TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY4INTRODUCTION

6METHODOLOGY

42

Fossil Fuel Industry Scope

42

All Fossil Fuels

42

Fossil Fuel Expansion

43

LEAGUE TABLE: BANKING ON FOSSIL FUELS

10

Calculating Finance Flows

44

FOSSIL FUEL FINANCE TRENDS

14

FOSSIL FUEL EXPANSION

46

The Dirty Dozen – 2022

16

Big Oil Reality Check46

Record Fossil Fuel Profits

18

League Table - Banking on Fossil Fuel Expansion

48

Bank Client Profile: Crescent Energy Company

20

League Table - Banking on Tar Sands Oil

54

The Largest Fossil Fuel Financiers Since the Paris Agreement

20

League Table - Banking on Arctic Oil & Gas

58

Lending vs. Underwriting: Financing by Asset Class

21

League Table - Banking on Amazon Oil & Gas

62

League Table - Banking on Offshore Oil & Gas

66

League Table - Banking on Fracked Oil & Gas

70

BANK FOSSIL FUEL POLICIES: 2022 Trends

22

Coal Policies

23

Oil & Gas Policies

24

FROM THE FRONTLINES: Holding the Line Against

Few Restrictions on Corporate Finance for Expansion

25

Methane Gas Import and Export
League Table - Banking on LNG

7280

NET ZERO NETS NOTHING: Tracking Banks’ Commitments 26
Key Takeaways

27

Absolute vs. Intensity Metrics

28

League Table - Banking on Coal Mining

84

Net Zero

28

League Table - Banking on Coal Power86

EQUITABLE AND JUST TRANSITIONS

29

CONCLUSION AND DEMANDS

88

While the Climate Changes, Emissions Rise

31

APPENDIX: BANKS INCLUDED

90

Keep It in the Ground

32

ENDNOTES

92

False Solutions

33

ENDORSEMENTS98

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

103

FRONTLINE STORIES34

DISCLAIMER

103

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ SOVEREIGNTY, NOT FALSE

38

COAL MINING & POWER

82

SOLUTIONS

2B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Fossil fuel financing from the world’s 60 largest

Fossil fuel financing continues to be dominatedthe 60 banks that are profiled in this report, 59

Expansion: The 60 banks profiled in this report

Fracked oil and gas: Finance for the top 30
fracking companies totaled $67 billion in 2022,

banks has reached USD $5.5 trillion in theby a handful of banks based in the United

do not have policies robust enough to meet the

funneled $150 billion in 2022 into the top 100

seven years since the adoption of the Paris

States, Canada, and Japan. For the first year

goal of keeping global warming below 1.5°C.

companies expanding fossil fuels, including TC Energy,

which is an 8% increase over the financing reported
in 2021 for the top fracking companies. This increase

Agreement, with $669 billion in fossil fuelsince 2019 when we began reporting on

Some banks strengthened their policies, but

TotalEnergies, Venture Global, ConocoPhillips, andfinancing in 2022 alone. This report examines

financing for all fossil fuels, a Canadian bank,few are sufficient to meet the challenge of the

Saudi Aramco. Of the 60 banks in scope, 49 haveis especially disturbing given the extreme methane

moment.

committed to net zero emissions. Our data calls

emissions from fracking. RBC and JPMorgan Chaseare the top financiers of fracked oil and gas in 2022.

commercial and investment bank financing

Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), ranks #1 as thefor the fossil fuel industry, aggregating theirworst financier of fossil fuels. RBC provided

those commitments into question, since these 49

leading roles in lending and underwriting debt

fossil fuel companies $41 billion in 2022, an

In a special essay (p. 38), the Indigenousbanks provided 81% of the financing to the 100 top

and equity issuances. Fossil fuel financing

increase over its 2021 financing, making for aEnvironmental Network points out that climate

expanders in 2022.

Liquefied natural gas (LNG): The top bankers
of liquefied “natural” gas (LNG) in 2022 were Mizuho,

plateaued in 2020, rebounded in 2021, andtotal of $252.5 billion since 2016. JPMorganchange mitigation consists almost entirely

leveled out again in 2022 owing to unusual

Chase continues to be the worst bank overallof market mechanisms that do not produce

Tar sands oil: The top tar sands companies received

Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, ING, Citi, Goldman
Sachs, and SMBC Group. Overall finance for the top

geopolitical and economic conditions, notsince the Paris Agreement. It financed $39

real emissions reductions, but do threaten$21 billion in financing in 2022, led by the biggest

shifts in bank policy.

billion in 2022, making a total of $434 billion

Indigenous sovereignty and territory. They call

Canadian banks, who provided 89% of those funds. TD,

30 LNG companies increased by nearly 50% fromsince 2016. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Groupfor climate change mitigation that centers

RBC, and Bank of Montreal top the list.

$15.2 billion in 2021 to $23 billion in 2022. Every(MUFG) ranks as the worst of the Asian banks,

people in the energy transition and that keeps

The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February

project that reached a final investment decision in

Arctic oil and gas: Chinese banks ICBC,

2022 adds to the overshoot of the IEA’s Net Zero by2050 scenario.

2022 gave fossil fuel companies a chance tofinancing $29.5 billion, and French bank BNP

rake in record earnings totaling $4 trillion.

Paribas is the worst in Europe, financing $20

Agricultural Bank of China, and China Construction

billion in 2022.

In addition to reporting on financing for

Bank led financing for Arctic oil and gas, which totaled

all fossil fuels, Banking on Climate Chaos$2.9 billion for the top companies in this sector in 2022.

Coal mining: Of the $13 billion in financing thatwent to the world’s 30 largest coal mining companies,

1

Inflation, fears of oil and gas shortages, andhigher interest rates made for unique market

fossil fuels in the ground.

conditions for fossil fuel companies and their

Our analysis of fossil fuel financing policies

2023 also assesses bank financing for top

Though fewer banks financed it in 2022 than in previous

bankers last year.

(p. 22) and net zero commitments (p. 26) bycompanies expanding fossil fuels and active inyears, 26 banks are still financing Arctic oil and gas,

87% was provided by banks located in China, led

all 60 banks shows that despite their net zero

several spotlight fossil fuel sectors. Details on

including U.S. banks JPMorgan Chase, Citi, and Bank ofby China CITIC Bank, China Everbright Bank, andlanguage, banks’ policies could be doing more

our findings are on the next page:

America.

Industrial Bank. While financing to coal companies
has declined overall since 2016, Canadian and United

to align with global climate commitments. Of

Amazon oil and gas: Spanish bank SantanderStates banks modestly increased financing to theseleads financing for companies extracting in the Amazon

companies between 2021 and 2022.

biome, followed closely by U.S. bank Citi. Financing

Coal power: Of the financing to the world’s top

totaled $769 million in 2022.

30 companies in coal power, 97% was provided

Offshore oil and gas: European banks BNP

by Chinese banks. These companies, which have

Paribas, Crédit Agricole, and Japanese bank SMBC

plans to expand coal power capacity, received $29

Group top the list of worst financiers of offshore oil andbillion from the profiled banks in 2022. Only 20 banks

gas for 2022. Financing totaled $34 billion in 2022.

participated in coal power financing in 2022, downfrom 29 in 2021.

»

Full data sets – including fossil fuel finance data, policy scores, and stories fromthe frontlines – are available for download at: BankingonClimateChaos.org

Police officers stand next to environmental activists inside a pit ofGarzweiler open cast brown coal mine during a protest against theclimate change near Duesseldorf, Germany, June 22, 2019.
P H O T O : Thilo Schmuelgen / Reuters / Alamy Stock Photo

4

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

5

“Every increment of global warming will intensify
multiple and concurrent hazards.”– Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023

Climate-fueled disasters exacted adecades of climate-warming emissions

Banks have yet to make detailed, time-bound,devastating toll across the world again in 2022,

or becoming stranded assets.7 Any bankpublic commitments to phase out financing

from record flooding in Pakistan to blazing

supporting any company that is expanding

for new fossil fuels, even though expansion now

heat waves and devastating droughts all

fossil fuels is driving climate chaos.

is fundamentally incompatible with limitingalong the Northern hemisphere from California

INTRODUCTION

global temperature rise to less than 1.5˚ C.

to China.2 At the very same time, fossil fuelDespite clear and dire warnings from climate

Throughout 2022, banks touted their net

companies made record profits and banks

experts, the world’s biggest banks – including

zero commitments and their 2030 emissions

continued financing fossil fuel expansion.3

RBC, JPMorgan Chase, Citi, Bank of America,

targets, but there are serious loopholes andScotiabank, MUFG, and Mizuho, amonginconsistencies in these targets, which areThis report profiles the world’s top 60 banksothers – continue to pour billions of dollars

fully explained in the policy section of thisby assets, ranking them according to theinto fossil fuel expansion. In 2022, the world’s

report (see p. 22).8 Forty-nine of the 60 banks

financing – lending and underwriting – theylargest 60 banks provided $150 billion in

profiled in this report have made net zero

have provided to fossil fuel companies since

financing to the world’s top 100 companies

commitments, with most of them doing so

2016, the year the Paris Agreement went into

leading the expansion of oil, gas, and coal.

before 2022. This report reveals a troubling

effect. The 60 largest banks continued toThis included $10.1 billion to TotalEnergies,

gap between their commitments and theirfinance fossil fuel companies to the tune of$12.8 billion to TC Energy, $8.4 billion toreal financing activities in the fossil fuel sector.

$669 billion in 2022 alone.

ConocoPhillips, and $8.9 billion to Saudi

These 49 banks with net zero commitments

Aramco, four of the world’s most aggressive

financed $122 billion to the top 100

In order to have a chance at avoiding

fossil fuel expanders. To read more about fossil

companies expanding fossil fuels in 2022.

unacceptable harm to millions of people alive

fuel expansion, see “Big Oil Reality Check”

today and countless generations to come,beginning on p. 44.

fossil fuel expansion must stop, and use offossil fuels across all sectors must decline
rapidly.4 The world’s preeminent energy andclimate experts have drawn a clear line in
the sand: Any new fossil fuel development
after 2021 risks our ability to keep global
warming below 1.5˚C.5 Potential emissions“According to a large consensus across multiple modelledclimate and energy pathways, developing any new oil andgas fields is incompatible with limiting warming to 1.5°C.”– International Institute for Sustainable Development (2022)

from fossil fuels already in production or underconstruction — the wells already drilled orbeing drilled, the mines already dug — alreadytake the world well past 2°C of global warming.
The clear conclusion is that the world cannot
afford any fossil fuel expansion: no new oil
and gas fields, no new coal mines, no new“Projected CO2 emissions from existing fossil fuelinfrastructure without additional abatement would
exceed the remaining carbon budget for 1.5°C.”– Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023

or expanded oil and gas pipelines, no new
LNG terminals, no new coal-fired power
plants.6 Once an oil, gas, or coal resource isdeveloped, or a piece of fossil infrastructureis built, there is a very strong incentive to fully
extract it or run it to the end of its economic
life. New investments now risk locking in
P H O T O S : Duncan Selby / Alamy Stock Photo; Parilov / shutterstock

6

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

7

In 2021, France’s La Banque Postalein 2022.9 Fossil fuel companies used the

In a special essay featured here (p. 36), theinequalities and result in human rights abuses,

According to the latest IPCC synthesis reportcommitted to end financing for all companies

devastating war in Ukraine to profit at the

Indigenous Environmental Network argues thatparticularly in Indigenous, Black, and brown

published in early 2023, the window of

expanding oil and gas, and to exit the sector

expense of affordable energy and a just,climate change mitigation consists almost

communities. Communities across the world

opportunity to keep global warming below

completely by 2030. Consistent with this robust

equitable transition. Governments, especiallyentirely of false solutions that do not produce

are rising to this moment, from Mozambique,below 1.5˚C and to build a secure, liveable,

policy, La Banque Postale shows no financing

in emerging economies, attempted to shieldreal emissions reductions, but do threaten

where families have been displaced by massive

and sustainable future is rapidly closing.13

for 2022 in this report. Until the remaining

their populations from the worst impact ofIndigenous sovereignty and territory. Efforts tofossil extraction and export facilities, to the

Banks must enable a shift to a just and clean

59 banks in this report also enact policies tothese high prices with $1 trillion in energy

stop climate change must be trusted to andPhilippines, where fragile ecosystems haveenergy economy. The first step is an immediate

exclude financing for fossil fuel expansion,

consumption subsidies. This figure does

led by Indigenous Peoples, who control anbeen destroyed by oil spills and are threatenedend to financing new oil, gas, and coal supply

any commitments to net zero emissions are

not include the much higher toll of “implicit”

estimated 80% of what remains of the Earth’s

with new LNG terminals. In the United States,

or infrastructure. Every dollar spent on fossil

nothing more than greenwash.

subsidies that result from, for example,

land-based biodiversity. This essay calls forthe massive buildout of LNG export terminals

fuel expansion is a dollar that is funding

governments allowing fossil fuel companies toclimate change mitigation that begins within the Gulf South violates the land rights ofclimate chaos.

Thirteen banks still have no fossil fuel exclusion

pollute without paying the full cost of the healthkeeping fossil fuels in the ground and centers

Indigenous Peoples and threatens the health,policy strong enough to merit any points inand environmental damages they cause.11

people in the energy transition.

livelihoods, and environment of communities

our evaluation. This includes eleven out of theThose funds could instead have gone tothirteen Chinese banks in scope, State Bank of

Indigenous land defenders protecting against

Communities fighting fossil fuel exploitation

decades. A sampling of these destructive

India, and U.S. Bancorp. U.S. Bancorp lags far

deforestation and resource extraction, or tohave been calling out the disastrous

projects and the people organizing, building

behind its peers’ already inadequate policies.

frontline communities experiencing climate

consequences of fossil fuels for the planet andpower, and raising their collective voices

extremes, or to workers displaced by theare leading the way towards a just transition.

to fight them are mapped on page 36; seetransition away from fossil fuels.

This report amplifies some of these stories.

BankingonClimateChaos.org/map to hear

Fossil fuel financing continues to exacerbate

directly from communities impacted by fossil

Meanwhile, fossil fuel companies brought
in record income – estimated at $4 trillion

1012

who have fought environmental racism for“Fossil fuels are a dead end –for our planet, for humanity,and yes, for economies.”

fuel financing.
– UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ statement on theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2022 reportP H O T O S : Frans Lemmens /Alamy Stock Photo; Jim West /Alamy Stock Photo

8

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

9

LEAGUE TABLE - Banking on Fossil Fuels

B = BILLIONS

M = MILLIONS

T = TRILLIONSBank financing for approximately 2,000 group-level companies that are either independent or a parent company. Including
subsidiaries of those companies, this report covers a total of 3,210 companies active across the fossil fuel life cycle.

10

TOTAL

BANK

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

1

JPMORGAN CHASE$65.357 B$72.817 B$69.365 B$66.134 B$53.983 B$67.258 B$39.240 B$434.154 B

2

CITI

$45.691 B$50.239 B$49.734 B$54.721 B$51.635 B$46.945 B$33.943 B$332.907 B

3

WELLS FARGO$37.581 B$55.955 B$62.524 B$45.533 B$27.954 B$49.755 B$ 37.398 B$316.700 B

4BANK OF AMERICA$39.157 B$38.399 B$35.148 B$50.188 B$45.454 B$35.916 B$ 35,467 B$279.730 B

5

RBC$30.525 B$40.522 B$41.960 B$38.215 B$20.195 B$40.437 B$ 40.626 B$252.480 B

6

MUFG

$26.255 B$27.662 B$37.747 B$34.235 B$30.752 B$33.475 B$29.515 B$219.641 B

7BARCLAYS$31.846 B$32.098 B$26.857 B$31.440 B$30.322 B$21.437 B$16.578 B$190.580 B

8MIZUHO$22.239 B$19.925 B$29.826 B$34.083 B$24.628 B$30.082 B$28.830 B$189.613 B

9

SCOTIABANK$20.590 B$26.393 B$29.231 B$27.881 B$17.083 B$31.666 B$29.469 B$182.313 B

10TD$20.546 B$29.943 B$26.246 B$28.175 B$17.598 B$21.691 B$29.002 B$173.201 B

11

BNP PARIBAS$18.302 B$19.297 B$19.693 B$30.258 B$41.781 B$16.522 B$20.037 B$165,891 B

12MORGAN STANLEY$24.808 B$26.503 B$22.995 B$23.954 B$21.705 B$22.368 B$11.096 B$153.430 B

13

HSBC

$17.973 B$22.450 B$20.929 B$27.004 B$25.727 B$19.777 B$11.074 B$144.934 B

14

GOLDMAN SACHS$23.888 B$21.547 B$22.076 B$22.948 B$21.716 B$21.141 B$9.960 B$143.276 B

15

BANK OF MONTREAL$17.753 B$21.989 B$21.909 B$22.387 B$15.416 B$19.617 B$19.31 B$138.380 B

16

SMBC GROUP$11.135 B$12.452 B$17.087 B$20.603 B$30.400 B$21.686 B$22.599 B$135.962 B

17

BANK OF CHINA$26.815 B$13.941 B$22.765 B$20.689 B$19.966 B$14.704 B$15.578 B$134.458 B

18

ICBC

$19.841 B$14.956 B$14.778 B$19.735 B$25.284 B$17.504 B$21.659 B$133.758 B

19

CIBC

$12.758 B$15.443 B$12.852 B$21.443 B$10.188 B$23.982 B$17.872 B$114.538 B

20

CREDIT SUISSE$20.162 B$23.215 B$17.982 B$15.340 B$10.485 B$10.782 B$6.658 B$104.624 B

21

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE$13.233 B$10.638 B$15.236 B$14.919 B$19.620 B$13.494 B$11.146 B$98.287 B

22

DEUTSCHE BANK

$21.156 B$20.392 B$16.786 B$11.895 B$9.442 B$9.342 B$7.472 B$96.485 B

23

CRÉDIT AGRICOLE$9.123 B$11.570 B$13.604 B$12.497 B$19.614 B$10.965 B$11.659 B$89.031 B

24

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA$11.857 B$5.785 B$7.597 B$11.995 B$15.137 B$17.687 B$10.591 B$80.649 B

25

INDUSTRIAL BANK

$8.804 B$8.429 B$12.631 B$12.192 B$14.218 B$14.931 B$9.200 B$80.405 B

26

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

$15.261 B$9.305 B$9.667 B$14.248 B$12.461 B$9.833 B$9.184 B$79.960 B

27

CHINA CITIC BANK

$8.097 B$6.181 B$9.362 B$10.891 B$10.631 B$12.861 B$16.909 B$74.933 B

28

ING$9.163 B$8.655 B$12.107 B$9.069 B$6.578 B$10.971 B$5.156 B$61.698 B

29

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

$6.900 B$5.622 B$7.756 B$8.531 B$12.325 B$9.333 B$7.579 B$58.047 B

30

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

$9.440 B$3.996 B$7.828 B$6.691 B$8.304 B$11.661 B$9.124 B$57.045 B

RANK

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

2016-2022

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

11

LEAGUE TABLE - Banking on Fossil Fuels

M = MILLIONS

T = TRILLIONS

TOTAL

BANK

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

31

BPCE/NATIXIS$5.640 B$6.234 B$12.134 B$7.885 B$6.235 B$8.707 B$4.731 B$51.567 B

32

SANTANDER$6.644 B$5.107 B$5.010 B$9.458 B$10.243 B$8.065 B$6.640 B$51.168 B

33

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK

$5.478 B$4.609 B$4.866 B$4.970 B$11.522 B$10.158 B$7.233 B$48.834 B

34

US BANCORP$3.471 B$6.273 B$6.323 B$4.461 B$7.959 B$9.894 B$8.793 B$47.172 B

35

PNC$2.731 B$4.954 B$8.005 B$5.982 B$5.075 B$7.108 B$12.606 B$46.461 B

36

STANDARD CHARTERED$2.782 B$5.421 B$10.246 B$8.384 B$7.087 B$7.124 B$5.111 B$46.156 B

37

UBS$8.135 B$9.661 B$11.434 B$6.326 B$2.550 B$4.195 B$2.843 B$45.143 B

38

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS$4.659 B$3.693 B$5.169 B$5.621 B$7.146 B$9.665 B$9.190 B$45.143 B

39

UNICREDIT$6.211 B$6.519 B$5.038 B$5.527 B$8.883 B$4.895 B$5.729 B$42.801 B

40

PING AN INSURANCE GROUP$3.259 B$4.689 B$7.784 B$5.222 B$8.712 B$9.213 B$3.779 B$42.659 B

41

CHINA MINSHENG BANK

$2.037 B$965 M$2.782 B$10.215 B$10.687 B$2.369 B$1.888 B$30.943 B

42

STATE BANK OF INDIA$7.001 B$7.380 B$1.058 B$6.244 B$2.833 B$4.693 B$1.080 B$30.291 B

43

BBVA

$4.905 B$3.489 B$4.974 B$4.981 B$5.072 B$3.594 B$2.497 B$29.511 B

44

ANZ$3.238 B$2.838 B$4.264 B$3.536 B$3.157 B$1.509 B$3.749 B$22.292 B

45

INTESA SANPAOLO$4.238 B$2.035 B$4.372 B$1.567 B$1.995 B$3.575 B$3.251 B$21.031 B

46

NATWEST$3.859 B$2.789 B$3.512 B$1.625 B$2.110 B$1.926 B$1.167 B$16.988 B

47

KB FINANCIAL$2.704 B$1.446 B$5.609 B$1.886 B$1.916 B$888 M$996 M$15.447 B

48

LLOYDS$2.881 B$2.890 B$2.364 B$1.507 B$2.303 B$1.306 B$1.806 B$15.058 B

49

COMMERZBANK$1.019 B$2.742 B$2.514 B$3.675 B$2.229 B$1.271 B$1.168 B$14.618 B

50

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA$164 M$984 M$1.668 B$3.198 B$2.224 B$3.744 B$2.528 B$14.509 B

51

RABOBANK$2.335 B$1.888 B$2.130 B$1.934 B$1.67 B

$2.214 B$1.734 B$13.905 B

52

NORDEA BANK

$2.852 B$2.219 B$1.325 B$2.178 B$1.493 B$1.072 B$927 M$12.066 B

53

WESTPAC$845 M$1.352 B$1.088 B$3.093 B$827 M$1.093 B$808 M$9.106 B

54

COMMONWEALTH BANK

$1.303 B$668 M$1.906 B$956 M$1.757 B$1.063 B$494 M$8.149 B

55

CAIXABANK$730 M$703 M$1.385 B$1.865 B$682 M$477 M$2.216 B$8.058 B

56

DANSKE BANK

$1.631 B$734 M$1.290 B$1.775 B$855 M$1.131 B$586 M$8.001 B

57

NAB$989 M$553 M$1.227 B$1.367 B$725 M$1.786 B$837 M$7.484 B

58

DZ BANK$249 M$298 M$390 M$353 M$406 M$127 M$122 M$1.945 B

59

CRÉDIT MUTUEL

$20 M

$16 M

$228 M$109 M-$14 M$122 M$509 M

60

LA BANQUE POSTALE

$20 M

-

$23 M

$34 M

$89 M

$276 M-$441 M$738.289$723.468 B$769.470 B$737.561$834.396 B$799.212$863.829 B$789.045 B$800.977 B$668.562 B$5.469 T

RANKGRAND TOTAL

12

B = BILLIONSB A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

2016-2022

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

13

FOSSIL FUEL FINANCE TRENDS

BANKS IN SIX COUNTRIES DOMINATE FOSSIL FUEL FINANCE (2016-2022)

UNITED STATES

Since 2016, the year when the Paris Agreement

JPMorgan Chase for the first time since 2019.

In absolute numbers, U.S. banks remain theentered into force, the world’s 60 largest banks

RBC provided $41 billion in 2022, making

most significant global financiers of fossil fuels.

have together financed fossil fuel companies

for a total of $252.5 billion since the Paris

However, RBC and other Canadian banks,

to the tune of $5.5 trillion. In 2022, those

Agreement. This represents an increase of theiras well as European and Japanese banks,

banks provided financing – lending andfinancing over 2021. JPMorgan Chase retains

have risen in the rankings this year. Canadian,

underwriting for bonds and equities – worth

its overall ranking for worst fossil fuel bank

Japanese, and French banks all increased their$669 billion. In 2022, Canadian bank Royal

since 2016, having committed $434 billion

share of total financing from 2021 to 2022. U.S.

Bank of Canada (RBC) ranked #1 as the worst

since the year the Paris Agreement went intobanks provided 28% of the total financing in

financier of fossil fuels for the year, edging out

effect.

2022, slightly less than the 33% they provided

CANADA
2016
2017

CHINA

2018
2019

JAPAN

2020
2021
2022

FRANCE

in 2021.
GREAT BRITAIN$0 B$500 B$1000 B

$1500 B

$2000 B

Beyond RBC, several other banks increased their fossil fuel financing from 2021 to 2022. These include Spain’s CaixaBank (364%increase), Australia’s ANZ (148% increase), and the United States’ PNC (77%).

