Banks Claim They Will Back Away from Fossil Fuels

After investing $784 billion from 2013 to 2015 banks say they will at least cut coal loans

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Top international banks “are placing their bets” on a future contrary to the Paris climate agreement by financing billions of dollars worth of fossil fuel projects, environmental groups said in a report yesterday.

Twenty-five major banks, such as Bank of America Corp., Barclays PLC, Citigroup Inc. and HSBC Holdings PLC, have invested $784 billion in coal mining, coal-fired electricity, so-called “extreme oil” operations and liquefied natural gas infrastructure between 2013-15, according to the study.

That financial exposure is “deeply at odds” with the Paris Agreement that almost 200 nations reached in December, the authors said, adding that the world’s top banks could lose massively if countries fulfill those promises.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


“If governments follow through on the Paris agreement and limit carbon emissions, these investments could likely result in stranded assets and significant loses,” the Rainforest Action Network, BankTrack, the Sierra Club and Oil Change International, the report authors, said in a statement.

“In finance terms, ‘short-selling’ or ‘shorting’ is when an investor profits if a company or asset declines in value. It means betting on failure,” Jason Opeña Disterhoft, a campaigner at RAN, said in a statement. “Financing extreme fossil fuels amounts to shorting the climate.”

The seventh such report in as many years, the analysis shows banks have put far less money in coal mining and coal-based power than in oil and natural gas.

In the three-year period examined, the 25 North American and European banks have put $42 billion toward coal mining, $154 billion in coal power, $306 billion in “extreme” oil and $282 billion in LNG export projects. The authors categorized oil sands operations and Arctic and deepwater drilling as “extreme.”

Worldwide financing of coal mining and coal power projects, however, has slowed as banks have refused to lend to what they consider increasingly risky clients. Many financial institutions have updated their corporate policies with specific language on coal.

Citigroup said in October it would cut its loans to coal mining firms (ClimateWire, Oct. 6, 2015). Citigroup said that policy covers mountaintop removal mining, a process in which workers blow up soil and rocks to get to coal seams below.

Several other European and U.S. banks—Bank of America, Barclays, BNP Paribas, the Royal Bank of Scotland, Société Générale SA and others—have also slashed financing to coal miners since 2015.

And in March, JPMorgan Chase & Co. announced a new set of environmental and social policies, including a decision not to finance new coal mines.

Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe