FOSSI L FUEL F IN A N CE R E P ORT 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary

4

Introduction

56

COAL MINING

90

League Table - Banking on Arctic Oil and Gas

58

League Table - Banking on Coal Mining

92

Banks Included

124

124

6

Policy Scores - Arctic Oil and Gas

60

Policy Scores - Coal Mining

94

Top Fossil Fuel Expansion Companies

126

League Table - Banking on Fossil Fuels

12

Case Study - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

62

Case Study - Carmichael Coal Mine

96

Fossil Fuel Expansion Policy Scoring Criteria

129

Key Findings

16

Case Study - Hasdeo Arand

97

Top Tar Sands Companies

130

Policy Scores Summary

24

OFFSHORE OIL & GAS

64

Case Study - Adaro

98

Tar Sands Policy Scoring Criteria

131

Methodology

30

League Table - Banking on Offshore Oil and Gas

66

Top Arctic Oil and Gas Companies

132

Policy Scores - Offshore Oil and Gas

68

COAL POWER

100

Arctic Oil and Gas Policy Scoring Criteria

133

Case Study - Barents Sea

70

League Table - Banking on Coal Power102

Top Offshore Oil and Gas Companies

134

Case Study - Offshore Cape Three Points

71

Policy Scores - Coal Power104

Offshore Oil and Gas Policy Assessment Criteria

135

Case Study - Jawa 9 and 10

106

Top Fracked Oil and Gas Companies

136

FRACKED OIL & GAS

72

Case Study - Matarbari

107

Fracked Oil and Gas Policy Scoring Criteria

137

Case Study - EMBA Hunutlu

107

Top LNG Companies

138

LNG Policy Scoring Criteria

139

108

Other Oil and Gas Policy Scoring Criteria

140

112

Top Coal Mining Companies

142

Coal Mining Policy Scoring Criteria

143

Top Coal Power Companies

144

Coal Power Policy Scoring Criteria

145

Other Coal Policy Scoring Criteria

146

Case Study - Fires Around the World
Fossil Fuel Expansion

34
36

Big Oil Reality Check: Fossil Fuel Expansion

37

League Table - Banking on Fracked Oil and Gas

74

League Table – Banking on Fossil Fuel Expansion

38

Policy Scores - Fracked Oil and Gas

76

Policy Scores – Fossil Fuel Expansion

42

Case Study - Vaca Muerta

78

Case Study - East African Crude Oil Pipeline

44

Case Study - Mountain Valley Pipeline

79

Case Study - Nigeria LNG

45

Case Study - Coastal GasLink Pipeline

80

Continues Amid Greenwashing

Spotlight Fossil Fuels

46

LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG)

82

TAR SANDS OIL

48

League Table - Banking on LNG

84

League Table - Banking on Tar Sands

50

Policy Scores - LNG

86

Policy Scores - Tar Sands

52

Case Study - Energía Costa Azul LNG

88Case Study - Line 3

54Case Study - Mozambique LNG Projects

89

Financed Emissions and the Road to Glasgow
Financed Emissions Policy Assessment
Human Rights

118

Conclusion and Demands

122

EndnotesB A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

148

Endorsements
P H O T O : Milesy / Alamy Stock PhotoC O V E R : Bayne Stanley / Alamy Stock Photo2

Appendices

ARCTIC OIL & GAS

154

Acknowledgements

157

Disclaimer

157

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report analyzes fossil fuel financing

The report also assesses bank financing for Liquefied natural gas (LNG): Reflectingfrom the world’s 60 largest commercial andand policies regarding top companies in key

the misguided notion that gas will serve

investment banks — aggregating their leading

fossil fuel sectors, and details case studies

as transition fuel for the coming decades,

roles in lending and underwriting of debt

where this financing has resulted in harmfulbank financing for the 30 largest LNG

and equity issuances — and finds that these

impacts on communities around the world.

companies was higher in 2020 than inbanks poured a total of $3.8 trillion into fossil
fuels from 2016–2020. Fossil fuel financing
1

any year since the Paris Agreement’s Tar sands oil: 2016–2020 financing was
dominated by the Canadian banks, led byover the last half decade, Morgan

drop in fossil fuel demand and production due

TD and RBC, as well as JPMorgan Chase.

Stanley, Citi, and JPMorgan Chase, don’t

to the COVID-19 pandemic.2 And yet 2020

The Line 3 pipeline is an example of how

have policies restricting financing for LNG.

levels remained higher than in 2016, the yearbank financing backs tar sands expansion

immediately following the adoption of the Parisand Indigenous rights violations.

 Coal mining: Chinese banks Industrial
Bank, China Construction Bank, andAgreement. The overall fossil fuel financing

Arctic oil and gas: Banks have madeBank of China lead financing for coaldefinitively in the wrong direction, reinforcing

recent policy progress in this area by

mining, and lack policies to rein in thisthe need for banks to establish policies that

restricting direct financing for projects

financing. BNP Paribas, BPCE/Natixis,

lock in the fossil fuel financing declines ofin the region. JPMorgan Chase, ICBC,

Crédit Mutuel, and UniCredit have best-

2020, lest they snap back to business-as-usual

China Minsheng Bank, and Sberbank

in-class coal mining policy restrictions.

in 2021.

are the biggest funders since the Paris

trend of the last five years is still heading

Agreement of companies with major
JPMorgan Chase remains the world’s worst

operations in the Arctic.

though its funding did drop significantly

 Coal power: Coal power financing post–
Paris Agreement is led by Bank of China,
ICBC, and China CITIC Bank. Multiple

banker of fossil fuels over this time period, Offshore oil and gas: Though it hascoal power case studies are highlighted

last year. Citi follows as the second-worst

strong policies on unconventional oil andin the pages that follow, demonstrating

fossil bank, followed by Wells Fargo, Bank ofgas, BNP Paribas’s largely unrestricted

in particular Chinese and Japanese bankAmerica, RBC, and MUFG. Barclays is thefinancing for the supermajors allowed it

support for new coal projects even in ourworst in Europe and Bank of China is the worst

to emerge as the world’s worst banker

climate-constrained world.

in China.

of offshore oil and gas over the last five
years.

This report also tracks funding for 100 top fossil
fuel expansion companies and finds JPMorgan

This year’s report also assesses the current
wave of bank commitments to reduce their Fracked oil and gas: From development

financed emissions to “net zero by 2050,” as

Chase, Citi, and Bank of America to be theirof Argentina’s Vaca Muerta shale field, towell as related policies like measuring andbiggest bankers over the last half decade,pipelines like Mountain Valley and Coastal

disclosing financed emissions, and emphasizes

all with significant increases in funding last

GasLink, the fracking sector presents

that no bank making a climate commitment

year despite voicing their support for the Paris

health hazards to local communities onfor 2050 should be taken seriously unless it

Agreement.

top of rights and climate impacts. U.S.

also acts on fossil fuels in 2021. Moreover, until

banks like Wells Fargo and JPMorgan

the banks prove otherwise, the “net” in “netBanking on Climate Chaos 2021 also assesses

Chase dominate fracking financing,zero” leaves room for emissions targets thatbanks’ future-facing policies to restrict

with Barclays, MUFG, and Mizuho as thefall short of what the science demands, based

financing for fossil fuels, and finds thatbiggest funders outside of North America.

on copious offsetting or absurd assumptions

UniCredit has the strongest policy overall,about future carbon-capture schemes, as wellthough it only earned about half of theas the rights violations and fraud that often

available points — underscoring that thecome hand in hand with offsetting and carbon

banking sector remains far from committing tomarkets.

a complete exit from fossil fuel financing.

4

adoption. The sector’s biggest bankers

dropped 9% last year, parallel to the global

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021»

Additional resources are available at:
BankingonClimateChaos.org

An Eastern grey kangaroo and her joey who survived the forest fires in Mallacoota. P H O T O : Jo-Anne
McArthur / We Animals; Students with University of Minnesota (UMN) for Climate Justice call on Chaseto defund the Line 3 pipeline. P H O T O : Jessie Fetting

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

5

Five years have passed since the Paris

Fossil fuel financing in 2020 paints anlies in the — hopefully near — future).8 But

Agreement was adopted — when a line in theinteresting picture of a world reacting tothey should also cause fear, because we havesand was drawn that should have indicatedthe onset of a pandemic. January throughonly been able to make a dent in the fossil fuela real beginning to serious, concerted action

June saw the most fossil fuel financing ofjuggernaut due to the terrible pandemic.

on climate. Thus it is shocking that this reportany half year since the adoption of the Parisfinds that fossil fuel financing (lending andAgreement, as large corporations around

Despite this significant drop from 2019 tounderwriting) from the world’s 60 largest

the world took advantage of very low interest

2020, the overall trend of the last five years iscommercial and investment banks was higher

rates and central bank bond-buying programs

one heading definitively in the wrong direction.

in 2020 than it was in 2016.3

to load up on cheap debt in preparation

We must go forward to a world where evenfor difficult times ahead. Meanwhile, thewithout a pandemic, fossil fuel production

It is particularly disturbing that big banks

second half of the year saw record low levels

declines almost as quickly every year for thefunnelled more money into fossil fuels lastof financing. The impact of these two wildly

next decade a­ s it did in 2020 — but this timeyear than in the year of the Paris Agreement’s

divergent half years was that overall, financein a managed way.9 This means that banks

infancy, given that 2020 was such a calamitousfrom the world’s 60 largest private banks tomust establish policies that lock in the fossil

year for the fossil fuel industry. The need to lock

2,300 fossil fuel companies fell by almost

fuel financing declines of 2020, lest they snap

down much of the world economy in response

9% from 2019 to 2020, after three years ofback to business-as-usual in 2021. Banks must

to the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in whatincreases of between 4.4% and 5.5% per year.

ensure that the fossil fuel financing binge of

7

INTRODUCTION

the first half of 2020 turns out to have been a

was probably the largest year-on-year dropin global fossil fuel consumption since coal

These decreases in fossil fuel use, financing,pandemic-induced blip, and not a sign thatwas first stoked into the steam engines of theand emissions should be a cause for boththe opportunity for short-term profit will trump

cotton mills of Northern England.4 According

hope and fear. Hope, because as even oil

the banking industry’s growing professions ofto the International Energy Agency, usage ofmajors BP and Shell are now projecting,concern over the climate crisis.

oil, coal, and gas fell in 2020 by 8%, 7%, andthe impact of COVID-19 coupled with the

3%, respectively.5 As a result of this decline inaccelerating energy transition may mean thatfossil fuel burning, global carbon dioxide (CO2)the world will never again extract and burn asemissions are estimated to have dropped bymuch oil as it did in 2019 (coal consumption

7% in 2020.6

seems to have peaked in 2013; peak gas still

RACE TO THE BOTTOM
As in every year since the adoption of the Paris

By contrast, Wells Fargo’s total fossil fuelIn 2020, BNP Paribas is credited with leading

Agreement at the end of 2015, JPMorgan

financing plunged by a surprising 42% in 2020.

$12.7 billion in financing to BP, $4.2 billion

Chase was again the world’s worst fossil

As a result, Wells Fargo dropped from fourth-to Shell, $3.7 billion to Total, $1.8 billion tobank last year, with $51.3 billion in fossil fuelworst fossil bank in 2019 — behind Bank of

Saudi Aramco, and more than a half-billion

financing. From 2016 through 2020, JPMorgan

America in third place — to ninth-worst ineach to Eni, Exxon, Pemex, Chevron, Equinor,

Chase’s lending and underwriting activities

2020.

and Petrobras; while BNP Paribas has strong

have provided nearly $317 billion to fossil fuels,

restrictions on unconventional oil and gas

fully 33% more than Citi, the next worst fossil

Another surprising result from the 2020 data

financing, its support for the majors continues

bank during this period.

is that BNP Paribas, a bank that never loses

unabated.11

an opportunity to boast of its clean, green
But the gap is narrowing. JPMorgan Chase’s

credentials (and those of its U.S. subsidiary

BNP Paribas’s French megabank peers also

overall fossil fuel financing fell by 20% in

Bank of the West), came in as the fourth-saw disturbingly high jumps in their fossil fuel2020. Meanwhile, Citi’s total fell by muchworst fossil bank in 2020.10 BNP Paribas did

financing in 2020. Crédit Agricole shoveled

less, moving the bank into the second-worst$40.8 billion in fossil fuel financing in 2020,$7.8 billion more into fossil fuel companies

slot overall. Moreover, Citi’s $48.4 billion ina huge 41% increase over its 2019 activity.

than in 2019 — including $3.7 billion to Total

2020 fossil fuel financing is still higher than

BNP Paribas’s 2020 fossil fuel financing is a

— an increase of 66%. Société Générale’s

2016 levels, whereas JPMorgan Chase saw a

shocking 141% higher than it was in 2016.

fossil fuel financing, including $1.9 billion to

decrease over that time period.

ExxonMobil, soared by $4.4 billion, or 30%.

P H O T O : Toa55 / shutterstock

6

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

7

Both have markedly increased their fossil fuelreport that did not lead any financing in 2020

These North American and European banks

financing since 2016. This funding for major

to the thousands of fossil fuel companies wedominate the global picture of fossil fueloil and gas companies means that both also

analyze.

financing, largely due to financing for theoil and gas sector. Japanese megabanks

climbed up the fossil fuel expansion table —which measures financing for 100 key oil, gas,

While these French megabanks ramped up

MUFG and Mizuho both appear in the list

and coal companies expanding fossil fuels

their fossil fuel financing in 2020, all of theof the largest fossil fuel funders over the last

— rising from 21st- and 19th-worst funders in

big five Canadian banks cut their fossil fuelfive years, in 6th and 8th place, respectively.

2019 to 12th and 11th in 2020.

financing in 2020. RBC, fifth-worst bank in

Barclays remains Europe’s largest fossil bank,2019, dropped to 15th place in 2020. TD,in 7th place globally. Bank of China is the

In contrast with these major French banks, theirtenth-worst bank in 2019, dropped to 18th inbiggest Chinese fossil fuel funder among themuch smaller competitor Crédit Mutuel was

2020.

world’s 60 largest banks, in 14th place.

TAR SANDS

Morgan Stanley, and BNP Paribas all saw

in the region in 2020 as compared to the

The sharp drops in the Canadian banks’increases in their tar sands financing in 2020previous year and to 2016. However, comparedfossil fuel financing in 2020 are in part linked

as compared to 2016.

to their European and Asian peers, all but oneof these banks play a relatively small role in

the only one of the 60 banks covered in thisSECTOR TRENDS

12

to plummeting tar sands financing. The tar

FRACKED OIL AND GASLIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS

Outside China, the worst bankers of coal

Given the well-publicized financial blows

Reflecting the misguided notion that gas

mining were Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank,

that hit the fracking sector in 2020, it is notwill serve as transition fuel for the coming

and JPMorgan Chase, all of whom did morecoal mining financing in 2020 than in 2016.

15

ARCTIC OIL AND GAS

surprising that bank finance for the industry

decades, bank finance for the 30 largest LNG

sands “patch” in Alberta has been one of thefinancing Arctic oil and gas. JPMorgan Chase,fell by 8% in 2020. U.S. banks dominated: Wells

companies was higher in 2020 than in any

fossil fuel sectors most seriously impacted by

Banking of the oil and gas industry in the Arctic

ICBC, China Minsheng Bank, and Sberbank

Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Citi, and Bank ofother year since the Paris Agreement, at $28.8

COAL POWER

COVID-19, and the tar sands majors slashedrepeatedly made the U.S. news in late 2019

dominated Arctic oil and gas financing in

America were the biggest bankers of 40 top

billion. Morgan Stanley is the worst funder

The worst 10 coal power bankers since thetheir capital expenditure budgets in 2020 in an

and through 2020 because of commitments

the five years after the adoption of the Paris

fracking companies, and alone provided 44%

of LNG overall since the Paris Agreement’sParis Agreement’s adoption were Chinese, ledeffort to placate their investors and cut debt.13

from the six U.S. megabanks to stop financing

Agreement.

of fracking financing from all 60 banks in the

adoption. In 2020, however, it was overtaken

by Bank of China, ICBC, and China CITIC

Overall bank financing to the 35 top tar sands

oil and gas projects in the region — andby Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, BNP

Bank. Overall funding from the banks in thisbacklash from right-wing politicians to thisOFFSHORE OIL AND GAS

last five years.

companies sank by 27% in 2020 to $16 billion.

Paribas, Citi, HSBC, Mizuho, and SMBC

report to the 30 biggest coal power companies

This is lower than 2016 financing for the sector,

supposed “discrimination.”14 However, banks

Financing for this sector is driven by banks’

Fracking financing from all four of these banks

Group.

in 2020 fell by 9% from 2019, to $39 billion.

hopefully indicating that the tar sands’ heyday

have provided little if any financing earmarked

financing to the oil and gas majors with thefell last year. Barclays, however, the largest

is long past (the peak year for tar sands

for specific projects in the Arctic. Banks instead

capacity to take on the cost and risk of drilling

non-U.S. banker of fracking, actually increased

have financed fossil fuel development in thefor oil and gas offshore — companies like

COAL MINING

Citi stands out as the worst non-Chinese bankfinancing over the past half decade was 2017,its fracking financing by 24% from 2019. BNP

Chinese companies and banks overwhelmingly

from 2016–2020. Citi increased its coal power

which saw $43 billion in financing).

region through corporate finance to oil andExxonMobil, BP, Petrobras, and Total. BNPParibas stands out with the biggest absolute

dominate the coal sector. The worst 11 coalfinancing last year, and its 2020 financing

gas giants with major Arctic reserves — like

Paribas emerged as the worst funder ofincrease in its fracking financing, from $1.1

mining banks over the last five years were

was more than double that of 2016. The next

Since 2016 tar sands lending and underwriting

China National Petroleum Corporation, OMV,

offshore oil and gas over the last five years,

billion in 2019 to $3 billion in 2020, thanks

all Chinese, with Industrial Bank, China

biggest non-Chinese funders of coal powerhas been dominated by the big five CanadianGazprom, ConocoPhillips, and Total.

followed by a cluster of U.S. banks: JPMorgan

especially to the bank’s recent large deals with

Construction Bank, and Bank of China

over the last five years were MUFG, Mizuho,

Chase, Citi, and Bank of America. The top 14

BP and Chevron.

ranking worst. Shockingly, coal mining financeand Barclays.

banks — in particular TD and RBC — plus
JPMorgan Chase. These six banks dominatedDespite their new-found concern for theoffshore oil and gas funders all showed higher

from the 60 banks covered in this report

the tar sands sector again in 2020, although

region, the three biggest U.S.-based Arctic

levels of financing for the sector last year thanactually increased slightly in 2020 to $25.4

Morgan Stanley and BNP Paribas bothall but one were at lower levels than in 2016.

fossil fuel funders, JPMorgan Chase, Citi, andin 2016.

billion. This is 25% higher than in 2016.

showed notably sharp falls in their coal power

Among the second tier of tar sands bankers,

Bank of America all increased their Arctic

financing in 2020. For both banks, 2020

Barclays, Bank of America, Citi, MUFG,

financing for the top 30 companies active

financing for coal power was below that of anyof the past five years.
P H O T O : 1968 / shutterstock

8

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

9

POLICY TRENDS

FINANCED EMISSIONS

COAL

relevant sectors. In the coal sector the obvious

Tar sands is another area with nascent policy

The most striking development in the bank

The trend began in the UK in early 2020

The world now has just under 10 years to cut

Major banks and other financial institutions

challenge lies in coal goliath China. No

development. The best score here was 7 out

policy arena during 2020 was the emergencewith commitments from NatWest and thenglobal climate pollution in half in order toacross the world are rapidly adopting new

Chinese bank earned more than a single coalof 18, from BNP Paribas and BPCE/Natixis

of various types of long-term commitments

Barclays.20 HSBC, Morgan Stanley, Nordea,

accomplish what the UN’s Intergovernmental

coal exclusion policies. But the data in thispolicy point out of 80.

(both of which actually increased their overall

from banks to reduce their overall carbon

and TD are among the 17 of the 60 banks

Panel on Climate Change says is necessary

tar sands financing in 2020). Only 24 banks

footprint, in the majority of cases to “net zero”

covered in this report that have “net zero by

to avoid the catastrophic consequences of2050” commitments.

exceeding 1.5°C of warming.22 That means

16

report show that bank policies on the whole
are still far too weak to squeeze lending and

The most common coal restriction policy is tohave a score of 1 point or more. And again

by 2050. These commitments cover to varying

underwriting out of the coal industry.

prohibit financing earmarked for a specificthe policies mainly exclude only project

degrees the “financed emissions” from majormine or power plant. Unfortunately this is alsofinance, which is rarely used to fund tar sandsbank business lines: lending, investments, andThis report for the first time assesses these

aspect of our industrial economies. The global

In this report we score bank coal mining anda very rarely used means of financing such

extraction, though it is occasionally used for— more rarely — underwriting. They also, in

financed emissions commitments, using ascommunity has never before set out to achieve

power policies according to whether and tocoal projects. Our analysis shows that 2.7% of

tar sands pipelines.

theory at least, cover all emissions from all thea yardstick the “Principles for Paris-Aligned

such a transformation. It most certainly will notwhat extent they exclude financing for newbank financing for the top coal mining andsectors that the banks support, not just fossil

Financial Institutions” that were endorsed

be possible if the world’s banks do not put theirprojects or for companies expanding coal

power companies is project related. ThisIn fracking, BNP Paribas earned the highest

fuels but also industrial sectors such as steel

by 60 climate and rights organizations fromfinancial muscle to the wheel and push with,extraction or use, as well as their overallmeans that a project financing restriction ispolicy score, 7 out of 18. Only 16 banks earned

and cement, as well as manufacturing, retail,around the world in September 2020.21 Theserather than against, all those who aspire to a

restrictions or phase-out commitments around

only a baby step for a bank on the journey

1 point or above in fracking. All of these banks

real estate, and more.

principles emphasize that just committing

stable climate and a more just, sustainablefinancing companies with coal operations.

toward a robust coal policy.

are European except one, U.S. Bank.

to net zero in 30 years’ time is largely

world.

Cutting overall financed emissions has themeaningless without immediate actions to put

Based on these criteria, the strongest overall

OIL AND GAS

The policy picture is even worse for LNG

potential to be a powerful tool as it addressesbanks on trajectories that avoid an increase incoal policies have been adopted by UniCredit

While banks still have a long way to go toand offshore oil and gas, where the highest

both supply and demand sides of the fossil

global temperature in excess of 1.5° Celsius,

and Crédit Mutuel. Each of these banks

adopt coal policies ambitious enough toscoring banks earned only 3 points out of 18:

fuel industry — cutting with both blades ofincluding an end to financing new fossil fuel18

scored 75 out of a possible 80 points. Thesematch the challenge of the climate crisis, theUniCredit (in both areas) and BNP Paribas (inthe scissors, to paraphrase economist Arthur

infrastructure, and an interim target of at least

two banks are among those evaluated in thissituation is far worse in the oil and gas sector,

LNG).

Marshall.19

halving financed emissions by 2030.

report with the lowest volume of financing forwhere policy setting is only just starting to gain

coal last year.

momentum.

The link between strong policies and low coal

Arctic oil and gas is the area with the mostfinancing is reassuring, but a look through pastbank policies, largely due to the advocacy ofyears’ data for these banks highlights a key

the Gwich’in and other Indigenous inhabitants

challenge — the banks most likely to adoptof the Arctic who have brought their stories

strong policies in any sector will be those fordirectly to the banks. Yet even here only two

whom these sectors have historically beenbanks, BNP Paribas and Santander, earned

relatively unimportant. If future policies are toover a third of the available points, because

seriously bring down financing numbers, they

Arctic oil and gas policies are largely limited toneed to be adopted by the big players in the

project finance prohibitions.

17

10

fewer than 10 years to transform almost every

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

P H O T O : APFootage / Alamy Stock PhotoB A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

11

LEAGUE TABLE - Banking on Fossil Fuels
B = BILLIONS M = MILLIONSBank financing for 2,300 companies active across the fossil fuel life cycle

RANK

12

BANK

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

TOTAL

1

JPMORGAN CHASE$63.729 B$70.271 B$67.396 B$64.039 B$51.300 B$316.735 B

2

CITI

$42.637 B$47.102 B$46.853 B$52.496 B$48.389 B$237.477 B

3

WELLS FARGO$34.631 B$54.812 B$61.821 B$45.684 B$26.400 B$223.349 B

4BANK OF AMERICA$37.670 B$36.744 B$33.808 B$48.081 B$42.149 B$198.452 B

5

RBC$29.322 B$38.440 B$37.656 B$35.717 B$18.994 B$160.129 B

6

MUFG

$25.304 B$26.177 B$35.404 B$31.782 B$29.070 B$147.737 B

7BARCLAYS$30.202 B$30.730 B$25.911 B$30.353 B$27.702 B$144.897 B

8MIZUHO$21.268 B$19.200 B$28.730 B$31.484 B$22.791 B$123.472 B

9TD$20.705 B$29.605 B$25.941 B$27.944 B$16.868 B$121.063 B

10

BNP PARIBAS$16.892 B$17.716 B$16.567 B$28.900 B$40.751 B$120.825 B

11

SCOTIABANK$18.765 B$24.509 B$28.033 B$26.087 B$16.452 B$113.846 B

12MORGAN STANLEY$24.141 B$24.617 B$19.484 B$22.072 B$20.465 B$110.778 B

13

HSBC

$17.914 B$22.172 B$20.489 B$26.627 B$23.542 B$110.745 B

14

BANK OF CHINA$25.944 B$13.832 B$22.302 B$20.268 B$18.850 B$101.195 B

15

GOLDMAN SACHS$22.894 B$19.924 B$17.167 B$21.580 B$18.941 B$100.506 B

16

BANK OF MONTREAL$17.369 B$21.216 B$21.559 B$21.869 B$15.194 B$97.207 B

17

ICBC

$18.788 B$13.285 B$14.794 B$19.617 B$29.521 B$96.005 B

18

SMBC GROUP$10.505 B$12.117 B$15.845 B$19.595 B$28.199 B$86.261 B

19

CREDIT SUISSE$19.293 B$21.932 B$17.108 B$14.384 B$9.484 B$82.201 B

20

DEUTSCHE BANK

$19.637 B$19.424 B$15.257 B$11.180 B$9.126 B$74.624 B

21

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE$13.671 B$10.193 B$15.453 B$14.674 B$19.034 B$73.026 B

22

CIBC

$12.272 B$14.048 B$11.610 B$19.068 B$9.742 B$66.739 B

23

CRÉDIT AGRICOLE$8.886 B$11.220 B$13.069 B$11.819 B$19.594 B$64.587 B

24

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

$15.828 B$9.925 B$9.013 B$13.727 B$12.043 B$60.536 B

25

INDUSTRIAL BANK

$8.216 B$8.806 B$12.529 B$11.467 B$14.043 B$55.061 B

26

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA$11.839 B$5.678 B$7.445 B$11.021 B$13.769 B$49.752 B

27

CHINA CITIC BANK

$8.050 B$6.043 B$9.262 B$10.731 B$10.398 B$44.484 B

28

ING$9.266 B$8.276 B$11.338 B$8.841 B$6.488 B$44.209 B

29

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

$6.007 B$4.955 B$6.989 B$7.759 B$12.165 B$37.875 B

30

BPCE/NATIXIS$5.130 B$5.730 B$12.028 B$7.739 B$6.350 B$36.978 B

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

TREND

2016-2020

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

13

LEAGUE TABLE - Banking on Fossil Fuels (cont'd)

14

TOTAL

BANK

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

31

UBS

$7.671 B$9.171 B$11.034 B$6.170 B$2.083 B$36.128 B

32

SANTANDER$6.256 B$5.004 B$4.813 B$8.285 B$9.678 B$34.036 B

33

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

$8.839 B$3.620 B$7.269 B$5.580 B$7.084 B$32.392 B

34

STANDARD CHARTERED$2.561 B$4.920 B$8.813 B$8.030 B$7.098 B$31.422 B

35

UNICREDIT$6.052 B$6.639 B$4.684 B$5.401 B$8.641 B$31.418 B

36

PING AN$3.489 B$4.834 B$7.839 B$5.307 B$8.231 B$29.700 B

37

TRUIST$4.317 B$6.710 B$5.470 B$7.552 B$5.409 B$29.459 B

38

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK

$5.020 B$4.149 B$4.091 B$4.330 B$10.701 B$28.291 B

39

U.S. BANK$3.683 B$5.786 B$5.602 B$4.331 B$7.156 B$26.558 B

40

CHINA MINSHENG BANK

$1.672 B$723 M$2.637 B$10.215 B$10.873 B$26.120 B

41

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS$4.278 B$3.270 B$4.763 B$4.878 B$6.561 B$23.750 B

42

BBVA

$4.676 B$3.426 B$4.559 B$4.818 B$4.871 B$22.351 B

43

STATE BANK OF INDIA$6.287 B$6.348 B$704 M$6.210 B$1.929 B$21.478 B

44

ANZ$2.621 B$2.662 B$3.913 B$3.091 B$2.940 B$15.227 B

45

INTESA SANPAOLO$4.158 B$1.981 B$4.224 B$1.528 B$1.818 B$13.708 B

46

NATWEST$3.677 B$2.804 B$3.365 B$1.462 B$2.086 B$13.393 B

47

SBERBANK$4.040 B$6.094 B$841 M$670 M$1.148 B$12.793 B

48

LLOYDS$2.955 B$2.669 B$2.526 B$1.457 B$2.372 B$11.979 B

49

COMMERZBANK$1.005 B$2.729 B$2.363 B$3.368 B$2.392 B$11.856 B

50

NORDEA$2.802 B$1.910 B$1.184 B$2.013 B$1.574 B$9.484 B

51

RABOBANK$1.960 B$1.424 B$1.911 B$1.929 B$983 M$8.207 B

52

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA$168 M$1.034 B$1.478 B$3.063 B$2.186 B$7.929 B

53

WESTPAC$611 M$1.241 B$974 M$2.969 B$720 M$6.514 B

54

COMMONWEALTH BANK

$1.145 B$648 M$1.889 B$886 M$1.675 B$6.243 B

55

DANSKE BANK

$1.099 B$799 M$1.324 B$1.675 B$915 M$5.813 B

56

NAB$833 M$502 M$1.158 B$1.298 B$641 M$4.432 B

57

DZ BANK$243 M$298 M$416 M$248 M$356 M$1.561 B

58

SHINHAN$155 M$276 M$93 M$199 M$373 M$1.096 B

59

SUMI TRUST$169 M---$426 M$596 M

60

CRÉDIT MUTUEL

$19 M

$35 M

$123 M$108 M-$284 M

GRAND TOTAL$709.234 B$740.403 B$780.919 B$823.676 B$750.735 B$3.805 T

RANK

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

TREND

2016-2020

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

15

KEY FINDINGSTHE DIRTY DOZENIn the 5 years since the Paris Agreement was adopted, the world’s 60
largest private sector banks financed fossil fuels with $3.8 trillion.

This report shows that JPMorgan Chase has been and continues to be the world's worst banker of fossil fuels every year since the Paris Agreement.

FOSSIL FUEL FINANCING 2016-2020 (BILLIONS $USD)

Despite a massive global drop in fossil fuel demand and production in 2020, banks’ fossil fuel financing still remained above 2016 and 2017 levels.
Although overall fossil fuel financing dropped in 2020, bank financing from January to June was the highest of any half year since the adoption of
the Paris Agreement, as large energy companies loaded up on cheap debt at the start of the global pandemic, in preparation for expected difficult
times. 23

GLOBAL FOSSIL FUEL FINANCING 2016-2020 (BILLIONS $USD)$900 B#1

JPMORGAN CHASE$317 B#2

CITI$237 B#3

WELLS FARGO$223 B#4

BANK OF AMERICA$198 B#5

RBC$160 B#6

MUFG$148 B#7

BARCLAYS$145 B#8MIZUHO$123 B#9

TD$121 B# 10

BNP PARIBAS$121 B# 11

SCOTIABANK$114 B# 12

MORGAN STANLEY$111 B

JPMorgan Chaseleads by 33%$800 B$700 B$600 B$500 B

H2 (JULY-DEC)$400 B

H1 (JAN-JUNE)$300 B

Linear Trendline$200 B$0 B$100 B$200 B$300 B$400 B

These “Dirty Dozen” banks have very different policies regarding restriction and phase-out of coal, oil, and gas, but none are sufficient. Among theworld’s largest banks, strong coal policies are rare, and even the strongest oil and gas policies are sorely lacking.

$100 B

$0 B

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

COAL POLICY SCORE(OUT OF 80)

OIL & GAS POLICY SCORE(OUT OF 120)JPMORGAN CHASE

12.5

5

CITI

28.5

5

WELLS FARGO

14.5

4

BANK OF AMERICA

18.5

3.5

RBC

15

2.5

companies with the worst fossil fuel expansion plans.

