBC

$124 M$5.136 B$5.724 B$40.968 B

33

TRUIST FINANCIAL$880 M$4.822 B

CHINA EVERBRIGHT GROUP$5.921 B$39.896 B

34

STANDARD CHARTERED$125 M$4.142 B

5SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

$4.750 B$38.492 B

35

KB FINANCIAL GROUP$177 M$3.608 B

6

INDUSTRIAL BANK COMPANY$5.604 B$38.354 B

36

DEUTSCHE BANK

$618 M$3.230 B

7

PING AN INSURANCE GROUP$3.767 B$37.580 B

37

UNICREDIT$121 M$2.730 B

8

BANK OF CHINA$3.164 B$36.573 B

38

CIBC

$483 M$2.609 B

9CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

$1.358 B$31.463 B

39

BMO FINANCIAL GROUP$638 M$2.469 B

10AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA$924 M$29.544 B

40

SANTANDER$232 M$2.026 B

11

MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL$2.561 B$25.902 B

41

DBS$138 M$1.934 B

12BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS$2.786 B$24.974 B

42

CREDIT AGRICOLE$234 M$1.900 B

13

MIZUHO FINANCIAL$2.747 B$24.097 B

43

INTESA SANPAOLO$131 M$1.839 B

14

CITIGROUP$1.630 B$17.115 B

44

SOCIETE GENERALE$120 M$1.563 B

15

SMBC GROUP$1.286 B$14.964 B

45

ING GROUP$39 M$1.146 B

16

CHINA MINSHENG BANKING$3.793 B$14.562 B

46

ANZ

$57 M

$1.122 B

17

JPMORGAN CHASE$1.580 B$13.487 B

47

BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA (BBVA)$157 M$1.059 B

18

BANK OF AMERICA$1.767 B$11.979 B

48

LA CAIXA GROUP$11 M$664 M

19

BARCLAYS$1.334 B$11.424 B

49

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK

$52 M

$493 M

20

WELLS FARGO$1.630 B$9.472 B

50

GROUPE BPCE

$75 M

$433 M

21

STATE BANK OF INDIA$699 M$8.560 B

51

NATWEST$10 M$427 M

22

UBS$299 M$8.417 B

52

DZ BANK$51 M$423 M

23

US BANCORP$1.198 B$7.941 B

53

COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA$64 M$335 M

24

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA$970 M$7.871 B

54

WESTPAC-$199 M

25

SCOTIABANK$1.048 B$7.703 B

55

LLOYDS BANKING GROUP-$159 M

26

GOLDMAN SACHS$986 M$7.687 B

56

RABOBANK

$2 M

$87 M

27

MORGAN STANLEY$1.120 B$6.665 B

57

NORDEA

$4 M

$50 M

28

ROYAL BANK OF CANADA$1.057 B$6.454 B

58

CREDIT MUTUEL

-

$45 M

29

PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES$1.076 B$6.398 B

59

DANSKE BANK

-

-

30

BNP PARIBAS$393 M$5.550 B

60

LA BANQUE POSTALE--$80.420 B$700.008 B

B = Billions

86

TOTAL

See explanation in the Methodology section on p. 48 and in the Methodology Appendix on p. 108.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

M = Millions

C H A O S 2024

T = Trillions

GRAND TOTALB A N K I N G

2016-2023

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

87

Gas is no alternative to coal, although fossil fuel companies sell it ascompanies on GOGEL are planning 567 GW of new methane gas-one. The full lifecycle emissions of gas fired power can make it just as

fired power capacity. If built, these projects would increase the world’s

bad for the climate as coal. Methane releases into the atmosphere

installed methane gas-fired power capacity by 30%.

during its production, transport, and storage. According to the IEA,GAS POWER

methane has a warming effect more than 86 times stronger than CO2

Methane gas-fired power cannot replace coal-fired power in the longover a 20-year period.

term, and it is too expensive and too polluting to be a good short termsolution. New methane gas plants lead to more gas production andP H O T O : Steven Baltakatei Sandoval

The IEA’s projections show that in a 1.5°C-aligned world, the contribution

transport, more methane emissions, and increased risks of strandedof unabated methane gas to the energy mix must fall from today’s 22%

assets. Investing in gas-fired power is a short-sighted bet against our

to 6% by 2035. However, data from the Global Oil and Gas Exit List

climate and a missed opportunity to finance the renewable energy(GOGEL) shows a massive expansion of methane gas-fired power. 651

transition.

Number of Policies Mentioning Gas-Fired Power Plants

4

Number of very weak policies

3

Number of weak policies

2

Number of comprehensive policies

0

Number of strong policies

1

FROM THE FRONTLINES“Papua LNG project will be bad for the climate, biodiversity, and human rights.
French banks have ruled it out, others must too. Papua New Guinea is one of themost biodiverse nations on the planet, with great possibilities for renewables. We
want clean energy and climate justice – not fossil gas that will trash nature andchain our economy to a dying industry.”– Peter Bosip, Executive Director, Center for Environmental Law and Community
Rights Inc157

88

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

P H O T O : Parilov / shutterstock

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

89

LEAGUE TABLE - BANKING ON GAS POWER

The Banking on Climate Chaos report includes significant methodological changes for 2024.
Results published here are not directly comparable to data published in previous years.

Bank financing for 252 gas-fired power companies in 2023, based on research by Urgewald for the Global Oil & Gas Exit List
2023. Bank financing is adjusted for each company’s proportion of business done in gas power.

RANK

BANK

2023

2016-2023

RANK

1CITIGROUP$4.020 B$84.580 B

2

JPMORGAN CHASE$4.908 B

3BANK OF AMERICA

4

TOTAL

BANK

2023

31

CHINA MINSHENG BANKING$2.319 B$16.779 B$76.482 B

32

BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA (BBVA)$1.745 B$16.399 B$3.961 B$67.575 B

33

STANDARD CHARTERED$332 M$13.582 B

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA$5.274 B$66.922 B

34

US BANCORP$2.059 B$12.068 B

5

MIZUHO FINANCIAL$5.747 B$57.966 B

35

TORONTO-DOMINION BANK

$1.419 B$10.299 B

6

MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL$5.111 B$56.489 B

36

UNICREDIT$707 M$9.527 B

7

CITIC$5.016 B$51.051 B

37

INTESA SANPAOLO$725 M$9.111 B

8

HSBC$1.218 B$49.538 B

38

GROUPE BPCE

$1.044 B$8.650 B

9

MORGAN STANLEY$2.728 B$49.078 B

39

PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES$1.199 B$7.594 B

10BARCLAYS$3.332 B$47.983 B

40

ING GROUP$807 M$5.891 B

11BANK OF CHINA$3.006 B$47.862 B

41

CIBC

$845 M$5.797 B

12

BNP PARIBAS$1.900 B$42.695 B

42

TRUIST FINANCIAL$765 M$5.783 B

13

SMBC GROUP$4.167 B$40.903 B

43

NATWEST$300 M$5.659 B

14

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA$906 M$39.135 B

44

KB FINANCIAL GROUP$464 M$5.461 B

15

GOLDMAN SACHS$2.287 B$38.949 B

45

LA CAIXA GROUP$1.246 B$4.988 B

16

UBS$876 M$31.773 B

46

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA$745 M$4.744 B

17

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

$4.101 B$31.408 B

47

LLOYDS BANKING GROUP-$3.779 B

18

PING AN INSURANCE GROUP$1.644 B$26.528 B

48

BMO FINANCIAL GROUP$789 M$3.691 B

19

SANTANDER$2.375 B$24.674 B

49

ANZ

$5 M

$3.093 B

20

SOCIETE GENERALE$1.109 B$24.430 B

50

DBS$192 M$2.811 B

21

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

$4.381 B$24.220 B

51

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK

$92 M

$1.682 B

22

CHINA EVERBRIGHT GROUP$3.032 B$23.778 B

52

DZ BANK$632 M$1.473 B

23

DEUTSCHE BANK

$2.409 B$23.764 B

53

COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA$103 M$980 M

24

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

$1.174 B$21.979 B

54

WESTPAC-$844 M

25

CREDIT AGRICOLE$1.030 B$21.183 B

55

CREDIT MUTUEL$151 M$692 M

26

WELLS FARGO$3.339 B$20.608 B

56

STATE BANK OF INDIA$15 M$537 M

27

INDUSTRIAL BANK COMPANY$3.153 B$20.073 B

57

LA BANQUE POSTALE$113 M$520 M

28

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS$1.607 B$18.399 B

58

RABOBANK$28 M$449 M

29

ROYAL BANK OF CANADA$2.590 B$17.787 B

59

NORDEA-$448 M30

SCOTIABANK$3.159 B$17.104 B

60

DANSKE BANK-$230 M$108.400 B$1.328 T

B = Billions
M = Millions
T = Trillions
Values in the abovetable are in million
USD.

90

TOTAL

See explanation in the Methodology section on p. 48 and in the Methodology Appendix on p. 108.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

GRAND TOTALB A N K I N G

2016-2023

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

91

SPOTLIGHT:
PULLING THE PLUG ON FOSSIL UTILITIESHEALTH IMPACTS OF COAL

The utilities sector is a major player in the energy transition because

and wind farms, and various low-carbon technologies can and often

Recent research from the Sierra Club revealed that soot pollution fromAll six of these banks adopted limited policies to restrict project-electrification forms the basis for the decarbonization of so many otherdo violate the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities

coal plants leads to approximately 3,800 premature deaths annuallylevel finance for coal power plants. Barclays, which provided more

sectors. All 1.5°C-aligned pathways call for electric utilities to transition(see the essay by the Indigenous Environmental Network, p. 44). Supply

in the United States.

first, parallel with a significant expansion of electric capacity, in orderchain risks are not yet well managed among renewable equipment

Banking on Climate Chaos data shows that since 2016, ten of the mostcomparatively stronger coal exclusions than the other five, though these164

A subsequent analysis from Sierra Club using

financing to these deadly coal utilities than any other bank, actually hasThismanufacturers. Financiers should be asking their clients about thesedeadly coal utility parent companies in the United States have received

apply only to project finance. This underlines the massive loopholes built

means expanding renewable forms of energy generation and innovating

risks, and financing agreements should recognize the importance of$166 billion from banks around the world.165

into the exclusion policies of many major banks. Without comprehensive

in other ways at the same time that utilities are phasing out fossil fuelhuman rights, emissions, and supply chain risks among so-called newgeneration.

energy companies.

Power generation is one crucial component of an electric sector climate

While the shift from fossil fuel generation to renewables is well undertransition. Beyond power generation, the category of “utilities” include

way, the pace of utilities’ transition is not fast enough.

the transmission and distribution networks that carry electricity and gas

Benchmarking Alliance (WBA) reports overall progress in the areas ofBank of America, Citi, Wells Fargo, and Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Groupto consumers. Investments in new grid infrastructure are crucial, as arewind and solar. But they also caution against the overreliance on gas as(MUFG). Bank financing for these coal utilities is split roughly evenly

innovations in smart metering and energy efficiency. Utilities are ideallya long term solution.160 Of the utilities they assessed in their 2023 global

between lending (53%) and underwriting (47%) of bonds and equities.

situated to shape consumer and industrial energy use patterns, andbenchmarking analysis, only 10 electric utilities had set net-zero targets

should be leading in this area.

aligned with IEA recommendations.161 Even utilities that purchase all

to power transitions in transportation, industry, and construction.

158

159

The World

policies restricting corporate-level financing, including underwriting,
The companies operating deadly coal power plants in the United States

for the companies which own and operate coal power plants, banks

continue to get financing from the world’s biggest banks, despite thosecontinue to pour money into these deadly coal plants that are poisoningbanks’ high profile climate commitments. Nearly half of that financing

nearby communities with toxic air pollution.

