euronews.com
Global Banks Increase Fossil Fuel Financing by \$162.5 Billion in 2024
The world's top 65 banks financed \$869 billion in fossil fuels in 2024, a \$162.5 billion increase from 2023, driven by banks' retreat from climate commitments and lack of binding regulations; American banks led the way, while some European banks showed stronger exclusion policies.
- How do the fossil fuel financing practices of American and European banks compare, and what factors contribute to these differences?
- The increase in fossil fuel financing is linked to banks' withdrawal from climate commitments, driven by factors like geopolitical instability and a lack of binding regulations. American banks provided one-third of the total financing, with JPMorgan Chase as the largest financier. European banks, such as Barclays, also significantly contributed, although some, like La Banque Postale, implemented stronger fossil fuel exclusion policies.
- What is the total amount of fossil fuel financing by the top 65 banks in 2024, and what are the immediate implications of this increase?
- In 2024, the world's top 65 banks financed the fossil fuel industry with \$869 billion, a \$162.5 billion increase from 2023. This surge follows a retreat from climate commitments by many banks, indicating a renewed focus on fossil fuel investments despite the record-breaking heat of 2024.
- What are the long-term implications of banks' backsliding on climate commitments, and what regulatory measures are necessary to address this issue?
- The continued high levels of fossil fuel financing pose a significant risk to global climate goals, hindering efforts to limit temperature increases. While some European banks showed progress, the overall trend reveals a prioritization of short-term economic gains over long-term climate sustainability. Binding government regulations are crucial to shift banking practices towards climate-friendly investments.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction immediately highlight the increase in fossil fuel financing, setting a negative tone. The report's title, "Banking on Climate Chaos," is inherently alarmist. While the increase is significant, the framing prioritizes this negative aspect and gives less prominence to any potential mitigating actions or complexities involved. The use of quotes from environmental groups further reinforces this negative framing. The article focuses heavily on the actions (or lack thereof) from a select group of major banks rather than the banking industry as a whole.
Language Bias
The article utilizes strong, emotionally charged language, such as "backsliding," "dirty money," "death sentence," and "tanking our economy and our planet." These terms are not objective and contribute to a strongly negative portrayal of the banking industry's actions. More neutral alternatives could include "reduction in climate commitments," "investments in fossil fuels," "negative consequences for climate-vulnerable communities," and "potential negative economic impacts." The repeated use of phrases like "climate chaos" reinforces the negative narrative.
Bias by Omission
The report focuses heavily on the increase in fossil fuel financing by major banks, but omits discussion of any potential positive actions or investments made by these banks in renewable energy or sustainable initiatives. This omission could create a skewed perception of the banks' overall environmental efforts. Further, the article does not explore the economic and geopolitical factors influencing banking decisions, leaving the reader with an incomplete picture of the forces at play. While acknowledging space constraints, inclusion of even brief mention of these counterpoints would enhance the article's balance.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic dichotomy between banks fully committed to climate action and those completely backsliding. The reality is likely far more nuanced, with banks engaging in varying levels of both fossil fuel and renewable energy financing. The language used, such as "backsliding" and "dirty money," reinforces this stark contrast and overlooks potential complexities in the banks' strategies and the challenges they face.
Sustainable Development Goals
The report highlights a significant increase in fossil fuel financing by major banks in 2024, counteracting efforts to limit global warming and contradicting previous climate commitments. This surge in funding directly fuels activities contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, undermining the goals of the Paris Agreement and accelerating climate change. Quotes from the report directly link the increased financing to a retreat from climate commitments and the exacerbation of climate risks.