Connect with us

Finance

How to fix the finance flows that are pushing our planet to the brink

Published

on

How to fix the finance flows that are pushing our planet to the brink

Comment: Commercial banks are financing a huge amount of fossil-fuel and industrial agriculture activities in the Global South – they must turn off the tap

Teresa Anderson is global lead on climate justice for ActionAid International.

Last month, from Bangladesh to Kenya to Washington DC, over 40,000 activists in nearly 20 countries hit the streets calling on banks, governments and financial institutions to “#FixTheFinance” pushing the planet to the brink. 

It’s clear that we can’t address the climate crisis unless we fix the finance flows that are failing the planet. When we know that we have hardly any time left to avoid runaway climate breakdown, it’s absurd that so much of the world’s money is still being poured into fuelling climate change, while barely any is going to the solutions. 

Let’s face it – the climate crisis is really about money, and our choices to use it and make it in really stupid ways.  

Advertisement

G7 offers tepid response to appeal for “bolder” climate action

Many of the world’s most powerful private banks are holding their Annual General Meetings over the next weeks. Banks like Barclays, HSBC and Citibank are pumping billions into fossil fuel expansion, knowing full well that their decisions directly lead to climate chaos and devastating local pollution, particularly for communities in Africa, Asia and Latin America. At their AGMs they will undoubtedly celebrate their profits, self-congratulate on miniscule policy tweaks, and try to ignore the clamour of climate criticism.   

ActionAid research last year showed that these banks are financing an astonishing amount of fossil-fuel and industrial agriculture activities in the Global South, causing land grabs, deforestation, water and soil pollution and loss of livelihoods – all compounding the injustice to communities also getting routinely hit by droughts, floods and cyclones thanks to climate change.  

HSBC, for example, is the largest European financer of fossil fuels and agribusiness in the Global South. Barclays is the largest European bank financier to fossil fuels around the world. And Citibank is the largest US financier of fossil fuels in the Global South. The banks have so much power, and so much culpability, much more than most people realise. But they want us to forget the fact that they are working hand in hand with, and profiting from, the industries that are wrecking the planet.  

The banks can actually turn off the taps. They can end the finance flows that are fuelling the climate crisis. So to avert catastrophic climate change, the fossil-financing banks must start saying no to the corporations destroying the planet.  

But it’s not only private finance that is flawed – public funds are being misused as well. Governments are using far more of their public funds to provide subsidies or tax breaks for fossil fuels and industrial agriculture corporations, than they are for climate action. This is ridiculous – it’s hurting the planet, and its hurting people.  

Advertisement

Public funds instead need to be redirected towards just transitions that address climate change and inequality.  

There is growing appetite for climate action. But this just isn’t yet matched by willingness to pay for it. Or even to stop profiting from climate destruction. 

COP29 finance goal

This year’s COP29 climate talks will be a critical test of rich countries’ commitment to securing a liveable planet. The world’s poorest countries are already bearing the spiralling costs of a warming planet. So far they have only received begrudging, tokenistic pennies from the rich polluting countries to help them cope. The offer of loans instead of grants in the name of climate finance is just rubbing salt into the wounds. 

If we want to unleash climate action on a scale to save the planet, rich countries at COP29 will need to agree a far more ambitious new climate finance goal based on grants, not loans. 

Because if we want to save our planet, we will actually need to cover the costs. 

Advertisement

Tensions rise over who will contribute to new climate finance goal

Last month the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank held their Spring meetings in Washington DC. These institutions are powerful symbols of the planet’s dysfunctional finance systems which urgently need fixing. The World Bank is financing fossil fuels yet being extremely secretive about it. The IMF is pushing climate-devastated countries deeper into debt that often requires further fossil extraction for repayment.

Even as they brand themselves as responsible channels for climate finance, the world’s most powerful financial institutions are pushing our planet to the brink. Their stated aim to get “bigger and better” really amounts to all-out push to get “bigger” but only token tweaks to get “better”.  The Spring meetings ended with business-as-usual backslapping. But if they were taking climate change and its consequences seriously, at the very least, the IMF and World Bank would stop financing fossil fuels and cancel the debts that are pushing climate-vulnerable countries into a vicious cycle.  

Will blossom of reform bear fruit? Spring Meetings leave too much to do

All of these finance flows need fixing. At the moment, the global financial system is better designed to escalate – rather than address – climate change, vulnerability and inequality. The activists, youth and frontline communities who filled the streets last month hope that their calls to stop financing destruction will be heard in the boardrooms and conferences on the other side of the world. 

They say that money talks. This is the year that the climate movement is going to make sure it listens.  

