JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has warned that rejecting any future fossil fuel projects will mean America’s doom
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has explicitly rejected Democratic MP Rashida Tlaib’s demand that his bank drop funding for future oil and gas projects, arguing the move would send the country into a death spiral during a House Financial Services Committee hearing on Wednesday.
Tlaib reminded Dimon that JP Morgan, along with the other six largest U.S. banks, had pledged to cut carbon emissions. “lending and investment activities” for “aligning with pathways to net zero in 2050.” The only way to do this, she claimed, was to veto all fossil fuel projects in the future.
“Please answer with a simple yes or no: does your bank have a policy against financing new oil and gas projects?” asked the Minnesota rep.
“Absolutely not – and that would be the road to hell for America”, Dimon retorted.
Tlaib called on student loan holders to withdraw their deposits in retaliation, referring to Dimon’s opposition to President Joe Biden’s controversial student loan forgiveness plan, which he called “poorly done” earlier in the six-hour marathon hearing. The bank manager not only failed to help “to relieve” these customers by canceling their debts – he did not “Care about working class people and frontline communities like ours who face high rates of asthma, respiratory issues and more,” she asserted.
Three other CEOs at the hearing followed Dimon’s lead, refusing to close the door on their oil and gas lending business, but added that they were also investing in renewable energy projects.
This was not enough for Tlaib, who declared: “We live in a climate crisis today and a commitment to net zero requires a commitment to end fossil fuel funding.”
“In the end, we will pay the cost of the impact on public health”, she warned.
While mainstream climate science argues that to avoid the worst effects of climate change, the global temperature must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above “pre-industrial” levels, “net zero” is criticized for implying that simply offsetting emissions can keep the temperature down, allowing the producers of those emissions to carry on business as usual as long as they pay climate authorities their due.