Financial Institutions

Dear Ted Pick, Andy Saperstien, and Dan Simkowitz,

I am writing as a concerned customer and citizen to demand that Morgan Stanley remove its investments in both the fossil fuel and the nuclear weapons industries. It deeply disturbs me that the money invested through your institution is being used to make the climate crisis worse and contribute to the increasing existential risk of nuclear war.

Right now, at the 29th UN Climate Change Conference (COP29) taking place in Azerbaijan, the world is trying to achieve a fair transition away from fossil fuels and to find the funds urgently needed to support the global transition to a low-carbon economy. Your fossil fuel investments are in direct contradiction to these goals.

Meanwhile, according to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the risk of nuclear war is greater now than at any point during the Cold War. The world has adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons to outlaw these weapons, and continued investments in this industry directly contradict this goal.

By redirecting investments toward renewable energy and sustainable initiatives, Morgan Stanley can play a pivotal role in fostering a sustainable future and fulfilling its responsibility to the planet we live on. Taking this step would not only enhance your reputation as a socially responsible institution but also align with the growing demand from customers for meaningful action on climate finance and ethical banking practices.

If Morgan Stanley does not stop investing in these existential threats, I will have no choice but to take my business elsewhere.  I hope to see you take a leadership role in promoting a sustainable and peaceful future.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]
[Your Account Number (optional)]

In 2023, Morgan Stanley committed $19.10 billion to companies conducting business in fossil fuels, and $183.55 billion from 2016 through 2023, making it the bank with the 15th largest fossil fuel funding globally since the 2016 Paris Agreement. They are also the #6 financier of fracked companies in 2023.

Banking on Climate Chaos 2024 report

Morgan Stanley had $9.07 billion in nuclear weapons company shareholding in 2023. This includes $2.64 billion in RTX, $1.91 billion in Honeywell, $1.64 billion in Lockheed Martin, $903.5 million in Boeing, $237.2 million in Huntington Ingalls Industries, $197 million in L3Harris, $91.9 million in Textron, and $85.8 million in Fluor.

Don’t Bank on the Bomb 2024 report – Untenable Investments

Dear Jane Fraser and Sunil Garg,

I am writing as a concerned customer and citizen to demand that Citibank removes its investments in both the fossil fuel and the nuclear weapons industries. It deeply disturbs me that the money on deposit at your institution and the profits you make from credit cards are being used to make the climate crisis worse and contribute to the increasing existential risk of nuclear war.

Right now, at the 29th UN Climate Change Conference (COP29) taking place in Azerbaijan, the world is trying to achieve a fair transition away from fossil fuels and to find the funds urgently needed to support the global transition to a low-carbon economy. Your fossil fuel investments are in direct contradiction to these goals.

Meanwhile, according to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the risk of nuclear war is greater now than at any point during the Cold War. The world has adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons to outlaw these weapons, and continued investments in this industry directly contradict this goal. 

By redirecting investments toward renewable energy and sustainable initiatives, Citibank can play a pivotal role in fostering a sustainable future and fulfilling its responsibility to the planet we live on. Taking this step would not only enhance your reputation as a socially responsible institution but also align with the growing demand from customers for meaningful action on climate finance and ethical banking practices.

If Citibank does not stop investing in these existential threats, I will have no choice but to take my business elsewhere.  I hope to see you take a leadership role in promoting a sustainable and peaceful future.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]
[Your Account Number (optional)]

In 2024, CitiGroup left the Equator Principles framework, which establishes a minimum set of environmental and social standards for local communities that financial institutions agree to give due diligence to when making investments.

In 2023, they committed $30.27 billion to companies conducting business in fossil fuels, and $396.33 billion from 2016 through 2023, making it the bank with the 2nd largest fossil fuel funding globally since the 2016 Paris Agreement. CitiGroup has also been the #1 financier of fossil fuel expansion companies since 2016.

