The numbers are in—and they’re trending poorly. The alarming news coming out of the annual Banking on Climate Chaos report reveals that despite their climate commitments, and despite their years of declining funding, major global banks are once again increasing their financing of fossil fuels. As the window to prevent climate chaos shrinks, it’s increasingly urgent to understand these trends, see through the greenwashing, and demand accountability from the world’s largest banks.
- Read the 2025 report: Banking on Climate Chaos
- Read the press release: Global Bank Financing of Fossil Fuels Totals $869B In 2024
- Take action: Tell America’s largest banks to stop funding fossil fuels!
The annual Banking on Climate Chaos report, published by Rainforest Action Network, Sierra Club, and partners, is the most comprehensive analysis of global banks’ financing of fossil fuel companies, covering the top 65 banks and 2,700 fossil fuel companies worldwide. The report paints a disturbing picture: two-thirds of the banks in the report increase their fossil fuel financing in 2024, and big US banks are (unsurprisingly) still leading the charge, accounting for one-third of global fossil fuel financing. The top four US banks — JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo — contributed 20% of the total global financing for 2024. This money is being used to fund the companies behind fossil fuel expansion projects worldwide, from new gas power plants in North Carolina and LNG facilities in the Gulf Coast, to pipelines in the Amazon and oil fields in the Arctic.
The bottom line: Global banks are greenwashing their financing. Despite making climate commitments, banks continue to bankroll the expansion of the fossil fuel industry, undermining the transition to a clean energy economy and deepening the impacts of the climate crisis.
Why is this happening?
While the annual Banking on Climate Chaos report highlights the financing trends, a number of factors can help explain this year’s rising numbers:
- Climate commitment loopholes: Banks take a piecemeal approach to their climate commitments, including more recently setting net-zero goals, alongside long-standing policies restricting financing in certain sectors or locations for being too risky. Many banks’ climate policies restrict financing for certain types of projects, like pipelines in the Amazon. But the unfortunate reality is that banks’ climate policies haven’t stopped them from financing the companies behind these dirty projects. Even when banks have climate policies, those policies include loopholes that allow the banks to keep funneling billions of dollars into fossil fuels.
- Political pressure weakens climate commitments: The attack on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing, orchestrated by the fossil fuel industry and its political allies, has contributed to banks weakening or dropping their climate policies — including Wells Fargo dropping its net-zero goal and Bank of America walking back its commitment not to finance Arctic drilling and coal projects. These politically-motivated attacks also explain why several US banks left the Net-Zero Banking Alliance. (They claim to maintain their own climate goals, but their funding receipts suggest otherwise.)
- Energy demand increases: Global energy demand is rising, which means fossil fuel companies are rushing to fill the gap before clean energy technologies gain a greater foothold. Global banks supported the fossil fuel industry to the tune of $894 billion in 2024.
- Borrowing costs decrease: As central banks cut interest rates, borrowing has become less expensive for fossil fuel companies, which means fossil fuel companies have been more willing to seek out external funding.
What can be done?
There are a few clear takeaways from this year’s Banking on Climate Chaos report.
Voluntary commitments can help push banks ahead of a slow regulatory landscape, but strong climate-related financial regulation is also needed. Even though the Trump administration is actively attacking banking regulations, financial regulation remains essential. Those regulations must outline science-based transition strategies for banks, highlight best practices, and mandate climate disclosures and transition plans from banks. As climate change destabilizes the financial system, regulators must go further, and designate more banks as “systemically important” and hold them accountable to minimize the financing driving climate change.
Bank shareholders must actively use their power to hold banks accountable on climate. US public pensions are among the largest institutional investors, and they play an important role holding the banking sector accountable. As major shareholders, public pensions must set expectations of banks to maintain (or adopt) robust climate policies and outline strategies to achieve those goals, demand progress updates, and vote out the board members that undermine those commitments. In an era of regulatory rollbacks, this role is critical.
Banks must provide comprehensive science-based transition plans, demonstrating how they plan to meet their climate commitments. Stakeholders — including investors, regulators, and clients — need to know banks have a feasible plan to hit their goals. This isn’t just a matter of public accountability, it’s good business. Public companies regularly disclose their business strategies so investors can make informed decisions. As climate-related financial risks become more severe, banks must start disclosing their plans to reduce their climate risks and impacts.
Banks must strengthen their climate policies and close loopholes. It’s perplexing that major US banks say financing certain fossil fuel projects is risky, but support those same projects indirectly by giving money to corporations instead. These loopholes must be closed. If projects are too risky to fund, then it’s time to re-evaluate the risk profiles of the companies, too. Banks need to stop financing fossil fuel companies, especially companies expanding fossil fuel infrastructure.
Take Action
Money drives the climate transition, and banks play a critical role in financing that shift. We need strong guardrails to ensure banks genuinely support the clean energy transition, and their transition financing isn’t just an exercise in greenwashing.
US banks’ retreat from robust climate commitments is unacceptable, deeply irresponsible, and a clear capitulation to political pressure. It’s time for banks to stop financing fossil fuel expansion and focus their resources toward real climate solutions.