We talked about how Net Zero Banking Alliance debased itself after a few big members left in response to Trump’s re-election. They did this in order to, ostensibly, attract more members. Reuters reported at the time:
Over 100 of the groups member banks have already set 1.5 degree aligned sector targets, but the group wants to attract banks in countries which are not aligned to 1.5 degrees to bolster its numbers.
Now a few months later, NZBA decides that it really shouldn’t have any member after all:
Members of the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) have been asked to vote on whether the organisation should transition from a membership-based alliance to “establishing its guidance as a new framework initiative”.
The NZBA said the move came in response to member input, with the vote set to close in September.
[…]
“Recognising there is major opportunity for banks and key stakeholders to build on the Alliance’s outputs and to accelerate action on key priorities, NZBA encourages the banking sector to remain steadfast in implementing their net-zero commitments,” it continued.
Well, thank you, NZBA, for your steadfast encouragement.
Since its inception in 2021, NZBA membership and commitments have always been entirely voluntary, with no real enforcement or disciplinary mechanism to ensure members are delivering on their promises. That’s as loose as it gets for an “alliance”: basically, no real obligations. But as soon as a climate denier wins the White House, no-real-climate-obligation becomes too much for some of the world’s largest and most powerful banks to stomach.
How to get more members to join your alliance, then? NZBA’s answer was “less obligation than no obligation”. It turns out, I guess, even that is too much for banks. So now, if you can’t get people to join your alliance of less-obligation-than-no-obligation, why bother having an alliance at all?
It’s interesting that “the move came in response to member input”. Why would an existing member of NZBA, after putting in all these efforts to first join the alliance and then to debase themselves, want to effectively disband the alliance? My Occam’s razor answer is that many of them also want to leave the less-obligation-than-no-obligation alliance, but they don’t like reading about their cowardly exits in the Guardian or Reuters. They choose to effectively dissolve the alliance, so that they could say “we didn’t leave NZBA to please the Orange King, but we decided the best way for Net Zero Banking Alliance to accelerate global transition to net zero is not to have a Net Zero Banking Alliance.”
This is just another reminder that amoral financial interests are as fickle as TikTok trends. Their commitment to any cause crumbles the moment any real political power threatens to hurt them. Those of us who cheered the launch of GFANZ in 2021 as a monumental turning point in the climate fight should all feel a little embarrassed now. I know I do.
An Inconvenient Thought 