Connect with us

Published

on

Danielle Koh is a policy analyst with Reclaim Finance and Daniela Finamore is a finance and climate campaigner at ReCommon.

The G7’s top leaders convene in Italy this week as the world swelters through its 12th hottest month on record. One key issue that needs to be addressed is G7 members’ continued bankrolling of coal, from fossil fuel subsidies to public financing and private investments.

The latest evidence shows that the world’s largest banks – the majority of which are headquartered in G7 nations – continue to pour fuel on the fire of coal expansion.

As the G7 summit approaches, there is a chance for countries to match their rhetoric with action. It is not enough for governments and regulators to “call on” private finance to end their support for coal power. The continued financing of coal by the private sector shows that countries must take concrete steps to implement policies that stem the global flow of funds that fuel the expansion of the coal industry and redirect them to clean energy investments.  

Bonn talks on climate finance goal end in stalemate on numbers

While attention is often directed at public fossil fuel subsidies for coal (which are a problem), the billions of dollars in commercial financing for the coal industry’s expansion cannot be ignored. Commercial banks provided a staggering $470 billion to the coal industry between 2021 and 2023 – money that could have otherwise been channelled into clean energy investments, grid infrastructure improvements, and energy efficiency. 

And the majority of this financing comes from financial institutions headquartered in G7 countries. Collectively, these banks provided $101 billion for coal development in the form of loans and facilitated bonds between 2021 and 2023.  

Worst offenders: US and Japan

Topping the list of offenders are US and Japanese banks, which are the largest coal lenders in the world. Bank of America, actually increased its funding of the coal industry by 30% between 2016 and 2023. It provided a whopping $6 billion in loans and facilitation of capital market issuances to the coal industry in the last three years. For perspective, $6 billion is the size of the entire GDP of the Maldives.

Japanese banks are not faring better.  Coal financing between 2021 and 2023 remained dominated by its megabanks, Mizuho ($8.1 billion), MUFG ($6.1 billion) and SMBC ($4.7 billion).  

Estimates suggest that the absolute greenhouse gas emissions associated with the activities financed by commercial banks in G7 countries are more than the combined emissions of Germany, Italy, the UK, and France. While banks do not directly produce all these emissions, they are borne out of their lending and investment activities of companies that they support.  

No shortage of public money to pay for a just energy transition

The ironic cherry on top is that this amount provided by commercial banks in G7 countries to the coal industry is more than twice the total pledged by the G7-led International Partners Group (IPG) to support the Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs), an intergovernmental initiative intended to provide technical assistance and financial resources to help developing countries with their clean energy transitions. 

Coal phaseout unclear

Nor is the G7 showing great leadership when it comes to their own coal phaseout plans. The US alone still has over 200 gigawatts (GW) of remaining operational coal capacity alone. While this has been falling, there are also signs that this decline is stalling – 200 GW is more than the entire coal operating capacity of all the JETP recipient countries. And Japan has no clear coal phaseout plan despite its commitment.  

This shows that the capital required for the energy transition is available, but just poorly allocated. Financial regulations, such as stricter capital requirements and outright prohibitions, play a crucial role in redirecting capital and investments towards the energy transition. This must include setting international standards to stem the flow of funds towards the continued expansion of the coal industry and restrict financing to coal developers that continue to contribute to environmental degradation and air pollution.  

Financial regulation

The Italian presidency of the G7 2024 has a responsibility to prioritise climate-forward action across different sectors, including financial regulation. G7 Central Banks need to keep up the pressure on keeping climate action at the forefront of negotiations, and call for more international coordination and standard setting. 

Even if the G7 achieves its coal exit goal by the “first half of the 2030s”, this timeline falls short of what scientists say is necessary to limit global warming to 1.5°C, a critical threshold to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.

As UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said last week, “We are in control of the wheel that takes us off the highway to climate hell.” Individual G7 members must take an introspective look at changing outdated policies to adopt strong, binding regulations on private financing for coal.  

The data on private finance for coal is attributable to Urgewald and can be accessed at www.stillbankingoncoal.org 

The post G7 coal charade: Funding the fire they claim to fight  appeared first on Climate Home News.

G7 coal charade: Funding the fire they claim to fight 

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Months After a Jet Fuel Leak, No Agency Tested Waters Downstream of Piscataway Creek. So Community Groups Are Doing It Themselves.

