If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now

JPMorgan, Citi, BofA Slammed Over Coal Investment

JP Morgan Chase, Citi and Bank of America have been branded the worst three “climate killers” in the financial sector over their large-scale investments in coal industries, in a report by German green group Urgewald, South African organizations GroundWork and Earthlife Africa Johannesburg and international financial sector monitor BankTrack.

Figures in Bankrolling Climate Change show that since 2005 JPMorgan has invested €16.5 billion ($22.2 billion) into coal fired electricity and coal mining. Citi has pumped €13.7 billion into the industry and Bank of America almost €12.6 billion (see graph). The three U.S. banks top the list of largest coal investors.

The report says that these figures are in “sharp contrast to the everyday rhetoric” of these banks. Almost all of the top 20 coal investors have made “far-reaching statements regarding their commitment to combating climate change,” the report says. Citi brands itself the “most innovative bank in climate change,” according to the report.

Continued investment on this scale could hamper efforts to keep global temperature rises under 2º Celsius, the report says.

Bankrolling Climate Change examined the portfolio of 93 banks and their financing of 31 major coal-mining companies and 40 producers of coal-fired electricity since 2005, the year the Kyoto protocol came into force.

In November, Google abandoned efforts to make renewable energy cheaper than coal. The internet giant axed seven projects that hadn’t had the impact Google had been hoping for, the company blogged.

How to Unsilo Your EHS Data
Sponsored By: Progressly

  
Approaches to Managing EHS&S Data
Sponsored By: Enablon

  
Planning for a Sustainable Future
Sponsored By: Dakota Software

  
Leveraging EHS Software in Support of Culture Changes
Sponsored By: VelocityEHS

  

6 thoughts on “JPMorgan, Citi, BofA Slammed Over Coal Investment

  1. It appears that these groups are learning the power of economics. When “commitment to combating climate change” becomes profitable, it will happen. The cacophony of assertions that pricing C is the answer is clearly not moving any serious players.

  2. No, it isn’t a scam, Matt.

    And you can also legally lose your life by engaging in risky behaviors, for example. Legality does not equate to sanity, or even to prudence.

  3. E: The cacaphony of assertions is still just assertions – no carbon pricing has yet been implemented. When it is, all the players will move – because that is when commitment to combating climate change will suddenly be profitable (rather, that is when noncommitment will suddenly be costly).

  4. The technology for cleaning coal has existed for thousands of years. In the 1700’s coal gas was used to light London. In the mid 1800’s, the Solvay Company converted CO2 from their coal coking process into sodium bicarbonate – baking soda. The plastics industry is begging for more CO2 to make polyesters. So who are the dummies that scream about CO2 pollution? Why not help the industries that use it? Also, the facts that people are not the only beings on earth that exhale CO2. The British calculated that CO2 from all other living things contribute more than 1,000 times as much CO2 as humans produce. Finally, Global warmig is not caused by CO2, but by natural 100,000 year earth cycles. Look it up for yourself.

  5. So if global warming is not caused by increased CO2, why are you proposing “helping industries that use it”? And speaking of looking things up, familiarize yourself with how scientists evaluate changes/impacts to dynamic systems. This is how AGW is distinguished from both short term fluctuations in greenhouse gases and long term “natural 100,000 year earth cycles.”

    And climate change is a “scam”? I would LMAO if this kind of “thinking” weren’t so widespread.

Leave a Comment