– $83.8 billion – came from just six banks: Barclays, JPMorgan Chase,of the electricity they sell must set emissions-reduction targets for their
Utilities should report — and their financiers should review — capitalpurchases. Finally, because power plants are often significant local

expenditures on renewables, and they should phase out capital

employers, utilities must take action to protect workers and provide them

expenditure on fossil fuel infrastructure.

with reskilling for the new energy system.162

Renewable energy technology development and financing requires thesame human rights due diligence that fossil fuel extraction requires.
Mining for critical minerals, construction, and operation of solar parks

FROM THE FRONTLINES“As part of the Fair Finance Coalition Southern Africa, together with the Global Karpowership Coalition and other civilsociety organizations in South Africa, we are challenging Karpowerships. The floating power plants which use gasor heavy fuel oil to generate electricity, the expensive, dirty projects have harmful environmental, social and climate
impacts. Powerships threaten marine life and the livelihood of small-scale fishers. We aim to influence financiers tostop supporting Karpowership through letter writing, shareholder activism and collective action and research.”– Leanne Govindsamy and Tabitha Paine, Centre for Environmental Rights163
P H O T O : OVKNHR / shutterstock

92

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

93

METHANE GAS POWER DOMINATESIN SOUTHEAST ASIA

SLOW PROGRESS AMONG NORTHAMERICAN UTILITIESThe electric sector is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas

The failure of US utilities to make plans to align with climate goals

The Russian invasion of Ukraine left many Asian countries in a tug-of-emissions in the United States. In order to achieve climate goals, US

sharply undermines the common refrain from major banks— thatof methane gas projects in the pipeline are risking energy security,

war in which they are competing against higher income countries toutilities must lead the clean energy transition, reducing the share ofcontinued financing for polluting companies is key to driving the clean

biodiversity, and any hope of limiting global temperature rise to lessbuy methane gas on the global market. In South Asia, Pakistan could

electricity produced from polluting fossil fuels like coal and methane

energy transition. In this frame, so-called ‘transition finance’ is more

not afford the high methane prices due to its low foreign exchangegas, and achieving 100% clean power generation by 2035, while

focused on transforming individual major polluting companies,

projects have entered operation since 2016 and 139 GW of announced,

reserves.

excluding biomass as alternative feedstock. While many utilities

rather than driving the economy-wide energy transition. The problem

pre-construction, and in-construction power plants are in the pipeline.

methane in 2022 due to soaring prices and limited supply.

acknowledge the need to reduce emissions and have made publicwith this logic, aside from the obvious— that every dollar provided forEnergy consumption is booming even as production in mature methane

unaffordability has shaken these countries’ overall economies as thecommitments to address climate change, their plans reflect a different

high-carbon majors is a dollar withheld from pureplay clean energy

gas reservoirs is declining, such as those in Thailand and the Philippines.

problem has already cascaded to non-power industries.

reality of insufficient ambition and stalled progress. An in-depth study

companies— is that the major companies raking in ‘transition finance’

The result is a surge in new and proposed methane import facilities. The

from the Sierra Club evaluated the plans of 77 utility companies

dollars simply are not transitioning. If banks are serious about meeting

region has already built and operated 35.3 mtpa of methane import

The answer to this affordability dilemma is not to pollute the world withowned by the 50 parent companies most invested in coal and gas

their own commitments to net-zero by 2050, they must get serious

more methane gas infrastructure. The answer is to finance a boom ingeneration to assess their preparation for the clean transition.

renewables.

are assessed based on three criteria: (1) plans to retire existing coalutility sector, financing should be restricted to the companies with clear

issues of energy security and affordability in the region. It is also

generation by 2030; (2) plans to build new gas capacity by 2030; andand actionable plans to retire coal plants by 2030 in OECD countries

directing financial flows away from renewables.

Southeast Asian countries must act quickly before the proposed massive(3) plans to build new wind and solar generation by 2030. The study(and by 2040 in non-OECD countries), exclude conversion to biomass

methane gas projects lock in fossil fuels for decades to come.

revealed that utilities’ plans are not aligned with a transition away frompowered plants, stop construction of new gas power plants, and expand

fossil fuels.

clean energy and storage at the pace needed to meet climate goals.

Southeast Asia is confronted with a fossil future as a massive fleet

than catastrophic levels.

166

Around 29 GW of methane gas power plantterminals with 96.3 mtpa in the pipeline.

167

The continued dependence

on imported fossil fuels–from coal to methane gas — is aggravating

168

Similarly, Bangladesh halted spot purchases of imported
169

Gas

170

171

Utilities

about their approach to financing high-carbon companies. For the

FROM THE FRONTLINES“Bank of America continues to finance the Tennessee Valley Authority despite the utility's persistent reliance on
outdated coal plants and its plan to build more methane gas-fired power plants and pipelines than almost any otherutility in the country. Bank of America's hands are dirty as it continues to pay for pollution that is literally killing us in theSouth.”– Amy Kelly, Sierra Club Field Organizing Strategist in the Tennessee Valley Region

P H O T O : The Illuminator

94

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

95

While many banks took steps to restrict financing for thermal coal,

There is no need to develop new metallurgical coal mines to meet future

metallurgical coal, which is used in steelmaking rather than powersteel demand. In 2021, the International Energy Agency said existing

generation, has largely been left out of these commitments, even thoughmines were sufficient to meet coking coal demand through 2050, andit represents roughly 14% of total coal production.

173

METALLURGICALCOAL MINING

Only 9 out of the 60

yet there are 138 proposed projects consisting partly or entirely ofbanks in this report have a policy that restricts finance for metallurgicalmetallurgical coal, of which at least 85 are brand new projects and 48

coal mining.

are mine expansions.178

174

Banks continuing to finance metallurgical coal threaten the transition of

While for many years the steel sector was considered “hard to abate,”

the steel sector, which currently accounts for 7% of global greenhouse

recent technology advances now make its decarbonization possible,

gas emissions and 11% of global CO2 emissions.

175

According towith a phase out of coal in steelmaking in the early 2040s. As recycling

calculations by SteelWatch, business-as-usual coal-based steel

of steel takes off and new fossil free methods for primary steel

production could use up 23% of the world’s remaining carbon budget

production scale up, dependency on metallurgical coal for steelmaking

for 2023 to 2050.176 There are also concerns that the full warming

is decreasing significantly.179 In the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050

potential of metallurgical coal mining is underestimated, as many

Scenario (NZE), metallurgical coal demand for steel is cut to a third byminers are not monitoring methane emissions from their mines. Mines

2050 and coking coal production in particular reduces by 90%.180

produce a significant 11.6% of human-caused methane emissions — aquarter of which arise from metallurgical coal mines. Metallurgical coalIt’s crucial that banks immediately end their financial support to themine methane could add 27% to the steel industry’s overall 20-year

expansion of metallurgical coal mining. Among the 9 banks that haveclimate effect.177

adopted metallurgical coal commitments, only 2 restrict their financing
to companies deriving revenues from metallurgical coal. Banks continue
to massively finance metallurgical coal expansion, despite theircommitments to decarbonize the steel industry.181“No new coal, the phasing out of coal by 2030 in
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD) countries, and 2040 in all other countries"– UN Secretary-General António Guterres, December 2023172

Number of Policies Covering Metallurgical Coal Mining

9

Number of very weak policies (nothing on developers)

7

Number of weak policies (indirectly target developers)

2

Number of comprehensive policies (target developers)0

Number of strong policies (exclude all projects and all developers)

0
P H O T O : mikulas1 / iStock96

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

97

LEAGUE TABLE - BANKING ON METALLURGICAL COAL MINING

The Banking on Climate Chaos report includes significant methodological changes for 2024.
Results published here are not directly comparable to data published in previous years.

Bank financing for 48 companies with metallurgical coal business in 2023. Financing is adjusted to account for companies’
percentage of business activities in the metallurgical coal sector.

RANK

BANK

2023

2016-2023

RANK

1

UBS

$35 M

$2.532 B

31

ING GROUP

2

CITIGROUP$92 M$2.272 B

32

3

CHINA EVERBRIGHT GROUP$280 M$1.859 B

4PING AN INSURANCE GROUP$272 M

5

CITIC

6

BMO FINANCIAL GROUP

7

TOTAL

2023

BANK

2016-2023-$209 M

HSBC$7 M$189 M

33

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK

$30 M

$155 M$1.798 B

34

SOCIETE GENERALE-$154 M$310 M$1.465 B

35

STANDARD CHARTERED-$148 M-$1.429 B

36

WESTPAC$12 M$119 M

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA$68 M$1.383 B

37

SANTANDER$49 M$112 M

8

BANK OF CHINA$34 M$1.330 B

38

PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES-$112 M

9

GOLDMAN SACHS$39 M$1.263 B

39

DBS

$19 M

$110 M

10

MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL$172 M$1.247 B

40

ANZ

$2 M

$109 M

11

SMBC GROUP$12 M$1.117 B

41

CREDIT AGRICOLE$12 M$109 M

12

BANK OF AMERICA$278 M$983 M

42

NATWEST

-

$60 M

13

ROYAL BANK OF CANADA-$962 M

43

COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA

-

$59 M

14

INDUSTRIAL BANK COMPANY$92 M$962 M

44

BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA (BBVA)

-

$49 M

15

JPMORGAN CHASE$47 M$925 M

45

UNICREDIT

-

$48 M

16

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

$101 M$921 M46

LA CAIXA GROUP

-

$37 M

17

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

$146 M$870 M47

RABOBANK

-

$32 M

18

BARCLAYS$47 M$834 M

48

GROUPE BPCE

-

$25 M

19

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

$30 M

$806 M49

DZ BANK

-

$24 M

20

MIZUHO FINANCIAL$74 M$650 M

50

US BANCORP

-

$23 M

21

MORGAN STANLEY$11 M$567 M

51

WELLS FARGO

-

$23 M

22

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS$22 M$538 M

52

INTESA SANPAOLO

-

$22 M

23

CIBC

$12 M

$505 M

53

STATE BANK OF INDIA

$9 M

$16 M

24

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA$15 M$489 M

54

LLOYDS BANKING GROUP

-

$5 M

25

SCOTIABANK$54 M$480 M

55

CREDIT MUTUEL

-

-

26

TORONTO-DOMINION BANK-

$471 M56

DANSKE BANK

-

-

27

CHINA MINSHENG BANKING$43 M$452 M

57

KB FINANCIAL GROUP

-

-

28

BNP PARIBAS$45 M$375 M

58

LA BANQUE POSTALE

-

-

29

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA$38 M$311 M

59

NORDEA--

30

DEUTSCHE BANK

$36 M

$228 M

60

TRUIST FINANCIAL--$2.544 B$31.973 B

B = Billions

98

TOTAL

See explanation in the Methodology section on p. 48 and in the Methodology Appendix on p. 108.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

M = Millions

C H A O S 2024

T = Trillions

GRAND TOTALB A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

99

THERMAL
COAL MINING

Coal mining is harmful for the environment and people. To open aWith over 7.6 billion tons, the world’s thermal coal production has

mine, companies need to clear the land of its forest or meadows.

reached an all-time high in 2023.182 According to the IEA, coal is now

When they dig deeper, they need to pump off the ground water. Theyat peak production that will decline from this year. However, not all

produce an enormous amount of dust when they bring earth and coal

coal miners are acting in line with that forecast. The US and Europe

to the surface. The dust covers plants, arable land and any exposed

do mine less coal every year. This decline is more than compensatedsurfaces. Small dust particles find their way into the lungs of workers

by Indonesia, India, and China, which have ramped up their coaland local inhabitants. In consequence, coal communities usually

production since 2021. According to the Global Coal Exit List, 360

have an unusually high rate of respiratory diseases. Open mines also

companies are still expanding their coal mining operations. 269 of these

constantly emit methane which contributes to climate change, without

companies – 66% – are developing new mines and expanding existingburning even one chunk of coal. If a mine is not properly closed or left

ones in Asia. Existing coal mines already hold enough carbon andabandoned, it will keep emitting methane and acidic waters. Acid mine

methane to push us beyond 1.5 degrees. However, companies on GCEL

leakage contaminates the surrounding areas decades after the mining

are planning to develop new thermal coal mining projects with a totalcompanies have left the site.

capacity of 2.5 billion tons per year. This equals 33% of the world’s coalproduction in the supposed peak year 2023.
Who is still profiting from coal our climate can’t afford?

Number of policies covering Thermal Coal Mines

43

Number of very weak policies (nothing on developers)

7

Number of weak policies (indirectly target developers)

20

Number of comprehensive policies (target developers)

14

Number of strong policies (exclude all projects and all developers)

2

P H O T O : Dmitriy Kuzmichev / shutterstock100

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

101

LEAGUE TABLE - BANKING ON THERMAL COAL MINING

The Banking on Climate Chaos report includes significant methodological changes for 2024.
Results published here are not directly comparable to data published in previous years.

Bank financing for 211 thermal coal mining companies in 2023, based on research by Urgewald for the Global Coal Exit List
2023. Bank financing is adjusted for each company’s proportion of business done in coal.