FIFTEEN BANKS INCREASED FOSSIL FUEL FINANCING (FROM 2021-2022)
Amount of increase and percent change$7.31 B +33.7%

TD$5.49 B +77.34%

PNC$4.15 B +23.74%

ICBC$4.04 B +31.48%

China CITIC Bank

$3.51 B +21.27%

BNP Paribas$2.23 B +148.51%

ANZ$1.73 B +364.85%

CaixaBankSMBC Group$913 B +4.21%

Bank of China$874 B +5.95%$834 M +17.04%

UniCredit
Crédit Agricole$694 M +6.33%$500 M | +38.29%

Lloyds$188 M | +4.18%

RBC
Crédit Mutuel$108 M | +799.19%

KB Financial$107 M | +12.1%

$0B

14

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

$2B

$4B

$6B

B A N K I N G

$8B

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

15

THE DIRTY DOZEN 2022
BANK
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 upended global energy

gas sector did not borrow in 2022. For example, Occidental Petroleum

markets and set the stage for an unusual year in fossil fuel finance.

Corp, which borrowed on average $11.2 billion per year between 2016

Fears of energy shortages, especially in Europe, drove up global oil andand 2021, enjoyed a 722% profit increase in 2022 and borrowed $0

gas prices, a boon for companies otherwise facing long-term decline(See Record Fossil Fuel Profits, p. 18). In the context of rising interestand stagnant profits. Together, fossil fuel companies made $4 trillion

rates, a strong dollar, and wartime profits, fossil fuel companies havein income in 2022, which they are using to pay down debt and woo

paid off their existing debts and relied less on debt markets to raise

shareholders with big buybacks and dividends.14 For the first time, total

capital in 2022.16 Since most bank policies do not exclude financing forbank financing to fossil fuel companies was lower than it was in 2016.15

fossil fuel companies, there is no reason to think that 2022 is anything

There is little to instill confidence that this shift will become a positive,

but a temporary outlier in the trajectory of fossil fuel finance.

long-term trend, because fossil fuel profits, not bank policies, were2022 FINANCING

RBC$40.6 BILLIONJPMORGAN CHASE$39.2 BILLIONWELLS FARGO$37.4 BILLIONBANK OF AMERICA$35.5 BILLION

CITI$33.9 BILLION

MUFG$29.5 BILLIONSCOTIABANK$29.4 BILLION

TD$29 BILLIONMIZUHO$28.8 BILLIONSMBC GROUP$22.5 BILLION

ICBC$21.6 BILLION

BNP PARIBAS$20 BILLIONTOP CLIENTSCANADA DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT CORPENBRIDGE INC
TC ENERGY CORPSEMPRA ENERGYCITATION OIL & GAS CORPCRESCENT ENERGY CO

the most notable headline for 2022. Several big players in the oil and

CRESCENT ENERGY CO
VITOL HOLDING BVENBRIDGE INCPETRÓLEOS MEXICANOS (PEMEX)ENBRIDGE INC
TOURMALINE OIL CORP
VITOL HOLDING BVMARATHON PETROLEUM CORPENBRIDGE INC
CANADA DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT CORP
VITOL HOLDING BVENBRIDGE INC
VITOL HOLDING BVTRAFIGURA GROUP PTE LTD
STATE GRID CORP OF CHINA
CHINA NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION (CNPC)TOTALENERGIES SE
SAIPEM SPA

P H O T O : Robert McGouey / Industry / Alamy Stock Photo

16

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

17

“Fossil fuel interests are now cynically using the war in Ukraine
to lock in a high-carbon future. A shift to renewables is crucial
to mending our broken global energy mix and offering hope tomillions suffering climate impacts today.”

RECORD FOSSIL FUEL PROFITS– U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, 202221

Frequently, banks argue that fossil fuel companies need finance in order to transition to sustainable energy sources. However, this year has shownthat this argument does not stand up.17 Some big oil and gas companies are even walking back their climate commitments, hungry for the shortterm profits that market volatility has brought them.18
Fossil fuel companies could be setting themselves up for bigger borrowing in years to come as they appear to be on the cusp of the highest levels of
expansion since 2016.19 Paying off debt typically improves credit ratings, which would enable fossil fuel companies to borrow at lower interest rates.
According to Oil Change International’s analysis of oil and gas companies' projected final investment decisions for 2023-2025, there is a majorrisk that 2022 will prove to have been the calm before the storm, rather than the beginning of a long-term trend in bank financing for fossil fuelexpansion (see chart below).20

OCCIDENTALPETROLEUM CORP

PIONEER NATURALRESOURCES CO

EQUINOR ASA$12,421,000,000$7,845,000,000$28,744,000,000

EXXON MOBIL CORP

$55,740,000,000

TOTAL BANKFINANCING
2016-2021 ($US)$65,891,776,083$33,932,199,825$15,955,340,325$86,988,957,988

INCREASE
FROM 2021
PROFITS

721.49%270.40%235.17%141.93%BANK
FINANCING
2022

BANK

0

BANK OF AMERICACITIJPMORGANCHASE

0WELLS FARGOCREDIT SUISSE

0JPMORGANCHASEBANK OF AMERICABARCLAYS

0BANK OF AMERICAJPMORGAN
CHASE
CITI

NEW OIL AND GAS RESERVES APPROVED FOR DEVELOPMENT
WORLDWIDE BY YEAR
50
45
40
Billion barrels of oil equivalent

PROFITS FOR
2022 ($US)*

COMPANY

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

SUNCOR ENERGY INC$6,665,198,438$24,303,841,760

120.37%

0

CIBC
RBC
TD

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019
Oil

2020

2021
Gas

2022e

2023e

2024e

2025e

e = estimatedS O U R C E : Estimates for 2022-2025 are drawn from Rystad Energy’s UCube (October 2022) as analyzed in David Tong, “Investing in Disaster: Recent

SHELL PLC

$39,870,000,000$64,124,122,786

106.70%0

BNP PARIBAS
MORGAN STANLEYBARCLAYS

CANADIAN NATURALRESOURCES LTD (CNRL)$8,030,987,696$35,926,312,659

42.71%0TD
RBC
SCOTIABANK

and Anticipated Final Investment Decisions for New Oil and Gas Production Beyond the 1.5ºC Limit,” Oil Change International, November 2022. Excludes
shale.

And even in a year of astronomical fossil fuel profits – when a few big-ticket borrowers did not seek financing – banks still showered other fossil fuelcompanies with $669 billion of financing. Ultimately, the volatility in energy and capital markets in 2022 is yet another sign that the dependence on
fossil fuels is unsustainable, both for the climate and the economy. Now is the time to invest in a much-needed just energy transition.

18

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

19

LENDING VS. UNDERWRITING:
FINANCING BY ASSET CLASS, 2016–2022

BANK CLIENT PROFILE: Crescent Energy Company
Crescent Energy Company is a large oil and gas company expanding fossil fuel extraction in the central United States, including thePermian and Eagle Ford Basins. Crescent is a consolidated company that combines investment and extraction operations. They target
large returns to investors driven by continual mergers and acquisitions, boasting of “strong year-over-year growth in production.”22
Crescent is owned by KKR, a private equity company that has been criticized for being inattentive to workers’ rights, for their aggressive
corporate takeovers, and for buying dirty energy assets.23 Notably, KKR acquired a stake in the Coastal Gaslink pipeline in Canada, aA significant portion of bank fossil fuel financing over the last six years came in the form of bond and equity underwriting, as opposed to lending.

project that the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs oppose and which has spurred massive nationwide protests. KKR is also involved in the

In 2022, however, bond issuances dropped in proportion to loans, compared with the overall trend since 2016. This is consistent with an economy-

dangerous LNG buildout in the U.S. Gulf South, owning a stake in Sempra Energy’s Port Arthur LNG, a project that local communities

wide pattern for bond issuances.27 Nonetheless, many bank fossil fuel exclusion policies apply only to lending, which leaves a massive $2.7 trillion

oppose but which nonetheless reached a final investment decision in March 2023.25

loophole for banks that do not include underwriting in their climate policies (See “Bank Fossil Fuel Policies: 2022 Trends,” p. 22).

24

According to the Private Equity Stakeholder Project, private equity firms like KKR “are hardly regulated and exempt from most financial
disclosures,” allowing them to operate “under the shroud of darkness” when it comes to their energy investments.26 Yet we see private equity
firms such as KKR playing an increasingly important role in fossil fuel finance, enabling ongoing expansion. Despite KKR’s track record andCrescent’s fossil fuel expansion, the company was a major client of Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and RBC in 2022. Banks in this reportfinanced 2.3 billion in 2022 to Crescent, compared to $1.8 billion in 2021, a 28% increase.

THE LARGEST FOSSIL FUEL FINANCIERS
SINCE THE PARIS AGREEMENT, 2016–2022

FINANCING BY ASSET CLASS(2022)BARCLAYS$190.5 BILLIONJPMORGAN
CHASE$434.1 BILLIONMIZUHO$189.6 BILLION

CITI$332.9 BILLIONSCOTIABANK$182.3 BILLIONWELLS FARGO$316.7 BILLION

TD$173.2 BILLIONBANK OFAMERICA$279.7 BILLION

BNP PARIBAS$165.9 BILLION

RBC$252.9 BILLIONMORGANSTANLEY$153.4 BILLION

MUFG$219.6 BILLIONGOLDMAN
SACHS$144.9 BILLION

Underwriting(35.7%)FINANCING BY ASSET CLASS(2016-2022)

Lending(64.3%)

Lending(50.9%)

Underwriting(49.1%)P H O T O : Stockfolio / Alamy Stock Photo

20

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

21

BANK FOSSIL FUEL POLICIES:
2022 TRENDSCOAL POLICIESOverall, according to analysis conducted by

A real-world example of banks’ weak policies

Thirteen banks still have no meritable fossil fuelReclaim Finance for this report, 2022 was a

is ConocoPhillips, which is expanding

exclusion policy. These include eleven out of

In 2022, only Barclays (weak commitment) and Lloyds Banking Groupthemselves are lightyears away from best practices. While some banks
have improved their project-level exclusion policies (SMBC for instance),

slow year for new fossil fuel financing policies.

through the recently-approved Willow oil-the thirteen Chinese banks in scope (China(moderate commitment) adopted coal developer exclusion criteria for

A handful of banks adopted policies to exclude

drilling project in the Arctic, among other

CITIC Bank, China Construction Bank, China

their existing clients, and TD added criteria for new clients only. No otherthis leaves the vast majority of the coal sector unimpeded, since it morefinancing for new oil and gas development

projects. In 2022, ConocoPhillips received

Everbright Bank, China Merchants Bank,

bank adopted a new policy or improved an existing one targeting coaloften receives company-level, rather than project, financing. Some

projects, though these are not as ambitious

financing for general corporate purposes

China Minsheng Bank, Agricultural Bank of

expansion companies.

banks have adopted exclusion policies at the corporate level, but those

as is needed. Only two banks adopted coalfrom a syndicate including 12 banks profiled

China, Bank of Communications, Industrial

developer exclusion criteria for their existingin this report – Bank of America, Barclays,

and Commercial Bank of China, Industrial

North American and Japanese banks made some policy updates lastclients, and one added criteria for new clients

Citi, Credit Suisse, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase,

Bank, Shanghai Pudong Development Bank,

year, though these still lag behind their European counterparts, which

only. No other bank adopted a new policy

Mizuho, MUFG, RBC, SMBC Group, TD, andand Ping An Insurance Group), State Bankor improved an existing one targeting coalWells Fargo. While 39 of the top 60 banksof India, and U.S. Bancorp. The latter, which

expansion companies. Though ambitious

have some type of Arctic exclusion policy

is newly in scope for this report, must urgently

exclusion policies remain the most important

applicable to projects, this exclusion did

adopt a fossil fuel sector policy, as it falls

tool for climate and human rights protections,

not preclude financing for ConocoPhillips'

behind its already lagging North American

few banks have them.

Willow project, since the company soughtpeers.

28

financing for general corporate purposes
For detailed policy scores, see the policy

rather than for a specific project. Financing

Some banks are doing better. French banktrackers developed by Reclaim Finance at:designated for general corporate purposes

Crédit Mutuel stands out for its robust coal

BankingonClimateChaos.org/policy2023.

clearly enables ConocoPhillips to pursue thispolicy. La Banque Postale continues to haveand other destructive projects. ConocoPhillips

the strongest fossil fuel policy of the banks inBank policies contain loopholes that still leavealso holds a 30% non-controlling interest in

this report's scope. The results of their robust

them exposed to climate risk. For example,

Sempra’s proposed Port Arthur LNG export

policy are evidenced by $0 financing forunderwriting bonds and equities accounted forfacility, which reached a final investmentcompanies in our data set for the year of 2022.

36% of all fossil fuel financing, though majordecision in March 2023.29 As detailed below,banks exclude these activities from their fossil

very few banks have exclusion policies that

fuel policies (see p. 24). Bank policies also

apply to expansion of LNG or other midstream

include loopholes based on sector, region, or

infrastructure.

project.

policies are too weak to significantly impact coal financing.

Key Observations on Coal Policies

47 banks have coal exclusion policies in place.

13 banks do not have coal exclusion policies

16 banks have an explicit exclusion of somecoal developers for existing clients, among
which 3 (Crédit Mutuel, La Banque Postale,
Unicredit) exclude all companies with coalmining, power, or coal infrastructure expansion
plans.

39 banks have policies that include corporatelevel exclusion and/or requirements for phaseout.

47 banks have some project-level exclusion.
8 banks have only project exclusions and no –or ultra-weak – exclusions at the corporate level(score 0).

22

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

25 banks have some coal phaseout measures.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

23

FEW RESTRICTIONS ON CORPORATE FINANCEFOR EXPANSION COMPANIESOIL & GAS POLICIESIt has been almost two years since the International Energy Agency

All the other banks in scope have no explicit mention of oil andfirst announced that developing new oil and gas fields would harm thegas expansion in their policies. Some have made contradictory

chances of keeping global warming below 1.5°C. The Intergovernmental

commitments regarding companies expanding fossil fuels. For instance,

Panel on Climate Change reiterated the point in its March 2023 report.

Crédit Mutuel hinted in earlier publications that it might restrict fossil fuelStill, most banks have failed to adopt stringent exclusion policies for

expansion financing, but such measures were nowhere to be found incompanies expanding fossil fuels. Most bank policies restrict project-

its December 2022 policy update. In April, the bank finally announced

specific finance, but do not exclude general corporate finance forplans to target expansion, though the new measures announced will notcompanies, including those with expansion plans.

automatically meet their objective.31

Danish Danske Bank recently adopted a new policy excluding

All Canadian and U.S. banks are still at square one when it comes tocompanies with upstream expansion plans. This was the only in-scope

oil and gas expansion policies. Under their current policies, they canbank to adopt a new commitment on fossil fuel expansion in the past

continue to support companies developing new oil and/or gas projects

year. With its latest policy, HSBC took a first step in the right direction.

and also provide project and dedicated finance to most new extraction.

30

Of the 60 largest banks in this report:

40 have some restriction on financing oil and gas.
None of the banks based in Asia have such restrictions.

Bank policies focus mainly on unconventional sectors:

When assessing the credibility of a company's transition plans, the bankwill now evaluate a company’s expansion plans. However, failure to stop

Most fossil fuel exclusions apply only when a company seeks financeexpanding is not a strict exclusion criterion.

specifically designated for a fossil fuel project. Project-specific financeaccounts for on average only about 4% of total finance annually. Since

Arctic (39 out of 40)

Fracking (24 out of 40)

A handful of other banks have incomplete policies mentioning oil andonly a handful of the banks have meaningful exclusions that apply togas expansion, either only for new clients (Commerzbank) or for some

general corporate finance, most of them can continue financing oil andunconventional sectors only (NatWest and Lloyds Banking Group).

gas activities without violating their own policies. Annually, this amounts
to a $750 billion loophole.

Tar sands (28 out of 40)

Offshore (17 out of 40)
Project - (4%)

Few policies target conventional oil and/or gas (16), and fewer target conventional gas (12) thanconventional oil (16), but these numbers have almost doubled compared to our 2022 report.

PERCENTAGE TOTAL FINANCING (2016-2022)
Fossil fuel companies' debt is typically for general
corporate purposes rather than for projects

Only a few policies address LNG terminal expansion:

Corporate - (96%)- La Banque Postale excludes corporate and project finance for LNG expansion- Crédit Mutuel excludes all project finance- HSBC and ING partially exclude project finance (LNG terminals linked to new gas fields).
- Some other banks, such as BNP Paribas and Société Générale, have more incomplete
policies (for example with geographical loopholes).

P H O T O : Design Pics Inc / Alamy Stock Photo24

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

25

NET ZERO NETS NOTHING:
TRACKING BANKS’ COMMITMENTS

Key Takeaways

49 out of the 60 banks have set long-term, institution-wide targets to achieve net zero
Since 2021, many banks have embraced net zero commitments as their

Alliance. While it might seem like a positive development for banks to

key approach to tackling the climate crisis. Of the 60 banks featured inpublicly commit to becoming “Paris-aligned”, there is a real risk that

this report, 49 banks have in the last two years set some sort of net zerobanks’ “net zero” targets amount to nothing more than greenwashing.

decarbonization targets, whether through the United Nations-convened

So far, banks’ targets are too low, leave controversial portfolios

Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) or of their own initiative. For more on

unaddressed, and rely heavily on carbon offsets and discredited

the concept of net zero, see p. 28.

technologies such as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), which are

by 2040, 2050, or 2060.

either unproven or proven not to work (see “False Solutions” on p. 33).

43 banks have set intermediate targets for 2030 for specific fossil fuel sectors:» 39 banks have adopted targets for oil and gas» 5 banks have adopted targets for coal
» 41 banks have adopted targets for the power sector

committing themselves to lower their financed emissions to net zero by

For a detailed assessment of banks’ net zero commitments,

Most targets are limited to upstream oil, gas, and thermal coal, excluding other2050 in alignment with the Paris Agreement.32 At the time of writing, 43

see the tracker and summary developed by BankTrack at:

crucial activities such as LNG, pipelines, and other fossil infrastructureof the banks profiled in this report are members of the Net-Zero Banking

BankingonClimateChaos.org/policy2023.

At the time of writing, 125+ banks have signed on to the NZBA,“The truth is that more and more businesses are making Net Zerocommitments, but benchmarks and criteria are often dubious or
murky and this can mislead consumers, investors, and regulatorswith false narratives. It feeds the culture of climate misinformationand confusion and leaves the door open to greenwashing."– U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, 202333

Of the 39 banks with oil and gas targets, 24 banks use an absolute emissions metric (see box “Absolute
vs. Intensity Metrics” on p. 28). Three banks use an absolute portfolio metric, 11 banks use an intensitybased metric, and only Danske Bank uses a mix of intensity and absolute metrics.34 Of the five banks withcoal targets, three use an absolute emissions metric, one uses an intensity-based metric, and the lastbank uses an absolute portfolio metric. All 41 banks with a power sector reduction target use intensitybased metrics.35
A total of 27 banks explicitly rely on unproven carbon offsets or Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
technologies to reach their net zero targets. Even in the best-case scenario, these technologies remain
unproven and economically unviable.36
A major shortcoming of nearly all targets is that they apply exclusively to lending, and they exclude bondand equity underwriting. Only seven banks include both lending and underwriting in the scope of theirtargets, whereas over a third of the financing for the fossil fuel industry identified in this report is in theform of underwriting.

Troublingly, net zero commitments and emissions reductions targets

report makes it clear that expansion reduces the likelihood of limiting

do little to address fossil fuel expansion, even though we know thatwarming to 1.5˚C. Even without new fossil fuel development, “projected

expansion is incompatible with achieving net zero. The 43 banks

CO2 emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructure without additionalfeatured in this report that are part of the NZBA together financed

abatement would exceed the remaining carbon budget for 1.5°C.”38$111.6 billion in 2022 to the top 100 companies expanding fossil

Banks must go farther than their current commitments and set short-,

fuels.37 Together with the six banks that have independently made net

medium-, and long-term absolute emissions reduction targets for fossil

zero commitments, financing for these expansion companies amounts

fuel sectors’ Scopes 1, 2, and 3 emissions. Targets must include sector-

to $122 billion, including $9.9 billion to TotalEnergies, $9.7 billion

specific fossil fuel exclusion and phase-out policies that are consistentto TransCanada Pipelines, and $8.4 billion to ConocoPhillips, threewith ambitious 1.5°C scenarios.

of the world’s most aggressive fossil fuel expanders. The latest IPCC

26

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023
2022

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

27

ABSOLUTE VS. INTENSITY METRICS

EQUITABLE AND JUST TRANSITIONS

Banks typically use a combination of portfolio, intensity, and absolute

alone can be problematic, as emissions intensity can decrease even

The necessary global phaseout of fossil fuels must be equitable andsignificant harms – to the places where they are extracted. Frontline

emissions metrics to calculate and track their emissions reduction

as a bank’s absolute emissions increase. The UN High-Level Expert

just. Communities that have done the least to contribute to the climate

communities’ economic and energy needs are rarely met through fossil

goals. A portfolio target is based on money rather than emissions andGroup on the Net-Zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State Entities

crisis are the ones hardest hit by climate disaster. Poor and working

fuel expansion. The only way to address those needs equitably is to shift

aims to reduce the amount of financing provided to a specific sector.

(HLEG) report issued in November 2022 recommends that “non-statepeople, those in the Global South, Indigenous Peoples, and colonizedaway from fossil fuels. Companies based in places that have alreadyTargets based on an absolute emissions metric aim to reduce the actual

actors must have short-, medium- and long-term absolute emissions

peoples are, in many cases, also bearing the costs of transitioning to abeen enriched by them should now be making the steepest and mostamount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (CO2 and/or methane).

reduction targets and, where appropriate, relative emissions reduction

renewable energy economy. In 2022, while fossil fuel companies raked

immediate cuts.

Intensity targets also track emissions, looking at the relative “intensity”

targets across their value chain that are at least consistent with thein massive profits, high fossil fuel prices hit people hard, especially inor amount of emissions associated on average with each dollar/eurolatest IPCC net zero greenhouse gas emissions modeled pathways thatemerging economies.42 Meanwhile, globally, consumption of goods

Though clean energy finance and investments are outside of thefinanced or per unit of energy produced.

limit warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot, and where global

and services by the wealthiest nations and individuals contributes

scope of this report, bank financing for those activities is increasing.

emissions decline at least 50% below 2020 levels by 2030, reaching net

disproportionately to emissions, especially from energy use. The current

Ambitious targets for financing renewables feature prominently in

Climate change is driven by absolute, not relative, greenhouse gas

zero by 2050 or sooner.”39 While emissions intensity reductions can besituation is neither equitable nor just.

the climate commitments of many banks. Even so, current bankconcentrations. Thus, banks need to embrace absolute targets inappropriate as one component of a broader climate strategy, they mustorder to make meaningful climate commitments. Using intensity targets

not supersede tangible absolute emissions reductions.

NET ZERO

43

financing for renewables is nowhere near the level required to keep
The wealthiest have the highest cumulative emissions – and also

global warming below 1.5ºC. The most recent report from the IPCC

the greatest capacity to take action in rapidly decarbonizing theiraffirms that “private finance flows for fossil fuels are still greater thanactivities. They have an obligation to make the most ambitious emission

those for climate adaptation and mitigation.”45 Categorically different

reductions and invest in a just transition.44 Climate-related adaptationlevels of investments are needed in renewable energy generationand loss and damages in vulnerable countries must be paid by thoseand energy demand efficiency in order to avoid further instability in

who are using the most energy and have made the most profit fromenergy markets, such as what was seen in 2022 following the Russian

the current system. They must commit to immediately halting new fossil

invasion of Ukraine.46 In fact, according to recent research conductedfuel production and phasing out existing production in order to alignby Bloomberg New Energy Finance, global banks are financing clean

themselves with 1.5˚C pathways.

energy at a ratio of 0.8:1, a far cry from the 4:1 ratio the group says isneeded by the end of the decade to achieve climate goals.47

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded

atmosphere with the amount that are absorbed by natural carbon sinks

in its latest report that the world would need to reach net zero by theor removed using new technologies. Burning fossil fuels makes thatearly 2050s to have a 50% chance at keeping global temperaturebalance impossible. Corporate proponents of net zero often advocate

rise below 1.5ºC.40 As noted above, the UN High-Level Expert Groupfor carbon offsets – planting more trees, capturing carbon from thefurther dictates that non-state actors, which include the private banking

air and burying it, or any of a number of other unproven schemes tosector, must reach net zero emissions by 2050. In order to avert the‘net’ out ongoing emissions from fossil fuels. Frontline groups and many

most catastrophic impacts of climate change, global greenhousescientists argue that ‘net zero’ will fail if emissions from fossil fuels do

gas emissions must peak within the next several years. Because it

not rapidly fall, and that the goal must be to zero out emissions fromwill never be possible, even under the most ambitious scenario, toburning fossil fuels. Corporate net zero targets not based on “deep,

eliminate all emissions of greenhouse gases, the goal is to achieve net

rapid and, in most cases, immediate” emissions cuts are delay tactics.41

Banks share the obligation to act in accordance with these mandates.
Yet the data in this report show that banks are not doing so. Banks

Renewable sources of energy have the potential to address energy

headquartered in countries with the greatest historical responsibility

poverty in places not already served by fossil fuels.48 Even so, there are

and most significant capacity to take action are not leading. To takerisks. Bank financing for renewables must take account of the unique

the top banks in this year’s report as examples, 94% of the financing

risks in this emerging sector, such as the damage caused by lithium

RBC provided and 85% of financing provided by JPMorgan Chase inmining in Indigenous communities.49 Banks must strive to reduce the2022 went to companies based in the United States and Canada. While

cost of capital for new project developers so that the energy transition

those companies are extracting, transporting, processing, and burning

creates opportunities. Bank commitments must recognize the need forfossil fuels all over the world, their profits are flowing to executives anda just transition; they must prioritize finance for actors beyond the fossil

investors in North America. Fossil fuels bring very few benefits – andfuel companies that have caused this crisis.

zero by balancing the amount of greenhouse gases released into the“In 2021, the average North American emitted 11 times more energyrelated CO2 than the average African. Yet variations across income
groups are even more significant. The top 1% of emitters globally eachhad carbon footprints of over 50 tonnes of CO2 in 2021, more than
1000 times greater than those of the bottom 1% of emitters.”50

28

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

29

A fossil fuel phaseout must be accompanied by a transition away fromrich countries such as the U.S. to commit to a full unqualified phase-an exploitative global energy system to one in which human rights

out of all fossil fuels, namely oil, gas and coal. This was not done.”53 Thisare respected and resources are equitably distributed. A just energy

failure to address fossil fuels directly through global policy dramaticallysystem will necessarily be people-centered, focused on increasing

increases the risk of future energy insecurity, stranded assets, and harms

energy access for everyone. This entails creating new jobs by investing

to frontline communities. There is still an opportunity to make an orderly

in less destructive forms of energy; prioritizing climate resilience andand just energy transition.