MUFG

4.5

1.5

Included in these 100 companies are:BARCLAYS

24

8

 Enbridge, whose planned Line 3 pipeline violates Indigenous rights, threatens the Great Lakes of North America, and jeopardizes our shared

MIZUHO

4.5

0.5

TD

1.5

3.5

BNP PARIBAS

66

26.5

SCOTIABANK

02.5

MORGAN STANLEY

15

5

BANK

FOSSIL FUEL FINANCING 2016-2020 (TRILLIONS $USD)
Financing for 100 Key Fossil Fuel
Expansion Companies (39%)
Fossil Fuel Financing to All
Other Companies (61%)

$0

$1 T

$2 T

$3 T

$4 T

$5 T

Much of this $3.8 trillion in financing facilitates the expansion of fossil fuel extraction and infrastructure. 39% of total financing went to just 100 key

climate by expanding access to dirty tar sands oil. (See page 54)

 BP, Shell, ConocoPhillips, and Equinor, four of the companies fracking in the virtually untapped “carbon bomb” of Vaca Muerta, on the land of
Indigenous Mapuche communities in Argentina’s Patagonia region. (See page 78)

 France’s Total and China’s CNOOC, which are hoping to build the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) across Uganda and Tanzania. The
project is expected to enable massive expansion of the oil sector, threaten critical ecosystems, cause displacement, and pose other humanrights violations. (See page 44)
16

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

17

REGIONAL TRENDS

Meanwhile, in China and in the European Union, the largest banks notably increased their financing for fossil fuels last year, despite a dramatic dip in
global fossil fuel demand.24 Though European banks have some of the best policies restricting financing for coal and unconventional oil and gas, theEuropean Union’s banks are still trending in the wrong direction in overall financing for fossil fuels.

U.S. and Canadian banks make up only 13 of the 60 banks analyzed, but account for almost half of global fossil fuel financing.

SUM OF FOSSIL FUEL FINANCING 2016-2020

Fossil Fuel Financingof the 13 Largest Chinese Banks

Fossil Fuel Financingof the 16 Largest European Union Banks$180 B$160 B$160 B$140 B$140 B

8 U.S. BANKS$120 B$120 B$100 B$100 B

5 CANADIAN BANKS$80 B
Fossil Fuel Financing

Fossil Fuel Financing

$80 B

$60 B

24 EUROPEAN BANKS

$40 B

$40 B

14 CHINESE AND INDIAN BANKS

$20 B

$20 B

5 JAPANESE AND KOREAN BANKS

Linear Trendline

Linear Trendline

$60 B

$0 B

$0 B

2016

2017

2018

2019

2016

2020

2017

2018

2019

2020

4 AUSTRALIAN BANKS

Average oil and gas policy score:< 1 out of 120

Average oil and gas policy score:

11 out of 120

Average coal policy score:< 1 out of 80

Average coal policy score:

38 out of 80

North American banks saw a sizable dip in overall fossil fuel financing last year, making their 5-year trendline (the trend since the Paris Agreement)
tilt slightly downward. These banks still lack substantive policies to restrict and phase out support for coal, oil, and gas, and therefore have much

In the UK, and in Japan, a dip in last year’s overall fossil fuel financing was not enough to reverse an overall upward trend over the last 5 years.

work to do to lock in the steep downward trend necessary for Paris-alignment.

Fossil Fuel Financingof the 8 Largest U.S. Banks

Fossil Fuel Financingof the 5 Largest Canadian Banks

Fossil Fuel Financingof the 5 Largest UK Banks

Fossil Fuel Financingof the 4 Largest Japanese Banks$300 B$140 B$70 B$100 B$120 B

$60 B

$90 B
$250 B$80 B$100 B

$50 B

$70 B

$200 B
$80 B

$60 B

$40 B

$50 B

$150 B
Fossil Fuel Financing

Linear Trendline$100 B$40 B

Linear Trendline

Linear Trendline

$40 B

$20 B

$20 B

$10 B

Fossil Fuel Financing

Fossil Fuel Financing$30 B

Linear Trendline

$30 B
$20 B

$50 B

$0 B

$0 B

2016

18

Fossil Fuel Financing

$60 B

2017

2018

2019

2020

2016

2017

2018

2019

$10 B
$0 B

$0 B

2020

2016

2017

2018

2019

2016

2020

2017

2018

2019

2020

Average oil and gas policy score:

5 out of 120

Average oil and gas policy score:

3 out of 120

Average oil and gas policy score:

8 out of 120

Average oil and gas policy score:

1 out of 120

Average coal policy score:

15 out of 80

Average coal policy score:

5 out of 80

Average coal policy score:

23 out of 80

Average coal policy score:

4 out of 80

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

19

POLICY SCORES
There are several reasons why banks’ current fossil fuel policies are not fully
addressing the financing of climate chaos.

FOSSIL FUEL FINANCING 2016-2020 VS TOTAL POLICY SCORE
200

180

U.S.

AUSTRALIACANADA

CHINA

UK

JAPAN

FRANCEINDIAOTHER EUROPE

SOUTH KOREA

160

First, while the strongest policies so far are focused on the restriction and phase-out of coal financing, 69% of the fossil fuel financing analyzed wasfor oil and gas companies.25
Fossil Financing for Oil and Gas Companies (69%)
Fossil Financing for Utility Companies (23%)
Fossil Financing for Coal and Mining Companies (6%)

$0 T

$1 T

$2 T

$3 T

$4 T

Fossil Financing for Diversified Companies
Categorized in Other Sectors (2%)$5 T

And while many policies are focused on project-specific finance, only 5% of fossil fuel financing is marked as project-related. Loans and bonds for“general corporate purposes” go unchecked by weak policies, but do support fossil fuel expansion.
Italy's UniCredit now has the strongest policies overall. But it only

Not Project-Related (92%)

earns about half of the available total points — underscoring that the140banking sector remains far from aligning with a climate-stable future.

Project-Related (5%)

TOTAL POLICY SCORE ( OUT OF 200 )No Listed Use of Proceeds (3%)

$0 T

120

$2 T

$3 T

$4 T

$5 T

French banks have some of the strongest policies, with BNP Paribas

It is also crucial that bank fossil fuel and overall climate policies cover underwriting as well as lending. In 2020, 65% of bank financing for fossil fuels

restricting some unconventional oil and gas, and Crédit Agricole

was through the underwriting of bond and equity issuances.

phasing out coal financing. But both banks have continued high overall
fossil fuel financing, highlighting the need for strong phase-out plans.

100

UNICREDIT$600 BBNP PARIBASCRÉDIT MUTUEL

80$500 B

BPCE /
NATIXISCRÉDIT
AGRICOLE

With huge amounts of financing and low policy scores,

SOCIÉTÉGÉNÉRALE

fuels in Canada, Asia, and Europe, respectively.

LENDING$300 BUNDERWRITING$200 BING

JPMorgan Chase is by far the world’s worst banker of

SANTANDER

The top 4 fossil banks are all headquartered in the U.S.

BANK OFAMERICAJPMORGAN CHASEWELLS FARGO

0$100 B$150 B$200 B$250 BFOSSIL FUEL FINANCING ( 2016-2020 )O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

2018

2019

2020

NET ZERO PROMISES ARE INADEQUATE
17 of the 60 banks have recently pledged to achieve “net zero” financed emissions. But our analysis showsthat for many of the world’s worst funders of fossil fuels, these plans so far are dangerously weak, halfbaked, or vague. (See page 108)

MUFG

$50 B

2017

CITI

RBC

20

$0 B
2016

BARCLAYS$0 B$100 Bclimate chaos, with high financing and low policy scores.

NATWEST40

B A N K I N G$400 B

RBC, MUFG, and Barclays are the worst bankers of fossil

60

20

$1 T

$300 B$350 BEven the best overall “climate impact” commitments are not a substitute for explicit commitments on
fossil fuels (and deforestation). 2050 commitments should be met with great skepticism unless they areaccompanied by 2021 action on coal, oil, and gas.
B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

21

HALL OF SHAME#1

WORST IN CANADA

Still the Worst!

JPMORGAN CHASEWORLD'S WORST FUNDER OF FOSSIL FUELS- 5 YEARS IN A ROW -RBCWith the highest overall fossil fuel financing in Canada, RBC was also the top funder of tar sands oil in 2020,
continuing to finance pure-play tar sands extractors like Suncor, and pipeline expanders like Enbridge.

WORST IN ASIA
MUFG

Japan’s MUFG is Asia’s worst funder of fracking, tar sands, and fossil fuels overall since the Paris Agreement.

$317 BILLION TOTALCITIFUNDING THE EXPANDERS
Citi's funding of 100 key companies with the worst fossil fuelexpansion plans (like ExxonMobil and Enbridge) is on the rise.

WELLS FARGOWORST IN EUROPE
BARCLAYS

Barclays in the UK is Europe’s worst funder of tar sands, fracked oil and gas, coal power, and fossil fuels overallsince the Paris Agreement.

STILL SUPPORTING THE OIL MAJORSBNP PARIBAS

Despite a green ad campaign and specialized restrictions on unconventional oil and gas financing, BNP
Paribas led huge deals to supermajor companies like BP and Total, pushing it up the rankings.

WORLD'S TOP FRACKING FUNDER
Wells Fargo has continued funding fracking companies like Pioneer
Natural Resources and Diamondback Energy, making it the top
fracking bank four years in a row.

WORST IN CHINABANK OF CHINA

The world’s #1 funder of coal power, with almost no fossil fuel policies in place.

BANK OF AMERICA
ENABLING MORE FRACKING THROUGH LNG
Bank of America had the highest LNG financing in 2020,
continuing its support of fracked gas shippers like
Sempra and Cheniere.

22

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

WORST IN AUSTRALIA
ANZAustralia’s worst funder of fossil fuels, for five years in a row.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

23

POLICY SCORES SUMMARY
See the appendix for the scoring criteria (for each of the fossil fuel subsectors) that go into this overall score.

Even the banks at the top of this chart still have a long way to go to truly align their policies with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

TOTAL POLICY SCORE (OUT OF 200)

BANK

93.5

DANSKE BANK16

BNP PARIBAS

92.5

DZ BANK

14.5

CRÉDIT MUTUEL

90

NAB

14

BPCE/NATIXIS

74.5

WESTPAC

13.5

CRÉDIT AGRICOLE74NORDEA

12.5

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE74

BANK OF MONTREAL

11.5

ING

51

SHINHAN

6.5

SANTANDER

50.5

SMBC GROUP

6.5

BBVA

43

MUFG

6

NATWEST

43

MIZUHO

5

STANDARD CHARTERED

35.5

TD

5

CITI

33.5

CIBC

3.5

BARCLAYS

32

SUMI TRUST

3.5

DEUTSCHE BANK30SCOTIABANK

2.5

UBS

28.5

INDUSTRIAL BANK

1.5

LLOYDS

28

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA

1.5

RABOBANK28

CHINA CITIC BANK

1U.S. BANK

27.5

CHINA MINSHENG BANK

1

ANZ

22.5

BANK OF CHINA

0.5

BANK OF AMERICA

22

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

0.5

GOLDMAN SACHS

20.5

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

0.5

HSBC

20.5

ICBC

0.5

CREDIT SUISSE

20PING AN

0.5

MORGAN STANLEY20

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA

0COMMERZBANK19BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS0INTESA SANPAOLO

18.5

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK0WELLS FARGO

18.5

SBERBANK0COMMONWEALTH BANK18SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK0JPMORGAN CHASE

17.5

STATE BANK OF INDIA

0

RBC

17.5

TRUIST

0

COAL POINTS EARNED24

TOTAL POLICY SCORE (OUT OF 200)BANK

UNICREDIT0B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

OIL & GAS POINTS EARNEDC H A O S 2021

50

100

COAL POINTS NOT EARNED

150

200

OIL & GAS POINTS NOT EARNED0

COAL POINTS EARNED»OIL & GAS POINTS EARNED

50

100

COAL POINTS NOT EARNEDB A N K I N G

150

200

OIL & GAS POINTS NOT EARNEDO N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

25

TOTAL OIL & GAS POLICY SCORE (OUT OF 120)BANK

BNP PARIBASTOTAL OIL & GAS POLICY SCORE (OUT OF 120)

26.5

DZ BANK

2.5
2.5

18.5

NAB

UNICREDIT

18.5

RBC

2.5

ING

18

SCOTIABANK

2.5

CRÉDIT MUTUEL

15

WESTPAC

2.5

BPCE/NATIXIS

13.5

DANSKE BANK

22

SANTANDER

13SMBC GROUPSOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE

12BANK OF MONTREAL

1.5

U.S. BANK

12

MUFG

1.5

LLOYDS

10SHINHAN

1.5

BBVA

9

ANZ

0.5

RABOBANK

8.5

BANK OF CHINA

0.5
0.5

NATWEST

8CHINA CITIC BANKDEUTSCHE BANK

7.5

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

0.5

STANDARD CHARTERED

7.5

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

0.5

UBS

7.5

ICBC

0.5

CRÉDIT AGRICOLE

7INDUSTRIAL BANK

0.5

NORDEA

6.5

INTESA SANPAOLO

0.5

COMMONWEALTH BANK6MIZUHO

0.5

CREDIT SUISSE

6PING AN

0.5

CITI

5

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA

0.5

COMMERZBANK5SUMI TRUST

0.5

JPMORGAN CHASE

5

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA

0

MORGAN STANLEY5BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

0GOLDMAN SACHS

4.5

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK

0

HSBC

4.5

CHINA MINSHENG BANK0WELLS FARGO

4SBERBANK0BANK OF AMERICA

3.5

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

0

CIBC

3.5

STATE BANK OF INDIA

0

TD

3.5

TRUIST

0

BARCLAYS

0

20

40

OIL & GAS POINTS EARNED

26

BANK

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

60

80

100

OIL & GAS POINTS NOT EARNED

120

0

20

40

OIL & GAS POINTS EARNED

60

80

100

120

OIL & GAS POINTS NOT EARNEDB A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

27

TOTAL COAL POLICY SCORE (OUT OF 80)

BANK

TOTAL COAL POLICY SCORE (OUT OF 80)

CRÉDIT MUTUEL75COMMONWEALTH BANK

12UNICREDIT75

DZ BANK

12CRÉDIT AGRICOLE

67

NAB

11.5

BNP PARIBAS

66

WESTPAC11

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE62

BANK OF MONTREAL

10

BPCE/NATIXIS

61

NORDEA

6

BBVA

34

SHINHAN5
4.5

33

MIZUHOSANTANDER

32

MUFG

4.5

NATWEST

30

SMBC GROUP

4.5

CITI

28.5

SUMI TRUST

3

STANDARD CHARTERED

28

TD

1.5

BARCLAYS

24

CHINA MINSHENG BANK

1
1

ING

22.5

INDUSTRIAL BANK

ANZ

22

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA

1

UBS

21

CHINA CITIC BANK

0.5

RABOBANK

19.5

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA

0BANK OF AMERICA

18.5

BANK OF CHINA0INTESA SANPAOLO

18

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS00

DEUTSCHE BANK18CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANKGOLDMAN SACHS16

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK

0

HSBC

16

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

0

U.S. BANK

15.5

CIBC

0

MORGAN STANLEY

15

ICBC

0

RBC

15

PING AN

00

LLOYDS

14.5

SBERBANKCOMMERZBANK14SCOTIABANK0CREDIT SUISSE14SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK0DANSKE BANK

14STATE BANK OF INDIA

0

JPMORGAN CHASE

12.5

TRUIST

0

WELLS FARGO

0

10

20

30

COAL POINTS EARNED

28

BANK

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

40

50

60

70

COAL POINTS NOT EARNED

80

0

10

20

30

COAL POINTS EARNED

40

50

60

70

80

COAL POINTS NOT EARNEDB A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

29

METHODOLOGYFOSSIL FUEL EXPANSION:
Scope:
Oil and Gas: Top 60 companies by emissions from reserves projected to be produced from 2021–2050 (hereafter written as“expansion reserves”) and 15 companies behind key pipelines and LNG terminals that would expand extraction upstream
Source: Rystad Energy AS provided by Oil Change International, and company reporting29
Coal: Top 11 companies by annual coal production that have mining expansion plans (limited to one per country except for
China, where three are included), and top 15 companies proposing new coal power plants (limited to one per country except
for India and China, where three each are included) — an approach that covers key regional players while also accounting forthe prominence of Chinese and Indian companies in these sectors — for a total of 25 coal mining and power companies due tooverlap
Source: urgewald e.V30

TAR SANDS OIL:
Scope: Top 30 companies by tar sands reserves under production plus expansion reserves, and the five companies with existingor proposed pipelines to carry tar sands oil out of Alberta

TAR SANDS OIL

ARCTIC OIL & GAS

OFFSHORE
OIL & GASFRACKEDOIL & GAS

Source: Rystad Energy AS provided by Oil Change International31

ARCTIC OIL AND GAS:
Scope: Top 30 companies by onshore and offshore Arctic oil and gas reserves under production plus expansion reserves
Source: Rystad Energy AS provided by Oil Change International32

LIQUEFIED
NATURAL GASCOAL MINING

COAL POWERFOSSIL FUEL
EXPANSIONOFFSHORE OIL AND GAS:
Scope: Top 30 companies by offshore oil and gas reserves under production plus expansion reserves
Source: Rystad Energy AS provided by Oil Change International33

This report is the 12th annual in a series of reports analyzing bank financing for fossil fuels. Its scope is similar to Banking on Climate

FRACKED OIL AND GAS:

Change 2020 in that it assesses private bank financing for the fossil fuel sector as a whole as well as for top expanders of the fossil fuelScope: Top 30 companies by shale oil and gas reserves under production plus projected shale production between 2021 andindustry. In addition, the report highlights bank support for and policies regarding certain “spotlight fossil fuels”: tar sands oil, Arctic oil

2050 from currently undrilled wells, and 10 key fracked oil and gas pipeline companies

and gas, offshore oil and gas, fracked oil and gas, LNG, coal mining, and coal-fired power. These fossil fuels are spotlighted due to their

Source: Rystad Energy AS provided by Oil Change International and company reporting34

high environmental, social, and climate impacts and/or their heightened risk of becoming stranded assets.26
LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG):
Scope: Top 30 companies by attributable capacity in current and planned LNG import or export terminals worldwide

BANKING INDUSTRY SCOPE

ALL FOSSIL FUELS:

Previous editions of this report have analyzed approximately 35 large

Scope: Approximately 2,300 companies that received financing led byprivate-sector commercial banks. This year’s report marks a significant

one of the 60 banks analyzed and that are involved in the extraction,

expansion in scope, analyzing the world’s 60 largest relevant banks bytransportation, transmission, combustion, or storage of any fossil fuels

assets. See page 124 for details of all banks included.

or fossil-based electricity, globally, according to the Bloomberg Industry

FOSSIL INDUSTRY SCOPE

Classification Standard; or are on the Global Coal Exit List; or are in the

Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance35

COAL MINING:
Scope: Top 30 companies by annual coal production36
Source: urgewald e.V.37

scope of any of the other tables in the report, as described below27

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

Source: Bloomberg Finance L.P., urgewald e.V., and Rystad Energy AS

different slice of the fossil fuel industry, as follows.

provided by Oil Change International28

COAL POWER:
Scope: Top 30 coal power companies by installed plus planned coal power capacity
Source: urgewald e.V.38

30

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

31

CALCULATING FINANCE FLOWSFor the companies included in this analysis, we assessed each bank’s leading involvement in corporate lending and underwriting transactions —including project finance where data were available — between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2020, inclusive. All amounts in this report are
expressed in U.S. dollars unless otherwise indicated. Transaction data were primarily sourced from Bloomberg Finance L.P., in which case the value ofa transaction is split between leading banks according to Bloomberg’s league credit methodology.39 This methodology assigns banks league credit
when financing is initially issued or renewed, provided the event meets certain criteria. Additional project finance transactions in the LNG and coal
power sectors were researched using the IJGlobal database, in which case all involved banks received credit for their participation in a deal.40
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 based on each company’s overall fossil
fuel–based assets or revenue.41 For the upstream oil and gas sectors, transactions were adjusted based on a company’s reserves in the particularsector out of its total oil and gas reserves in a given year.42 For LNG and coal mining, transactions were adjusted based on a company’s total LNGrelated or coal assets as a percentage of the company’s total assets. For coal power, transactions were adjusted based on a company’s share ofcoal in its generation capacity.43 For pipeline companies in a particular sector, transactions were adjusted based on an estimation of the company’s
assets or revenue in that sector. All deals marked as green bonds or loans were removed from the dataset.

»

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

POLICY SCORESFor each particular spotlight fossil fuel and for fossil fuels overall, the point-based policy ranking assesses bank policies in four ways:»

Does the bank restrict financing for expansion via restrictions on direct financing for projects?

»

Does the bank restrict financing for expansion via restrictions on financing for expansion companies?

»

Does the bank commit to phase out financing for the sector?

»

Does the bank commit to exclude companies active above a certain threshold?

Banks can earn a maximum of 80 points for coal and 120 points for oil and gas, for a total fossil fuel policy score of up to 200.
In addition, this year’s report assesses banks’ commitments to measure, disclose, and set targets to cut the emissions associated with their financing.
Each bank profiled in this report was sent its initial preliminary policy assessment in advance and given the opportunity to comment. See theappendix section for the full scoring rubrics.

»

Detailed explanations of how the points are allocated, as well as full breakdowns of each bank’s policy assessment,
are available at: BankingonClimateChaos.org.

P H O T O : Hans Blossey / Alamy Stock Photo32

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

33

CASE STUDYFIRES Around the World
Climate chaos is here and now.
Although 2020 will always be remembered as the year in which the
COVID-19 pandemic took hold, the coronavirus was not the year’s only
thematic disaster: 2020 was also a year of massive forest fires, reminding theworld that climate chaos is here and now.
One of the most tangible consequences of climate change is theespecially for children and adults with asthma, COPD, bronchitis, orincrease in the frequency and intensity of these fires. While some fires arechronic heart disease. Last but not least, forest fires release enormous

more directly attributable to land clearing and bad forest management,

amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, further worsening

climate change is certainly worsening the problem. The climate crisis

the climate crisis.

44

exacerbates forest fires in several ways: warmer conditions mean alonger fire season, climate change leads to more extreme weather

In the meantime, the fossil fuel industry continues to expand fossil fuelevents and therefore also more extreme droughts, and a warmer

production, thereby exacerbating climate change and worsening

atmosphere leads to higher evaporation rates, which dries out thethe frequency and magnitude of future forest fires. And the banks

soils and also increases lightning.45 It is therefore no surprise that 2020

that finance this industry with little restraint — like the top bankers

featured an increase in forest fires in many parts of the world includingof fossil fuels JPMorgan Chase, Citi, and Wells Fargo — share in thethe Arctic,46 Australia,47 the U.S. West Coast,48 and the Amazon.49 Though

responsibility for these impacts.

the devastating, headline-grabbing fires in the Amazon have been
intentionally set to clear land for agribusiness, climate chaos is making

The public is increasingly starting to recognize the companies

the arson more destructive.

responsible for these so-called natural disasters. Last year, an Australian50

bushfire victim filed a complaint with the Organisation for Economic
Forest fires most heavily affect local communities, who often see theirCo-operation and Development (OECD) against ANZ for its role inhomes, sources of income, and food security go up in flames. Downwind,

worsening the massive forest fires in Australia by continuing to financethe air quality can deteriorate to such an extent that whole cities are

fossil fuels.52

shrouded in smoke.51 Forest fire smoke is extremely harmful to the lungs,

P H O T O : Victor Moriyama / Greenpeace34

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

35

BIG OIL REALITY CHECK:
Fossil Fuel Expansion Continues Amid Greenwashing

FOSSIL FUEL
EXPANSION

Increasingly, oil and gas companies claim to be part of the solution tocertain jurisdictions (for instance, at that time, Total’s commitment only

the climate crisis. The reality is very different. A recent report from Oilcovered emissions from within Europe), or excluding projects where

Change International (endorsed by 30 other civil society organizations)companies share ownership with another company (such as how BP’s

analyzed the current climate commitments of eight of the largest

commitment excludes the assets from its significant ownership share

integrated oil and gas companies — BP, Chevron, Eni, Equinor,of Rosneft). Chevron and ExxonMobil have no such absolute emissions

ExxonMobil, Repsol, Shell, and Total (the “oil majors”) — in light of the

reduction pledges whatsoever.

ambition and integrity required to achieve a 1.5°C-aligned managed
decline of oil and fossil gas use. It found that none of the evaluated oil

Despite the promises made, most of the oil majors are still on the pathmajors’ climate strategies, plans, and pledges come close to alignment

to significantly increase their oil and gas production between now andwith the Paris Agreement.53 Another report from the Transition Pathway

2030. This is according to Rystad Energy projections based on the assets

Initiative came to the same stark conclusion.

they currently hold and are planning to sanction. This trajectory will not54

meaningfully shift until these companies commit to not develop new
Only one oil major, BP, has committed to make an absolute cut to oil andprojects in their development pipeline and/or phase out some of theirgas extraction by 2030. However, it has excluded from that commitment

existing assets early. An end to investments in new fields, an end to newaround 30% of the carbon pollution associated with its extraction

reserves going into production, and an acceleration of the phase-out ofinvestments. Beyond making the announcement, BP hasn’t actuallyexisting production are all needed for oil and gas production to decline

started taking the steps necessary to achieve it.

at a pace aligned with keeping global warming below 1.5°C.

Similarly, several oil majors’ “net zero” emissions pledges contain vast

No major oil and gas company has yet released a climate pledge orloopholes. Most importantly, Total, Chevron, Shell, BP, Equinor, andsustainability plan that meets the bare minimum criteria for alignment

Repsol provide no guarantee that they will cut what matters most for thewith the Paris Agreement, and their bankers need to face this reality

climate: the absolute level of carbon dioxide pollution associated withwhen making financing decisions.

55

burning the oil and gas they produce. Other loopholes include ignoring

P H O T O : Dmitriy Kuzmichev / shutterstock

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

37

LEAGUE TABLE - Banking on Fossil Fuel Expansion
Bank financing for 100 key oil, gas, and coal companies expanding fossil fuels

RANK

38

BANK

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

TOTAL

1

JPMORGAN CHASE$32.532 B$23.873 B$26.589 B$28.154 B$31.638 B$142.786 B

2

CITI

$18.951 B$14.817 B$16.282 B$27.941 B$30.271 B$108.262 B

3

BANK OF AMERICA$17.791 B$11.625 B$13.735 B$21.868 B$27.492 B$92.510 B

4

WELLS FARGO$9.208 B$13.497 B$17.742 B$16.753 B$12.413 B$69.614 B

5

RBC$11.337 B$15.883 B$11.906 B$12.647 B$9.333 B$61.106 B

6

MUFG$7.988 B$12.012 B$13.088 B$12.951 B$14.087 B$60.125 B

7TD$9.759 B$16.833 B$10.911 B$12.832 B$9.115 B$59.449 B

8

BNP PARIBAS$6.470 B$5.036 B$4.340 B$14.391 B$28.348 B$58.585 B

9BARCLAYS$12.653 B$8.085 B$8.152 B$11.722 B$17.215 B$57.826 B

10

MIZUHO$9.053 B$7.429 B$11.535 B$13.537 B$11.832 B$53.386 B

11

HSBC

$6.458 B$9.980 B$6.107 B$12.250 B$16.170 B$50.965 B

12

SCOTIABANK$6.436 B$10.745 B$12.318 B$12.181 B$6.645 B$48.325 B

13

MORGAN STANLEY$10.393 B$9.544 B$4.449 B$11.267 B$11.420 B$47.072 B

14

BANK OF MONTREAL$9.050 B$8.654 B$8.488 B$9.954 B$6.943 B$43.089 B

15

GOLDMAN SACHS$10.554 B$5.225 B$4.642 B$10.836 B$8.214 B$39.472 B

16

ICBC

$11.034 B$4.657 B$4.189 B$8.476 B$8.935 B$37.291 B

17

BANK OF CHINA$9.980 B$6.143 B$7.476 B$6.488 B$7.074 B$37.160 B

18

SMBC GROUP$5.021 B$5.249 B$6.169 B$9.009 B$10.684 B$36.132 B

19

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE$4.920 B$3.243 B$5.471 B$7.701 B$10.946 B$32.282 B

20

DEUTSCHE BANK

$8.856 B$7.181 B$6.221 B$3.275 B$4.905 B$30.438 B

21

CRÉDIT AGRICOLE$4.049 B$4.327 B$4.030 B$6.458 B$10.935 B$29.800 B

22

CREDIT SUISSE$8.819 B$6.147 B$4.762 B$5.215 B$3.630 B$28.574 B

23

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA$5.981 B$2.851 B$3.185 B$4.126 B$5.303 B$21.445 B

24

SANTANDER$4.157 B$2.576 B$2.262 B$3.783 B$6.972 B$19.751 B

25

CIBC

$2.564 B$5.085 B$2.240 B$4.719 B$3.955 B$18.564 B

26

CHINA MINSHENG BANK

$198 M$179 M$1.152 B$8.243 B$6.782 B$16.554 B

27

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

$5.957 B$2.919 B$1.187 B$3.247 B$2.861 B$16.171 B

28

UBS$2.377 B$3.699 B$3.642 B$3.510 B$622 M$13.851 B

29

CHINA CITIC BANK

$1.949 B$1.751 B$2.351 B$3.365 B$3.560 B$12.975 B

30

SBERBANK$3.518 B$5.521 B$841 M$375 M$888 M$11.143 B

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

TREND

2016-2020

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

39

LEAGUE TABLE - Banking on Fossil Fuel Expansion (cont'd)
2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

31

INDUSTRIAL BANK

$1.405 B$1.837 B$1.843 B$1.045 B$4.248 B$10.378 B

32

BBVA

$1.941 B$1.800 B$1.618 B$2.555 B$1.920 B$9.836 B

33

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

$2.472 B$1.439 B$976 M$1.226 B$3.105 B$9.219 B

34

STANDARD CHARTERED$579 M$1.717 B$1.539 B$1.701 B$3.001 B$8.537 B

35

TRUIST$426 M$2.176 B$2.208 B$1.194 B$2.126 B$8.130 B

36

UNICREDIT$1.965 B$786 M$1.447 B$652 M$3.164 B$8.014 B

37

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

$1.509 B$586 M$1.969 B$647 M$2.052 B$6.764 B

38

PING AN$254 M$1.418 B$2.337 B$862 M$1.839 B$6.710 B

39

BPCE/NATIXIS$879 M$1.034 B$843 M$1.508 B$2.139 B$6.404 B

40

INTESA SANPAOLO$1.442 B$970 M$2.877 B$410 M$637 M$6.336 B

41

STATE BANK OF INDIA$442 M$605 M$270 M$4.290 B$577 M$6.185 B

42

ING$1.246 B$704 M$2.112 B$1.244 B$509 M$5.815 B

43

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS$1.037 B$972 M$540 M$744 M$1.908 B$5.200 B

44

ANZ$735 M$992 M$273 M$1.308 B$1.765 B$5.073 B

45

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK

$706 M$334 M$532 M$98 M$2.991 B$4.662 B

46

COMMERZBANK$321 M$699 M$983 M$1.357 B$1.277 B$4.636 B

47

U.S. BANK$461 M$848 M$865 M$740 M$1.442 B$4.355 B

48

NATWEST$1.153 B$1.129 B$563 M$364 M$861 M$4.070 B

49

LLOYDS$860 M$613 M$701 M$686 M$564 M$3.424 B

50

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA--$227 M$2.057 B$727 M$3.011 B

51

COMMONWEALTH BANK$107 M$406 M$302 M$364 M$1.247 B$2.427 B

52

WESTPAC$67 M$722 M-$767 M$111 M$1.667 B

53

NAB

$65 M

$47 M

$129 M$323 M$256 M$820 M

54

SHINHAN$155 M$154 M$67 M$158 M$232 M$765 M

55

RABOBANK$318 M

$97 M

$42 M

$40 M

$53 M

$549 M

56

SUMI TRUST

-

-

-

-

$426 M$426 M57

DZ BANK

-

$75 M

-

-

$87 M

$162 M

58

NORDEA$112 M----$112 M

59

CRÉDIT MUTUEL

-

-

$62 M

-

-

$62 M

DANSKE BANK

-

-

-

-

-

-

$278.668 B$256.931 B$250.784 B$333.616 B$368.455 B$1.488 T

GRAND TOTAL

40

TOTAL

BANK

RANK

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

2020

COMPARED TO 20162016-2020

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

41

POLICY SCORES - Fossil Fuel Expansion
Of the total policy points available (80 for coal and 120 for oil and gas) as shown on page 129-146, some of these points are awarded based on

See the appendix for the scoring criteria (for each of the fossil fuel sectors) that go into this score.

points only, to highlight the banks whose policies best restrict financing for the expansion of fossil fuels.

