<\/p>\n
Global banks are not living up to targets to cut their financing of activities that are directly fuelling climate change, according to a new study by the World Resources Institute (WRI).<\/p>\n
The analysis, which looked at 25 of the world\u2019s biggest lenders, found that \u201cnot only are banks off-track to meet net-zero targets, but many of their pledges are less ambitious than they seem at face value\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cDespite progress, many banks have no or weak targets in key sectors,\u201d said Anderson Lee and Amanda Carter, the two WRI researchers who wrote the report released. What\u2019s more, \u201cexisting targets are not aligned with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (deg C)\u201d, they said.<\/p>\n
The findings come as the finance industry grows more vocal in defending a business model it says should be focused on client preferences and profit-making, goals bankers say are not always aligned with protecting the climate. The stance feeds into an increasingly tense political debate, with Republicans in the US threatening to sue firms perceived to put climate policies above profits. The development has enraged climate activists, whose response has been to try to disrupt Wall Street through large-scale protests.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat we find is that, for most sectors, banks on average have not aligned their portfolio emissions reduction efforts to 1.5 deg C pathways and do not expect to do so by 2030,\u201d Lee and Carter said. \u201cIn other words, banks do not even plan to reduce their emissions as much as necessary \u2013 not to speak of actual implementation or follow-through.\u201d<\/p>\n
The WRI, which has been examining sustainable finance statements since 2019, said examples of banks failing to reach targets include the auto sector, for which reported portfolio emissions were on average 28 per cent higher than they should have been in 2022 to align with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 deg C. It\u2019s also getting harder to course-correct, with reported portfolio emissions set to be three times the benchmark by 2030, according to the WRI findings.<\/p>\n
The study also shows that most of the banks analysed still do not include things such as corporate finance or advisory services in their coal targets, or set thresholds for restrictions too high to have a meaningful impact.<\/p>\n
\u201cAs a result, the phaseout policies aren\u2019t comprehensive and many companies and activities which profit from coal aren\u2019t affected,\u201d Lee and Carter said.<\/p>\n
The WRI report also cautions against taking banks\u2019 headline numbers or announcements on climate goals \u201cat face value\u201d. Details requiring closer scrutiny include the timeline of fossil-fuel phaseout policies and whether capital markets activities are included, Lee and Carter said.<\/p>\n
Without such details, it\u2019s not possible to judge whether a bank\u2019s commitment can \u201cbe considered high quality and credible\u201d, they said.<\/p>\n
The researchers tracked the portfolio emissions that banks reported from their activities in six key sectors \u2013 oil and gas, power, automotive, aviation, cement and steel \u2013 between 2019 and 2022, as well as their 2030 emissions reduction targets. They then compared their progress to decarbonisation pathways which would limit global warming to 1.5 deg C. Banks in the study included JPMorgan Chase, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and BNP Paribas.<\/p>\n
The finance industry has repeatedly called for greater government support in helping banks and investors align their business with climate-friendly goals. But Lee and Carter note that a number of those same banks have supported lobby groups that actively obstruct pro-climate legislation.<\/p>\n
\u201cOn the part of banks, it is inconsistent to ask for climate-friendly public policy while at the same time supporting trade associations that oppose them,\u201d they said. \u201cThis has been the case for some banks, particularly in the US.\u201d While there\u2019s evidence that banks have started reviewing the alignment of their trade groups with net zero, \u201cmore work is needed to ensure full alignment\u201d, they added.<\/p>\n
The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that the world needs to invest about US$4 trillion annually by 2030 to generate the levels of clean energy required to achieve the necessary reductions in emissions. For the energy sector alone, Lee and Carter note that the IEA says 10 times as much needs to be invested in clean energy as goes into fossil fuels. The 10-to-1 target is currently far from reality, with the banks analysed in the WRI study on average investing just 1.3 times as much in green finance as they do in fossil fuels.<\/p>\n
\u201cBacklash from special interests and political forces in the United States that oppose sustainability efforts has led some banks to retreat, at least publicly, from some of their climate commitments,\u201d Carter and Lee said. \u201cBanks need to reverse course and double down on their net-zero commitments \u2013 not only to meet their own climate goals, but also to profit from the new business opportunities tied to the climate transition.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cLeaning into sustainable finance can also help protect banks against growing climate-related financial risks,\u201d they said.<\/p>\n
<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Global banks are not living up to targets to cut their financing of activities that are directly fuelling climate change, according to a new study by the World Resources Institute (WRI). The analysis, which looked at 25 of the world\u2019s biggest lenders, found that \u201cnot only are banks off-track to meet net-zero targets, but many […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2318,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2317","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bez-rubriki"],"featured_image_src":{"landsacpe":["https:\/\/relinvestmentsgroup.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Global-1-1140x445.jpeg",1140,445,true],"list":["https:\/\/relinvestmentsgroup.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Global-1-463x348.jpeg",463,348,true],"medium":["https:\/\/relinvestmentsgroup.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Global-1-300x205.jpeg",300,205,true],"full":["https:\/\/relinvestmentsgroup.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Global-1.jpeg",1216,832,false]},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/relinvestmentsgroup.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2317","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/relinvestmentsgroup.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/relinvestmentsgroup.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/relinvestmentsgroup.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/relinvestmentsgroup.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2317"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/relinvestmentsgroup.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2317\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2319,"href":"https:\/\/relinvestmentsgroup.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2317\/revisions\/2319"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/relinvestmentsgroup.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2318"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/relinvestmentsgroup.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2317"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/relinvestmentsgroup.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2317"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/relinvestmentsgroup.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2317"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}