BANKING ON CLIMATE CHAOS 2021

The report finds that the 60 largest global banks provided $3.8 trillion in fossil fuel financing from 2016 to 2020. Despite a 9% drop in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, financing levels remained higher than in 2016. JPMorgan Chase is identified as the world's worst fossil fuel banker, with $317 billion provided over the five-year period. The analysis highlights a significant gap between banks' 'net zero by 2050' pledges and their continued funding of fossil fuel expansion, particularly in sectors like LNG, offshore oil and gas, and coal. The report also details the human rights and environmental impacts of specific projects, such as the East African Crude Oil Pipeline and the Line 3 pipeline, and argues that current bank policies are insufficient to align with the 1.5C goal of the Paris Agreement.

• The 60 largest commercial and investment banks provided a total of $3.8 trillion in fossil fuel financing between 2016 and 2020.
• Fossil fuel financing decreased by approximately 9% in 2020, a trend attributed to the global decline in demand and production caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Despite the 2020 decline, overall fossil fuel financing in 2020 remained higher than the levels recorded in 2016, the year after the Paris Agreement was adopted.
• JPMorgan Chase is the largest global funder of fossil fuels from 2016 to 2020, providing nearly $317 billion, which is 33% more than the second-worst bank, Citi.
• Chinese banks dominate coal mining and coal power financing; the 11 worst coal mining banks and the 10 worst coal power banks are all Chinese.
• BNP Paribas is the worst funder of offshore oil and gas over the last five years, despite having restrictions on unconventional oil and gas financing.
• Wells Fargo is the top funder of the fracking sector for four consecutive years.
• Approximately 39% of the total fossil fuel financing analyzed went to 100 key companies with the worst fossil fuel expansion plans.
• Bank policies are heavily skewed toward coal restrictions, but 69% of the analyzed fossil fuel financing was directed toward oil and gas companies.
• Only 5% of fossil fuel financing is project-related, meaning most funding is for 'general corporate purposes' and thus bypasses project-specific restrictions.
• In 2020, 65% of bank financing for fossil fuels was conducted through the underwriting of equity and bond issuances rather than direct lending.
• 17 of the 60 banks analyzed have pledged 'net zero by 2050' for financed emissions, but the report argues these are often vague or rely on unfeasible carbon offsets.
• UniCredit is identified as having the strongest overall fossil fuel policy, though it only earned about half of the available points.
• The East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), supported by SMBC Group, ICBC, and Stanbic Bank Uganda, is projected to produce over 33 million tons of CO2 emissions annually.

APA

Reclaim Finance (2021). BANKING ON CLIMATE CHAOS 2021. https://reclaimfinance.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/BOCC__2021_vF.pdf

Chicago

Reclaim Finance. BANKING ON CLIMATE CHAOS 2021. 2021. https://reclaimfinance.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/BOCC__2021_vF.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Reclaim Finance |title=BANKING ON CLIMATE CHAOS 2021 |date=24 March 2021 |url=https://reclaimfinance.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/BOCC__2021_vF.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{reclaimfinance2021banking, author = {{Reclaim Finance}}, title = {{BANKING ON CLIMATE CHAOS 2021}}, institution = {Reclaim Finance}, year = {2021}, month = mar, url = {https://reclaimfinance.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/BOCC__2021_vF.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }