The UK and the U.S. are both major global financial hubs, with a lot at stake when it comes to achieving Net Zero. In this article, we dive into the differences between U.S. and UK bank decarbonization strategies. Climate disclosures UK banks are widely considered to be ahead of others when it comes to climate-related disclosures, most likely because of the proactivity of their regulators. The UK Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) was the first financial regulator to publish supervisory expectations on the management of climate-related financial risk in 2019. The Authority regularly remings banks that they are expected to assess their exposure to climate-related financial risks in the way they assess other drivers of financial risks. In the U.S., the Securities and Exchange Commission published a proposal for climate risk disclosures in March 2022, and is expected to finalize it by the end of the year. These and the PRA’s disclosure expectations are aligned with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), which were published in 2017 to help the financial sector adapt to climate change. These have been widely supported across the industry, but according to the 2021 TCFD Status Report, adoption is much broader in Europe, with 50% of listed companies having published TCFD-aligned financial reports in 2020, compared to 20% in North America.  Operational decarbonization In the banking sector, scope 1 and 2 emissions represent only a small fraction of total carbon footprint, with much more coming from lending (scope 3). As such, carbon neutrality in banks’ own emissions from operations and energy is generally the first milestone to be achieved.  In the UK, NatWest and Barclays have been carbon-neutral in scope 1 and 2 emissions since 2020. Lloyd’s Bank already uses 100% renewable energy and plans to reach Net Zero operational emissions by 2030. HSBC is also working towards a Net Zero by 2030 target for its own operations, while Standard Chartered plans to reach this goal by 2025. Meanwhile in the U.S, Wells Fargo and Bank of America achieved carbon neutrality for their own operations in 2019, while JP Morgan reached this goal in 2020 and Morgan Stanley plans to be carbon neutral in 2022.  Here it’s interesting to look at the wording used by banks: in the UK, Net Zero tends to be the preferred target, which involves a drastic reduction in emissions before carbon offsets can be used to “neutralize” remaining emissions. This target is more difficult to achieve, but much more effective to combat climate change. In the U.S, banks seem to prefer reaching the words “carbon neutrality”, which can be achieved mostly through carbon offsetting, with no minimum reduction. They reached their carbon neutrality goal earlier than UK banks, and are now focusing on reducing their operational emissions. Citi is the only large U.S. bank with a Net Zero target for its own operations (by 2030). Funding for fossil fuels U.S. banks are among the biggest financiers of fossil fuels worldwide. The Banking on Climate Chaos report exposes the ‘Dirty Dozen’, the 12 banks that have financed the most fossil fuels since the signing of the Paris Agreement. Five of those are American, including four at the top of the list: JP Morgan (US$382B), Citi (US$285B), Wells Fargo (US$272B) and Bank of America (US$232B). Morgan Stanley is the last of the 12, with US$137B. In April 2022, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and Citigroup all proposed changes to their fossil fuel funding policies, but were only backed by around 11-13% of shareholders.   Meanwhile, only one UK bank (Barclays) made the Dirty Dozen list, with US$167B of funding to fossil fuels since 2016. But even though the amount of financing to polluting industries is lower than in the U.S, banks in the UK did not fare much better than their American counterparts when it comes to their strategy to decarbonize lending. Only Lloyd’s Banking Group has made some exclusions from its portfolio: new oil field developments and companies involved in the exploration or development of oil sands can no longer receive funding from the bank. On the other hand, all large banks in the UK and in the U.S. have exclusion policies in place for coal financing, with UK institutions tending to be stricter than in the U.S. Customer carbon offsetting  In addition to the above efforts, several banks have launched carbon tracking tools for their private customers, promoting individual climate action. This is particularly common in Australia, with Commonwealth Bank and Westpac both offering this feature. But none of the large U.S. banks analyzed in this article appear to offer this option. In the UK, NatWest has partnered with CoGo to offer customers a summary of their carbon footprint, as well as tips to reduce it, through its banking app. However, few banks also give their clients the option to offset their carbon footprint. In Spain, Santander Bank has launched a new feature that allows customers not only to track and reduce their carbon emissions, but to offset them via the ClimateTrade platform. The bank has plans to roll out the service for its UK customers in the coming months. ClimateTrade’s API can be integrated into any banking application or website to present users with a summary of their emissions, calculated according to their card and direct debit transactions. It then gives customers the option to offset this footprint directly from their account by contributing to sustainable projects worldwide. All projects offered by ClimateTrade are certified by internationally recognized standards like Verra, Gold Standard of the CDM, and aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Additionally, all transactions are fully traceable thanks to blockchain technology. If you would like to know more about ClimateTrade’s solutions for the banking sector, get in touch with our experts.

The practice of calculating carbon footprint is not old, yet it has already changed and adapted to new demands and technologies. Discover the history of carbon footprint measurement in this article. Humans have always known that their activities had an impact on the Earth and its resources, but it wasn’t until the 1990s that the concept of a ‘footprint’ first emerged. At the time, researchers started talking of our ‘ecological footprint’, which represented our use of resources compared to the Earth’s ability to renew them. Today, this concept is well understood thanks to Earth Overshoot Day, the day when all the resources the planet can produce in a year run out and we begin to live on future resources. This year, Earth Overshoot Day fell on July 28, a few days earlier than in 2021 and almost a whole month earlier than in 2005. The birth of the carbon footprint The concept of carbon footprint was born as part of the ecological footprint, as one indicator of our impact on the Earth. But the idea gained popularity in 2003 when oil and gas company BP launched an advertising campaign asking people on the street what their carbon footprint was. The ad encouraged people to calculate their personal carbon footprint – using BP’s calculator – to find ways to reduce it, with the slogan “It’s a start”. Because of that, the focus of the carbon footprint remained largely on individuals, despite companies (and especially oil and gas companies like GP) emitting much more problematic levels of emissions. In 2015, with the signing of the Paris Agreement, governments were able to analyze precise data about their countries’ carbon footprint, and the focus shifted to companies. Nowadays, much of the public and regulatory scrutiny regarding the carbon footprint is on corporations, with activists regularly denouncing the hypocrisy of campaigns such as BP’s. The discovery of global warming Scientists discovered that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could change the Earth’s climate in the 1800s, when investigating what had caused the Ice Age – that’s when the term ‘greenhouse effect’ was born. At the dawn of the 20th century, Swedish scientists Arvid Högbom and Svante Arrhenius were the first to estimate the amount of CO2 emitted from the burning of coal, and to warn about the warming effect of an increase in emissions.  But their theories were viewed with much skepticism until the 1950s, as World War II and the Cold War created a need for high military technology, leading to an increase in government funding for science. The scientific community discovered that the mechanisms thought to prevent global warming (such as the ocean’s absorbing effect) were not effective enough, and that emissions had already increased much more rapidly than previously thought. Still, their warnings were ignored as industrialization picked up pace. It’s only in the 1990s that people started to pay more attention to what scientists were saying about the climate, and to ask their governments for action. Severn Cullis-Suzuki’s passionate speech about climate change at the Rio Summit 1992 is a clear example of this shift. Corporate carbon footprint measurement As climate change became a more and more central concern in international conferences, certain pioneer companies began calculating and disclosing the environmental impact associated with their activities or products. Patagonia was one of the first to conduct a survey of its environmental footprint in 1991, and now the company plans to be carbon-neutral by 2025 – much earlier than most others. Since the 2010s, the number of companies calculating and disclosing their carbon footprint has increased dramatically and today, it has become a requirement imposed by regulators or investors in most countries. The way companies calculate carbon footprint is quite simple: they multiply each of their activities with the ‘emission factor’ of that activity. But the precision of this calculation has evolved greatly in recent years, as more data becomes available.  In 2001, the Greenhouse Gas Protocol was published, after a decade of development. It established standards and rules for the calculation of carbon emissions according to their scopes: direct emissions (scope 1), emissions from energy use (scope 2) and indirect emissions (scope 3). To this day, the GHG Protocol remains the tool most used by companies to calculate their carbon footprint. Carbon footprint calculators Despite being based on a simple formula, carbon footprint calculation is a complex exercise, particularly for companies. That’s why in general, they hire environmental experts or consultants to assess GHG emissions across their operations. But as data and our ability to process it improves, this exercise is becoming easier to automate. For instance, ClimateTrade offers sector-specific carbon footprint calculators for mobility, airlines and buildings, having digitized the data points included in the GHG Protocol. This means that companies simply have to enter data into the calculator to find out what their carbon footprint is. In the coming years, we expect automated calculators to grow more precise and more specialized in different sectors, becoming the preferred option for companies. However they conduct their carbon footprint calculations, companies then need to have the result audited to ensure accuracy, before they can report it to regulators and take measures to reduce and offset their impact.

