A new report, Toxic Finance, has sought to expose the critical role of the global financial sector in driving a massive and controversial expansion of the petrochemical industry across the United States. The analysis, compiled by a coalition of environmental and human rights organizations including the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and Break Free From Plastic, claims that banks and investors have provided the vast sums of capital necessary to build over 100 new facilities or expansions, despite significant risks to human health, the climate, and the financial system itself.
The report says that between January 2019 and June 2025, banks poured an estimated $133 billion into the US petrochemical sector. Just four banks—Citi, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Mizuho—account for nearly one-third of that total. Simultaneously, institutional investors hold more than $1.6 trillion in stocks and bonds across the companies leading this expansion.
“Banks and investors provide the loans, bonds, and investments that make this expansion possible,” the report states. “It is now clear that continued financing for the petrochemical sector is a financial, legal, and reputational liability no institution can afford to ignore.”
The report identifies the US, particularly the Gulf South region, as the epicenter of a petrochemical boom driven by access to cheap fracked gas and billions in public subsidies. It details the severe human and environmental toll of this industry, noting that “communities living near petrochemical facilities face daily exposure to toxic, hazardous pollutants linked to nervous system impairment, reproductive and developmental harm, cancer, leukemia, diabetes, respiratory disease, and low birth weight.”
The report also highlights what it calls systemic environmental racism, pointing to “Louisiana’s Cancer Alley — an 85-mile stretch from Baton Rouge through New Orleans containing approximately 200 fossil fuel and petrochemical facilities, where Black residents are disproportionately exposed to industrial pollution.”
Despite the influx of capital, the report warns that the petrochemical sector is facing severe and escalating risks. A persistent global overcapacity for plastics is squeezing margins, while a rapid expansion of ammonia production is “premised on speculative markets that do not, and may never, exist.” These risks are already materializing, with numerous high-profile projects being canceled, delayed, or put on hold. According to the Oil and Gas Watch database cited in the report, approximately 44 petrochemical projects have been canceled and another 43 are on hold.
Examples include Yara and BASF canceling their blue ammonia project on the US Gulf Coast citing a focus on projects with “better financial return,” Shell exploring the sale of its newly constructed plastics plant in Pennsylvania after it ran $8 billion over budget, and ExxonMobil delaying its plastic plant in Texas citing market conditions. “Banks and investors should be wary of committing additional capital to an industry that is already struggling to deliver,” the report concludes.
The report criticizes financial institutions for failing to implement meaningful policies to curb their support for the industry. It finds that zero banks have exclusion policies limiting financing for petrochemical expansion, and while many have made “net-zero” pledges, none are consistent with a 1.5°C climate pathway.
“Despite the numerous harms and risks posed by the petrochemical industry, banks and investors have largely failed to adopt public policies on petrochemicals, plastics, fertilizers, or pesticides,” the report states. “Failure to acknowledge or act on these harms and risks does not make them go away.”
The report’s authors offer a series of recommendations for financial institutions, governments, and the public. For banks, they recommend immediately prohibiting all financing for petrochemical expansion and ending financing for any company with projects in communities already overburdened by pollution. For asset managers and investors, they recommend divesting from companies proposing or advancing petrochemical expansion in the United States and requiring all investee companies to develop and publicly disclose credible transition plans.
“The findings in this report make clear that continued petrochemical expansion is a choice, not a necessity,” the authors assert. “Financial institutions, policymakers, and regulators can withdraw support from a dangerous and declining industry and redirect capital toward solutions that protect human health, uphold human rights, and secure a livable climate.”
Comments