Banking on Climate Chaos 2024 report

CitiGroup is the top lender and underwriter to Nuclear Weapons producers. Represented at $23,685 Million in 2023.

Citi’s environmental social policy report states the following:

Citi will not directly finance the production, distribution or sale of cluster munitions, biological or
chemical weapons, or nuclear weapons. In the rare case where we may be asked to provide direct
financing of the production or shipment of other military equipment such as munitions, missiles,
fighter aircraft, armored vehicles or warships, escalation and senior consultation is required to
determine if allowed. (Citi, July 2024)

Don’t Bank on the Bomb 2024 report – Untenable Investments

Dear Jamie Dimon,

I am writing as a concerned customer and citizen to demand that JP Morgan Chase removes its investments in both the fossil fuel and the nuclear weapons industries. It deeply disturbs me that the money on deposit at your institution and the profits you make from credit cards are being used to make the climate crisis worse and contribute to the increasing existential risk of nuclear war.

Right now, at the 29th UN Climate Change Conference (COP29) taking place in Azerbaijan, the world is trying to achieve a fair transition away from fossil fuels and to find the funds urgently needed to support the global transition to a low-carbon economy. Your fossil fuel investments are in direct contradiction to these goals. You have been the top funder of fossil fuels since 2016. That is not a record to be proud of.

Meanwhile, according to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the risk of nuclear war is greater now than at any point during the Cold War. The world has adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons to outlaw these weapons, and continued investments in this industry directly contradict this goal. It is also in direct contradiction of your own sensibilities. In October of 2023 you said that nuclear weapons are the biggest threat to humanity, why are you still funding their production?

By redirecting investments toward renewable energy and sustainable initiatives, Chase can play a pivotal role in fostering a sustainable future and fulfilling its responsibility to the planet we live on. Taking this step would not only enhance your reputation as a socially responsible institution but also align with the growing demand from customers for meaningful action on climate finance and ethical banking practices.

If Chase does not stop investing in these existential threats, I will have no choice but to take my business elsewhere.  I hope to see you take a leadership role in promoting a sustainable and peaceful future.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]
[Your Account Number (optional)]

In 2024, JP Morgan Chase left the Equator Principles framework, which establishes a minimum set of environmental and social standards for local communities that financial institutions agree to give due diligence to when making investments

In 2023, they committed $40.88 billion to companies conducting business in fossil fuels, and $430.93 billion from 2016 through 2023, making it the bank with the most fossil fuel funding globally since the 2016 Paris Agreement.

Chase changed its energy investment portfolio to an “energy mix,” combining some clean energy investments with oil and gas investments in November 2023. They claim this is more transparent, but it just obfuscates the actual emissions breakdown of its overall energy investments.

Banking on Climate Chaos 2024 report

JP Morgan Chase’s total shareholding in nuclear weapons companies in 2023 was $7.65 billion. This includes $1.32 billion in General Dynamics, $1.55 billion in Honeywell, $2.79 billion in RTX, $153.7 million in Leidos, $1.52 billion in Northrop Grumman, $318.5 million in Textron, and $153.7 million in Leidos.

The CEO of JP Morgan Chase recently spoke on the danger of nuclear threat, calling it “the most serious thing mankind is facing.” (CNBC)

Don’t Bank on the Bomb 2024 report – Untenable Investments

Dear Brian Moynihan,

I am writing as a concerned customer and citizen to demand that Bank of America removes its investments in both the fossil fuel and the nuclear weapons industries. It deeply disturbs me that the money on deposit at your institution and the profits you make from credit cards are being used to make the climate crisis worse and contribute to the increasing existential risk of nuclear war.

Right now, at the 29th UN Climate Change Conference (COP29) taking place in Azerbaijan, the world is trying to achieve a fair transition away from fossil fuels and to find the funds urgently needed to support the global transition to a low-carbon economy. Your fossil fuel investments are in direct contradiction to these goals. In fact, you recently stepped backwards by removing policies stating you would not invest in things like new coal-powered plants and Arctic oil extraction.