WHILE THE CLIMATE CHANGES, EMISSIONS RISE

adaptation; retraining transition-affected workers; protecting the rights
and income of workers and communities during transition; implementing

Vanuatu, Tuvalu, the European Parliament, the World Healthzero tolerance for violence against climate, forest, and rights defenders,

Organisation, and 79 city and sub-national governments around the“With every additional increment of global warming, changes

pre-industrial levels, and this warming has resulted in more frequent andespecially women and Indigenous Peoples; democratically engaging

world, including major urban centers like London, Paris, Bonn, and Los

in extremes continue to become larger. Continued global

severe heat waves, wildfires, supercharged storms, atmospheric rivers,

those stakeholders throughout the transition; and addressing the energy

Angeles, have called on nation-states to develop a Fossil Fuel Non-

warming is projected to further intensify the global water cycle,

and extended droughts. Weather events in 2022 broke records andaccess needs of vulnerable communities. Care must be taken not to

Proliferation Treaty. The treaty would be oriented around three pillars:

including its variability, global monsoon precipitation, and very

devastated communities, ecosystems, and infrastructure. Deadly floods

finance renewables projects that contribute to the same systems of

non-proliferation, a fair phaseout, and a just transition. Proponents point

wet and very dry weather and climate events and seasons.”

displaced millions in Pakistan, Nigeria, South Africa, and Australia; severe

exploitation that have enabled fossil fuel extraction. For a just transition,out that the fossil fuel industry is planning to vastly exceed the 1.5°C

fossil fuel polluters must pay the true costs of the loss and damages thatgoal of the Paris Agreement and it will take all of us to push them inpeople in historically low-emitting regions now face.

the right direction. Noting that most of the governmental negotiations

54

Across the globe, the average temperature is already 1.1°C above– Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
ARG Synthesis Report, March 2023

heat waves struck India, China, Europe, the U.S., and East Asia; and theHorn of Africa experienced its worst drought in 40 years.

around fossil fuels are about emissions, rather than limiting upstream

Carbon emissions continue to rise year-over-year, though at a slightly

As of 2023, there is no global commitment to phasing out fossil

supply, the treaty would be the first international agreement of its kind toslower pace than in previous years.55 Global emissions from fossil fuels

fuels, despite the overwhelming reality that the world must end ourlimit the expansion of fossil fuels.

dependence on dirty sources of energy. The Paris Agreement made no52

mention of fossil fuels at all, and global institutions are failing to act on

Banks can endorse and sign onto the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation

their own. As the Indigenous Environmental Network put it following theTreaty; doing so would have a bigger impact than their net zero

UN convening in Egypt, “The bottom line at COP27 should have been forcommitments.

“We know what we need to do: peak global emissions in just three
years, by 2025, and cut emissions in half in less than eight years, by2030.”– Catherine McKenna, Chair, UN High‑level Expert Groupon the Net Zero Emissions Commitmentsof Non-State Entities, 2022

alone hit a record high in 2022, with most of the increase coming fromoil and coal.56 For the first time in a decade, emissions grew more slowly
than global GDP.57
Methane emissions from fossil fuel operations increased in 2022, andoil and gas producers did little to curb those emissions. In 2022, theInternational Energy Agency admonished that at least 210 billion cubic“The Pacific will no longer accept the fossil fuel lie. We have the power and responsibility to lead, and we will. Pacificmeters of methane gas were released as polluting emissions throughleaders called for the Paris Agreement to limit warming to 1.5°C, and have demanded an end to the development andflaring and leaks along the supply chain.58 According to their Global

expansion of fossil fuel extracting industries, starting with new coal mines. Pacific civil society has challenged the world tostep up the fight for urgent fossil fuel phase out and effective climate action.”– Port Vila Call for a Just Transition to a Fossil Fuel Free Pacific (March 2023)51“Methane cuts are among the cheapest options to limit near-term
global warming. There is just no excuse.”– Fatih Birol, IEA Executive Director

Methane Tracker, if that methane had been captured, it “would amountto more than the European Union’s total annual gas imports from Russia
prior to the invasion of Ukraine.”59 To date, there is no indication thatthe oil and gas industry has directed its windfall profits towards costeffective technology that would sufficiently reduce these emissions.60

P H O T O : Green Photograpy LLC / International Indigenous Youth Council (IIYC) / Fossil Free Future; Leonid Ikan / shutterstock30

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

31

KEEP IT IN THE GROUNDFALSE SOLUTIONS

The message from scientists and human rights defenders is clear: The

occurs and does justice to local voices, rights, and needs. ApproachingCompanies can avoid meaningful climate action through their “netAccording to the UN High-Level Expert Group on the Net-Zero Emissions

only path that will limit planetary warming to 1.5ºC and meet our global

the crisis by focusing solely on emissions leads to false solutions andzero” pledges because those commitments often rely on carbon offsets.

Commitments of Non-State Entities (HLEG), “too many non-state actors

climate goals is one that respects the autonomy, rights, and livelihoods

disrespects the ancient wisdom Indigenous Peoples carry through their“Offsets” broadly refer to actions aimed at counterbalancing carbon

are currently engaging in a voluntary market where low prices and aof Indigenous Peoples and other frontline communities around the world

relationship with the Earth. Lastly, extracting more fossil fuels, however

emissions: carbon markets, carbon offsets, climate-smart agriculture,lack of clear guidelines risk delaying the urgent near-term emission

and ends all new extraction of fossil fuels.61 A ‘keep it in the ground’

they might theoretically be ‘offset’, has the net effect of locking in moreclimate geoengineering, reforestation, so-called nature-based

reductions needed to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.”62

approach aligns with the simple and essential need to stop fossil fuelemissions down the road, hampering the financial and socioeconomic

solutions, or investments in low-carbon energy or industrial processes.

Meanwhile, new technologies like Carbon Capture, Utilisation andextraction in order to limit greenhouse gas emissions at the source.

systems' ability to make a just transition to an economy based on more

Human and Indigenous rights defenders raise serious equity concerns

Storage (CCUS) are unlikely to yield change in greenhouse gases inThis strategy avoids further harm to communities where extraction

sustainable forms of energy.

about carbon offsets, which open the way for land grabs, dispossession

the atmosphere in the near and medium terms. As of this writing, ofof land protectors, and continued fossil fuel extraction. Breaches of

those which have been completed, most CCUS projects failed to reachIndigenous sovereignty, human rights abuses, and gaps in the integrity,

projected targets. There is little evidence to suggest that any futureaccuracy, and efficacy of such projects are well documented. The

projects would meet the threshold at which they could legitimately be

increase in net zero pledges has stimulated the market for offsets.

counted on to zero out emissions. As the Indigenous Environmental
Network puts it, “False solutions distract from the root causes of climate

The only way to slow climate change and safeguard Indigenous rights is to keepchange and allow polluters to keep on polluting.”63

fossil fuels in the ground. Following the guidance offered by decades of frontline
land and water defenders - extraction of oil, gas, and coal must cease.

“Real solutions are led by Indigenous Peoples,not co-opted with more greenwash.”– Indigenous Environmental Network, 2022

P H O T O : Jake Conroy / RAN

32

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

33

FRONTLINE STORIESBanking on Climate Chaos 2023 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. These financing numbers can seem quite abstract. But theschools and homes, prioritizing good green jobs, or saving species

impacts are anything but abstract for the millions of people who live on

from human overconsumption, people on the frontlines win justicethe frontlines of the extraction, processing, and transportation of fossil

for communities and the planet by organizing and standing up tofuels. This report spotlights the fights of people opposing fossil fuels

powerful financial interests. For a just future, people must follow theon the ground and includes these voices to make it clear that banklead of those who are the most directly affected by fossil fuel extraction

financing for fossil fuels concretely impacts the everyday lives of people

and the harmful pollution it produces. The featured frontline stories show

worldwide.

how the world must meet this moment.

Climate change hits the frontlines first and worst. People living on thefrontlines of climate chaos are predominantly Indigenous Peoples, Blackand brown communities, low-wage workers, or smallholder farmers,
often living in poverty. Sometimes, as in the cases of Nigeria and the
U.S. Gulf Coast – both featured here – the same people living withworsening hurricanes, stronger storm surges, rising sea levels, and thelasting effects of racial injustice and inequality are also at the epicenterof the massive, dirty, health-harming fossil fuel industry. Leaders in thosecommunities expose our current system of extraction.

P H O T O : Jake Conroy / RAN

34

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

P H O T O : Jes Azner / Getty Images
B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

35

1

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

10

Mozambique LNG/Rovuma LNG
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)

2

Fracking in Vaca Muerta (Argentina)
Key companies: Trans Mountain Corp.
Key banks: RBC, TD, Bank of Montreal

113Coastal GasLink Pipeline Canada
Key companies: Trans Mountain Corp.
Key banks: RBC, TD, Bank of Montreal

12

4Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion
Key companies: Trans Mountain Corp.
Key banks: RBC, TD, Bank of Montreal

13

Amazon Oil
Key companies: Ecopetrol, Petróleos del Perú, PetroEcuador, Petrobras
Key banks: Citi, JPMorgan Chase, Santander

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

14

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

5

6

7

8

9

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

15

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

16

Cirebon 2 Coal Plant
Key companies: Marubeni, Samtan, IMECO
Key banks: MUFG, Mizuho, SMBC

17

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

Nigeria LNG (Train 7, expansion proposed)
Key companies: Nigerian National Petroleum Corp., Shell, TotalEnergies, Eni
Key banks: SMBC Group, DZ Bank, Société Générale

18

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

19Myanmar-China Oil and Gas pipelines
Key companies: CNPC, MOGE, POSCO, KOGAS, GAIL, ONGC
Key banks: ICBC, KB Financial, UBS

20

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

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

Plaquemines LNG (United States)
Key companies: Venture Global LNG
Key banks: Goldan Sachs, Mizuho, Scotiabank
Rio Grande LNG (United States)
Key companies: NextDecade
Key banks: MUFG, Credit Suisse & Macquarie Capital

PNOC
Status: planned/proposed

29

8 Proposed Power Plants (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 Chase30

SMC-EERI Batangas Combined Cycle Power Plant
Status: proposed

31

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

32

Lloyds Energy Ph, Floating Power plant
Status: proposed

21

Linseed Field Power Corporation
Key companies: Trans Mountain Corp.
Status: in construction

22

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

33

SMC Ilijan Power Plant
Status: in operation

34

23

Excelerate Energy L.P.
Status: planned/proposed

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

35

24

Vires Energy Corporation
Status: planned/proposed

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

36

Batangas Clean Energy, Inc.
Status: planned/proposed

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

37

AC Energy Stealler Dual-Fired Power Plant ProjectStatus: proposed

25

Corpus Christi Stage III (United States)
Key companies: Cheneire
Key banks: Société Générale, Bank of Nova Scotia (US), HSBC, ING, SMBC, Wells
Fargo

28

26

Shell Energy, Philippines, Inc.
Status: planned/proposed

27

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

3
4

13

14

18
17

15

16
12

19

20, 21, 22,
23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33, 34,
35, 36, 37

7This map highlights some of the most devastating examples

6of fossil fuel expansion. These projects harm the health andsafety of local communities. The map notes the top companies

10

report’s scope support each destructive project.

36

1

5

involved in the projects and highlights which banks in this

»

11

9

8

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

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

2
B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

37

Indigenous Peoples’ Sovereignty
Indigenous Peoples should lead present
and future climate change negotiations inorder to center Indigenous Peoples’ rights
and sovereignty. We hold an estimated 80%of what remains of the Earth’s land-based
biodiversity in our lands and traditional
territories.65 Without Indigenous Peoples
protecting and maintaining ecosystems,
climate change would have already caused
widespread planetary collapse. Indigenous
Peoples hold sacred connections to Mother
Earth and Father Sky who maintain thebalance of life on this planet.
However, Indigenous Peoples’ rights andsovereignty are threatened by colonizing
governments that sanction deforestation, fossil
fuel development, industrial agriculture, andcarbon offsets, activities often undertaken
in Indigenous Peoples’ territories without Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). As things stand, nation-states and international decisionmaking bodies like the UN use legal language steeped in doctrines of conquest and racial discrimination. Their language erases Indigenous
Peoples’ sovereignty and jurisprudence over their lands, air, waters, and biodiversity.66 At the UNFCCC’s COP27 in Sharm-el-Sheik, language
affirming Indigenous Peoples’ rights was largely gutted in the final texts.67 At the UN Conference on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) COP15
December 2022 meeting in Montreal, Indigenous rights were qualified and constrained. The decision-makers there suggested not thatIndigenous Peoples should have jurisdictional authority, self-government, or self-determination. Instead they proposed a kind of resource comanagement that falls short of Indigenous Peoples’ full rights.

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ SOVEREIGNTY,
Not False Solutions
By: Tom BK Goldtooth and Tamra Gilbertson of the Indigenous Environmental Network
Our success in addressing climate change depends on how quickly we

In November 2022, the 27th Conference of the Parties of the United

can limit extraction to keep fossil fuels in the ground. We must restructure

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC - COP

our social and economic systems, replacing the business-as-usual,27) in Sharm-el-Sheik, Egypt, had a historic opportunity to address

fossil-fueled, extractive, throwaway economy with one that protects

extractive industry profits, call out fossil fuel expansion plans, and holdpeople and the environment. However, in a time of climate crisis, Oilfinancial institutions accountable for the climate crisis. Instead, they

Majors reported record earnings in 2022 with many breaking industry

doubled down on the flawed systems that support fossil fuel industry

records.64 This pattern will continue as long as greenwashed climate

extractivism. The core UNFCCC mitigation strategy is in Article 6 ofchange policies support it. Climate change mitigation consists almost

the Paris Agreement, which authorizes international carbon markets.

entirely of carbon pricing, carbon offsets, carbon trading, and other

Negotiators debated the implementation plans for the controversial

schemes. From the United Nations (UN) to the state, 25 years of carbon

Article 6 at length, but without much resolution. Yet the details of Article

games have not stopped fossil fuel extraction. Carbon accounting is in

6 have serious and life-threatening consequences for Indigenous

fact designed precisely so that polluters can continue extracting. That is

Peoples across the world. Carbon markets have already been a tool of

why the only way to address climate change is to stop relying on carbon

violence and dispossession, and as they grow, they promise to expand

trading and other greenwashed mitigation and keep it in the groundthe threat of false solutions.

(see box, p. 32).

38

E S S AY :I N D I G E N O U SP E O P L E S 'S O V E R E I G N T Y,

N O T

F A L S E

S O L U T I O N

Indigenous relatives take to the streets at COP25 to protest false solutions; Indigenous youth at COP25 in Madrid, Spain call on leaders to
fix Article 6 in the Paris Agreement; Protestors call on US President Biden to stop the Willow Project
P H O T O S : IEN; People vs Fossil Fuels

E S S AY :I N D I G E N O U SP E O P L E S 'S O V E R E I G N T Y,

N O T

F A L S E

S O L U T I O N

39False Solutions Threaten our Sovereignty and Livelihoods

intergovernmental bodies, and large non-governmental organizations.

Whose Climate Solutions?

Financial institutions and fossil fuel companies greenwash their

Fossil fuel companies embracing NBS include Shell, BP, Chevron, andCarbon pricing, markets, and offsets do not produce real emissions

destruction so that they can continue business as usual. Their

ConocoPhillips, among others.72

reductions.79 Instead, they deepen climate chaos and thus threaten
humanity with increasingly ferocious hurricanes, droughts, tornadoes,

desperation and access to power has led to climate mitigation andadaptation focused almost entirely on market-based carbon trading

Forest offsets have flourished in the last decade, and with themsystems. In order to treat carbon as a commodity in a market trading

opportunities for harm. Between 2015-2019, forest credits increased

system, it is necessary to claim property rights over all forms of Life.

significantly both in absolute amount and in share of the global

The ‘solutions’ pushed under the UNFCCC are false solutions that

Carbon traders gain the power to target and commodify Indigenous

market for offsets. The forestry sector represents the largest shareactively perpetuate the climate crisis. They distract from the root causes

Peoples’ territories. Putting a price on carbon sequestered in forests,of carbon credits issued over the period (42%).73 The increase ofof climate change and they allow polluters to claim so-called net zerosoils, water, and biodiversity is part of the predatory instinct of theforest credit trading since 2015 relied mainly on regional, national, or

emissions reductions and keep on polluting. Market mechanisms are

Black Snake devastating the sacredness of Mother Earth and Father

subnational credit mechanisms, which outcompeted international credit

embraced because of their ability to generate profit and maximize

Sky. It disguises itself as respectful of Indigenous rights and Traditional

mechanisms under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto

private sector involvement, not because they reduce emissions or uphold

Indigenous Knowledge, but it is an insidious form of capitalism that

Protocol. However, private sector carbon offsets are rapidly increasing

Indigenous Peoples’ rights and sovereignty. They do neither. Climate

commodifies Nature on Mother Earth and corrupts the Sacred.

and can also generate credits for compliance markets.

change thus has become the latest excuse for violent dispossession

74

fires, and floods.

and cultural genocide. This is history repeating itself – it is the same
With billions at stake for new carbon market development and so called

The tremendous increase in offset markets was a key debate in Article“nature-based solutions (NBS),” carbon traders are targeting Indigenous

6 negotiations at the COP 27 in Sharm-el-Sheik in November 2022.75

Peoples’ territories across the world.68 After 25 years of debate on

Negotiators at Sharm-el-Sheik also debated how Article 6 markets

paradigm that contributed to the climate crisis in the first place.
Efforts to stop climate change must be trusted to and led by Indigenous

carbon trading, offset profiteers

will work with offsets for false,

Peoples. Indigenous Peoples have a distinct spiritual and inherent

have pocketed billions throughdangerous proposals for

relationship jurisprudence with their land and traditional territories,

programs like Reducing

carbon dioxide removals (CDR)

water, ecosystems, and all Life. The relationship is based on the territorial

Emissions from Deforestationor carbon “removals,” which

integrity and rights of Mother Earth and Nature. It is time for all people

and forest Degradation

include biological offsets (NBS),

to listen to and stand with Indigenous Peoples. Therefore, to address(REDD+). These programs

carbon capture & storage

climate change, the Black Snake of carbon pricing must end. Strategies

have eroded Indigenous(CCS), direct air capture (DAC),

for system change must center Indigenous Peoples’ sovereignty and

Peoples’ sovereignty and done

climate geoengineering, andrights, and must begin by keeping fossil fuels in the ground.80

nothing to reduce carbon in thethe euphemistically named

atmosphere.

“ocean fertilization,” shorthand69

for dumping scrap metal into
Forest offset management

the ocean.76 Negotiations willcompanies target Indigenous

continue throughout 2023;

territories because they are theregardless of the outcome,most biodiverse places on thethe increased power of theplanet. Their offsetting projects

private sector in all aspects ofIndigenous Peoples protest false solutions at COP25; Indigenous relative protests the Line 3 pipeline invading
Anishinaabe territory; Indigenous Peoples and allies hold action outside Chase Bank in Scotland at COP26
P H O T O S : IEN

climate change policy is deeply

are hotly contested and sadly,
have caused violence and division among Indigenous Peoples. As aproblematic. When the implementation rules are finalized, Article 6 ofresult, the private sector did what they always do when challenged –the Paris Agreement will build these markets on a global scale.

77

they rebranded. Under the new language of Nature-Based Solutions(NBS), forest-, soil-, and ocean-based offsets are often disguised to fool

The emerging Article 6 system will have serious consequences forthe public into believing they are a positive solution to climate change.

Indigenous Peoples because it will increase the volume of carbon

As of 2021, 92% of countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions

credits, set us up for land grabs, and reduce accountability in the(NDCs) to meet emissions reductions under the UNFCCC included somesystem. We at Indigenous Environmental Network have serious concerns

form of NBS.71 In other words, the majority of the world lives in the fantasy

about how the UN will monitor the new carbon trading platform, whatthat they can fix climate change without giving up fossil fuels.

accounting system will track the market, who will control it, and what

70

role the private sector will play.78 We are particularly concerned that the
Scratch the surface of the dubious NBS agenda and we find the

UN-authorized carbon trading platform will be a tool to funnel climate

same private sector polluters and carbon traders that alreadyfinance to private sector actors intent on monitoring and gaining accessstand in the way of climate action. They form a predictable lineup of

to Indigenous Peoples’ territories.

multinational corporations, investment banks, national governments,

40

E S S AY :I N D I G E N O U SP E O P L E S 'S O V E R E I G N T Y,

N O T

F A L S E

S O L U T I O N

E S S AY :I N D I G E N O U SP E O P L E S 'S O V E R E I G N T Y,

N O T

F A L S E

S O L U T I O N

41

FOSSIL FUEL EXPANSIONMETHODOLOGY

Scope: 100 top companies expanding fossil fuels85
Upstream Oil and Gas: Top 55 companies by resources under development or field evaluation in 2022 (hereafter referred to as
short-term expansion) and top 32 companies by exploration capital expenditure three-year average – totaling 60 companies
due to overlap – these 60 companies are responsible for 77% of global short-term oil and gas expansion and 67% of capital
expenditure on oil and gas exploration
Source: Global Oil & Gas Exit List compiled by Urgewald.86
Midstream Oil and Gas: Top 14 companies by LNG capacity proposed or under construction and top 11 companies by pipeline
miles proposed or under construction, totaling 15 additional companies due to overlap — 10 of these 25 companies areamong the 60 top upstream oil and gas expansion companies
ARCTIC OIL & GAS

OFFSHORE
OIL & GAS

Source: Global Oil & Gas Exit List compiled by Urgewald.87
Coal: Top 12 coal mining expansion companies by annual coal production and coal mining expansion capacity and top 17
companies proposing new coal power plants installed and planned coal power capacity, totaling 25 companies due to overlap
FRACKEDOIL & GASTAR SANDS OIL

Source: Global Coal Exit List compiled by Urgewald.88

TAR SANDS OIL
Scope: Top 27 companies by tar sands production in 2021 plus short-term expansion, and the six companies with existing or

FOSSIL FUEL
EXPANSION

proposed pipelines to carry tar sands oil out of Alberta in the past seven years
Source: Global Oil & Gas Exit List compiled by Urgewald.89 and Oil Sands Magazine90

LIQUEFIED
NATURAL GASAMAZON OIL
EXPLORATIONARCTIC OIL AND GAS
Scope: Top 30 companies by Arctic oil and gas production91 in 2021 plus short-term expansion
Source: Global Oil & Gas Exit List compiled by Urgewald.92

AMAZON OIL AND GASCOAL MINING

COAL POWER

Scope: Top 21 companies with direct involvement in oil and gas extraction in the Amazon region as of 202293
Source: Research conducted by Stand Research Group94

OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS
Scope: Top 30 companies by offshore oil and gas production in 2021 plus short-term expansion
This report is the fourteenth annual publication in a series of reports
analyzing bank financing for fossil fuels. As in the 2022 edition, the

FOSSIL FUEL FINANCING

Source: Rystad Energy AS provided by Oil Change International95

FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY SCOPE

report assesses comercial bank financing for the fossil fuel sector in

Each of this report’s league tables looks at bank financing for a different

FRACKED OIL AND GAS

general and for selected spotlight sectors. The report highlights bankslice of the fossil fuel industry, as follows:

Scope: Top 30 companies by fracked oil and gas production in 2021 plus short-term expansion and 10 key fracked oil and gas

support for, and policies regarding, companies actively expanding inpipeline companies

fossil fuels, along with several key sectors: tar sands oil, Arctic oil and

ALL FOSSIL FUELS

gas, Amazon oil and gas, offshore oil and gas, fracked oil and gas, LNG,

Scope: Approximately 2,000 group-level companies that are either

coal mining, and coal-fired power. These fossil fuels are spotlighted due

independent or parent company — totaling 3,210 companies when

LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG)

to their high environmental, social, and climate impacts, and/or their

including relevant subsidiaries that are involved in the extraction,

Scope: Top 30 companies by attributable capacity in current and planned LNG import or export terminals worldwide

heightened risk of becoming stranded assets.

transportation, transmission, distribution, combustion, trade, or storage

Source: Global Energy Monitor97 and Global Oil & Gas Exit List compiled by Urgewald.98

BANKING INDUSTRY SCOPE

Source: Global Oil & Gas Exit List compiled by Urgewald96.

of any fossil fuels or fossil-based electricity, globally, according to
the Bloomberg Industry Classification Standard; or are on the Global

COAL MINING

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

Coal Exit List; or are on the Global Oil and Gas Exit List; or are in the

Scope: Top 30 companies by annual coal production plus coal mining capacity expansion plansaccording to Standard & Poor’s.81 Due to year-on-year changes in bankscope of any of the other tables in the report, as described below.