Back from the Latin America and Caribbean Climate Week (LACCW 2022), our Co-Founder and Head of Impact José Lindo shares his thoughts.   Op-ed by José Lindo, ClimateTrade Co-Founder and Head of Impact   The event that many of us call pre-COP took place last week in Santo Domingo, organized by UNFCCC, UNEP and the World Bank Group with the support of the government of the Dominican Republic. These regional climate weeks provide countries and all their stakeholders with a dedicated forum to discuss solutions to the particular climate threats of their region, in their own language and culture. And considering how difficult it has been to reach global climate agreements, regional summits like these are likely to become key to actually implementing policies that may be localized, but will also be much more ambitious and effective in fighting climate change. Silence regarding a global carbon price I hoped for more climate ambition from the UN and from countries in the implementation of the measures of the Glasgow Pact, particularly since the responsibility of fossil fuels in the climate crisis was highlighted there like never before. But when it comes to decarbonization plans that go beyond the theoretical, as well as a global, ethical and fair GHG price, the radio silence continues. Big plans and renewable energy budgets sound great, but they distract from the real issue: the climate crisis is not being treated with the same urgency or financial resources as the Ukraine geopolitical crisis or the pandemic. The UNFCCC Secretary’s reaction to this issue seems very appropriate to me: at LACCW, he welcomed the initiatives of cities, subnational states, carbon markets, impact investors and tech companies, promoting a new paradigm of decentralization. Cities and private sector initiatives This spark of new hope has an appealing acronym: BINGO, or Business and Industry Non-Governmental Organizations: hundreds of thousands of companies, organizations and private climate investors that are acting fast to counter the urgency of the crisis. It appears as though scaling up the voluntary carbon market is easier than getting 200 countries to sign off on an appropriate global carbon price. We have made the implementation of Article 6 incredibly complicated, getting lost in never-ending debates about which mechanism to use to finance it: Core Carbon Principles (CCP), Emissions Trading Schemes (ETS), International Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs) or maybe Carbon Removals Obligations (CRO)? This is causing policy paralysis and inaction, meanwhile several market players – including ClimateTrade – have been designing entire infrastructures aligned with the Paris Agreement and the need for decentralization in governance, financing and the execution of mitigation and decarbonization projects. Empowering local mechanisms If legislative independence and greater climate ambition can be found in cities, let’s create local mechanisms without waiting for clear global rules or a fair carbon price. ClimateTrade’s DLT technology is ready and functional: now let’s form new coalitions and partnerships. I’m leaving LACCW hopeful about the multidisciplinary, Ibero-American, public-private team we are trusting to accelerate ambition, but there remain many tough months and years ahead considering the current geopolitical situation. “Collective action or collective suicide”: I couldn’t agree more with Antonio Gutierres, the UN Secretary General. At ClimateTrade the choice has always been clear – action all the way – and because of that, I beg global leaders to give us freedom and empower us in our efforts.