Meanwhile, according to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the risk of nuclear war is greater now than at any point during the Cold War. The world has adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons to outlaw these weapons, and continued investments in this industry directly contradict this goal. 

By redirecting investments toward renewable energy and sustainable initiatives, Bank of America can play a pivotal role in fostering a sustainable future and fulfilling its responsibility to the planet we live on. Taking this step would not only enhance your reputation as a socially responsible institution but also align with the growing demand from customers for meaningful action on climate finance and ethical banking practices.

If Bank of America does not stop investing in these existential threats, I will have no choice but to take my business elsewhere.  I hope to see you take a leadership role in promoting a sustainable and peaceful future.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]
[Your Account Number (optional)]

In 2024, left the Equator Principles framework, which establishes a minimum set of environmental and social standards for local communities that financial institutions agree to give due diligence to when making investments.

In 2024 removed language in its Environmental and Social Risk Policy stating that it will not directly finance thermal coal mines, new coal-powered plants, Arctic oil exploration, or extraction.

In 2023, committed $33.68 billion to companies conducting business in fossil fuels, and $333.16 billion from 2016 through 2023, making it the bank with the 3rd biggest fossil fuel funding globally since the 2016 Paris Agreement. It is has also been the #1 financier of Ultra-Deepwater Companies since 2016.

Banking on Climate Chaos 2024 report

Bank of America is closely linked to nuclear weapons companies, with 4 board members actively sitting on Nuclear Weapons Company boards as well, and another who is the former president and CEO of BAE Systems.

In 2023, BOFA held over 12 billion in nuclear weapons company shares and bonds, and provided over 21 billion in lending and underwriting.

Don’t Bank on the Bomb 2024 report – Untenable Investments

Dear Charles Scharf,

I am writing as a concerned customer and citizen to demand that Wells Fargo removes its investments in both the fossil fuel and the nuclear weapons industries. It deeply disturbs me that the money invested through your institution is being used to make the climate crisis worse and contribute to the increasing existential risk of nuclear war.

Right now, at the 29th UN Climate Change Conference (COP29) taking place in Azerbaijan, the world is trying to achieve a fair transition away from fossil fuels and to find the funds urgently needed to support the global transition to a low-carbon economy. Your fossil fuel investments are in direct contradiction to these goals.

Meanwhile, according to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the risk of nuclear war is greater now than at any point during the Cold War. The world has adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons to outlaw these weapons, and continued investments in this industry directly contradict this goal. 

By redirecting investments toward renewable energy and sustainable initiatives, Wells Fargo can play a pivotal role in fostering a sustainable future and fulfilling its responsibility to the planet we live on. Taking this step would not only enhance your reputation as a socially responsible institution but also align with the growing demand from customers for meaningful action on climate finance and ethical banking practices.

If Wells Fargo does not stop investing in these existential threats, I will have no choice but to take my business elsewhere.  I hope to see you take a leadership role in promoting a sustainable and peaceful future.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]
[Your Account Number (optional)]

In 2024, Wells Fargo left the Equator Principles framework, which establishes a minimum set of environmental and social standards for local communities that financial institutions agree to give due diligence to when making investments.

In 2023, they committed $30.38 billion to companies conducting business in fossil fuels, and $296.25 billion from 2016 through 2023, making it the bank with the 5th largest fossil fuel funding globally since the 2016 Paris Agreement.

Wells Fargo ranks number 5 in Banking on Climate Chaos’s “Dirty Dozen” and was the #2 Financier of Fracked companies in 2023

Banking on Climate Chaos 2024 report

Wells Fargo’s total shareholding in nuclear weapons companies in 2023 is $4.54 billion. This includes $1.35 billion in General Dynamics, $969 million in L3Harris, $1.18 billion in Lockheed Martin, and $1.05 billion in RTX.

Don’t Bank on the Bomb 2024 report – Untenable Investments