1、 FOSSIL FUEL FINANCE REPORT 2020 CLIMATE CHANGE Banking on The organizations authoring the latest edition of this annual report want to acknowledge the extraordinary circumstances of this moment, given the terrible impacts of COVID-19 on lives, health, and livelihoods for people around the world. As

2、 we write, the urgent need to respond to the pandemic and resultant economic impact is rightly taking priority, and may do so for some time. However, climate change remains an existential threat that, like the coronavirus, will require unprecedented global action in solidarity with those most vulner

3、able. We believe that the data and analysis in this report will prove useful in addressing that threat with the seriousness that it deserves. March 18, 2020 Executive Summary Introduction Banking on Fossil Fuels League Table Key Findings MAP: Case Studies Tar Sands: Line 3 Pipeline Tar Sands: Tecks

4、Frontier Mine Arctic: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Offshore: Guyana Fracking: Wink to Webster Pipeline Fracking: Vaca Muerta LNG: Rio Grande LNG, Texas LNG, and Annova LNG Coal Mining: Turw Mine Coal Power: Payra Port Expansion: Amazon Oil Climate Impact: Miami Policy Scores Summary Overall Oil y

5、et funding for top coal power producers is not dropping rapidly enough. Financing is led by ICBC and Bank of China, with Citi as the top non-Chinese banker of coal power. This report maps out case studies where bank financing for fossil fuels has real impact on communities from a planned coal mine e

6、xpansion in Poland, to fracking in Argentina, to LNG terminals proposed for South Texas. Short essays throughout highlight additional key topics, such as the need for banks to measure and phase out their climate impact (not just risk) and what Paris alignment means for banks. Traditional Indigenous

7、knowledge is presented as an alternative paradigm for a world increasingly beset with climate chaos. Novembers U.N. climate conference in Glasgow, on the fifth anniversary of the adoption of the landmark Paris climate agreement, will be a crucial deadline for banks to align their policies and practi

8、ces with a 1.5 Celsius world in which human rights are fully respected. The urgency of that task is underlined by this reports findings that major global banks fossil financing has increased each year since Paris, and that even the best future-facing policies leave huge gaps. Additional resources ar

9、e available at: RAN.org/bankingonclimatechange2020. Over the past year, fossil fuel finance campaigning has caught fire. The role of banks, money managers, and insurance companies as drivers of climate change via their fossil financing, investing, and insuring is garnering unprecedented attention. A

10、wareness is soaring that private-sector banks too are “carbon majors,” alongside the fossil fuel producers themselves. The climate movement is spotlighting an urgent and growing problem: since the adoption of the Paris agreement in late 2015, the 35 banks in the scope of this report have provided $2

11、.7 trillion in lending and underwriting to the fossil fuel industry, with annual fossil financing increasing each year. JPMorgan Chase became the first bank to blow past the quarter-trillion dollar mark in post-Paris fossil financing, with $269 billion in 2016-2019.1 To bend the financing curve towa

12、rds phaseout, banks must adopt policies restricting their fossil finance, and here there is positive and accelerating good news. Twenty-six of the 35 global banks in the scope of this report now have policies restricting coal finance, and a growing minority now 16 also restrict finance to some oil a

13、nd gas sectors.2 The global financial system runs on endless amounts of data on risk and return. And no risk to the profits of individual companies and the financial system as a whole is greater than that posed by the climate crisis. While banks are beginning to account for the physical and transiti

14、on risks associated with climate change, another important climate-related risk is reputational risk. Financial institutions increasingly understand that with regard to their ability to attract new customers and to hire and retain employees, its not smart to be seen as directly financing the destruc

15、tion of life on earth. And right now there are large numbers of people taking to the streets to make sure that potential customers and employees are well aware of which financiers are the worst climate villains. While banks and other financial institutions are rapidly waking up to the severity of th

16、ese climate risks to their own bottom lines, the climate movement is driving home the fact that by increasing financing of fossil fuels, banks are responsible for an extremely high risk of massive harm to the planet and its people that is, banks and the financial industry at large have enormous clim

17、ate impact. Financiers need to cut their climate impact with the same urgency as they may act to reduce the risks of their exposure to areas impacted by repeated floods and fires. Keeping the Money Flowing This report measures that climate impact, and the numbers are damning. Overall fossil fuel fin