EXPANSION POLICY SCORE (OUT OF 82)

BANK
46.5

WESTPAC

7

CRÉDIT MUTUEL

44

NAB

6

UNICREDIT

43

BANK OF MONTREAL

5CRÉDIT AGRICOLE38DANSKE BANK

4

BPCE/NATIXIS

35

SHINHAN

4SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE30

COMMONWEALTH BANK

3SANTANDER24

MIZUHO

2.5

RABOBANK

23

MUFG

2.5

U.S. BANK

22.5

SMBC GROUP

2.5

DEUTSCHE BANK

19

TD

2.5

CITI

18

NORDEA

2

LLOYDS17

SCOTIABANK

2

ING

16.5

SUMI TRUST

2

STANDARD CHARTERED

16

CIBC

1

NATWEST

15.5

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA

0BARCLAYS

15BANK OF CHINA

0BANK OF AMERICA14BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

0

BBVA

14

CHINA CITIC BANK0DZ BANK

14

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

0GOLDMAN SACHS14CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK

0

HSBC

14

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK0WELLS FARGO

13

CHINA MINSHENG BANK0COMMERZBANK

12

ICBC

0

INTESA SANPAOLO

12

INDUSTRIAL BANK0MORGAN STANLEY12PING AN

0

UBS

12

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA

0

CREDIT SUISSE

10.5

SBERBANK

0

ANZ

10

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK0JPMORGAN CHASE

9STATE BANK OF INDIA

0

RBC

7

TRUIST

0

OIL & GAS EXPANSIONPOINTS EARNEDCOAL EXPANSIONPOINTS EARNED42

EXPANSION POLICY SCORE (OUT OF 82)

BANK

BNP PARIBAS0B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

20.5

41

COAL EXPANSIONPOINTS NOT EARNED

61.5

82

OIL & GAS EXPANSIONPOINTS NOT EARNED»

Full breakdowns of each bank’s assessment are available at BankingonClimateChaos.org.

a bank’s policies restricting the expansion of fossil fuels in that area (35 for coal and 47 for oil and gas). This chart ranks banks by those expansion

0

COAL EXPANSIONPOINTS EARNEDOIL & GAS EXPANSIONPOINTS EARNED

20.5

41

61.5

OIL & GAS EXPANSIONPOINTS NOT EARNEDCOAL EXPANSIONPOINTS NOT EARNEDB A N K I N G

82

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

43

CASE STUDYCASE STUDY

Nigeria LNG

East African Crude Oil Pipeline
The East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) is a proposed 900 mile

National Park, one of the most visited parks in Uganda.60 In addition,

Nigeria LNG Limited (NLNG) is an LNG complex on Bonny Island in the

Additional land will have to be cleared for the construction of the(1,445-kilometer) pipeline under development by China National

the project is expected to cause displacement of communities andNiger Delta. Among the facilities are six processing units (trains), twoseventh train. Clearing this land, most of which is forestland or swamp,

Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) and the French company Total.56

could have significant negative impacts on incomes and livelihoods.61

export jetties, eight storage tanks, and six gas pipelines that transverse

will seriously impact the fauna and flora in the area.73 In addition,

The pipeline would transport oil from Hoima in northern Uganda to

The valuation and compensation process for the land being acquired

110 c​ommunities.67 The plant, which is owned by the Nigerian Nationalfrequent gas flaring at the plant further contributes to climate chaos

the port of Tanga in Tanzania, from where it would be exported tofor the project has reportedly already been characterized by delays inPetroleum Corporation, Shell, Total, and Eni, started operation in 1999

and air pollution.74 The air pollution has been studied to have ainternational markets. If completed, it would be the longest heatedcompensation, insufficient provision of information to communities, andand has been expanded many times since.68

tremendous impact on the health of communities in the area, with gas

pipeline in the world, and would carry 216,000 barrels of crude oil per

irregularities. As such, the project is facing significant local community

day. The transported oil would likely result in over 33 million tons of CO2

and civil society resistance.

57

flaring being linked to kidney problems, cancer, and lung damage,62

At the moment, NLNG has a production capacity of 22 million tons ofamong other problems.75

LNG per year. However, the plant is about to be expanded again withemissions each year, an amount significantly greater than the current

69

combined emissions of Uganda and Tanzania. And, importantly, theTotal and CNOOC are hoping to secure financing for the pipeline

the addition of a seventh train, which would increase annual production

The Nigerian government and NLNG’s shareholder companies havestart of commercial production in Uganda’s Kingfisher and Tilenga oil

imminently, and to start construction in 2021.63 The banks alreadyto over 30 million tons.70

faced continued protests from local communities impacted on multiple

fields is contingent on the completion of the pipeline — meaning the

supporting this disastrous project are SMBC Group, acting as apipeline would enable the expansion of the oil sector.

58

fronts by this project.76 Protests at the turn of the century were tragically64

financial advisor for Total and joint lead arranger for the project loan;

When the complex was first constructed, communities on Bonny Island

met with state violence.77 Despite these impacts, a long list of banks

ICBC, acting as a financial advisor for CNOOC;65 and Standard Bank’s

were relocated to a reclaimed mangrove area, often with the use of aapproved financing for the seventh train in May 2020. These banks

Besides fueling the climate crisis, EACOP would enable the opening

subsidiary Stanbic Bank Uganda, advising the governments of Uganda

military task force.71 The new site does not support traditional sources ofinclude BNP Paribas, SMBC Group, Standard Chartered, Société

up of critical ecosystems to oil extraction, including Murchison Falls

and Tanzania and acting as joint lead arranger.

income such as fishing and cultivating certain crops. To make matters

Générale, ICBC, Deutsche Bank, Bank of China, Santander, and BPCE/

worse, 20 years later the relocated population had reportedly still not

Natixis.78

59

66

received compensation.72

P H O T O : Amis de la Terre; EACOP 350Africa

44

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

45

SPOTLIGHT
FOSSIL FUELSP H O T O : Starry-sky-visual / shutterstock

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

47

Who's Banking on TAR SANDS OIL?
Even the tar sands industry has started to acknowledge that it has no place in a zerocarbon world, and needs a just and orderly wind-down. But despite the end of the Teck
Frontier megaproject and cancellation of Keystone XL, the industry is still fighting toothand nail to ram through the proposed Line 3 and Trans Mountain pipelines despite theirimpacts on Indigenous rights and the climate — and despite strong Indigenous-led
opposition.79

TAR SANDSOILWORST BANKS BY TOTALTAR SANDS FINANCING (2016–2020)

TD

RBC

POLICY SCORE:
0.5 OUT OF 18

POLICY SCORE:
0.5 OUT OF 18

16

16

JPMORGAN CHASEPOLICY SCORE:
0.5 OUT OF 18

$10B
$8B
$6B
$4B
$2B
0
P H O T O : Orjan Ellingvag / Alamy Stock Photo

17

18

19

20

17

18

19

20

B A N K I N G

16

17

18

O N

C L I M A T E

1920

C H A O S 2021

49

LEAGUE TABLE - Banking on Tar Sands Oil
Bank financing for 30 top tar sands production companies and five key tar sands pipeline companies

RANK

TOTAL

BANK

2016-2020

2020

2020

COMPARED TO

2016

RANK

BANK

2020

2020

COMPARED TO

2016

1

TD

$24.222 B$1.529 B

31

STANDARD CHARTERED$115 M

$64 M

2

RBC

$22.523 B$1.793 B

32

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK$108 M$108 M

3

JPMORGAN CHASE$12.141 B$1.758 B

33

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

$76 M

$76 M

4

CIBC

$11.032 B$557 M

34

BBVA

$72 M

$22 M

5

BANK OF MONTREAL$10.045 B$1.295 B

35

ANZ

$70 M

$22 M

6

SCOTIABANK$8.649 B$1.466 B

36

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

$61 M

$51 M

7

BARCLAYS$3.993 B$873 M

37

LLOYDS

$58 M

$9 M

8

BANK OF AMERICA$3.610 B$1.198 B

38

BPCE/NATIXIS

$52 M

$20 M

9

CITI

$3.453 B$943 M

39

NATWEST

$52 M

$7 M

10

HSBC

$3.026 B$445 M

40

CHINA CITIC BANK

$42 M

$30 M

11

DEUTSCHE BANK

$1.582 B$180 M

41

UNICREDIT

$42 M

$17 M

12

MUFG

$1.571 B$387 M

42

COMMERZBANK

$42 M

$11 M

13

MORGAN STANLEY$1.394 B$717 M

43

ING

$34 M

-

14

BNP PARIBAS$1.148 B$647 M

44

TRUIST

$30 M

$5 M

15

WELLS FARGO$911 M$61 M

45

COMMONWEALTH BANK

$27 M

-

16

CREDIT SUISSE$838 M$28 M

46

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA

$26 M

$1 M

17

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE$795 M$272 M

47

INTESA SANPAOLO

$25 M

-

18

MIZUHO$743 M$80 M

48

WESTPAC

$18 M

-

19

GOLDMAN SACHS$742 M$119 M

49

PING AN

$15 M

$15 M

20

CRÉDIT AGRICOLE$664 M$227 M

50

U.S. BANK

$11 M

$5 M

21

ICBC

$657 M$244 M

CRÉDIT MUTUEL

-

-

22

SMBC GROUP$494 M$68 M

DANSKE BANK

-

-

23

UBS

$415 M$119 M

DZ BANK--

24

BANK OF CHINA$351 M

$84 M

NAB

-

-

25

CHINA MINSHENG BANK

$334 M$190 M

NORDEA--

26

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA$273 M$115 MRABOBANK--27

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK$169 M$76 M

SBERBANK--

28

SANTANDER$153 M$55 M

SHINHAN--29

INDUSTRIAL BANK

$117 M$116 M

STATE BANK OF INDIA

-

-

30

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS$117 M$54 M

SUMI TRUST--$117.135 B$16.160 B

GRAND TOTAL

50

TOTAL

2016-2020

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

51

POLICY SCORES - Tar Sands Oil
See page 131 for the scoring criteria.

TAR SANDS POLICY SCORE (OUT OF 18)BANKMORGAN STANLEY

0.5

BPCE/NATIXIS

7

MUFG

0.5

ING

6

RBC

0.5

BBVA

5

SMBC GROUP

0.5

SANTANDER

5

TD

0.5

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE

4

WELLS FARGO

0.5

UNICREDIT

4

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA

0CRÉDIT AGRICOLE

3.5

ANZ

0

CRÉDIT MUTUEL

3.5

BANK OF CHINA

0

DEUTSCHE BANK

3BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS0NORDEA3

BANK OF MONTREAL0

RABOBANK

3

CHINA CITIC BANK0STANDARD CHARTERED

3

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

0

UBS

3

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK

0

HSBC

2.5

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

0

U.S. BANK

2.5

CHINA MINSHENG BANK0DANSKE BANK

2

CIBC

0

LLOYDS

2ICBC

0COMMONWEALTH BANK

1.5

INDUSTRIAL BANK0NATWEST

1.5

INTESA SANPAOLO

0COMMERZBANK1MIZUHO0

DZ BANK

1

PING AN

0

NAB

1

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA

0

WESTPAC

1

SBERBANK0BANK OF AMERICA

0.5

SCOTIABANK0BARCLAYS

0.5

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

0

CITI

0.5

SHINHAN

0

CREDIT SUISSE

0.5

STATE BANK OF INDIA

0GOLDMAN SACHS

0.5

SUMI TRUST0

JPMORGAN CHASE

0.5

TRUIST

00

4.5

TAR SANDS POINTS EARNED52

TAR SANDS POLICY SCORE (OUT OF 18)

BANK

7

BNP PARIBAS

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

9

13.5

TAR SANDS POINTS NOT EARNED

18

»

0

4.5

TAR SANDS POINTS EARNED

9

13.5

18

TAR SANDS POINTS NOT EARNEDB A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

53

CASE STUDYLine 3

The resistance to Enbridge’s Line 3 tar sands pipeline has grown into

Enbridge secured key state and federal permits in November 2020 andan epic battle in the woods of northern Minnesota. With the Biden

has begun construction on the final length of the pipeline, despite active

administration’s cancellation of a critical permit for the Keystone XL

legal appeals from the Ojibwe peoples of the Red Lake Nation and thepipeline, and production from the tar sands higher than ever, there

White Earth Nation, as well as environmental and youth groups.83 The

is immense political and financial pressure from Canada and the

project continues to face major obstacles — including one government

fossil fuel industry to build Line 3. But the push to build out tar sands

agency suing another over the project, a pandemic, a worker death andinfrastructure faces incredible social, legal, financial, and health risks —ensuing investigation, and massive public resistance.84

80

and this pipeline, which would run from Alberta’s tar sands across theborder through Minnesota and into Wisconsin, is no exception.
As of March 2021, there are at least 29 banks acting as lenders to seven
Blockades, water protector camps, and protests at the governor’s

Enbridge credit facilities totaling $12.9 billion, with participation fromresidence and public hearings have spotlighted what is at stake:banks such as Barclays, JPMorgan Chase, MUFG, and TD.85 Given that

Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline runs roughshod over Indigenous rights,

Enbridge is not seeking any project-level financing for the project, thesethreatens the Great Lakes, and jeopardizes our shared climate bybanks are essentially financing Line 3. Their support for the project

expanding access to dirty tar sands oil.81 Despite fierce opposition,

comes even without the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent of the Ojibwe

construction is complete in Wisconsin and Canada. In Minnesota,

peoples, whose territory the pipeline cuts through.86

82

P H O T O S : Toben Dilworth / RAN; Camp Migizi;
Sarah LittleRedFeather (Honor the Earth)54

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

55

ARCTIC OIL& GAS

Who's Banking on ARCTIC OIL & GAS?
More than half of the 60 banks profiled in this report have some sort of restriction on
direct financing for oil and gas projects in the Arctic — important first steps. But only
eight restrict financing to any companies active in the Arctic, meaning bank support foroil and gas development in this delicate ecosystem has continued largely unabated.87

WORST BANKS BY TOTALARCTIC OIL AND GAS FINANCING (2016–2020)

JPMORGAN CHASEPOLICY SCORE:
3.5 OUT OF 18

ICBC

POLICY SCORE:
0 OUT OF 18

CHINA MINSHENG
BANKPOLICY SCORE:
0 OUT OF 18$1.5 B$1.125 B$750 M$375 M

$0 B
16

17

18

19

20

16

17

18

19

20

16

17

18

O N

C L I M A T E

1920

P H O T O : Sam Chadwick / shutterstock

B A N K I N G

C H A O S 2021

57

LEAGUE TABLE - Banking on Arctic Oil & Gas
Bank financing for 30 top Arctic oil and gas companies

RANK

TOTAL

BANK

2016-2020

2020

2020

COMPARED TO

2016

RANK

BANK

2020

2020

COMPARED TO

2016

1

JPMORGAN CHASE$2.278 B$835 M

31

DZ BANK$249 M

$43 M

2

ICBC

$2.255 B$591 M

32

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA$248 M$5 M

3

CHINA MINSHENG BANK

$2.154 B$786 M

33

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK$240 M$240 M

4

SBERBANK$1.946 B$199 M

34

INTESA SANPAOLO$227 M

$56 M

5

CITI

$1.500 B$484 M

35

UBS$203 M$37 M

6

UNICREDIT$1.493 B$824 M36

INDUSTRIAL BANK

$190 M$181 M

7

BARCLAYS$1.427 B$733 M

37

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS$144 M$124 M

8

BANK OF CHINA$1.404 B$268 M

38

STANDARD CHARTERED$140 M$29 M

9

CRÉDIT AGRICOLE$1.397 B$843 M

39

PING AN$105 M$105 M

10

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE$1.152 B$663 M

40

BPCE/NATIXIS

$91 M

$74 M

11

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA$1.124 B$424 M

41

BBVA

$80 M

$34 M

12

MUFG

$1.043 B$495 M

42

SANTANDER

$69 M

$30 M

13

BANK OF AMERICA$976 M$321 M

43

RBC

$67 M

$10 M

14

SMBC GROUP$853 M$96 M

44

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

$51 M

$43 M

15

MIZUHO$827 M$157 M

45

BANK OF MONTREAL

$44 M

-

16

DEUTSCHE BANK

$735 M

$64 M

46

ANZ

$43 M

$16 M

17

BNP PARIBAS$714 M$320 M

47

NATWEST

$30 M

$23 M

18

HSBC

$668 M$131 M

48

NORDEA

$28 M

-

19

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

$656 M$189 M49

SCOTIABANK

$21 M

-

20

GOLDMAN SACHS$649 M$231 M

50

COMMONWEALTH BANK

$13 M

-

21

STATE BANK OF INDIA$607 M

$46 M

CIBC

-

-

22

MORGAN STANLEY$455 M$74 M

CRÉDIT MUTUEL

-

-

23

TD

$400 M-DANSKE BANK

-

-

24

WELLS FARGO$398 M-

LLOYDS--

25

COMMERZBANK$338 M

$90 M

NAB

-

-

26

CHINA CITIC BANK

$326 M$207 MRABOBANK--

27

CREDIT SUISSE$308 M$16 M

SHINHAN

-

-

28

ING

$294 M-SUMI TRUST

-

-

29

WESTPAC$268 M$7 M

TRUIST--

30

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK

$268 M$268 M

U.S. BANK--$31.199 B$10.413 B

GRAND TOTAL

58

TOTAL

2016-2020

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

59

POLICY SCORES - Arctic Oil & Gas
See page 133 for the scoring criteria.

ARCTIC OIL & GAS POLICY SCORE (OUT OF 18)

BANK
7

HSBC

1

SANTANDER

7

NAB

1

ING

5

RABOBANK1CRÉDIT MUTUEL

4.5

WESTPAC

1

BARCLAYS

4

MUFG

0.5

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE

4SMBC GROUP

0.5

UNICREDIT

4

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA

0

JPMORGAN CHASE

3.5

ANZ

0

BBVA

3

BANK OF CHINA

0

CIBC

3

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

0CREDIT SUISSE

3CHINA CITIC BANK0STANDARD CHARTERED

3

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

0

UBS

3

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK0BANK OF AMERICA

2.5

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

0

CITI

2.5

CHINA MINSHENG BANK0COMMONWEALTH BANK

2.5

DANSKE BANK0CRÉDIT AGRICOLE

2.5

DZ BANK

0

DEUTSCHE BANK

2.5

ICBC

0

GOLDMAN SACHS

2.5

INDUSTRIAL BANK0MORGAN STANLEY

2.5

INTESA SANPAOLO

0

NATWEST

2.5

MIZUHO

0

U.S. BANK

2.5

NORDEA

0

BPCE/NATIXIS

2

PING AN0

COMMERZBANK2POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA

0LLOYDS

2

SBERBANK0SCOTIABANK2SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

0

TD

2

SHINHAN

0

RBC

1.5

STATE BANK OF INDIA

0

WELLS FARGO

1.5

SUMI TRUST0BANK OF MONTREAL

1

TRUIST

0

4.5

ARCTIC OIL & GAS POINTS EARNED60

ARCTIC OIL & GAS POLICY SCORE (OUT OF 18)

BANK

BNP PARIBAS0B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

9

13.5

18

ARCTIC OIL & GAS POINTS NOT EARNED

»

0

4.5

ARCTIC OIL & GAS POINTS EARNED

9

13.5

18

ARCTIC OIL & GAS POINTS NOT EARNEDB A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

61

CASE STUDY

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of the world’s last intact

In recent years, a growing number of major banks around the world

ecosystems and one of the few places in the United States that has

have begun to exclude financing for oil and gas development in thenever been developed or industrialized.88 The coastal plain of the refuge

Arctic Refuge and the broader Arctic region. The six largest U.S. banks

is home to nearly 200 wildlife species, including the Porcupine caribou

have prohibited funding for Arctic drilling projects, including in the Arctic

herd that gathers and gives birth there.89 The Gwich’in people have

Refuge, while the five largest Canadian banks have ruled out funding

thrived in villages along the migration path of the Porcupine caribou

Arctic Refuge drilling projects in particular. In total, around 30 global

herd for millennia and consider the coastal plain to be sacred. In fact,banks have exclusion policies on Arctic drilling.94

the Gwich’in call the coastal plain “Iizhak Gwats’an Gwandaii Goodlit,”
meaning “the Sacred Place Where Life Begins.”90

This public repudiation of direct financing for Arctic drilling projects
may have contributed to the low commercial interest in the lease sale

Despite long-term political efforts to open the area to drilling, polls

held at the end of Trump’s presidency. Ultimately, fewer than half theshow an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose drilling in theleases offered were sold, and those that were sold generated less than

Arctic Refuge.91 After 50 years of protection, the refuge was opened to

1% of the revenue that the tax bill had projected.95 And yet, to fully end

oil and gas leasing and development by an unrelated provision tacked

support for Arctic oil and gas activities, banks need to end not just direct

onto a 2017 tax bill.92 Following that, the rushed process that the Trumpfinancing for projects in the region but also financing for companies

administration used to accelerate leasing was improperly conductedactive there. Without these guardrails, banks like JPMorgan Chase,and ignored the voices of the Gwich’in and the overwhelming will of the

ICBC, China Minsheng Bank, and Sberbank were the biggest bankers

public.

of Arctic oil and gas in the five years since the adoption of the Paris

93

Agreement.

P H O T O : Ben Cushing / Sierra Club62

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

P H O T O S : Alexis Bonogofsky

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

63

Who's Banking on OFFSHORE OIL & GAS?
Offshore oil and gas production not only has disruptive impacts on the surrounding
ocean ecosystem, but can also harm communities on land nearby, who depend on thesea for their food and livelihoods.96

OFFSHORE
OIL & GASWORST BANKS BY TOTALOFFSHORE OIL AND GAS FINANCING (2016–2020)

BNP PARIBAS
POLICY SCORE:
0.5 OUT OF 18

JPMORGAN CHASECITIPOLICY SCORE:
0 OUT OF 18

POLICY SCORE:
0.5 OUT OF 18

16

16

17

O N

C L I M A T E

$15B
$12B
$9B
$6B
$3B
$0
P H O T O : Kanok Sulaiman / shutterstock

16

17

18

19

20

17

18

19

20

B A N K I N G

18

19

20

C H A O S 2021

65

LEAGUE TABLE - Banking on Offshore Oil & Gas
Bank financing for 30 top offshore oil and gas companies

RANK

TOTAL

BANK

2016-2020

2020

2020

COMPARED TO

2016

RANK

BANK

2020

2020

COMPARED TO

2016

1

BNP PARIBAS$29.327 B$14.174 B

31

INTESA SANPAOLO$1.668 B$141 M

2

JPMORGAN CHASE$29.070 B$9.454 B

32

WELLS FARGO$1.651 B$650 M

3

CITI$28.347 B$10.753 B

33

LLOYDS$1.243 B$274 M

4

BANK OF AMERICA$24.517 B$10.620 B

34

COMMONWEALTH BANK

$1.075 B$1.051 B

5

HSBC$21.614 B$7.766 B

35

CHINA CITIC BANK

$1.004 B$536 M

6

MORGAN STANLEY$17.143 B$5.185 B

36

COMMERZBANK$997 M$178 M

7

BARCLAYS$15.827 B$6.777 B

37

NATWEST$975 M$232 M

8

CRÉDIT AGRICOLE$14.758 B$5.805 B

38

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA$966 M$12 M

9MIZUHO$12.640 B$2.873 B

39

WESTPAC$793 M$85 M

10

GOLDMAN SACHS$11.650 B$3.345 B

40

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS$777 M$299 M

11

SMBC GROUP$11.249 B$4.402 B

41

TD$685 M-

12

SANTANDER$11.045 B$3.424 B

42

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

$586 M$586 M

13

MUFG$10.505 B$4.013 B

43

ING$558 M$106 M

14

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE$9.742 B$4.210 B

44

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK

$538 M$538 M

15

ICBC$8.416 B$1.647 B

45

INDUSTRIAL BANK

$356 M$322 M

16

DEUTSCHE BANK

$7.585 B$1.797 B

46

RABOBANK$298 M$50 M

17

CHINA MINSHENG BANK

$7.269 B$1.922 B

47

SHINHAN$286 M$85 M

18

BANK OF CHINA$5.889 B$941 M

48

PING AN$274 M$274 M

19

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA$4.047 B$1.034 B

49

SBERBANK$184 M

$57 M

20

BBVA

$3.961 B$616 M

50

CIBC

$58 M

-

21

CREDIT SUISSE$3.744 B$782 M

51

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

$37 M

$12 M

22

UBS

$3.676 B$50 M

BANK OF MONTREAL

-

-

23

STATE BANK OF INDIA$2.954 B$150 M

CRÉDIT MUTUEL

-

-

24

UNICREDIT$2.789 B$1.341 B

DANSKE BANK

-

-

25

ANZ

$2.774 B$1.364 B

DZ BANK--

26

STANDARD CHARTERED$2.677 B$953 M

NAB

-

-

27

SCOTIABANK$2.643 B$1.014 B

NORDEA--

28

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

$2.412 B$381 MSUMI TRUST

-

-

29

RBC

$2.354 B$369 M

TRUIST--

30

BPCE/NATIXIS$2.185 B$446 M

U.S. BANK--$327.817 B$114.094 B

GRAND TOTAL

66

TOTAL

2016-2020

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

67

POLICY SCORES - Offshore Oil & Gas
See page 135 for the scoring criteria.

Offshore Arctic oil and gas policies already scored in the previous section are not counted here.

OFFSHORE OIL & GAS POLICY SCORE (OUT OF 18)

BANK
3

CIBC

0

CRÉDIT MUTUEL

2.5

COMMERZBANK0LLOYDS

2

CRÉDIT AGRICOLE

0NATWEST

1.5

CREDIT SUISSE

0

U.S. BANK

1.5

DANSKE BANK

0

BBVA

0.5

DEUTSCHE BANK0BNP PARIBAS

0.5

DZ BANK

0

BPCE/NATIXIS

0.5

HSBC

0

CITI

0.5

ICBC

0

COMMONWEALTH BANK

0.5

INDUSTRIAL BANK

0GOLDMAN SACHS

0.5

INTESA SANPAOLO

0

ING

0.5

JPMORGAN CHASE0

MORGAN STANLEY

0.5

MIZUHO0

SANTANDER

0.5

MUFG

0

SHINHAN

0.5

NAB

0

STANDARD CHARTERED

0.5

NORDEA

0

UBS

0.5

PING AN0

WELLS FARGO

0.5

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA

0

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA

0

RABOBANK

0

ANZ

0

RBC

0

BANK OF AMERICA0

SBERBANK0BANK OF CHINA

0SCOTIABANK0BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS0SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK0BANK OF MONTREAL0

SMBC GROUP

0

BARCLAYS

0SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE

0

CHINA CITIC BANK0STATE BANK OF INDIA

0

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK0SUMI TRUST0

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK

0

TD

0

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK0TRUIST

0

CHINA MINSHENG BANK0WESTPAC

0

4.5

OFFSHORE OIL & GAS POINTS EARNED68

OFFSHORE OIL & GAS POLICY SCORE (OUT OF 18)BANKUNICREDIT0B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

9

13.5

18

OFFSHORE OIL & GAS POINTS NOT EARNED

»

0

4.5

OFFSHORE OIL & GAS POINTS EARNED

9

13.5

18

OFFSHORE OIL & GAS POINTS NOT EARNEDB A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

69

CASE STUDYCASE STUDY

Offshore Cape Three Points

Barents Sea

The Barents Sea is located on the northern coasts of Norway and Russia,

In mid-2020 the Norwegian government proposed to open up 125 new

Offshore Cape Three Points is an integrated oil and gas project in theCommunities nearby are reportedly already experiencing a range ofwithin the Arctic Circle. The sea is shallow, with an average depth of only

oil exploration blocks in the Barents Sea.100 A few months later, Equinor

Tano Basin, approximately 37 miles (60 kilometers) off the coast ofnegative impacts from the development and production of the current

750 feet (230 meters), and has a unique ecosystem including walruses,

was given permission to drill an exploration well in the area.

Ghana. The project is run by Eni, Vitol, and Ghana National Petroleum

project area. Fisherfolk face loss of income due to a decline in fishpolar bears, narwhals, and beluga whales.97 The sea also contains

month after that, the Norwegian Supreme Court upheld the exploration

Corporation.105 It includes, among other things, the development ofcatch.108 The cost of food — including fish — has risen, along withsignificant oil and gas deposits, which Norwegian oil companies want tolicenses in the Arctic in a case brought by environmental groups, butthree gas fields and two oil fields in water ranging from 1,600 to 3,600

other commodities.109 Marine life, especially fish and seaweeds, have

explore, most notably the Norwegian oil major Equinor.

left an open question as to whether the discovered oil could actually befeet (500 to 1,100 meters) in depth, a 39 mile (63-kilometer) gas

also reportedly been affected by pollution from the project and drilling

produced, given potential greenhouse gas emissions.

pipeline to the coast, 19 undersea wells, and a floating gas processing,activities.110

101

Just a102

Offshore oil drilling is always risky, but the long distance from land,

storage, and off-loading (FPSO) unit. The fields’ reserves are significant,harsh Arctic weather conditions, darkness, and sea ice make drilling

Beyond its intent to drill in the Barents Sea, Equinor is on the wrong track

estimated at 500 million barrels of oil and 40 billion cubic feet (1.1

And yet a range of banks have supported the Offshore Cape Threein the Barents Sea even riskier. Since the Arctic is warming faster thanoverall when it comes to the climate crisis, with plans to increase overallbillion cubic meters) of gas.106

Points project and associated infrastructure on multiple occasions.

any place on Earth, the ecosystems there are already under severe

oil and gas production by 300% by 2030.

pressure.98 An oil spill in this region would be catastrophic for the unique

Equinor issued over $8 billion in bonds arranged by banks including

The project is already in operation, with oil production starting in 20172017 are Mizuho, Standard Chartered, Bank of China, BPCE/Natixis,

ecosystem. The oil industry has no effective way of removing oil from the

JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Citi, andand gas production in 2018. However, Eni is looking at expanding the

MUFG, HSBC, Société Générale, and ING. In April 2020, BPCE/Natixis,

ice.99Goldman Sachs.104

project area following the discovery of more gas during exploratory

Société Générale, SMBC Group, Standard Chartered, and MUFG were

drilling in Offshore Cape Three Points Block 4 in 2019.

also involved in renewing finance for the FPSO unit.111

103

In April and May 2020

Among the banks who financed the oil and gas field development in107

P H O T O : Andrea Izzotti / shutterstock70

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

71

Who's Banking on FRACKED OIL & GAS?

FRACKEDOIL & GAS

While the COVID-19 pandemic has caused pain economy-wide, the impact on thefracking industry and its lenders and investors has been particularly acute. And yet,banks have continued financing fracking through the years, despite numerous warnings
that the sector was financially unsustainable — on top of the well-documented
environmental, health and climate impacts of fracking.112

WORST BANKS BY TOTALFRACKED OIL AND GAS FINANCING (2016–2020)

WELLS FARGOPOLICY SCORE:
0.5 OUT OF 18

JPMORGAN CHASECITIPOLICY SCORE:
0.5 OUT OF 18

POLICY SCORE:
0.5 OUT OF 18

16

16

17

O N

C L I M A T E

$15B
$12B
$9B
$6B
$3B
$0B
P H O T O : Christopher Halloran / shutterstock

16

17

18

19

20

17

18

19

20

B A N K I N G

18

19

20

C H A O S 2021

73

LEAGUE TABLE - Banking on Fracked Oil & Gas
Bank financing for 30 top fracking companies and 10 key fracked oil and gas pipeline companies

RANK

TOTAL

BANK

2016-2020

2020

2020

COMPARED TO

2016

RANK

BANK

2020

2020

COMPARED TO

2016

1

WELLS FARGO$53.991 B$9.912 B

31

SANTANDER$1.233 B$740 M

2

JPMORGAN CHASE$52.232 B$8.918 B

32

NATWEST$901 M

$36 M

3

CITI

$38.928 B$9.568 B

33

COMMERZBANK$863 M$425 M

4

BANK OF AMERICA$38.906 B$8.857 B

34

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

$597 M$173 M

5

BARCLAYS$23.991 B$5.444 B

35

LLOYDS$359 M

$76 M

6

MUFG

$21.776 B$4.049 B

36

CHINA CITIC BANK

$336 M$244 M

7

MIZUHO$19.756 B$3.735 B

37

STANDARD CHARTERED$327 M$190 M

8

SCOTIABANK$18.261 B$1.545 B

38

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK

$245 M$245 M

9

RBC$16.009 B$3.706 B

39

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

$244 M$244 M

10

CREDIT SUISSE$16.008 B$1.781 B

40

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA$192 M

$5 M

11

TD

$13.827 B$3.537 B

41

ANZ$161 M$39 M

12

MORGAN STANLEY$12.704 B$2.996 B

42

INDUSTRIAL BANK$141 M$124 M

13

GOLDMAN SACHS$12.673 B$1.459 B

43

PING AN$125 M$125 M

14

BANK OF MONTREAL$8.560 B$2.066 B

44

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS$113 M$113 M

15

DEUTSCHE BANK

$8.042 B$1.480 B

45

ING

$51 M

-

16

HSBC

$7.360 B$2.910 B

46

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

$10 M

$5 M

17

SMBC GROUP$7.199 B$1.493 B

COMMONWEALTH BANK

-

-

18

TRUIST$6.635 B$1.769 B

CRÉDIT MUTUEL

-

-

19

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE$6.124 B$2.071 B

DANSKE BANK

-

-

20

BNP PARIBAS$5.592 B$3.056 B

DZ BANK--

21

CRÉDIT AGRICOLE$4.275 B$803 MINTESA SANPAOLO

-

-

22

U.S. BANK$3.484 B$1.150 B

NAB

-

-

23

CIBC

$2.915 B$1.420 B

NORDEA

-

-

24

UBS

$2.582 B$23 M

RABOBANK

-

-

25

ICBC

$2.546 B$661 MSBERBANK--26

CHINA MINSHENG BANK

$1.980 B$852 M

SHINHAN--27

BANK OF CHINA$1.787 B$289 M

STATE BANK OF INDIA

-

-

28

BPCE/NATIXIS$1.773 B$529 MSUMI TRUST

-

-

29

BBVA

$1.713 B$294 M

UNICREDIT

-

-

30

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA$1.244 B$448 M

WESTPAC--$418.772 B$89.605 B

GRAND TOTAL

74

TOTAL

2016-2020

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

75

POLICY SCORES - Fracked Oil & Gas
See page 137 for the scoring criteria.

