Archived copies of the article: archive.today ghostarchive.org web.archive.org

By switching to a climate-conscious bank, you could reduce those emissions by about 75 percent, the study found. In fact, if you moved $8,000 dollars—the median balance for US customers—the reduction in your indirect emissions would be twice that of the direct emissions you’d avoid if you switched to a vegetarian diet.

The big one in the US is Amalgamated Bank. Others are listed here

  • AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    11 months ago

    Here is the analysis:

    https://drawdown.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Saving for the Planet_Drawdown Labs Report.pdf

    According to a new analysis, for every $1,000 dollars the average American keeps in savings, each year they indirectly create emissions equivalent to flying from New York to Seattle.

    That is 235.10 kg CO2.

    https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/Pages/default.aspx

    https://applications.icao.int/icec/Methodology ICAO Carbon Calculator_v11.1-2018.pdf

    • activistPnk@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      On page 8 there is a claim that switching to an EV reduces CO₂ emissions, but they probably don’t realize that the old car just gets shipped to Africa where it continues emitting indefinitely.

  • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    if you moved $8,000 dollars—the median balance for US customers

    What the fuck? Who has $8,000 just sitting in their investment…oh…out those in the U.S. population with investment accounts…the average is $8k. I thought that was the average of people in the U.S.

    God damn it.

  • reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    The article mentions “green” banks that don’t do this, but then fails to list any trustworthy examples.

    • activistPnk@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Of course it’s important to keep in mind the most green is probably to not bank at all – something I’m experimenting with myself. Then the only notable GHG would be from the armored cars.

      From this page:

      [T]he average U.S.-based adult with a bank account can reduce their estimated annual banking footprint by 76% by moving their money from the average carbon-intensive bank to the average climate-responsible bank.

      Even national central banks are investing in fossil fuels.

  • activistPnk@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    The big one in the US is Amalgamated Bank. Others are listed here

    It’s useful to cross-reference that list with the bad list. Amalgamated welcomes Tor users onto its sales website but if you register for an account and try to login you will be blocked.

    That bank.green site may give a good starting point for short-listing, but it’s important to do further investigation. Note for example:

    • Beneficial State Bank (BSB) writes car loans even for city dwellers. WTF? Yeah, not green.
    • BSB also uses Cloudflare, which pushes graphical CAPTCHAs thus has an excessive CO₂ footprint.
    • BSB also uses FedEx (the worst courier for the environment).
    • BSB forces customers to get their app from Google playstore (Google, who helps Total oil company find places to dig).
    • BSB uses a variety of Microsoft products & services (linkedin, email) and MS is obviously quite bad for the environment (e.g. partnership with Chevron).
    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      US banking rules are tough to comply with if you don’t know your customer. Tor makes that hard.

      • activistPnk@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        US banking rules are tough to comply with if you don’t know your customer. Tor makes that hard.

        This is covered by 31 C.F.R. § 103.121, which requires:

        1. name
        2. date of birth
        3. residential address
        4. identification number (SSN for natural US persons)

        That’s it. They don’t need your IP address and they do not need to track your realtime whereabouts. That may sound baffling because banks often demand much more info than that. The Patriot Act tells banks they can collect more information for KYC purposes. This ensures that customers cannot sue their banks for data over-collection. So when the bank says “we need to know where you work, how much you earn, what your profession is, etc, because ‘Patriot Act’…”. They’re being sneaky and misleading. They do not have to collect all that info, but they can, if they want. And they often want excessive amounts of info because it’s profitable. Since there is no GDPR in the US, banks can misrepresent the purpose of data collection. They can say “we collect that info for KYC/Patriot Act” when they actually just want to feed their market research.

        Some banks allow Tor logins thus demonstrating that it’s legally compliant.

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          In practice, the banks are a lot more picky than that, and reject customers without that additional data or with a lot of cash transactions.