Source: Global Coal Exit List compiled by Urgewald.99

sizes, 59 of these banks were included in last year’s report, while one is

Only companies that received syndicated financing led by one of thenew. See page 88 for details of all banks included.

60 banks in scope are analyzed, which means that some fossil fuel

COAL POWER

companies are not included.

Scope: Top 30 companies by installed plus planned coal power capacity

Source: Bloomberg Finance L.P.,82 Urgewald.,83 and Rystad Energy AS

Source: Global Coal Exit List compiled by Urgewald.100

provided by Oil Change International84

42

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

43

CALCULATING FINANCE FLOWSFor the companies included in this analysis, the report assessed eachissued or renewed, provided the event meets certain criteria. Additional

bank’s leading involvement in corporate lending and underwriting

project finance transactions in the LNG and coal power sectors weretransactions — including project finance where data were available —researched using the IJGlobal database, in which case all involved

between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2022, inclusive.

banks received credit for their participation in a deal.102 All deals
marked as “Green Instruments” were removed from the data set; deals

Transaction data were primarily sourced from Bloomberg Financedesignated as “Sustainability Linked” or “Sustainability Bond/Loan” are

L.P., in which case the value of a transaction is split between leading

included. This is a conservative choice since the precise definitions andbanks according to Bloomberg’s league credit methodology.101 Thisrequirements for these designations have not been standardized.103

Each transaction was weighted based on the proportion of the borrower or issuer’s operations devoted to the sector in question:»

For the league tables measuring financing for all fossil fuels, and the top fossil fuel expanders, transactions were adjusted basedon each company’s overall fossil fuel-based assets, revenue, or operating income.104»

For the upstream oil and gas sectors, taking into account information from the recently published Global Oil and Gas Exit List,
transactions were adjusted based on a company’s production in the particular sector out of its total oil and gas production in agiven year (whereas prior to the 2022 edition of this report adjusted these transactions based on a company’s sector
reserves).105

methodology assigns banks league credit when financing is initially»

For the key pipeline companies included in the tar sands and fracked oil and gas sectors, adjusters were based on the estimatedproportion of pipeline capacity transporting tar sands or shale oil and gas, respectively.

»

For LNG and coal mining, transactions were adjusted based on a company’s total LNG-related or coal assets as a percentageof the company’s total assets.

»

For coal power, transactions were adjusted based on a company’s share of coal in its generation capacity.106

All amounts in this report are expressed in U.S. dollars unless otherwise indicated.

»

For more detailed methodology and frequently asked questions,visit : BankingonClimateChaos.org/methodology2023

Construction of the Trans Mountain oil pipeline through the rocky mountains near Hinton Alberta Canada.
P H O T O : Robert McGouey / Industry / Alamy Stock Photo44

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

45

CO2 EMISSIONS ‘COMMITTED’ BY DEVELOPED OIL, GAS, AND COAL RESERVES,COMPARED TO REMAINING CARBON BUDGETS TO STAY WITHIN THE PARIS GOALS
Remaining carbon budgets

1.5°C

1.7°C

(50% chance)

2.0°C(67% chance)(83% chance)

FOSSIL FUEL
EXPANSION
OIL

GAS

COAL

Fossil fuels in developed fields and mines= 936 Gt CO2

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Emissions (Gt CO2)

SOURCE: Oil Change International analysis based on data from Rystad Energy, Trout et al. 2022, IPCC, and Global
Carbon Project.1 Remaining carbon budgets shown are as of the start of 2022.

In the World Energy Outlook 2022, the International Energy Agency

repudiated this, alongside announcing record profits.112 Importantly,(IEA) confirmed its 2021 finding that no new oil or gas fields areeven before this step backwards, BP had excluded around 30% of the“needed” beyond those already producing or under development

carbon pollution associated with its extraction investments from thatin a 1.5ºC-aligned scenario.

commitment, and had taken few concrete steps to achieve it. Even110

BIG OIL REALITY CHECK:Oil and Gas Companies are on Track to Surge
New Expansion Incompatible with 1.5ºC

That the IEA reached this finding isparticularly notable, because the agency was originally created with anworse, BP made clear that it would reduce production by selling its least

express purpose of securing wealthy nations’ access to oil, and because

profitable assets, rather than leaving oil and gas in the ground.113

the IEA scenario itself relies on an extremely rapid, implausible growthin carbon capture and storage (CCS). Other scenarios have reached

Several big oil and gas companies have published misleading “netsimilar conclusions on the need to immediately end new oil and gas

zero” emissions pledges that contain vast loopholes. Many of these

expansion and to reduce global oil and gas production by at least 65%

pledges completely exclude the emissions that result from customers

by 2050, compared to 2020 levels. Pathways that do not rely on CCS

burning a company’s products. For example, ExxonMobil’s “net zero”

require oil and gas production to decline significantly faster – by nearlypledge includes only its Scope 1 and 2 emissions from its operated

50% by 2030, relative to 2020 levels.

assets – even though over 85% of its corporate emissions come fromits customers burning the oil and gas it sells.114

The industry that has done the most to cause the climate crisis willproposing new fields and wells for final investment decisions (FIDs).

not solve it. Peer reviewed research shows the oil and gas industry has

Recent Oil Change International research shows that there is a risk of

A 2022 report from Oil Change International (endorsed by over 45 otheralready invested in producing more oil and gas than the world canhuge new oil and gas expansion being approved between now andcivil society organizations) analyzed the climate commitments of eight

Several companies have released either new climate promises or plans

2025 (see chart, p. 19). The total carbon pollution locked in by new oilof the largest integrated oil and gas companies — BP, Chevron, Eni,

over the last year. Ultimately, however, no major oil and gas company

and gas production sanctioned from 2022 to 2025 could amount toEquinor, ExxonMobil, Repsol, Shell, and TotalEnergies (the “oil majors”) —has released a climate pledge or sustainability plan that meets theThis amounts to almost two years’ worth of the world’s

in light of the ambition and integrity required to achieve a 1.5°C-aligned

bare minimum criteria for alignment with the Paris Agreement. Someafford to burn in order to limit global warming to 1.5ºC.

107

No major oil and gas company has committed to ending new expansion

70 Gt CO2.

beyond existing fields. While these companies claim to be part of thecurrent global annual energy-related carbon emissions.109 The reality isphaseout of oil and fossil gas use. Of the oil majors’ climate strategies,

even backslid from their previous pledges.115 Given their track record, it

solution to the climate crisis, the reality is very different: They are digging

that burning only the oil and gas in developed fields at the start of 2022

plans, and pledges evaluated in that report, none comes close tois questionable whether these companies can be trusted to make thewould already more than exhaust that carbon budget.

alignment with the Paris Agreement.

energy transition the world desperately needs.116 Fossil fuel companies

in their heels on fossil fuel expansion by spending on exploration and

108

111

that are obstructing the energy transition should not be financed by
Last year, only one oil major, BP, had planned to make an absolute
P H O T O : VPC Travel Photo / Alamy Stock Photo46

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

any financial institution that wishes to align with the Paris Agreement.

cut to oil and gas extraction by 2030 – and it has subsequently
B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

47

LEAGUE TABLE - Banking on Fossil Fuel Expansion

B = BILLIONS

M = MILLIONS

T = TRILLIONSBank financing for the top 100 key oil, gas, and coal companies expanding fossil fuels in 2022, based on research by
Urgewald for the Global Oil & Gas Exit List 2022 and the Global Coal Exit List 2022.

48

TOTAL

BANK

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

1

JPMORGAN CHASE$23.876 B$16.325 B$15.667 B$23.671 B$28.211 B$20.200 B$11.249 B$139.198 B

2

CITI

$14.929 B$9.142 B$9.639 B$25.438 B$25.775 B$18.458 B$10.122 B$113.504 B

3BANK OF AMERICA$15.114 B$5.825 B$7.382 B$20.272 B$24.133 B$9.808 B$4.657 B$87.191 B

4

BNP PARIBAS$4.751 B$4.362 B$4.744 B$13.867 B$26.374 B$4.579 B$5.446 B$64.125 B

5RBC$8.221 B$9.227 B$9.193 B$10.916 B$4.328 B$9.145 B$6.586 B$57.615 B

6

MORGAN STANLEY$10.763 B$5.974 B$6.341 B$11.121 B$12.798 B$7.184 B$2.915 B$57.097 B

7

BARCLAYS$12.538 B$5.907 B$5.780 B$10.098 B$15.611 B$3.695 B$2.150 B$55.779 B

8HSBC$5.854 B$7.334 B$4.161 B$11.478 B$15.804 B$8.831 B$1.568 B$55.030 B

9ICBC$10.471 B$3.864 B$5.846 B$10.476 B$10.327 B$5.904 B$5.634 B$52.522 B

10

MUFG

$4.665 B$7.939 B$5.811 B$8.850 B$9.338 B$8.015 B$6.330 B$50.947 B

11

GOLDMAN SACHS$8.540 B$2.653 B$2.774 B$9.993 B$7.950 B$9.129 B$2.563 B$43.600 B

12

WELLS FARGO$5.212 B$5.560 B$6.330 B$8.767 B$5.692 B$7.333 B$4.290 B$43.184 B

13

BANK OF CHINA$7.296 B$4.317 B$6.505 B$8.593 B$8.237 B$5.013 B$2.825 B$42.786 B

14

MIZUHO$5.045 B$3.117 B$5.758 B$9.260 B$5.406 B$8.104 B$5.498 B$42.187 B

15

BANK OF MONTREAL$5.820 B$6.047 B$6.416 B$6.265 B$5.146 B$6.314 B$6.067 B$42.075 B

16TD$5.520 B$10.257 B$5.967 B$5.296 B$2.816 B$4.497 B$4.271 B$38.624 B

17

SMBC GROUP$3.368 B$2.819 B$4.452 B$7.014 B$7.714 B$6.018 B$5.594 B$36.977 B

18

CRÉDIT AGRICOLE$3.253 B$3.107 B$3.359 B$5.817 B$9.509 B$4.120 B$6.062 B$35.228 B

19

SCOTIABANK$1.804 B$4.711 B$4.778 B$5.349 B$3.988 B$7.173 B$6.953 B$34.756 B

20

DEUTSCHE BANK

$9.798 B$5.464 B$4.126 B$2.683 B$4.234 B$3.963 B$2.029 B$32.297 B

21

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE$3.558 B$1.016 B$3.228 B$6.381 B$9.362 B$4.886 B$3.397 B$31.828 B

22

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

$6.440 B$2.770 B$3.661 B$5.483 B$5.393 B$4.216 B$3.653 B$31.617 B

23

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA$6.110 B$1.540 B$1.583 B$5.166 B$7.464 B$2.828 B$3.542 B$28.233 B

24

INDUSTRIAL BANK

$2.585 B$3.176 B$4.003 B$2.729 B$5.707 B$4.641 B$2.710 B$25.550 B

25

CHINA CITIC BANK

$4.125 B$2.624 B$2.717 B$5.447 B$2.930 B$2.760 B$4.034 B$24.638 B

26

SANTANDER$4.039 B$2.460 B$1.637 B$3.782 B$7.187 B$2.844 B$1.975 B$23.924 B

27

PING AN INSURANCE GROUP$1.409 B$3.914 B$5.468 B$2.510 B$4.786 B$4.074 B$1.480 B$23.642 B

28

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK

$2.385 B$1.970 B$1.655 B$2.360 B$6.377 B$5.228 B$2.992 B$22.967 B

29

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

$4.075 B$1.423 B$4.193 B$2.912 B$3.052 B$3.902 B$2.757 B$22.314 B

30

CREDIT SUISSE$7.069 B$2.604 B$2.147 B$3.516 B$2.040 B$1.875 B$1.456 B$20.707 B

RANK

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

2016-2022

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

49

LEAGUE TABLE - Banking on Fossil Fuel Expansion

M = MILLIONS

T = TRILLIONS

TOTAL

BANK

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

31

CHINA MINSHENG BANK

$518 M$105 M$1.355 B$8.586 B$6.821 B$61 M$403 M$17.848 B

32

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

$3.132 B$1.594 B$1.992 B$3.047 B$3.043 B$1.046 B$2.063 B$15.919 B

33

CIBC

$1.055 B$1.991 B$1.288 B$3.666 B$1.603 B$2.240 B$2.568 B$14.412 B

34

UBS$2.556 B$2.621 B$3.340 B$3.418 B$501 M$992 M$86 M$13.514 B

35

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS$1.425 B$1.042 B$1.245 B$742 M$2.502 B$1.872 B$1.222 B$10.051 B

36

STATE BANK OF INDIA$433 M$597 M$269 M$5.494 B$1.522 B$695 M$482 M$9.491 B

37

UNICREDIT$1.310 B$485 M$1.271 B$371 M$3.196 B$1.58 B

$633 M$8.846 B

38

BBVA$1.590 B$1.113 B$1.378 B$1.766 B$2.071 B$355 M$489 M$8.761 B

39

STANDARD CHARTERED$206 M$1.462 B$1.550 B$1.329 B$2.044 B$1.070 B$573 M$8.234 B

40

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA$116 M$122 M$576 M$2.235 B$1.335 B$1.425 B$728 M$6.537 B

41

INTESA SANPAOLO$1.005 B$711 M$497 M$266 M$383 M$1.541 B$1.891 B$6.294 B

42

BPCE/NATIXIS$1.248 B$464 M$199 M$646 M$1.596 B$1.353 B$772 M$6.278 B

43

ING

$90 M

$251 M$1.674 B$1.341 B$429 M$927 M$1.117 B$5.829 B

44

PNC

-

$736 M$350 M$609 M$849 M$437 M$2.657 B$5.638 B45

ANZ$542 M$255 M$1.074 B$1.224 B$990 M-$763 M$4.848 B

46

US BANCORP$236 M$163 M$80 M-$1.424 B$632 M$1.046 B$3.582 B

47

NATWEST$310 M$535 M$520 M$354 M$890 M$707 M$46 M$3.363 B

48

LLOYDS$488 M$422 M$442 M$705 M$574 M$139 M-$2.769 B

49

NORDEA BANK

$450 M$1.116 B$50 M$364 M-$730 M-$2.710 B

50

WESTPAC$67 M$267 M$21 M$1.580 B$114 M$141 M$300 M$2.490 B

51

COMMERZBANK$40 M$310 M$508 M$624 M$530 M$325 M$46 M$2.383 B

52

COMMONWEALTH BANK$106 M$46 M$1.006 B$312 M$405 M-$463 M$2.338 B

53

DANSKE BANK$200 M$80 M-$364 M-$431 M-$1.074 B

54

CAIXABANK

-

$54 M

-

$93 M

$134 M$107 M$503 M$891 M

55

KB FINANCIAL$155 M$154 M

$67 M

$84 M

$232 M-$46 M$737 M

56

NAB

$65 M

$46 M

$66 M

$169 M$158 M$141 M$46 M$692 M

57

RABOBANK

$40 M

$46 M

-

-

-

$45 M

-

$131 M58

DZ BANK

-

$75 M

-

-

-

-

-

$75 M

CRÉDIT MUTUEL

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

LA BANQUE POSTALE

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

$226.017$723.468 B$164.312 B$737.561$799.212$176.142 B$294.899 B$321.033 B$213.728 B$149.749 B$1.546 T

RANKGRAND TOTAL

50

B = BILLIONSB A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

2016-2022

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

51

Mining and extraction of tar sands oil continues, despite the widespread contamination, climate impacts, and ongoing resistance by frontline andIndigenous communities. While Barclays announced it would cease financing for tar sands oil in 2022, TD expanded the financing it offered to major
tar sands companies Trans Mountain and Plains All American Pipeline.117 The top tar sands companies received $22.9 billion in financing in 2022
from the 60 banks covered in this report. The top client overall in 2022 was Trans Mountain, a disastrous and costly pipeline project that has met
fierce resistance from First Nations.118
Of the 60 banks in the scope of this report, 28 have a policy restricting some tar sands financing. However, most policies are limited to projectrelated transactions, which account for only about 4% of the tar sands oil syndicated lending and underwriting since the Paris Agreement.119

TAR SANDS OIL»

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

TAR SANDS FINANCING POLICIES BY QUALITY

Number of Policies Covering Tar Sands:

39

Robust - 1 (1.7%)
Comprehensive - 1 (1.7%)
Weak - 20 (33.3%)
Very Weak - 6 (10%)
No Policy - 32 (53.3%)

P H O T O : Orjan Ellingvag / Alamy Stock Photo52

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

53

LEAGUE TABLE - Banking on Tar Sands Oil

B = BILLIONS

M = MILLIONS

T = TRILLIONSBank financing for the top 27 top tar sands production companies and six key tar sands pipeline companies in
2022, based on research by Urgewald for the Global Oil & Gas Exit List 2022.

RANK

TOTAL

BANK

2022

2016-2022

RANK

1

TD

$6.147 B$38.537 B

31

STANDARD CHARTERED

2

RBC$4.820 B$31.773 B

32

3

CIBC

$1.698 B$15.717 B

4BANK OF MONTREAL$4.602 B

5

SCOTIABANK

6

2016-2022

-

$57 M

BBVA

$14 M

$55 M

33

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK

$8 M

$45 M

$15.660 B

34

BPCE/NATIXIS

-

$35 M

$1.319 B$11.744 B

35

ING

$1 M

$32 M

JPMORGAN CHASE$420 M$10.995 B

36

ANZ

-

$30 M

7

BARCLAYS$12 M$4.323 B

37

LLOYDS

-

$21 M

8

CITI

$384 M$4.120 B

38

NATWEST

-

$20 M

9

BANK OF AMERICA$196 M$4.009 B

39

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

-

$18 M

10

HSBC

$57 M

$2.958 B

40

COMMONWEALTH BANK

-

$17 M

11

MUFG

$160 M$2.245 B

41

COMMERZBANK

-

$17 M

12

WELLS FARGO$134 M$1.818 B

42

UNICREDIT

-

$14 M

13

MIZUHO$289 M$1.799 B

43

INTESA SANPAOLO

$8 M

$12 M

14

MORGAN STANLEY-$1.302 B

44

CHINA MINSHENG BANK

-

$12 M

15

DEUTSCHE BANK

$87 M

$1.204 B

45

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

$8 M

$8 M

16

SMBC GROUP$110 M$1.037 B

46

PNC

$1 M

$6 M

17

BNP PARIBAS$115 M$1.019 B

47

US BANCORP

$1 M

$6 M

18

CREDIT SUISSE$26 M$931 MCAIXABANK

-

-

19

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE$81 M$712 M

CRÉDIT MUTUEL

-

-

20

GOLDMAN SACHS$2 M$628 MDANSKE BANK

-

-

21

CRÉDIT AGRICOLE$82 M$481 M

DZ BANK

-

-

22

ICBC

$8 M

$226 M

KB FINANCIAL

-

-

23

BANK OF CHINA$76 M$226 M

LA BANQUE POSTALE

-

-

24

UBS

$36 M

$184 M

NAB

-

-

25

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA$17 M$122 M

NORDEA BANK

-

-

26

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK-

$118 M

PING AN INSURANCE GROUP

-

-

27

SANTANDER

-

$91 M

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA

-

-

28

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

-

$89 M

RABOBANK--29

CHINA CITIC BANK

$64 M

$64 M

STATE BANK OF INDIA

-

-

30

INDUSTRIAL BANK

$17 M

$63 M

WESTPAC

-

-

$21 B

$154.602 B

GRAND TOTAL

54

TOTAL

2022

BANK

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

55

Thanks to tireless efforts by the Gwich’in Steering Committee and Indigenous community partners through the Arctic region, 39 of the 60 banks
covered in this report have an Arctic oil and gas policy.120 However, most also use a very narrow definition of “the Arctic” that includes only the Arctic
Circle. A 2021 report found that this definition excludes 168 oil and gas assets, which would be included if the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment
Programme (AMAP) definition of the region was used.121
The ConocoPhillips’ Willow project, approved by U.S. President Joseph Biden in March 2023, shows the shortcomings of existing Arctic exclusion
policies. Following years of concerted pressure from Indigenous and environmental groups, all six major U.S. banks committed to rule out financing
for projects in the Arctic. However, one major problem with how the banks’ Arctic policies are written is that all six policies only restrict project-level
financing. Considering the vast majority of bank financing for oil and gas is corporate financing — rather than project-specific financing — theseexclusion policies create a massive loophole.
“We condemn the continued prioritization of profit over climate and people.”

ARCTICOIL & GAS

– Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic (SILA) response to the decision.122
In 2022, ConocoPhillips received financing from Bank of America, Citi, Credit Suisse, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, Mizuho, MUFG, SMBC Group, TD,
Wells Fargo, Barclays, and RBC. Since financing was general corporate financing and not project-specific financing, it was not subject to mostbanks’ Arctic exclusion policies.
In their November 2022 report, BankTrack shows that Nordic banks have increased their financing for Arctic oil and gas.123»

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

ARCTIC OIL & GAS FINANCING POLICIES BY QUALITY

Number of Policies Covering Arctic Oil & Gas:

39

Robust - 1 (1.6%)
Comprehensive - 1 (1.6%)
Weak - 13 (21.3%)
Very Weak - 25 (41%)
No Policy - 21 (34.4%)

P H O T O : Rolf Hicker Photography / Alamy Stock Photo56

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

57

LEAGUE TABLE - Banking on Arctic Oil & Gas

B = BILLIONS

M = MILLIONS

T = TRILLIONSBank financing for the top 30 Arctic production companies in 2022, based on research by Urgewald for the
Global Oil & Gas Exit List 2022.

RANK

TOTAL

2022

2016-2022

RANK

1JPMORGAN CHASE$164 M$5.269 B

31

BPCE/NATIXIS-$222 M

2

UNICREDIT-$2.505 B

32

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK-

$210 M

3

CITI$119 M$2.049 B

33

DZ BANK-$184 M

4

BARCLAYS$22 M$1.899 B

34

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA-$109 M

5

CRÉDIT AGRICOLE$107 M$1.898 B

35

CHINA CITIC BANK-

$105 M

6

SMBC GROUP$164 M$1.570 B

36

PNC

$47 M

$103 M

7

BANK OF AMERICA$106 M$1.500 B

37

US BANCORP-$101 M

8

MIZUHO$152 M$1.411 B

38

STANDARD CHARTERED

-

$97 M

9

DEUTSCHE BANK

$11 M

$1.339 B

39

NORDEA BANK

$14 M

$93 M

10

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE$107 M$1.327 B

40

BBVA

-

$74 M

11

MUFG

$152 M$1.296 B

41

CIBC

-

$54 M

12

CHINA MINSHENG BANK-

$1.270 B

42

ANZ

-

$32 M

13

INTESA SANPAOLO$11 M$1.055 B

43

BANK OF MONTREAL

-

$27 M

14

HSBC

$108 M$1.002 B

44

NATWEST

$14 M

$22 M

15

ICBC

$536 M$973 M45

WESTPAC

-

$18 M

16

BNP PARIBAS$132 M$932 M46

DANSKE BANK

$14 M

$14 M

17

MORGAN STANLEY-$696 M

47

LLOYDS

-

$8 M

18

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA$333 M$633 M

48

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

-

$8 M

19

GOLDMAN SACHS-$606 M49

SCOTIABANK

-

$6 M

20

BANK OF CHINA-$508 M

50

COMMONWEALTH BANK

-

$2 M

21

COMMERZBANK-$508 M

51

CAIXABANK

-

$1 M

22

CREDIT SUISSE$106 M$502 M

52

INDUSTRIAL BANK

-

$1 M

23

UBS

$2 M

$480 M

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

-

-

24

TD

$106 M$412 M

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK

-

-

25

WELLS FARGO$106 M$351 M

CRÉDIT MUTUEL

-

-

26

STATE BANK OF INDIA-$347 M

KB FINANCIAL

-

-

27

ING

$14 M

$336 M

LA BANQUE POSTALE

-

-

28

SANTANDER-$327 M

NAB

-

-

29

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

$203 M$324 M

PING AN INSURANCE GROUP

-

-

30

RBC

$70 M

$294 MRABOBANK--$2.918 B$35.109 B

BANK

GRAND TOTAL

58

TOTAL

2022

BANK

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

2016-2022O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

59

After pressure from Indigenous communities and advocacy groups,

Only four banks have policies restricting financial support to companies

banks have begun making commitments to phase out financing for oil

active in Amazon oil and gas extraction – BNP Paribas, Société

and gas extraction in the Amazon biome.124 While this is promising, theGénérale, Intesa Sanpaolo, and Standard Chartered. Additionally,

commitments are not geographically comprehensive, and leave a lot of

BNP Paribas, ING, Natixis, and Credit Suisse have made commitments

unprotected and intact rainforest open for drilling.

to exclude trade financing for Ecuadorian Amazon oil from theirportfolios.128 So far, though, no bank commitments encompass the entire

AMAZONOIL & GAS

Banking on Amazon Oil and Gas is presented

This report analyzes transactions with 21 companies for which there

Amazon biome. Bank policies should define the region according to thefor the first time this year, in collaboration withis evidence of direct involvement in oil and gas extraction in thedefinition of Amazonia detailed by RAISG. Standard Chartered’s andAmazon Watch and Stand Research Group.