FRACKED OIL & GAS POLICY SCORE (OUT OF 18)

BANK
7

ANZ

0

SANTANDER

5BANK OF AMERICA

0

UNICREDIT

4BANK OF CHINA

0CRÉDIT MUTUEL

3.5

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS0BARCLAYS

3BANK OF MONTREAL

0

BPCE/NATIXIS

3

BBVA

0

ING

3

CHINA CITIC BANK0NORDEA

3

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK0RABOBANK

3

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK0NATWEST

2.5

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

0

U.S. BANK

2.5

CHINA MINSHENG BANK0DEUTSCHE BANK

1.5

CIBC

0

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE

1.5

DANSKE BANK0COMMERZBANK

1

ICBC

0

DZ BANK

1

INDUSTRIAL BANK0LLOYDS1

INTESA SANPAOLO

0

CITI

0.5

MIZUHO

0

COMMONWEALTH BANK

0.5

MUFG

0

CRÉDIT AGRICOLE

0.5

NAB

0

CREDIT SUISSE

0.5

PING AN0

GOLDMAN SACHS

0.5

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA

0

HSBC

0.5

RBC

0

JPMORGAN CHASE

0.5

SBERBANK0

MORGAN STANLEY

0.5

SCOTIABANK0SMBC GROUP

0.5

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK0STANDARD CHARTERED

0.5

SHINHAN

0

TD

0.5

STATE BANK OF INDIA

0

UBS

0.5

SUMI TRUST0WELLS FARGO

0.5

TRUIST

0

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA

0

WESTPAC

0

4.5

FRACKED OIL & GAS POINTS EARNED76

FRACKED OIL & GAS POLICY SCORE (OUT OF 18)

BANK

BNP PARIBAS0B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

9

13.5

FRACKED OIL & GAS POINTS NOT EARNED

18

»

0

4.5

FRACKED OIL & GAS POINTS EARNED

9

13.5

18

FRACKED OIL & GAS POINTS NOT EARNEDB A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

77

CASE STUDYCASE STUDY

Mountain Valley Pipeline

Vaca Muerta

In Argentina’s Patagonia region, the Vaca Muerta oil and gas reserves

The COVID-19 pandemic and its resulting squeeze on oil demand has

The Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) is a 375-mile (600-kilometer)

The Mountain Valley Pipeline has faced staunch opposition from

While only 4% of

slowed down development in Vaca Muerta, though the government isfracked gas project that would run from the Marcellus Shale fields

impacted communities and from clean water and environmental

the basin is under development thus far, the total potential emissions

make up the world’s second-largest shale deposit.

trying to support this industry through new subsidies.118 As with so manyin West Virginia, through Virginia and end with the “MVP Southgate”

advocates challenging flawed and rushed permit processes in court.

of the oil and gas reserves make up an enormous carbon bomb of 8.7

other projects, the test will come in how the Argentinian government,

extension in North Carolina.

gigatons of CO2 equivalent.114 The Argentinian government had pegged

and these foreign banks, choose to emerge from the pandemic. Insteadbillion budget, the project is now three years behind schedule, only

a result, construction is stalled and MVP currently lacks permits to crosshopes of economic salvation on the project, looking to export much ofof attempting to revive the fracking industry, the recovery must be inhalf-complete, and has more than doubled in cost, making it the mosthundreds of waterways along its route.123

the oil and gas and use the proceeds to pay down the country’s nationalfavor of a just energy transition into a sustainable Argentinian economy.

expensive fracked gas pipeline in the United States.

113

119

Originally proposed in 2015 with a $3.5

State and federal courts have rescinded multiple necessary permits; as

120With no clear path to completion and a price tag of $20 million

debt. Hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies have been provided tothe oil and gas companies operating in Vaca Muerta.115 This approach

MVP construction has caused long-lasting harm to clean water andper month to simply maintain the unfinished project, MVP and MVP

comes at the expense of the Indigenous Mapuche communities who arehabitat for multiple endangered species. State agencies have penalized

Southgate are increasingly a losing bet for banks and investors backing

opposing the project on their land.116

MVP more than $2 million for over 350 environmental violations

the project.124 Adding to these financial woes, dozens of groups haveof all kinds, including improper erosion control and stormwaterlaunched a new DivestMVP Coalition to pressure MVP’s funders —The companies active in Vaca Muerta include subsidiaries of global

mismanagement. If completed, the pipeline could result in 128.7 million

including Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and JPMorgan Chase — tomajors such as BP and Total, as well as the Argentinian state-owned

metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually — equivalent todrop their support of this dirty, dangerous, and unnecessary fracked gas

company YPF. Since the Paris Agreement was adopted five years ago,building 37 new coal-fired power plants.121 Most damningly, the gas

pipeline.125

the top bankers of the nearly 40 companies fracking in Vaca Muerta arecarried by the pipeline is simply not needed, as the bulk of shipping

JPMorgan Chase, Citi, Bank of America, HSBC, and Barclays.117

contracts for gas it would carry are held by the same companies
developing it, and regional gas demand is dropping.122

P H O T O : Anne Way Bernard

P H O T O : Martín Álvarez Mullally78

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

79

CASE STUDY
Coastal GasLink

In British Columbia, construction is ongoing on the Coastal GasLink

Of the banks covered in this report, the following proved thepipeline, which will bring fracked gas across 420 miles (675 kilometers)

ineffectiveness of their due diligence procedures by directly funding thefrom the northeastern part of the province to the LNG Canada terminal,

Coastal GasLink project:132

to be liquefied and exported to Asia.126 The Wet’suwet’en, the Indigenous
people of the area, have long fought to assert their sovereignty and»Australia: NAB

stop fossil fuel companies from trespassing on their lands, and have»

Canada: Bank of Montreal, CIBC, RBC, Scotiabank, TD

faced militarized police raids in opposing this project.127 The risks have»

China: Bank of China, China Construction Bank, ICBC

compounded during the COVID-19 pandemic, as infections spread at»

Japan: Mizuho, MUFG, SMBC Group, SuMi TRUST

worker camps deemed “essential.”128»

U.S.: Bank of America, Citi, JPMorgan Chase, Truist

And yet in May 2020, TC Energy, the company behind the pipeline(and the infamous Keystone XL pipeline recently canceled by the Biden
administration) secured a $4.7 billion loan to build Coastal GasLink.129
Twenty-six banks signed up to directly fund this pipeline’s construction,in the midst of the pandemic, even though the project has failed
to receive the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent of the five clans of
the Wet’suwet’en.130 In October, the banks upped Coastal GasLink’s
allowance by an additional $122 million.

131

80

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

A water is life banner at the Gidim’ten Checkpoint; Land defenders at
Unist’ot’en Camp; Freda Huson, Chief Howilhkat of Unist’ot’en; Wedzin Kwa
river, the headwaters of Wet’suwet’en territory. P H O T O S : Michael Toledano

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

81

Who's Banking on LNG?
The LNG export industry’s projected expansion coming to fruition would likely put thegoal of limiting warming to 1.5°C out of reach. The climate cannot afford locking in
dependence on fossil gas use via massive LNG terminals that harm communities andecosystems.133

LIQUEFIED
NATURAL GASWORST BANKS BY TOTALLNG FINANCING (2016–2020)

MORGAN STANLEYPOLICY SCORE:
0.5 OUT OF 18

CITI

POLICY SCORE:
0.5 OUT OF 18

JPMORGAN CHASEPOLICY SCORE:
0 OUT OF 18$3.0 B$2.5 B$2.0 B$1.5 B$1.0 B$0.5 B$0.0 B
16

17

18

19

20

16

17

18

19

20

16

17

18

O N

C L I M A T E

1920

P H O T O : Bildagentur Zoonar GmbH / shutterstock

B A N K I N G

C H A O S 2021

83

LEAGUE TABLE - Banking on LNG
Bank financing for 30 top liquefied natural gas import and export companies

RANK

TOTAL

BANK

2016-2020

2020

2020

COMPARED TO

2016

RANK

BANK

2020

2020

COMPARED TO

2016

1

MORGAN STANLEY$8.620 B$1.346 B

31

WESTPAC$787 M-

2

CITI$8.193 B$1.990 B

32

WELLS FARGO$719 M$331 M

3

JPMORGAN CHASE$7.811 B$2.043 B

33

COMMONWEALTH BANK

$560 M$74 M

4

BANK OF AMERICA$6.555 B$2.072 B

34

UNICREDIT$518 M$27 M

5

SMBC GROUP$6.540 B$1.489 B

35

DANSKE BANK

$508 M$77 M

6

MIZUHO$6.460 B$1.709 B

36

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

$472 M$62 M

7

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE$6.182 B$1.318 B

37

CIBC$461 M$252 M

8

MUFG$5.094 B$1.216 B

38

NAB$406 M$134 M

9

BNP PARIBAS$4.514 B$2.015 B

39

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA$348 M$165 M

10

HSBC$4.346 B$1.732 B

40

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK$300 M

$11 M

11

RBC

$3.739 B$688 M

41

CHINA MINSHENG BANK

$282 M$68 M

12

BARCLAYS$3.724 B$1.067 B

42

COMMERZBANK$235 M$30 M

13

GOLDMAN SACHS$3.706 B$837 M

43

SUMI TRUST$200 M$200 M

14

UBS$3.629 B$3 M

44

NATWEST$175 M$44 M

15

SCOTIABANK$3.289 B$709 M45

DZ BANK$162 M$87 M

16

SANTANDER$3.203 B$1.072 B

46

INDUSTRIAL BANK$132 M$132 M

17

SBERBANK$3.069 B-

47

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK

$98 M

$98 M

18

CRÉDIT AGRICOLE$2.999 B$920 M

48

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

$96 M

$51 M

19

ICBC

$2.790 B$804 M

49

U.S. BANK

$80 M

$38 M

20

ING

$2.670 B$269 M

50

CHINA CITIC BANK

$79 M

$78 M

21

CREDIT SUISSE$2.483 B$247 M

51

CRÉDIT MUTUEL

$62 M

-

22

BPCE/NATIXIS$2.159 B$666 M

52

TD

$56 M

-

23

BANK OF CHINA$1.956 B$253 M

53

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA

$43 M

< $1M

24

BBVA

$1.916 B$571 M

54

PING AN

$41 M

$41 M

25

STANDARD CHARTERED$1.869 B$870 M

55

BANK OF MONTREAL

$20 M

-

26

INTESA SANPAOLO$1.564 B$275 M

56

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

$17 M

$17 M

27

DEUTSCHE BANK

$1.328 B$443 MRABOBANK--28

LLOYDS$966 M$58 M

SHINHAN

-

-

29

ANZ

$922 M$43 M

STATE BANK OF INDIA

-

-

30

NORDEA$886 M$77 M

TRUIST--$120.044 B$28.817 B

GRAND TOTAL

84

TOTAL

2016-2020

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

85

POLICY SCORES - LNG
See page 139 for the scoring criteria.

LNG POLICY SCORE (OUT OF 18)BANK3CRÉDIT AGRICOLE0UNICREDIT

3

CREDIT SUISSE

0CRÉDIT MUTUEL1DANSKE BANK0RABOBANK

1DEUTSCHE BANK

0

U.S. BANK

1DZ BANK

0

BPCE/NATIXIS

0.5

GOLDMAN SACHS

0

CITI

0.5

HSBC

0

COMMERZBANK

0.5

ICBC

0

COMMONWEALTH BANK

0.5

INDUSTRIAL BANK0MORGAN STANLEY

0.5

ING

0

NATWEST

0.5

INTESA SANPAOLO

0

SANTANDER

0.5

JPMORGAN CHASE

0

SHINHAN

0.5

LLOYDS0SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE

0.5

MIZUHO

0

UBS

0.5

MUFG

0

WELLS FARGO

0.5

NAB

0

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA

0NORDEA

0ANZ

0PING AN0

BANK OF AMERICA0POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA

0BANK OF CHINA

0

RBC

0

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

0SBERBANK0BANK OF MONTREAL0

SCOTIABANK0BARCLAYS

0

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

0

BBVA

0

SMBC GROUP

0

CHINA CITIC BANK0STANDARD CHARTERED

0

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK0STATE BANK OF INDIA

0

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK0SUMI TRUST0

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

0

TD

0

CHINA MINSHENG BANK0TRUIST

0CIBC

0WESTPAC04.5

LNG POINTS EARNED86

LNG POLICY SCORE (OUT OF 18)

BANK

BNP PARIBAS0B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

9

13.5

LNG POINTS NOT EARNED

18

»

0

4.5

9

LNG POINTS EARNED

13.5

18

LNG POINTS NOT EARNEDB A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

87

CASE STUDYCASE STUDY

Mozambique LNG Projects

Energía Costa Azul LNG
North American fracked gas, especially from the Permian Basin, is one

The project, begun as a joint venture by two Sempra Energy subsidiaries

The LNG industry in Cabo Delgado is currently made up of three major

Project finance for the Rovuma LNG project has not yet been securedof the world’s major carbon bombs: its continued expansion is flatly— Sempra LNG and IEnova — would convert an existing LNG importoffshore and partly onshore projects to extract and then liquefy gas forand the final investment decision has been postponed.150 Mozambique

Exporting North

facility into an export terminal, sited on what had previously been theexport: Rovuma LNG, led by Eni and ExxonMobil; Mozambique LNG, led

LNG and Coral South FLNG did reach financial close with direct support

American fracked gas in the form of liquefied natural gas is particularly

last undeveloped stretch of coastline between Tijuana and Ensenada,

by Total; and Coral South floating LNG (FLNG), led by Eni.

from 14 of the 60 banks profiled in this report:151

damaging to the climate, with a growing body of research showing thatrich with marine life.

incompatible with limiting climate change to 1.5°C.

134

144

140

The gas isn’t expected to be extracted until 2024, and only 12% of it»

China: Bank of China, ICBCBanks that funded the project include BBVA, BPCE/Natixis, Mizuho,

will be used in Mozambique — and yet communities in the gas region»

France: BNP Paribas, BPCE/Natixis, Crédit Agricole,

The industry has been desperate to build LNG export facilities on the

Scotiabank, and SMBC Group.

have reportedly been suffering from the impacts of the industry for

Pacific coast in order to cut shipping costs to Asia. But community

project sponsored by a company with serious red flags in its public track

years. They have been forced to move from their homes to make way for»

UK: HSBC, Standard Charteredopposition to fracked gas export infrastructure on the West Coast of therecord. Sempra Energy rammed through the Agua Prieta pipeline in the

Total’s onshore support facilities and airport, housed in the 27-square-»

U.S.: JPMorgan Chase

United States and Canada has been fierce, as the Jordan Cove LNG

face of fierce opposition by the Yaqui in Sonora, Mexico.142 In 2015, itsmile (70-square-kilometer) Afungi LNG Park.145 Total relocated over»Japan: Mizuho, MUFG, SMBC Group, SuMi TRUST

Aliso Canyon gas leak was the single worst fossil gas leak in U.S. history,

550 families from their homes to build this park, moving fisherfolk far»

Italy: UniCredit

and possibly the single worst greenhouse gas accident in U.S. history.143

from the ocean and compensating farmers with land a tenth of the

LNG may be worse than coal in the short term.

135

and Coastal GasLink pipeline fights have shown.

136

The industry has

been eyeing Mexico's Pacific coast as an alternative, and after years of141

In joining this deal, banks backed a

Société Générale

pushing, California-based Sempra Energy reached a final investment

size of what they’d had, far from their new houses.146 Formerly self-

Mozambique remains one of the world’s poorest, least developed,

decision on its proposed Energía Costa Azul (ECA) LNG export terminal,

sustaining villages have been left without livelihoods and are reliant

and most heavily indebted countries — 70% of its population has noin Baja California, in November 2020.

on food parcels.

137

147

Total’s promises of jobs have proven to be hot air:the only jobs community members have received have been shortECA LNG was the only North American fracked gas export terminal toterm construction, cleaning, and other unskilled jobs.

reach financial close in 2020, showing its backers' determination toviolence already faced by the region given the ongoing violent conflict inresume business as usual emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic.138

Cabo Delgado province, with Mozambique LNG communities also face

The project required the first-ever gas export permit from Mexico.139

brutality from the heavy-handed military, whose priority is protecting the148

On top of theelectricity access, and 40% are illiterate.152 Development of Mozambique
LNG and associated projects has yet to solve any of these challenges,
and the gamble that it will is, as one article calls it, “a bet [that] can only
pay off on a dangerously overheated planet.”153

industry.149

P H O T O : Justiça Ambiental/Friends of the Earth Mozambique

88

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

89

Who's Banking on COAL MINING?
The 13 Chinese banks in this report make up fully 80% of all coal mining financing
analyzed, and all lack policies to proactively restrict such support.

COAL
MINING

WORST BANKS BY TOTALCOAL MINING FINANCING (2016–2020)

INDUSTRIAL BANKPOLICY SCORE:
0.5 OUT OF 32$6 B

CHINA CONSTRUCTIONBANKBANK OF CHINA
POLICY SCORE:
0 OUT OF 32

POLICY SCORE:
0 OUT OF 32

$5 B
$4 B
$3 B
$2 B
$1 B
$0 B
P H O T O : lcrms / shutterstock

16

17

18

19

20

16

17

18

19

20

B A N K I N G

16

17

18

19

O N

C L I M A T E

20

C H A O S 2021

91

LEAGUE TABLE - Banking on Coal Mining
Bank financing for 30 top coal mining companies

RANK

TOTAL

BANK

2016-2020

2020

2020

COMPARED TO

2016

RANK

BANK

2020

2020

COMPARED TO

2016

1

INDUSTRIAL BANK

$17.472 B$3.354 B

31

HSBC$418 M$86 M

2

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

$12.451 B$1.958 B

32

INTESA SANPAOLO$414 M-

3

BANK OF CHINA$12.228 B$1.946 B

33

SBERBANK$404 M$54 M

4SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

$9.048 B$2.547 B

34

SANTANDER$396 M$86 M

5

CHINA CITIC BANK

$6.978 B$1.411 B

35

NATWEST$386 M$86 M

6

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS$6.976 B$1.428 B

36

RBC$382 M

$86 M

7

ICBC

$6.604 B$672 M37

TD$377 M$159 M

8

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK

$6.116 B$2.518 B

38

MIZUHO$370 M$90 M

9PING AN$5.735 B$2.336 B

39

CRÉDIT AGRICOLE$369 M$86 M

10

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

$4.862 B$359 M

40

BBVA$351 M$86 M

11

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA$4.573 B$1.285 B

41

NAB$326 M$86 M

12

CREDIT SUISSE$2.405 B$227 M42

SCOTIABANK$304 M$86 M

13

DEUTSCHE BANK

$2.257 B$600 M

42

COMMONWEALTH BANK

$304 M$86 M

14

CHINA MINSHENG BANK

$2.021 B$603 M

44

SMBC GROUP$299 M$86 M

15

JPMORGAN CHASE$1.899 B$100 M

45

ANZ$283 M

$86 M

16

CITI

$1.599 B$208 M

46

RABOBANK$194 M-

17

GOLDMAN SACHS$1.537 B$157 M

47

STATE BANK OF INDIA$143 M-

18

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA$973 M$806 M

48

NORDEA

$87 M

-

19

COMMERZBANK$962 M$227 M

49

CIBC

$35 M

-

20

MORGAN STANLEY$900 M$86 M

50

LLOYDS

$26 M

-

21

UBS

$810 M$86 M

51

DZ BANK

$26 M

-

22

BANK OF MONTREAL$781 M$159 M

52

WESTPAC

$4 M

-

23

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE$684 M$86 M

BPCE/NATIXIS

-

-

24

BANK OF AMERICA$679 M$264 M

CRÉDIT MUTUEL

-

-

25

UNICREDIT$673 M$86 M

DANSKE BANK

-

-

26

MUFG

$545 M$86 M

SHINHAN--27

BARCLAYS$510 M$181 MSUMI TRUST

-

-

28

STANDARD CHARTERED$469 M$154 M

TRUIST

-

-

29

ING

$446 M$86 M

U.S. BANK

-

-

30

BNP PARIBAS$425 M$86 M

WELLS FARGO--$119.512 B$25.352 B

GRAND TOTAL

92

TOTAL

2016-2020

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

93

POLICY SCORES - Coal Mining
See page 143 for the scoring criteria.

COAL MINING POLICY SCORE (OUT OF 32)

BANK
30

COMMONWEALTH BANK

6

BPCE/NATIXIS

30

DZ BANK

6

CRÉDIT MUTUEL30RABOBANK

6

UNICREDIT

30

U.S. BANK

6CRÉDIT AGRICOLE27

BANK OF MONTREAL

5

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE26

NORDEA

3

BBVA

17

MIZUHO1

SANTANDER

17

MUFG

1

ING

15

SMBC GROUP

1NATWEST

15

TD

1

STANDARD CHARTERED

13

CHINA MINSHENG BANK

0.5

BANK OF AMERICA

12

INDUSTRIAL BANK

0.5

BARCLAYS

12

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA

0.5

UBS

12

SHINHAN

0.5

INTESA SANPAOLO

11

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA

0

CITI

9.5

BANK OF CHINA

0

DEUTSCHE BANK

9.5

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

0GOLDMAN SACHS

9.5

CHINA CITIC BANK0DANSKE BANK

9CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK0LLOYDS

9CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK

0

NAB

9

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

0

ANZ

8.5

CIBC

0

HSBC

8.5

ICBC

0

JPMORGAN CHASE

8PING AN0

WELLS FARGO8SBERBANK0

MORGAN STANLEY

7.5

SCOTIABANK0COMMERZBANK7SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK0CREDIT SUISSE

7STATE BANK OF INDIA

0

RBC

6.5

SUMI TRUST0

WESTPAC

6.5

TRUIST

0

8

COAL MINING POINTS EARNED94

COAL MINING POLICY SCORE (OUT OF 32)

BANK

BNP PARIBAS0B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

16

24

32

COAL MINING POINTS NOT EARNED

»

0

8

COAL MINING POINTS EARNED

16

24

32

COAL MINING POINTS NOT EARNEDB A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

95

CASE STUDYCASE STUDY

Hasdeo Arand

Carmichael Coal Mine
An Australian subsidiary of the Indian coal mining company Adani

Apart from this potential project loan, other banks remain tied to the

The Hasdeo Arand Coalfield lies in the Hasdeo Arand forest, one

From October to December 2019, thousands of villagers protested

has started to construct a giant coal mine in the Galilee Basin inproject. Bowen Rail Company, a subsidiary of Adani Ports and Specialof the largest intact forests in Central India and an active elephantmining in the area. The protest ended in December 2019 as attention

Queensland, one of the largest untapped coal reserves in the world.154

Economic Zone, will reportedly transport coal from the mine to thecorridor.165 The coalfield is spread over 1,167 square miles (1,878 square

turned to local government elections, and then was not resumed due to

The Carmichael mine and related infrastructure, if brought into

Abbot Point export terminal

kilometers), of which 933 miles (1,502 kilometers) had forest cover as ofthe onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.171

operation, would facilitate the opening of more mining projects in thefinancing for Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone supports thebasin, and would drive build-out of coal ports along the Great Barrier

Carmichael coal mine.

Reef coast — such as the existing Abbot Point terminal.155

Suisse, JPMorgan Chase, Mizuho, MUFG, and Standard Chartered

In 2019, India’s Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change

coal blocks in the Hasdeo Arand forests up for auction. Building on

162

161

— meaning there is potential risk that

2014.

166

Bank of America, Barclays, Citi, Credit

In June 2020, the Indian government proposed putting another five

all underwrote bond issuances for this company in the second half ofgave Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited (RVUNL) approval

the years of resistance by the Indigenous communities residing in the

The Wangan and Jagalingou people, traditional owners of the land,

2020163 — even though most of them (Bank of America, Barclays, Citi,

to mine coal in the 3-square-mile Parsa block of the Hasdeo Arand

Hasdeo Arand forest, and after objections by the state government,

have not consented to the Carmichael mine, which they’ve been

Credit Suisse, JPMorgan Chase, and Standard Chartered) have madeCoalfield. RVUNL is the same public sector power corporation thatin August 2020 the mining ministry took those blocks off the auction

fighting for years.156 In the fight to stop the project, Adrian Burragubba,

commitments either not to fund coal mines generally, or not to fundsince 2013 had already been mining in the Hasdeo Arand forest

list.172 While this is a temporary respite, the struggle of the Hasdeo

spokesman for the Wangan and Jagalingou family council, was

Carmichael coal and the Abbot Point port in particular.164 These banks

through a joint venture with Adani Enterprises.167 For the most part,

Arand communities will likely continue so long as the threat of futurebankrupted after Adani sought reimbursement for court costs.

urgently need to cut ties with Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone if

these companies are financed by state-owned Indian banks — thoughdevelopment looms over the forest.

they want to be wholly sure that they are not supporting the disastrous

Standard Chartered lent to a mining-related Adani subsidiary in

Carmichael project.

2017.168

157

Over 40 banks have publicly committed to refrain from financing theCarmichael mine.

158

Local community leader Bajrang Singh Pakra was quoted in The

However, in December 2020 it was reported that

State Bank of India is ready to offer Adani a loan of approximately $678
International investors, including BlackRock,

Ecologist explaining, “This jungle, it is the link between the past, present
Indian law requires the consent of the gram sabhas (village councils)

and the future, between our ancestors, us and our future generations.”

for development in the Hasdeo Arand forests — but impacted

Jainandan Singh Porte, another local, stated: “They use our coal toAmundi, Axa, and Storebrand have spoken out against the loan.160 As ofpeople have alleged that this step was bypassed.169 Local villagers

generate electricity and the shame is that we only recently got it two

early 2021, it is unclear whether the deal will go ahead.

have formed Hasdeo Arand Bachao Sangharsh Samiti (Save Hasdeo

and a half years ago. They say that they cannot give us a railway or

Arand Campaign Committee), a community movement that includes

telephone line because the forest is too dense, yet there is now a coal

Indigenous people and traditional forest dwellers who want to protect

train that runs through the forest, all day, every day.”173

million for the project.

159

the forest from the impacts of coal mining.

170

P H O T O : Stop Adani / flickr

96

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

97

CASE STUDY
Adaro

Adaro Energy is one of the largest coal producers in Indonesia,
producing over 54 million tons of coal per year.

174

Adaro is a major

the company will diversify or phase out coal.177 In fact, in 2019, Adaro
generated 92% of its revenue from coal mining, 6% from mining services,supplier to the global seaborne thermal coal market. Its coal is used

and the remainder from other activities like coal power generation,

throughout Europe, Asia, and the Americas.

including its involvement in the controversial Batang coal-fired power
plant in Indonesia.178

Adaro Energy operates the largest single-site coal mine in Kalimantan,
Indonesia. In January 2021, flooding in South Kalimantan killed 24

Citi, MUFG, and UBS were the most recent banks in this report’s scope

people and forced nearly 100,000 people to flee their homes.175 Local

to fund the company, underwriting a bond issuance in late 2019.179 As

environmental activists are questioning whether this flooding is linked

of February 2021, Adaro is reportedly seeking a $400 million loan from ato the massive deforestation and mining activities near the watershed

syndicate of banks — an opportunity for these and other banks to makearea.

clear that they will no longer fund Adaro’s harmful coal operations.180

176

In 2017, Adaro stated that it would diversify its business away fromthermal coal mining, yet its latest annual report does not detail how

P H O T O S : JATAM - Indonesia Mining Advocacy Network

98

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

99

Who's Banking on COAL POWER?

COAL
POWER

A small but growing number of banks have adopted best practice coal power policies,
which include prohibiting funding for all companies developing new coal plants, both
new and current clients. These restrictions are yet to be adopted by the sector’s biggest
funders.

WORST BANKS BY TOTALCOAL POWER FINANCING (2016–2020)

BANK OF CHINAICBCPOLICY SCORE:
0 OUT OF 32

POLICY SCORE:
0 OUT OF 32

16

16

CHINA CITIC BANKPOLICY SCORE:

0.5 OUT OF 32

$8 B
$7 B
$6 B
$5 B
$4 B
$3 B
$2 B
$1 B
$0 B
P H O T O : Engel.ac / shutterstock

17

18

19

20

17

18

19

20

B A N K I N G

16

17

18

19

O N

C L I M A T E

20

C H A O S 2021

101

LEAGUE TABLE - Banking on Coal PowerBank financing for 30 top coal power companies

RANK

TOTAL

BANK

2016-2020

2020

2020

COMPARED TO

2016

RANK

BANK

2020

2020

COMPARED TO

2016

1

BANK OF CHINA$22.785 B$3.320 B

31

STATE BANK OF INDIA$1.373 B$350 M

2

ICBC$22.372 B$3.097 B

32

CRÉDIT AGRICOLE$1.035 B$390 M

3

CHINA CITIC BANK

$18.415 B$2.929 B

33

TRUIST$986 M$408 M

4

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA$16.067 B$3.455 B

34

TD$872 M$233 M

5

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

$15.876 B$2.487 B35

ANZ$744 M$109 M

6

PING AN$13.455 B$2.381 B

36

U.S. BANK$697 M$340 M

7

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

$12.373 B$2.486 B

37

DEUTSCHE BANK

$488 M$48 M

8SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

$9.587 B$1.575 B

38

SANTANDER$393 M-

9

INDUSTRIAL BANK

$8.566 B$1.668 B

39

SUMI TRUST$366 M$226 M

10

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK

$7.939 B$1.667 B

40

INTESA SANPAOLO$245 M

-

11

CITI

$5.754 B$1.049 B

41

BBVA$183 M

$27 M

12

MUFG

$5.728 B$1.052 B

42

COMMERZBANK$135 M$44 M

13

MIZUHO$4.181 B$796 M

43

COMMONWEALTH BANK

$124 M-

14

BARCLAYS$4.076 B$763 M

43

NAB$124 M-

15

JPMORGAN CHASE$3.417 B$648 M

45

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE$124 M-

16

BANK OF AMERICA$3.212 B$841 M

46

UNICREDIT

$60 M

-

17

HSBC

$3.187 B$550 M47

WESTPAC

$50 M

-

18

CREDIT SUISSE$3.097 B$578 M48

DZ BANK

$46 M

-

19

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS$3.075 B$484 M

48

LLOYDS

$46 M

-

20

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA$2.873 B$881 M

50

SBERBANK

$44 M

$17 M

21

WELLS FARGO$2.556 B$619 M

51

NATWEST

$23 M

-

22

SMBC GROUP$2.125 B$779 M

52

BPCE/NATIXIS

$9 M

$4 M

23

STANDARD CHARTERED$2.113 B$400 M

BANK OF MONTREAL

-

-

24

SCOTIABANK$1.805 B$326 M

CIBC

-

-

25

RBC

$1.773 B$509 M

CRÉDIT MUTUEL

-

-

26

MORGAN STANLEY$1.687 B$139 MDANSKE BANK

-

-

27

UBS

$1.558 B

$46 M

ING

-

-

28

GOLDMAN SACHS$1.498 B$428 M

NORDEA--

29

CHINA MINSHENG BANK

$1.452 B$732 MRABOBANK--30

BNP PARIBAS$1.404 B$171 M

SHINHAN--$212.174 B$39.052 B

GRAND TOTAL

102

TOTAL

2016-2020

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

103

POLICY SCORES - Coal PowerSee page 145 for the scoring criteria.

