Lucie Pinson is the founder and executive director of Paris-based NGO Reclaim Finance.
The abrupt exit of the six biggest US banks from the UN’s Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) is a disturbing sign of the shallowness of these institutions’ professed commitment to acting on climate. It is also a sign of their willingness to preemptively show subservience to the incoming Trump administration.
The question now is whether other banks will follow the example of their US counterparts – especially given the rise of right-wing politicians in Europe and Canada who seek to halt action on climate – or if the remaining banks in the NZBA will now push for more ambition from the alliance, and strengthen their own climate commitments.
Some European bank officials have privately complained in the past that they would like the NZBA guidelines to be stronger but that US members were blocking progress. The European and other banks in the NZBA can now show that they were not just hiding behind the US banks’ obstructionist skirts, and act to increase the NZBA’s ambition.
The recent exodus of the Wall Street banks is hardly a surprise. At least some of them reportedly threatened to leave the NZBA two years ago when red-state officials threatened them with antitrust lawsuits. The banks stayed in then because the NZBA and the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), an associated alliance for all types of financial institutions, both clarified that none of their recommendations were compulsory.
What Trump’s second term means for climate action in the US and beyond
The suspension of activities by another net-zero alliance representing big money managers is one more sign of financial firms’ fear of retribution from the Trump administration and emboldened right-wing politicians at the state level.
The Net Zero Asset Manager (NZAM) initiative’s requirements of its members were so weak as to be to mainly symbolic – and it shows how much fossil fuel companies are concerned about their continued access to capital that the politicians they fund will attack even the most milquetoast climate initiative from the finance sector.
Action with or without voluntary body
Regardless of their NZBA membership, the big US banks have never exhibited any real interest in restricting fossil fuel finance. JPMorgan Chase provided US$41 billion in finance for oil and gas and coal companies in 2023, billions more than any other bank. Citi, Bank of America and Wells Fargo were all in the top five global bankers of fossil fuels between 2016 and 2023.
In contrast, some of the largest European banks have shown that another path is possible.
While still falling short of the action required by science to stop fuelling climate change, particularly on LNG (liquefied natural gas), French giants BNP Paribas and Crédit Agricole have both committed to end the facilitation of bond issuances for oil and gas companies. Société Générale has a target to cut its credit exposure to oil and gas producers by 80% by 2030. These three banks have each more than halved their volumes of fossil fuel finance between 2020 and 2023. Additionally, Dutch bank ING will stop funding LNG projects after next year.
LA fires show human cost of climate-driven ‘whiplash’ between wet and dry extremes
Yet none of these robust measures and targets were due to the banks’ membership of the NZBA.
The NZBA does not require its members to restrict financing for oil, gas or coal – not even for those companies that are doing the most to expand fossil fuel production. Members are required to set targets for high-emitting sectors, but although the targets are recommended to be 1.5°C-aligned, the NZBA does nothing to ensure this.
No clear target-setting requirements
A lack of clear requirements on target-setting from the NZBA means that its members have a bewildering array of target types, many of which are deeply flawed and unlikely to lead to real-world emission reductions. The most problematic targets are those based on “financed emissions”.
This methodology attributes the emissions from corporations to their banks using a formula that divides lending exposure by corporate value. The resulting number changes as the market value of the companies in a bank’s sectoral portfolio rises, so the bank’s financed emissions for that sector will fall even if real emissions stay the same.
French bank BPCE, like most other major European banks such as HSBC, Deutsche Bank or UBS, has set only a financed emissions target for the oil and gas sector - in sharp contrast to the banks mentioned above that have set targets to reduce their lending to oil and gas companies.
Provided oil and gas company share prices rise sufficiently, BPCE could meet its target without reducing its finance to these companies, and without these companies cutting their emissions – as Barclays did in 2023, seven years ahead of the target year.
European banks must push NZBA for more ambition
Given their mixed track record so far, it is also possible that European banks could use the US exodus as an excuse to backtrack on their climate commitments, and even for pushing back on recently adopted related regulations. BPCE’s “Vision 2030”, published in June last year, is one example of an important European bank moving backwards on climate.
Some EU business groups have successfully lobbied to reopen key Green Deal legislation. And while we do not yet know how far the changes will go, some banks may join their push to go beyond mere clarifications and simplifications, and dismantle new reporting and due diligence obligations.
To reform climate COPs, we should start with the voting rules
The last of the US banks to announce they were quitting the NZBA was JPMorgan Chase. Their announcement was made on January 7 — the very same day that the catastrophic fires broke out in Los Angeles.
Wall Street may escape the wrath of Trump by appearing not to care about climate change, but financial institutions will not escape the wrath of climate change unless they show the courage to stop financing the expansion of fossil fuels.
