Demand Chase & BofA defund fossil fuel expansion in the Gulf

Rio Grande LNG and Texas LNG are two NEW liquefied ‘natural’ gas (LNG) export terminals slated for Brownsville, Texas that are moments away from securing financial investments - making now a dire time to pressure the banks before they sign the deal.

While other banks have stepped away from these projects due to community opposition AND an unstable global LNG market, Chase and BofA are still considering support.

Email their CEOs demanding BofA and Chase withdraw their support for Texas LNG and Rio Grande LNG - and ALL fossil fuel expansion - now.

First Name

Last Name

Email

Zip or Postal Code

Mobile Phone Number

Send me email updates

Yes, I would like to receive SMS alerts from Rainforest Action Network

CEO

Jamie

Dimon

JPMorgan Chase

To Jamie  Dimon,

LNG — liquefied “natural” gas — is conventional or unconventional gas cooled at around -160°C and condensed into a liquid in terminals situated on the coast or offshore. From there, the liquefied gas can be shipped on tankers to be exported, regasified and burned on the other side of the planet. In addition to being an extremely energy-intensive process, creating such long supply chains means even more opportunities for methane to escape into the atmosphere.

Liquefied Natural Gas is not natural at all. This fracked gas continues to be touted by industry, governments, and banks as a “bridge fuel,” even after the International Energy Agency stated that in their special report, 'Net Zero by 2050: A Road Map for the Global Energy Sector,' “No new natural gas fields are needed in the Net Zero Emissions beyond those already under development.  Also not needed are many of the LNG liquefaction facilities currently under construction or at the planning stage.”

Meanwhile, the Texas LNG and Rio Grande LNG projects, and associated pipelines, are still slated for the Rio Grande Valley. In its third edition, Rainforest Action Network and Sierra Club’s 'Rio Grande Valley: At Risk From Fracked-Gas Export Terminals,' definitively details the extensive negative impacts these projects would have on community health, Indigenous rights, endangered species, and the climate, including:
    - Community health impacts: The projects would emit harmful pollutants, impacting the health of nearby low-income Latinx and Indigenous communities. The projects would degrade local fishing and tourism industries, a large part of the local economy.
    - Indigenous rights: Texas LNG is proposed on a sacred burial site of the Carrizo Comecrudo Tribe. The burial site is on the National Park Service’s list of historic places and has been declared an endangered site by the World Monuments Fund.
    - Ecosystem damage: The projects are in an unindustrialized area of the Texas Gulf Coast and would pave over undeveloped wetlands, pollute nearby wildlife refuges, and divide a wildlife corridor. The projects would destroy habitat for multiple endangered species.
    - Climate impacts: The two LNG terminals would release as much greenhouse gas emissions as approximately 40.4 million cars each year. The projects would contribute to the expansion of fracking in Texas, and would be counterproductive to the UN Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal.

JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America have financed LNG build out in the Gulf.  As major banks considering support for these disastrous projects, you are risking people and the planet, and face severe reputational and financial risks. Your peers, like French banks Société Générale and BNP Paribas, have withdrawn their support due to community opposition and the unstable global LNG market, and yet you continue to back it. Furthermore, a major lawsuit victory is forcing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to re-review the climate and environmental impacts of the project; Texas LNG also does not have a key federal clean water permit. Lastly, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA)’s report, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is affecting global gas demand with LNG unable to deliver energy security, shows how the LNG market is projected to remain unstable. The U.S. is on track to surpass its commitment to fill the gap left by Russian gas, making it clear that no additional LNG terminals are needed to meet European demand. Other projects - such as Annova LNG - are cited as being canceled for these very reasons.

Despite these climate and community impacts, reputational and financial risks, and a rapidly changing market, your bank is among those still backing the Rio Grande Valley LNG projects. As such, you are financing climate disasters and violating human rights. We have a clear set of demands for you: 
    - Do not provide any direct or indirect financial services for the development or operation of new and expanded LNG export facilities; specifically Texas LNG, Rio Grande LNG and Rio Bravo Pipeline, or any such gas infrastructure projects planned in the Rio Grande Valley. 
    - Do not support any LNG export facility that exacerbates environmental injustice to ensure that low-income communities of color communities do not suffer disproportionately from hazardous pollution.
    - Do decline any transactions or financial services for LNG export facilities and associated infrastructure that do not meet the requirements of Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous Peoples in their ancestral territories. 
    - Do stop support, through any direct or indirect means, fossil fuel expansion, in line with the conclusions of the International Energy Agency “Net Zero by 2050” report.
    - Banks and financial institutions must align their overall corporate policy, portfolios and dealbooks with a 1.5°C degree global temperature scenario.