COAL POWER POLICY SCORE (OUT OF 32)

BANK
30

BANK OF MONTREALCRÉDIT MUTUEL30DANSKE BANK

5UNICREDIT30

JPMORGAN CHASE

4.5

CRÉDIT AGRICOLE

27

SHINHAN

4.5

BNP PARIBAS

25

MIZUHO

3.5

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE

23

MUFG

3.5

CITI

19

SMBC GROUP

3.5

BBVA

17

WESTPAC

3.5

NATWEST

15

NORDEA

3

STANDARD CHARTERED

15

SUMI TRUST

3

ING

13

NAB

2.5

BARCLAYS

12

CHINA CITIC BANK

0.5

DEUTSCHE BANK

12CHINA MINSHENG BANK

0.5

SANTANDER

12INDUSTRIAL BANK

0.5

ANZ

10.5

POSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA

0.5

RABOBANK

10.5

TD

0.5

5

LLOYDS

9AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA

0

UBS

9

BANK OF CHINA

0

RBC

8.5

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS0MORGAN STANLEY

7.5

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK0COMMERZBANK7CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK0CREDIT SUISSE

7CHINA MERCHANTS BANK0INTESA SANPAOLO

7

CIBC

0

BANK OF AMERICA

6.5

ICBC

0

GOLDMAN SACHS

6.5

PING AN

0

HSBC

6.5

SBERBANK

0

U.S. BANK

6.5

SCOTIABANK0WELLS FARGO

6.5

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK0COMMONWEALTH BANK

6STATE BANK OF INDIA0

DZ BANK

6

TRUIST

0

8

COAL POWER POINTS EARNED104

COAL POWER POLICY SCORE (OUT OF 32)

BANK

BPCE/NATIXIS

0

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

16

24

COAL POWER POINTS NOT EARNED

32

»

0

8

COAL POWER POINTS EARNED

16

24

32

COAL POWER POINTS NOT EARNEDB A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

105

CASE STUDYCASE STUDY

Matarbari

Jawa 9 and 10

Jawa 9 and 10 is a 2,000-megawatt coal power project proposed

The total cost of Jawa 9 and 10 is estimated at around $3.4 billion,

The Matarbari coal projects are part of a proposed power complex on

plants. Families have been displaced by the land acquisition process,to be built in Indonesia’s Banten province, an area already saturated

and the sponsors of the project are the Korea Electric Power Company

the remote Matarbari Island, in Cox’s Bazar district on the southeastern

have lost traditional livelihoods in salt cultivation and shrimp farming,with coal plants. Reports have highlighted the horrendous air pollution(KEPCO), Indonesia’s state utility Perusahaan Listrik Negara (PLN), andcoast of Bangladesh. The first power plant, Matarbari Phase I, isand say they have, to date, not been adequately compensated.190

and associated respiratory and skin diseases affecting the local

the private Indonesian company Barito Pacific. KEPCO decided to invest

being developed by Coal Power Generation Company Bangladesh

Construction of the plant has blocked water gates and drainage

population.181 Modelling of health impacts has estimated that Jawain Jawa 9 and 10 despite the fact that a pre-feasibility study required by

Limited (CPGCBL) and Sumitomo Corporation, and is already undersystems, contributing to the waterlogging of 22 villages and the

9 and 10 will contribute to 4,700 premature deaths over its operating

the Korean government estimated that the project could have a lifetime

construction. Matarbari Phase II will likely be built by Sumitomodrowning of five children.191 In addition, pollution from Matarbari Phase

negative profitability of $43.58 million, meaning a potential $7 million

Corporation, Toshiba, and IHI Corporation of Japan. The third proposed

I and II and Kohelia is projected to contribute to over 10,000 prematureloss for KEPCO.

plant is Kohelia, a Sembcorp and CPGCBL project. The three projects

deaths over the projects’ operational period.192

lifetime.

182

Over the years of development, local fisherfolk have had to

go increasingly further offshore to catch fish, and worry another coal

186

power plant will only exacerbate the problem.

together will add up to 3,100 megawatts of coal power capacity.

183

188

In July 2020, a syndicate of banks from across Asia, including Bank

Despite these impacts and the political risk faced by these projects,

The pollution and other impacts caused by Jawa 9 and 10 would beof China, came together on a $2.5 billion, 15-year loan to fund thisWhile construction on Matarbari Phase I has already started, there isJapan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) provided finance for

especially egregious given that much of the electricity produced by Jawa

massive polluting coal power plant.

a chance that the Matarbari Phase II and Kohelia power plants will

Matarbari Phase I and was also asked to provide finance for Phase II,be canceled under the proposed new energy plan from Bangladesh’s

and SMBC Group is acting as financial advisor for Matarbari Phase I

Ministry of Power, Energy and Mineral Resources. If the plan is approved,

and the Kohelia project.193

9 and 10 may go unused. Indonesia’s electricity demand was estimatedto come in 9.7% below expectations in 2020,

184

and the Jawa-Bali grid,where Jawa 9 and 10 is located, was projected to be oversupplied by up
to 41.5%.

187

all but five coal projects across the country will be canceled.

189

185

Impacts from the construction of Matarbari Phase I are reportedly
already being felt by local communities and would be further
aggravated by the construction of the Matarbari Phase II and Kohelia

CASE STUDYEMBA Hunutlu
EMBA Hunutlu is a 1,320-megawatt coal power plant under construction

likely also have a severe impact on the Yumurtalik biodiversity hotspot,

The plant is located in the country’s Iskenderun Bay

which is a reproduction zone for marine turtles that are protected byin southern Turkey.

194

area, which is already suffering from air pollution caused by industrial

three different international conventions.199

facilities including a gas power plant, two coal power plants, and a steel
factory.195 Three new coal plants are proposed or under construction, of
which EMBA Hunutlu is closest to completion.

196

Once operational, EMBA

The project is a joint venture between China’s Shanghai Electric Power
Company, Avic-International Project Engineering Company, andHunutlu will run on 2.8 million tons of imported coal per year and will

two Turkish investors.200 It is expected to cost $1.7 billion and is partly

emit more than 200 million tons of CO2 during its projected lifespan.

financed by the China Development Bank, ICBC, and Bank of China via

197

a 15-year loan.201 EMBA Hunutlu is one of China’s largest investments
The entire Iskenderun Bay area, including the two million inhabitants inin Turkey and is a project under China’s Belt and Road Initiative.202 In

the nearby city of Adana, will be affected by the increased air pollution

the summer of 2020, more than 20 NGOs called on the Chinese banks

coming from EMBA Hunutlu. Studies estimate that its operations willbehind the project to withdraw.203

contribute to 2,000 deaths over its 40-year lifetime.198 EMBA Hunutlu will

P H O T O S : Dhemas Reviyanto Atmodjo / TrendAsia;
Melvinas Priananda / TrendAsia

106

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

107

FINANCED EMISSIONSAnd The Road to Glasgow

The banks evaluated in this report are among the world’s major drivers of climate chaos. Their
single biggest contribution to climate change is their financing of fossil fuels, which this report
has detailed. Banks’ most urgent task in fighting the climate crisis is therefore ending support
for the expansion of fossil fuels and committing to a 1.5°C-aligned phase-out of fossil fuelfinancing. On that score, while banks have taken some important steps, especially on coal,
their policies remain insufficient, as this report has also shown.

for climate stability. But, as an important

capture that are absurd on their face, and toestablished that the most prudent pathway

recent report on net zero from a coalition oflock in emissions sacrifice zones. Furthermore,

for doing so requires global emissions to be

climate justice groups, including Indigenous

many of these corporations — including many

almost halved from 2010 levels by 2030, andEnvironmental Network, reminds us, “Right now,of the banks in the scope of this report — arebrought to effectively zero by 2050.

the only approaches to deliver real carbon

actively fueling deforestation, destroying theremoval are based in nature: ecosystem

single most crucial natural carbon sink.212 (TheTo limit global warming to 1.5°C, every major

restoration and ecological management ofnext section explores this critical issue of theemitter must align its emissions trajectory

working forests, croplands, and grasslands.”210“net” in “net zero” in more detail.)with those benchmarks. That includes global

The report, “Chasing Carbon Unicorns,” calls

financial institutions, especially given thefor “real zero” as a north star: “reducing

If long-term financed emissions commitments

207

Paris Agreement’s aim of “making financeemissions to as close to zero as possible

are to be more than a fig leaf for delayed

The current wave of bank commitments to “netgreenwashing. (While it is beyond the scope of

In assessing financed emissions commitments

flows consistent with a pathway towards low

and using ecological approaches to remove

action on climate change, they must urgently

zero by 2050,” as well as related policies likethis report, the same applies to bank financing— of which “net zero by 2050” is currently

greenhouse gas emissions.”

residual emissions.” In fact, a precautionary

be supplemented to actually bring banks inmeasuring and disclosing financed emissions,of deforestation, given that deforestation is thethe most visible element — we should recall

wave of “net zero by 2050” commitments

approach to trajectory-setting demands

line with a 1.5°C-aligned trajectory. “Principles

must be seen in this context. These steps aresecond-leading cause of climate change after

where “zero” and “2050” come from. At the

represents a tacit acknowledgement by banks

exactly this: banks must not rely on negative-

for Paris-Aligned Financial Institutions,”

no substitute for, and must not delay adoption

fossil fuels.205)

Paris climate conference in December 2015,that they too are major emitters. This is longemissions technologies which we simply

released in September 2020 by more than 60

the climate movement, led by island nations

208

The current

overdue. In fact, for years banks have resisted

cannot assume will succeed at scale (andclimate and rights groups from around thea climate commitment for 2050 should be

Furthermore, no additional analysis isand other communities on the front lines of theacknowledging their harmful climate impact

bank regulators must ensure that banks do notworld, offers a number of criteria for assessing

taken seriously unless it also acts on fossil

necessary for banks to know that curbing theirclimate crisis, raised the world’s ambition and(their contributions to climate change) at all,rely on hypothetical future technologies).

financed emissions policies. The following

fuels in 2021 — banks must immediately end

fossil fuel financing will reduce their financed

established staying below 1.5°C temperature

preferring to instead focus almost entirely

support for fossil expansion, and commit toemissions, and in fact it is the most reliablerise as a global goal enshrined in the Parison climate risk (their vulnerability to climate

In practice, the need for some degree ofof play, based on those Paris Principles, withthe date by which their fossil financing will

and shovel-ready way for them to do so. While

Agreement itself, winning a commitmentchange).209

negative emissions has been seized on by

the clear takeaway being that banks’ present

establishing financed emissions standards will

for a special Intergovernmental Panel on

corporations as an excuse to delay real cuts inpolicies fall dangerously short.

by 2050 commitment and treats that as abe important going forward, the climate simply

Climate Change (IPCC) report on meeting

It is also vital to interrogate the “net” in “netemissions, to set emissions reduction targets

license to continue with fossil fuel financing

will not offer us a grace period while these arethat goal.206 In October 2018, that special

zero.” The 2018 IPCC report notes that somethat fall far short of what the science demands,

business as usual should, and will, be seen as

implemented.

report underlined the moral urgency of limiting

degree of negative emissions will be necessary

to rely on assumptions about future carbonof, policies on fossil fuels. No bank making

reach zero.

204

108

global warming to a maximum of 1.5°C andAny bank that makes a net zeroB A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

211

presents an initial analysis of the current statecontinued on page 110»

P H O T O : Engel.ac / shutterstock

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

109

 Commitment to zero out financed
emissions.

It is not only the endpoint of the emissions

 Disavowal of discredited “net”

of fossil fuels in Europe by a 31% margin,

 Measure and disclose financed

curve that matters — so does the area

schemes: credits or offsets thathas declared that it aims to not rely onunder the curve. We are long past theviolate human rights, particularly thenegative-emissions technologies that doBanks must commit to zeroing out theirtime for any further grace periods; serious

rights of Indigenous Peoples; excuse

not already exist.

financed emissions by 2050 at the latest.

cuts in emissions are necessary starting

continued fossil emissions; or rely on

immediately, with 2030 a crucial midterm

unfeasible schemes or hypothetical

checkpoint.

technologies.

don't align with a 1.5°C trajectory.

with 17 banks of the 60 in the scope ofFurthermore, banks’ intermediate

As noted above and explored further

Banks must require all fossil fuel clients

cuts to emissions while standards are

By contrast, measurement methodologies

this report making “net zero by 2050”

commitments — like the commitmentsin the next section, the “net” in “netto publish plans to align their emissions

established, it will be important to setthat are limited to emissions intensity arecommitments. And indeed, banks areof all major emitters — must be made inzero” is being treated by some fossil fueltrajectories to align with 1.5°C, including

up and strengthen financed emissions

insufficient; as noted above, intensity-

major emitters, and they must zero out

absolute terms, to ensure they are doingcompanies as a license to set emissions

immediately ending expansion of fossil

methodologies going forward. Fifteen

based intermediate commitments are

their emissions by 2050 at the latest.

their part to cut global greenhouse gas

targets that fall short of what the science

fuels and committing to time-boundof the 60 banks in this report are now

insufficient, and what a bank measures

The shortcomings are in delaying cuts inemissions. While intensity commitments

demands, based on copious offsetting

fossil fuel exit strategies. And banks must

members of the Partnership for Carbon

determines what it will cut.

emissions, and in dangerous reliance on

may be a stepping-stone to absoluteor absurd assumptions about futurecommit to drop clients that do not do so.

Accounting Financials (PCAF), the leading

the “net” in “net zero.”emissions commitments, they are not acarbon-capture schemes. The scaling up

finance industry–led methodology for

As UN Secretary-General António

substitute.

of carbon markets amplifies the threat.

A number of banks, including Crédit

measuring and disclosing absolute

Guterres said in February 2021, “Long-As detailed above, this is one of the areas214

 Commitment to drop clients that

where banks have been most active,

credit facilities, regardless of how muchclients draw them down. But the fact

As noted above, while no further analysis

that Barclays remains Europe’s biggest

is needed for banks to know that fossil

banker of fossil fuels by a 31% margin,fuel financing is a central source of theirillustrates how much immediate work it

financed emissions, and the climate

still has to do.

does not offer a grace period on Intermediate commitment to cut
financed emissions.

emissions.

account for the full value of revolving

Almost no bank has so far disavowed

Agricole, have policies of this sort

financed emissions; Morgan Stanley isterm commitments must be matched by

NatWest and Lloyds have committed tosuch schemes, though we have seen

regarding their coal clients. On oil anda member of the steering committee.215

immediate actions to launch the decade of

cutting climate impact in half by 2030.

a pair of limited steps in the rightgas, so far only NatWest has made any

Going forward, PCAF’s scope must

transformation that people and planet so

Banks’ financed emissions must decline

direction. In a resolution not yet ratified

commitment along these lines; while its

expand from lending and investing to also

desperately need.”216 This applies to banks justsharply year-on-year from 2021 onward,

by shareholders at press time, HSBC

pledge to drop major oil and gas clients

include banks’ capital markets activity.

as it does to any major emitter. The UN Climate

and they must make interim commitments

proposes to use scenarios "which arethat do not align with the Paris Agreement

Barclays has committed to account for

Change Conference in Glasgow in November,of at least halving their financed

not overly reliant on negative emissions

is promising, the criteria have so far not

the impact of its underwriting as well

COP26, is a clear deadline for demonstrating

emissions by 2030 at the latest.

technologies."213 Barclays, the #1 banker

been made public.

as its lending and investing, and also tothat net zero by 2050 policies are notgreenwashing by pairing them with immediate
action on fossil fuels.

Aerial View of the Almeda Wildfire in Southern Oregon Talent Phoenix Northern California.
P H O T O : Aarboursabroad / shutterstock110

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

111

POLICY ASSESSMENT - Financed Emissions

STRONGESTCOMMITMENT TO ZERO OUTFINANCED EMISSIONSINTERMEDIATE COMMITMENTTO CUT FINANCED EMISSIONSDISAVOWAL OF “NET” SCHEMES THATVIOLATE RIGHTS, EXCUSE CONTINUED
FOSSIL EMISSIONS, OR RELY ON UNFEASIBLE SCHEMES OR HYPOTHETICALTECHNOLOGIESCOMMITMENT TO DROP CLIENTSTHAT DON’T ALIGN WITH A 1.5°C
TRAJECTORY**

FINANCED EMISSIONSMEASUREMENT AND DISCLOSURE

COMMITMENT TO ALIGN WITHPARIS AGREEMENT VIA OTHERINITIATIVESBBVA

Pledged to publish long-term target for aligning with
Paris temperature goals (CCCA)

Pledged to publish intermediate target for aligning with
Paris temperature goals (CCCA) and set SBT

None

None

Committed to measurement and disclosure
as prerequisite to setting SBT; PACTA tomeasure emissions intensity of sector(s)PRB signatory

BNP PARIBAS

Pledged to publish long-term target for aligning with
Paris temperature goals (CCCA)

Some sector-based intermediate commitment(s)*;committed to set SBT

NoneCommitted to drop coal clients that don’t
meet strict time-bound critieria

Committed to measurement and disclosure
as prerequisite to setting SBT; PACTA tomeasure emissions intensity of sector(s)PRB signatory

BPCE/NATIXIS

Pledged to publish long-term target for aligning with
Paris temperature goals (CCCA)

Pledged to publish intermediate target for aligning with
Paris temperature goals (CCCA)

None

Committed to drop coal clients that don’t
meet strict time-bound critieria

Committed to measurement of carbon
footprint; methodology not detailed

PRB signatory

Pledged to set target by 2022 (German CCCA)

Pledged to publish interim commitments by 2022
(German CCCA) and set SBT

None

None

Committed to measurement and disclosure
as prerequisite to setting SBT; committed tomeasure and report emissions intensity

PRB signatory

Pledged to publish long-term target for aligning with
Paris temperature goals (CCCA)

Pledged to publish intermediate target for aligning with
Paris temperature goals (CCCA) and set SBT

NoneCommitted to drop coal clients that don’t
meet strict time-bound critieria

P9XCA methodology for carbon footprinting;committed to measurement and disclosure
as prerequisite to setting SBT

PRB signatory

CRÉDIT MUTUEL

None

Cut financed emissions 15% by 2023 (corporate client,asset management, and insurance portfolios)

None

Committed to drop coal clients that don’t
meet strict time-bound critieria

Initial financed emissions-related disclosure;methodology not detailed

PRB signatory

CREDIT SUISSENet zero by 2050

Pledged to publish interim commitments and set SBT

None

None

Committed to measurement and disclosure
as a prerequisite to setting SBT

PRB signatory

DANSKE BANK

Pledged to set target by 2023

None

None

None

PCAF member, not yet disclosed

PRB signatory

Pledged to set target by 2022 (German CCCA)

Pledged to publish interim commitments by 2022
(German CCCA)

None

None

PCAF member, not yet disclosed

PRB signatory

None

None

None

None

None

PRB signatory

Pledged to publish long-term target for aligning with
Paris temperature goals (CCCA)

Some sector-based intermediate commitment(s)*;committed to set SBT

None

None

Committed to measurement and disclosure
as prerequisite to setting SBT; Terra/PACTA tomeasure emissions intensity of sector(s)PRB signatory

None

None

None

None

None

PRB signatory

Net zero by 2050 (lending and investment)

Cut lending and investment emissions 40-50% by 2030

None

None

PCAF member, not yet disclosed

PRB signatory

RABOBANK

None

Pledged to publish interim commitments by 2022

None

None

PCAF member, initial disclosure

PRB signatory

SANTANDER

Net zero by 2050 (lending, advisory or investment
services)

Pledged to publish interim commitments

None

None

Committed to measurement and disclosure;methodology not detailed

PRB signatory

SBERBANK

None

None

None

None

None

PRB signatory

Pledged to publish long-term target for aligning with
Paris temperature goals (CCCA)

Some sector-based intermediate commitment(s)*;committed to set SBT

NoneCommitted to drop coal clients that don’t
meet strict time-bound critieria

Committed to measurement and disclosure
as prerequisite to setting SBT; PACTA tomeasure emissions intensity of sector(s)PRB signatory

UBS

None

None

None

None

None

PRB signatory

UNICREDIT

None

None

None

Committed to drop coal clients that don’t
meet strict time-bound critieria

PACTA to measure emissions intensity of
sector(s)PRB signatory

BANK

COMMERZBANKCRÉDIT AGRICOLECONTINENTAL EUROPE

WEAKEST

DEUTSCHE BANKDZ BANK
ING
INTESA SANPAOLONORDEA BANKSOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE»112

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

To download this chart with sources, visit: BankingonClimateChaos.org
B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

113

COMMITMENT TO ZERO OUTFINANCED EMISSIONSINTERMEDIATE COMMITMENTTO CUT FINANCED EMISSIONSDISAVOWAL OF “NET” SCHEMES THATVIOLATE RIGHTS, EXCUSE CONTINUED
FOSSIL EMISSIONS, OR RELY ON UNFEASIBLE SCHEMES OR HYPOTHETICALTECHNOLOGIESCOMMITMENT TO DROP CLIENTSTHAT DON’T ALIGN WITH A 1.5°C
TRAJECTORY**

FINANCED EMISSIONSMEASUREMENT AND DISCLOSURE

COMMITMENT TO ALIGN WITHPARIS AGREEMENT VIA OTHERINITIATIVESNet zero by 2050 (all financing activity, including
underwriting)Cut energy absolute emissions 15% by 2025; additional
sector-based intermediate commitment*

Barclays “do[es] not wish to rely on ... futurenet-negative technologies”

None

Committed to measure financed emissions fromlending and underwriting, using PCAF and/or
proprietary BlueTrack methodology; initial baseline
disclosed

PRB signatory

Net zero by 2050 or sooner

Pledged to publish interim commitments in 2022;
committed to set SBT

In a resolution not yet ratified by shareholders
at press time, HSBC proposes to use
scenarios “which are not overly reliant on
negative emissions technologies”

None

Committed to measurement and disclosure as
prerequisite to setting SBT; committed to measure anddisclose some intensity metrics; PACTA to measureemissions intensity of sector(s)LLOYDS

None

Cut financed emissions more than 50% by 2030;
additional sector-based intermediate commitment*

None

None

PCAF member; initial absolute emissions
disclosed

PRB signatory

NATWEST

Pledged to publish long-term target for aligning with
Paris temperature goals (CCCA)

Cut climate impact of lending 50% by 2030; committed
to set sector-specific commitments by 2022; committed
to set SBT

NoneCommitted to drop major oil and gas
producers that don’t have a credible plan
to align with the Paris Agreement by 2021;
criteria not detailed

PCAF member; initial absolute emissions
disclosed; committed to measurement anddisclosure as prerequisite to setting SBT

PRB signatory

Net zero by 2050

Pledged to publish intermediate target for aligning with
Paris temperature goals (CCCA) and set SBT

None

None

Committed to develop a methodology to measurefinanced emissions; committed to measurement anddisclosure as prerequisite to setting SBT; PACTA tomeasure emissions intensity of sector(s)PRB signatory

Net zero by 2050 (lending)

Pledged to publish interim commitments

None

None

PCAF member, not yet disclosed

PRB signatory

CIBC

None

None

None

None

PCAF member, not yet disclosed

RBC

Net zero by 2050 (lending)

Pledged to publish interim commitments

None

None

PCAF member, not yet disclosed

None

Pledged to publish interim commitments

None

None

Committed to measure emissions intensity ofloan book and underwriting activities, anddisclose on progress once targets are set

Net zero by 2050

Pledged to publish interim commitments

None

None

PCAF member, not yet disclosed

Net zero by before 2050

Pledged to publish interim commitments

None

None

PCAF member, not yet disclosed

CITI

Net zero by 2050

Pledged to publish interim commitments by 2022

None

None

PCAF member, not yet disclosed

PRB signatory

GOLDMAN SACHSNet zero by 2050

Pledged to publish interim commitments

None

None

Committed to measurement and disclosure;methodology not detailed

PRB signatory

JPMORGAN CHASE

None***

Pledged to publish interim commitments

None

None

Committed to measure clients’ carbon
intensity

MORGAN STANLEY

Net zero by 2050

Pledged to publish interim commitments

None

None

PCAF steering committee member, not yet
disclosed

TRUIST

None

None

None

None

None

U.S. BANK

None

None

None

None

None

Net zero by 2050

Pledged to publish interim commitments by 2022

None

None

Committed to measurement and disclosure;methodology not detailed but will be within
a yearNone

Pledged to publish interim commitments by 2021

None

None

Committed to measurement and disclosure;
PACTA to measure emissions intensity of
sector(s)PRB signatory

Net zero by 2050 (business lending)

Pledged to publish interim commitments

None

None

Committed to measurement and disclosureof emissions intensity of business lending
portfolio, with initial baseline disclosed

PRB signatory

Net zero by 2050 (lending)

Pledged to publish intermediate target for aligning with
Paris temperature goals (CCCA)

None

None

Committed to measure and disclose emissions fromlending portfolio; initial disclosure of emissions fromlending in Australia, with transparent methodology

PRB signatory

None

Some sector-based intermediate commitment(s)*;committed to set SBT

None

None

Committed to analyze financed emissions profile andreport annually; methodology not detailed; committed
to measurement and disclosure as prerequisite tosetting SBT

PRB signatory

BANK

UNITED KINGDOMBARCLAYSHSBCSTANDARD CHARTERED

CANADABANK OF MONTREALSCOTIABANKTD

UNITED STATESBANK OF AMERICAWELLS FARGO

AUSTRALIAANZCOMMONWEALTH BANKNAB
WESTPAC114

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

115

JAPANBANKCOMMITMENT TO ZERO OUTFINANCED EMISSIONSINTERMEDIATE COMMITMENTTO CUT FINANCED EMISSIONSDISAVOWAL OF “NET” SCHEMES THATVIOLATE RIGHTS, EXCUSE CONTINUED
FOSSIL EMISSIONS, OR RELY ON UNFEASIBLE SCHEMES OR HYPOTHETICALTECHNOLOGIESCOMMITMENT TO DROP CLIENTSTHAT DON’T ALIGN WITH A 1.5°C
TRAJECTORY**

FINANCED EMISSIONSMEASUREMENT AND DISCLOSURE

COMMITMENT TO ALIGN WITHPARIS AGREEMENT VIA OTHERINITIATIVESMIZUHO

None

None

None

None

Measures and discloses emissions fromlarge-scale power generation projects
financed

PRB signatory

MUFG

None

None

None

None

None

PRB signatory

SMBC GROUP

None

None

None

None

None

PRB signatory

SUMI TRUST

None

None

None

None

None

PRB signatory

Zero Carbon Drive: net zero by 2050

Zero Carbon Drive: cut emissions 38.6% by 2030;
committed to set SBT

None

None

PCAF member, not yet disclosed; committed
to measurement and disclosure as
prerequisite to setting SBT

PRB signatory

SHINHANINDIASTATE BANK OF INDIA

None

None

None

None

None

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA

None

None

None

None

None

BANK OF CHINA

None

None

None

None

None

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

None

None

None

None

None

CHINA CITIC BANK

None

None

None

None

None

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

None

None

None

None

None

CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK

None

None

None

None

None

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK

None

None

None

None

None

CHINA MINSHENG BANK

None

None

None

None

None

ICBC

None

None

None

None

None

PRB signatory

INDUSTRIAL BANK

None

None

None

None

None

PRB signatory

PING AN

None

None

None

None

None

POSTAL SAVINGS BANKOF CHINA

None

None

None

None

None

SHANGHAI PUDONG
DEVELOPMENT BANK

None

None

None

None

None

CHINA

SOUTH
KOREA

* Sector-based intensity and/or financing reduction targets emerging out of a financed emissions or alignment analysis.
** Banks that have qualified for a strong phase-out for coal mining and power (based on scope and thresholds) are noted in this category.
*** JPMorgan Chase has committed to set emission targets for its financing in key sectors, and to “explor[e] ways to most effectively
address all emissions, including Scope 3 emissions,” without committing to zero out the climate impact of its financing.217

116

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

CCCA = Collective Commitment to Climate Action
PACTA = Paris Agreement Capital Transition Assessment
PCAF = Parntership for Carbon Accounting Financials
PRB = Principles for Responsible Banking
SBT = Science-Based Target

WEAKEST

STRONGESTB A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

117

HUMAN RIGHTS

CREATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONSAs this report has shown, a growing number ofbeen used only as a cheap way of avoiding

6 also allows the use of non-market-based

banks have pledged to align their operations

actual emissions reductions. As such, it has

approaches such as technology transfer andwith the Paris Agreement’s goals of keeping

also contributed to major human rights

capacity-building measures.

warming well below a 2°C global increase inviolations and, some say, a “new carbon

temperature and as close to 1.5°C as possiblecolonialism.”222

These systems of carbon credits and offsets
have never been proven to reduce overall— or, at the very least, many banks say thatthey support these goals. As described in the

The European Union’s Kyoto Protocol trading

emissions, and thus run contrary to theprevious section, for some, this has resulted

scheme, the emissions trading system (EU-very purpose of the UNFCCC, the Kyoto

in “net zero by 2050” financed emissions

ETS), has also struggled to demonstrate real

Protocol, and the Paris Agreement: to reduce

commitments. Until proven otherwise, the fossil

emissions reductions. In its first eight years, theanthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.226

fuel financing figures in this report sow doubt

EU’s emissions targets were too low and thethat these commitments will actually result

system generated a massive surplus of carbon

The Intercept reported that Shell’s chief climate

in real emissions reductions. One key issue iscredits, glutting the market, with little to nochange adviser boasted that his company

to the extent to which banks rely on carbon

incentive to reduce emissions any further.

and its lobbying association were responsible

223

in part for Article 6 of the Paris Agreement,

credits and offsets to meet their goals.218
Despite the failures of the Kyoto Protocol

saying: “We have had a process running forThis creative accounting of greenhouse gas

and its carbon trading schemes in actuallyfour years for the need of carbon unit trading

emissions has a history at least as long as

reducing greenhouse gas emissions, theto be part of the Paris agreement. We can takethat of international agreements to combat

parties to the United Nations Frameworksome credit for the fact that Article 6 is evenclimate change. It starts with the 1997 Kyoto

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

there at all.”227

Protocol, the world’s first international plan forcame up with the Paris Agreement, codifying

limiting climate change, which many observers

many of its same approaches in the successor

Many industries, including the fossil fuelhave judged to be an abject failure.219 Thereto the failed Kyoto Protocol. The goals of theindustry, claim to support the Paris Agreement

are many studies pointing to the fact that

Paris Agreement to keep global warmingand Article 6 in particular because it allows

although the Kyoto Protocol attempted to limit

to well below 2°C and as close to 1.5°C asthem to continue business as usual whilegreenhouse gas emissions, it also allowed

possible are laudable and represent an

seemingly accepting limitations on emissions.

carbon credits and offsets to be used in lieu ofimportant milestone for global climate action,

As an example of the type of project thatabsolute emissions reductions.

but nonetheless, a major difference between

could be sanctioned under Article 6, a CDM

the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement

project in Brazil allowed steel producers to sell

Under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development

is that instead of legally binding emissions

credits because they run their blast furnaces

Mechanism (CDM), carbon offsets are

reductions, emissions reductions commitments

on charcoal instead of fossil fuels — while thegenerated from industrialized countries’

under the Paris Agreement are voluntary.

eucalyptus plantations they use for charcoal

220

224

investments in emissions reduction projects

lead to land grabbing, destroy biodiversity,

in non-industrialized countries. These offsets,

To many observers, the most concerningand cause desertification, and the generationeach supposedly equaling one ton of CO2,

aspect of the Paris Agreement is Article 6, aof charcoal and its use in fact lead to higher

can be traded, sold, or used by industrialized

major but so far unresolved provision, whichcarbon emissions overall.228

countries to meet their emissions reduction

aims to set up a new global carbon market

targets under the Kyoto Protocol.

221

The CDM

system, consisting primarily of carbon credits

has not promoted sustainable development

and offsets that can be applied to meet a(as required by the Kyoto Protocol), but has

country’s emissions reduction pledge.225 Article

P H O T O : Sarah LittleRedFeather / Honor the Earth118

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

119

CARBON MARKET VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTSAs the Brazilian steel example suggests, humanMoreover, the Center for International Forestry

the contribution traditional Indigenous

rights violations are also commonly associatedResearch found that there is a chronic failure ofknowledge can make, and established thewith these market-based mechanisms.

REDD+ social and environmental safeguards,

Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples’

Carbon credits are referred to in the Parisand that REDD+ leads to the perverse incentive

Platform, a body that would share traditional

Agreement as internationally transferableof violating the rights of Indigenous Peoples,knowledge and best practices with the

mitigation outcomes (ITMOs), and with thismost notably their right of Free, Prior andparties.239 Hopefully decision makers will heedvague nomenclature, the parties are free toInformed Consent.

pursue ineffective mitigation “solutions.” These

IPCC’s recognition that Indigenous Peoples’

more than just a website, though this remains

ITMOs can include such traps as “clean” coalsecure land tenure and governance maintains

to be seen.

or “nature-based solutions,” a corporate

the healthiest forests in the world without theirco-opted term for credits based on land use

commodification or outside interference.235

234This flies in the face of thethe platform’s recommendations, making it

For hundreds of years, Indigenous Peoples
have survived genocide, settler colonialism,change, which can severely threaten secureland tenure and food security for Indigenous

The market solution under Article 6 of the Paris

purposeful pandemics, and forced relocation

Peoples, resulting in a severance of their

Agreement, the Sustainable Development

and assimilation. Their spiritual lives haverelationship to their land, languages, andMechanism, will likely lead to violations ofbeen condemned as “Satanist” and evil, andcultures.

human rights and the rights of Indigenous

their ceremony, song, and dance were (andPeoples. The equivalent CDM, still in effectin some places still are) outlawed.240 In spite

There is no such thing as “clean coal” orfrom the Kyoto Protocol, has been shown toof this extreme oppression, many Indigenous

bioenergy that is emissions-free.229 Geo-lead to the violation of the rights of thousands.

Peoples have maintained their worldviews andengineering proposes solutions that threaten

For example, the CDM has allowed carbon

relationship to Mother Earth. The 2010 World

what remains of nature’s systems and cycles,

offsets for hydroelectric dams that displace

Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change

and carbon capture and storage proposes

entire communities of Indigenous and non-and the Rights of Mother Earth energized

injecting carbon dioxide into the ground,

Indigenous rural peoples, as well as destroying

this fundamental relationship, reaffirming

threatening to poison ever-shrinking sources

whole ecosystems and biodiversity.

of groundwater.230 These false solutions are atallowance of offsets for nuclear power also

and recognizing that predatory, economic

best a distraction from what needs to be done

violates the rights of communities that suffer

colonialism was wreaking “great destruction,— real emissions reductions — and at worst

severe health effects for generations fromdegradation and disruption of Mother Earth,pose significant risks to or violate human rights,

uranium milling and mining for nuclear fuel,putting life as we know it today at risk throughsuch as food security and land use rights.231

such as the Navajo and Pueblo peoples of thephenomena such as climate change.”241

236

The

that Mother Earth is the source of all life

Southwestern United States.237
UN programs to reduce emissions from

Traditional Indigenous Peoples have kept theirdeforestation known as REDD and REDD+

Indigenous Peoples are particularly vulnerable

faith throughout the climate crisis, calling

have been shown to do little to reduceas they are closest to the land and Motherfor healthy forests and the preservation ofemissions, in part because although forest

Earth, the source of their traditional knowledge

biodiversity and recognizing that we arelandscapes naturally store carbon, forest

and their spiritual and material life.238 Ironically,another species in the web of life — a species

emissions reductions are not permanent.

parties to the Paris Agreement also recognizedthat is itself under threat of extinction.