18、ancing from the 35 banks covered in this report to 2,100 fossil fuel companies has grown each year since the adoption of the Paris Agreement in late 2015.3 Finance to 100 of the biggest expanders of coal, oil, and gas fell by 20% between 2016 and 2018, but last year bounced back at a shocking 40%.4

19、JPMorgan Chase was the worlds worst banker of climate chaos by a huge margin in each year between 2016 and 2019. While JPMorgan Chases total fossil finance fell slightly from 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, the gap between JPMorgan Chase and the next worst bank actually grew massively between 2018 and 2019

20、. Citi and Bank of America were second- and third-worst in 2019; Wells Fargo was fourth, after being the second-worst fossil bank in 2018. Total fossil fuel finance from both Citi and, in particular, Bank of America rose substantially between 2018 and 2019. Taking total finance over the past four ye

21、ars, Wells Fargo was in second worst position, 36% behind JPMorgan Chase.5 Though the U.S. banks dominate the global league table, they are not alone in their banking of climate destruction. The worlds fifth biggest fossil funder is Canadas RBC. Japans biggest fossil funder since Paris is MUFG, and

22、Chinas is Bank of China. In Europe, Barclays is the biggest funder of fossil fuels over 2016-2019 though last year, French bank BNP Paribas took the place of biggest fossil banker in Europe, which is ironic given the banks talk of climate action.6 This report shows the only somewhat bright spots in

23、terms of declining finance are in coal mining and power the areas where bank policies restricting financing have been in place the longest. Finance to the top 30 coal mining companies declined by 6% between 2016 and 2019; finance to the top 30 coal power companies shrank by 13%. In both cases, the b

24、iggest absolute drops in coal finance came from the Chinese banks though the four Chinese banks still account for more than half of total finance to the top coal mining and power companies. Credit Suisse is the biggest non-Chinese funder 4 B A N K I N G O N C L I M A T E C H A N G E 2020 INTRODUCTIO

25、N - Banks Climate Half Measures are Not Enough 5 of coal mining over the last four years, though its funding has been on the decrease since 2017.7 Though UBS saw massive increases in its financing for coal mining last year, it was one of only a handful of banks with reductions in financing for the t

26、op 30 coal power companies in each year since 2016 the others being China Construction Bank, Deutsche Bank, and BPCE/Natixis.8 Our data show that Citi has been the worst coal power funder outside China over the past four years, although its amounts have declined in each of the past two years. Bank o

27、f America is the eighth biggest funder of coal power from 2016-2019, but an almost doubling of its financing between 2018 and 2019 means that it was the largest non-Chinese coal power funder in 2019 (showing the toothlessness of its April 2019 policy barring funding for developed-world coal power pr

28、ojects).9 BNP Paribas also doubled its coal power finance over the past year, underscoring the point that even the strongest policies among those analyzed in this report still have a long way to go. JPMorgan Chase and SMBC Group were the only banks with increases in coal power finance in each year s

29、ince 2016.10 Bank finance for tar sands shows major variation from year to year. 2017 was a big year for tar sands financing as the sector consolidated, and though finance from all 35 banks analyzed here has fallen since then, 2019 levels remain higher than 2016. Over the past four years the big fiv

30、e Canadian banks provided two-thirds of finance from the banks analyzed in this report to the top 35 tar sands extraction and pipeline companies. The only non-Canadian bank in the worst six tar sands banks from 2016-2019 is JPMorgan Chase, in third place behind TD and RBC.11 JPMorgan Chase is also t

31、he biggest funder of Arctic oil and gas from 2016-2019. However taking just 2019 numbers, Barclays was the worst bank for fossil fuels in the Arctic, narrowly beating Citi in second worst place. Overall Arctic oil and gas funding from the 35 banks in this report grew by 34% in the past year.12 Finan

32、cing for offshore oil and gas grew more rapidly than any other spotlight fossil fuel sector over the past year, with a leap of 134% between 2018 and 2019. JPMorgan Chase is the worst offshore oil and gas bank since Paris. Taking just 2019 financing, BNP Paribas is worst, with Citi second worst and J