RANK

BANK

2023

2016-2023

RANK

1

CITIC

$7.603 B$55.459 B

2

CHINA EVERBRIGHT GROUP$3.087 B

3

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA

4

TOTAL

BANK

2023

31

ANZ

$57 M

$1.277 B$30.992 B

32

WELLS FARGO$277 M$1.235 B$3.220 B$30.782 B

33

INTESA SANPAOLO$81 M$1.176 B

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

$3.779 B$29.661 B

34

SANTANDER$60 M$1.145 B

5PING AN INSURANCE GROUP$1.990 B$29.216 B

35

ROYAL BANK OF CANADA$194 M$1.133 B

6BANK OF CHINA$2.392 B$27.338 B

36

SCOTIABANK$162 M$1.113 B

7

INDUSTRIAL BANK COMPANY$3.018 B$25.917 B

37

KB FINANCIAL GROUP$15 M$1.100 B

8

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

$3.336 B$24.177 B

38

SOCIETE GENERALE$109 M$1.089 B

9CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

$728 M$21.392 B

39

US BANCORP$139 M$1.010 B

10

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA$477 M$18.070 B

40

UNICREDIT$112 M$994 M

11

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS$936 M$16.050 B

41

TORONTO-DOMINION BANK

$241 M$963 M

12

CHINA MINSHENG BANKING$3.083 B$11.372 B

42

CREDIT AGRICOLE$53 M$941 M

13

CITIGROUP$496 M$7.853 B

43

BMO FINANCIAL GROUP$123 M$904 M

14

SMBC GROUP$607 M$6.350 B

44

ING GROUP$5 M$734 M

15

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA$798 M$5.956 B

45

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK

$44 M

$672 M

16

MIZUHO FINANCIAL$870 M$5.294 B

46

CIBC$141 M$671 M

17

UBS$163 M$5.251 B

47

COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA$64 M$546 M

18

JPMORGAN CHASE$472 M$5.198 B

48

BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA (BBVA)$39 M$474 M

19

MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL$540 M$5.079 B

49

TRUIST FINANCIAL$89 M$402 M

20

STATE BANK OF INDIA$247 M$4.079 B

50

NATWEST-$365 M

21

BANK OF AMERICA$1.456 B$3.639 B

51

DZ BANK$33 M$350 M

22

HSBC

$46 M

$3.174 B

52

WESTPAC-$296 M

23

GOLDMAN SACHS$96 M$3.115 B

53

GROUPE BPCE

$33 M

$276 M

24

MORGAN STANLEY$164 M$2.318 B

54

LA CAIXA GROUP$11 M$252 M

25

DEUTSCHE BANK

$64 M

$2.139 B

55

RABOBANK-$194 M

26

BARCLAYS$221 M$1.927 B

56

LLOYDS BANKING GROUP-$167 M

27

STANDARD CHARTERED$52 M$1.793 B

57

NORDEA

-

$88 M

28

BNP PARIBAS$38 M$1.695 B

58

CREDIT MUTUEL

-

-

29

DBS

$128 M$1.487 B

59

DANSKE BANK

-

-

30

PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES$337 M$1.337 B

60

LA BANQUE POSTALE--$42.525 B$407.675 B

B = Billions
M = Millions
T = Trillions
Values in the abovetable are in million
USD.

102

TOTAL

See explanation in the Methodology section on p. 48 and in the Methodology Appendix on p. 108.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

GRAND TOTALB A N K I N G

2016-2023

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

103

Continued financing of a boom-and-bust cycle of fossil fuel economy will lock theworld into energy insecurity and unthinkable harms for generations to come. Banks
must act quickly to align their financing with an ambitious pathway to 1.5°C thatenables a fair and just transition. To do so, the organizations authoring this reportdemand that banks:

CONCLUSION AND DEMANDS

1.
2.
"If climate goals are to be achieved, both adaptation and mitigation
financing would need to increase many-fold. There is sufficient global
capital to close the global investment gaps but there are barriers to
redirect capital to climate action."– AR6 Synthesis Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, March 2023

183

The climate crisis takes a devastating toll across the world, especially on those that contributelittle to the climate crisis. Communities on the frontlines of climate chaos and at the fence lines
of fossil fuel expansion demand justice and climate action. The worst impacts of fossil fuelexpansion include egregious human rights impacts that destroy health, wellbeing, and basic
self-determination.
Time is running out. We cannot afford to overshoot the goal of limiting global temperature rise
to 1.5°C. To achieve that goal, banks and other financial institutions must use their leverage todrive near term changes in the energy system. To keep the world within 1.5°C of warming and to
avoid the most devastating harms of climate chaos, fossil fuel expansion must end immediately.
Currently some oil, gas, and coal assets will need to be retired early, leaving investors withstranded polluting assets. Each dollar that banks put toward new fossil fuel extraction or
infrastructure undermines climate stability and banks’ own climate commitments.

Prohibit all finance for fossil fuel expansion immediately. Banks must end lending and underwriting for any
company expanding fossil fuels. This exclusion must include project finance and general corporate finance, as wellas capital market transactions for any company with expansion plans, regardless of the scope of the expansion
project. This is the most urgent step banks must take to enact their climate pledges.
Adopt absolute financed emissions reduction targets for oil, gas, and coal aligned with a rigorous 1.5
C scenario. In combination with robust sectoral and expansion exclusions, banks must adopt binding andmandatory emissions reduction targets for up-, mid-, and downstream fossil fuels. These targets must be alignedwith a rigorous 1.5 C scenario, including ambitious absolute targets for 2030, culminating in global justice-based,
near-zero emissions by 2050 at the latest. Coal must be phased out sooner - by 2030 for OECD countries and2040 for all others. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report emphasizes that an evenfaster transition is needed, especially for those with the highest cumulative emissions and greatest resources.184
Targets should be based on actual, absolute emission reductions, and not on carbon intensity measures or targets
that rely on the use of false solutions such as carbon offsets or carbon dioxide removals (CDR).

3.
4.

5.

Demand robust, 1.5ºC-aligned transition plans for all existing fossil fuel clients. Banks must require all of
their clients with any fossil fuel exposure to publish robust plans to zero out fossil fuel activity on a 1.5°C-aligned
timeline. Banks should end financing for clients who fail to align their activities with a credible 1.5°C pathway. Any
expansion is incompatible with 1.5ºC.
Protect human rights and the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Banks must ensure that their clients respect humanrights, and specifically safeguard Indigenous inherent rights and sovereignty and guarantee Free, Prior andInformed Consent (FPIC) for Indigenous Peoples as defined by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples. They must establish zero-tolerance policies to prevent violence towards Indigenous Peoples and frontline
communities, as well as human rights due diligence mechanisms into their policies and risk management
approach. Decisions must include frontline communities’ right to a healthy environment and to a just livelihood
without coercion, violence, and ongoing colonial practices that divide communities.
Scale up financing for a just and fair transition. Financing for renewable, breakthrough energy and other lowcarbon solutions must rapidly triple.185 By 2030 the ratio of fossil energy investment to renewable energy should
rise to 10:1 by 2030 according to the IEA’s NZE scenario.186 Banks should remove barriers to financing for suchprojects, prioritizing local initiatives that uplift marginalized and impacted communities. Vulnerable communities
and countries must have access to sufficient financing to achieve a just and equitable transition. Plans for a justphaseout of fossil fuel financing must take into account the social costs of transition by supporting local economic
diversification and, with workers and communities, co-creating a new, people-centered, open source energy
system.

P H O T O : Eric McGregor

104

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2024

105

APPENDIX

This analysis covers the world’s 60 biggest relevant banks by assets, according to the S&P Global Market Intelligence ranking from April
2023.187 Banks with less than $150 million league credit for economy-wide financing were deemed irrelevant to this analysis. This resulted
in the exclusion of three Japanese banks: Japan Post Bank (19th largest by assets globally), Norinchukin Bank (47th largest), and Resona
Holdings (61st largest). The next three banks in the S&P Global ranking were added to the list to bring the total to 60 banks. Due to changes
in bank sizes, Truist and DBS Group Holdings Ltd are new to this edition of the report. Commerzbank has been deemed out of scope thisBANKS INCLUDEDCountryof
Headquarters

Bank

106

year. Credit Suisse is no longer included as an independent entity, but its financing is captured through figures for its parent, UBS.188

S&P Total Assets
2023(US$ Billions)

S&P 2023
Rank

2023 Fossil FuelFinancing as a
Percentage of its
AssetsBank

Countryof
Headquarters

S&P Total Assets
2023(US$ Billions)

S&P 2023
Rank

2023 Fossil FuelFinancing as a
Percentage of its
AssetsAGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA

4,919.03

3

0.07%

JPMORGAN CHASE

3,665.74

5

1.12%

ANZ

669.6652

0.25%

KB FINANCIAL GROUP

557.5456

0.22%

BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA (BBVA)

762.1545

0.94%

LA BANQUE POSTALE

796.8843

0.01%

BANK OF AMERICA

3,051.38

6

1.10%

LA CAIXA GROUP

604.0355

0.72%

BANK OF CHINA

4,192.12

4

0.34%

LLOYDS BANKING GROUP

1,057.69

32

0.18%

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

1,883.72

15

0.24%

MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL

2,967.91

7

1.12%

BARCLAYS

1,823.84

18

1.33%

MIZUHO FINANCIAL

1,909.35

14

1.94%

BMO FINANCIAL GROUP

859.0540

1.83%

MORGAN STANLEY

1,180.23

30

1.62%

BNP PARIBAS

2,849.61

9

0.43%

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK

679.7648

0.23%

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

5,016.812

0.11%

NATWEST

867.5939

0.24%

CHINA EVERBRIGHT GROUP

913.4938

0.81%

NORDEA

635.7254

0.26%

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

1,470.00

24

0.78%

PING AN INSURANCE GROUP

771.5544

0.80%

CHINA MINSHENG BANKING

1,051.97

33

0.50%

PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES

557.26

57

2.18%

CIBC

691.3147

2.24%

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA

2,039.56

12

0.08%

CITIC

1,239.28

28

1.42%

RABOBANK

671.7

50

0.57%

CITIGROUP

2,416.68

11

1.25%

ROYAL BANK OF CANADA

1,544.17

22

1.83%

COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA

837.2141

0.07%

SANTANDER

1,853.86

17

0.78%

CREDIT AGRICOLE

2,542.61

10

0.46%

SCOTIABANK

1,029.80

36

2.33%

CREDIT MUTUEL

1,180.22

31

0.02%

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

1,184.28

29

0.78%

DANSKE BANK

540.6660

0.22%

SMBC GROUP

2,006.75

13

1.33%

DBS

554.4

59

0.71%

SOCIETE GENERALE

1,588.99

21

0.55%

DEUTSCHE BANK

1,428.65

26

0.94%

STANDARD CHARTERED

819.9242

0.89%

DZ BANK

670.1351

0.37%

STATE BANK OF INDIA

694.9446

0.43%

GOLDMAN SACHS

1,441.80

25

1.31%

TORONTO-DOMINION BANK

1,524.83

23

1.34%

GROUPE BPCE

1,636.35

20

0.42%

TRUIST FINANCIAL

555.26

58

2.56%

HSBC

2,864.59

8

0.45%

UBS

1,679.36

19

0.53%

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA

5,742.86

1

0.25%

UNICREDIT

916.7237

0.71%

INDUSTRIAL BANK COMPANY

1,343.54

27

0.60%

US BANCORP

674.8149

1.89%

ING GROUP

1,034.32

35

1.21%

WELLS FARGO

1,881.02

16

1.61%

INTESA SANPAOLO

1,042.73

34

0.57%

WESTPAC653.3953

0.11%

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 20 24

107

2)

Then, a percentage of the deal size is chosen from the below
table based on the book ratio and the type of financing

3)

The bookratio, or the ratio of non-leading to leading
participants on the deal is calculated:(lending or underwriting). This is the percentage of the deal

METHODOLOGY APPENDIX

that will be split among the leading participants (bookrunners)in order to be sure that leading participants receive more

Data on bonds, loans, and share underwriting comes from Bloomberg

retrieve data from multiple sources, the report now uses an approach

LP and LSEG/Refinitiv. These third-party data sources collect information

to assigning league credit that can be standardized across databases.

about financial transactions and the parties involved in financing them.

Our approach to calculating league credit follows the methodology

The finance data was extracted and processed by researchers at

developed by the research consultancy Profundo.