232

233

P H O T O S : March on Enbridge;
Melvinas Priananda / TrendAsia

120

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

121

Without a doubt, a post-pandemic world in 2021 will continue to besource, without the offsets implied in “net zero.” It is long past time thatfraught with contradictions, corporate greed, lies, confusions, andbanks cease their destructive financing and investments.

distractions. In January 2021, three major European banks — BNP
Paribas, Credit Suisse, and ING — announced a commitment to stop

In the countdown to the long-awaited climate talks in Glasgow currently

financing the trade of Amazon oil but did not address their other fossil

planned for November 2021, the need for climate action is more

fuel financing, such as extraction, leading Marlon Vargas, president

urgent than ever. As banks are increasingly recognized for their role inof the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of the Ecuadorian

fueling climate chaos — and thus their responsibility to do something

Amazon to observe, “The banks that finance this destruction areabout it — they must join the drumbeat of policy commitments madecomplicit in what is a genocidal threat for us, and an existential threat

in these crucial months. If not, they will continue to be complicit in thefor humanity and our planet.”249

greater suffering of humanity and bring life as we know it closer to its
destruction.

If humanity, along with other species, is to survive, fossil fuels must be
kept in the ground and banks must redirect their financing into clean
and renewable energy.250 This must lead to real emission reductions at

CONCLUSION AND
DEMANDS
The window for keeping the rise in global temperature to 1.5°C is growing
smaller. With most of the major fossil fuel companies still projecting significant
increases in fossil fuel production in the next decade, cutting emissions to zero— now recognized as a necessity to avoid complete climate chaos — will be
exceedingly difficult. Even now, plans for vast expansion of fossil fuels, including
coal, are being advanced in the face of a true existential threat to humanity. The
corruption and greed of the fossil fuel industry knows no bounds.
242

243

To align their policies and practices with a world that limits global
warming to 1.5°C and fully respects human rights, and Indigenous
rights in particular, banks must: Prohibit all financing for all fossil fuel expansion
projects and for all companies expanding fossil

to zero out the absolute climate impact of theirfuel extraction and infrastructure along theoverall financing activities on a 1.5°C-aligned

whole value chain.

timeline, including short-, medium-, and longterm targets.

 Commit to phase out all financing for fossil fuelextraction, combustion, and infrastructure, on
Just as the climate catastrophes of 2020 cannot be ignored, nor can
the fact that the last decade was the hottest in history.

244

Record losses

The new president of the United States, Joseph Biden, rejoined the Paris
Agreement and took steps to address climate change within his first Commit to measure, disclose, and set targets

 Fully respect all human rights, particularly thean explicit timeline that is aligned with limitingrights of Indigenous Peoples, including theirof biodiversity, droughts, the melting of polar ice, and rising seasdays in office. He suspended all fossil fuel development on public lands

global warming to 1.5°C, starting with coalrights to their water and lands and the right todisplacing entire island populations all speak to climate chaos.245

and waters, stopped the Keystone XL pipeline, and vowed to invest

mining and coal power, as well as financing for

Free, Prior, and Informed Consent, as articulated

in massive renewable energy job creation in rebuilding the nation’s

existing projects and companies active in tar

in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

sands oil, Arctic oil and gas, offshore oil andPeoples. Prohibit all financing for projects andInternational actors such as the International Monetary

There is a growing recognition, particularly among young people, that

economy.

action on climate change can no longer be postponed. A recent poll

Fund, the World Bank, the European Commission, the European

taken by the UN Development Program and Oxford University found that

Investment Bank and the World Economic Forum are similarly callinggas, fracked oil and gas, and LNG. As part ofcompanies that abuse human rights, including

over two-thirds of 14- to 18-year-olds across the 50 countries polled,

for post-pandemic investment in job creation in renewable energy

this commitment, require fossil fuel clients to

Indigenous rights.

including high-polluting countries such as the United States and Russia,

projects, and touting the view that a post-pandemic world will havesee climate change as a global emergency.246

an opportunity to address the gross income inequality not only among247

individuals but also among countries.248

251publish plans to phase out fossil fuel activity on a
1.5°C-aligned timeline.
P H O T O : Marcio Jose Bastos Silva / shutterstock; Rawpixel.com / shutterstock

122

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

123

APPENDICES

This analysis covers the world’s 60 biggest relevant banks by assets, according to the S&P Global Market Intelligence ranking from April
2020.252 Banks with less than $500 million in league credit for economy-wide financing from 2016-2020 were deemed irrelevant to thisanalysis and thus excluded. This resulted in the exclusion of three Japanese banks: Japan Post Bank (11th largest by assets), Norinchukin
Bank (28th largest by assets), and Resona Holdings (56th largest by assets).

BANKS INCLUDEDABBREVIATED
NAME USED IN
THIS REPORTABBREVIATED
NAME USED IN
THIS REPORTOF HEADQUARTERS

COUNTRYRANK BYTOTAL ASSETSSWITZERLAND

33

UNICREDIT

ITALY

34

3

CHINA MINSHENG BANK

CHINA

35

CHINA

4

NATWEST (FORMERLY ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND)UNITED KINGDOM

36

JAPAN

5

SHANGHAI PUDONG DEVELOPMENT BANK

CHINA

37

UNITED KINGDOM6CHINA CITIC BANK

CHINA

38

JPMORGAN CHASE

UNITED STATES7

MORGAN STANLEYUNITED STATES39BANK OF AMERICAUNITED STATES8SCOTIABANKCANADA40

BNP PARIBASFRANCE

9

CREDIT SUISSESWITZERLAND

41

CRÉDIT AGRICOLEFRANCE

10BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA

SPAIN

42

SMBC GROUP

JAPAN

12

STANDARD CHARTERED

UNITED KINGDOM

43

CITI

UNITED STATES

13COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIA

44

UNITED STATES14CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK

CHINA

45

MIZUHOJAPAN15

BANK OF MONTREALCANADA46

SANTANDER

SPAIN

16

RABOBANKNETHERLANDS47

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALEFRANCE

17

AUSTRALIA & NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP

AUSTRALIA

48

UNITED KINGDOM18

DZ BANKGERMANY49

FRANCE

19

NORDEA BANKNORDEAFINLAND

50

CHINA

20

WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATIONWESTPAC

AUSTRALIA51

GERMANY21

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANKNABAUSTRALIA

52

CHINA

22

PING AN INSURANCE GROUP*PING ANCHINA

53

DENMARK

54

INDIA

55

SUMI TRUST

JAPAN

57

CIBC

CANADA58

BANK

COUNTRYRANK BYBANK

OF HEADQUARTERS

TOTAL ASSETS

CHINA

1

UBS

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK

CHINA

2

AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINACHINABANK OF CHINA

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA

MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL GROUP

ICBC

MUFG

HSBC

SUMITOMO MITSUI FINANCIAL GROUP (SMFG)
CITIGROUPWELLS FARGOBARCLAYSGROUPE BPCE/NATIXIS

BPCE/NATIXISPOSTAL SAVINGS BANK OF CHINA
DEUTSCHE BANKBANK OF COMMUNICATIONSBBVACOMMONWEALTH BANKANZROYAL BANK OF CANADA

RBC

CANADA23DANSKE BANKLLOYDS BANKING GROUPLLOYDS

UNITED KINGDOM

24

STATE BANK OF INDIATORONTO-DOMINION BANKTDCANADA

25

SUMITOMO MITSUI TRUST HOLDINGSCHINA MERCHANTS BANK

CHINA

26

CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCEINTESA SANPAOLO

ITALY

27

U.S. BANCORP

U.S. BANKUNITED STATES

59

ING

NETHERLANDS

29

SBERBANKSBERBANKRUSSIA

60

GOLDMAN SACHSUNITED STATES

30SHINHAN FINANCIAL GROUPSHINHANSOUTH KOREA

61

INDUSTRIAL BANK

CHINA

31

COMMERZBANKGERMANY62

CRÉDIT MUTUELFRANCE32

TRUIST FINANCIAL (FORMERLY BB&T AND SUNTRUST)UNITED STATES63

TRUIST*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.

124

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

125

TOP FOSSIL FUEL EXPANSION COMPANIESTOP UPSTREAM OIL & GAS COMPANIES126MILLION METRIC TONS OF CO2TOP UPSTREAM OIL & GAS COMPANIESMILLION METRIC TONS OF CO2GAZPROM

13,953

CIMAREX ENERGY

1,953

EXXONMOBIL

11,801SINOPEC (CHINA PETROLEUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION)

1,951

NATIONAL IRANIAN OIL COMPANY

10,986

PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD (PETRONAS)

1,942

SAUDI ARAMCO

9,593

HESS CORPORATION

1,890

PETROBRAS

7,269

RANGE RESOURCES

1,794

QATAR PETROLEUM

6,689

ANTERO RESOURCES

1,754

CHEVRON

6,465

TOURMALINE OIL

1,700

ROYAL DUTCH SHELL

6,453

CNX RESOURCES

1,596

OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM

5,798

REPSOL

1,575

CHINA NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION (CNPC) / PETROCHINA

5,719

PDVSA

1,533

TOTAL

4,786

BASRA OIL COMPANY

1,533

BP

4,342

LUKOIL

1,532

TURKMENGAS

4,028

NATIONAL FUEL GAS

1,473

ABU DHABI NATIONAL OIL COMPANY

4,007

DIAMONDBACK ENERGY

1,462

EOG RESOURCES

3,567

NORTH OIL COMPANY

1,367

CHINA NATIONAL OFFSHORE OIL CORPORATION (CNOOC)

3,370

WPX ENERGY

1,291

ENI

3,288

NOVATEK

1,234

EQUINOR

3,077

APACHE CORPORATION

1,214

ROSNEFT

2,747

VINE OIL & GAS

1,205

EQT CORPORATION

2,666

INPEX

1,199

KUWAIT PETROLEUM CORPORATION

2,632

ROCKCLIFF ENERGY

1,196

CONOCOPHILLIPS

2,511

PARSLEY ENERGY

1,194

SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY

2,420

MURPHY OIL

1,120

PEMEX

2,385

CENOVUS ENERGY

1,106

CONCHO RESOURCES

2,269

MARATHON OIL

1,102

OVINTIV

2,220

STATE OIL COMPANY OF THE AZERBAIJAN REPUBLIC (SOCAR)

1,032

DEVON ENERGY

2,205

OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION (ONGC)

954

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY

2,168

WOODSIDE PETROLEUM

932

COMSTOCK RESOURCES

2,052

NOBLE ENERGY

2,010

PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES

1,995

CANADIAN NATURAL RESOURCES (CNRL)

1,978

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

Expansion is defined as projected production to 2050 from projects that had not received a final investment decision(FID) as of end of September 2020. For fracked oil and gas, it is projected production to 2050 from wells that had notbeen drilled as of end of September 2020.
Emissions are calculated by Oil Change International based on projected production figures from Rystad Energy AS andemissions factors from 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Emissions are from combustionof oil and gas only and do not include methane or other production and processing emissions.253

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

127

COAL POWER EXPANSION PLANS

KEY OIL AND GAS MIDSTREAM EXPANSION COMPANIESKEY COAL POWER EXPANSION COMPANIESCHENIERE ENERGY

NEXTDECADECHINA ENERGY INVESTMENT CORPORATION (CHN ENERGY)

42,613ENBRIDGE

PEMBINA PIPELINECHINA DATANG

33,695ENERGY TRANSFER

PHILLIPS 66

CHINA HUANENG GROUP

28,680

ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS

PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE

NTPC

13,616

EQM MIDSTREAM PARTNERS

TRANS ADRIATIC PIPELINE (TAP)

POWER FINANCE CORPORATION

12,000KINDER MORGAN

TC ENERGYPERUSAHAAN LISTRIK NEGARA (PLN / PERSERO)

10,535MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM PARTNERS

TRANSPORTADORA DE GAS DEL SUR (TGS)ELEKTRIK ÜRETIM A.Ş. GENEL MÜDÜRLÜĞÜ (EUAS)

8,340

KOREA ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION (KEPCO)

7,245

IL&FS ENERGY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (IEDCL)

6,600

ESKOM

6,400

GCM RESOURCES

6,000

VIETNAM ELECTRICITY CORPORATION (EVN)

5,134

BANGLADESH POWER DEVELOPMENT BOARD

4,370

MARATHON PETROLEUM CORPORATION

List compiled from reporting on key oil and gas midstream expansion projects and the companies behind them.

KEY COAL MINING EXPANSION COMPANIES(ATTRIBUTABLE MEGAWATTS)

COAL INDIASIBERIAN COAL ENERGY COMPANY (SUEK)ELECTRICITY GENERATING AUTHORITY OF THAILAND (EGAT)

3,983

CHINA ENERGY INVESTMENT CORPORATIONBUMI RESOURCES

VIETNAM OIL AND GAS GROUP (PETROVIETNAM)

3,600(CHN ENERGY)

ARCH RESOURCESYANKUANG GROUPPOLSKA GRUPA ENERGETYCZNA (PGE)

SHAANXI COAL AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRYEXXARO RESOURCESGLENCORE

BANPU

Data from urgewald’s Global Coal Exit List.255

Data from urgewald’s Global Coal Exit List.254

FOSSIL FUEL EXPANSIONPOLICY SCORING CRITERIA
Scores in this section are calculated by adding up the expansion-related scores from the individual oil, gas, and coal sections that follow.

128

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

129

TOP TAR SANDS COMPANIESRANKCOMPANYTAR SANDS POLICY SCORING CRITERIATAR SANDS RESERVESCURRENTLY UNDERPRODUCTION(MILLIONS OF BARRELS)130

PROJECTED
EXPANSION*(MILLIONS OF BARRELS)

1CANADIAN NATURAL RESOURCES (CNRL)

7,350.45

2,857.67

2

SUNCOR ENERGY

7,607.72

1,401.64

3

EXXONMOBIL

5,457.85

1,070.96

4

CENOVUS ENERGY

4,150.15

1,520.03

5

HUSKY ENERGY

1,308.29

966.36

6

MEG ENERGY

1,207.30

1,014.01

7

IMPERIAL OIL

1,766.24

399.58

8CHINA NATIONAL OFFSHORE OIL CORPORATION (CNOOC)

1,729.03

349.419TOTAL

1,299.49

276.65

10

CHINA NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION (CNPC) / PETROCHINA

362.79618.78

11

CONOCOPHILLIPS

674.79242.5012BP281.56459.58

13

ATHABASCA OIL CORPORATION

307.38415.3114

CHEVRON569.0283.74

15

TECK RESOURCES

541.59

29.61

16

OSUM

250.28266.58

17

CONNACHER OIL AND GAS

416.72

70.33

18

ROYAL DUTCH SHELL

284.51

41.87

19

INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION (IPC)

2.89

291.2620

SINOPEC (CHINA PETROLEUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION)

247.67

32.21

21

SUNSHINE OILSANDS

88.70

143.9922

JAPAN PETROLEUM EXPLORATION COMPANY (JAPEX)

172.7935.95

23

STRATHCONA RESOURCES

106.66

97.97

24

KOREA NATIONAL OIL CORPORATION

132.7564.54

25

PARAMOUNT RESOURCES-

117.1826

GRIZZLY OIL SANDS

-

79.26

27

PTT EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION

-

65.34

28

VALUE CREATION

-

45.28

29

PROSPER PETROLEUM

-

30.56

30

EVEREST CANADIAN RESOURCES

-

28.51

POINT
VALUE

EXPANSION

Tar sands projects

3

»

2

»

Strong exclusion - Prohibits financing for new and expanded tar sands projects, includingtransportation infrastructure.
Moderate exclusion - Prohibits financing for some tar sands projects, including some extraction
projects and some transportation infrastructure (for instance, where the prohibition applies only topipelines exclusively dedicated to tar sands).

1
0»

Weak exclusion - Prohibits financing for tar sands extraction projects only.

»

None

Companies expanding tar sands

4
2
0
POINT
VALUE

»

Strong exclusion - Prohibits financing for all companies with tar sands expansion plans.

»

Weak exclusion - Prohibits financing for some companies with tar sands expansion plans.

»

None

PHASE-OUT / EXCLUSION

Tar sands companies: phase-out

5»Strong phase-out - Commits to phase out all financing for companies with tar sands operations on a
1.5°C-aligned timeline.

3»

Weak phase-out - Commits to phase out some financing for companies with tar sands operations.
Phase-out commitments must cover the entire sector, or at least all companies with >5% exposure.

1.5»

Reduction - Commits to reduce financing for or credit exposure to some companies with tar sands
operations.

0

»

None

Tar sands companies: exclusion

65»

Full exclusion - Prohibits all financing for all companies with tar sands operations.

»

Strong exclusion threshold - Prohibits financing for companies that have up to 20% of their reserves intar sands, or earn up to 5% of their revenue from tar sands, including infrastructure companies.

4»

Moderate exclusion threshold - Prohibits financing for companies that have 20-40% of their reserves intar sands.

2»

Weak exclusion threshold - Prohibits financing for companies that have >40% of their reserves in tar
sands, or for companies at a lower threshold but where tar sands infrastructure is not considered in thepercentage.

0.5

»

0

»

Enhanced due diligence - Conducts enhanced due diligence for transactions related to tar sands. The
enhanced due diligence commitment must be specific to tar sands.
None

ENBRIDGE

KEY PIPELINE COMPANYKINDER MORGANKEY PIPELINE COMPANY

PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINEKEY PIPELINE COMPANY

Data from Rystad Energy AS, with reserves data as of October 2020. Provided by Oil Change International.

TC ENERGYKEY PIPELINE COMPANY

TRANS MOUNTAIN CORPORATIONKEY PIPELINE COMPANY*Projected expansion refers to projected production to 2050 from projects
that were yet to reach FID as of the end of September 2020.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

131

TOP ARCTIC OIL & GAS COMPANIESRANKCOMPANY

ARCTIC OIL & GAS POLICY SCORING CRITERIAARCTIC RESERVESCURRENTLY UNDERPRODUCTION

PROJECTED ARCTIC
EXPANSION*(MILLIONS OF BARRELSOF OIL EQUIVALENT)(MILLIONS OF BARRELSOF OIL EQUIVALENT)1GAZPROM

90,561.98

36,274.51

2

NOVATEK

11,582.85

6,923.48

3

ROSNEFT

8,400.07

1,384.11

POINT
VALUE

EXPANSION

Arctic oil and gas projects

3

»

2

»

1

»

Strong exclusion - Prohibits financing for Arctic oil and gas production projects, onshore and offshore,
including infrastructure projects.
Moderate exclusion – Prohibits all financing for Arctic oil and gas production projects onshore and4

LUKOIL

3,578.56

1,642.46

5

WINTERSHALL DEA

2,665.11

711.27

6

CONOCOPHILLIPS

1,903.06

1,043.90

projects only in a certain area (such as prohibition limited to offshore areas only, or limited to projects in

7

TOTAL

1,820.50

553.16

the Arctic refuge).

8

OMV

1,439.21

746.47

9

CHINA NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION (CNPC) / PETROCHINA

1,529.68

508.0210EQUINOR

1,082.11755.02

11

HILCORP ENERGY

902.71149.88

12

CHINA NATIONAL OFFSHORE OIL CORPORATION (CNOOC)

528.23476.38

13

EXXONMOBIL

952.0648.75

14

PETORO

524.17366.5415

RUSGAZDOBYCHA

375.96435.34

16

JAPAN OIL, GAS AND METALS NATIONAL CORPORATION (JOGMEC)

396.17357.28

17

OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION (ONGC)

694.11-18

VAAR ENERGI

275.71

247.5719

SILK ROAD FUND

495.72

15.66

20

ZARUBEZHNEFT (NESTRO)

463.75

5.77

21

OIL SEARCH-

424.6922

REPSOL

0.01

409.9623

PETROVIETNAM

320.11

33.35

24

ENI

199.71

107.3525

NORILSK MINING

299.71-

26

MITSUI

132.06119.0927

BASHNEFT

186.1947.99

28

SINOPEC (CHINA PETROLEUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION)

225.32-29

INDIAN OIL

214.91-30

OIL INDIA

214.91-

offshore.

0»

Weak exclusion – Prohibits some financing for Arctic oil and gas projects, or prohibits all financing for

None

Companies expanding Arctic oil and gas

4
2
0
POINT
VALUE

»

Strong exclusion - Prohibits financing for all companies with Arctic oil and gas expansion plans.

»

Weak exclusion - Prohibits financing for some companies with Arctic oil and gas expansion plans.

»

None

PHASE-OUT / EXCLUSION

Arctic oil and gas companies: phase-out

5»Strong phase-out - Commits to phase out all financing for companies with Arctic oil and gas operations

3»

Weak phase-out - Commits to phase out some financing for companies with Arctic oil and gas

on a 1.5°C-aligned timeline.
operations. Phase-out commitments must cover the entire sector, or at least all companies with >5%
exposure.

1.5»

Reduction - Commits to reduce financing for or credit exposure to companies with Arctic oil and gas
operations.

0

»

None

Arctic oil and gas companies: exclusion

65»

Full exclusion - Prohibits all financing for all companies with Arctic oil and gas operations.

»

Strong exclusion threshold - Prohibits financing for companies that have up to 20% of their reserves in
Arctic oil and gas, or earn up to 5% of their revenue from Arctic oil and gas.

4»

Moderate exclusion threshold - Prohibits financing for companies that have 20-50% of their reserves in
Arctic oil and gas.

2»

Weak exclusion threshold - Prohibits financing for companies that have >50% of their reserves in Arctic
oil and gas.

0.5»

Enhanced due diligence - Conducts enhanced due diligence for transactions related to Arctic oil andgas. The enhanced due diligence commitment must be specific to Arctic oil and gas.

0

»

None

Data from Rystad Energy AS, with reserves data as of October 2020. Provided by Oil Change International.
*Projected expansion refers to projected production to 2050 from projects
that were yet to reach FID as of the end of September 2020.

132

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A N G E 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

133

OFFSHORE OIL & GAS POLICY SCORING CRITERIATOP OFFSHORE OIL & GAS COMPANIESRANKOFFSHORE RESERVESCURRENTLY UNDERPRODUCTIONCOMPANYPROJECTED
OFFSHORE
EXPANSION*(MILLIONS OF BARRELSOF OIL EQUIVALENT)(MILLIONS OF BARRELSOF OIL EQUIVALENT)1SAUDI ARAMCO

93,795.06

13,805.95

2

NATIONAL IRANIAN OIL COMPANY

59,717.41

16,341.72

3

QATAR PETROLEUM

28,261.60

20,576.32

4

EXXONMOBIL

21,389.15

10,184.09

5

PETROBRAS

13,044.69

18,447.10

6

ROYAL DUTCH SHELL

14,348.01

9,786.98

7

TOTAL

13,314.37

9,568.16

8

ABU DHABI NATIONAL OIL COMPANY

16,389.69

6,103.93

9GAZPROM

3,613.28

14,728.78

10BP

10,337.08

7,155.49

11

EQUINOR

9,500.82

5,595.68

12

ENI

7,536.16

6,570.52

13

PEMEX

7,779.11

5,716.30

14

CHINA NATIONAL OFFSHORE OIL CORPORATION (CNOOC)

6,610.01

6,167.39

15

CHEVRON

8,094.51

4,153.94

16

PETRONAS6,284.98

4,101.99

17

OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION (ONGC)

5,475.05

3,234.47

18

PETORO

6,487.06

1,399.81

19

INPEX

4,583.47

3,072.35

20

STATE OIL COMPANY OF THE AZERBAIJAN REPUBLIC (SOCAR)

3,231.03

2,257.63

21

CHINA NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION (CNPC) / PETROCHINA

1,736.65

2,632.68

22

HESS CORPORATION

1,177.66

2,818.89

23

WOODSIDE PETROLEUM

1,159.95

2,545.23

24

MITSUI

1,989.45

1,622.39

25

KUWAIT PETROLEUM CORPORATION

2,548.82

1,034.49

26

PTT EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION

1,943.58

1,639.63

27

MUBADALA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

3,333.57

172.9328

NIGERIAN NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION

2,423.21

887.9729

PERTAMINA

1,543.20

1,677.69

30

CONOCOPHILLIPS

2,178.84

518.94

POINT
VALUE

EXPANSION

Offshore oil and gas projects

3

»

1
0

»

Weak exclusion - Prohibits financing for some offshore oil and gas projects.

»

None

Strong exclusion - Prohibits financing for all offshore oil and gas projects, including associatedinfrastructure.

Companies expanding offshore oil and gas

4
2
0
POINT
VALUE

»

Strong exclusion - Prohibits all financing for all companies with offshore oil and gas expansion plans.

»

Weak exclusion - Prohibits financing for some companies with offshore oil and gas expansion plans.

»

None

PHASE-OUT / EXCLUSION

Offshore oil and gas companies: phase-out

5

»

3

»

Strong phase-out - Commits to phase out all financing for companies with offshore oil and gas
operations on a 1.5°C-aligned timeline.
Weak phase-out - Commits to phase out some financing for companies with offshore oil and gas
operations. Phase-out commitments must cover the entire sector, or at least all companies with >5%
exposure.

1.5»

Reduction - Commits to reduce financing for or credit exposure to companies with offshore oil and gas
operations.

0

»

None

Offshore oil and gas companies: exclusion

65»

Full exclusion - Prohibits financing for all companies with offshore oil and gas operations.

»

Strong exclusion threshold – Prohibits financing for companies that have <50% of their reserves inoffshore oil and gas operations.

2»

Weak exclusion threshold – Prohibits financing for companies that have >50% of their reserves inoffshore oil and gas, or where thresholds are defined with notable loopholes.

0.5»

Enhanced due diligence – Conducts enhanced due diligence for transactions related to offshore oil andgas. The enhanced due diligence commitment must be specific to offshore oil and gas.

0

»

None

Data from Rystad Energy AS, with reserves data as of October 2020. Provided by Oil Change International.
*Projected expansion refers to projected production to 2050 from projects
that were yet to reach FID as of the end of September 2020.

134

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

135

FRACKED OIL & GAS POLICY SCORING CRITERIATOP FRACKED OIL & GAS COMPANIESRANKCOMPANYSHALE RESERVESCURRENTLY UNDERPRODUCTION

PROJECTED SHALE
EXPANSION*(MILLIONS OF BARRELSOF OIL EQUIVALENT)(MILLIONS OF BARRELSOF OIL EQUIVALENT)

1EXXONMOBIL

3,529.97

18,148.77

2

OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM

2,296.48

14,328.35

3

CHEVRON

2,136.63

12,713.96

4

EOG RESOURCES

1,924.36

9,672.63

5

EQT CORPORATION

3,048.64

7,589.98

6

SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY

1,319.95

7,497.63

7

OVINTIV

1,947.79

6,187.41

8

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY

1,736.95

5,943.22

9

ANTERO RESOURCES

1,974.51

5,451.50

10

CHINA NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION (CNPC) / PETROCHINA

738.91

6,586.88

11

DEVON ENERGY

956.196,127.33

12

RANGE RESOURCES

1,483.53

5,565.39

13

CONCHO RESOURCES

911.905,666.05

14

CIMAREX ENERGY

817.74

5,698.01

15

COMSTOCK RESOURCES

662.555,807.23

16

PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES

1,059.69

5,299.62

17

SHELL

968.405,086.27

18

CONOCOPHILLIPS

1,070.85

4,868.91

19

TOURMALINE OIL

776.184,897.02

20

CNX RESOURCES

856.13

4,682.85

21

NOBLE ENERGY

818.54

4,716.20

22

NATIONAL FUEL GAS

773.27

4,110.41

23

DIAMONDBACK ENERGY

897.193,886.67

24

BP

1,097.07

3,466.96

25

PARSLEY ENERGY

602.66

3,741.88

26

WPX ENERGY

564.92

3,461.16

27

ROCKCLIFF ENERGY

359.223,520.47

28

MARATHON OIL

842.592,884.64

29

VINE OIL & GAS

322.76

3,361.56

30

CABOT OIL AND GAS

1,213.71

2,457.50

POINT
VALUE

EXPANSION

Fracked oil and gas projects

32»Strong exclusion - Prohibits all financing for new and expanded fracked oil and gas projects, including
infrastructure.

»

Moderate exclusion – Prohibits financing for some fracked oil and gas projects, including someextraction projects and some transportation infrastructure (for instance, where the prohibition applies

1
0

4
2
0

POINT
VALUE

only to pipelines exclusively dedicated to fracked oil and gas)»

Weak exclusion - Prohibits some financing for some fracked oil and gas projects.

»

No policy

Companies expanding fracked oil and gas»

Strong exclusion - Prohibits all financing for all companies with fracked oil and gas expansion plans.

»

Weak exclusion - Prohibits financing for some companies with fracked oil and gas expansion plans.

»

None

PHASE-OUT / EXCLUSION

Fracked oil and gas companies: phase-out

5»Strong phase-out - Commits to phase out all financing for companies with fracked oil and gas

3»

Weak phase-out - Commits to phase out some financing for companies with fracked oil and gas

operations on a 1.5°C-aligned timeline.
operations. Phase-out commitments must cover the entire sector, or at least all companies with >5%
exposure.

1.5»

Reduction - Commits to reduce financing for or credit exposure to companies with fracked oil and gas
operations.

0

»

None

Fracked oil and gas companies: exclusion

65»

Full exclusion - Prohibits financing for all companies with fracked oil and gas operations. 6»

Strong exclusion threshold – Prohibits financing for companies with significant fracked oil and gas
extraction and infrastructure operations.

4»

Moderate exclusion threshold – Prohibits financing for companies that have <50% of their reserves infracked oil and gas, including some infrastructure companies.

2»

Weak exclusion threshold – Prohibits financing for companies that have >50% of their reserves in fracked
oil and gas, including some infrastructure companies.

0.5»

Enhanced due diligence – Conducts enhanced due diligence for transactions related to fracked oil andgas. The enhanced due diligence commitment must be specific to fracked oil and gas.

0

»

None

Data from Rystad Energy AS, with reserves data as of October 2020. Provided by Oil Change International.
*Projected expansion refers to projected production to 2050 from wells
that had not yet been drilled as of the end of September 2020.

136

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

137

LNG POLICY SCORING CRITERIATOP LNG COMPANIESRANKOPERATING LNG IMPORT PROPOSED LNG IMPORTAND EXPORT CAPACITY AND EXPORT CAPACITYCOMPANY(ATTRIBUTABLE MILLION METRICTONS PER ANNUM)(ATTRIBUTABLE MILLION METRICTONS PER ANNUM)

1

KOREA GAS CORPORATION (KOGAS)

137.3818.71

2

QATAR PETROLEUM

62.88

59.92

3

ROYAL DUTCH SHELL

50.33

23.02

4

SEMPRA ENERGY

12.02

46.18

5

CHINA NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION (CNPC) / PETROCHINA

23.12

31.13

6

TOKYO ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (TEPCO)

53.76

-

7

VENTURE GLOBAL LNG

-

53.30

8

CHENIERE ENERGY

31.50

18.50

9

CHINA NATIONAL OFFSHORE OIL CORPORATION (CNOOC)

32.38

16.56

10

GOLAR LNG

35.13

13.57

11

ENAGAS

42.55

5.51

12

NEXTDECADE

-

46.50

13

NOVATEK

8.60

37.89

14

EXCELERATE ENERGY

37.40

8.30

15

SINOPEC (CHINA PETROLEUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION)

20.25

23.80

16

PETRONAS

35.67

8.25

17

EXXONMOBIL

25.20

17.44

18

TOTAL

20.58

18.35

19

OMAN OIL COMPANY

1.27

36.00

20

TOKYO GAS

34.83

1.80

21

BP

13.13

19.33

22

HÖEGH LNG

17.68

14.30

23

PETRONET LNG

22.50

8.87

24

CHEVRON

17.79

11.46

25

TELLURIAN

-

27.60

26

SONATRACH

25.56

-

27

OSAKA GAS

23.01

0.97

28

KUWAIT PETROLEUM CORPORATION

1.19

22.00

29

WOODSIDE PETROLEUM

7.84

14.84

30

H-ENERGY

-

20.50

POINT
VALUE

EXPANSIONLNG projects

3
1
0

»

Strong exclusion - Prohibits all financing for all LNG projects.

»

Weak exclusion - Prohibits financing for some LNG projects.

»

None

Companies expanding LNG

4
2
0
POINT
VALUE

»

Strong exclusion - Prohibits financing for all companies with LNG expansion plans.

»

Weak exclusion - Prohibits financing for some companies with LNG expansion plans.

»

None

PHASE-OUT / EXCLUSIONLNG companies: phase-out

5

»

3

»

1.5
0

»

Reduction - Commits to reduce financing for or credit exposure to companies with LNG operations.