Advertisement

Finance

Oregon Legislature passes controversial campaign finance changes

Published

on

Oregon Legislature passes controversial campaign finance changes
play

Legislators passed a bill March 5 to modify forthcoming changes to Oregon’s campaign finance system despite outcry from good government groups who say the bill creates new loopholes.

Those groups were key in creating House Bill 4024, which was created and passed in 2024 in place of warring ballot measures seeking to overhaul the system.

That legislation included new limits on contributions, including capping individual spending on statewide candidates each cycle at $3,300, and other changes. Parts of the bill were set to go into effect in 2027 and 2028.

Advertisement

Under the new proposal, House Bill 4018, the limits would still begin in 2027, but disclosure requirements and penalties would be pushed to 2031. It also gives the Secretary of State money to update the campaign finance system, but far less than the office previously thought it might need.

Representatives voted 39-19 to pass the bill. A few hours later, the Senate passed it 20-9.

Fourteen of the “no” votes in the House were Democrats, including Reps. Tom Andersen, D-Salem, and Lesly Muñoz, D-Woodburn.

Muñoz told the Statesman Journal she voted against the bill after hearing from people upset with the bill’s process.

Advertisement

Six Democratic senators cast a “no” vote on HB 4018.

Oregon campaign finance reform advocates say they were left out of negotiations

After working together in 2024, advocates said Speaker of the House Julie Fahey, D-Eugene, “ghosted” them.

Good government groups said the bill does far more than address necessary technical fixes to HB 4024.

HB 4018 is “a complete betrayal of the deal that was made two years ago,” Norman Turrill of Oregon’s League of Women Voters said.

Advertisement

Should the bill be signed by Gov. Tina Kotek, the groups said they will push their own changes through a 2028 ballot initiative.

Those advocates have outlined at least 11 different changes they believe the bill creates. The bill’s contents were first shared through a Feb. 9 amendment that was posted after 5 p.m., hours before it received a public hearing in an 8 a.m. work session on Feb. 10 and later, Feb. 12.

Secretary of State Tobias Read told legislators in January his office was requesting $25 million as a placeholder to fund a new campaign finance system for the state. Read was not secretary of state when House Bill 2024 was passed and his office is now working to implement the bill’s changes on a fast approaching deadline.

An additional amendment to the bill instead gives the Secretary of State’s Office $1.5 million for staff, some of whom would be tasked with updating the state’s current system.

House members agreed March 4 to send the bill back to committee, presumably to be amended. A 5 p.m. committee meeting was canceled about an hour after initially being announced.

Advertisement

A work session on HB 4018 was moved to the next morning. After an hour of delay, legislators convened and finished the meeting, moving the bill back to the floor without any changes, in less than three minutes.

A new campaign finance bill, Senate Bill 1502, was introduced and scheduled for a public hearing and work session March 4.

The bill is “very simple,” Senate Minority Leader Bruce Starr, R-Dundee, said. It tells the Secretary of State’s Office to draft a bill for the 2027 session with necessary campaign finance improvements from HB 4024 and HB 4018.

Three senators voted against the bill March 5. It now moves to the House. Legislators have a March 8 deadline to end the session.

“SB 1502 would not correct the severe damage to campaign finance reform that will occur, if HB 4018 B is enacted in this session,” Dan Meek of Honest Elections Oregon wrote in submitted testimony.

Advertisement

Lawmakers appear unsatisfied, but supportive, toward Oregon campaign finance bill

House Majority Leader Ben Bowman, D-Tigard, said HB 4018 made positive changes but acknowledged it was “a challenging vote for many of us.”

“We are implementing this whole new system that is new for all of us, and there are a lot of opinions and there are a lot of details to figure out,” House Minority Leader Lucetta Elmer, R-McMinnville, said. Elmer and Bowman carried the bill in the House. “With that being said, we’re moving forward in good faith, knowing that we’ll also be coming back next year to make sure that those details and all those kinks are worked out.”

Rep. Mark Gamba, D-Milwaukie, said he was concerned about the bill and the “non-inclusive process” that led to it.

Gamba pointed to a letter from the Washington, D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center that states in part that the bill “would substantially revise critical campaign finance reforms enacted two years ago in Oregon” and weaken the state’s campaign finance law.

The current bill is not the only possibility for moving forward, Sen. Jeff Golden, D-Ashland, told lawmakers. Proposed amendments that would have extended implementation timelines without the additional changes were ignored, he said.

Advertisement

“House Bill 4024 and this bill, 4018, have two things in common. One, they were thrown together in a few days behind closed doors, mostly by organizations who dominate campaign funding in the current system,” Golden said. “And two, very few legislators understand what is actually in these bills.”

