In a stark revelation, a new report highlights that the world’s leading financial institutions committed an astonishing $906 billion to fossil fuel ventures in the last year. This staggering figure represents an increase of nearly 8% from 2024, underscoring a troubling trend that threatens global efforts to combat climate change. With JPMorgan Chase at the forefront, the findings reveal that these financial giants are making decisions that blatantly contradict international agreements aimed at curbing rising temperatures.
Unprecedented Investment in Fossil Fuels
The annual *Banking on Climate Chaos* report, compiled by a coalition of environmental advocates, sheds light on the unfathomable levels of financial support directed towards fossil fuel industries. In 2025, JPMorgan Chase maintained its position as the largest financier in this sector, injecting $58 billion—an increase of 13% from the previous year. Following closely are Bank of America, MUFG, Mizuho Financial, and Citigroup, while Barclays holds the distinction of being the highest-ranking British bank in this dubious list.
Caleb Schwartz, a policy analyst at the Rainforest Action Network, expressed concern over the trajectory of fossil fuel financing: “Last year was the first year where we were hoping to see a continuous decrease in historical numbers, but we actually saw that increase and then that continues this year. So it’s a troubling trend.” Despite calls for reduced investment in fossil fuels, banks appear to be doubling down on these harmful practices.
The Climate Agreement at Risk
The 2015 Paris Agreement set a critical goal to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Achieving this target is essential to avert devastating climate impacts, including severe heatwaves and floods. Yet, since the accord was established, major banks have funneled a staggering $8.7 trillion into fossil fuel projects, exacerbating the climate crisis. As scientists warn that the 1.5C threshold may soon be breached, the urgency for change has never been more pressing.
Recent geopolitical tensions, particularly following the attacks on Iran by the US and Israel, have further driven up global oil and gas prices, resulting in soaring profits for leading fossil fuel companies. Niko Lusiani, an expert in climate and energy, noted, “The fossil fuel incumbents are not going out with a whimper. They are doubling down to expand an increasingly fragile, unreliable, risky energy system.”
Concentration of Funding Among Major Players
The report reveals a concerning concentration of funding among a select group of banks, dubbed the ‘dirty dozen,’ which is responsible for a staggering 40% of all fossil fuel financing. Almost all fossil fuel investments originate from just six jurisdictions: the US, Canada, Japan, China, the UK, and the European Union.
While 26 of the top 65 banks reportedly reduced their fossil fuel financing last year, leading European banks like BNP Paribas, UBS, and La Caixa took significant steps in the right direction. However, this is overshadowed by the fact that large oil and gas companies continue to receive ample funding, with the largest banks pledging $508 billion for the expansion of existing fossil fuel operations—a 27% increase from 2024.
A Shift in Banking Commitment
In recent years, many banks had set ambitious targets for cutting emissions and limiting lending to particularly harmful energy sources such as coal. However, with the political landscape shifting, particularly in the US under figures like Donald Trump—who has dismissed the climate crisis as “bullshit”—these commitments are increasingly being cast aside. The Net-Zero Banking Alliance, a UN-backed initiative aimed at aligning bank lending with net zero emissions by 2050, has seen significant member departures, signalling a retreat from previously pledged environmental responsibilities.
As Lusiani noted, “We’ve seen a lot of banks turn their back either quietly or more loudly amid a context of political pressure, particularly in the US.” He argues that the era of voluntary commitments has failed to deliver the necessary change, signalling the need for more robust intervention from financial regulators and policymakers.
Bank of America, in response to inquiries about its fossil fuel lending, stated that it supports a broad range of clients across both renewable and traditional energy sectors, aiming to balance the transition to clean energy with the current demand for reliable energy. Similarly, Citigroup reiterated its commitment to achieving net zero financed emissions by 2050 while emphasising the need for secure energy sources.
Why it Matters
The continued investment in fossil fuels by major banks poses an existential threat to climate stability and the future of our planet. As financial institutions prioritise short-term gains over long-term sustainability, the consequences of their actions will reverberate across ecosystems and communities worldwide. The urgent call for a transition to renewable energy is overshadowed by the conflicting interests of these banking giants. Without immediate intervention and a commitment to meaningful change, the dream of a sustainable future becomes increasingly elusive.