Amazon biome in Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, and Colombia as defined by

BNP Paribas’ exclusions cover the “Amazon” or “Amazon Basin,” while

Amazonian Georeferenced Socio-Environmental Information Network

Société Générale and Intesa Sanpaolo policies only include Amazon(RAISG).125 Companies with a direct relationship to the region include

regions of Ecuador and Peru.

block operators and state-run oil companies. These companies were
either assigned a 100% direct relationship or given a proportion based

The Amazon rainforest is at a tipping point; further oil and gas

on the capital expenditures, operating costs, and production costs

extraction will push the biome to the brink of irreversible collapse. The

associated with any Amazon oil and gas projects. To qualify as 100%

Amazon is essential for climate change mitigation, and is home to 400+

direct, a company must have the majority of its oil and gas projects andIndigenous nationalities that defend and depend on it.

all of its major producing blocks in the Amazon. Research on companies
operating in the Amazon was conducted by Stand Research Group,

New and ongoing oil and gas extraction in the region is a gateway

which also provided bank policy assessment.

to deforestation. In order to reach extraction sites, developers build
roads through intact rainforest, which opens new areas for exploitation,

In 2022, Santander topped the list of financiers of Amazon oil and gas

degradation, and deforestation.

extraction. JPMorgan Chase, Citi, and Bank of America financed themost Amazon oil and gas overall since 2016. An investigation by StandOil and gas companies continue to destroy intact forest landscapes andResearch Group and Amazon Watch in 2021 revealed that JPMorgan

primary forests, driving biodiversity loss, violating Indigenous Peoples’

Chase has the highest risk of complicity in Amazon forest destruction,rights, and causing pollution and corruption to soar. Studies show

based on the weakness of its environmental and social policies and thethat compared to land trusts or conservation initiatives, Indigenous

volume of financing for companies operating in the biome.126 HSBC andPeoples are the best stewards of forest biodiversity.129 The protection

Citi were also considered high risk, with insufficient policies to governof the Amazon, and by extension the global climate, is therefore also aenvironmental and social hazards there. HSBC’s clients include Amazon

question of upholding Indigenous and human rights. There is a global

oil drilling companies Frontera Energy Corp and Gran Tierra Energy

imperative to keep forests standing.

Inc. Citi financed Frontera, as well as the GeoPark Ltd acquisition ofAmerisur – a major driller in the Colombian Amazon with a bad trackrecord on environmental and social issues.127“After 50 years of oil ‘development,’ the majority of the destruction is in our
territories. It is our territories that are being destroyed…In all phases ofextraction – from the moment concessions are signed, through exploration andextraction, our rights to consultation and consent have been violated.”- Leonidas Iza, president of the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE)P H O T O : Santiago Cornejo / Amazon Watch

60

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

61

LEAGUE TABLE - Banking on Amazon Oil & Gas

B = BILLIONS

M = MILLIONS

T = TRILLIONSBank financing for 21 top Amazon oil and gas companies in 2022, based on research by Stand ResearchGroup.
TOTAL

2022

2016-2022

RANK

BANK

2022

1

JPMORGAN CHASE$100 M$1.484 B

31

NATWEST

-

$2 M

2

CITI

$167 M$1.291 B

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA

-

-

3

BANK OF AMERICA$105 M$1.146 B

ANZ

-

-

4

HSBC

$6 M

$917 M

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

-

-

5

GOLDMAN SACHS-$789 M

BANK OF MONTREAL

-

-

6

SANTANDER$169 M$718 M

CHINA CITIC BANK

-

-

7

SCOTIABANK$23 M$481 M

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

-

-

8

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE$7 M$391 M

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK

-

-

9

CREDIT SUISSE$2 M$352 M

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

-

-

10

UBS

$101 M$119 M

CHINA MINSHENG BANK

-

-

11

RBC

-

$105 M

CIBC

-

-

12

MIZUHO

$6 M

$86 M

COMMONWEALTH BANK

-

-

13

BNP PARIBAS

$6 M

$83 M

CRÉDIT MUTUEL

-

-

14

CRÉDIT AGRICOLE

$2 M

$52 M

DANSKE BANK

-

-

15

ING

$2 M

$51 M

ICBC

-

-

16

BPCE/NATIXIS

$7 M

$49 M

INDUSTRIAL BANK

-

-

17

BBVA

$6 M

$48 M

KB FINANCIAL

-

-

18

SMBC GROUP

$7 M

$42 M

LA BANQUE POSTALE

-

-

19

CAIXABANK

$6 M

$41 M

LLOYDS--

20

UNICREDIT

$7 M

$39 M

NAB

-

-

21

MORGAN STANLEY

-

$33 M

NORDEA BANK

-

-

22

MUFG

$11 M

$31 M

PING AN INSURANCE GROUP

-

-

23

BANK OF CHINA

$11 M

$24 M

PNC

-

-

24

RABOBANK

$2 M

$21 M

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA

-

-

25

COMMERZBANK

$6 M

$16 M

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

-

-

26

INTESA SANPAOLO

$6 M

$15 M

STATE BANK OF INDIA

-

-

27

STANDARD CHARTERED

-

$14 M

TD

-

-

28

BARCLAYS

$6 M

$6 M

US BANCORP

-

-

29

DZ BANK-$3 M

WELLS FARGO

-

-

30

DEUTSCHE BANK

-

$2 M

WESTPAC--$769 M$8.452 B

GRAND TOTAL

62

TOTAL

BANK

RANK

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

2016-2022O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

63

Though oil and gas companies in general have spent less on offshore oil and gas exploration in recent years, some of these companies madebig discoveries of 20 billion barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) in 2022 through exploratory drilling off the coasts of Namibia, Guyana, and Brazil.130
TotalEnergies, QatarEnergy, and Petrobras took the lead in identifying these resources, doing so in hopes of capitalizing on high short-term prices.
But since offshore rigs can pump oil for decades, long after global fossil fuel production needs to cease, this logic is flawed.131 Banks financing theseventures risk significant stranded assets.
Only 17 of the world’s 60 largest banks have policies applying to ultra-deepwater oil and gas activities.132 UniCredit defines ultra-deepwater as

OFFSHORE
OIL & GAS

deeper than 1500 meters, though other banks define it as around 7,000 feet (2,100 meters).133 All offshore activity is risky and can devastate marine
environments. High wave activity can make it impossible to clean up oil spills, and effects on wildlife and corals can be severe. While proponents
point to less emissions in the extraction process, this reasoning ignores the decades-long lock-in from opening new reserves.

»

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

OFFSHORE OIL & GAS FINANCING POLICIES BY QUALITY

Number of Policies Covering Offshore Oil & Gas:

17

Robust - 1 (1.7%)
Comprehensive - 1 (1.7%)
Weak - 3 (5%)
Very Weak - 12 (20%)
No Policy - 43 (71.7%)

P H O T O : dbtravel / Alamy Stock Photo64

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

65

LEAGUE TABLE - Banking on Offshore Oil & Gas

B = BILLIONS

M = MILLIONS

T = TRILLIONSBank financing for the top 30 Offshore production companies in 2022, based on research by Urgewald for the
Global Oil & Gas Exit List 2022 and from Rystad, provided by Oil Change International.
TOTAL

2022

2016-2022

RANK

BANK

2022

1

BNP PARIBAS$6.147 B$42.133 B

31

ICBC

-

$2.175 B

2

CITI$4.820 B$40.019 B

32

LLOYDS$14 M$1.899 B

3

JPMORGAN CHASE$1.698 B$38.326 B

33

COMMONWEALTH BANK

$8 M

$1.530 B

4BANK OF AMERICA$4.602 B$30.811 B

34

CHINA CITIC BANK-

$1.333 B

5HSBC$1.319 B$26.227 B

35

COMMERZBANK$1 M$1.316 B

6MORGAN STANLEY$420 M$22.901 B

36

NATWEST-$1.301 B

7

CRÉDIT AGRICOLE$12 M$20.680 B

37

DANSKE BANK-

$1.280 B

8

BARCLAYS$384 M$19.955 B

38

WESTPAC-$1.240 B

9

MUFG$196 M$17.459 B

39

BANK OF MONTREAL-$924 M

10

GOLDMAN SACHS$57 M$16.991 B

40

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS-$749 M

11

SMBC GROUP$160 M$16.589 B

41

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA-$557 M

12

MIZUHO$134 M$15.917 B

42

TD

-

$456 M

13

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE$289 M$15.232 B

43

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

$8 M

$442 M

14

SANTANDER-$12.773 B

44

CIBC

-

$343 M

15

DEUTSCHE BANK

$87 M

$11.290 B

45

RABOBANK$8 M$289 M

16

UBS$110 M$5.871 B

46

KB FINANCIAL$1 M$248 M

17

CREDIT SUISSE$115 M$4.843 B

47

PNC

$1 M

$76 M

18

BANK OF CHINA$26 M$4.786 B

48

CAIXABANK

-

$43 M

19

ANZ

$81 M

$4.721 B

49

NAB

-

$29 M

20

UNICREDIT$2 M$4.496 B

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK

-

-

21

SCOTIABANK$82 M$4.295 B

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

-

-

22

BBVA

$8 M

$4.221 B

CHINA MINSHENG BANK

-

-

23

WELLS FARGO$76 M$3.697 B

CRÉDIT MUTUEL

-

-

24

BPCE/NATIXIS$36 M$3.539 B

DZ BANK--

25

STATE BANK OF INDIA$17 M$3.444 B

INDUSTRIAL BANK

-

-

26

INTESA SANPAOLO-$3.353 B

LA BANQUE POSTALE

-

-

27

STANDARD CHARTERED-$3.181 B

PING AN INSURANCE GROUP

-

-

28

NORDEA BANK-

$3.121 B

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA

-

-

29

RBC

$64 M

$2.864 B

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

-

-

30

ING

$17 M

$2.853 B

US BANCORP--$34.215 B$422.818 B

GRAND TOTAL

66

TOTAL

BANK

RANK

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

2016-2022O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

67

Hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” is a harmful way to extract underground oil and natural gas by injecting water and chemicals into the ground athigh pressure. The process is water-intensive and highly polluting.134 A study published in 2022 shows that children living close to fracking sites havehigher rates of cancer and asthma and face public health risks from explosion.135 This happens even before the fracked oil and gas are burned, andso before the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions.
Fracked gas (also called “natural” or “methane” gas) is 95% methane. This greenhouse gas is a key contributor to climate change because it has a

FRACKEDOIL & GAS

warming potential 80 times higher than carbon dioxide.136 Research reveals the fracked gas boom has increased global methane emission by an
estimated 33% over the last decade.137 One major source of emissions is methane leakage along the supply chain.138 Between 3-9% of fracked gas
produced is released into the atmosphere through extraction and transportation methods.139
The Wet’suwet’en Indigenous Peoples have resisted the expansion of fracked gas pipelines – including the disastrous Coastal GasLink pipeline –through their land in northern British Columbia for years. Our partners shine a spotlight on the reality that fracking has gone hand in hand withhuman rights violations, and in many cases has happened without the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent of Indigenous communities. Indigenous
Peoples who raise concerns and resist fracking have faced criminal charges, surveillance, raids, and harassment.140 Even as developers expand thequantity of active wells – which now number over 1.3 million – resistance to fracking has grown in communities around the world.141
Among the banks in scope of this report, 24 have a policy on fracking.142»

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

FRACKED OIL & GAS FINANCING POLICIES BY QUALITY

Number of Policies Covering Fracked Oil & Gas:

24

Robust - 1 (1.6%)
Comprehensive - 1 (1.6%)
Weak - 11 (17.7%)
Very Weak - 13 (21%)
No Policy - 36 (58.1%)

P H O T O : Alizada Studios / Alamy Stock Photo68

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

69

LEAGUE TABLE - Banking on Fracked Oil & Gas

B = BILLIONS

M = MILLIONS

T = TRILLIONSBank financing for the top 30 fracking companies and 8 key fracked oil and gas pipeline companies in 2022,
based on research by Urgewald for the Global Oil & Gas Exit List 2022.

RANK

TOTAL

BANK

2022

2016-2022

RANK

1WELLS FARGO$4.835 B$80.733 B

31

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA

2JPMORGAN CHASE$6.339 B$78.206 B

32

INDUSTRIAL BANK

3

CITI

$6.044 B$58.456 B

33

4

BANK OF AMERICA$5.193 B$55.191 B

5

RBC$7.415 B

6

MUFG

7

2016-2022-$969 M$75 M$924 M

CHINA MINSHENG BANK-

$813 M

34

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK-

$725 M$43.417 B

35

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK-

$611 M$4.866 B$36.445 B

36

SANTANDER-$607 M

MIZUHO$5.254 B$36.366 B

37

ING$137 M$405 M

8

BARCLAYS$3.422 B$33.874 B

38

PING AN INSURANCE GROUP-$350 M

9

SCOTIABANK$4.301 B$28.605 B

39

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS-$268 M

10TD$5.217 B$26.482 B

40

LLOYDS-$249 M

11

CREDIT SUISSE$1.184 B$19.731 B

41

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

$18 M

$218 M

12

GOLDMAN SACHS$862 M$17.363 B

42

STANDARD CHARTERED-$217 M

13

MORGAN STANLEY$780 M$15.229 B

43

CHINA CITIC BANK-

$208 M

14

BANK OF MONTREAL$1.048 B$14.368 B

44

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK-

$113 M

15

PNC$3.252 B$12.404 B

45

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA

-

$97 M

16

SMBC GROUP$2.189 B$10.365 B

46

ANZ

-

$53 M

17

DEUTSCHE BANK

$434 M$9.892 B

47

CAIXABANK

-

$18 M

18

CIBC

$1.623 B$8.095 B

COMMONWEALTH BANK

-

-

19

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE$67 M$6.546 B

CRÉDIT MUTUEL

-

-

20

HSBC

$657 M$6.307 B

DANSKE BANK

-

-

21

US BANCORP$651 M$6.243 B

DZ BANK--

22

BNP PARIBAS$447 M$6.044 B

INTESA SANPAOLO

-

-

23

CRÉDIT AGRICOLE$306 M$4.925 B

KB FINANCIAL

-

-

24

UBS

-

$3.112 B

LA BANQUE POSTALE

-

-

25

BBVA

$233 M$2.465 B

NAB

-

-

26

ICBC

-

$2.437 B

NORDEA BANK

-

-

27

BPCE/NATIXIS$96 M$1.877 B

RABOBANK--28

NATWEST-$1.351 B

STATE BANK OF INDIA

-

-

29

COMMERZBANK-$1.344 B

UNICREDIT

-

-

30

BANK OF CHINA-$970 M

WESTPAC--$66.946 B$635.687 B

GRAND TOTAL

70

TOTAL

2022

BANK

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

71

“We act together to end fossil fuelled conflicts andclimate chaos, and drive the clean energy revolution
in Ukraine and globally.”– Razom We Stand

LIQUEFIED
NATURAL GASTOP METHANE GAS
CLIENTS 2022:

LIQUEFIED “NATURAL” GAS is createdby super-cooling methane gas to around -160°C, at which
point it condenses into a liquid. Liquefaction, which reduces

Venture Global
Cheniere Energy Inc.
Sempra Energy
JERA Co Inc.
New Fortress Energy Inc.

the gas’s volume for shipping, happens at LNG export
terminals situated on the coast or on offshore floating

FROM THE FRONTLINES:
Holding the Line Against Methane Gas
Import and Export

terminals.147 From there, tanker ships carry the liquefied gas
to its destination. At an LNG import terminal, it is regasified— or turned back into a gas form — and piped to power
plants, where it is burned for energy.

Ukraine is on the frontlines of a devastating war exacerbated by fossil

The noise about “energy security” obscures a key reality: the futurefor LNG remains murky, and the glut of proposed projects threatens

The Russian invasion of Ukraine that began in February 2022 created

events laid bare the risks of depending on a volatile global market

fuels. Ukrainians demand a ban on Russian fossil fuels and call for an

deep pressure on global energy markets to rapidly replace Russian

for fossil gas imports.144 According to Global Energy Monitor’s Global

end to trade, investment, financing, and insurance for any Russian fossil

oversupply, oscillating gas prices, and climate chaos.150 The majority ofoil and gas. In the name of “energy security,” industry, government,

Gas Infrastructure Tracker there are more than 170 liquefaction andfuel company.148 Even more, our partners call for the rapid phaseout ofthe proposed export terminals in the United States are unlikely to reachand banks fast-tracked liquefied natural gas (LNG) – also known

regasification terminals operating worldwide and at least as many

all fossil fuels everywhere, and point to fossil fuels as a root cause of thisfinal investment decision (FID). There are simply too many, and they are

as “fracked” gas or “methane” gas – terminals and their financing.

currently in the proposal stage.

conflict. Finally, they call on the world to “speed up the green transition

too risky.151

Developers dusted off dozens of proposals for export terminals inNorth America, Qatar, Africa, and Australia.

143

These developers also

pushed forward import terminals in Europe and Asia, even as current

145

Europe is the top customer importing

These

LNG, though import demand is growing across Asia.146 Most of theseand end oil and gas-fueled conflicts around the world.”

import and export terminals would not have been environmentally anddemands are backed by a coalition of 45 Ukrainian organizations, andeconomically viable just a few years ago.

are supported by over 800 organizations from more than 60 countries,

149

including frontline communities facing fossil fuel expansion purportedly
due to the Ukraine conflict.
P H O T O S : Rebekah Hinojosa; Engineer Studio / shutterstock72

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

73

The top bankers of LNG in 2022 are$15.2 B in 2021
tosmooth operations will be a challenge because coastal Louisiana isworld’s chances of staying below 1.5°C global warming. The IEA Net

experiencing increasing frequency and severity of hurricanes, floods,

Zero by 2050 scenario shows that no additional LNG projects are

and land loss. Many communities still have not fully recovered fromneeded beyond those that reached FID in 2021. In this scenario, theHurricane Ida’s impacts in 2021, which also flooded the proposed site

IEA projected LNG trading will need to fall by 60% between 2020 andof the Plaquemines LNG terminal. The yearly emissions from burning the2050, and global “natural” gas demand will need to fall by 5% per year

methane gas produced by this terminal would be roughly equivalent toon average.152 This means that every project that reached FID in 2022

that of 42 coal plants or 35.8 million cars.153

contributes to overshooting the IEA’s scenario.

Mizuho, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, ING, Citi, and Goldman Sachs

Financing for the top LNG companies
increased from:Even one new fossil fuel project is one too many and will ruin the

The Plaquemines LNG export facility is located near predominantly
Two major LNG projects reached FID in 2022 in the United States:

Black and Indigenous communities who, besides facing floods andCheniere’s Corpus Christi Stage III – an expansion of an existing facility

hurricanes, also fight regularly occurring industrial disasters and resist

located in Texas – and Venture Global’s Plaquemines LNG export facility,

the burden of fossil fuel and petrochemicals – and have for decades.

located in Louisiana. Both are in the U.S. Gulf Coast, the epicenter for

Strong communities across the region are working to stop the proposed

LNG in the United States, with over 20 proposed new export terminals.

buildout of LNG export terminals, arguing that they have also faced thelong-standing and intertwined harms of racial injustice and economic

Bringing their total to:Once constructed, Venture Global’s Plaquemines LNG will be one ofinequality.154

the largest methane gas export terminals in the United States. Ensuring$122.2 B since 2016$22.7 B in 2022

FINANCING IN 2022

TOTAL FINANCING
SINCE 2016

MIZUHO$1,966,327,636$6,817,291,114

JERA CO INC
VENTURE GLOBALMORGAN STANLEY$1,816,544,501$10,424,582,899

VENTURE GLOBALNEW FORTRESS ENERGY INC

JPMORGAN CHASE$1,620,017,34$8,133,399,948

VENTURE GLOBALNEW FORTRESS ENERGY INC

ING$1,225,399,438$2,891,389,28

VENTURE GLOBALCHENIERE ENERGY INC

CITI$1,156,555,694$8,674,099,141

NEW FORTRESS ENERGY INC
CHENIERE ENERGY INCBANKTOP CLIENTS IN 2022

S O U R C E : Earth Insight

GOLDMAN SACHS74

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E$1,094,971,170

C H A O S 2023

$5,829,046,637

VENTURE GLOBALCHENIERE ENERGY INC»

Read more about LNG development in the U.S. Gulf Coast and the groups opposing
it at: BankingonClimateChaos.org/frontlinestories

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

75

On the southwestern side of Louisiana, sits the Lake Charles region.

not been consulted on the projects’ impacts.161 NextDecade claims

and environmental cost of this extraction is tremendous. To build thelocated in Mozambique's northernmost province of Cabo Delgado,

Lake Charles is a hub of petrochemical facilities with a history

it will build a climate-friendly facility, but in truth the company makes

complex, communities on Bonny Island were relocated, often with thedelivered its first shipment of LNG to Spain in December 2022.174 Theof disastrous impacts on the air, water, and health of the nearby

this claim based on its plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions withuse of military force, losing their livelihoods in the process.

environmental justice community.

155

Lake Charles has one operating

carbon capture and storage.

162

This technology has been unsuccessful

In late March 2023, Société Générale

methane gas facility and two additional proposals. Just a few miles

for other fossil fuel projects.

down in Calcasieu Lake, another export terminal, Calcasieu Passannounced that they would not support the Rio Grande LNG project.

163

169

164

LNG, is in operation, and developers have proposed three additionalterminals.

156

Those projects destroy precious marshlands, which act as a

hurricane barrier for nearby communities.

Twentyother two projects, Mozambique LNG and Rovuma LNG, have beenyears later, the relocated population has reportedly still not received

put on hold after insurgent attacks near the production sites.175 These

compensation.

Frequent gas flaring at the plant is linked to kidney

insurgent attacks, partly fueled by outrage over a lack of benefits

Europe’s mad dash for gas

from the gas industry, have led to a militarization of the region.176

170

problems, cancer, and lung damage.

171

in Africa could leave African countries with stranded assets, exclude

Violent attacks on, and harassment of, communities — both from

New LNG facilities are a false solution to Europe’s short-term energy

millions of Africans from having reliable and affordable access to safer

insurgents as well as the Mozambican army and private security forcesneeds. Analysis by Global Energy Monitor (GEM) shows export facilities

sources of energy, and block the political will to move toward renewable

who mainly protect the gas facilities — forced nearly a million people

energy.

to flee the region. More information on the situation in Mozambique

typically take three to five years to build in the United States.

165

Building

To the west of Louisiana, at the southernmost point of the United States

those facilities now will lock in decades of emissions but won’t makeon the Mexican border, the coastal area of the Rio Grande Valley isenergy cheaper in Europe or Asia this winter or in the next few winters.

172

and the impacts of the project can be found in the Banking on Climate
166

A long list of banks provided financing for the Nigeria LNG expansion

Chaos 2022 frontline story.177

on Bonny Island in May 2020. These banks include BNP Paribas, SMBC

one of the last remaining stretches of undeveloped Gulf Coast. The
Rio Grande Valley region was originally the site for five proposed LNG

The quest to replace Russian oil and gas is not only driving new LNG

Group, Standard Chartered, Société Générale, ICBC, Deutsche Bank,

It is not only in Africa that the LNG industry’s buildout perpetuates aexport terminals.157 Three have been abandoned. The two remaining

export terminals in the U.S., but also increasingly in the Global South.

Bank of China, Santander, and BPCE/ Natixis.173

legacy of fossil fuel colonialism and further exacerbates energy sacrificeprojects are signing contracts with suppliers and buyers, though neither

Europe is eyeing Mozambique and Nigeria for new gas extraction

zones in Black and brown communities. Developers are proposing

has reached FID: NextDecade’s Rio Grande LNG and Glenfarne Group’sand export. Nigeria holds the biggest gas deposits in Africa and is

big gas and LNG projects throughout Asia, seeking to replace coal

Texas LNG.