Ending fossil fuel expansion, getting off fossil fuels, and making a just transition to renewables will help our collective efforts towards climate stability and give us a fighting chance to stop climate catastrophe.

No more false solutions. Your bank MUST withdraw its support for Texas LNG, Rio Grande LNG and any associated infrastructure, including the Rio Bravo Pipeline.

We need real climate solutions NOW.

Kind regards,
{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Last Name}

CEO

Brian T.

Moynihan

Bank of America

To Brian T. Moynihan,

LNG — liquefied “natural” gas — is conventional or unconventional gas cooled at around -160°C and condensed into a liquid in terminals situated on the coast or offshore. From there, the liquefied gas can be shipped on tankers to be exported, regasified and burned on the other side of the planet. In addition to being an extremely energy-intensive process, creating such long supply chains means even more opportunities for methane to escape into the atmosphere.

Liquefied Natural Gas is not natural at all. This fracked gas continues to be touted by industry, governments, and banks as a “bridge fuel,” even after the International Energy Agency stated that in their special report, 'Net Zero by 2050: A Road Map for the Global Energy Sector,' “No new natural gas fields are needed in the Net Zero Emissions beyond those already under development.  Also not needed are many of the LNG liquefaction facilities currently under construction or at the planning stage.”

Meanwhile, the Texas LNG and Rio Grande LNG projects, and associated pipelines, are still slated for the Rio Grande Valley. In its third edition, Rainforest Action Network and Sierra Club’s 'Rio Grande Valley: At Risk From Fracked-Gas Export Terminals,' definitively details the extensive negative impacts these projects would have on community health, Indigenous rights, endangered species, and the climate, including:
    - Community health impacts: The projects would emit harmful pollutants, impacting the health of nearby low-income Latinx and Indigenous communities. The projects would degrade local fishing and tourism industries, a large part of the local economy.
    - Indigenous rights: Texas LNG is proposed on a sacred burial site of the Carrizo Comecrudo Tribe. The burial site is on the National Park Service’s list of historic places and has been declared an endangered site by the World Monuments Fund.
    - Ecosystem damage: The projects are in an unindustrialized area of the Texas Gulf Coast and would pave over undeveloped wetlands, pollute nearby wildlife refuges, and divide a wildlife corridor. The projects would destroy habitat for multiple endangered species.
    - Climate impacts: The two LNG terminals would release as much greenhouse gas emissions as approximately 40.4 million cars each year. The projects would contribute to the expansion of fracking in Texas, and would be counterproductive to the UN Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal.

JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America have financed LNG build out in the Gulf.  As major banks considering support for these disastrous projects, you are risking people and the planet, and face severe reputational and financial risks. Your peers, like French banks Société Générale and BNP Paribas, have withdrawn their support due to community opposition and the unstable global LNG market, and yet you continue to back it. Furthermore, a major lawsuit victory is forcing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to re-review the climate and environmental impacts of the project; Texas LNG also does not have a key federal clean water permit. Lastly, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA)’s report, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is affecting global gas demand with LNG unable to deliver energy security, shows how the LNG market is projected to remain unstable. The U.S. is on track to surpass its commitment to fill the gap left by Russian gas, making it clear that no additional LNG terminals are needed to meet European demand. Other projects - such as Annova LNG - are cited as being canceled for these very reasons.

Despite these climate and community impacts, reputational and financial risks, and a rapidly changing market, your bank is among those still backing the Rio Grande Valley LNG projects. As such, you are financing climate disasters and violating human rights. We have a clear set of demands for you: 
    - Do not provide any direct or indirect financial services for the development or operation of new and expanded LNG export facilities; specifically Texas LNG, Rio Grande LNG and Rio Bravo Pipeline, or any such gas infrastructure projects planned in the Rio Grande Valley. 
    - Do not support any LNG export facility that exacerbates environmental injustice to ensure that low-income communities of color communities do not suffer disproportionately from hazardous pollution.
    - Do decline any transactions or financial services for LNG export facilities and associated infrastructure that do not meet the requirements of Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous Peoples in their ancestral territories. 
    - Do stop support, through any direct or indirect means, fossil fuel expansion, in line with the conclusions of the International Energy Agency “Net Zero by 2050” report.
    - Banks and financial institutions must align their overall corporate policy, portfolios and dealbooks with a 1.5°C degree global temperature scenario.

Ending fossil fuel expansion, getting off fossil fuels, and making a just transition to renewables will help our collective efforts towards climate stability and give us a fighting chance to stop climate catastrophe.

No more false solutions. Your bank MUST withdraw its support for Texas LNG, Rio Grande LNG and any associated infrastructure, including the Rio Bravo Pipeline.

We need real climate solutions NOW.

Kind regards,
{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Last Name}