Rainforest Action Network and Profundo, a company that contracts with
NGOs to do finance and sustainability research. The data was validated

For this report, in cases where the actual bank contribution to a deal isthrough multiple rounds of error checking and review by core partner

known, that value is used. If the percentage of fees earned by each bankorganizations.

is reported, that percentage is imputed to represent the percentage ofcredit for the deal.
** In cases where the book ratio is over 3.0, a formula is used which gradually

Bookratio

Lending

Underwriting<1/3

No differentiation*

No differentiation*

attributed to them. All bank feedback was reviewed and suggestions

league credit. Known contributions and percent fees are drawn directly

> 1/3

75%

75%

consistent with the methodology were incorporated.

from the databases — LSEG and/or Bloomberg. For approximately 27%

> 2/3

60%

75%

> 1.5

40%

75%

> 3.0

< 40%**< 75%**

dataset; deals designated as “Sustainability Linked” or “Sustainability

information and there would be no need for estimates.

= per bank value (min USD)
percentage out of 100% remaining from step 2. The result isthe per-bank value for non-bookrunners.

3% of the fees, the bank is assigned 3% of the value of the deal for their

they take is known. In an ideal world, banks would voluntarily report this1 - credit % from Step 2

For 73% of the deals in the dataset, BOCC estimates banks’ contribution

standardized.189

in order to assign league credit because no actual contributions or fees

tranche value (min USD)

= per bank value (min USD)

are reported in LSEG or Bloomberg. This year’s report uses an allocation» For the metallurgical coal and Amazon league tables,

Financing is included if it was issued between January 1, 2016, andformula developed by Profundo to assign league credit. Profundo

Each financing transaction is weighted by an adjustment factor which

December 31, 2023, inclusive regardless of when it matures. Banks arederived their formula by running a regression analysis on bank financediffers for each league table:

assigned league credit when financing is initially issued and again if it

data in order to predict which factors were most significant in explaining

is renewed. We report cumulative financing totals rather than financing

banks’ contribution value. They found that bank contributions could be» For the league tables measuring financing for all fossil fuels,that is active at any single point in time. Likewise, we report the amountpredicted based on the banks’ roles, the number of deal participants,

fossil fuel expanders, and methane gas import/export,

operating in the Amazon was conducted by Stand.earth

that a bank has committed to a deal, not the amount that the borrower

and the type of financing. The value of the deal is thus divided amongtransactions were adjusted based on each company’s overall

Research Group, which developed the adjusters.194 Companies

has drawn down or has outstanding. This is a key difference between

all known participants, with a greater share allocated to the banks infossil fuel-based revenue, assets, or income. If such data waswith a direct relationship to the region include block operators

this report and how banks report their corporate finance on their own

leading roles (bookrunners).192 The algorithm credits a wider range of

unavailable, researchers used capital expenditures, operating

and state-run oil companies; they were either assigned a 100%

balance sheets. For this reason, the total amount of financing attributed

deal participants beyond the leading roles. Roles such as legal adviser

expenses, or other metrics if appropriate for the company type.193

direct relationship or given a proportion based on the capital

to a single bank for a particular issuer may be more than they havethat do not involve financial contributions are excluded. The algorithm isactively committed in any given year. For example, if Company A takes

as follows:

out a revolving credit facility in 2016 and does not borrow against it,1)

the banks lending that money would be credited with the full amount of»The bookratio, or the ratio of non-leading to leading
participants on the deal is calculated:tables, transactions were weighted by the percentage of eachcompany must have the majority of its oil and gas projects and allcompany’s total production in each sector according to theof its major producing blocks in the Amazon.

adjusted league credit.

and the industry standard approach for allocating league credit is tocredit the banks regardless of whether the issuer actually drew moneyfrom it.

» For the coal power and gas power league tables, transactions=

bookratio

number of bookrunners

doing it, which accomplish different goals.191 Last year’s report reliedon Bloomberg’s league credit allocation, which estimates bankcontributions using Bloomberg’s proprietary formulas. In order to
B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

» In some cases where researchers could not find a known adjuster
value for a given company, an average value for companies
in that industry category was applied. In cases of diversified

were adjusted based on a company’s share of power production

companies where no financial reporting was available and an

in coal as listed on the Global Coal Exit List (GCEL), or in fossil

average industry category value was deemed inappropriate,

fuels as listed on the GOGEL, respectively. In cases where thisresearchers applied a conservative generic adjuster of 5% whenpower production value was unknown, the fossil fuel share of

the company was listed as an expansionist on GOGEL or GCEL.

revenue was used as a stand-in.

League credit is an industry-standard approach to dividing a deal
among bank participants, though there are various methods forbased on revenue, assets, or income. Research on companies

with Amazon oil and gas projects. To qualify as 100% direct, arenews the revolving credit facility in 2018, the banks lending that money
total number of participants- number of bookrunners

done in those specific sectors. Metallurgical coal adjusters were

expenditures, operating costs, and production costs associatedGlobal Oil and Gas Exit List (GOGEL), multiplied by the fossil fuel-that can be borrowed and repaid repeatedly during the loan period,transactions were adjusted based on the proportion of business

For the tar sands, arctic, ultra-deepwater, and fracking league

the loan even though the issuer did not draw on it.190 If the issuer thenwould be credited with the deal again. A revolving credit facility is a loan

108

X

number of non-bookrunners

Bond/Loan” are included. This is a conservative choice since the precise
definitions and requirements for these designations have not been

tranche value (min USD)

The same is done for the non-bookrunning banks, using the

Banks were provided several opportunities to review data on the deals

All deals marked as “Green Instruments” were removed from theXnumber of bookrunners

lowers the commitment assigned to the bookrunners. For loans, this formula is(0.69282032301) /√(bookratio). For share issuances this formula is (1.29903810723)/√(bookratio)

their participation. For example, if a bank is reported to have earnedof the deals in our dataset, the banks’ contribution value and/or the fees

credit % from Step 2»

For a detailed description of the methodology used to derive these adjusters, pleaserefer to the methodology FAQ at: BankingonClimateChaos.org/methodology2024.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 20 24

109

ENDNOTES
1  “Secretary-General Calls on States to Tackle Climate Change ‘Time Bomb’
through New Solidarity Pact, Acceleration Agenda, at Launch of Intergovernmental
Panel Report | UN Press,” accessed March 14, 2024
2   Oliver Milman, “Humanity Has ‘Opened Gates to Hell’ by Letting Climate Crisis
Worsen, Un Secretary Warns,” The Guardian, September 20, 2023
3   Owen Jones, “2023 Was the Year Governments Looked at the Climate Crisis– and Decided to Persecute the Activists,” The Guardian, December 22, 2023, sec.
Opinion; Somini Sengupta, Hilary Howard, and Delger Erdenesanaa, “Climate
Protesters March on New York, Calling for End to Fossil Fuels,” The New York Times,
September 17, 2023; Anna and Evelyne Musambi, “The First Africa Climate Summit
Opens as Hard-Hit Continent of 1.3B Demands More Say and Financing,” AP News,
September 4, 2023; Nadia Cruz, “Climate Advocates Protest Across Asia to Call
Government and Banks to ‘Don’t Gas Asia,’” 350 Pilipinas, May 4, 2023; “Australia
Climate Change Activists Disrupt Shipping at Coal Port,” Reuters, November 25,
2023, sec. Asia Pacific.
4  “COP28 Ends with Call to ‘Transition Away’ from Fossil Fuels; UN Chief Says
Phaseout Is Inevitable,” December 13, 2023
5  “Who Has Endorsed?,” The Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative,
accessed April 29, 2024.
6   Oliver Milman, “Surge of New US-Led Oil and Gas Activity Threatens to Wreck
Paris Climate Goals,” The Guardian, March 28, 2024; Sam Meredith, “Oil Giant Shell
Waters down Its Near-Term Emission Cuts in Strategy Update,” CNBC, March 14,2024; Dharna Noor, “Big Oil Quietly Walks Back on Climate Pledges as Global Heat
Records Tumble,” The Guardian, July 16, 2023; Evan Halper and Aaron Gregg, “BPDials Back Climate Pledge Amid Soaring Oil Profits,” Washington Post, February 7,
2023.
7   Pierre Friedlingstein et al., “Global Carbon Budget 2023,” Earth System Science
Data 15, no. 12 (December 5, 2023): 5301–69; “Emissions from Fossil Fuels Continue
to Rise,” NASA Earth Observatory, March 5, 2024.
8   Roxana Bardan, “NASA Analysis Confirms 2023 as Warmest Year on Record,”
January 12, 2024.
9  “2023 Shatters Climate Records, with Major Impacts,” World MeteorologicalOrganization, November 27, 2023; Moriah McDonald, “Sinking Coastal Lands Will
Exacerbate the Flooding from Sea Level Rise in 24 US Cities, New Research Shows,”
Inside Climate News, March 27, 2024; Seth Borenstein, “Study Says Since 1979
Climate Change Has Made Heat Waves Last Longer, Spike Hotter, Hurt More People,”
AP News, March 29, 2024.
10  “Global heat deaths could quadruple if action is not taken on climate change,
study finds,” NBC News, November 14, 2023
11  “Fact Sheet, Detail, Climate Change,” World Health Organization, October 12,
2023
12   Damian Carrington, “World Facing ‘Hellish’ 3C of Climate Heating, UN
Warns Before Cop28,” The Guardian, November 20, 2023, sec. Environment; Andrew
Freedman, “Planet on Course for 3°C of Warming by 2100 Without Major Emissions
Cuts: Report,” Axios, November 20, 2023.
13  “Adaptation Gap Report 2023,” UNEP - UN Environment Programme,
November 2, 2023.
14   Saidrasul Ashrafkhanov, “Oil and Gas Companies Still Rewarding Executives
for Expanding Production, Despite Looming Demand Peak,” Carbon Tracker Initiative,
February 29, 2024; Jasper Jolly, “BP Claws Back £1.8m from Sacked Boss Looney andHands New CEO £8m Pay Deal,” The Guardian, March 8, 2024; Rosa Saba, “Oil and
Gas Sector CEO Compensation Jumps Double-Digits Amid Surging Profits,” CBC
News, January 17, 2024; Sabrina Valle, “Exxon CEO’s Pay Rose 52% in 2022, Highest
Among Oil Peers,” Reuters, April 13, 2023; Andrew Lisa, “Here’s How Rich All the Big
Oil Executives Are,” Yahoo Finance, April 3, 2023.

15   Kevin Wack, “Which Big Bank CEOs Got Hefty Pay Raises in 2023?,” American
Banker, February 14, 2024; Tomi Kilgore, “Goldman Says CEO’s 2023 Pay Was $31
Million, but Likely It Was a Lot More,” MarketWatch, February 16, 2024; Nupur Anand,“JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon’s Pay Rises 4% for 2023,” Reuters, January 18, 2024;
Saeed Azhar and Manya Saini, “Bank of America CEO Moynihan’s Pay Falls to $29
Million in 2023,” Reuters, February 2, 2024, sec. Finance.
16  “How the Finance Flows: The Banks Fuelling the Climate Crisis,” ActionAid
International, September 4, 2023.
17   Jonathan Watts, “Climate Crisis: Average World Incomes to Drop by Nearly a
Fifth by 2050,” The Guardian, April 17, 2024.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

36   Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development, “SMGPH’s Fossil Gas
Expansion: A Risk to Investment, Energy Transition, and Communities,” September
27, 2023/; Alecs Ongcal, “From Living Water to Toxic Sludge: The Philippine Island
Devastated by an Oil Spill – a Photo Essay,” The Guardian, March 27, 2023.
37   Sam Reynolds and Hazel Ilango, “San Miguel Global Power’s Fossil Fuel
Expansion Likely to Exacerbate Its Financial Challenges,” IEEFA, September 18, 2023.
38   Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development, “Report: Will San MiguelCorporation Power a World Made Better?,” June 12, 2023.

18  “Enbridge Announces Strategic Acquisition of Three U.S. Based Utilities toCreate Largest Natural Gas Utility Franchise in North America,” September 5, 2023.

39  “About the Verde Island Passage,” protectVIP, accessed March 28, 2024.

19   Simon Stiell, “Two Years to Save the World,” United Nations Climate Change,
April 10, 2024.

40   Gerry Arances and Elizabeth Bast, “Japanese PM Kishida Must Stop Derailingthe Global Energy Transition | Opinion,” Newsweek, April 4, 2024.

20   Philippe Roos, “The Battle to Beat Inequality in the Transition,” EnergyIntelligence, March 22, 2024.

41  “World Energy Outlook 2023,” International Energy Agency, October 24, 2023,
p. 139.

