Support Grist
Support nonprofit, independent environmental journalism.
Donate to Grist.

In the News

Tools: print | email | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS

Making Change

World's largest banks ranked on their climate commitment

Posted at 9:09 AM on 11 Jan 2008

The world's banks are starting to recognize the threat of climate change, but could certainly do more, says a new report from Ceres, a coalition of investors and green groups pushing corporate sustainability. The group ranked 40 of the world's largest publicly traded banks on their green (the climate kind, not the money kind). Some results were encouraging -- 28 banks have calculated their greenhouse-gas emissions, 24 have set goals to reduce said emissions, and 29 are supporting alternative energy projects. But there is, of course, room for improvement: The median score on Ceres' ranking out of 100 was 42, with more than half of the banks scoring under 50. Topping the list with a score of 70 out of 100 was London-based HSBC, which has spent $90 million to improve its energy efficiency, employs a chief environmental officer, and has an environmental oversight committee on its board. The top U.S. banks were Citigroup, sixth with 59 points, and Bank of America, seventh with 56 out of 100.

sources:  The Christian Science Monitor, Reuters
see also, in Grist:  Leading banks suggest regulation of carbon-offset market

< Previous | Next >


Comments: (3 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Username: Password:

Forgot your password? Enter your username and click:

What A Joke!

  1. Bankers, specifically the families who own the big banks, own and run the planet, to the extent that anyone does.  Their power exceeds even that of the oil companies and auto makers.  Virtually all environmentally destructive projects -- mining, logging, damming, destruction of natural areas for "development," etc. -- are only possible because of loans from banks.

  2. The two highest rated American banks, Citigroup and Bank of America, have been castigated by environmental groups for funding such things as destruction of tropical rainforests and building highly destructive dams.  See http://ran.org/what_we_do/global_finance/ for example.  (Some of the most egregious behavior has been changed due to pressure from environmental groups, but banks still regularly lend money to environmentally destructive projects and constantly begin new egregious projects that environmental groups then have to fight.)

  3. Trying to figure out which banks are better than others would be like trying to figure out which concentration camps in Nazi Germany were the most humane.  The entire system of banking and how money is allowed to be used is a fundamental problem, and tinkering around the edges is not going to create any significant change for the better.  So why is Grist propagandizing for banks with crap like this?


Citigroup and Bank of America? REALLY?

... the person above touched on this, but I'd like to reiterate...

Citi and BofA provide most of the capital needed to build the 150 coal power plants currently planned to be built in the us.

Anything they claim to have done is doing nothing for the planet, but unfortunately lots to their image.

Are we sure this wasn't a list of best greenwashers? oooh, actually, had it been that, Citi would have scored 100.


www.campusprogress.org

We'd all Be green...

If it was as easy as working to a point system.  These point systems and checklists (notably used by both this system and by LEED certification) make it easy to work to the checklist, and often award the same number of points for actions with vastly diffrrent difficulty levels (installing a bike rack and an supper efficent furnace).  They also never take away points, so the only penalty that BOA suffered for funding new coal plants and mountain top removal was not getting one or two points.  Indiviuals and groups serrious about creating sustainability, rather than just reducing carbon footprint would never engage in studies like this.  As to why GRIST would publicize this?  Well, every green action is a good action to some people, even if it is just putting papermache over the hole on the Titanic.

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?


ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Jobs Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcasts
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra® | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2007. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks