Table of Contents

Banks Abandon Climate Promises in Pursuit of Profit: A Long-Overdue Reality Check

Banks Abandon Climate Promises in Pursuit of Profit

The Great Climate Commitment U-Turn

In 2024, global banks poured nearly $900 billion into fossil fuel financing, according to the latest “Banking on Climate Chaos” report. This staggering figure has reignited debates about the sincerity of financial institutions’ climate pledges. While environmental advocacy groups decry this as a betrayal, others argue it’s a pragmatic shift—a long-overdue reality check in a world still heavily reliant on oil, gas, and coal. The truth may lie somewhere in between, but one thing is clear: the era of performative climate commitments in banking is over.

From Net-Zero to Net-Profit: The Shift in Priorities

Broken Promises or Strategic Realignment?

In the wake of the 2015 Paris Agreement, major banks rushed to align themselves with climate goals. JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Barclays were among the institutions that pledged to reach net-zero emissions in their lending and investment portfolios by 2050. These commitments were often accompanied by glossy sustainability reports and high-profile partnerships with environmental organizations.

However, the 2024 data tells a different story. JPMorgan Chase alone financed over $40 billion in fossil fuel projects this year, making it the world’s largest fossil fuel financier for the eighth consecutive year. Bank of America and Citigroup followed closely behind, with Barclays leading the charge in Europe. These figures suggest that banks are no longer prioritizing climate optics over financial returns.

Investor Sentiment: Quiet Approval

While environmental groups express outrage, investors appear largely unbothered. In fact, many institutional investors are rewarding banks for their renewed focus on profitability. Fossil fuel investments, particularly in oil and natural gas, have delivered strong returns amid global energy insecurity and geopolitical tensions. The war in Ukraine, OPEC+ production cuts, and rising demand in Asia have all contributed to a bullish fossil fuel market.

For investors, the message is clear: climate commitments are secondary to shareholder value. As one hedge fund manager put it, “Banks aren’t betraying the planet—they’re doing their job.”

Case Studies: Banks Leading the Fossil Fuel Revival

JPMorgan Chase: The Reluctant Climate Leader

JPMorgan Chase has long been a paradox in the climate finance world. In 2021, it joined the Net-Zero Banking Alliance and pledged to align its financing with the goals of the Paris Agreement. Yet in 2024, it financed more fossil fuel projects than any other bank—over $40 billion worth.

One notable example is its financing of the Willow Project in Alaska, a controversial oil drilling initiative expected to produce 600 million barrels of oil over 30 years. Despite public backlash and environmental concerns, JPMorgan defended its involvement, citing energy security and economic development.

Barclays: Europe’s Fossil Fuel Financier

Barclays has faced mounting pressure from UK-based climate activists, yet it remains Europe’s top fossil fuel financier. In 2024, it invested heavily in North Sea oil and gas projects, arguing that domestic energy production is essential for national security and price stability.

Barclays’ CEO, C.S. Venkatakrishnan, stated in a recent earnings call, “We are committed to a balanced energy transition. That means supporting both renewables and traditional energy sources during this critical period.”

Citigroup and Bank of America: Balancing Act

Citigroup and Bank of America have tried to walk a fine line between climate commitments and fossil fuel financing. Both banks have increased their investments in renewable energy, but they also continue to fund oil and gas projects at scale. In 2024, Citigroup financed over $30 billion in fossil fuels, while Bank of America contributed nearly $35 billion.

These banks argue that an abrupt withdrawal from fossil fuel financing would destabilize global markets and hurt developing economies that rely on affordable energy. Their approach reflects a growing consensus among financial institutions: the energy transition must be gradual, not radical.

Historical Context: The Evolution of Climate Finance

From Greenwashing to Green Realism

The concept of climate finance gained traction in the early 2000s, but it wasn’t until the 2015 Paris Agreement that banks began making public climate commitments. The years that followed saw a surge in ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investing, with banks launching green bonds, sustainability-linked loans, and climate risk assessments.

However, critics have long accused banks of greenwashing—making superficial or misleading claims about their environmental impact. The 2024 fossil fuel financing data suggests that these criticisms were not unfounded. As the economic realities of the energy transition set in, banks are shedding the veneer of climate virtue in favor of financial pragmatism.

The Role of Regulation and Policy

Government policy has also played a role in shaping bank behavior. In the U.S., the rollback of certain climate regulations under previous administrations created a more favorable environment for fossil fuel investment. Meanwhile, the European Union’s taxonomy for sustainable activities has faced criticism for being overly complex and inconsistent.

Without clear, enforceable standards, banks have been free to interpret climate commitments in ways that suit their bottom line. The result is a fragmented and often contradictory approach to climate finance.

The Road Ahead: What This Means for the Planet

Climate Goals in Jeopardy

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned that global emissions must be halved by 2030 to avoid catastrophic warming. Yet the continued financing of fossil fuels by major banks makes this target increasingly unlikely. According to the “Banking on Climate Chaos” report, the top 60 banks have collectively financed over $5.5 trillion in fossil fuels since the Paris Agreement was signed.

This level of investment not only undermines global climate goals but also locks in carbon-intensive infrastructure for decades to come. The window for meaningful action is closing rapidly, and the financial sector’s current trajectory is pushing it shut.

Calls for Accountability

In response to the 2024 data, climate advocacy groups are renewing calls for stricter regulation and greater transparency. Proposals include mandatory climate risk disclosures, limits on fossil fuel financing, and penalties for banks that fail to meet their climate commitments.

Some governments are beginning to take action. In the EU, regulators are considering new rules that would require banks to align their portfolios with net-zero targets. In the U.S., the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is exploring enhanced climate disclosure requirements. However, these efforts face strong opposition from industry lobbyists and political actors.

Banks Abandon Climate Promises in Pursuit of Profit

Table of Contents