taz.de
Global Banks Fuel Climate Crisis with Increased Coal Financing
Global banks financed \$130 billion in coal projects in 2024, a significant increase compared to 2023 (\$123 billion), contradicting the Glasgow Climate Pact's commitment to phase out coal; Chinese banks were the largest investors.
- Which banks are the leading financiers of coal projects globally, and what are the regional differences in their levels of investment?
- The substantial rise in coal financing, particularly by Chinese banks (\$248 billion since 2022), contradicts the 2021 Glasgow agreement aiming to phase out coal. This highlights a disconnect between international climate commitments and the actions of major financial institutions.
- What systemic factors contribute to the continued high levels of coal financing despite international climate agreements, and what actions are needed to address this issue?
- The continued high levels of coal financing, especially the increase by European banks (\$20 billion since Glasgow), suggest a systemic challenge in aligning financial practices with climate goals. This trend demands stricter regulations and increased transparency in the financial sector.
- What is the total amount of funding that global banks provided to coal projects in 2024, and how does this compare to previous years and commitments made at the Glasgow Climate Pact?
- Global banks significantly increased funding for coal projects in 2024, reaching \$130 billion, despite the Glasgow Climate Pact. This represents a concerning reversal of previous commitments to divest from fossil fuels, with Chinese banks leading the increase.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing of the article is predominantly negative, emphasizing the negative impacts of increased coal financing and the failure of banks to fully meet their climate commitments. The headline and introduction immediately set a critical tone. While the counter-argument from Deutsche Bank is included, it is presented after a series of strongly worded accusations and negative data points, potentially minimizing its impact on the reader.
Language Bias
The article employs strong, negative language such as "dangerous trend reversal", "betrayal", and "Openbarungseid" (a German word implying a disgrace or complete failure). Such loaded terms contribute to the overall negative framing and could influence reader perception. More neutral alternatives could include phrases like "significant increase", "deviation from commitments", or "substantial financial support".
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the increase in coal financing by major banks, particularly highlighting the actions of Deutsche Bank. However, it omits discussion of potential mitigating factors, such as investments in renewable energy by these same banks. Additionally, the article doesn't explore the broader economic context driving the increased investment in coal, such as global energy demands or geopolitical instability. While the article cites a counter-argument from a Deutsche Bank spokesperson, it doesn't delve into the specifics of their claim regarding the data discrepancies.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic dichotomy between banks adhering to the Glasgow Climate Pact commitments and those that are not. The reality is likely more nuanced, with varying degrees of commitment and a range of factors influencing banks' decisions. The article doesn't explore the complexities of transitioning away from fossil fuels, acknowledging the economic challenges faced by countries and banks reliant on coal.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a significant increase in global bank financing of coal projects, directly counteracting efforts to mitigate climate change. The rise in funding, despite pledges made at the Glasgow Climate Conference, indicates a setback in achieving climate goals. Specific examples given include the Deutsche Bank's increased financing of Peabody Energy, a major coal company, and the overall increase in European bank financing of coal.