33、PMorgan Chase third.13 JPMorgan Chase is also the worst banker of fracking from 2016-2019. In 2019, however, it was second worst, just behind Bank of America. Wells Fargo and Citi were close behind in third and fourth places. Total fracking finance from all 35 banks grew by 3% in 2019, an improvemen

34、t compared to 19% and 21% growth in the previous two years.14 Morgan Stanley was the worst banker of the 30 biggest LNG companies from 2016-2019, although in 2019 it was narrowly beaten to the top of the league table by Mizuho. JPMorgan Chase was the second worst over the past four years. ICBC, Bank

35、 of China, and Deutsche Bank were the only banks whose LNG finance fell in each of the past three years.15 This report shows that the private banking sector as a whole continues to take a position of extreme irresponsibility in the face of the climate crisis. While coal finance is slowly shrinking,

36、this trend is being more than compensated for by growth in finance for the oil and gas industry. P HOTO : WI K I P E D I A C O M M O NS Policy Acceleration Phasing out fossil financing will require banks to adopt restriction policies, and they are increasingly doing so in response to pressure to sto

37、p fueling the climate crisis from the public, from inside the financial system, and from regulators and legislators. Most of the policies address coal, but a growing number are now starting to restrict some oil and gas funding, especially for tar sands and Arctic oil and gas. Under the scoring syste

38、m used in this report, the banks with the best scores for their overall policies across the coal, oil and gas sectors are all European, led by Crdit Agricole, RBS, and UniCredit. The leading non-European bank is Goldman Sachs, in 12th place. And yet, even the banks with the strongest policy scores a

39、mong their peers have a long way to go in order to align their businesses with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.16 The five Canadian banks included in our analysis are all in the bottom ten for their overall fossil policies, as are the four Chinese banks.17 Crdit Agricoles strong policy scor

40、e comes from its June 2019 commitment to stop working with companies developing or planning to develop any new coal infrastructure, whether that be in mining, services or power. It also pledged to phase out all coal from its portfolios by 2030 in the EU and OECD, and by 2040 in the rest of the world

41、.18 Crdit Agricoles prohibition of coal developers is highly significant as more than half of the 258 companies that German NGO urgewald has identified as having plans to build new coal power plants are not traditional coal-based utilities.19 Most banks coal policies, which restrict only direct fina

42、nce to coal mines and power plants, or to companies with a high share of their revenue from coal, would fail to limit funding to these diversified companies. Two recent improvements in coal policies from the big U.S. banks came from Goldman Sachs in December 2019, and JPMorgan Chase two months later

43、. While these policies are both a step forward, they are still weaker than required, in particular because they address only finance for coal projects and for some coal mining companies.20 There is a wide gulf between most bank coal policies and what is needed: Crdit Mutuel, Crdit Agricole, and Soci

44、t Gnrale are the only banks that earn more than half the possible policy points in the coal sector.21 The situation is even worse for oil and gas. BNP Paribas is the leading bank on oil and gas, but earns only a quarter of the possible points.22 While many European and two Australian banks have poli

45、cies restricting some tar sands financing, none of the big Canadian banks that dominate tar sands finance have adopted any restrictions nor have Barclays and JPMorgan Chase, the biggest non-Canadian tar sands funders.23 Twenty bank policies analyzed also restrict Arctic oil and gas finance, but all

46、but six focus on finance for projects and do not limit corporate funding for the oil and gas companies that have the most Arctic reserves under production.24 Bank policies on other oil and gas subsectors are few and far between. Two of note are from BNP Paribas and UniCredit, which both restrict fin

47、ance for fracking and LNG projects and companies.25 Altogether, policy improvement is accelerating: of the banks with the five strongest policy scores, all introduced improved policies since May 2019.26 There is a clear trend of banks strengthening their policies over time, often starting with tepid

48、 policies that only address coal projects, and building on them by, for example, adding restrictions on corporate finance in coal and adding prohibitions on oil and gas, often starting with finance in the Arctic and/or tar sands. We need to see this trend rapidly accelerate. The remaining loopholes

49、in the coal sector must be closed, more and tougher restrictions on the Arctic and tar sands must be adopted, and restrictions must be ramped up across the rest of the oil and gas industry. While drawing increasingly restrictive red lines around the most egregious parts of the fossil fuel industry is impor