Defunded: Big Banks cut Fossil Fuel Financing

[ajax18]

Biden says, "Gas prices are Russia's fault."

Defunded: Financing for Oil and Gas from Big U.S. Banks Has Plunged

Financing of the oil and gas industry by the biggest banks in the U.S. was far below prepandemic levels in 2021, according to data from a group of climate change activist organizations.

The four largest U.S. banks—J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America—provided the oil and gas sector with $181.2 billion of financing in 2021. That is 14.3 percent below the 2019 level, according to data in the 13th annual “Banking on Climate Chaos” study.

Those four banks together account for one-quarter of all fossil fuel financing, according to the report.

Soaring oil prices due to insufficient supplies have pushed gasoline prices to record highs recently, causing frustration for U.S. consumers and fueling inflation. On Thursday, President Joe Biden said the U.S. would release one million barrels a day from government stockpiles in an effort to lower the price.

The report calls for banks to “prohibit all financing for all fossil fuel expansion projects and for all companies expanding fossil fuel extraction and infrastructure along the whole value chain.” It also calls for banks to begin eliminating all financing for fossil fuel extraction.

That is a stark contrast with Biden’s new stance. On Thursday, Biden pleaded with oil companies to expand production and said he would ask Congress for the power to fine companies that hold energy leases on federal lands that go unused.

Biden’s proposal on Thursday is a policy u-turn. On the campaign trail, Biden promised to ban new leases and he has attempted to put hardcore climate change activists into key financial regulatory positions. Those attempts have faltered when Democratic Senators rejected the nominations.

Financial institutions have nonetheless faced pressure from lawmakers and regulators to reduce or eliminate altogether financing for fossil fuels.
“Our planet is staring down a point of no return, and the world’s largest financial institutions are pouring gasoline on the fire. The science is unequivocal: the only way to limit global temperature rise to 1.5C by 2050 is by immediately halting all financing of new fossil fuel extraction projects,”said Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), according to Marketwatch.


The report was published by Rainforest Action Network, BankTrack, Indigenous Environmental Network, Oil Change International, Reclaim Finance, Sierra Club, and Urgewald. It was endorsed by over 500 organizations from more than 50 countries.



Several of the top American banks—including J.P. Morgan Chase, Citi, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs—have committed to net-zero ommissions by 2050.

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2022/ ... sil-fuels/

[canpakes]

There’s a nice, short article about this here:

https://www.akbizmag.com/industry/oil-g ... pment/amp/

ajax, do you believe that the government should force banks to meet some kind of minimum threshold within their portfolio for funding of oil and gas industry needs? How should a baseline be determined and enforced?

[Res Ipsa]

We’ve had over 30 years to execute a gradual transition away from fossil fuels. If the Titanic waits to turn until it’s almost on top of the iceberg, it’s going to get a little rough.

[ajax18]

We’ve had over 30 years to execute a gradual transition away from fossil fuels. If the Titanic waits to turn until it’s almost on top of the iceberg, it’s going to get a little rough.

Well at least you're admitting what the Democrat agenda is with regard to gas prices. Perhaps the voters should decide if the cost of green energy is worth it and politicians should stop lying about gas prices being Russia's fault. This is what actual misinformation and election fraud is about.

[canpakes]

We’ve had over 30 years to execute a gradual transition away from fossil fuels. If the Titanic waits to turn until it’s almost on top of the iceberg, it’s going to get a little rough.

Well at least you're admitting what the Democrat agenda is with regard to gas prices. Perhaps the voters should decide if the cost of green energy is worth it and politicians should stop lying about gas prices being Russia's fault. This is what actual misinformation and election fraud is about.

Right now, if you replaced half of the US auto fleet with EVs, the price of gas would likely drop a bit.

[Res Ipsa]

We’ve had over 30 years to execute a gradual transition away from fossil fuels. If the Titanic waits to turn until it’s almost on top of the iceberg, it’s going to get a little rough.

Well at least you're admitting what the Democrat agenda is with regard to gas prices. Perhaps the voters should decide if the cost of green energy is worth it and politicians should stop lying about gas prices being Russia's fault. This is what actual misinformation and election fraud is about.