The post Wall Street’s faltering on climate action opens up opportunity for European banks appeared first on Climate Home News.
Wall Street’s faltering on climate action opens up opportunity for European banks
Climate Change
DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
Blazing heat hits Europe
FANNING THE FLAMES: Wildfires “fanned by a heatwave and strong winds” caused havoc across southern Europe, Reuters reported. It added: “Fire has affected nearly 440,000 hectares (1,700 square miles) in the eurozone so far in 2025, double the average for the same period of the year since 2006.” Extreme heat is “breaking temperature records across Europe”, the Guardian said, with several countries reporting readings of around 40C.
HUMAN TOLL: At least three people have died in the wildfires erupting across Spain, Turkey and Albania, France24 said, adding that the fires have “displaced thousands in Greece and Albania”. Le Monde reported that a child in Italy “died of heatstroke”, while thousands were evacuated from Spain and firefighters “battled three large wildfires” in Portugal.
UK WILDFIRE RISK: The UK saw temperatures as high as 33.4C this week as England “entered its fourth heatwave”, BBC News said. The high heat is causing “nationally significant” water shortfalls, it added, “hitting farms, damaging wildlife and increasing wildfires”. The Daily Mirror noted that these conditions “could last until mid-autumn”. Scientists warn the UK faces possible “firewaves” due to climate change, BBC News also reported.
Around the world
- GRID PRESSURES: Iraq suffered a “near nationwide blackout” as elevated power demand – due to extreme temperatures of around 50C – triggered a transmission line failure, Bloomberg reported.
- ‘DIRE’ DOWN UNDER: The Australian government is keeping a climate risk assessment that contains “dire” implications for the continent “under wraps”, the Australian Financial Review said.
- EXTREME RAINFALL: Mexico City is “seeing one of its heaviest rainy seasons in years”, the Washington Post said. Downpours in the Japanese island of Kyushu “caused flooding and mudslides”, according to Politico. In Kashmir, flash floods killed 56 and left “scores missing”, the Associated Press said.
- SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION: China and Brazil agreed to “ensure the success” of COP30 in a recent phone call, Chinese state news agency Xinhua reported.
- PLASTIC ‘DEADLOCK’: Talks on a plastic pollution treaty have failed again at a summit in Geneva, according to the Guardian, with countries “deadlocked” on whether it should include “curbs on production and toxic chemicals”.
15
The number of times by which the most ethnically-diverse areas in England are more likely to experience extreme heat than its “least diverse” areas, according to new analysis by Carbon Brief.
Latest climate research
- As many as 13 minerals critical for low-carbon energy may face shortages under 2C pathways | Nature Climate Change
- A “scoping review” examined the impact of climate change on poor sexual and reproductive health and rights in sub-Saharan Africa | PLOS One
- A UK university cut the carbon footprint of its weekly canteen menu by 31% “without students noticing” | Nature Food
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
Factchecking Trump’s climate report
A report commissioned by the US government to justify rolling back climate regulations contains “at least 100 false or misleading statements”, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists. The report, compiled in two months by five hand-picked researchers, inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed” and misleadingly states that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”80
Spotlight
Does Xi Jinping care about climate change?
This week, Carbon Brief unpacks new research on Chinese president Xi Jinping’s policy priorities.
On this day in 2005, Xi Jinping, a local official in eastern China, made an unplanned speech when touring a small village – a rare occurrence in China’s highly-choreographed political culture.
In it, he observed that “lucid waters and lush mountains are mountains of silver and gold” – that is, the environment cannot be sacrificed for the sake of growth.
(The full text of the speech is not available, although Xi discussed the concept in a brief newspaper column – see below – a few days later.)
In a time where most government officials were laser-focused on delivering economic growth, this message was highly unusual.
Forward-thinking on environment
As a local official in the early 2000s, Xi endorsed the concept of “green GDP”, which integrates the value of natural resources and the environment into GDP calculations.
He also penned a regular newspaper column, 22 of which discussed environmental protection – although “climate change” was never mentioned.
This focus carried over to China’s national agenda when Xi became president.
New research from the Asia Society Policy Institute tracked policies in which Xi is reported by state media to have “personally” taken action.
It found that environmental protection is one of six topics in which he is often said to have directly steered policymaking.
Such policies include guidelines to build a “Beautiful China”, the creation of an environmental protection inspection team and the “three-north shelterbelt” afforestation programme.
“It’s important to know what Xi’s priorities are because the top leader wields outsized influence in the Chinese political system,” Neil Thomas, Asia Society Policy Institute fellow and report co-author, told Carbon Brief.
Local policymakers are “more likely” to invest resources in addressing policies they know have Xi’s attention, to increase their chances for promotion, he added.
What about climate and energy?
However, the research noted, climate and energy policies have not been publicised as bearing Xi’s personal touch.