»

None

Strong phase-out - Commits to phase out all financing for companies with LNG operations on a
1.5°C-aligned timeline.
Weak phase-out - Commits to phase out some financing for companies with LNG operations. Phase-out
commitments must cover the entire sector, or at least all companies with >5% exposure.

LNG companies: exclusion

6
5
2

»

Full exclusion - Prohibits all financing for all companies with LNG operations.

»

Strong exclusion threshold - Prohibits financing for companies with significant LNG operations.

»Weak exclusion threshold - Prohibits financing for companies with significant LNG operations where

0.5

»

0

»

thresholds are defined with notable loopholes.
Enhanced due diligence - Conducts enhanced due diligence for transactions related to LNG. The
enhanced due diligence commitment must be specific to LNG.
None

Data as of October 2020, based on Bloomberg New Energy Finance data.256*Proposed capacity includes projects in planning or pre-filing stages, under regulatory review, or under construction.

138

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

139

OTHER OIL & GAS POLICY SCORING CRITERIA
POINT
VALUE

EXPANSION

Other oil and gas projects

5
1.5

»

Strong exclusion - Prohibits financing for all other oil and gas projects.

»

Weak exclusion - Prohibits financing for some other oil and gas projects, namely conventional oil andgas projects.

0

»

None

Companies expanding other oil and gas

7
3
0
POINT
VALUE

»

Strong exclusion - Prohibits financing for all companies with other oil and gas expansion plans.

»

Weak exclusion - Prohibits financing for some companies with other oil and gas expansion plans.

»

None

PHASE-OUT / EXCLUSION

Other oil and gas companies: phase-out

8»Strong phase-out - Commits to phase out all financing for companies with other oil and gas operations
on a 1.5°C-aligned timeline.

6»

Weak phase-out - Commits to phase out some financing for companies with other oil and gas
operations. Phase-out commitments must cover the entire sector, or at least all companies with >5%
exposure.

1.5»

Reduction - Commits to reduce financing for or credit exposure to companies with other oil and gas

0

»

None

operations.

Other oil and gas companies: exclusion

10
7

»

Full exclusion - Prohibits financing for all companies with other oil and gas operations.

»

Strong exclusion threshold - Prohibits financing for companies with significant other oil and gas

3
0.5

»

Weak exclusion threshold - Prohibits financing for companies with majority other oil and gas operations.

»

Enhanced due diligence / Equator Principles commitment – Conducts enhanced due diligence for

operations.

transactions related to other oil and gas, or has a general environmental and social due diligence policy,
or is a signatory to the Equator Principles.

0

»

None

P H O T O : Kodda / shutterstock140

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A N G E 2021

141

COAL MINING POLICY SCORING CRITERIATOP COAL MINING COMPANIESRANKCOMPANY

ANNUAL COAL
PRODUCTION(MILLION METRIC TONS)EXPANSION
PLANS?

1

COAL INDIA

572.8

YES

2

CHINA ENERGY INVESTMENT CORPORATION (CHN ENERGY)

510.0

YES

3

YANKUANG GROUP

161.5

YES

4

SHAANXI COAL AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRY

160.2

YES

5

SHANDONG ENERGY GROUP

145.4

YES

6

PEABODY ENERGY CORP

142.1

7

DATONG COAL MINE GROUP

137.2

YES

8

CHINA NATIONAL COAL GROUP (CHINACOAL)

126.0

YES

9

GLENCORE

123.9

YES

10

SIBERIAN COAL ENERGY COMPANY (SUEK)

106.2

YES

11

BUMI RESOURCES

86.3

YES

12

SHANXI LU'AN MINING INDUSTRY GROUP

85.5

YES

13

JINNENG GROUP

84.5

YES

14

STATE POWER INVESTMENT CORPORATION (SPIC)

81.9

15

INNER MONGOLIA HUINENG COAL AND ELECTRICITY GROUP

80.0

YES

16

YANGQUAN COAL INDUSTRY GROUP

75.7

YES

17

HENAN ENERGY AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRY GROUP

73.7

YES

18

HUAIHE ENERGY HOLDING GROUP

73.0

19

ARCH RESOURCES

72.8

YES

20

CHINA HUANENG GROUP

70.9

YES

21

LIAONING ENERGY INDUSTRY HOLDING GROUP

65.3

22

RWE

64.8

23

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED (SCCL)

64.0

24

MURRAY ENERGY

61.8

25

INNER MONGOLIA YITAI GROUP

60.6

YES

26

SHANXI JINCHENG ANTHRACITE MINING GROUP

59.1

YES

27

HEILONGJIANG LONGMAY MINING HOLDING GROUP

56.2

28

JIZHONG ENERGY GROUP

54.9

YES

29

ADARO ENERGY

54.4

YES

30

SHANXI COKING COAL GROUP

54.3

YES

POINT
VALUE

EXPANSION

Coal mining projects

6»

Strong exclusion - Prohibits financing for all coal mining projects, including both new mines and42»Moderate exclusion - Prohibits financing for all new coal mining projects.

»

Weak exclusion - Prohibits some financing for some coal mining projects, such as for greenfield projects

expansions of existing mines.

only, 258 beyond mountaintop removal (MTR) mines.

0.5
0

»

MTR mine exclusion - Prohibits financing for MTR mines.

»

None

Companies expanding coal mining

8
4
0
POINT
VALUE

»

Strong exclusion - Prohibits financing for all companies with coal mining expansion plans.

»

Weak exclusion - Prohibits financing for some companies with coal mining expansion plans.

»

None

PHASE-OUT / EXCLUSION

Coal mining companies: phase-out

8»Strong phase-out - Commits to phase out all financing for companies with coal mining operations on a
1.5°C-aligned timeline.

64»Moderate phase-out - Commits to phase out some financing for companies with coal mining operations.

»Weak phase-out - Commits to phase out some financing for companies with coal mining operations,
without a stated deadline or with significant other loopholes. Phase-out commitments must cover theentire sector, or at least all companies with >5% exposure.

3
1.5
0

»

Financing reduction - Commits to reduce financing to companies with coal mining operations.

»

Exposure reduction - Commits to reduce credit exposure to companies with coal mining operations.

»

None

Coal mining companies: exclusion

10
8

»

Full exclusion - Prohibits financing for all companies with coal mining operations.

»

Strong exclusion threshold - Prohibits financing for companies with <30% of their business activity in coalmining.

5»Moderate exclusion threshold – Prohibits financing for companies with 30-50% of their business activity
in coal mining, or prohibits financing at a lower threshold but with significant loopholes.

3»

Weak exclusion threshold – Prohibits financing for companies with >50% of their business activity in coalmining, or companies with any MTR operations, or limits coal mining exclusion to new clients.

0.5»

Enhanced due diligence – Conducts enhanced due diligence for transactions related to coal mining,or excludes companies with majority MTR operations. The enhanced due diligence commitment must be
specific to coal mining or mining at large.

0

»

None

Data from urgewald’s Global Coal Exit List.257

142

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

143

TOP COAL POWER COMPANIESRANKCOMPANY

COAL POWER POLICY SCORING CRITERIAINSTALLED COAL
POWER CAPACITYCOAL POWER
EXPANSION PLANS(ATTRIBUTABLE MEGAWATTS) (ATTRIBUTABLE MEGAWATTS)

1

CHINA ENERGY INVESTMENT CORPORATION (CHN ENERGY)>155,070

197,683

2

CHINA HUANENG GROUP>100,000

128,680

3

CHINA DATANG

94,450128,145

4

CHINA HUADIAN>91,548

106,982

5

NTPC51,90465,5206

STATE POWER INVESTMENT CORPORATION (SPIC)>35,741

47,5107

ESKOM

40,17046,5708

KOREA ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION (KEPCO)

34,311

41,556

9

CHINA RESOURCES POWER HOLDINGS

30,79037,29010

PERUSAHAAN LISTRIK NEGARA (PLN / PERSERO)

20,75031,285

11

GUANGDONG ENERGY GROUP

23,27030,77012

ZHEJIANG PROVINCIAL ENERGY GROUP

28,04830,562

13

VIETNAM ELECTRICITY CORPORATION (EVN)

18,51623,65014

BEIJING ENERGY HOLDING

11,43020,88215

SHAANXI INVESTMENT GROUP

10,185

19,54516

DUKE ENERGY

16,99816,99817

STATE DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION (SDIC)

15,781

16,45518

ADANI

12,41015,80019

SIBERIAN COAL ENERGY COMPANY (SUEK)

14,415

14,41520

RWE

14,232

14,23221

DATONG COAL MINE GROUP>9,11013,90922

HEBEI CONSTRUCTION AND INVESTMENT GROUP

11,077

13,83723

POLSKA GRUPA ENERGETYCZNA (PGE)

13,171

13,66124

AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER (AEP)

13,23013,23025

CHINA NATIONAL COAL GROUP (CHINACOAL)

10,00012,21826

MAHARASHTRA STATE POWER GENERATION COMPANY (MAHAGENCO)

10,17012,15027

POWER FINANCE CORPORATION-

12,00028

CLP HOLDINGS

11,996

11,99629

RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LIMITED (RVUNL)

7,170

11,79030

ELECTRIC POWER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (J-POWER)

8,928

11,611

POINT
VALUE

EXPANSION

Coal power projects

6»

Strong exclusion - Prohibits financing for all coal power projects, including both new plants andexpansions of existing plants.

4
2
0

»

Moderate exclusion - Prohibits financing for new coal power projects.

»

Weak exclusion - Prohibits financing for some coal power projects.

»

None

Companies expanding coal power

8
4
0
POINT
VALUE

»

Strong exclusion - Prohibits financing for all companies with coal power expansion plans.

»

Weak exclusion - Prohibits financing for some companies with coal power expansion plans.

»

None

PHASE-OUT / EXCLUSION

Coal power companies: phase-out

8»Strong phase-out - Commits to phase out all financing for companies with coal power operations on a
1.5°C-aligned timeline.

64»Moderate phase-out - Commits to phase out some financing for companies with coal power operations.

»Weak phase-out - Commits to phase out some financing for companies with coal power operations,
without a stated deadline or with other significant loopholes. Phase-out commitments must cover theentire sector, or at least all companies with >5% exposure.

3
1.5
1

»

Financing reduction - Commits to reduce financing for companies with coal power operations.

»

Exposure reduction - Commits to reduce credit exposure to companies with coal power operations.

»

Proportional reduction - Commits to reduce the proportion of coal in, or emissions intensity of, power
generation or energy financing.

0

»

None

Coal power companies: exclusion

10
8

»

Full exclusion - Prohibits all financing for all companies with coal power operations.

»

Strong exclusion threshold - Prohibits financing for companies with <20% of their business activity in coal
power.

5»Moderate exclusion threshold – Prohibits financing for companies with 21-50% of their business activity
in coal power, or prohibits financing at a lower threshold but with significant loopholes.

3»

Weak exclusion threshold – Prohibits financing for companies with >50% of their business activity in coal
power, or limits coal power exclusion to new clients.

0.5»

Enhanced due diligence – Conducts enhanced due diligence for transactions related to coal power. The
enhanced due diligence commitment must be specific to coal power or electricity generation at large.

0

»

None

Data from urgewald’s Global Coal Exit List.259

144

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

145

OTHER COAL POLICY SCORING CRITERIA
POINT
VALUE

EXPANSION

Other coal projects

3
1
0

»

Strong exclusion - Prohibits financing for all coal infrastructure projects.

»

Weak exclusion - Prohibits financing for some coal infrastructure projects.

»

None

Companies expanding other coal

4
2
0
POINT
VALUE

»

Strong exclusion - Prohibits financing for all companies with coal infrastructure expansion plans.

»

Weak exclusion - Prohibits financing for some companies with coal infrastructure expansion plans.

»

None.

PHASE-OUT / EXCLUSION

Other coal companies: phase-out

4

»

2

»

Strong phase-out - Commits to phase out all financing for companies with coal infrastructure operations
on a 1.5°C-aligned timeline.
Weak phase-out - Commits to phase out some financing for companies with coal infrastructure
operations. Phase-out commitments must cover the entire sector, or at least all companies with >5%
exposure.

1»

Reduction - Commits to reduce financing for or credit exposure to companies with coal infrastructure
operations.

0

»

None

Other coal companies: exclusion

5
4»

Full exclusion - Prohibits all financing for all companies with coal infrastructure operations.

»

Strong exclusion threshold - Prohibits financing for companies with significant coal infrastructure
operations.

2»

Weak exclusion threshold - Prohibits financing for companies with majority coal infrastructure
operations.

0.5»

Enhanced due diligence - Conducts enhanced due diligence for transactions related to coalinfrastructure.

0

»

None

P H O T O S : Melvinas Priananda / TrendAsia; Tiara Pertiwi / TrendAsia

146

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

147

ENDNOTES
1 For this and all figures following in the executive summary, see the league tables that follow
throughout this report, and www.bankingonclimatechaos.org for the full datasets.

27 2,300 refers to the number of particular subsidiary companies that received financing led by
the banks included.

51 Andrea Thompson, “Photos Show Massive Wildfires Devastating Oregon and California,”
Scientific American, 14 September 2020.

2 Robert McSweeny and Ayesha Tandon, “Global Carbon Project: Coronavirus Causes 'Record Fall'in Fossil-fuel Emissions in 2020,” Carbon Brief, 11 December 2020.

28 See ran.org/bankingonclimatechaos2021 for a methodology document that lists all the
Bloomberg Industry Classification Standards included; “Global Coal Exit List,” urgewald e.V.,
November 2020; see the appendices to this report for a list of all oil and gas companies that Rystad
data have identified for inclusion.

52 “Australia: Bushfire Victims File OECD Complaint Against ANZ Bank for Financing Fossil Fuel
Projects,” Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, 30 January 2020.
53 David Tong, “Big Oil Reality Check,” Oil Change International, 23 September 2020.

80 Joseph R. Biden, Jr., “Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment andRestoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis,” The White House, 20 January 2021; Nia Williams,“Canada’s Oil Sands Hit Record High Production - Gov’t Data,” Nasdaq, 6 January 2021.

4 Robert McSweeny and Ayesha Tandon, “Global Carbon Project: Coronavirus Causes 'Record Fall'in Fossil-fuel Emissions in 2020,” Carbon Brief, 11 December 2020.

29 Rystad Energy AS is an independent oil and gas consulting services and business intelligencedata firm, see rystadenergy.com; Company reporting was used to update the list of key oil and gas
midstream companies included.

54 “Fossil Fuel Giants Still Aiming Wide of 2°C Mark, Investors Say,” Transition Pathway Initiative, 7October 2020.

81 “Who’s Banking Line 3 and Keystone XL: Tar Sands Pipelines Being Rammed Through in a
Pandemic,” Rainforest Action Network, December 2020.

5 “World Energy Outlook 2020,” International Energy Agency, October 2020.

30 “Global Coal Exit List,” urgewald e.V., November 2020.

55 For this and the rest of this section, see: David Tong, “Big Oil Reality Check,” Oil ChangeInternational, 23 September 2020.

82 “Line 3 Replacement Program (Canada),” Enbridge, accessed January 2021.

6 Robert McSweeny and Ayesha Tandon, “Global Carbon Project: Coronavirus Causes ‘Record
Fall’ in Fossil-fuel Emissions in 2020,” Carbon Brief, 11 December 2020.

31 Rystad Energy’s UCube database is an exploration and production upstream database withreserves, production profiles, and economical figures for all fields, discoveries, and exploration
licenses globally. See “UCube,” Rystad Energy, and “Oil Pipelines,” Oil Sands Magazine. In addition
to the companies listed at that site, Kinder Morgan is also included because through September
2018 it was the owner of the Trans Mountain Pipeline. “Kinder Morgan Canada Limited - Trans
Mountain Pipeline and Expansion Project Transaction Closes,” Trans Mountain, 31 August 2018.

56 “Overview,” East African Crude Oil Pipeline, accessed January 2021.

32 Ibid; Arctic is defined as all onshore and offshore reserves north of the 66th parallel north.

59 Producers need a way to transport oil from the oil fiends to the port of Tanga, and there iscurrently no readily available alternative to EACOP. See, e.g., Gilbert Makore and Fatma Lucy
Nyambura, “Connecting the Dots With the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline,” Extractive Industries
Transparency Initiative, 25 November 2020.

85 Bloomberg Finance L.P., accessed March 2021.

60 “Tilenga Project: Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, Vol. 1,” National Environment
Management Authority, May 2018; “Murchison Falls National Park, Uganda,” Global Conservation,accessed January 2021.

87 See bankingonclimatechaos.org for details on banks’ Arctic oil and gas policies.

61 Andrew Bogrand et al., “Empty Promises Down the Line? A Human Rights Impact Assessment of
the East African Crude Oil Pipeline,” Oxfam International, September 2020, pp. 34, 58–60, 77.

89 “The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Protecting Life on the Coastal Plain,” Natural Resources
Defense Council, 2005.

62 Ibid, pp. 6–7, 31, 34–43.

90 “The Coastal Plain – The Sacred Place Where Life Begins,” Gwich’in Steering Committee,
accessed January 2021.

3 For this and all figures following in the introduction, see the league tables that follow throughout
this report, and www.bankingonclimatechaos.org for the full datasets.

7 See, e.g., David J. Lynch, “With Fed’s Encouragement, Corporations Accelerate Debt Binge in
Hopes of Riding Out Pandemic,” Washington Post, 13 May 2020.
8 “Factbox: Pandemic Brings Forward Predictions for Peak Oil Demand,” Reuters, 27 November
2020; “Coal,” BP.
9 The UN Environment Program’s (UNEP) Production Gap Report 2020 says production must
decline by 6% per year from 2020–2030. “The Production Gap Report: 2020 Special Report,”
Stockholm Environment Institute, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Overseas
Development Institute, Third Generation Environmentalism (E3G), and UNEP, 2020.

33 Ibid.

10 See, e.g.: “Sustainable Finance: BNP Paribas, Accelerating a More Sustainable Economy,” BNP
Paribas, accessed January 2021; “Where You Put Your Money Matters,” Bank of the West, 1 May
2020.

35 Analysis of top companies based on project-level data from: “LNG Export and Import Projects 3Q 2020,” BloombergNEF, 22 October 2020.

11 Indeed, BNP Paribas has boasted of this financing activity; see, e.g., Owen Walker, Stephen
Morris and David Keohane, “Can BNP Paribas Beat the Investment Banking Jinx?,” Financial Times,
1 July 2020.
12 For this and all figures following in the executive summary, see the league tables that follow
throughout this report, and www.bankingonclimatechaos.org for the full datasets.
13 Jeff Lewis and Rod Nickel, "Long-Suffering Canadian Oilpatch Faces ‘Biggest Existential Crisis’Yet,” Reuters, 10 May 2020.
14 Melody Schreiber and Yereth Rosen, "Alaska Senators Blast Banks for ‘Discrimination’ as They
Halt Arctic Oil and Gas Investments,” Arctic Today, 28 April 2020.
15 See, e.g., “Fracking Fiasco: The Banks That Fueled the U.S. Shale Bust,” Rainforest Action
Network and Oil Change International, 24 September 2020.
16 "Over 100 and Counting: Financial Institutions are Restricting Thermal Coal Funding,” Institutefor Energy Economics & Financial Analysis.
17 For all policy scores cited in this section, see the following policy score tables throughout thereport, as well as bankingonclimatechaos.org for more detailed data.
18 The percentage of adjusted coal mining or coal power league credit that is project-related
from 2016-2020.
19 See, e.g., Patrick Julius, “The Scissors of Supply and Demand,” Human Economics, 3 October
2015.
20 Alastair Marsh, "RBS Plans to Cut Fossil Fuel Loans, Be Climate Positive by 2025,” Bloomberg
Green, 14 February 2020; Kalyeena Makortoff, "Barclays Sets Net Zero Carbon Target for 2050 After
Investor Pressure,” The Guardian, 30 March 2020.
21 “Principles for Paris-Aligned Financial Institutions: Climate Impact, Fossil Fuels andDeforestation,” Rainforest Action Network, 16 September 2020.
22 “Summary for Policymakers,” in “Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC Special Report on the
Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C Above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse
Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of
Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty,” edited by Valérie
Masson-Delmotte et al., International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2018.

148

34 Ibid; company reporting was used to review fracked oil and gas infrastructure projects in order
to select 10 of the companies behind the most projects.

36 While all other subsectors rank and include companies by some metric that takes into accountboth current and planned activities, the Global Coal Exit List does not have sufficient quantitative
information on coal mining companies’ expansion plans to take this into account. Instead, thisanalysis covers the biggest 30 coal mining companies by production.
37 “Global Coal Exit List,” urgewald e.V., November 2020.
38 Ibid.
39 The Bloomberg Terminal is a ubiquitous provider of financial data available 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 andGuidelines. This means the financing credit allotted to a particular leading bank may be higher
than its actual contribution, and the credit allotted to a lower ranking bank may be lower than its
actual contribution.
40 IJGlobal is a project finance and infrastructure journal and data provider; see ijglobal.com.
41 Note that this method effectively undercounts figures in the league table for fossil fuelexpansion, as the adjuster is based on current operations, while these companies are highlighted
because of their large fossil fuel expansion plans that have yet to be developed. For companies
in the top expanders list and their subsidiaries, annual adjusters were used in the overall fossil fuelleague table. For all other companies, one adjuster was calculated and applied to all five years ofdata.
42 If the company was involved in other sectors in addition to oil and gas, the proportion ofreserves was applied to the company’s reported oil and gas business segment(s)’s capital
expenditure.

65 "Tanzania: Pipe Dreams - Inside the Uganda - Tanzania Oil Pipeline Talks,” allAfrica, 18 March
2019.
66 Elias Biryabarema, “Stanbic Sees June 2019 Close for $2.5 bln Debt Deal for Uganda's Oil
Pipeline,” Reuters, 21 November 2018.

26 Of course, these are far from being the only problematic sectors funded by big banks, manyof whom continue to support other particularly problematic areas of the fossil fuel sector such as
oil development in the Amazon, as well as other controversial industries such as large hydropower
projects, conflict palm oil and other deforestation-risk commodities, private prisons andimmigration detention centers, and more.

49 Adam Vaughan, “Major Fires Hit the Amazon and the Arctic for the Second Year in a Row,” New
Scientist, 26 June 2020.
50 Christian Poirier, “Australia and the Amazon: Two Terrible Tragedies With One Key Difference,”
Amazon Watch, 16 January 2020.

86 See e.g. Sheila Regan, “'It's Cultural Genocide': Inside the Fight to Stop a Pipeline on Tribal
Lands,” The Guardian, 19 February 2021.

87 “Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,” Audubon Alaska, accessed January 2021.

91 Matthew Ballew, Anthony Leiserowitz, Seth Rosenthal, John Kotcher, and Edward Maibach,“Americans Oppose Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,” Yale Program on Climate
Change Communication, 26 September 2019.
92 Tegan Hanlon and Nat Herz, “Major Oil Companies Take a Pass On Controversial Lease Sale in
Arctic Refuge,” National Public Radio, 6 January 2021.
93 Adam Federman, “How Science Got Trampled in the Rush to Drill in the Arctic,” Politico, 26 July
2019.

68 “Shareholders,” NLNG, accessed January 2021.

95 Andy McGlashen, “The Arctic Refuge Lease Sale Was a Flop,” Audubon, 7 January 2021.

69 “The Plant,” NLNG, accessed January 2021.

96 Sara Kiley Watson, “Future Offshore Drilling Could Wreak Havoc on Deep Sea Ecosystems,”
Popular Science, 26 April 2018; see the following case studies.

70 “Background,” NLNG, accessed January 2021.
71 Oluyemi Ayorinde Akintoye, Abiodun Komomo Eyong, Peter Agada, Opaminola Nicholas
Digha, and Okibe James Okibe, “Socio-Economic Implication of Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas(NLNG) Project in Bonny Local Government Area, Rivers State, Nigeria,” Journal of Geoscience andEnvironment Protection, 4(5), 63–79, January 2016.

74 “A Just Energy Transition for Africa? Mapping the Impacts of ECAs Active in the Energy Sector in
Ghana, Nigeria, Togo and Uganda,” Both ENDS, November 2020.

48 Kendra Pierre-Louis and John Schwartz, “Why Does California Have So Many Wildfires?” The
New York Times, 3 December 2020.

84 Sebastien Malo, “Minn. Governor Appeals Enbridge's Line 3 Citing Decreasing Oil Demand,”Reuters, 19 August 2020; Brooks Johnson and Mike Hughlett, “OSHA Still Investigating Death of Man
at Enbridge Work Site,” Star Tribune, 30 December 2020.

94 “Corporate Commitment to Protect the Arctic Refuge,” Gwich’in Steering Committee, 17February 2021.

45 “Wildfires and Climate Change,” Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, accessed January2021; Jessica Merzdorf, “A Drier Future Sets the Stage for More Wildfires,” NASA Global Climate
Change, 9 July 2019; “Climate Change Increasing Risks of Lightning-Ignited Fires,” ScienceDaily, 31
May 2018.

25 Company sector category defined by company’s primary categorization in the Bloomberg
Industry Classification Standard.

83 Mike Hughlett, “Army Corps of Engineers Issues Enbridge Permit for $2.6B Pipeline AcrossNorthern Minnesota,” Star Tribune, 24 November 2020; Dan Kraker, “Ojibwe Bands Ask for Halt onLine 3 Construction,” Minnesota Public Radio, 30 December 2020.

67 “The Plant,” NLNG, accessed January 2021; “Our Host,” NLNG, accessed January 2021.

73 “Environmental, Social, and Health Impact Assessment (ESHIA) for the Train 7 Project,” NLNG,
August 2019.

47 Justine Calma, “What You Need to Know About the Australia Bushfires,” The Verge, 13 February
2020.

C H A O S 2021

64 Elias Biryabarema, “Stanbic Sees June 2019 Close for $2.5 bln Debt Deal for Uganda's Oil
Pipeline,” Reuters, 21 November 2018.

44 “Uptick in Amazon Fire Activity in 2019,” NASA Earth Observatory, 19 August 2019; “Yes, Climate
Change Is Driving Wildfires,” UN Environment Programme, 2 October 2020.

24 Pippa Stevens, “Coronavirus response can ‘reshape the future of energy,’ IEA says in annual
report,” CNBC, 13 October 2020.

C L I M A T E

63 Ed Reed, “Uganda-Tanzania Pipeline Construction Planned for 2021,” Energy Voice, 5
December 2020.

43 Where a company was involved in activities other than energy generation and distribution, thecoal-fired capacity percentage was applied to the electricity generation or power segment of thecompany as a percentage of total assets.

46 Akshat Rathi and Jake Rudnitsky, “Arctic Heatwave Is Reigniting Siberian Tinderbox,” Bloomberg
Green, 27 May 2020.

O N

58 350.org Africa et al., Letter to Patrick Mweheire, Sim Tshabalala and Makoto Takashima, 28 May
2019, p. 2.

72 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.

23 See, e.g., David J. Lynch, “With Fed’s Encouragement, Corporations Accelerate Debt Binge in
Hopes of Riding Out Pandemic,” Washington Post, 13 May 2020.

B A N K I N G

57 Ibid.

79 Jeffrey Jones, “The Teck Megaproject is Dead, But There’s Still Hope in the Oil Sands,” The Globe
and Mail, 28 February 2020; Rod Nickel and Steve Scherer, “Canada's Trans Mountain Pipeline Sees
Fortunes Shine After KXL's Demise,” Reuters, 24 January 2021.

75 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 Journalof Advanced Research and Publications, 3(7), 67–72, July 2019.
76 See, e.g., “Troubled In All Sides, Bonny Youths Protest Against NLGN,” OrientEnergyReview, 19
September 2017; Renux, “NLNG Has Failed Finima People … We Challenge Company to Projects’
Audit,” NGNewsHub, 18 January 2021.
77 Ibibia Lucky Worika, “Deprivation, Despoilation and Destitution: Whither Environment andHuman Rights in Nigeria’s Niger Delta?” ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law, 8(1),1–30, 2001, p. 8; A. Maja-Pierce, Civil Liberties Organisation (Lagos), "Blood Trail: Repression andResistance in Niger Delta," pp. 46–47, 2002).
78 Data from IJGlobal, accessed 29 January 2021.

97 “Barents Sea,” Norwegian Polar Institute, accessed January 2021.
98 Eric Niiler, “The Arctic Is Warming Much Faster Than the Rest of Earth,” Wired, 4 December 2019.
99 Scott Waldman, “The U.S. Is Not Ready to Clean Up an Arctic Oil Spill,” Scientific American, 19
July 2017.
100 Thomas Nilsen, “Norway Proposes to Open 125 New Oil Exploration Blocks in the Barents Sea,”
The Barents Observer, 24 June 2020.
101 Nermina Kulovic, “Equinor Gearing Up for Fresh Barents Sea Well,” Offshore Energy, 30
November 2020.
102 “Norwegian Supreme Court: Okay to Explore for New Oil. Producing It Is Another Matter,”Center for International Environmental Law, 22 December 2020.
103 “New Climate Ambitions for Equinor’s International Oil and Gas Portfolio,” Equinor, 2020, p. 3.
104 Data from IJGlobal, accessed January 2021.
105 “Eni Starts Gas Production From OCTP Project, Deep Offshore Ghana,” Eni, 4 July 2018.
106 “OCTP: Oil and Gas Off the Coast of Ghana,” Eni, accessed January 2021; “GE Oil & Gas
Announces $850M Order with Eni and Partners for Offshore Cape Three Points Block, Ghana,” GE,accessed March 2021.
107 Ibid.
108 “A Just Energy Transition for Africa? Mapping the Impacts of ECAs Active in the Energy Sectorin Ghana, Nigeria, Togo and Uganda,” Both ENDS, November 2020, p. 20.
109 Ibid. p. 19.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

149

ENDNOTES
110 Ibid pp. 23, 25.
111 Data from IJGlobal, accessed January 2021.
112 “Fracking Fiasco: The Banks That Fueled the U.S. Shale Bust,” Rainforest Action Network and Oil
Change International, 24 September 2020.
113 Jonathan Watts, “Coronavirus Pandemic Threatens Controversial Fracking Project inArgentina,” The Guardian, 29 April 2020.
114 Jacey Bingler et al., “Five Years Lost: How Finance Is Blowing the Paris Carbon Budget,”Urgewald et al., December 2020, pp. 34–35.
114 Ibid, p. 35.
116 Jonathan Watts, “Coronavirus Pandemic Threatens Controversial Fracking Project inArgentina,” The Guardian, 29 April 2020.
117 From January 2016–August 2020. Jacey Bingler et al., “Five Years Lost: How Finance Is Blowing
the Paris Carbon Budget,” Urgewald et al., December 2020, p. 36.
118 Jonathan Watts, “Coronavirus Pandemic Threatens Controversial Fracking Project inArgentina,” The Guardian, 29 April 2020.
119 “Overview,” Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, accessed February 2021; “Overview,” MVP
Southgate, accessed February 2021.

139 Christopher Lenton, “Energía Costa Azul Sanctioned, Looks to Become Mexico’s First LNG
Export Project,” Natural Gas Intelligence, 17 November 2020.

141 IJGlobal, accessed February 2021.

167 Ibid, p. 3

142 Steve Horn, “Mexico’s Standing Rock? Sempra, TransCanada Face Indigenous Pipeline
Resistance South of Border,” DeSmog, 2 January 2018.

168 Bloomberg Finance L.P., accessed February 2021.

126 “Construction Update,” Coastal GasLink, 19 November 2020; “About,” LNG Canada, accessed
December 2020.
127 Augusta Davis, “Unceded Land: The Case for Wet’suwet’en Sovereignty,” Cultural Survival, 28
February 2020; Amber Bracken and Leyland Cecco, “Canada: Protests Go Mainstream as Support
for Wet'suwet'en Pipeline Fight Widens,” The Guardian, 14 February 2020.
128 “COVID-19 Outbreak Declared at Coastal GasLink Accommodation Sites in Northern B.C.,”
CBC News, 20 December 2020.
129 C$6.4 billion; “TC Energy Completes Partial Monetization and Project Financing Transactions
for Coastal GasLink,” TC Energy, 25 May 2020; Bloomberg Finance L.P., accessed March 2021.
130 Bloomberg Finance L.P., accessed March 2021; Augusta Davis, “Unceded Land: The Case for
Wet’suwet’en Sovereignty,” Cultural Survival, 28 February 2020.
131 C$159.2 million; Bloomberg Finance L.P., accessed March 2021.
132 Ibid.
133 Christina Swanson and Amanda Levin, “Sailing to Nowhere: Liquefied Natural Gas Is Not an
Effective Climate Strategy,” National Resources Defence Council, December 2020.
134 Jacey Bingler et al., “Five Years Lost: How Finance Is Blowing the Paris Carbon Budget,”Urgewald et al., December 2020, pp. 28–31.
135 Christina Swanson and Amanda Levin, “Sailing to Nowhere: Liquefied Natural Gas Is Not an
Effective Climate Strategy,” National Resources Defence Council, December 2020; Amanda Levin,“Opinion: Liquefied Natural Gas Is a Bridge to Nowhere,” Houston Chronicle, 13 January 2021.
136 See, e.g., “21 Protesters Arrested After Taking Over Oregon Governor’s Office to Oppose
Jordan Cove Project,” OPB, 21 November 2019; Amber Bracken and Leyland Cecco, “Canada:Protests Go Mainstream as Support for Wet'suwet'en Pipeline Fight Widens,” The Guardian, 14
February 2020.
137 “Sempra Energy Announces FID for Landmark Energía Costa Azul LNG Export Project,”
Sempra Energy, 17 November 2020.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

192 Lauri Myllyvirta, “Air Quality, Health and Toxics Impacts of the Proposed Coal Power Cluster in
Chattogram, Bangladesh,” Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, September 2020, p. 11.
193 “Matarbari Coal Power Plants: Japanese Companies Threaten Communities and Climate in
Bangladesh,” Market Forces, September 2020; IJGlobal, accessed January 2021.
194 “EMBA Hunutlu Power Station,” Global Energy Monitor Wiki, last updated 4 December 2020.
195 “Toolkit: Coal Power Generation and Health in Iskenderun Bay, Turkey,” Health andEnvironment Alliance (HEAL), February 2016, p. 45.
196 Lauri Myllyvirta, “Air Quality and Health Impacts of the Proposed EMBA Hunutlu Coal Power
Project,” Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, June 2020, p. 1.