You have that exactly backwards. The Republican agenda is to keep us perpetually dependent on ever increasing gas prices. To be energy independent using oil requires us to drill shale oil. It’s the most expensive oil to produce in the world. Middle East — $10-20 per barrel. US shale $60-80 per barrel.

West Texas Intermediate crude closed yesterday at about $100 — of its high this month of $120. The democrats have taken any action on a green agenda that would cause this price spike.

Oil prices are set by supply and demand. The green agenda is to transition away from fossil fuels. That decreases the demand for oil, which lowers the price. For example, subsidizing the purchase of electric vehicles means fewer people buying gas for cars. The price comes down.

But this long term shift in demand also cases a long term shift in supply, as companies shift from producing oil to other energy sources. A reduction in supply raises the price.

If you can do a gradual transition over a long period of time, the temporary fluctuations that occur will be relatively small. But, if you have to do it much faster, the fluctuations will be larger. It’s harder to keep supply and demand in balance when significant changes are made in a relatively short period of time.

So, no, the green agenda isn’t simply to suddenly double the price of gas to force people to use less. It works both on the supply and demand side.

This current gas spike has nothing to do with the green agenda. The market price of oil is set by global supply and demand. The US can’t significantly influence the global price by pumping more oil — not in the short term anyway. The current spike has several causes. First, suppliers ramped production way down in 2020 as the pandemic resulted in a massive decrease in demand world wide. That demand surged back fairly quickly as the US and Europe went full FAFO on COVID. But it’s slower to ramp up the supply than it is to reduce it. The suppliers have to drill new wells, which requires people to hire and construction equipment and supplies. Right now we have both a labor shortage and spikes in materials costs because COVID disrupted, and is still disrupting, supply chains.


Then, on top of that, we have the war. Instability that affects oil production always increases the price of oil. Buyers want to make sure their supplies aren’t interrupted, so they buy more futures to lock in supply. That raises the price. It’s not a lie to say that the war caused the current spike. It’s certainly significant, and I can’t separate which of the various factors caused how much of the spike.

I’m fairly cynical about Biden’s announcement yesterday. I think it has more to do with the midterms than it does energy policy.

[K Graham]

Well at least you're admitting what the Democrat agenda is with regard to gas prices. Perhaps the voters should decide if the cost of green energy is worth it and politicians should stop lying about gas prices being Russia's fault. This is what actual misinformation and election fraud is about.

Right now, if you replaced half of the US auto fleet with EVs, the price of gas would likely drop a bit.

And the price of gas would be irrelevant to half the population as they'd be plugging in their cars.

[Gadianton]

Here is some helpful information on oil prices. I realize it's a government website but if anyone from the right-wing is suspicious about this I can find the same information from investing websites if needed.

The volatility of oil prices is inherently tied to the low responsiveness or "inelasticity" of both supply and demand to price changes in the short run. Both oil production capacity and the equipment that use petroleum products as their main source of energy are relatively fixed in the near-term. It takes years to develop new supply sources or vary production, and it is very hard for consumers to switch to other fuels or increase fuel efficiency in the near- term when prices rise. Under such conditions, a large price change can be necessary to re-balance physical supply and demand following a shock to the system.

If you think about this, it's yet

another really good reason

why going green would be good for the average person.

Biden isn't going to fix gas prices by his proposals. Nobody is. When gas seems good for the average person, the system is just as broken, just in the opposite direction.

[Res Ipsa]

Right now, if you replaced half of the US auto fleet with EVs, the price of gas would likely drop a bit.

And the price of gas would be irrelevant to half the population as they'd be plugging in their cars.

To be fair, the price of electricity would soar. We have to increase the supply of green electricity at the same time we increase the demand for electricity. The federal and state governments will also have to find a new way of raising revenues to building and maintain highways.

[canpakes]

And the price of gas would be irrelevant to half the population as they'd be plugging in their cars.

To be fair, the price of electricity would soar. We have to increase the supply of green electricity at the same time we increase the demand for electricity. The federal and state governments will also have to find a new way of raising revenues to building and maintain highways.

I would expect it to. But this is where having additional options come into play … if charging networks and stations can be supported or augmented by on-site solar, then we are adding capacity without needing to draw as much from existing infrastructure.