He urged lawmakers to abandon the system created in House Bill 4024 as an “uncomfortably expensive learning experience” and develop a new plan based on successful programs in other states.

Sen. Sara Gelser Blouin, D-Corvallis, also spoke against the bill on the Senate floor.

“The concern that I had and that my constituents had was technical changes are one thing, but it should not be increasing the amount of money that candidates can take in or hold or carry over,” Gelser Blouin said. “Unfortunately, as it’s drafted, this bill does all of those things.”

HB 4024 is too complicated and “unimplementable” without the fixes in HB 4018, Starr said.

Advertisement

Sen. Lew Frederick, D-Portland, agreed, saying HB 4018 and SB 1502 give reassurance about a system he has concerns about.

“If there were no cameras and the lights were off, I think most people would agree this is not the bill we want,” Rep. Paul Evans, D-Monmouth, said.

Some lawmakers expressed similar feelings of discontentment with the bill in Ways and Means and one of its subcommittees on March 3, but said they felt it was important to make some progress on the issue. Discussions could happen again in 2027, they said.

Rep. Nancy Nathanson, D-Eugene, who ultimately voted in favor of the bill, said March 3 supporting it “is a very painful choice to make.”

Statesman Journal reporter Dianne Lugo contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Anastasia Mason covers state government for the Statesman Journal. Reach her at acmason@statesmanjournal.com or 971-208-5615.

Continue Reading

Finance

Paramount ally RedBird says using Middle East money to help buy Warner Bros. could be a good idea

Published

on

Paramount ally RedBird says using Middle East money to help buy Warner Bros. could be a good idea

  • Last year, Paramount said it would use $24 billion in funding from Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar to help buy WBD.
  • Now that Paramount has won that deal, it won’t say whether that’s still the plan.
  • A key Paramount backer suggests that Gulf money would be a good thing for this deal.

We still don’t know if Paramount intends to use billions of dollars from Gulf states like Saudi Arabia to help it buy Warner Bros. Discovery.

But if Paramount does end up doing that, it wouldn’t be a bad thing, says a key Paramount backer.

That update comes via Gerry Cardinale, who heads up RedBird Capital Partners, the private equity company that helped finance Larry and David Ellison’s acquisition of Paramount last year and is doing the same with their WBD deal now.

In a podcast with Puck’s Matt Belloni published Wednesday night, Cardinale wouldn’t comment directly on Paramount’s previously disclosed plans to use $24 billion from sovereign wealth funds controlled by Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar to help buy WBD.

Instead, he reiterated Paramount’s current messaging on the deal’s financing: The $47 billion in equity Paramount will use to buy WBD will be “backstopped” by the Ellison family and RedBird — meaning they are ultimately on the hook to pay up. The rest of the $81 billion deal will be financed with debt.

Advertisement

Cardinale also acknowledged what Paramount has disclosed in its current disclosure documents: It intends to sell portions of that $47 billion commitment to other investors: “We haven’t syndicated anything at this time,” he said. “We do expect to syndicate with strategic, domestic, and foreign investors. But at the end of the day, that alchemy shouldn’t matter because it’ll be done in the right way.”

And when asked about concerns about Middle Eastern countries owning part of a media conglomerate that includes assets like CNN, Cardinale suggested that could be a plus.

“I think we want to be a global company,” he said. “You look at what’s going on right now geopolitically. What’s going on right now geopolitically out of the Middle East wouldn’t be, the positives of that would not be happening without some of those sovereigns that you’re referring to.”

He continued:

“The world is changing. We can stick our head in the sand and pretend it’s not, or we can embrace globalization and the derivative benefits both geopolitically and otherwise that come from that. Content generation coming out of Hollywood is one of America’s greatest exports.
I firmly embrace the global nature and orientation that we bring to this from a capital standpoint, from a footprint standpoint, etc. At the end of the day, I do understand some of the concerns that you’ve raised, but that will work itself out between signing and closing because at the end of the day, worst-case scenario, Ellison and RedBird are 100% of this thing.”

All of which suggests to me that Paramount still intends to use money from Gulf-based sovereign wealth funds to buy WBD.

What I don’t understand is why the company won’t say that out loud. Does that mean it’s still negotiating with potential investors? Or that it’s reticent to disclose outside investors, for whatever reason, until it has to? A Paramount rep declined to comment.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Finance

Crypto bill hits new impasse, raising doubts over its future

Published

on

Crypto bill hits new impasse, raising doubts over its future
Talks on landmark crypto legislation have hit a new impasse after banks said they could not back a compromise pushed by the White House, a development that cast doubt on whether the bill will pass this year and sparked criticism from President Donald Trump ​who accused lenders of trying to undermine it.
Continue Reading

Trending