21   Alastair Marsh, “Climate Change’s ‘Physical Risks’ Are Catching Up With
Banks,” Bloomberg News, April 18, 2024; Blair Bateson and Steven Rothstein, “Will
Climate Risk Trigger the Next Great Financial Crisis?,” Green Central Banking, March
28, 2024.

42  “Net Zero by 2050 – Analysis,” IEA, May 18, 2021, p. 103

22  Global Oil & Gas Exit List 2023, Urgewald and Global Coal Exit List 2023,
Urgewald.
23   Natasha White, “US Regional Banks Dramatically Step Up Loans to Oil andGas,” Bloomberg.Com, April 14, 2024; Abhinav Ramnarayan and Kat Hidalgo, “WallStreet Reclaims $16 Billion of Deals Lost to Private Credit,” Bloomberg, April 11, 2024.
24   António Guterres, “Secretary-General’s Remarks at Opening of World Climate
Action Summit | United Nations Secretary-General,” United Nations, December 1,
2023.
25   Nicholas Kusnetz, “Canada’s Tar Sands: Destruction So Vast and Deep It
Challenges the Existence of Land and People,” Inside Climate News, November 21,
202.
26   Megawati Wijaya, “Private Credit Dominates Whitehaven Coal’s $1.1 Billion
Loan,” Bloomberg, February 26, 2024; Anne-Louise Knight, “Funding for Whitehaven’s
Latest Acquisition Reveals Shallow Lending Pool for Australian Coal Mining,” IEEFA,
October 26, 2023.
27   Julia Hovenier, “Banks have no planned exit from coal for steelmaking”,
BankTrack, October 10,2023

57  “UN Warns Aramco and Its Financiers Over Their Role in Driving ClimateFuelled Human Rights Violations,” August 25, 2023 and Farah Khalique, “ClientEarth
Warns 10 Top Banks to Stop Financing Saudi Aramco, or Face Potential Legal Action,”
Banking Risk and Regulation, December 21, 2023; Gloria Dickie, Kate Abnett, andChristian Levaux, “Swiss Women Win Landmark Climate Case at Europe Top Human
Rights Court,” Reuters, April 9, 2024. See also, Molly Quell and Raf Casert, “Verdict
Saying Switzerland Violated Rights by Failing on Climate Action Could Ripple AcrossEurope,” AP News, April 9, 2024; “Our Climate Case Against Ing,” Milieudefensie,
accessed April 29, 2024.
58   Mark Poynting, “World’s First Year-Long Breach of Key 1.5c Warming Limit,”
BBC News, February 8, 2024; United Nations, “The Paris Agreement,” United Nations,accessed February 29, 2024.
59   Eshe Nelson, “Banks Made Big Climate Promises. A New Study Doubts They
Work.,” The New York Times, April 9, 2024.
60  “Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector,” International
Energy Agency, May 2021.
61  “Net Zero Roadmap: A Global Pathway to Keep the 1.5 °C Goal in Reach:2023 Update,” International Energy Agency, September 2023.
62  https://www.unepfi.org/net-zero-banking/43  Partnership For Carbon Accounting Financials.
44  “Facilitated Emissions: The Global GHG Accounting and Reporting Standard/Part B,” Partnership For Carbon Accounting Financials, December 2023.
45   Kenza Bryan, “Investment Banks Squabble Over Carbon Footprint ofUnderwriting Deals,” July 7, 2023.
46  JPMorgan Chase & CO, 2023 Climate Report, November 15, 2023; Rainforest
Action Network, “Chase Releases 2023 Climate Report: Greenwashing and Inaction
from World’s Biggest Fossil Fuel Funder,” November 15, 2023; Sierra Club, “NewClimate Report from JPMorgan Chase Is a Mixed Bag on Disclosures, Emissions
Reduction Targets,” November 15, 2023.
47  “Net Zero by 2050 – Analysis,” IEA, May 18, 2021.
48   Gina Gambetta, “NYC Funds Prompt JPMorgan Chase to Publish Green
Financing Ratio,” Responsible Investor, March 5, 2024.
49   Bank of America Corporation, “Environmental and Social Risk Policy
Framework,” December 2023.
50   Hiroko Tabuchi, “Bank of America Pledged to Stop Financing Coal. Now It’s
Backtracking,” The New York Times, February 3, 2024.

63   UNEP FI, “Principles for Responsible Banking Commitment Statement,”
accessed April 24, 2024.
64  “Bank of China Limited Green Finance (TCFD) Report 2022,” July 2023; “Bankof Communications Corporate Social Responsibility,” accessed April 24, 2024;“China Merchants Bank — Corporate Social Responsibilities,” 2023; “China Minsheng
Banking Corp., Ltd. Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Report,” 2023;“China Everbright Limited Climate Change Policy,” December 2022; “Industrial andCommercial Bank of China Limited Corporate Social Responsibility (ESG) Report,”
2023; “ESG Top 12 Questions,” Ping An, accessed April 24, 2024; “Postal Savings
Bank of China Corporate Social Responsibility Report,” 2021; “SPD BANK Corporate
Social Responsibility Report,” 2022; “DZ BANK expands ESG targets,” 2023; “Truist
Announces Goal of Net Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050,” Truist Investor
Relations, accessed April 24, 2024; “U.S. Bank Sets Goal to Achieve Net Zero
Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050,” November 10, 2021.
65  “Net-Zero Banking Alliance 2023 Progress Update,” December 2023.
66  Ibid.
67   UNEP FI, “Guidelines for Climate Target Setting for Banks,” April 2021; UNEP FI,
Guidelines for Climate Target Setting: Supporting Notes, August 2022.
68  “Net-Zero Banking Alliance 2023 Progress Update,” December 2023.

51  PNC, “Responsible Lending Practices 2023".
28   Julia Hovenier, “Banks have no planned exit from coal for steelmaking”,
BankTrack, October 10,2023
29  Backgrounder: Japan’s Fossil Finance Threatens to Derail the Energy Transitionin Asia and Globally, Oil Change International, November 22, 2023.
30   Gerry Arances and Elizabeth Bast, “Japanese PM Kishida Must Stop Derailingthe Global Energy Transition | Opinion,” Newsweek, April 4, 2024.
31   Anita Hawser, “Why Are Banks Still Financing Fossil Fuels?,” The Banker, October
2, 2023; Eshe Nelson, “Banks Made Big Climate Promises. A New Study Doubts They
Work.,” The New York Times, April 9, 2024.
32   Natasha White, “Banks Shying Away From Fossil Fuels Bolster Private Credit
Deals,” Bloomberg, March 25, 2024.
33  NextDecade Corporation, 10-Q, September 30, 2023; “Risk Exposure: The
Insurers Secretly Backing the Methane Gas Boom in the US Gulf South,” Insure Our
Future, Rainforest Action Network, and Public Citizen, February 2024.
34  “Private Equity Snaps up Billions More in Fossil Fuel Assets,” Private Equity
Stakeholder Project PESP, January 17, 2023; “Private Equity Lags on Fossil Fuel
Policies,” Reclaim Finance (blog), July 26, 2023.

110

35   Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development, “Report: Will San MiguelCorporation Power a World Made Better?,” June 12, 2023.

52  “BMO Drops Anti-Coal Policy, Avoiding West Virginia Rebuke,” Financial Post,
April 9, 2024. Confirmation that the policy applies to all subsidiaries received byemail to Reclaim Finance.
53   Nina Lakhani and Dominic Rushe, “US Banks Abandon ‘Bare Minimum’
Environmental Standards Project, Alarming Climate Groups,” The Guardian, March 5,2024.

69  “Global Climate Coalitions Need Safer Harbour from Antitrust Turbulence,”
Reuters, April 6, 2023; Alastair Marsh, “Wall Street Clashes With Green Bankers Fed
Up With Oil Agenda,” Bloomberg, February 20, 2023. Several banks have threatened
to leave because the NZBA is not ambitious enough. See Dominic Webb, “Wavering
Green Banks Give NZBA Temporary Reprieve,” content, Responsible Investor,
December 4, 2023.
70   Tommy Wilkes, “Exclusive: Four Banks Quit Initiative Assessing Climate Targets,”
Reuters, November 29, 2023.

54  “About the Equator Principles,” Equator Principles, accessed March 29, 2024.
55   Rainforest Action Network, “Complicit: Bank of America, Human Rights, andFossil Fuel Expansion,” November 2023; “World Weather Attribution – Exploring
the Contribution of Climate Change to Extreme Weather Events,” World Weather
Attribution (blog), accessed March 29, 2024.
56  “Indigenous Peoples At The United Nations: Climate Change,” United Nations,accessed April 10, 2024.

71   UN High-Level Expert Group on the Net-Zero Emissions Commitments of
Non-State Entities, “Integrity Matters: Net Zero commitments by Businesses, Financial
Institutions, Cities and Regions,” November 2022, p. 7.
72  “How the Finance Flows: The Banks Fuelling the Climate Crisis,” ActionAid
International, September 4, 2023.
73  IPCC, “AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023,” March 2023.
74  “OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible BusinessConduct,” OECD Responsible Business Conduct, June 2023.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 20 24

111

ENDNOTES (CONT’D)
75   Marian G. Ingrams, Katharine Booth, and Joseph Wide-Ramsing, “What’s
New?: ‘Targeted Update’ Strengthens OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises,”
OECD Watch, June 9, 2023; OECD, “Environment at a Glance Indicators,” 2024.

98   Credit Suisse was in scope for Banking on Climate Chaos in 2023. It was
acquired in by UBS and its financing is now attributed to UBS.
99  “Exit Amazon Oil and Gas,” July 25, 2023.

Project Could Affect the Environment,” Washington Post, March 17, 2023.
117  “Norway’s Electrification of Melkoya Gas Plant: The Perfect Storm of Climate
Injustice,” Oil Change International, September 2023.

76  “Tracking the Net Zero Banking Alliance,” Banktrack, accessed April 29, 2024.
100  Profundo, Accessed April 23, 2024.
77   António Guterres, “Secretary-General’s Remarks at Opening of World Climate
Action Summit | United Nations Secretary-General,” United Nations, December 1,
2023.
78   UNEP FI, “Guidelines for Climate Target Setting for Banks, Version 2”, March
2024.
79  IPCC, “Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” A Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, 2023; Sascha Pare, “The ‘Safe’ Threshold for Global
Warming Will Be Passed in Just 6 Years, Scientists Say,” Live Science, October 30,
2023.
80   Nina Lakhani, “Record Number of Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Get Access to COP28
Climate Talks,” The Guardian, December 5, 2023.
81   Aubrey Manahan, “The World Bank Needs a Remedy Framework to Deliver on
Loss and Damage,” Center for International Environmental Law (blog), December 18,
2023.
82   Tamra Gilbertson and Tom BK Goldtooth, “COP 28: Why Global Carbon
Pricing and Trading Platforms Are False Solutions,” Heinrich Böll Stiftung, November
17, 2023.
83   Tamra Gilbertson and Tom BK Goldtooth, “COP 28: No Outcome Is Better
Than Article 6,” Heinrich Böll Stiftung, January 9, 2024.
84   Thales A. P. West et al., “Action Needed to Make Carbon Offsets from Forest
Conservation Work for Climate Change Mitigation,” Science 381, no. 6660 (August25, 2023): 873–77.
85   Ned Randolph, “How Federal Tax Dollars Meant to Fight Climate Change
Could End up Boosting Louisiana’s Fossil Fuel Production,” The Conversation, April 1,
2024; Nina Lakhani, “‘Wake-up Call’: Pipeline Leak Exposes Carbon Capture Safety
Gaps, Advocates Say,” The Guardian, April 19, 2024.
86   Indigenous Environmental Network, “COP28 Fact Sheets,” November 2023.
87  “Confronting a Fossil Future,” Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development,
December 2023
88  Germanwatch. (2021). Global Climate Risk Index 2021. Retrieved November
25, 2023
89  Global Oil and Gas Plant Tracker, Global Energy Monitor, August 2023 release90  2023 World LNG Report, International Gas Union, July 12 2023

101   David Tong, Big Oil Reality Check: Updated Assessment of Oil and Gas
Company Climate Plans, Oil Change International, May 2022; David Tong, “Big Oil
Reality Check,” Oil Change International, 23 September 2020; Reclaim Finance,
Major Failure, 14 March 2022; World Benchmarking Alliance, 2023 Oil and Gas
Benchmark, 29 June 2023; Oil Change International, Big Oil Reality Check 2023 — An
Assessment of TotalEnergies, Eni, and Equinor’s Climate Plans, May 2023.
102   BP is the most notable example, and is discussed in more detail in David
Tong, Big Oil Reality Check: Updated Assessment of Oil and Gas Company Climate
Plans, Oil Change International, May 2022at 16; BP 4Q 2021 Results: Webcast Q&A
Transcript, BP, February 8, 2022, p. 10.
103   Kelly Trout and Greg Muttitt et al., “Existing Fossil Fuel Extraction Would Warmthe World Beyond 1.5 °C,” Environmental Research Letters, May 17, 2022; David
Tong, Big Oil Reality Check: Updated Assessment of Oil and Gas Company Climate
Plans, Oil Change International, May 2022; Greg Muttitt, “The Sky’s Limit: Why theParis climate goals require a managed decline of fossil fuel production”, Oil ChangeInternational, September 22, 2016.
104  IEA, World Energy Outlook 2023, October 2023; IEA, Net Zero Roadmap:
A Global Pathway to Keep the 1.5 °C Goal in Reach, September 2023; IEA, World
Energy Outlook 2022, October 2022; IEA, World Energy Outlook 2021, October 2021;
IEA, Net Zero by 2050: A roadmap for the energy sector, May 2021.