158

The proposed Texas LNG site includes the Garcia Pasture,

currently the continent's biggest LNG exporter, though to date it has
The Nigeria LNG

a burial site sacred to the Carrizo Comecrudo Tribe, which was placeddone little to improve domestic energy access.

on the World Monuments Watch in 2022 and is on the U.S. National Park

(NLNG) terminal, operational since 1999, is expanding steadily. Run byService’s list of historic places.159 The Rio Grande LNG site is also on land

Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), Shell, TotalEnergies

sacred to the Carrizo Comecrudo.

160

Unfortunately, because the Carrizo

Comecrudo Tribe has not been granted federal recognition, they have

167»

Read more about the Nigeria LNG andin emerging energy markets.178 But 2022 showed these proposals are

local opposition to its expansion at:shortsighted. Demand for fuel in Europe drove global prices higher.

BankingonClimateChaos.org/frontline-stories.

In many cases, the consequence was that fuels were priced beyond
the reach of consumers from middle- and low-income countries likeand Eni, it can produce 22 million tonnes of LNG per annum (mtpa),
which is approximately 6% of global LNG trade in 2021.168 The humanPakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and the Philippines, where proposals for
Mozambique is new to the global LNG export market, again mostly

new LNG import terminals are on the table.179 According to IEEFA, “Rapid

catering to European markets, rather than enhancing energy access

LNG demand growth, especially in emerging Asia, is not a given.”180

on the African continent. The Coral South project, a floating LNG vessel

These are risky investments with harmful environmental consequences.

EMISSIONS FROM LNG CONSUMPTION,
GIGATONNES OF CO2 EQUIVALENT (GtCO2e)

IMAGE: The Guardian
SOURCE: World Energy Outlook, Yang et al (2022), Climate Analytics (2021), Roman-White et al (2021)
P H O T O : Healthy Gulf

76

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

77

The Philippines is one of the latest countries with plans to import LNG.

the oceans,” recognized as the center of global shore-fish biodiversity.185

The Philippine Energy Plan 2018-2040 envisions the Philippines as a

The abundant fish and megafauna of VIP sustain over 2 million people

LNG is not the transition fuel it is championed to be. It is methane-“world-class, investment-driven, and efficient” LNG hub for the Asia-

in five surrounding provinces – Batangas, Occidental Mindoro, Oriental

intensive, carbon-intensive, and harmful to people and nature.

As the Philippines-based Center for Energy, Ecology,

Mindoro, Marinduque and Romblon – whose livelihoods include fishing,

Ultimately, LNG is an obstacle to the renewable energy transition. The

and Development (CEED) argues, “This political vision comes at the cost

Pacific region.

aquaculture, and tourism. A devastating oil spill in February 2023

LNG terminals proposed throughout North America, Africa, and Asia

of energy security, equity, and sustainability.” Currently, the country’s

highlights the dangers of building more fossil fuel infrastructure in thewould lock the world collectively into 20-30 more years of new fossil

gas-fired power plants rely on domestic gas supply, which is depleting.

Verde Island Passage.186

fuels.

terminals have been proposed in the Philippines since 2002, and the

A growing movement of frontline communities, churches, civil society

But fossil fuel companies have convinced governments and banks

181

Though no terminals exist in the country today, at least 11 LNG import
Filipino advocates call fororganizations, fisherfolk, and community groups strongly opposes thethat it is worth the gamble. In 2022, the world’s top banks provided

their country to diversify energy sources to hasten the transition fromgas power and LNG projects in Batangas due to adverse impacts to$23 billion in financing specifically for that year’s top 30 LNG

a coal-dominated sector to renewable energy and are pushing backmarine biodiversity and the livelihood of the people of Batangas. This

companies.

against plans to rely on volatile prices and markets of imported gas.183

broad network of opposition comes together around energy insecurity,

first terminals could come online in 2023.

182

P H O T O : Aerial-motion / shutterstock

expensive and volatile power rates, climate-blind frameworks, andWith eight new proposed gas power plants and as many proposed
LNG import terminals, Batangas is the epicenter of fossil gas expansion
in the Philippines and is one of five provinces surrounding a marine
corridor known as the Verde Island Passage (VIP).

184

VIP is located at

the heart of the Coral Triangle, and is considered to be the “Amazon of

threats to health, environment, and livelihood.187»

Read more about the Verde Island Passage and
CEED’s resistance to gas in the Philippines at:

78,300 hectares of seagrass
17,700 hectares of mangrove
3,300 hectares of coral reef

BankingonClimateChaos.org/frontlinestories

6 current LNG gas power plants in the Philippines
45 proposed LNG power plants and LNG import

Verde Island Passage

terminals for the nation
16 of which are planned for the Verde Island
Passage in Batangas

Total population that directly depend on
marine ecosystems and fisheries:

2 million

P H O T O : Lexter Yap / shuterstock
S O U R C E : Earth Insight; CEED Philippines

S O U R C E : Earth Insight78

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

79

LEAGUE TABLE - Banking on Liquefied Natural Gas

B = BILLIONS

M = MILLIONS

T = TRILLIONSBank financing for the top 30 liquefied natural gas import and export companies in 2022, based on research
by Urgewald for the Global Oil & Gas Exit List 2022 and the Global Energy Monitor’s Global Gas Infrastructure
Tracker 2022.
TOTAL

2022

2016-2022

RANK

BANK

2022

1

MORGAN STANLEY$1.817 B$10.425 B

31

CIBC

$239 M$758 M

2

CITI$1.157 B$8.674 B

32

COMMONWEALTH BANK-

$684 M

3

JPMORGAN CHASE$1.620 B$8.133 B

33

WESTPAC-$487 M

4

BANK OF AMERICA$960 M$7.193 B

34

US BANCORP-$342 M

5

MIZUHO$1.966 B$6.817 B

35

NAB

$17 M

$327 M

6

GOLDMAN SACHS$1.095 B$5.829 B

36

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

$25 M

$324 M

7

MUFG$987 M$5.785 B

37

COMMERZBANK-$300 M

8

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE$584 M$5.487 B

38

DANSKE BANK-

$250 M

9

BNP PARIBAS$491 M$5.465 B

39

NORDEA BANK-

$250 M

10

SMBC GROUP$1.04 B

$5.203 B

40

NATWEST-$189 M

11

HSBC$398 M$5.068 B

41

UNICREDIT-$155 M

12

BARCLAYS$438 M$4.051 B

42

BANK OF MONTREAL-$122 M

13

RBC$878 M$4.033 B

43

KB FINANCIAL

-

$94 M

14

SANTANDER$740 M$3.596 B

44

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

$58 M

$89 M

15

SCOTIABANK$935 M$3.462 B

45

TD

$3 M

$87 M

16

CRÉDIT AGRICOLE$647 M$3.176 B

46

INDUSTRIAL BANK

$39 M

$84 M

17

CREDIT SUISSE$411 M$3.132 B

47

DZ BANK

-

$75 M

18

ING

$1.225 B$2.891 B

48

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA

$21 M

$55 M

19

DEUTSCHE BANK

$907 M$2.460 B

49

CHINA CITIC BANK

$47 M

$47 M

20

UBS

$59 M

$2.186 B

50

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

$18 M

$39 M

21

BPCE/NATIXIS$740 M$1.836 B

51

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK

-

$24 M

22

ICBC

$655 M$1.752 B

52

PNC

$3 M

$22 M

23

BBVA

$244 M$1.751 B

53

RABOBANK

$2 M

$21 M

24

INTESA SANPAOLO$54 M$1.681 B

CHINA MINSHENG BANK

-

$14 M

25

STANDARD CHARTERED$237 M$1.572 B

PING AN INSURANCE GROUP

-

$12 M

26

WELLS FARGO$411 M$1.536 B

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

-

$7 M

27

CAIXABANK$723 M$1.171 B

LA BANQUE POSTALE

-

$1 M

28

BANK OF CHINA$781 M$1.161 B

CRÉDIT MUTUEL

-

$0 M

29

LLOYDS-$1.021 B

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA

-

-

30

ANZ

-

$771 M

STATE BANK OF INDIA--$22.671 B$122.18 B

GRAND TOTAL

80

TOTAL

BANK

RANK

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

2016-2022O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

81

Every pathway that avoids severe impacts from climate change involves

adverse health impacts. In South Africa, for example, advocates haveearly and significant reductions in coal-related emissions. Coal is both

filed landmark cases to stop coal expansion because of human rights

the largest source of energy-related global carbon dioxide (CO2)violations.190– 15 gigatonnes (Gt) in 2021 – and the largest source of electricity
generation, especially in Asia.188 CO2 emissions from electricity

The UN has called for a complete coal phaseout in advanced

generation increased to record levels in 2022, driven by increased coaleconomies by 2030, with the rest of the world following by 2040.191 The

generation in Europe and Asia. Reduced gas supplies following Russia’s

UN has also joined the consensus that the world must immediately end

invasion of the Ukraine, challenges for hydropower from drought, andcoal mine expansion and stop any new coal-fired power plants.

insufficient renewable capacity drove that increase.189
Of the world’s 60 biggest banks, 47 have a coal project financing

COAL MINING& POWER

Coal transitions require a special focus, not just because of coal’s highexclusion policy, and 39 also have at least a minimal exclusion/

emissions, but because of its outsized impact on human health and thephaseout policy for coal financing at the corporate level. The coalenvironment. From mining to coal cleaning, transportation, electricity

sector has seen the most progress on expansion policies, though thegeneration, and disposal, coal releases numerous toxic pollutants into

numbers are still low. 25 banks have a coal phaseout measure in place,the air, water and land. These disrupt ecosystems and endanger humanwith varying levels of robustness.

health. The local environmental hazards of coal vary from place toplace. While some communities are most affected by air pollution fromAnd yet the sector’s biggest bankers have not made such policy

coal-fired power plants, others endure toxic groundwater from mining.

commitments: None of the 13 Chinese banks profiled in this report have

Often, low-income neighborhoods and communities of color are

any coal financing restriction at the corporate level. Bank of China,

disproportionately impacted by the toxic impacts of coal, exacerbating

Ping An Group, and Postal Savings Bank of China exclude financing forenvironmental racism. Mounting evidence from regions dependent oncoal development outside of China, though domestic production is notcoal-based electricity generation demonstrates that coal is linked to

excluded.

»

For a detailed assessment of banks’ coal policies, see the Coal Policy Tool at
CoalPolicyTool.org or excerpted at: BankingonClimateChaos.org

P H O T O : Parilov / shutterstock82

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

83

LEAGUE TABLE - Banking on Coal Mining

B = BILLIONS

M = MILLIONS

T = TRILLIONSBank financing for the top 30 coal mining companies in 2022, based on research by Urgewald for the Global
Coal Exit List 2022
TOTAL

2022

31

SANTANDER$40 M$563 M$14.637 B

32

HSBC

$40 M

$537 M$880 M$13.257 B

33

CRÉDIT AGRICOLE$40 M$502 M

CHINA CITIC BANK

$2.923 B$12.838 B

34

BBVA

$40 M

$484 M

5

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK

$1.865 B$12.205 B

35

INTESA SANPAOLO-$472 M

6

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

$717 M$9.403 B

36

SMBC GROUP$40 M$467 M

7

ICBC$216 M$8.918 B

37

BNP PARIBAS-$455 M

8

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS$365 M$8.070 B

38

NATWEST$40 M$452 M

9

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

$675 M$6.915 B

39

RBC

$40 M

$452 M

10

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA$662 M$6.782 B

40

TD

$40 M

$450 M

11

PING AN INSURANCE GROUP$385 M$6.713 B

41

SCOTIABANK$40 M$449 M

12

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA$863 M$3.154 B

42

NAB

$40 M

$396 M

13

CHINA MINSHENG BANK

$54 M

$2.514 B

43

COMMONWEALTH BANK

$40 M

$374 M

14

DEUTSCHE BANK$186 M$2.452 B

44

ANZ

$40 M

$354 M

15

CITI$253 M$2.403 B

45

RABOBANK-$213 M

16

CREDIT SUISSE$40 M$2.326 B

46

STATE BANK OF INDIA-$206 M

17

JPMORGAN CHASE$40 M$2.177 B

47

PNC

-

$128 M

18

GOLDMAN SACHS$259 M$1.648 B

48

NORDEA BANK

-

$87 M

19

UBS

$40 M

$1.085 B

49

CIBC

-

$35 M

20

COMMERZBANK$40 M$1.050 B

50

DZ BANK

-

$26 M

21

STANDARD CHARTERED$40 M$1.021 B

51

LLOYDS

-

$26 M

22

MORGAN STANLEY$40 M$1.008 B

52

BPCE/NATIXIS

-

$20 M

23

BANK OF AMERICA$40 M$967 M53

WESTPAC

-

$4 M

24

BANK OF MONTREAL$40 M$854 M

54

CAIXABANK

-

-

25

BARCLAYS$40 M$853 M

55

CRÉDIT MUTUEL

-

-

26

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE$40 M$773 M56

DANSKE BANK

-

-

27

MUFG

$40 M

$712 M

57

KB FINANCIAL

-

-

28

UNICREDIT-$703 M

58

LA BANQUE POSTALE

-

-

29

MIZUHO$40 M$662 M

59

US BANCORP

-

-

30

ING

$40 M

$615 M

60

WELLS FARGO--$13.278 B$154.636 B

BANK

2022

2016-2022

RANK

1

INDUSTRIAL BANK

$1.394 B$20.768 B

2

BANK OF CHINA$580 M

3

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

4GRAND TOTAL

84

TOTAL

BANK

RANK

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

2016-2022O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

85

LEAGUE TABLE - Banking on Coal PowerB = BILLIONS

M = MILLIONS

T = TRILLIONSBank financing for the top 30 coal power companies in 2022, based on research by Urgewald for the Global
Coal Exit List 2022.

RANK

TOTAL

2022

2016-2022

RANK

1BANK OF CHINA$3.003 B$32.339 B

31

GOLDMAN SACHS-$259 M

2

ICBC$2.738 B$31.326 B

32

INTESA SANPAOLO-$199 M

3

CHINA CITIC BANK

$3.220 B$25.412 B

33

CRÉDIT AGRICOLE-$178 M

4

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

$3.178 B$24.047 B

34

SANTANDER-$165 M

5

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA$2.253 B$22.867 B

35

COMMERZBANK

-

$91 M

6

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

$3.950 B$21.229 B

36

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE

-

$77 M

7

PING AN INSURANCE GROUP$1.175 B$20.124 B

37

WESTPAC

-

$53 M

8

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

$2.699 B$16.471 B

38

BBVA

-

$26 M

9

INDUSTRIAL BANK

$1.942 B$15.762 B

39

UNICREDIT

-

$14 M

10

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK

$1.602 B$12.756 B

40

BPCE/NATIXIS

-

$9 M

11

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS$2.105 B$7.528 B

NAB

-

-

12

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA$366 M$4.261 B

BANK OF MONTREAL

-

-

13

CITI

$232 M$3.119 B

CAIXABANK

-

-

14

HSBC

-

$2.813 B

CIBC

-

-

15

CHINA MINSHENG BANK

$303 M$2.316 B

COMMONWEALTH BANK

-

-

16

STANDARD CHARTERED-$2.184 B

CRÉDIT MUTUEL

-

-

17

MUFG

$51 M

$1.934 B

DANSKE BANK

-

-

18

STATE BANK OF INDIA$202 M$1.850 B

DZ BANK--

19

BARCLAYS-$1.741 B

ING

-

-

20

UBS

$85 M

$1.431 B

LA BANQUE POSTALE

-

-

21

JPMORGAN CHASE$63 M$1.411 B

LLOYDS--

22

SMBC GROUP$291 M$1.086 B

NATWEST--

23

MIZUHO$26 M$990 M

NORDEA BANK

-

-

24

CREDIT SUISSE-$894 M

PNC

-

-

25

MORGAN STANLEY-$841 MRABOBANK--26

DEUTSCHE BANK-

$707 M

RBC

-

-

27

BANK OF AMERICA-$678 MSCOTIABANK

-

-

28

BNP PARIBAS-$579 M

TD

-

-

29

ANZ

-

$555 M

US BANCORP

-

-

30

KB FINANCIAL-$364 MWELLS FARGO--$29.486 B$260.685 B

BANK

GRAND TOTAL

86

TOTAL

2022

BANK

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

2016-2022O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

87

Banks must align their financing with 1.5°C pathways and enablea fair and just transition. To do so, the organizations authoring thisreport demand that banks:
CONCLUSION AND
DEMANDS»

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 for any company with expansion plans, regardless of the scope»of the expansion project. This is the most urgent step for banks to take to strengthen their climate policies.

Adopt absolute financed emissions reduction targets.
These targets must be aligned with a rigorous 1.5°C scenario, including ambitious absolute targets for 2025
and 2030, culminating in zero emissions by 2050 at the latest. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change report emphasizes that an even faster transition is needed, especially for those with thehighest cumulative emissions and greatest resources.192 Targets should be based on actual, absolute emission»

reductions, and not on the use of carbon offsets or false solutions such as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).

Demand robust 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 fuelactivity on a 1.5°C-aligned timeline. Banks should withdraw financing for clients who fail to align their activities»

with a credible 1.5°C pathway.

Protect Indigenous Peoples’ and human rights.
Protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples and human rights. Banks must ensure that their clients respect the

The climate crisis is already taking a devastating toll across the world. Frontline communities arecollective rights of Indigenous Peoples and human rights, and specifically guarantee Free, Prior and Informed

demanding justice while bearing the worst impacts of the fossil fuel industry and climate change,

Consent (FPIC) for Indigenous Peoples as defined by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

especially those in the most vulnerable nations that contribute little to the climate crisis. Time is running

They must establish zero-tolerance policies and due diligence mechanisms to prevent violence towards

out. There is no room to overshoot a 1.5°C maximum temperature increase. To achieve that goal,

Indigenous Peoples and frontline communities, as well as human rights and forest defenders in all sectors.

banks and other institutions must prioritize deep emissions reductions in the near term with annual

Financing decisions must respect Indigenous and frontline communities’ right to a healthy environment, to abenchmarks. To keep the world within 1.5°C of warming and to avoid the most devastating harms ofclimate chaos, fossil fuel expansion must end immediately. Each dollar that banks put toward new fossil
fuel projects and the companies behind them is incompatible with climate stability and violates their own
climate commitments. 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.

»just livelihood, and compensation for the loss and damages sustained as a result of climate change.

Scale up financing for a just and fair transition.
Financing for renewable energy and other low-carbon solutions must increase rapidly, and banks should work
to lower barriers to financing for such projects. Plans for a just phaseout of fossil fuel financing must take into
account the social costs of transition by supporting local economic diversification and co-creating a new,people-centered energy system with workers and communities.

88

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

89

This analysis covers the world’s 60 biggest relevant banks by assets, according to the S&P Global Market Intelligence ranking from
April 2022.194 Banks with little to no league credit for economy-wide financing were deemed irrelevant to this analysis. This resulted in
the exclusion of three Japanese banks: Japan Post Bank (13th largest by assets globally), Norinchukin Bank (41st largest), and Resona
Holdings (57rd largest). La Banque Postale was retained for historical comparison, and because their $0 financing for fossil fuels in 2022 is
attributable to specific policies, which this report has tracked. Note that the inclusion of a bank with $0 financing for fossil fuels effectively
lowers the total financing numbers reported here. Due to changes in bank sizes, U.S. Bancorp is new to this edition of the report, replacing
SuMi TRUST. Commerzbank (68th largest) replaces Huaxia Bank (63rd largest) for the second year in a row.

APPENDIXBANKS INCLUDEDABBREVIATED
NAME USED IN
THIS REPORTABBREVIATED
NAME USED IN
THIS REPORTOF HEADQUARTERS

COUNTRYRANK BYTOTAL ASSETSUNITED KINGDOM32

MORGAN STANLEYUNITED STATES

33

3

UBS

SWITZERLAND

34

CHINA

4

CHINA MINSHENG BANK

CHINA

35

UNITED STATES

5ING

NETHERLANDS

36

JAPAN

6

NATWEST (RBS)UNITED KINGDOM

37

UNITED STATES

7

UNICREDIT

ITALY

38

UNITED KINGDOM8SCOTIABANKCANADA39

BNP PARIBASFRANCE

9CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK

CHINA

40

CRÉDIT AGRICOLEFRANCE10BANK OF MONTREALCANADA

42

UNITED STATES

11

LA BANQUE POSTALEFRANCE43

SMBC GROUP

JAPAN

12

COMMONWEALTH BANKAUSTRALIA44

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA

CHINA

14

CREDIT SUISSESWITZERLAND

45MIZUHO

JAPAN

15

STANDARD CHARTERED

UNITED KINGDOM

46

UNITED STATES

16

BBVA

SPAIN

47

UNITED KINGDOM

17PING AN INSURANCE GROUP

CHINA

48

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

CHINA

18

CAIXABANK

SPAIN

49

SANTANDER

SPAIN

19

RABOBANKNETHERLANDS

50

BPCE/NATIXISFRANCE20

DZ BANKGERMANY51

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALEFRANCE

21

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP

AUSTRALIA

52

DEUTSCHE BANKGERMANY

22

STATE BANK OF INDIA

INDIA

53

TD

CANADA

23

WESTPAC

AUSTRALIA

54

UNITED STATES

24

CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE

CIBC

CANADA

55

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

CHINA

25

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANKNABAUSTRALIA56

RBC

CANADA26

NORDEA BANKFINLAND58

INDUSTRIAL BANK

CHINA

27

DANSKE BANKDENMARK59

CHINA CITIC BANK

CHINA

28

US BANCORP193

UNITED STATES60

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

CHINA

29

KB FINANCIAL

SOUTH KOREA

61

CRÉDIT MUTUELFRANCE30PNC

UNITED STATES62

INTESA SANPAOLO

ITALY

31

COMMERZBANKGERMANY68

BANK

COUNTRYRANK BYBANK

OF HEADQUARTERS

TOTAL ASSETS

CHINA

1

LLOYDSCHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

CHINA

2

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINACHINABANK OF CHINAJPMORGAN CHASE

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA

MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL GROUP

ICBC

MUFG

BANK OF AMERICAHSBC

CITIBANKCITIWELLS FARGOBARCLAYSGOLDMAN SACHSANZ

Due to data availability constraints, Ping An is the only one of the Chinese banks that is included at the group level:
Ping An Insurance Group Company of China, Ltd., which includes subsidiaries Ping An Bank and Ping An Securities.

90

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 20 23

91

ENDNOTES

1   Ron Bousso, “Big Oil Doubles Profits in Blockbuster 2022,” Reuters, February 8,2023; Andy Rowell, “As Millions Face Energy Destitution, Shell Reports Record Profits of$11.5 Billion,” Oil Change International (blog), July 28, 2022.
2   Copernicus Climate Change Service, “2022 Was a Year of Climate Extremes,
with Record High Temperatures and Rising Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases,”
January 9, 2023, Nathan Rott, “Extreme Weather, Fueled by Climate Change, Cost the
U.S. $165 Billion in 2022,” NPR, January 10, 2023.
3   Ron Bousso, “Big Oil Doubles Profits in Blockbuster 2022,” Reuters, February 8,
2023.
4  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate
Change 2023, March 2023.
5  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate
Change 2023, March 2023, ; Olivier Bois von Kursk et al., “Navigating Energy
Transitions: Mapping the Road to 1.5°C,” International Institute for Sustainable
Development, October 21, 2022; International Energy Agency, “Net Zero by 2050,”
May 2021.
6   Rainforest Action Network, “Wall Street’s Dirtiest Secret: How Fossil Fuel
Expansion Depends on Big Bank Finance,” November 2022.
7   Carbon Tracker Initiative, Unburnable Carbon: Ten Years On, June 2022.

18   Evan Halper and Aaron Gregg, “BP Dials Back Climate Pledge Amid Soaring
Oil Profits,” The Washington Post, February 7, 2023.
19   Oil Change International, “Investing in Disaster: Recent and AnticipatedFinal Investment Decisions for New Oil And Gas Production Beyond the 1.5°C Limit,”
November 2022; Carol Ryan, “Big Oil Gushes Cash Because It Doesn’t Know Where toInvest,” Wall Street Journal, March 9, 2023; Benjamin Storrow, “Offshore Oil Is About toSurge,” E&E News, March 22, 2023.

14  “Oil and Gas Industry Earned $4 Trillion Last Year, Says IEA Chief,” Reuters,
February 14, 2023, ; Nicole Goodkind, “How Oil and Gas Companies Think About
Their Shareholders,” CNN Business, February 21, 2023; Oliver Milman, “‘Monster
Profits’ for Energy Giants Reveal a Self-Destructive Fossil Fuel Resurgence,” The
Guardian, February 9, 2023; Reuters, “Bumper Profits Fuel Surge in Dividends,
Buybacks at Oil Firms,” Reuters, February 1, 2023; “US Shale Could Erase Debt by2024, Freeing Up Cash for Gas Pivot,” Bloomberg.com, August 25, 2022; “Glencore
Pays Out $7.1 Billion as Coal Drives Record Profit,” Bloomberg.com, February 15,2023, ; Ana Isabel Martinez, “Exclusive: Pemex Banks on High Oil Prices to Pay Off
Debt, After Costly Bond Issue,” Reuters, February 15, 2023, sec. Energy.
15   Mark Sweney, “Saudi Aramco’s $161bn Profit Is Largest Recorded by an Oiland Gas Firm,” The Guardian, March 12, 2023, sec. Business; Shadia Nasralla, “BPCEO Pay More Than Doubles to $12 Million; Emissions Unchanged,” Reuters, March
10, 2023.
16   Talmon Joseph Smith, “As the Fed Raises Rates, Worries Grow About Corporate
Bonds,” The New York Times, November 10, 2022; Benoît Morenne, “Frackers Flush
With Cash Shed Huge Debt Loads,” Wall Street Journal, January 11, 2023, sec.
Business.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

56  “Analysis: Global Co2 Emissions from Fossil Fuels Hit Record High in 2022,”
Carbon Brief, November 11, 2022.