170 “Perspective Document on Coal Mining in Hasdeo Arand Region,” Janabhivyakti, December
2014, p. 21.

198 Lauri Myllyvirta, “Air Quality and Health Impacts of the Proposed EMBA Hunutlu Coal Power
Project,” Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, June 2020.

145 “Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) Summary,” African Development Bank
Group, April 2019, p. 41.

171 Vaishnavi Suresh, “Decades of Mining Has Ravaged Chhattisgarh’s Korba Region. Could Its
Hasdeo Arand Forests Be Next?” Scroll, 21 August 2020.

199 “Emba Hunutlu Coal Power Plant,” BankTrack, last updated 12 January 2021.

146 Sophie Nieman, “Explosive Mix,” New Internationalist, 23 December 2020.

172 Ritesh Mishra, “No Coal Mining in Hasdeo Arand’: Coal Ministry Accepts Chhattisgarh Govt
Proposal,” Hindustan Times, 1 August 2020.

144 “Rovuma LNG Project in Mozambique Awards Onshore EPC Contract,” ExxonMobil, accessed
January 2021; “About the Mozambique Liquefied Natural Gas Project,” Mozambique LNG, accessed
January 2021; “Mozambique: Coral South FLNG Project on Schedule – AIM Report,” Club ofMozambique, 5 June 2020.

148 Information provided by Justiça Ambiental/Friends of the Earth Mozambique from interviews
with community members; their last meeting in the area was in November 2020. See also Sophie
Nieman, “Explosive Mix,” New Internationalist, 23 December 2020.

125 DivestMVP, “Tell Banks: Divest From the Fracked Gas Mountain Valley Pipeline,” February 2021.

191 “Cox's Bazar: Maheshkhali - Water Logging,” reliefweb, 11 July 2018.

169 “The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights)
Act, 2006,” published in The Gazette of India, 29 December 2006, pp. 5–6; “Perspective Document
on Coal Mining in Hasdeo Arand Region,” Janabhivyakti, December 2014; Jayashree Nandi,“Chhattisgarh Mining Projects Violating Forest Act: Activists,” Hindustan Times, 28 February 2020;“Not Just a Coal Block - Gram Sabha Resolutions,” People’s Archive of Rural India, 3 January 2015.

143 Joby Warrick, “California Gas Leak Was the Worst Man-Made Greenhouse-Gas Disaster in U.S.
History, Study Says,” The Washington Post, 25 February 2016.

121 Kyle Gracey et al., “New Money Behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline: Eight U.S. Banks Dominate
the Top 10 Backers,” Oil Change International, 12 November 2020.

124 Kyle Gracey et al., “New Money Behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline: Eight U.S. Banks Dominate
the Top 10 Backers,” Oil Change International, 12 November 2020.

165 Gunjeet Sra, “Coal Mining and Community Activism in India,” The Ecologist, 21 January 2020.
166 “Perspective Document on Coal Mining in Hasdeo Arand Region,” Janabhivyakti, December
2014.

147 “Gas in Mozambique: A Windfall for the Industry, a Curse for the Country: France Thrusts
Mozambique Into the Fossil Fuel Trap: Executive Summary,” Les Amis de la Terre France, Justiça
Ambiental (JA!/Friends of the Earth Mozambique), and Friends of the Earth International, June 2020.

123 Eddie Callahan, “MVP’s Stream, Wetland Crossing Permits Put on Hold by Court,” WDBJ, 9November 2020.

164 “The Adani List: Companies That Could Make or Break the Carmichael Coal Project,” Market
Forces, accessed February 2021; “Bank of America Corporation Environmental and Social Risk
Policy Framework,” Bank of America, February 2021.

140 Steven Horn, “Sempra Energy Plans to Export Fracked Gas on the West Coast — via Mexico,”
DeSmog, 7 August 2018.

120 Jonathan Sokolow, “Despite Company Claims, Only a Fraction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline
Is Complete in Virginia,” Virginia Mercury, 10 August 2020; Hamp Smith, “Gas Pipeline Costs Run
Higher, Again,” BTU Analytics, 1 February 2019.

122 Lorne Stockman et al., “Art of the Self-Deal: How Regulatory Failure Lets Gas Pipeline
Companies Fabricate Need and Fleece Ratepayers,” Oil Change International, Public Citizen, andSierra Club, 19 September 2017; Amy Mall, “5 Key Reasons to Stop the Mountain Valley Pipeline,”
Natural Resources Defense Council, 10 September 2020.

150

138 Harry Weber and Ross Wyeno, “US LNG Exporters Keep Utilization Near Capacity as AsianPrices Test New Heights,” S&P Global, 11 January 2021.

173 Gunjeet Sra, “Coal Mining and Community Activism in India,” The Ecologist, 21 January 2020;
Vaishnavi Suresh, “Decades of Mining Has Ravaged Chhattisgarh’s Korba Region. Could Its Hasdeo
Arand Forests Be Next?” Scroll, 21 August 2020.
174 “Global Coal Exit List,” urgewald e.V., November 2020.

197 “Clean Air for Adana,” The Clean Air for Adana Campaign, accessed January 2021; “Europe
Beyond Coal Database,” Europe Beyond Coal, accessed January 2021.

200 “Emba Hunutlu Coal Power Plant, Turkey: Financiers,” BankTrack, last updated 12 January
2021.
201 “China’s Banks Asked to Stop Funding Turkey’s Coal Industry,” Bloomberg Green, 10 June
2020.
202 Bloomberg News, “Turkish Coal Plant Foes Call on Chinese Banks to Halt Financing,”
Bloomberg Green, 10 June 2020.

149 “Joint UN Statement on Humanitarian Crisis and Escalating Violence in Northern
Mozambique,” United Nations Population Fund, East and Southern Africa, 20 January 2021;“Mozambique: Video Showing Killing of Naked Woman Further Proof of Human Rights Violations byState Armed Forces,” Amnesty International, 15 September 2020; Christophe Le Bec, “Mozambique:
How Total Plans to Protects Its $15bn Major Gas Project,” The Africa Report, 7 January 2021.

175 “Situation Report #5 Floods South Kalimantan Floods,” Human Initiative, 26 January 2021.

203 “Turkey: More Than 20 NGOs Call on Chinese Banks to Stop Funding Coal-Fired Power Plant,”
Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, 14 June 2020.

176 Hans Nicholas Jong, “Plantations, Mines Didn’t Worsen Flood, Indonesia Says. The Data Begs
to Differ,” Mongabay, 22 January 2021; “Terkait Banjir, Ini 5 Perusahaan Tambang Terbesar di Kalsel,”
KOMPASTV, 19 January 2021; Hans Nicholas Jong, “Indonesian Police May Probe Coal Miners Over
Deforestation-Linked Floods,” Mongabay, 18 February 2021.

204 The Bankers for Net Zero commitment framework includes a version of the call for time-boundfossil zero: “#StateTheDate for the end to all financing of all fossil fuels and deforestation-linked
lending.” Ben Bracciano, “Statement from the Bankers for NetZero Initiative: UK Net Zero Banking
Sector Commitment for COP26,” Fair Business Banking, 26 January 2021.

150 Sihle Qekeleshe, “FID On Mozambique's Rovuma LNG Project Delayed Until 2021,” Africa Oil &Power, 8 June 2020.

177 Fedina S. Sundaryani, “Adaro to Diversify Business in Long Term,” The Jakarta Post, 27 April
2017; “Annual Report 2019,” PT Adaro Energy Tbk, 2020.

205 See forestsandfinance.org.

151 IJGlobal, accessed February 2021.

178 “Annual Report 2019,” PT Adaro Energy Tbk, 2020, pp. 35 and 110; Lucy EJ Woods, “AsConstruction Begins on Java's Batang Coal Plant, A Divided Community Faces Environmental
Problems,” Mongabay, 24 January 2017.

152 “Access to Electricity (% of Population) - Mozambique,” The World Bank, accessed January2021; “Mozambique,” UNESCO Institute of Statistics, accessed January 2021.
153 Leigh Elston and Megan Darby, “Gas Curse: Mozambique’s Multi-Billion Dollar Gamble on
LNG,” Climate Home News, 7 October 2020.
154 Naaman Zhou, “Crooked Not Courageous: Adani Renames Australian Group Bravus,
Mistaking It for ‘Brave,’” The Guardian, 5 November 2020; “Adani’s New Plan, November 2018
Update,” Market Forces 5 November 2018.
155 “Why We Will #StopAdani,” Stop Adani, accessed January 2021.
156 “Our Fight: Stop Adani Destroying Our Land,” Wangan & Jagalingou Family Council, accessed
January 2021.
157 “Bankrupting of First Nations leader: Adani Sets Brutal New Standard of Corporate Behaviour,”
Wangan and Jagalingou Family Council, 16 August 2019; Ben Smee, “Adani Land-use Agreement:
Court Dismisses Indigenous Group’s Appeal,” The Guardian, 11 July 2019.

179 Bloomberg Finance L.P., accessed January 2021.
180 Farid Firdaus, “Refinancing’ Utang, Adaro Jajaki Pinjaman US$ 400 Juta,” Investor Daily
Indonesia, 5 February 2021.
181 Shashank Bengal, “China, Japan and South Korea, While Vowing to Go Green at Home,
Promote Coal Abroad,” Los Angeles Times, 13 May 2019.
182 Andreas Anhäuser, Minwoo Son, Aidan Farrow, and Lauri Myllyvirta, “Health Impacts of Units
9-10 of the Jawa Coal-Fired Power Plant in Banten, Indonesia,” Greenpeace, November 2019.
183 Yuddy Cahya Budiman and Willy Kurniawan, “Indonesian Coal Plant Taints South Korea’s
Green Pledge,” Reuters, 16 July 2020.
184 “Indonesia’s State Utility Cuts 2020 Revenue Target by Nearly 15% on Coronavirus Woes,”
Reuters, 22 April 2020.

206 Chris Mooney and Joby Warrick, “How Tiny Islands Drove Huge Ambition at the Paris Climate
Talks,” The Washington Post, 12 December 2015.
207 This is the pathway that does not rely on the large-scale use of speculative negative emission
technologies. “Summary for Policymakers,” in “Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC Special Reporton the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C Above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global
Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to theThreat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty,” edited by
Valérie Masson-Delmotte et al., IPCC, 2018, p. 14.
208 “Paris Agreement,” United Nations, 2015, p. 3.
209 Reinforced by the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures's initial focus
exclusively on climate risk.
210 Doreen Stabinsky, “Chasing Carbon Unicorns: The Deception of Carbon Markets and ‘Net
Zero,’” Friends of the Earth International et al., February 2021.
211 Romain Ioualalen and Paul Schreiber, “NGFS Scenarios: Guiding Finance Towards Climate
Ambition or Climate Failure?” Oil Change International and Reclaim Finance, February 2021.
212 See forestsandfinance.org.

158 “The Adani List: Companies That Could Make or Break the Carmichael Coal Project,” Market
Forces, accessed February 2021.

185 Wilda Asmarini, “Indonesia’s PLN ‘Burdened’ by Electricity Oversupply- Official,” Reuters, 5March 2020.

159 Todd Gillespie and Suvashree Ghosh, “Blackrock, Storebrand Pressure Indian Bank Over Coal
Mining Loan,” Bloomberg Green, 4 December 2020.

186 “‘Really Losing Face’: Pressure Builds on Kepco to Drop Plans for Potentially Loss-Making Coal
Plants,” Global Construction Review, 24 June 2020; Heesu Lee and Stephen Stapczynski, “Korea’s
Kepco Moves Ahead With Controversial Coal Investment,” Bloomberg Green, 30 June 2020.

214 “Barclays Position on Climate Change,” Barclays, April 2020, p. 2.

187 “Get Out of Jawa 9 and 10!” Market Forces, accessed January 2021.

216 “UN Climate Report a ‘Red Alert’ for the Planet: Guterres,” UN News, 26 February 2021.

161 “Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited: Integrated Annual Report 2019–20,” Adani
Ports and Logistics, 2020, p. 112; “New Rail Company Recruiting for Bowen Haulage Business,”
Industry Queensland, 18 August 2020; “Investor Briefing: Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone
(NSE/BSE: ADANI PORTS)," Market Forces, 20 October 2020, pp. 3–4.

188 “Matarbari Coal Power Plants: Japanese Companies Threaten Communities and Climate in
Bangladesh,” Market Forces, September 2020; IJGlobal, accessed January 2021.

217 “Media Briefer: Response to JPMorgan Chase's Paris Alignment Commitment October 2020,”
Rainforest Action Network, October 2020.

189 Pinaki Roy, “Future Not Coal Power,” The Daily Star, November 19, 2020.

162 Ulf Erlandsson, “Global Investors and the Carmichael Mega-Mine,” The Anthropocene Fixed
Income Institute, September 2020, pp. 7–8.

190 “The Tourist Capital of Bangladesh Endangered by Plans to Build the Largest Coal Power Hub
in the World: Report of a Fact-Finding Mission on Possible Risks of Having Coal-Based Power Plants
in Cox’s Bazar,” Bangladesh Poribesh Andolon and Waterkeepers Bangladesh, November 2019, pp.
21–28; Hasan Mehedi, “Initial Observation of BWGED on Matarbari Coal Power Plant,” Bangladesh
Working Group on External Debt, 7 August 2018.

218 See, e.g., “Morgan Stanley Sets Net Zero Financed Emissions Target Without Key Details,” Stop
the Money Pipeline, 21 September 2020..

160 Ibid; “Amundi Gives Bond Warming to State Bank of India Over Adani’s Australian Coal Mine,”
CNBC, 1 December 2020.

163 Bloomberg Finance L.P., accessed January 2021. According to Bloomberg, Deutsche Bank isalso credited with participation in a July 2020 bond issuance for Adani Ports, but some reporting
indicates that Deutsche Bank may have declined involvement: Mohit Bhalla, “Adani Ports Bonds
Issue: DB Backed Out on Green Concerns,” The Economic Times, 28 January 2021.

213 HSBC announces resolution on climate change,” HSBC, 11 March 2021.

215 “About,” Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials, accessed February 2021.

219 See, e.g., Colin Hunt, “Kyoto Protocol Fails: Get Ready for a Hotter World,” The Conversation,
15 Novevmber 2012.
220 “Failures of Kyoto Will Repeat With the Paris Climate Agreement,” US Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Parks, 21 April 2016; Stavros G. Poulopoulos, “Kyoto Protocol Atmospheric
Environment, Global Warming and Climate Change,” ScienceDirect, 2016.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

151

ENDNOTES
221 “The Clean Development Mechanism,” United Nations Climate Change, accessed January
2021.

239 “The Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples’ Platform Becomes Operational at COP 23,”
UNFCCC, accessed January 2021.

222 Birthe Vichit Petersen and Kamille Bollerup, “The Clean Development Mechanism and Its
Failure in Delivering Sustainable Development,” The Interdisciplinary Journal of International Studies,8(1), 74–87, 2012.

240 See, e.g., Roxanne Dunbar Ortiz, An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States, Beacon
Press, 2014.

223 See, e.g., Friends of the Earth Europe, “The EU Emissions Trading System: Failing to Deliver,”undated; “What’s Needed to Fix the EU’s Carbon Market Recommendations for the Market Stability
Reserve and Future ETS Reform Proposals,” Carbon Market Watch, July 2014.
224 “Paris Agreement,” United Nations, 2015, pp. 7–8; “The EU Emissions Trading System: Failing to
Deliver,” Friends of the Earth Europe, October 2010; “What’s Needed to Fix the EU’s Carbon Market:
Recommendations for the Market Stability Reserve and Future ETS Reform Proposals,” Carbon
Market Watch, July 2014.

241 “Rights of Mother Earth,” World Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change and the Rights ofMother Earth, 26 April 2010.
242 David Tong, “Big Oil Reality Check: Assessing Oil and Gas Company Climate Plans,” Oil
Change International, September 2020, p. 3.
243 See, e.g., Christine Shearer, “New Report – Boom and Bust 2020: Tracking the Global Coal
Plant Pipeline,” End Coal, 25 March 2020.

225 Chloé Farand, “What is Article 6? The Issue Climate Negotiators Cannot Agree,” Climate
Home News, 12 February 2019.

244 “2019 Was 2nd-Hottest Year on Record for Earth Say NOAA, NASA,” National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration, 15 January 2020.

226 See e.g. “Failures of Kyoto Will Repeat With the Paris Climate Agreement,” US Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Parks, 21 April 2016; Stavros G. Poulopoulos, “Kyoto Protocol
Atmospheric Environment, Global Warming and Climate Change,” ScienceDirect, 2016; “The EU
Emissions Trading System: Failing to Deliver,” Friends of the Earth Europe, October 2010.

245 “UN Report: Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates‘Accelerating,’” UN Sustainable Development Goals, 6 May 2019; Nisha Gaind and Emma Stoye,“How Climate Change Is Melting, Drying and Flooding Earth — in Pictures,” Nature, 26 September
2019; Jon Letman, “Rising Seas Give Island Nation a Stark Choice: Relocate or Elevate,” National
Geographic, 19 November 2018.

227 Kate Aronoff, “Shell Oil Executive Boasts That His Company Influenced the Paris Agreement,”
The Intercept, 8 December 2018.
228 “CORSIA Carbon Offsets Case Study: Vallourec: Junk Offset Credits Through Charcoal
Production for the Iron and Steel Sector in Brazil,” Global Forest Coalition, December 2020.
229 “Myth 2: Coal Is Clean,” End Coal, accessed January 2021; Carroll Muffett and Steven Feit,“Fuel to the Fire: How Geoengineering Threatens to Entrench Fossil Fuels and Accelerate the
Climate Crisis,” Center for International Environmental Law, 2019, p. 31.
230 Carroll Muffett and Steven Feit, “Fuel to the Fire: How Geoengineering Threatens to Entrench
Fossil Fuels and Accelerate the Climate Crisis,” Center for International Environmental Law, 2019;“Ground Water and Ecosystems Restoration Research: Geologic Sequestration of Carbon,” U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, last updated 10 August 2015.

246 Robert Hart, “Most People See Climate as a ‘Global Emergency’ and Support Urgent Action,
UN Survey Finds,” Forbes, 27 January 27 2021.
247 David H. Quigley et al., “United States: A Bridge Over the Rising Seas: Biden’s ‘Climate Day’
Order Promises Green Infrastructure,” Mondaq, 8 February 2021; Amanda Hernández, “Undoing
Trump’s Policies and Other Things Biden Did His First Week as President,” USA Today, 29 January
2021.
248 Martin Sandbu, “The Post-Pandemic Brave New World,” International Monetary Fund, Winter2020.
249 Ben Piven, “Ecuadoran Amazon: Three European Banks Stop Funding Trade of Oil,” Amazon
Watch, 25 January 2021.

231 “Position: Carbon Capture, Storage and Utilisation,” Climate Action Network International,
January 2021.

250 Antoine Gara, “Hedge Fund Superstar Pierre Andurand Sets His Sights on Clean Energy After
154% Gain,” Forbes, 2 February 2021.

232 REDD+ stands for “reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and the roleof conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks indeveloping countries” and was negotiated under the UNFCCC in 2005.

251 “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” United Nations, 07-58681,
March 2008.

233 “Circular Economy or Vicious Cycle? How Corporate Capture of Policy Making and Perverse
Incentives Are Driving Deforestation,” Global Forest Coalition, December 2020; Lisa Song, “An Even
More Inconvenient Truth: Why Carbon Credits for Forest Preservation May Be Worse Than Nothing,”
ProPublica, 22 May 2019.
234 Juan Pablo Sarmiento Barletti and Anne M. Larson, “Rights Abuse Allegations in the Context
of REDD+ Readiness and Implementation: A Preliminary Review and Proposal for Moving Forward,”
Center for International Forestry Research, October 2017.
235 “Special Report on Climate Change and Land: Summary for Policymakers,” IPCC, 2019.
236 “Campaign Update: Clean Development Mechanism,” Center for International Environmental
Law, January 2015; “Trading in Fake Carbon Credits: Problems with the Clean Development
Mechanism,” Friends of the Earth, October 2008.
237 Steve Dancy, “Environmental Justice for the Navajo: Uranium Mining in the Southwest,”
University of Michigan, last updated 17 June 2004.
238 David R. Boyd, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Issue of Human Rights Obligations
Relating to the Enjoyment of a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment,” UN Doc
A/74/161, United Nations General Assembly, 15 July 2019.

252 Zarmina Ali, “The World’s 100 Largest Banks, 2020,” S&P Global, 7 April 2020.
253 Rystad Energy AS is an independent oil and gas consulting services and business intelligencedata firm. See rystadenergy.com; IPCC, “2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories,” Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, edited by H.S.
Eggleston et al., 2006.
254 “Global Coal Exit List,” urgewald e.V., November 2020.
255 “Global Coal Exit List,” urgewald e.V., November 2020.
256 “LNG Export and Import Projects - 3Q 2020,” BloombergNEF, 22 October 2020.
257 “Global Coal Exit List,” urgewald e.V., November 2020.
258 Project exclusions limited to greenfield projects only are considered weaker because there
is not necessarily a standard definition of what type of site would be considered greenfield vs.
brownfield.
259 “Global Coal Exit List,” urgewald e.V., November 2020.

P H O T O : APFootage / Alamy Stock Photo152

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

153

ENDORSEMENTS
This report is endorsed by 312 organizations
from 50 countries around the world:
198 methods

Aksi Ekologi dan Emansipasi Rakyat (AEER)

350 Brooklyn

Aktionsgruppe Indianer & Menschenrechte e.V.

350 Central Mass

Alaska Wilderness League

Center for Popular Democracy

350 Charlotte

Amazon Frontlines

Centre for Citizens Conserving (CECIC)

350 Colorado

Amazon Watch

Centro para la Autonomía y Desarrollo de los

350 Conejo / San Fernando Valley

American Jewish World Service

350 Eugene

Arbeitsgruppe Schweiz Kolumbien ask! (Swiss

350 Everett

Working Group on Colombia)(CIEL)

Pueblos Indígenas
Chesapeake Climate Action Network
CHIRAPAQ

350 Hawaii

ARTivism Virginia

Christian Aid

350 Humboldt

Asian Energy Network

Climate 2025

350 Japan

Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN)

Climate Action Network International

350 Kishwaukee

Association Climat Genève

Climate Action Now!

350 Madison

Association of Ethical Shareholders Germany

Climate Action Rhode Island / 350 RI

350 Maine

Atlantic Coast Conference Climate Justice

Climate Alliance Switzerland

350 Montgomery County Maryland

Coalition

Climate Change Network Nigeria

350 New Hampshire

Atmos Financial, PBC

Climate Emergency Institute

350 New Jersey - Rockland

Bank Information Center

Climate Finance Action

350 New Orleans

Bank On Our Future

Climate First!

350 NYC

Below2C

Climate Justice at Boston College

350 Ottawa

Beneficial State Bank

Climate Justice Guelph

350 PDX

Beneficial State Foundation

Climate Pledge Collective

350 Pensacola

Berks Gas Truth

ClimateMama

350 Sacramento

Better Future Project

Climáximo

350 SalemOr

Better Path Coalition

Colorado Businesses for a Livable Climate

350 Seattle

Block Baltic Pipe

Columbia Gorge Climate Action Network

350 Silicon Valley

Braided River

Comité Nacional de Lucha Contra el Cambio

350 Tacoma

Bread For All

350 Toronto

Breathe Easy Susquehanna County

350 Triangle

Bronx Climate Justice North

350 Vancouver

Bürgerbewegung FinanzwendeCompressor Free Franklin

350 Wenatchee

Businesses for a Livable Climate

Connecticut Citizen Action Group

350 Yakima

C4 | Christians Concerned About Climate

Crushing Colonialism

350.org

154

Center for International Environmental Law

ChangeClimático (CNLCC)
Community Empowerment & Social Justice
Network

Cultural Survival

7 Directions of Service

Call to Action Colorado

Divest Ed

Abibinsroma Foundation

Campagna per il Clima, Fuori dal Fossile!

Divest RVA

Action Center on Race and the Economy

CampaxEarth Action, Inc.

ActionAid Denmark

Catholic Divestment Network

Earth Day Initiative

Advocates4Earth

CatholicNetwork.US

Earth Ethics, Inc.

aHang: progressive campaign platform

CEE Bankwatch Network

Earth Guardians

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

Earthlife Africa Jhb

Friends For Environmental Justice

Inclusive Development International

Earthworks

Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges

Indigenous Climate Action

EcoEquity

Friends of Buckingham

Indivisible Virginia

Ecologistas en Acción

Friends of the Earth Japan

Informationsgruppe Lateinamerika (IGLA)

EKOenergy ecolabel

Friends of the Earth U.S.

Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy

Emergenza Climatica

Friends of the Siberian Forests

Institute for Development Policy (INDEP)

Endangered Species Coalition

Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales

Institute for Ecology and Action Anthropology

Energy Watch Group(FARN)(INFOE)

Environics Trust

Fundacion Empresas "i"Ethical Consumer

Fundación Plurales

Extinction Rebellion Boston

Fundacja "Rozwój TAK - Odkrywki NIE"

Extinction Rebellion Ottawa

Fundourfuture.international

Extinction Rebellion San Francisco Bay Area

Future Coalition

InterAmerican Clean Energy Institute

Facing Finance

GegenStroemung – CounterCurrent –International Indian Treaty Council

Fair Finance Asia

INFOE e. V.

Institute for Energy Economics & Financial
Analysis
Instituto para el Futuro Común Amerindio(IFCA)

International Rivers

Fair Finance Belgium

Gender Action

International Student Environmental Coalition

Fair Finance Guide Sweden

Global Anti-Aerotropolis Movement (GAAM)

Jamaa Resource Initiatives

Fair Finance International

Global Catholic Climate Movement

Just Share

Fair Finance Netherlands - Eerlijke Geldwijzer

Global Choices

Kiko Network

Fair Finance Philippines

Global Energy Monitor

KS Wild

Fairbanks Climate Action Coalition

Global Forest Coalition

La Ruta del Clima

Federación Indígena Empresarial yGreen Advocates International

Last Real Indians

Comunidades Locales de México, A.C.

Green America

Leave it in the Ground Initiative (LINGO)First Peoples Worldwide

Green Camel Bell

Legalità per il Clima

Food & Water Watch

Green New Deal Virginia

Les Amis de la Terre France / Friends of the

For Our Kids

Green Workers Alliance

For the People

GreenFaith

Loudoun Climate Project

Forest Keeper

Greenpeace CanadaLouisiana Bucket Brigade

Foro Indígena Abya Yala (FIAY)

Greenpeace Nordic

Market Forces

Fossil Free California

Greenpeace Switzerland

Mazaska Talks

Fossil Free London

Greenpeace UK

Meiyouwenti (CoalProblem)

Fossil Free Sweden

Greenpeace USA

Milieudefensie

FrackBustersNY

Gwich'in Steering Committee

Minnesota Interfaith Power and Light

Fracking Free Clare

Hakhu Amazon Foundation

Mom Loves Taiwan Association

FracTracker AllianceHanover Action: towards a sustainable

Mothers Out Front - National Leadership Team

Framtiden i våre hendercommunity

Earth France

Mothers Out Front - Roanoke teamFranciscan Action Network

Harbury Energy Initiative and Low Carbon

Mountain Lakes Preservation AllianceFreshWater Accountability Project

Warwickshire Network

National Society of Conservationists / Friends

Friday’s For Future Quinte

Harrington investments, Inc.

of the Earth Hungary

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

155

ENDORSEMENTS
Native Movementtransformation

Transition Express Inc.

This report was a joint effort between Rainforest Action Network (RAN), BankTrack, Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), Oil Change International

Native Organizers Alliance

Re:Common

Turtle Island Restoration Network(OCI), Reclaim Finance, and the Sierra Club. Writing and research was led by Alison Kirsch (RAN) with Jason Opeña Disterhoft, Grant Marr, Paddy

Native Sun Community Power Development

Recourse

Union of BC Indian Chiefs (UBCIC)

McCully, and Ruth Breech (RAN); Maaike Beenes, Henrieke Butijn, Johan Frijns, Ernst-Jan Kuiper, and Daisy Termorshuizen (BankTrack); Dallas

Natur og Ungdom / Young Friends of the Earth

Resolution Media Fund

United Confederation of Taíno People

Goldtooth and Alberto Saldamando (IEN); Yann Louvel and Lucie Pinson (Reclaim Finance); Ben Cushing (Sierra Club); and Kyle Gracey and Collin

Rifondazione Comunistra-Sinistra Europea

United Native Americans

Rees (OCI). Report design by Toben Dilworth (RAN).

NDN Collective

Right to the City Alliance

United Student Leaders

New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance

Rio Grande International Study Center

Upper Valley Affinity Group (Vermont)

In addition, thanks to all who contributed to the case studies:

New Progressive Alliance

Rogue Climate

urgewaldAnabela Lemos, Ilham Rawoot, and Daniel Ribeiro (Justiça Ambiental (JA!)/Friends of the Earth Mozambique)

New Weather Institute

Sacred Earth Solar

Water Is Life Walks

Annie Morgan Banks

New York Communities for Change

Save Our Illinois Land

Water Justice & Gender

Binbin Mariana (Market Forces)

Nijmegen Fossielvrij

Save RGV From LNG

Waterkeeper AllianceDiana Nabiruma (Africa Institute for Energy Governance, AFIEGO)

No Hub del Gas

SHAREWest Coast Environmental Law Association

Efe Baysal (350.org)

North American Climate, Conservation andShareAction

Winyah Rivers Alliance

Elif Gündüzyeli and Özlem Katısöz (Climate Action Network Europe)

NorwayEnvironment (NACCE)

Shift: Action

WISE

Lorena Bravo, Lof Campo Maripe, and Ñamkurupay Ñky, Lof Puel Pvjv, Neuquen, Mapuche Nation

North99

Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia

Women Power Our Planet

María Marta Di Paola (Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales)

Notre Affaire à Tous

SoCal 350 Climate Action

Women's Earth and Climate Action Network

Molly Wickham / Sleydo'

Nurture The Children

Socio-Ecological Union International

Ocean Conservation Research

Solutions For Our Climate

Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press

Nehemiah Tettey Odjer-Bio and Amos Yesutanbul (Friends of the Earth-Ghana)

Oceanic Preservation SocietySouth Beach District 6 Democratic Club of San

Youth Advocates for Climate Action Philippines

Nosa Sunny and Godwin Ojo (Environmental Rights Action, Nigeria)

Olympic Climate Action

Francisco

Our Part Foundation; Banking for Climate
OVEC-Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition

Southern and Eastern Africa Trade Information
and Negotiations Institute (SEATINI)(WECAN)(Fridays for Future Philippines)
Youth For Environment Education And

Stand.earth

YUVA

Peoples Climate Movement - NY

Stop the Money Pipeline

Zero Hour

Pivot Point

Stowarzyszenie Pracownia na rzecz Wszystkich

Richard Matey (Alliance for Empowering Rural Communities)
Souparna Lahiri (Global Forest Coalition)

Istot

Plymouth Friends for Clean Water

SumOfUs

Positive Money UK

Sunflower Alliance

Preserve Giles County

Sunrise Project

Preserve Monroe

SustainUS

Pro Information Pro Environment United People

Take on Wall Street

Network

Te Whanau o te Rau Aroha

Profundo

Texas Campaign for the Environment

Progressive Democrats of America

The Climate Optimist

projekt21plus

The Future Left

Public Citizen

The Research Institute for Environmental

Pueblo Action Alliance

Finance

Quit RBC - Extinction Rebellion Québec

The WaterWealth Project

Rapid Transition Alliance

The Years Project

RapidShift Network

THIS! Is What We Did

Re-set: platform for socio-ecologicalTransform! Italia

B A N K I N G

Munira Chowdhury (Market Forces)

Development Foundation (YFEED Foundation)

People of Asia for Climate Solutions

Platform London

156

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSO N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

DISCLAIMER
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.

B A N K I N G

O N

C L I M A T E

C H A O S 2021

157

FOSSI L FU EL FI N A NC E R E P O RT 2021
P U B L I C A T I O N D A T E : March 24, 2021
P H O T O : Matt Gush / shutterstock