105  Navigating Energy Transitions: Mapping the road to 1.5°C, 2022,
International Institute for Sustainable Development, p. 15-18.
106  ExxonMobil, “Advancing Climate Solutions: 2022 Progress Report”, January2022.
107  “StopEACOP | East African Crude Oil Pipeline,” #StopEACOP, accessed April
17, 2024.

109   Kim Siever, “Alberta Oil Extraction Uses a Lot of Energy,” The Alberta Worker,
June 18, 2021.
110   Alex Birrell, “As the Toll of the Tar Sands on Indigenous Communities Grows,
Canada Continues to Fail in Its Obligations to UNDRIP,” The Council of Canadians ,November 9, 2022.
111   Faqiang Zhan et al., “A Multi-Pathway Exposure Assessment for Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons Among Residents in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region,
Canada,” Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts 25, no. 4 (2023): 755–66;
Nicholas Kusnetz, “The Deep Toll of Tar Sands On Canada’s Indigenous People,”
Undark Magazine, November 22, 2021; Jocelyn Edwards, “Oil Sands Pollutants in
Traditional Foods,” CMAJ 186, no. 12 (September 2, 2014): E444–E444.
112   Megan He et al., “Total Organic Carbon Measurements Reveal Major Gaps
in Petrochemical Emissions Reporting,” Science 383, no. 6681 (January 26, 2024):
426–32.

94  “Confronting a Fossil Future,” Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development,
December 2023
95  “Confronting a Fossil Future,” Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development,
December 2023
96  Chana Local Reservation Network, Accessed April 17, 2024
97  “The World’s 100 Largest Banks, 2023,” S&P Global Market Intelligence, April
26, 2023.

112

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

114   Hiroko Tabuchi, “Bank of America Pledged to Stop Financing Coal. Now It’s
Backtracking.,” The New York Times, February 3, 2024.
115   Eren Can Ileri, Henri Her, Alix Mazounie, and Lucie Pinson, “Drill, Baby, Drill:
How Banks, Investors and Insurers Are Driving Oil and Gas Expansion in the Arctic,”
Reclaim Finance, September 2021, p. 31.
116  “ConocoPhillips to Move Forward with Development of Willow Project in
Alaska,” Reuters, December 26, 2023; SILA Inuat, “Willow Project's Record Of Decision
Press Response,” March 2023; Timothy Puko, “What Is Willow? How an Alaska Oil

134   Alex Kimani- Aug 27, 2023, and 4:00 Pm Cdt, “Shale Gas Boom Led To
Thousands Of Job Losses In Appalachia,” OilPrice.com, accessed April 17, 2024.
135  “Oil & Gas Policy Tracker,” Reclaim Finance, accessed March 2024.

120  See “Capitalizing on Collapse,” Bank policy assessment conducted by Stand.
earth Research Group and Reclaim Finance. See also Brenna Hughes Neghaiwi,
Matthew Green, and Simon Jessop, “European Lenders Exit Amazon Oil Trade After
Scrutiny by Campaigners,” Reuters, January 25, 2021.

136   The White House, “Statement from President Joe Biden on Decision to Pause
Pending Approvals of Liquefied Natural Gas Exports,” The White House, January 26,
2024.
137   Shafiqul Alam et al., “Global LNG Outlook 2023-27,” February 15, 2024.

121   Alex Kimani, “Offshore Oil Stocks Flying As Investors Bet On A Deep Water
Boom,” OilPrice, July 26, 2023.
122   Fraser McKay and Angus Rodger, “Global Deepwater Production to Increase
60%,” November 24, 2022.
123   Harish Sridharan, “Australia’s Woodside Okays $7.2 Billion Trion Deepwater
Oil Project in Mexico,” Reuters, June 20, 2023, https://www.reuters.com/business/
energy/woodside-approves-development-trion-oil-project-mexico-2023-06-19/;“Shell Takes FID on Deepwater Sparta Development in GoM,” Offshore, December
19, 2023, https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/us-gulf-of-mexico/
article/14302982/shell-takes-fid-on-deepwater-sparta-development-in-gom.
124   Travis Loller and Michael Phillis, “Once Praised, Settlement to Help Sickened
BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most with Nearly Nothing,” AP News, April 18, 2024,
https://apnews.com/article/gulf-spill-lawsuits-bp-health-chemical-exposuref3845a3cb9da869d2689452a7dec0c9c.
125   Over a 20 year time period. Piers Forster and Trude Storelvmo, “The Earth’s
Energy Budget, Climate Feedbacks, and Climate Sensitivity,” in Climate Change
2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2021), 1017.
126   David R. Lyon et al., “Concurrent Variation in Oil and Gas Methane Emissions
and Oil Price During the Covid-19 Pandemic,” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
21, no. 9 (May 2021): 6606. See also Yuzhong Zhang et al., “Quantifying Methane
Emissions from the Largest Oil-Producing Basin in the United States from Space,”
Science Advances 6, no. 17 (April 22, 2020).
127   Robert W. Howarth, “A Bridge To Nowhere: Methane Emissions And The
Greenhouse Gas Footprint Of Natural Gas,” Energy Science & Engineering, April 2014;
Claudia Kemfert et al., “The Expansion of Natural Gas Infrastructure Puts Energy
Transitions at Risk,” Nature Energy 7, no. 7 (July 2022): 582–87.
128   Robert W. Howarth, “Is Shale Gas a Major Driver of Recent Increase in
Global Atmospheric Methane?,” Biogeosciences 16, no. 15 (August 2019): 3033–46.
More recently, researchers at Stanford have suggested that methane leakage in the
Permian basin could be more than double previous estimates. Yuanlei Chen et al.,“Quantifying Regional Methane Emissions in the New Mexico Permian Basin with aComprehensive Aerial Survey,” Environmental Science & Technology 56, no. 7 (April
2022): 4317–23.

93  Ibid
113  Oil & Gas Policy Tracker, Reclaim Finance, accessed March 2024.

133   Concerned Health Professionals of NY and Physicians for Social
Responsibility, “Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings
Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking and Associated Gas and Oil
Infrastructure, Ninth Edition, October 19, 2023."

119  “Amazonia Under Pressure 2020,” RAISG , 2021.

108  EEC Watch, Accessed April 17, 2024.

91  Ibid
92  Ibid

118   Atle Staalesen, “Oilmen Step up Arctic Drilling South of the Ice Edge,” The
Barents Observer, March 7, 2024; Kari Lundgren, “Arctic Oil Drilling Plans Revived
in Norway as Priorities Change,” Bloomberg, May 3, 2023; “Eni’s Vaar Energi Makes
Arctic Oil Discovery,” Reuters, February 9, 2023; “Eni’s Norwegian Unit to Ramp up
Arctic Drilling,” Reuters, September 1, 2023.

132  “Hydraulic Fracturing and Health,” National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences, accessed April 10, 2024.

129   Amanda Jasi, “Understanding Why Fracking Wastewater Contains
Radioactive Waste,” The Chemical Engineer, November 12, 2018.
130   Alison Caldwell, “Study Links Fracking to Heart Disease in Nearby
Communities,” University of Chicago News, March 14, 2023, describing Kevin S.
Trickey, Zihan Chen, and Prachi Sanghavi, “Hospitalisations for Cardiovascular andRespiratory Disease Among Older Adults Living Near Unconventional Natural Gas
Development: A Difference-in-Differences Analysis,” The Lancet Planetary Health 7,
no. 3 (March 2023): e187–96.
131   Cassandra J. Clark et al., “Unconventional Oil and Gas Development
Exposure and Risk of Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Case–Control
Study in Pennsylvania, 2009–2017,” Environmental Health Perspectives 130, no. 8(August 2022): 087001.

138   Aaron Cantú, “The Transatlantic Battle to Stop Methane Gas Exports From
South Texas,” April 10, 2024.
139   The White House, “Statement from President Joe Biden on Decision to Pause
Pending Approvals of Liquefied Natural Gas Exports,” The White House, January 26,
2024.
140   Derek Harrison, “Oil and Gas Executives Blast ‘LNG Pause,’ Call Natural Gas
a ‘Destination Fuel,’” Inside Climate News, March 27, 2024.
141  "Burning the Gas ‘Bridge Fuel’ Myth: Why Gas Is Not Clean, Cheap, or
Necessary," Oil Change International , May 30, 2019; Philip J. Landrigan, Howard
Frumkin, and Brita E. Lundberg, “The False Promise of Natural Gas,” New England
Journal of Medicine 382, no. 2 (January 9, 2020): 104–7.
142   Shafiqul Alam et al., Global LNG Outlook 2023-27, IEEFA, February 15, 2024.
143   Robert Rozansky, “LNG 2023: Last Year’s Energy Shock Still Reverberates,as the World Builds Towards Lng Oversupply,” December 18, 2023, p. 5. See also
Stephen Stapczynski, “Shell Considers New LNG Projects to Meet Future Demand
Growth,” September 6, 2023.
144  “Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG),” U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil
Energy & Carbon Management, accessed April 24, 2024.
145  “The Vessel Project of Louisiana,” accessed April 17, 2024.
146   Minh Van, “Quang Tri Province Seeks to Speed up Major LNG Power Project,”August 12, 2023.
147  “Vietnam Seals Deal with South Korean Contractor to Build $3bn LNG Power
Station in Long An,” ASEAN Centre for Energy, accessed April 15, 2024.
148   On public finance, see “Japan’s Fossil Finance Threatens to Derail the Energy
Transition in Asia and Globally,” Oil Change International, November 2023.
149   Gerry Arances and Elizabeth Bast, “Japanese PM Kishida Must Stop Derailingthe Global Energy Transition | Opinion,” Newsweek, April 4, 2024.
150  “PLHL – Perkumpulan Lingkar Hutan Lestari,” accessed April 17, 2024.
151  “Pena Masyarakat – Gerakan Bersama Untuk Memperkuat Wilayah
Kedaulatan Rakyat & Ruang Hidup,” accessed April 17, 2024.
152   Gavin Maguire, “India’s Coal-Fired Electricity Output & Emissions Hit Record
Highs,” Reuters, March 12, 2024.
153  “Residents of Kobe City, Japan, Are Fighting a Coal Power Plant Financed by
Japanese Megabanks,” Banking on Climate Chaos, April 5, 2024.
154   Annelise Giseburt, “Japan Sticks with Climate Solution That Critics Say Is
Far from Clean,” The Japan Times, October 22, 2023; Christopher Doleman, “JERA
Is Putting Japan’s Decarbonization Goals at Risk,” Nikkei Asia, January 26, 2024;

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 20 24

113

ENDNOTES (CONT’D)“Japan’s Ammonia-Coal Co-Firing Strategy a Costly Approach to Decarbonization,
Renewables Present More Economic Alternative,” BloombergNEF, September
28, 2022; Seb Kennedy, “Japan’s Toxic Narrative on Ammonia Coal Co-Firing,”
TransitionZero, April 13, 2023; “Hydrogen and Ammonia Co-Firing in the Power
Sector: Japan Is Choosing to Expand Fossil-Fuel Extraction and Perpetuate Coal and
LNG,” Position Paper, Kiko Network, October 17, 2021.

