this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
34 points (100.0% liked)
Environment
3926 readers
1 users here now
Environmental and ecological discussion, particularly of things like weather and other natural phenomena (especially if they're not breaking news).
See also our Nature and Gardening community for discussion centered around things like hiking, animals in their natural habitat, and gardening (urban or rural).
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
Two years ago, Bank of America won kudos from climate activists for saying it would no longer finance new coal mines, coal-burning power plants or Arctic drilling projects because of the toll they take on the environment.States including Texas and West Virginia have passed financial regulations designed to ward off efforts to deny fossil-fuel companies access to banking services.
Coal, a major contributor to global warming, faced “significant challenges” as the world stepped up its efforts to address the climate crisis, the bank said at the time.
Moreover, Bank of America said it recognized that “the Arctic is a unique region with specific considerations to take into account including those of marine and wildlife, a fragile ecosystem and the rights of Indigenous Peoples.”
In a statement, JPMorgan said at the time that its modified target recognized that “a singular focus on fossil fuels will not successfully achieve the necessary transition of the global energy system.”
In the seven years after the landmark Paris Agreement of 2015, in which nearly every country in the world agreed to reduce emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases, those same banks financed the fossil-fuel industry to the tune of about $5.5 trillion, according to the tally.
Saved 75% of original text.