39   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. 17.

57   International Energy Agency, “CO2 Emissions in 2022,” March 2023.

41  IPCC, “AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023,” March 2023, .

22  Crescent Energy Fourth Quarter 2022 Earnings Release, March 2023.

42   International Energy Agency, “Fossil Fuels Consumption Subsidies 2022,”
March 2023, ; International Energy Agency, “World Energy Outlook 2022,” October
2022, , p. 189; Diana Hernández, “Sacrifice Along the Energy Continuum: A Call for
Energy Justice,” Environmental Justice 8, no. 4 (August 2015): 151–56.

23   Matthew Cunningham-Cook, “At a New Jersey Factory, Workers Are Up
Against a Pension-Backed Private Equity Giant,” Jacobin, February 8, 2023; Nina
Lakhani, “Private Equity’s Dirty Dozen: The 12 US Firms Funding Dirty Energy Projects,”
The Guardian, February 15, 2022; “Private Equity Snaps up Billions More in Fossil
Fuel Assets,” Private Equity Stakeholder Project, January 17, 2023; Tom Sanzillo andSuzanne Mattei, “Private Equity, Part of the Fossil Fuel Problem, Can Play a Role in Its
Solution,” December 8, 2021/.

26  Private Equity Climate Risks 2022 Scorecard & Report, Private Equity
Stakeholder Project and Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund, September
2022, accessed March 23, 2023.

13  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), AR6 Synthesis Report:
Climate Change 2023, March 2023.

38  IPCC, “Synthesis report 2 of the IPCC sixth assessment report (AR6), Summaryfor Policymakers,” March 2023, , p. 11 & 20.

21  Antonio Guterres, April 2022

9  “Oil and Gas Industry Earned $4 Trillion Last Year, Says IEA Chief,” Reuters,
February 14, 2023.

12   Anna Fleck, “Infographic: Indigenous Communities Protect 80% Of All
Biodiversity,” Statista Infographics, July 19, 2022.

55   Attracta Mooney, “Relentless Rise in Carbon Emissions Tempered byRenewable Energy Surge,” Financial Times, March 2, 2023; Steven Mufson, “Global
Carbon Dioxide Emissions Hit New Highs Last Year, Says IEA Report,” Washington Post,
March 2, 2023.

40  IPCC, “AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023,” March 2023, /.

24  Private Equity Climate Risks 2022 Scorecard & Report, Private Equity
Stakeholder Project and Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund, September
2022, accessed March 23, 2023.

11   Jayati Ghosh & Debamanyu Das, “Hidden Carbon Subsidies Will Destroy Us,”
Project Syndicate, April 12, 2022.

37   Reclaim Finance conducted research on GFANZ members’ financing of
expansion. The report covers a slightly different universe of banks and fossil fuelcompanies over a different period. “Throwing Fuel on the Fire: GFANZ Members
Provide Billions in Finance for Fossil Fuel Expansion,” Reclaim Finance, January 2023,

20   Oil Change International, “Investing in Disaster,” p. 7.

8   On net zero commitments, see additional reports: Sierra Club, “Leaders Or
Laggards? Analyzing US banks’ net-zero commitments,” November 2022 ; Banktrack,“Tracking the Net Zero Banking Alliance,” accessed March 27, 2023; Reclaim Finance,“Throwing Fuel on the Fire: GFANZ Financing of Fossil Fuel Expansion,” January 17,
2023.

10   International Energy Agency, “Fossil Fuels Consumption Subsidies 2022,”
March 2023.

9217   Damian Carrington, “Oil and Gas Firms Planning ‘Frightening’ Fossil Fuels
Growth, Report Finds,” The Guardian, November 9, 2022, sec. Environment.

25   Myles McCormick, “US LNG’s $13bn Boost,” Financial Times, March 21, 2023.

27  “Debt Issuance Will Decline a Second Consecutive Year as Rates Rise,” Fitch
Ratings,November 24, 2022.
28   Ella Nilsen, “The Willow Project Has Been Approved. Here’s What to Know
About the Controversial Oil-Drilling Venture,” CNN, March 14, 2023.
29  “Sempra Reaches Final Investment Decision on Port Arthur LNG Plant’s Phase
1,” Reuters, March 20, 2023, sec. Energy.

43   Laura Cozzi, Olivia Chen, and Hyeji Kim, “The World’s Top 1% of Emitters
Produce Over 1000 Times More Co2 Than the Bottom 1% – Analysis,” IEA, February
22, 2023.
44   Dan Calverley and Kevin Anderson, “Phaseout Pathways for Fossil Fuel
Production Within Paris-Compliant Carbon Budgets,” March 22, 2022, Tyndall
Center, The University of Manchester, . The Tyndall Center report argues that “Forthe wealthiest group of ‘producer nations’, with the highest capacity to achieve a‘just transition’, output of oil and gas needs to be cut by 74% by 2030, with complete
phase out by 2034,” p. 6. See also “A Fair Shares Phase Out of Fossil Fuels: A Civil
Society Equity Review on an Equitable Global Phase Out of Fossil Fuels,” November
2021.
45  ‘Synthesis report 2 of the IPCC sixth assessment report (AR6), Summary for
Policymakers’, IPCC March 2023, p. 11 & 20.
46   Gautam Jain and Luisa Palacios, “Investing in Oil and Gas Transition Assets En
Route to Net Zero,” Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, March 2,2023, .

58   International Energy Agency, “Global Methane Tracker 2022 – Analysis,” IEA,
accessed March 3, 2023.
59   International Energy Agency, “Global Methane Tracker 2023 – Analysis,” IEA,
February 21, 2023.
60  https://www.iea.org/news/methane-emissions-remained-stubbornly-highin-2022-even-as-soaring-energy-prices-made-actions-to-reduce-them-cheaperthan-ever61  “Indigenous Resistance Against Carbon,” Indigenous Environmental Network,
August 2021.
62   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. 19.
63   Indigenous Environmental Network, “Climate Finance,” November 2022.
64   Ron Bousso, “Big Oil Doubles Profits in Blockbuster 2022,” Reuters, February 8,
2023.
65  “The White/Wiphala Paper on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems,” Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2021.
66  “Hoodwinked in the Hothouse: Resist False Solutions to Climate Change, Third
Edition,” 2021.
67  “Indigenous Environmental Network Denounces the Lack of Progress for
Indigenous Peoples and Climate Justice at COP27,” Indigenous Environmental
Network, November 29, 2022.

47  “Banks Need Even Bigger Low-Carbon Pivot to Avert Climate Crisis,”
Bloomberg.Com, February 28, 2023, . Research conducted by Profundo suggeststhat ratio may be even less favorable. See “Just 7% of Global Banks’ Energy Financing
Goes to Renewables, New Data Shows,” Rainforest Action Network, January 24, 2023.

68  “Nature-Based-Solutions,” Indigenous Environmental Network, November 22,2022; Patrick Greenfield, “‘Nowhere Else to Go’: Forest Communities of Alto Mayo,
Peru, at Centre of Offsetting Row,” The Guardian, January 18, 2023.

48  “Who Is Financing Fossil Fuel Expansion In Africa?,” Urgewald, November 2022,.

69   Patrick Greenfield, “Revealed: More Than 90% of Rainforest Carbon Offsets byBiggest Certifier Are Worthless, Analysis Shows,” The Guardian, January 18, 2023.

49   Keith Rushing, “Lithium Mining Threatens Arizona Tribe’s Sacred Spring,”
Earthjustice, October 11, 2022; World Resources Institute, “Mexico: Policymaking toEnsure Energy Justice in Renewables Development,” April 1, 2021.

70  “Nature-Based-Solutions,” Indigenous Environmental Network, November 22,
2022.

30  IPCC, “AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023,” March 2023.
31   The bank made last-minute announcements on April 12 that explicitly
mention oil and gas expansion. For review of the December policy, see Léo Martin,“Le Crédit Mutuel Revoit En Catimini Sa Politique Pétrole Et Gaz,” Reclaim Finance(blog), January 16, 2023.
32  Net Zero Banking Alliance, United Nations Environment Programme, FinanceInitiative

71  “The Fate of Nature Beyond 1.5°c of Global Warming,” WWF, June 2021.
50   Laura Cozzi, Olivia Chen, and Hyeji Kim, “The World’s Top 1% of Emitters
Produce Over 1000 Times More Co2 Than the Bottom 1% – Analysis,” IEA, February
22, 2023.

34  ‘’Danske Bank aims to reduce its Oil and gas (downstream refining) absolute
financed emissions in scope 1 and 2 with 25% by 2030. Danske Bank [also] aims to
reduce its Oil and gas (downstream refining) emissions intensitiy in scope 3 with 25%
by 2030.’’

51  “Six Island Nations Commit to ‘Fossil Fuel-Free Pacific,’ Demand Global Just
Transition,” accessed March 20, 2023; “Port Vila Call,” PICAN, March 15, 2023.
52  Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative

72  “Nature-Based Solutions,” BP Global, accessed March 14, 2023; “NatureBased Solutions,” Shell Global, accessed March 14, 2023; Alex Lawson and Patrick
Greenfield, “Shell to Spend $450m on Carbon Offsetting as Fears Grow That Credits
May Be Worthless,” The Guardian, January 19, 2023; “Chevron and Restore theEarth Foundation Agree to Collaborate on Carbon Offsets Reforestation Project inLouisiana,” March 28, 2022; “Voluntary Carbon Offsets,” ConocoPhillips, accessed
March 14, 2023.

35   For further analysis of power sector intensity targets, see Sierra Club, “Leaders
Or Laggards? Analyzing US banks’ net-zero commitments,” November 2022.

53  Indigenous Environmental Network Denounces the Lack of Progress for
Indigenous Peoples and Climate Justice at COP27,” November 29, 2022.

73   The World Bank, State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2020 (Washington, DC:
World Bank, 2020).

36   Patrick Greenfield, “Revealed: More Than 90% of Rainforest Carbon Offsets byBiggest Certifier Are Worthless, Analysis Shows,” The Guardian, January 18, 2023, sec.
Environment, .

54  “The Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative,” The Fossil Fuel NonProliferation Treaty Initiative, accessed March 23, 2023.

74   R. Quentin, Grafton,Hoang Long Chu, Harry Nelson and Gérard Bonnis, A
Global Analysis of the Cost-Efficiency of Forest Carbon Sequestration. Environment
Working Paper No. 185. OECD November 22, 2021.

33  Davos Live: U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres Addresses WEF, 2023.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

93

ENDNOTES (CONT’D)
75  “Indigenous Environmental Network Denounces the Lack of Progress for
Indigenous Peoples and Climate Justice at COP27,” Indigenous Environmental
Network, November 29, 2022.

99  “Global Coal Exit List,” Urgewald, November 2022.

76   The University of Hong Kong, “The Potential Risks of Ocean-Based Climate
Intervention Technologies on Deep-Sea Ecosystems,” Phys.org, accessed March 10,2023.

117  “Stand.Earth on Barclays Phasing out Financing Tar Sands Producers andPipelines, RBC Continues to Lag Behind,” Stand.Earth (blog), February 15, 2023.

77  “The Carbon Con – How Offsetting Claims Are Vastly Inflated,”
SourceMaterial, January 18, 2023.

101  The Bloomberg Terminal provides financial data by subscription. Financial
research was done using the Bloomberg Terminal’s league table function, which
aggregates “creditable” transactions and assigns each leading bank (in an arranger
or agent role) a portion of the value of the deal, according to the Bloomberg L.P.
League Table Standards and Guidelines. The Bloomberg League Table Standards
and Guidelines reference document is available to terminal subscribers.

78   Von Tin Fischer and Hannah Knuth, “CO2 Certificates: Phantom Offsets andCarbon Deceit,” Zeit Online, January 19, 2023.

102   IJGlobal is a project finance and infrastructure journal and data provider; seeijglobal.com.

119   Project finance proportion assessed from the transaction data researched inthis report; Oil & Gas Policy Tracker, Reclaim Finance, accessed March 2023.

79   Patrick Greenfield, “Revealed: More Than 90% of Rainforest Carbon Offsets byBiggest Certifier Are Worthless, Analysis Shows,” The Guardian, January 18, 2023.

103   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.

120  Oil & Gas Policy Tracker, Reclaim Finance, accessed March 2023.

100  “Global Coal Exit List,” Urgewald, November 2022.

80  “Just Transition,” Indigenous Environmental Network, October 30, 2017.
81  “The World’s 100 Largest Banks, 2022,” April 11, 2022.
82  See bankingonclimatechaos.org for lists of all oil and gas companies thatwere included in the expansion and sector league tables, as well as a methodology
document that lists all the Bloomberg Industry Classification Standards included in
the fossil fuel financing analysis.

104   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. For companies in the top expanders list and their subsidiaries, annual
adjusters were used in the overall fossil fuel league table. For all other companies,
one adjuster was calculated and applied to all five years of data.

118   Brett Wilkins, “‘Economic Crime’: Cost of Canada’s Trans Mountain Pipeline
Soars by Billions, Again,” March 13, 2023, https://www.commondreams.org/news/
trans-mountain-pipeline.

121   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.
122   SILA Inuat, “Willow Project's Record Of Decision Press Response”, March 2023.
123
BankTrack, “Banking on Thin Ice: Two Years in the Heat, Exposing Nordic
Bank Finance for Fossil Fuels,” November 2022.

83  “Global Oil & Gas Exit List,” Urgewald, November 2022; “Global Coal Exit List,”
Urgewald, October 2022.

124   Dan Collyns, “Peruvian Amazon Indigenous Leaders to Lobby Banks to Cut
Ties with State Oil Firm,” The Guardian, November 14, 2022, sec. Environment; Kevin
Koenig, “How We’re Ending Amazon Crude in 2023!,” January 10, 2023.

84  Rystad Energy’s UCube database is an exploration and production upstream
database with reserves, production profiles, and economical figures for all fields,
discoveries, and exploration licenses globally.

106   Where a company was involved in activities other than energy generationand distribution, the coal-fired capacity percentage was applied to the electricity
generation or power segment of the company as a percentage of total assets.

125  "Amazonia Under Pressure 2020,” RAISG , 2021.

85   Three-quarters of the 100 companies selected are oil and gas companies, toaccount for the larger size of the oil and gas industry as compared to coal. Of those
75 companies, 80% were selected for their upstream activity, to weigh toward thecompanies most responsible for producing new oil and gas.

107   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 the Paris climate goals require a managed declineof fossil fuel production”, Oil Change International, September 22, 2016.

127   Amazon Watch, “GeoPark Oil Company (GPRK) a High-Risk Investment,
Report by Human Rights and Environmental Organization Details,” May 12, 2022.

87  “Global Oil & Gas Exit List,” Urgewald, November 2022.
88  “Global Coal Exit List,” Urgewald, October 2022.
89  “Global Oil & Gas Exit List,” Urgewald, November 2022.
90  “Oil Pipelines,” Oil Sands Magazine, last updated February 8, 2023. Inter
Pipeline is included as of its purchase of the Milk River Pipeline in June 2021, andKinder Morgan is included through September 2018, when it was the owner of theTrans Mountain Pipeline. “Kinder Morgan Canada Limited - Trans Mountain Pipeline
and Expansion Project Transaction Closes,” Trans Mountain, 31 August 2018.
91   This report uses the definition provided by the Arctic Monitoring & Assessment
Programme (AMAP) of the Arctic Council, also used in the Global Oil & Gas Exit List.
This definition covers onshore and offshore oil and gas production in the High Arctic
and sub-Arctic regions defined by AMAP. “Geographical Coverage,” AMAP, accessed
March 2023.
92  “Global Oil & Gas Exit List,” Urgewald, November 2022.

108   These estimates represent the cumulative carbon pollution that burning theoil and gas reserves contained in these projects would cause, if fully extracted. We do
not estimate the additional methane pollution that would be caused while extracting,processing, and transporting the oil and gas. Thus, the full global warming impact of
this new expansion is likely to be greater.
109   The IEA reported that global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions were36.3 Gt in 2021. “Global CO2 Emissions Rebounded to their Highest Level in History in
2021,” IEA, March 8, 2022.
110  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.
111  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 2020112   Evan Halper and Aaron Gregg, “BP Dials Back Climate Pledge Amid Soaring
Oil Profits,” The Washington Post, February 7, 2023.

93  https://stand.earth/research-group/
94  https://www.raisg.org/en/maps/

113   Discussed in more detail in David Tong, Big Oil Reality Check: Updated
Assessment of Oil and Gas Company Climate Plans, Oil Change International, May
2022 at 16; BP 4Q 2021 Results: Webcast Q&A Transcript, BP, February 8, 2022, p. 10.

95  “UCube,” Rystad Energy.
96  “Global Oil & Gas Exit List,” Urgewald, November 2022.
97  “Summary Tables,” Global Energy Monitor, July 2022.
98  “Global Oil & Gas Exit List,” Urgewald, November 2022.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

137   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).
138   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.
139   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.
140   Jaskiran Dhillon and Will Parrish, “Exclusive: Canada Police Prepared to
Shoot Indigenous Activists, Documents Show,” The Guardian, December 20, 2019.
141   See for example FracTracker
142  Oil & Gas Policy Tracker, Reclaim Finance, accessed March 2023.

105   If the company was involved in other sectors in addition to oil and gas,
the proportion of production was applied to the company’s reported oil and gas
business segments’ capital expenditure, assets, or revenue, as available.

86  “Global Oil & Gas Exit List,” Urgewald, November 2022.

94

116   Mei Li, Gregory Trencher, and Jusen Asuka, “The Clean Energy Claims of
BP, Chevron, Exxonmobil and Shell: A Mismatch Between Discourse, Actions andInvestments,” PLOS ONE 17, no. 2 (February 16, 2022): e0263596.

114  ExxonMobil, “Advancing Climate Solutions: 2022 Progress Report”, January
2022.
115   Rene Marsh, “Big Oil Has Engaged in a Long-Running Climate Disinformation
Campaign While Raking in Record Profits,” December 9, 2022, CNN.

143   Robert Rozansky and Baird Langenbrunner, “Global Surge in New LNG Export
Terminals Led by U.S., Russia, Canada,” October 30, 2022; Victoria Zaretskaya andJames Easton, “U.S. LNG Export Capacity to Grow as Three Additional Projects Begin
Construction,” September 6, 2022; Victoria Zaretskaya, “Liquefied Natural Gas Will
Continue to Lead Growth in U.S. Natural Gas Exports,” March 8, 2023.

126   Stand.earth Research Group, “Banking on Amazon Destruction,” 2021

128   Bank policy assessment conducted by Stand 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.
129   FAO and FILAC, “Forest Governance by Indigenous and Tribal People. An
Opportunity for Climate Action in Latin America and the Caribbean”, 2021
130   Pat Davis Szymczak, “2022 Oil and Gas Discoveries Create Highest Valuein a Decade,” Journal of Petroleum Technology, February 7, 2023; Benjamin Storrow,“Offshore Oil Is About to Surge,” E&E News, March 22, 2023.
131   Rod Nickel, Sabrina Valle, and Rod Nickel, “This Decade’s Oil Boom Is Moving
Offshore - Way Offshore,” Reuters, August 31, 2022.
132  Oil & Gas Policy Tracker, Reclaim Finance, accessed March 2023.
133  “What Is Deepwater and Ultra Deepwater Drilling?,” Enhanced Drilling,
accessed March 2022.

144   Climate Nexus, “Explosion of LNG Export Contracts Since Ukraine Invasion,”
BailoutWatch, March 2023.
145   Global Energy Monitor, “Global Gas Infrastructure Tracker”, accessed March
19, 2023,
146   Sam Reynolds, “The Economic Case for LNG in Asia Is Crumbling,” August 15,2022; Sam Reynolds and Grant Hauber, “IEEFA: Emerging Asia’s Unrealistic LNG-toPower Project Pipeline Threatens Macroeconomic and Financial Stability,” Institute forEnergy Economics and Financial Analysis, 15 December 2021.
147  “Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG),” U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil
Energy & Carbon Management, accessed August 2022.
148  https://razomwestand.org/en
149  https://razomwestand.org/en
150   Liz Hampton and Marianna Parraga, “Wave of New LNG Export Plants
Threatens to Knock Gas Prices,” Reuters, March 14, 2023, sec. Energy; “Natural Gas
Markets Remain Tight as Uncertainty Persists Around Chinese LNG Demand andFurther Supply Cuts by Russia,” IEA, February 28, 2023.
151   Robert Rozansky, “Gas Run Aground,” Global Energy Monitor, March 8, 2022.

134   Amanda Jasi, “Understanding Why Fracking Wastewater Contains
Radioactive Waste,” The Chemical Engineer, November 12, 2018.
135   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(2022)
136   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.

152   International Energy Agency, “Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global
Energy Sector, Revised version,” October 2021 (4th revision), p. 102-103.
153  “New Report On Plaquemines LNG Highlight Multiple Intersecting
Environmental and Community Risks,” Sierra Club, June 10, 2022.
154   Michael Esealuka, “Defend SWLA,” Healthy Gulf (blog), January 26, 2023;
Briana Flin and Josh Landis, “The US Town Swallowed by Big Oil’s ‘Chemical Soup,"
The Guardian, March 9, 2023, sec. US news.
155   Sara Sneath, “A Chemical Firm Bought Out These Black and White US
Homeowners – with a Significant Disparity,” The Guardian, November 17, 2021, sec.
US news; Tristan Baurick, “Two Explosions Follow Decades of Fires, Toxic Leaks, Injuries
at Westlake Chemical Plants,” NOLA.com, March 7, 2022.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

95

ENDNOTES (CONT’D)
156  https://www.sierraclub.org/dirty-fuels/us-lng-export-tracker
157   Sierra Club and Rainforest Action Network, “Rio Grande Valley: At Risk From
Fracked-Gas Export Terminals, 2022 Update,” October 2022.
158   Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, “Rio Grande LNG, LLC
Terminal,” Energy.gov, accessed March 27, 2023; “NextDecade Sells Stock Ahead of
Rio Grande LNG FID,” LNG Prime (blog), February 7, 2023; “Texas LNG, a GlenfarneGroup Company, and Enbridge Execute Natural Gas Pipeline Transportation
Agreement,” January 18, 2022.
159  “Garcia Pasture,” World Monuments Fund, March 2022; Juan Mancias
and Christa Mancias, “Garcia Pasture’s Designation Is a Win for Our Tribe, and for
Strategic Philanthropy,” Philanthropy News Digest, April 12, 2022.
160   Sierra Club and Rainforest Action Network, “Rio Grande Valley: At Risk From
Fracked-Gas Export Terminals, 2022 Update,” October 2022.
161   Sierra Club and Rainforest Action Network, “Rio Grande Valley: At Risk From
Fracked-Gas Export Terminals, 2022 Update,” October 2022.
162   Matthew Green, “Carbon Capture Project Is ‘Band-Aid’ to Greenwash $10bn
LNG Plant, Locals Say,” The Guardian, February 3, 2023, sec. Environment.
163   Bruce Robertson and Milad Mousavian, “The Carbon Capture Crux: Lessons
Learned,” September 1, 2022; Carlos Anchondo and Corbin Hiar, “Biggest CCS
Failure Clouds Supreme Court Ruling,” E&E News, July 11, 2022.
164   Scott Disavino, “Financial Hurdles Rise for Green-Lighting New US LNG
Plants,” Reuters, March 29, 2023; “French Bank Société Générale Withdraws from Rio
Grande LNG,” March 28, 2023.
165   Global Energy Monitor, “How Long Does it Take to Build an LNG Export
Terminal in the United States?”, April 2022.
166   Pam Radtke, "Ukraine Is a False Justification’: America’s Destructive New Rushfor Natural Gas,” The Guardian, March 20, 2023, sec. Environment.
167   Climate Action Tracker, “Natural Gas in Africa: Why Fossil Fuels Cannot
Sustainably Meet the Continent’s Growing Energy Demand,” May 2022.
168   Energy Connects, “After 20 years of exporting LNG, Nigeria wants to boost its
consumption at home”, March 15, 2022.
169   Oluyemi Ayorinde Akintoye, Abiodun Komomo Eyong, Peter Agada,
Opaminola Nicholas Digha, and Okibe James Okibe, “Socio-Economic Implicationof Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas (NLNG) Project in Bonny Local Government Area,
Rivers State, Nigeria,” Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 4(5), 63–79,
January 2016.
170   Edward T. Bristol-Alagbariya, “Finima Resettlement for the Nigeria LNG
Project,” IAIA Special Symposium on Resettlement & Livelihoods: Concurrent
Session on “Emerging Standards, Practices & Frameworks,” Manila, Philippines,
20–27 February 2017, pp. 8, 10, 12; Renux, “NLNG Has Failed Finima People … We
Challenge Company to Projects’ Audit,” NGNewsHub, 18 January 2021.
171   Odo Chistopher Emeka, Jude Ikewuchi, and Ogechukwu Ezim, “Effects of
Prolonged Exposure to Gas Flare on Renal Functions Status of Adult Humans In
Finima, Bonny Island,” International Journal of Advanced Research and Publications,3(7), 67–72, July 2019.