Published

on

Authorities that manage the Potomac River tributary did not sample the stretch where residents fish and recreate. One Indigenous leader sees the lack of response as part of a pattern of ongoing neglect.

In the five months after jet fuel started leaking from Joint Base Andrews into Piscataway Creek, no agency tested the water or sediment some 20 miles downstream, where the creek empties into the Potomac River and the shoreline community and anglers gather to fish and boat along the riverbank.

Months After a Jet Fuel Leak, No Agency Tested Waters Downstream of Piscataway Creek. So Community Groups Are Doing It Themselves.

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Trump Administration Abandons Fight Against Wind Energy as Clean Energy Output Surges

Published

on

The clean energy sector is showing resilience despite challenges thrown at it by a hostile White House, a recent report found. A string of legal victories has further dampened the Trump administration’s efforts to halt wind and solar power.

The Trump administration has abandoned its effort to halt wind energy projects across the United States and dropped its challenge to the court ruling that tossed President Donald Trump’s order freezing federal permitting and leasing for wind projects. States that challenged the order hailed the development as one of the most significant legal victories against the Trump White House’s campaign against the energy transition.

Trump Administration Abandons Fight Against Wind Energy as Clean Energy Output Surges

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Analysis: UK’s EV drivers are now saving £1,100 each a year – and £3bn in total

Published

on

Amid reports that the government could weaken the UK’s electric vehicle (EV) targets, Carbon Brief analysis reveals the nation’s EV drivers are saving more than £1,100 a year in fuel costs, compared with running a petrol car.

Battery EVs (BEVs) are roughly four times more efficient than combustion-engine cars, making them far cheaper to run – particularly since the Iran crisis caused a spike in fossil-fuel prices.

The savings from driving BEVs are also more than three times higher than for “plug-in” hybrids (PHEVs), which evidence shows are mostly driven with their combustion engines.

In total, the more than 2m BEVs, 1m PHEVs and 100,000 electric vans on UK roads are saving drivers around £3bn a year, Carbon Brief’s analysis shows, as illustrated in the figure below.

In addition, these EVs are avoiding the need for nearly 2.5bn litres of fuel and cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by nearly 7m tonnes each year.

Total annual fuel cost savings from the UK’s fleet of battery EVs, plug-in hybrids and electric vans, £bn. Figures for 2026 based on EVs on the road as of May 2026 and the latest road fuel prices. Analysis based on 80% home charging at cheap overnight rates and 20% public charging. Savings can reach £1,400 a year with exclusive home charging. Source: Carbon Brief analysis.

Despite recent news that EVs are now cheaper to buy than petrol cars, as well as having far lower running costs, BBC News says the government is “set to water down” its EV sales targets.

The broadcaster explains that the current goal, under the UK’s “zero-emissions vehicle” (ZEV) mandate, is for 80% of new car sales to be BEVs by 2030.

It says that the government is set to consult on weakening this to between 50% and 70%, following “lobbying” by carmakers and trade unions.

According to the Sunday Times, prime minister Keir Starmer “is understood to have overruled the energy secretary [Ed Miliband] after sustained pressure from industry, the Unite union and Peter Kyle, the business secretary”.

The car industry has consistently claimed there is insufficient demand for BEVs to meet the targets under the ZEV mandate, yet the government says manufacturers have “over-complied” to date. Independent analysts say the industry is on track to continue beating the ZEV mandate goals.

The industry has been able to beat its targets by using a wide range of “flexibilities”, which were introduced after a previous round of lobbying. These allow carmarkers to meet part of their EV targets by selling more efficient combustion cars, such as hybrids and plug-in hybrids.

The ZEV mandate is the single-largest part of the government’s plans to meet its legally binding climate goals over the next decade.

The advisory Climate Change Committee (CCC) previously warned that the extra flexibilities would result in a larger number of hybrids being sold, at the expense of battery EVs.

When it consulted on the ZEV mandate in 2023, the then-Conservative government noted that PHEVs do not deliver the cost and CO2 savings they are advertised with.

It pointed to “dramatic” differences between the performance of PHEVs in test cycles and what they deliver under real-world conditions.

In practice, less than a third of miles driven in PHEVs are fuelled by electricity, with petrol making up the rest. As a result, cost and CO2 savings from BEVs are three times larger than for PHEVs.

The post Analysis: UK’s EV drivers are now saving £1,100 each a year – and £3bn in total appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Analysis: UK’s EV drivers are now saving £1,100 each a year – and £3bn in total

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com