BANKS DODGY DEALS CAMPAIGNS
About BankTrack
Visit us
Organisation
Our team
Our board
Guiding principles
Team up with us
Jobs at BankTrack
Our annual reports
Funding and finances
History
BankTrack in the media
Our privacy policy
International Bank Campaigners Gathering
Donate
2023-05-25 00:00:00
Philippines communities are fighting back against gas & LNG build-out in the Verde Island Passage
2023-03-17 00:00:00
Briefing: The role of financial institutions in decarbonising the steel sector
2023-03-09 00:00:00
Dutch bank ING supports controversial pipeline to import gas from authoritarian Azerbaijan
2023-02-23 00:00:00
Financial institutions need to address steelmaking’s coal addiction
2023-05-17 14:30:30
EACOP Financial Advisor SMBC is no longer involved with the project
2023-03-28 13:43:00
French bank Société Générale withdraws from Rio Grande LNG
2023-03-20 08:50:41
Who dares to finance Eni and Exxon’s dangerous Rovuma gas plans in Mozambique?
2023-03-14 14:59:00
New ING policy could spark bank shift away from financing oil and gas infrastructure
Connect
2023-06-01 00:00:00
BankTrack's submission to the public consultation on TNFD V0.4
2023-05-03 00:00:00
A Rotten Business: How Barclays became the go-to bank for JBS, one of the world's most destructive meat corporations
2023-04-13 00:00:00
Banking on Climate Chaos 2023
2023-04-12 00:00:00
The East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP): Finance Risk Update No. 4
See all publications
Sections
Banks Dodgy Deals Campaigns
Our campaigns
Banks and Climate
Banks and Human Rights
Banks and Nature
Banks and Pandemics
Our projects
Tracking the NZBA
Banks and Putin's war in Ukraine
Tracking the Equator Principles
Tracking the PRBs
Banks and steel
End Coal Finance
Find a Better Bank
Banks and the OECD Guidelines
Media
News Publications
Fossil Banks No Thanks StopEACOP Forests & Finance Banks & Biodiversity Drop JBS Bank of Coal Don't Buy into Occupation
BankTrack
About BankTrack Visit us Organisation Our team Our board Guiding principles Team up with us Jobs at BankTrack Our annual reports Funding and finances History BankTrack in the media Our privacy policy International Bank Campaigners Gathering Donate
Successes Contact BankTrack
Donate Mailing list Facebook Twitter Login
Home › Partner news ›
Partner News

DBS gambles on coal, as scrutiny arrives at its AGM

2019-04-25
By: Market Forces
DBS Bank head office in Singapore. Photo: Geoff Whalan (CC License BY-NC-ND 2.0)
2019-04-25
By: Market Forces

At the annual general meeting of DBS today, the Singaporean bank was challenged over its plans to excuse several proposed projects from its policy to stop funding new coal power.

Last Thursday DBS released what, in all fairness, was a pretty good policy on coal power plants. They simply said the bank would not lend to any new coal power plants, regardless of technology type. It made DBS the third major lender in ASEAN in the last seven months to rule out new coal, following Standard Chartered and OCBC.

But like the other two banks, DBS’ policy had a catch. It allowed the bank to continue with projects it was already involved with at the time the policy was announced. These included the Vung Ang 2 and Van Phong 1 power stations in Vietnam (the latter of which was financed the very next day), and Java 9 and 10 in Indonesia.

Adhityani Putri, a representative from Indonesia, attended the AGM to specifically ask about the bank’s involvement in the Java 9 and 10 project, a 2,000 MW power station.

Java 9 and 10 would be built about 100km from Jakarta and, in Adhityani’s words, contribute to making the city unlivable from air pollution that would vastly exceed the World Health Organisation’s standards.

She asked DBS whether they were aware of the full extent of the health impacts that would be caused by Java 9 and 10 and, as financial adviser, whether DBS would communicate these risks to other banks that might join a syndicate, an undertaking DBS CEO Piyush Gupta didn’t make.

Meeting the goals of Paris while building new coal power plants?

Market Forces’ Executive Director Julien Vincent then challenged DBS over its decision to finance new coal power stations, while claiming its policy was consistent with meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement.

He asked whether DBS agreed with the chief executive of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Fatih Birol, who said last year that “We have no room to build anything that emits CO2 emissions” if we want to stay below 2°C.

Mr Gupta responded citing the IEA’s Sustainable Development Scenario, which is claimed to be consistent with meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement. But in its announcement DBS made clear it relied on two competing scenarios to determine its policy; the IEA’s and the IPCC’s. The IPCC scenarios to keep global warming to 1.5ºC with no or little overshoot see a fall in coal power of nearly 80% by 2030, hardly the kind of scenario that allows for new coal power plants.

But the IEA’s Sustainable Development Scenario, which only goes out 20 years and targets a mere 50% chance of constraining warming to 2°C (rather than 1.5°C), relies heavily on unproven technologies and concepts in charting a course for reaching net zero emissions in the second half of the century.

It’s worth noting that the IEA doesn’t currently produce scenarios consistent with 1.5°C and has recently been requested to do so by over 40 business leaders, investors, and energy experts (not including DBS).

Ultimately, while there is a solid scientific basis for not financing new coal power plants based on the IPCC’s 1.5ºC scenario, and a highly risky and assumption-laden basis for using the IEA to justify new coal power of any kind, the decision to exclude several new coal power plants from the policy has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with the number of projects that DBS happened to be involved in at the time the policy was announced. If they were involved in one, three, five or ten new deals, that’s the number of projects DBS would attempt to grandfather through, regardless of the impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

Julien went on to ask how the bank managed the stranded asset risk that would be embedded in coal power plants that wouldn’t be able to see out their expected operating lives under a Paris-aligned scenario. Mr Gupta said that the banks were covered because of the backing of Export Credit Agencies, and power purchase agreements guaranteed by the coal power plant’s host government.

Mr Gupta agreed when Julien asked if that just transferred all of the risk onto the state.

This report was reposted from the original at MarketForces.org.au.

Banks

DBS

Singapore
Active
Dodgy Deals

Vung Ang II coal power plant

Vietnam
Project
Active
Coal Electric Power Generation

Vung Ang II coal power plant

Vietnam
There are no active project profiles for this item now.
Sections
Banks Policies Dodgy Deals Campaigns
Our campaigns
Banks and Climate Banks and Human Rights Banks and Nature Banks and Pandemics
Our projects
Tracking the NZBA Banks and Putin's war in Ukraine Tracking the Equator Principles Tracking the PRBs Banks and steel End Coal Finance Find a Better Bank Banks and the OECD Guidelines
Media
News Publications
Fossil Banks No Thanks StopEACOP Forests & Finance Banks & Biodiversity Drop JBS Bank of Coal Don't Buy into Occupation
BankTrack
About BankTrack Visit us Organisation Our team Our board Guiding principles Team up with us Jobs at BankTrack Our annual reports Funding and finances History BankTrack in the media Our privacy policy International Bank Campaigners Gathering Donate
Successes Contact BankTrack
Vismarkt 15
6511 VJ Nijmegen
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 24 324 9220
Contact@banktrack.org
Donate Mailing list Facebook Twitter
©2022 BankTrack
BankTrack is a registered charity in the Netherlands (ANBI) - RSIN 813874658
Find our privacy policy here

Stay up to date

Sign up now for all BankTrack's news


Make a comment

Your comment will be reviewed, before being posted