ENDORSEMENTS
178  “Net Zero by 2050 – Analysis,” IEA, May 18, 2021, p. 103; “Global Coal Mine
Tracker,” Global Energy Monitor (blog), October 10, 2023.

BankTrack

Athens County's Future Action Network

Centro Salvadoreño de Tecnología Aplicada

Center for Energy, Ecology & Development

Atmos Financial– Friends of the Earth El Salvador

Indigenous Environmental Network

Austin Sierra Club

Change Course

Oil Change International

Australian Architects Declare Climate &Chatham Research Group

Rainforest Action Network

Biodiversity Emergency

Chesapeake Climate Action Network

Reclaim Finance

Australian Religious Response to Climate Change

Christian Aid

181   For more information on banks steel commitments, see “Iron & Steel Targets,”
BankTrack, accessed April 23, 2024.

Sierra ClubBank Climate AdvocatesChristian Spiritual Youth Ministry Huduma

urgewald

Bank Information Center– Mbuenet Mtandao Coalitions Tanzania-East

182  “Coal 2023: Analysis and Forecast to 2026,” IEA, December 15, 2023, p. 41.

AbibiNsroma Foundation

Bank on Our Future

AfricaAcademia Cidadã

Bank.Green

Citizens Alliance for a Sustainable Englewood

Accelerate Neighborhood Climate Action

BankFWD

Citizens Network for Community Development

Action 24

Below2ºC

ZambiaAction for Nature

Berks Gas Truth

Citizens' Climate Lobby Canada

Action pour la Recherche et l'Appui aux Initiatives

Berliner WassertischClean Air Action Group

Locales de Developpement

Better Brazoria: Clean Air & Water

Clean Energy Action

Action Solidaire International

Better Path Coalition

Climate Acceptance Studios

ActionAid Denmark

Between the Waters

Climate Action California

186  “Net Zero Roadmap: A Global Pathway to Keep the 1.5 °C Goal in Reach:2023 Update,” International Energy Agency, September 2023, p. 162.

ActionAid International

Beyond Extreme Energy

Climate Action for Lifelong Learners

ActionAid UK

Biodiversity Conservation Center

Climate Action Merribek

187  “The World’s 100 Largest Banks, 2023,” S&P Global Market Intelligence, April
26, 2023.

ActionAid USA

Biofuelwatch

Climate Action Network Australia

Adfree Cities

Biozid Climate InstituteClimate Action Network Latin America

Advocates4EarthBlue Dalian

Climate Action Network Zambia

Africa Institute for Energy Governance

Bold Alliance

Climate Action Now Western Mass

189   See, for example, Josephine Moulds, “Mines, Pipelines and Oil Rigs: What
HSBC’s ‘Sustainable Finance’ Really Pays For,” The Bureau of Investigative Journalism,
October 31, 2022.

Africa Network for Environment & Economic

Both ENDS

Climate Action Rhode Island 350

JusticeBreaking the Bank

Climate Clock

African Law Foundation

Breast Cancer Action

Climate Conversation Brazoria County

190  “Revolving Loan Facility Explained: How Does It Work?,” Investopedia,
accessed April 29, 2024.

Agencia de Desarrollo Ambiental Acción Planeta

Bronx Climate Justice North

Climate Emergency Institute

Aktionsgruppe Indianer & Menschenrechte

Bronx Jews for Climate Action

Climate Energy Finance191  “League Table: What It Is, How It Works, Example,” Investopedia, accessed
April 29, 2024.

Alaska Wilderness League

Bürgerbewegung Finanzwende

Climate Families NYC

Alerte Congolaise pour l'Environnement et lesBusinesses for a Livable Climate

Climate First Bank

192  “Book Runner: Definition, Duties, Vs. Other Underwriters,” Investopedia,
accessed April 30, 2024.

Droits de l'Homme

Call to Action Colorado

Climate First!

All India Women Hawkers Federation

CampaxClimate Generation

Alliance Climatique Suisse / Klima-Allianz

Campus Climate Network

Climate Hawks Vote

Schweiz

Carbon Market Watch

Climate Organizing Hub

Alliance for Community Engagement Southwest

Care About Climate

Climate Pledge Collective

Washington

Castlemaine Residents Against Biomass

Climate Reality Project Chicago Metro

Alliance for Empowering Rural Communities

CatholicNetwork US

Climate Reality Project Europe

Alliance For Just Money

Catskill Mountainkeeper

Climate Rights International

Amazon Watch

CEE Bankwatch Network

Climate Safe Lending Network

American Jewish World Service

Center for Biological Diversity

ClimateFast

Americans for Financial Reform Education FundCenter for International Environmental Law

Climaxi

Ande Bunbury Architects

Center for Oil & Gas Organizing

Climáximo

Animals Are Sentient Beings

Center for Participatory Research & Development

Coal Action Network

AnsvarligFremtid

Center of Economic & Law Studies

Coal Action Network Aotearoa

ART NOT WAR

Central California Environmental Justice Network

Coal Problem

ARTivism Virginia

Centre for Citizens Conserving Environment &Coastside Jewish Community

Asian Peoples' Movement on Debt &Management

CODEPINK San Francisco Bay Area

Development

Centre for Climate Safety

Collectif BreakFree Suisse

Association de Jeunes Visionnaires pour leCentre for Environmental Law & Community

Colorado Businesses for a Livable Climate

Developpement du Congo Brigade Verte

RightsColorado Democratic Party Energy &Association for Environment Conscious Building

Centre for Environmental Rights

Environment Initiative

Association of Ethical Shareholders Germany

Centre for Financial Accountability

Community Development Advocacy Foundation

Association Workshop for All Beings

Centro de Desarrollo Humano Honduras

Community for Sustainable Energy

179   The key levers to phasing coal out of steel making are reducing iron ore withgreen hydrogen, increasing scrap metal recycling, and increasing material efficiency
to decrease steel demand. More details are available here: “15 Insights on the Global
Steel Transformation,” Agora Industry, June 15, 2023.

155  No Coal Kobe, accessed April 18, 2024.
180  “Net Zero by 2050 – Analysis,” IEA, May 18, 2021, p. 103.
156   Analysis of coal exit plans by Urgewald, based on its Global Coal Exit List.
157  “Centre for Environmental Law & Community Rights Inc,” accessed April 17,
2024.
158  “2023 Electric Utilities Insights Report,” World Benchmarking Alliance,
November 2023.
159  “2023 Electric Utilities Insights Report,” World Benchmarking Alliance,
November 2023, p. 1.
160  Ibid.

183  “AR6 Synthesis Report: Summary for Policymakers Headline Statements,”
March 20, 2023, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
184  “Secretary-General Calls on States to Tackle Climate Change ‘Time Bomb’
through New Solidarity Pact, Acceleration Agenda, at Launch of Intergovernmental
Panel Report | UN Press,” accessed March 14, 2024; IPCC Press Release, March 14,2024.

161  Ibid.
185  “Renewables 2023 – Analysis,” IEA, January 2024.
162  Ibid.
163  “Karpowership Stakeholder Analysis,” Centre for Environmental Rights, March
2024.
164  “Under Controlled: How Federal Rules Could Curb Coal Plant Pollution,”
Sierra Club, May 2023.

188   “UBS Completes Credit Suisse Acquisition,” UBS Global, June 12, 2023.
165  “Lethal Investments: The Health Consequences of Cash Flows into Coal,”
Sierra Club, August 2023.
166  Confronting a Fossil Future Report, Center for Energy, Ecology, andDevelopment, December 2023.
167   Mtpa means million tonnes per year.
168   Stephen Stapczynski, “Pakistan Faces Deeper Power Crisis as LNG Becomes
Too Expensive,” Bloomberg, June 24, 2022. Affordability continues to be an issue inPakistan: Haris Zamir and Eric Yep, “Pakistan Raises Domestic Natural Gas Prices for
Second Time in Four Months,” February 16, 2024.
169   Ruma Paul and Emily Chow, “Bangladesh to Restart Spot LNG Buying as
Prices Ease,” Reuters, February 1, 2023, sec. Energy.
170   Misa Hama, “LNG Price Spike Causes Energy Crises in Strapped Asian
Nations,” Nikkei Asia, August 3, 2022.
171  “The Dirty Truth About Utility Climate Pledges,” Sierra Club, 2023.
172  “Secretary-General Calls on States to Tackle Climate Change ‘Time Bomb’
through New Solidarity Pact, Acceleration Agenda, at Launch of Intergovernmental
Panel Report | UN Press,” accessed March 14, 2024.
173   Caitlin Swalec and Astrid Grigsby-Schulte, “Pedal to the Metal 2023: Time to
Shift Steel Decarbonization into High Gear,” July 19, 2023.
174   Mathieu Rosemain, “BNP Paribas Shuts Out Mining Clients Tied to
Metallurgical Coal,” Reuters, November 23, 2023; “Still bankrolling coal (for steel):
Why banks must quit metallurgical coal,” BankTrack, October 2023; “Metallurgical
Coal Financing: Time to Call It Off,” Reclaim Finance, November 23, 2023.
175   Ali Hasanbeigi, “Steel Climate Impact: An International Benchmarking ofEnergy and CO2 Intensities,” Global Efficiency Intelligence, April 2022.
176  “Sunsetting Coal in Steel Production,” SteelWatch, June 26, 2023.
177   Conal Campbell, “Why the Steel Industry Needs to Tackle Coal Mine
Methane,” Ember, January 23, 2023.

114

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

193   Note that this method effectively undercounts figures in the league table forfossil fuel expansion, as the adjuster is based on current operations only. Companies
are highlighted because of their large fossil fuel expansion plans, which are as yet not
operational.
194  “Amazon Banks Database,” Exit Amazon Oil and Gas, accessed April 30,
2024.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 20 24

115

This report is endorsed by

116

586 organizations from 75 countries around the world:

Compassion in World Farming

Extinction Rebellion University of Goma

Global Justice Now

Jeunes Volontaires pour l'Environnement Côte

Movement Training Network

Planet Over Profit

Connecticut Citizen Action Group

Extinction Rebellion US

Global Legal Action Network

d'Ivoire

Mutasa Youth Forum & Community Empowerment

Plant Based Treaty

Corporate Accountability

Facing Finance

Grassroots Global Justice Alliance

Jubilee Australia Research Centre

Trust

Plastic Pollution Coalition

Corvallis Climate Action AllianceFair Finance Guide Sweden

Greater New Orleans Housing Alliance

JusClima – Advogados Climaticos Brasil

Nareto Latia Indigenous Peoples' Program

Plataforma CIPÓCorvallis Interfaith Climate Justice Committee

Fair Finance International

Green 13

Justiça Ambiental

National Hawkers Federation India

Port Arthur Community Action Network

CounterCurrent

Fair Finance Pakistan

Green Advocates International

JustMoney Movement

Native Daily Network

Positive Money

Culture Unstained

FairFinGreen America

Kamukunji Paralegal Trust

Native Movement

Positive Money Europe

Dalit Alliance for Natural Resources

Families for a Livable Climate

Green Foster Action Uganda

Kiko Network

Native Sun Community Power Development

Positive Money UK

Dayenu: A Jewish Call to Climate Action

Finançament Ètic i Solidari

Green House Connection Center

Klimakultur

Natural Capitalism Solutions

Presente.org

Defund Climate Chaos

Finance Innovation Lab

Green New Deal Virginia

KoalaKollektiv

Natural Justice

Preserve Giles County

Democracy Watch

Finance Watch

Green Party of California

Koalisi Rakyat untuk Hak atas Air – People's

New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance

Preserve Montgomery County Virginia

Disability People's Forum Uganda

FinancitéGreen Party of Santa Clara County California

Coalition for the Right to Water

New Mexico Climate JusticePrivate Equity Stakeholder Project

Divest Invest Protect

Fishermen Involved in Sustaining our Heritage

Green Party of Washington State

La Ruta del Clima

New Weather Institute

Pro-Information Pro-Environment United People

Divest Oregon: Reinvest in a Fossil Free Future

Focus: Association for Sustainable Development

GreenFaith

Labor Network for Sustainability

New York Communities for Change

Network

Dogwood

Fondazione Finanza Etica

GreenFaith Boulder County

Landelijk Netwerk Bossen-en Bomenbescherming

Nijmegen Fossielvrij

Profundo

Don't Gas Africa

Food & Water Watch

GreenFaith Tanzania

Larimer Alliance for Health, Safety, & Environment

North American Climate, Conservation &Progressive Democrats of America

Don't Gas the Meadowlands Coalition

For a Better Bayou

Greenpeace Canada

Leadnow

Environment

Progressives for Climate

Earth Action

For Our Kids Canada

Greenvest

Leave It in the Ground Initiative

North Bronx Racial JusticeProtect All Children's Environment

Earth Day Initiative

For The People

GreenWatch

Leefmilieu

North Range Concerned Citizens

Public Accountability Initiative / LittleSis

Earth Guardians

Forest Keeper

Growthwatch

Les Amis de la Terre France – Friends of the Earth

Northern Beaches Climate Action Network

Public Citizen

Earth Neighborhood Productions

Foro Boliviano sobre Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo

Grupo de Estudos de Ordenamento do Território

FranceOccupy Bergen County

Pueblo Action Alliance

Earth Thrive

Forum Ökologie & Papiere Ambiente

Les Amis de la Terre Togo – Friends of the Earth

Ocean Rebellion

Quantum Leap

Earthlife Africa Johannesburg

Forum pour la Modernité et la Démocratie

Habitat Recovery Project

Togo

Ocean. Now!