176   Martin Ewi et al., “Violent Extremism in Mozambique: Drivers and Links toTransnational Organised Crime,” Institute for Security Studies, September 5, 2022.
177  “Global Banks Finance LNG Expansion in Mozambique Causing Violence
and Displacement,” Banking on Climate Chaos 2022, March 16, 2023; “Mozambique:‘What I Saw Is Death’: War Crimes in Mozambique’s Forgotten Cape,” Amnesty
International, March 2, 2021; “Nearly 1 Million People Have Fled Five Years ofNorthern Mozambique Violence,” UNHCR, October 4, 2022; “The Impacts of the
LNG Industry in Cabo Delgado,” Mozambique JA!/ Friends of the Earth Mozambique
March 2020; “Mozambique Shows How JPMorgan Chase Backs War and Climate
Chaos,” Rainforest Action Network, March 7, 2023, sec. News.
178  “Coal-to-gas Switching Threatens Energy, Security, and Global Climate
Goals,” Global Energy Monitor, October 2022; Robert Rozansky, “Despite Gas Crisis,
Asia Plans Us$119 Billion LNG Import Build-Out,” December 14, 2022.
179   Sam Reynolds, “The Economic Case for LNG in Asia Is Crumbling,” August 15,
2022.
180   Sam Reynolds, “The Economic Case for LNG in Asia Is Crumbling,” August
15, 2022; “Philippines and Vietnam to Import LNG but Long-Term Doubts Loom,”Financial Times, March 14, 2023.
181  “Philippine Fossil Gas Landscape,” Center for Energy, Ecology, andDevelopment, July 2021
182  “Philippines to Open Door to LNG Imports Next Year with 3 Terminals,”
Reuters, September 27, 2022.
183   Dwi Sawung, “Japan’s ‘Green Transformation’ Would Derail the Energy
Transition in Asia,” Climate Home News, March 2, 2023.
184  “About the Verde Island Passage,” protectVIP, accessed March 8, 2023.
185  “Protecting the Natural Riches of the Verde Island Passage,” Conservation
International Philippines, accessed March 14, 2023
186  “Philippines Oil Spill: Residents Report Nausea and Dizziness in Affected
Villages,” BBC News, March 7, 2023, sec. Asia.
187  “Financing a Fossil Future: Special Report on High Prices and Fossil Gas
Expansion in SEA – Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development,” Center for Energy,
Ecology, and Development, June 3, 2022; “Shell out of VIP Call to Action,” protectVIP,
accessed March 8, 2023.
188  “The World’s Coal Consumption Is Set to Reach a New High in 2022 as theEnergy Crisis Shakes Markets,” IEA, December 16, 2022.
189  “Electricity Market Report 2023 – Analysis,” IEA, February 2023.
190   Ramin Pejan, “South Africa’s Youth Take on Coal and the Climate Crisis,”
Earthjustice, December 9, 2021; “Pollution from Eskom’s Failing Coal Fleet Will
Continue to Kill Thousands,” Centre for Environmental Rights, February 7, 2023.
191  “UN Chief: Phase Out of Coal Is Key Climate Priority,” UNFCCC, January 18,
2022.
192  “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 24, 2023; IPCC Press Release, March 20,2023.

172  “Report: The Fossil Fuelled Fallacy,” Don’t Gas Africa, November 2022.
173   Data from IJGlobal, accessed 29 January 2021.
174  “First LNG Cargo from Mozambique Arrives in Bilbao, Spain,” Mozambique,
December 7, 2022; “Eni South Coral FLNG Aims To Reboot Mozambique’s Rovuma,”
Journal of Petroleum Technology, August 2022.

193   USBancorp met the criteria for inclusion in Banking on Climate Chaos 2023,
though it was not included in 2022.
194  “The World’s 100 Largest Banks, 2022,” April 11, 2022.

175   Sudip Kar-Gupta, “Total Declares Force Majeure on Mozambique LNG After
Insurgent Attacks,” Reuters, April 26, 2021, sec. Africa.
P H O T O : Jim West / Alamy Stock Photo96

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

97

ENDORSEMENTS

623 organizations from 75 countries around the world:1000 Grandmothers for Future Generations

Africa Institute for Energy Governance

BankFWD

Centre for Sustainability Innovations & Research

Climáximo

198 methods

African Patterns for Child Poverty & Environment

Banking on a Better Future

Centre pour l’Environnement et leCoal Action Network Aotearoa

350 Africa

Afrique Eco 2100

BankTrack

350 Aotearoa

Aid Organization Bangladesh

Below2ºC

Centro de Desarrollo Humano

350 Asia

Alabama Interfaith Power & Light

Berks Gas Truth

Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental

Coastal Livelihood & Environmental Action

EcoEquity

350 Bay Area

Alaska Wilderness League

Berliner Wassertisch

Chispa Texas

Network

Ecological Society of the Philippines

350 Chicago

Alerte Congolaise pour l'Environnement et les

Better Future Project

Christian Aid

Coastside Jewish Community

Ecologistas en Acción

Better Path Coalition

Christian Spiritual Youth Ministry Huduma

CODEPINK: Women for Peace

Ecology Africa Foundation

Colorado Businesses for a Livable Climate

Economic & Social Justice Trust of Namibia

Community Environmental & Social JusticeEgyptian Green Party

350 Colorado

Droits de l'Homme

Développement

350 Conejo / San Fernando Valley

Alliance for Empowering Rural Communities

Better Tomorrow Solar

350 Côte d'Ivoire

Alliance For Just Money

Beyond Extreme Energy

Citizen's Alliance for a Sustainable Englewood

350 Eugene

Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments

Biodiversity Conservation Center

Citizens Network for Community Development

350 Fairfax

Amal Organization for Relief & Development

Blue DalianTanzania

350 Groc

Amazon Watch

Blue Future

350 Hawaii

American Friends Service Committee

350 Lake Norman

American Jewish World Service

350 Lambert

ZambiaCoalicion LatinoAmericana Contra El Fracking,
Por El Agua y Clima

Advocates

Eco-Justice Collaborative of Philadelphia Yearly
Meeting
Eco-union
ecoAmerica

EkōCommunity for Sustainable Energy

EKOenergy

Citizens' Climate Lobby Canada

Community Resource Centre Foundation

Emergenza Climatica

Both ENDS

Clean Air Action Group

Community Transformation Foundation Network

Endangered Species Coalition

Breach Collective

Climate 2025

Concerned Health Professionals of Pennsylvania

Engajamundo

Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund

Breaking the Bank

Climate Action California

Connected Advocacy

Ensemble pour la Justice Climatique et la

350 MassachusettsAnde Bunbury Architects

Breast Cancer Action

Climate Action for Lifelong Learners

Connecticut Citizen Action Group

Protection des Défenseurs de l’Environnement

350 New Hampshire

Animals Are Sentient Beings

Brighton & Hove Friends of the Earth

Climate Action Merribek

Conservation Council of Western Australia

Environics Trust

350 New Mexico

Another Gulf Is Possible Collaborative

Bronx Climate Justice North

Climate Action Network – Réseau action climat

Corporación Regional Yariguíes – Grupo deEnvironment Governance Institute

350 New Orleans

AnsvarligFremtid

Bronx Jews for Climate Action

350 NYC

Appui aux Initiatives Communautaires desBürgerbewegung Finanzwende

350 Ottawa

Conservations de l''Environnement et de

350 PDX

Développement Durable

CanadaEstudios Sociales, Extractivos y Ambientales

Environmental Defence Canada

Climate Action Network Arab Worlddel Magdalena Medio

Environmental Justice Foundation

Businesses for a Livable Climate

Climate Action Network Australia

Corporate Accountability

Ethical Consumer

California Communities Against Toxics

Climate Action Network International

Corporate Europe Observatory

Extinction Rebellion Cape Town

California Nurses for Environmental Health &Climate Action Network Latin America

Corvallis Interfaith Climate Justice Committee

Extinction Rebellion DC

Climate Action Network Uganda

Cultural Survival

Extinction Rebellion Nelson Mandela Bay

350 Pensacola

Araucarias pelo Clima

350 Pilipinas

Arayara Panama

350 Seattle

Arayara Paraguay

California Reinvestment Coalition

Climate Action Now Western Massachusetts

Culture Unstained

Extinction Rebellion Phoenix

350 Triangle

ART NOT WAR

Call to Action Colorado

Climate Action Rhode Island / 350 Rhode Island

Dayenu: A Jewish Call to Climate Action

Extinction Rebellion San Francisco Bay Area

350 Wenatchee

ARTivism Virginia

Campagna Per il Clima Fuori dal Fossile

Climate Alliance Switzerland

Debt Justice

Extinction Rebellion Youth United States

350 Wisconsin

Artivist Network

CampaxClimate Clock

Democracy Watch

Facing Finance

350 Yakima Climate Action

Asian Peoples Movement on Debt &Carrizo Comecrudo Tribe of Texas

Climate Critical Earth

Democratic Socialists of America Knoxville

Fair Finance International

Cascadia Climate Action Now

Climate Emergency Institute

Divest Oregon

Fair Finance Sweden

350.org

Development

Justice

350.org Australia

Associação Juízes para a Democracia

Catholic Divestment Network

Climate Emergency Unit

Divest Washington

Fair Finance Thailand

350.org Japan

Association of Climate Action Network Eastern

CatholicNetwork US

Climate Energy FinanceDoctors for the Environment Australia

Fairbanks Climate Action Coalition

AbibiNsroma Foundation

CEE Bankwatch Network

Climate Families NYC

Don't Gas the Meadowlands Coalition

FairFinAcademia Cidadã / Citizenship Academy

Association of Ethical Shareholders Germany

AfricaCenter for Biological Diversity

Climate First Bank

Earth Action

Federation of Community Forestry Users Nepal

Accelerate Neighborhood Climate Action

Athens County’s Future Action Network

Center for Energy, Ecology, & Development

Climate First!

Earth Care New Mexico

Finance Innovation Lab

Action for the Climate Emergency

Atlantic Coast Conference Climate JusticeCenter for International Environmental Law

Climate Generation

Earth Day Initiative

Florida For Good

Center for Oil & Gas Organizing

Climate Hawks Vote

Earth Ethics

Focus Association for Sustainable Development

Center for Participatory Research &Climate Justice Alliance

Earth Guardians

Fondazione Finanza Etica

Climate Justice Programme

Earth Quaker Action Team

Food & Water Watch

Climate Justice Saskatoon

Earthkeeper Health Resources

For a Better Bayou

ActionAid Brasil

Coalition

ActionAid Denmark

Atmos Financial

ActionAid International

Australian Conservation Foundation

ActionAid USA

Avaaz

Adarsha Samajik Progoti Sangstha

Aytzim: Ecological Judaism

Climate Organizing Hub

Earthlife Africa

For Our Kids Canada

Adfree Cities

Azul

Centre for Climate Safety

Climate Pledge Collective

Earthworks

For The Greater Good

Advocates4Earth

Bank Climate AdvocatesCentre for Environmental Justice

Climate Reality Project Brasil

East African Crude Oil Pipeline Host

For The People

Africa Center for Environment & Energy

Bank Information Center

Centre for Environmental Justice Togo

Climate Reality Project Chicago Metro

Communities

Forest Keeper

Bank on Our Future

Centre for Environmental Rights

Climate Rights International

Eco Action Families

Forum pour la Modernité et la Démocratie

Bank.Green

Centre for Financial Accountability

Climaxi

Ecojustice

Fossielvrij Nederland

Sustainability
Africa Coal Network98

This report is endorsed by

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

Development
Centre for Citizens Conserving Environment &Management

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

99

ENDORSEMENTS (CONT’D)
Mom Loves Taiwan Association

Pacific Islands Climate Action Network

Rede Grupo de Trabalho Amazônico

Money Rebellion

Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum

Renewal Funds

Montbello Neighborhood Improvement

Palms To Pines Democratic Network

Réseau Action Climat France

Parents for Climate Aotearoa

Resource Renewal InstituteMother Earth Project

Peace Action Wisconsin

Respecting Aboriginal Values & Environmental

Just Share

Mothers Out Front

Peace, Justice, Sustainability NOW

Greenpeace USA

Just Transition Alliance

Mothers Rise Up

Pennsylvania Interfaith Power & Light

Rettet den Regenwald

Greenvest

Justice Is Global

Movement Rights

People & Planet

Rewriting Extinction

Framtiden i Våre Hender

Growthwatch

Kamukunji Paralegal Trust

Movement Training Network

Peoples Climate Movement New York

Rinascimento GreenFreshWater Accountability Project

Grupo de Financiamiento Climático para

Kiko Network

MyGreen.Fund

Physicians for Social Responsibility

RISE St. James

Fridays For Future Digital

Latinoamérica y el Caribe

Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center

National Indigenous Disabled Women

Physicians for Social Responsibility Arizona

Rivers & Mountains GreenFaith

Physicians for Social Responsibility Pennsylvania

Rivers without Boundaries Mongolia

Plataforma CIPÓRodice za klima Liberec

Port Arthur Community Action Network

Rogue Climate
Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung International Climate

Fossil Free California

Green State Solutions

Fossil Free London

GreenFaith

Fossil Free Pride

GreenFaith Boulder County

Jubilee Australia Research Centre

Fossil Free Switzerland

Greenpeace Canada

Judith Chikonde Foundation

Foundation for Environmental Management &Greenpeace Nordic

Just Finance International

Greenpeace UK

Fox Valley Citizens for Peace & Justice
FracTracker AllianceCampaign against Poverty

BrazilFridays For Future Mumbai

Grupo de Investigación en Derechos

Klimadelegation

Fridays For Future Nigeria

Colectivos y Ambientales

KoalaKollektiv

Association

Association Nepal
National Society of Conservationists / Friends ofthe Earth Hungary

Needs Trust

Fridays For Future Sudbury

Hanover Action

La Ruta del Clima

Fridays For Future U.S.

Harrington Investments

Larimer Alliance for Health, Safety & Environment

Native Movement

Positive Money Europe

Friends of Public Banking Santa Rosa

Hawaii Institute for Human Rights

Latinoamerica Sustentable

Natural Capitalism Solutions

Positive Money UK

Friends of the Earth Europe

Health of Mother Earth Foundation

Leadnow

Neighbours United for Climate Action

Positive Money US

Friends of the Earth International

Healthy Gulf

Leave It in the Ground Initiative

New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance

Presente.org / Alianza Americas

Friends of the Earth Japan

Heinrich Böll Stiftung Washington DC

Legacy Hospitality Holdings

New Energy Economy

Preserve Monroe

Salt Palm Development

Friends of the Earth U.S.

Hip Hop Caucus

Legacy Vacation Resorts

New Mexico Climate JusticePrimavera Zur

San Luis Obispo Clean Water

Friends of Zoka

Honor the Earth

Lelewal Foundation

New Mexico Environmental Law Center

Private Equity Stakeholder Project

SanDiego350

Frontier Institute of Development Planning

Humboldt Unitarian Universalist Fellowship

Les Amis de la Terre France / Friends of the Earth

New Weather Institute

Pro-Information Pro-Environment United People

Santa Clara County GreensFoundation

Climate Action Campaign

FranceNicaragua Center for Community Action

Network

Malaysia

Santa Cruz Climate Action Network

Nijmegen Fossielvrij

Profundo

Save Lamu

North American Climate, Conservation &Progressive Democrats of America

Save Our Illinois Land

Progressives for Climate

Save RGV

North Bronx Racial Justice

Project Dryad

Save the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

North Carolina Climate Justice Collective

Project Hub for Environmental Activists & Rights

Schools for Climate Action

IBON International

Fund Our Future

Inclusive Development International

Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales

Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition

Libyan Youth for Climate Movement

Fundación Arayara

Indian Social Action Forum

Lift Humanity Foundation

Fundacion Chile Sustentable

Indigenous Environmental Network

Littleton Business AllianceFundacja Strefa Zieleni

Indivisible Ambassadors

Long Island Progressive Coalition

North Range Concerned Citizens

Gallifrey Foundation

Indivisible Colorado

Lumière Synergie pour le Développement

Northern Beaches Climate Action Network

Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights

Seeding Sovereignty

George Mason University Center for Climate

Initiative for Right View

Maan ystavat ry / Friends of the Earth Finland

Not Here Not Anywhere

Protect Our Winters Europe

Seneca Lake Guardian

Initiatives for Dialogue & Empowerment throughMake My Money Matter

Notre Affaire à Tous

Protect Our Winters New Zealand

Seventh Generation

Malaysian Youth Delegation

Oasis India

Protect the Planet Stop TMX

ShareAction

Malek-Wiley & Associates

Observatório do Carvao Mineral

Public Accountability Initiative / LittleSis

Sharklays

Giniw Collective

Alternative Legal Services

Glasswaters Foundation

Innovation pour le Développement et la

Les Amis de la Terre Togo / Friends of the Earth

Justice Program
Sahabat Alam Malaysia / Friends of the EarthFund for Democratic Communities

Change Communication

Togo

Environment

Defenders

Scientist Rebellion Turtle Island

Market Forces

Observatório do Clima

Public Citizen

Shift: Action for Pension Wealth & Planet Health

Global Energy Monitor

Institute for Development Policy

Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns

Observatório do Petróleo e Gás

Public Eye

Sierra Club

Global Justice Ecology Project

Institute for Policy Studies Climate Policy

Massachusetts Teachers Association Climate

Occupy Bergen County NJ

Pueblo Action Alliance

Simon Fraser University 350

Action Network

Ocean Plastic Free

Putnam Progressives

Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia

Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives

Global Witness

100

Jovens pelo Clima Brasil / Fridays For Future

Protection de l'Environnement

ProgramGrassroots Global Justice Alliance

Instituto ClimaInfo

Mayfair Park Neighborhood Association

Ocean. Now!

Quakers in Britain

Small Business Alliance

Great Plains Action Society

Instituto de Referência Negra Peregum

Mazaska Talks

Oil & Gas Action Network

Quit RBC / Lâche RBC

SoCal 350 Climate Action

Greater Birmingham Alliance to Stop Pollution

Instituto Internacional Arayara

Media Alliance

Oil Change International

Rainforest Action Network

Social Tipping Point Coalitie

Greater New Orleans Housing Alliance

Instituto Internacional de Educação do Brasil

Meiyouwenti / CoalProblem

Oil Refinery Residents Association

RapidShift Network

Solidarité pour la Reflexion et Appui au

Green 13

Instituto Talanoa

Mekong Watch

Oilwatch Ghana

Razom We Stand

Green Advocates International

InterAmerican Clean Energy InstituteMental Health & Inclusion Ministries

One EarthRe-set: Platform for socio-ecologicalGreen America

Interfaith EarthKeepers

Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition

OPAL Environmental Justice Oregon

Green Foster Action Foundation

International Rivers

Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action

Order of the Sacred Earth

Réalité Climatique Canada / Climate Reality

SOMA Action

Green House Connection Center

International Student Environmental Coalition

Mighty Earth

Our Common Wealth 670

Project Canada

Sonoma County Climate Activist Network

Green Leaf Advocacy & Empowerment Center

International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs

Migrant & Asylum Seeker Solidarity Action

Our Revolution Ocean County NJ

Reclaim Finance

South Durban Community Environment AlllianceGreen New Deal VirginiaInterstate 70 Citizens Advisory Group

Milieudefensie / Friends of the Earth Netherlands

Oyu Tolgoi Watch

Reclaim Our Tomorrow

Southwest Organization for Sustainability

Green Party of California

Invest for Change

Mindful Money

Pacific Greens Linn-Benton Oregon

ReCommonSpirit of the Sun

Green Party of Washington State

Jewish Climate Action Network Massachusetts

MN350

Pacific Greens of Oregon

Recourse

Sri EventB A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

transformation

Développement Communautaire
Solidarity INFO Service
Solutions for Our Climate

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

101

ENDORSEMENTS (CONT’D)ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Stand.earth

Third Act Faith

Vote Climate

Steady State Manchester

Third Act Lawyers

Wall of Women

Stichting Onderzoek Multinationale

Third Act New York City

Water Protector Legal Collective

Third Act Ohio

Waterkeeper Alliance

Stop SPOT & GulfLink

Third Act Richmond Virginia

Waterkeepers Bangladesh

Stop the Money Pipeline

THIS! Is What We Did

We Are Here Venice

Stowarzyszenie Ekologiczne EKO-UNIA

TIAA-Divest!

WeSmellGas

Stowarzyszenie Pracownia na rzecz Wszystkich

Tipping Point UK

WESPAC Foundation

Contributing authors and researchers:

Tools For Solidarity

West Coast Environmental Law Association

April Merleaux, Rainforest Action Network

Kyle Gracey, Oil Change International

Students for Environmental Concerns

Toronto Raging Grannies

Western Slope Businesses for a Livable Climate

Caleb Schwartz, Rainforest Action Network

Lorne Stockman, Oil Change International

Students Organising for Sustainability UK

Toronto350

WildEarth Guardians

Ruth Breech, Rainforest Action Network

Noam-Pierre Werlé, Reclaim Finance

Sustainable Economics & Finance Association

Toxic Bonds Coalition

Wilwerding Consulting

Shawna Foster, Rainforest Action Network

Nathan Guillot, Reclaim Finance

Switch It Green

Transformative Wealth Management

Women Without Roofs – Nepal

Aditi Sen, Rainforest Action Network

Maude Lentilhac, Reclaim Finance

Synergie de Jeunes pour le Développement et laTransition Edinburgh

Women's Earth & Climate Action Network

Transition Express

Women's Environment & Development

Ernesto Archila, Rainforest Action Network

Ryan Cooper, Reclaim Finance

Elana Sulakshana, Rainforest Action Network

Yann Louvel, Reclaim FinanceHenrieke Butijn, BankTrack

Ginny Cleaveland, Sierra Club

Maaike Beenes, BankTrack

Adele Shraiman, Sierra Club

Sumeyra Arslan, BankTrack

Ben Cushing, Sierra Club

Natasha Ion, BankTrack

Mahima Dave, Sierra Club

Johan Frijns, BankTrack

Angeline Robertson, Stand Research Group
Julia Dubslaff, Urgewald

Ondernemingen

Istot

Défense de Droits Humains
System Change Not Climate Change

Transition Sebastopol

Taproot Earth

Uganda Coalition for Sustainable Development

Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press

Technology Energy Agriculture LandscapeUnite North Metro Denver

Women's International League for Peace &ClimateUnited Student Leaders

Terra Advocati

University of New Mexico Leaders for

Texas Campaign for the Environment

Environmental Action & Foresight

Organization

Freedom
Women's International League for Peace &Freedom United Kingdom

This report was a joint effort between Rainforest Action Network (RAN), BankTrack, Indigenous Environmental
Network (IEN), Oil Change International (OCI), Reclaim Finance, the Sierra Club, and Urgewald.

The Climate Optimist

UnKoch My Campus

Womxn from the Mountain

Tamra Gilbertson, Indigenous Environmental Network

The Enviro Show

UpliftWorking for Racial Equity

Tom BK Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental Network

Katrin Ganswindt, Urgewald

The For Good Movement

Upper Valley Affinity Group

Yarra Climate Action Now

Daisee Francour, Indigenous Environmental Network

Sebastian Mauritz, Urgewald

The Indegenous

Urgewald

Youth & Environment Europe

Collin Rees, Oil Change International

Signe Moe, Urgewald

The People's Justice Council

Utah Valley Earth Forum

Youth Advocates for Climate Action Philippines

David Tong, Oil Change International

The Sunrise Project

Vegans & Vegetarians of Alberta

Youth Climate Finance Alliance

The United People Project

Verein Klimastadt Zürich

Youth for Green Communities

The YEARS Project

Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance

Zero Hour

Third Act

Village Farmers InitiativeŽiedinė ekonomika

Report design:

Additional research provided by:Toben Dilworth, Rainforest Action Network

Léa Pham Van, Profundo
Ward Warmerdam, Profundo

Web design:

Mara Werkman, Profundo

Margot Brennan, Rainforest Action Network

Edith Espejo, Earth.Insight

Jake Conroy, Rainforest Action Network

Bart Wickel, Earth.InsightTyson Miller, Earth.InsightDISCLAIMER
The authors believe the information in this report comes from reliable sources and that the data analysis is sound, but do not guarantee theaccuracy, completeness, or correctness of any of the information or analysis. The authors disclaim any liability arising from use of this report and its
contents. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed as an offering of investment advice. You should determine on your own whether you agreewith the content of this document and any information or data provided.

P H O T O : Pichit Boonhaud / Alamy Stock Photo102

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2023

103

BankingonClimateChaos.org