“I think Xi prioritises environmental protection more than climate change because reducing pollution is an issue of social stability,” Thomas said, noting that “smoggy skies and polluted rivers” were more visible and more likely to trigger civil society pushback than gradual temperature increases.
The paper also said topics might not be linked to Xi personally when they are “too technical” or “politically sensitive”.
For example, Xi’s landmark decision for China to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 is widely reported as having only been made after climate modelling – facilitated by former climate envoy Xie Zhenhua – showed that this goal was achievable.
Prior to this, Xi had never spoken publicly about carbon neutrality.
Prof Alex Wang, a University of California, Los Angeles professor of law not involved in the research, noted that emphasising Xi’s personal attention may signal “top” political priorities, but not necessarily Xi’s “personal interests”.
By not emphasising climate, he said, Xi may be trying to avoid “pushing the system to overprioritise climate to the exclusion of the other priorities”.
There are other ways to know where climate ranks on the policy agenda, Thomas noted:
“Climate watchers should look at what Xi says, what Xi does and what policies Xi authorises in the name of the ‘central committee’. Is Xi talking more about climate? Is Xi establishing institutions and convening meetings that focus on climate? Is climate becoming a more prominent theme in top-level documents?”
Watch, read, listen
TRUMP EFFECT: The Columbia Energy Exchange podcast examined how pressure from US tariffs could affect India’s clean energy transition.
NAMIBIAN ‘DESTRUCTION’: The National Observer investigated the failure to address “human rights abuses and environmental destruction” claims against a Canadian oil company in Namibia.
‘RED AI’: The Network for the Digital Economy and the Environment studied the state of current research on “Red AI”, or the “negative environmental implications of AI”.
Coming up
- 17 August: Bolivian general elections
- 18-29 August: Preparatory talks on the entry into force of the “High Seas Treaty”, New York
- 18-22 August: Y20 Summit, Johannesburg
- 21 August: Advancing the “Africa clean air programme” through Africa-Asia collaboration, Yokohama
Pick of the jobs
- Lancaster Environment Centre, senior research associate: JUST Centre | Salary: £39,355-£45,413. Location: Lancaster, UK
- Environmental Justice Foundation, communications and media officer, Francophone Africa | Salary: XOF600,000-XOF800,000. Location: Dakar, Senegal
- Politico, energy & climate editor | Salary: Unknown. Location: Brussels, Belgium
- EnviroCatalysts, meteorologist | Salary: Unknown. Location: New Delhi, India
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report appeared first on Carbon Brief.
DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report
Climate Change
New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit
The specter of a “gas-for-wind” compromise between the governor and the White House is drawing the ire of residents as a deadline looms.
Hundreds of New Yorkers rallied against new natural gas pipelines in their state as a deadline loomed for the public to comment on a revived proposal to expand the gas pipeline that supplies downstate New York.
New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit
A “critical assessment” report commissioned by the Trump administration to justify a rollback of US climate regulations contains at least 100 false or misleading statements, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists.
The report – “A critical review of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the US climate” – was published by the US Department of Energy (DoE) on 23 July, just days before the government laid out plans to revoke a scientific finding used as the legal basis for emissions regulation.
The executive summary of the controversial report inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed”.
It also states misleadingly that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”.
Compiled in just two months by five “independent” researchers hand-selected by the climate-sceptic US secretary of energy Chris Wright, the document has sparked fierce criticism from climate scientists, who have pointed to factual errors, misrepresentation of research, messy citations and the cherry-picking of data.
Experts have also noted the authors’ track record of promoting views at odds with the mainstream understanding of climate science.
Wright’s department claims the report – which is currently open to public comment as part of a 30-day review – underwent an “internal peer-review period amongst [the] DoE’s scientific research community”.
The report is designed to provide a scientific underpinning to one flank of the Trump administration’s plans to rescind a finding that serves as the legal prerequisite for federal emissions regulation. (The second flank is about legal authority to regulate emissions.)
The “endangerment finding” – enacted by the Obama administration in 2009 – states that six greenhouse gases are contributing to the net-negative impacts of climate change and, thus, put the public in danger.
In a press release on 29 July, the US Environmental Protection Agency said “updated studies and information” set out in the new report would “challenge the assumptions” of the 2009 finding.
Carbon Brief asked a wide range of climate scientists, including those cited in the “critical review” itself, to factcheck the report’s various claims and statements.
The post Factcheck: Trump’s climate report includes more than 100 false or misleading claims appeared first on Carbon Brief.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-trumps-climate-report-includes-more-than-100-false-or-misleading-claims/
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change1 year ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Carbon Footprint1 year agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action
-
Renewable Energy2 months ago
US Grid Strain, Possible Allete Sale
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Some firms unaware of England’s new single-use plastic ban