Quit RBC / Lâche RBC

Earthworks

Fossielvrij NL

Hanover Action: Towards a Sustainable

Lesy Cekanova

Odeibea Foundation

RapidShift Network

East African Crude Oil Pipeline Host Communities

Fossil Free California

Community

Lift Humanity Foundation

OECD Watch

Razom We Stand

Eco Action Families

Fossil Free PrideHarrington Investments

Lithuanian Consumers AllianceOil & Gas Action Network

Re-Set: Platform for Socio-Ecologicaleco-union

Fossil Free Switzerland

HawkmothLittleton Business Alliance

Oil Refinery Residents Association

Transformation

EcoEquity

Foundation for Environmental Management &Health of Mother Earth Foundation

London Mining Network

Oilfield Witness

re•generation

Ecojustice Canada

Campaign Against Poverty

Health of Mother Earth Foundation South Sudan

Long Island Progressive Coalition

Oilwatch International

Reacción Climática

Ecologistas en Acción

Foundation for Environmental Rights, Advocacy &Heinrich Böll Foundation Washington DC

Lumière Synergie pour le Développement

Olympic Climate Action

ReCommonEconomic & Social Justice Trust of Namibia

Development

Hip Hop Caucus

Maan ystävät – Friends of the Earth Finland

One Earth

Recourse

Egyptian Green Party

Fox Valley Citizens for Peace & Justice

Hope of Africa

Make My Money Matter

OPAL Environmental Justice Oregon

Réseau Action Climat France

Ekō

FracTracker Alliance

Humboldt Unitarian Universalist Felllowship

Malek-Wiley & Associates Environmental Policy

OpenSpace

Réseau d'Associations pour la Protection de

Eko Kvarner

Framtiden i Våre Hender

Climate Action Campaign

MARBE

Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility

l'Environnement et de la Nature

EKOenergy Ecolabel

FreshWater Accountability Project

IBON International

Market Forces

Organization for Community Engagement

Resource Renewal InstituteElected Officials to Protect America

Fridays For Future Uganda

Iceland Nature Conservation Association

Mayfair Park Neighborhood Association

Our Sacred Earth

Rettet den Regenwald

Empower Our Future

Fridays for Future USA

Inclusive Development International

Mazaska Talks

Oyu Tolgoi Watch

Rewriting EarthEnter Nusantara

Friends of Buckingham

Indian Social Action ForumMedia Alliance

Pacific Greens Linn-Benton Oregon

Rinascimento Green

Environment & Climate Change Amelioration

Friends of the Earth Australia

Indivisible Ambassadors

Mekong Watch

Pacific Greens of Oregon

Rise Economy

Initiative

Friends of the Earth Europe

Indivisible Colorado

Mental Health & Inclusion Ministries

Pacific Islands Climate Action Network

Rise to Thrive

Environment East Gippsland

Friends of the Earth U.S.

Indus Consortium

Methane Action

Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum

Rivers & Mountains GreenFaith

Environment Governance InstituteFund Our Future

Ingleside on the Bay Coastal Watch Association

Mighty Earth

Palms to Pines Democratic Network

Rivers without Boundaries Mongolia

Environmental Defence Canada

Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales

Innovation pour le Développement et laMigrant & Asylum Seeker Solidarity & Action

Pax Christi

Rodiče za Klima Liberec

Environmental Justice Foundation

Fundacja Strefa Zieleni

Protection de l'Environnement

Milieudefensie – Friends of the Earth Netherlands

Pax Christi Canada

Rogue Climate

Environmental Rights Defenders

Gallifrey Foundation

Institute for Climate Finance & Law

Mind's Eye Productions

Pax Christi Toronto

Roots 2Empower

Ethical Consumer

George Mason University Center for Climate

Institute for Development Policy

Mindful Money

Peace Action Wisconsin

Sahel Dev

European Federation of Ethical & Alternative

Change Communication

InterAmerican Clean Energy Institute

Money Rebellion

Peace Point Development Foundation

Salish Sea Action Collective

Banks & FinanciersGiniw Collective

Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility

Montbello Neighborhood Improvement

Peace, Justice, Sustainability, NOW!

San Luis Obispo Clean Water

European Public Service Union

Glasgow Actions TeamInterfaith EarthKeepers

Association

Pena Masyarakat

SanDiego350

Extinction Rebellion Peace

Glasswaters Foundation

International Accountability Project

Mothers Out Front

Pennsylvania Interfaith Power & Light

Save Lamu

Extinction Rebellion Rutshuru Democratic

Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives

International Rivers

Mothers Rise Up

People of Asia for Climate Solutions

Save Our Illinois Land

Republic of the Congo

Global Anti-Aerotropolis Movement

Interstate 70 Citizens Advisory Group

Move Beyond Coal

Peoples Climate Movement New York

Save RGVExtinction Rebellion San Francisco Bay Area

Global Forest Coalition

Jamaa Resource Initiatives

Movement Rights

Physicians for Social Responsibility Pennsylvania

Seeding Sovereignty

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 20 24

117

ENDORSEMENTS (CONT’D)

118

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Seventh Generation

The Knowledge Forum

Welfare Organisation for Rural Development Trust

ShareAction

The Last Plastic Straw

Welfare Organisation for Rural League

Shift: Action for Pension Wealth & Planet Health

The Phoenix Group

Development

Sierra Club BC

The Wei

WESPAC Foundation

SoCal 350 Climate Action

The YEARS Project

Western Slope Businesses for a Livable Climate

Social Eco Education

Third Act

Wild Europe Foundation

Social Tipping Point Coalitie

Third Act Lawyers

Witness Radio Uganda

Society for Women & Youths Affairs

Third Act Maine

Women for Green Economy Movement Uganda

Socio-Ecological Union International

Third Act Ohio

Women Without Roofs Nepal

Solar Bear MN

Third Act Richmond Virginia

Women's Earth & Climate Action Network

Solidarité Ci Sutura

Third Act Sacramento

Womxn from the Mountain

Solidarité pour la Reflexion et Appui au

Third Act Upstate New York

Working for Racial Equity

Développement Communautaire

Third Act Virginia

Yarra Climate Action Now

Solutions for Our Climate

THIS! Is What We Did

Youth & Environment Europe

Sonoma County Climate Activist Network

TIAA Divest!

South Durban Community Environmental AllianceSouth Orange-Maplewood Action

This report was a joint effort among Rainforest Action Network (RAN), BankTrack, Center for Energy, Ecology,
and Development, Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), Oil Change International (OCI), Reclaim Finance,
the Sierra Club, and Urgewald. The finance data was co-researched with significant contributions from
Profundo.

April Merleaux, Rainforest Action Network

Daisee Francour, Indigenous Environmental Network

Caleb Schwartz, Rainforest Action Network

Collin Rees, Oil Change International

Ruth Breech, Rainforest Action Network

David Tong, Oil Change International

Shawna Ambrose, Rainforest Action Network

Lorne Stockman, Oil Change International

Youth Climate Advocacy Network

Aditi Sen, Rainforest Action Network

Noam-Pierre Werlé, Reclaim FinanceTipping Point UK

Youth Climate Finance Alliance

Ernesto Archila, Rainforest Action Network

Léa Miomandre, Reclaim FinanceTools for Solidarity

Zero Hour

Maaike Beenes, Rainforest Action Network

Julie Lassus, Reclaim Finance

South Texas Environmental Justice Network

Toronto East End Climate CollectiveŽiedinė Ekonomika

Southern Africa Region Climate Action Network

Toronto Raging Grannies

198 methods

Bree Flory, Rainforest Action Network

Clément Faul, Reclaim Finance

Southwest Organization for Sustainability

Toronto350

350 Aotearoa

Henrieke Butijn, BankTrack

Ginny Roscamp, Sierra Club

Spirit of the Sun

Toxic Bonds Network

350 Asia

Quentin Abineau, BankTrack

Adele Shraiman, Sierra ClubSri EventTransformative Wealth Management

350 Brooklyn

Julia Hovenier, BankTrack

Ben Cushing, Sierra Club

Stand.earth

Transition Edinburgh

350 Charlotte

Diogo Silva, BankTrack

Mahima Dave, Sierra Club

SteelWatch

Travail en Réseau avec les Fédérations des

350 Chicago

Johan Frijns, BankTrack

Katrin Ganswindt, Urgewald

Stichting Onderzoek Multinationale

Femmes et Enfants en Détresse

350 Colorado

Will O’Sullivan, BankTrack

Clara Freudenberg, Urgewald

Ondernemingen

Trend Asia

350 Conejo / San Fernando Valley

Stop the Money Pipeline

Turtle Island Restoration Network

350 Corvallis

Avril De Torres, CEED

Sebastian Mauritz, Urgewald

Stowarzyszenie Ekologiczne EKO-UNIA

Twerwaneho Listeners Club

350 Côte d’Ivoire

Kenneth Quesada, CEED

Signe Moe, Urgewald

Students for Environmental Concerns at University

Unitarian Universalist Association

350 Dallas

Marcello Federico, Indigenous Environmental Network

Pia Wiesner,Urgewaldof Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Corvallis

350 Eastside Seattle

Tamra Gilbertson, Indigenous Environmental Network

Julia Dubslaff, Urgewald

Students Organising for Sustainability

Financial Oversight & Climate Action Teams

350 Eugene

Sunflower Alliance

Unitarian Universalists for a Just Economic

350 Fairfax

Sunrise ProjectCommunity

350 Hawaii

Sustainable Economics & Finance Association

Unite North Metro Denver

350 Juneau Climate Action for Alaska

Suwannee Riverkeeper

United Force for Development International

350 Montana

Swiss Youth for Climate

United Native Americans

350 New Hampshire

Switch It Green

United Student Leaders

350 New Hampshire Action

Synergie des Jeunes pour le Développement et

UnKoch My Campus

350 NYC

Report design:

Additional research provided by:les Droits Humains

Upper Valley Affinity Group350 Pensacola

Toben Dilworth, Rainforest Action Network

Léa Pham Van, Profundo

System Change Not Climate Change

Valuing Voices

350 Pilipinas

Tall Cedar

Veblen Institute for Economic Reforms

350 Seattle

Tamil Nadu Land Rights Federation

Verein Klimastadt Zürich

350 Triangle

Tennessee Young Democrats

Vessel Project of Louisiana

350 Wenatchee

Teraz Lasy Forest NOW

Veterans For Peace Linus Pauling Chapter

350 Wisconsin

Terra Advocati

Vote Climate

350 Yakima Climate Action

Texas Campaign for the Environment

Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia – Friends

350.org

The 99% Organisationof the Earth Indonesia

7 Directions of Service

The Center for Social Sustainable Systems

Wall of Women

The Climate Justice Organizing Hub

Water Protector Legal Collective

The Climate Optimist

Waterkeeper Alliance

The Descendants Project

Waterkeepers Bangladesh

The Enviro Show

Waterspirit

The Global Grassroots Support Network

We Are Here VeniceB A N K I N G

O N

C L I M AT E

C H A O S 2024

Tom BK Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental Network

Ward Warmerdam, Profundo
Web design:
Margot Brennan, Rainforest Action Network
Jake Conroy, Rainforest Action Network

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 20 24

119World’s top climate scientists expect
global heating to blast past 1.5C target
Planet is headed for at least 2.5C of heating with disastrous results forhumanity, poll of hundreds of scientists finds

BankingonClimateChaos.org