MORGAN CHASE 2

Age of Trump, see main

OOPS MORGAN CHASE JP

---

most dangerous, energy

https://www.alternet.org/2021/05/jp-morgan/}:

The International Energy Agency (IEA) is the world's most influential energy forecaster. Providing in-depth policy advice to dozens of national governments, the IEA has long been a friend of fossil fuel executives, regularly encouraging evermore fossil fuel development, even in the face of evermore dire climate warnings. But all that started to change last week.

The IEA released a special report that represents the agency's first attempt at modeling an energy pathway that is compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C, the aspirational goal of the Paris Agreement.

Perhaps the single most important sentence in the 224-page report is this one: "There is no need for investment in new fossil fuel supply in our net zero pathway." In other words, if we want to curtail global warming to 1.5°C―and thus slow the rate of species extinction and prevent millions of early deaths―we cannot invest a single dollar more in expanding the fossil fuel industry.

Compare this with JPMorgan Chase. In October of last year, Chase, the world's largest funder of fossil fuels, announced that it was going to align its business model with the Paris Agreement. The pledge came only after years of campaigning by activists and was widely welcomed. The most exciting part of the announcement was Chase's promise to release 2030 climate targets.

Well, Chase just released those targets―and they are worse than even the most pessimistic among us feared.

Rather than actually reducing the overall greenhouse gas emissions associated with its lending, Chase has created a convoluted accounting trick known as "carbon intensity", pledging that by 2030, it will achieve a 15% reduction in the "carbon intensity" of the oil and gas firms it finances.

The most important thing to know here is that reductions in "carbon intensity" and reductions in "actual greenhouse gas emissions" are two very different things.

Imagine you are the CEO of an oil firm. Your company owns 1,000 oil wells; it doesn't own any windmills. Now Chase gives you a $10 billion loan. You use that loan to buy 400 new oil wells and 200 windmills. You now own 400 additional oil wells. This means you are digging up and burning more oil than ever before; your overall contributions to climate change have gone up significantly. But because you are now also profiting from wind power, the "carbon intensity" of your company has gone down―an accounting trick that enables your oil company to both expand oil production and meet Chase's callow climate targets.

What it boils down to is this: While the IEA states that there can be no new investment in the expansion of fossil fuels, Chase doesn't plan to reduce its investments in new fossil fuel supply at all within the next decade.

This is concerning (not to mention deeply immoral) for a number of reasons: Chase is the first major US bank to commit to 2030 climate targets; by setting the bar so devastatingly low they have made it easier for other Wall Street banks to engage in similar acts of greenwashing. Just 100 fossil fuel companies are responsible for 71% of all history's climate pollution; if Wall Street is willing to give them a pass, it is basically passing on climate action of any sort.

The fact that the media has largely fallen for Chase's big climate lie is also of concern. "JPMorgan Chase Pledges to Cut Carbon Emissions in Lending Portfolios," read one uncritical Bloomberg headline. Even the normally rigorous Guardian recently fawned about how Wall Street is acting on the climate crisis.After years of the media's failure to accurately report on the climate crisis, it is upsetting to see major media outlets fail like this.

All of this would, of course, be less alarming if the White House understood that companies like JPMorgan are a major part of the problem―and that regulating them is a major part of the solution. But that is far from the case."No government is going to solve this problem," said US Special Climate Envoy, John Kerry in arecent interview. "The solutions are going to come from the private sector."

Kerry's words are especially alarming. Whether it's sustainable investing funds that are riddled with fossil fuels, insurance companies building coal mines, or banks making empty climate pledges, it's clear that Wall Street cannot be counted on to solve the climate crisis for us.

We need a government that is willing to step in, stop the money pipeline to climate chaos, and force Wall Street to treat global warming like the crisis it is. As the IEA has made abundantly clear that starts with ensuring that not a single dollar more goes toward expanding the fossil fuel industry.

Alec Connon is the coordinator of the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition, a coalition of over 160 organizations working to stop the flow of money from Wall Street to the fossil fuel industry. He is also a writer. His first novel, The Activist, was published in 2016. Follow him on Twitter: @alecconnon

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

https://desmog.co.uk/2020/05/14/climate-jpmorgan-rejects-shareholder-disclose-carbon-footprint

no lnx many

under Rising Pressure on Climate, JPMorgan Rejects Shareholder Calls to Disclose Full Carbon Footprint

By Alex Varley-Winter • Thursday, May 14, 2020

America’s largest bank is shunning calls from shareholders to disclose its full emissions, despite warnings from its own economists that “catastrophic” climate change could end up threatening human life “as we know it.”

JPMorgan Chase, which a coalition of U.S. environmental groups recently claimed is the world’s largest financer of fossil fuels, has instructed its shareholders to vote down a proposal for the bank to report the emissions of its lending activities at its upcoming annual general meeting (AGM) on May 19.

Now treasurers from eight U.S. states are joining a call for JPMorgan to elect an independent board chair who will guide the company’s financing to align with the Paris Agreement.

The bank has also faced pressure from shareholders this year for encouraging Lee Raymond, former CEO of ExxonMobil, to stay on as a member of JPMorgan’s board. Exxon has donated tens of millions of dollars to organizations casting doubt on anthropogenic climate change, including under Raymond, who later this year will step down from leading JPMorgan’s board but remain a director. The group of state treasurers also oppose Raymond staying on the board.

Scott M. Stringer

@NYCComptroller

We must address the financial and climate risks to @jpmorgan associated with fossil fuels.

That's why we're voting ‘no’ on Lee Raymond—his excessive tenure, climate change denial and fossil fuel connections prove he can't be an independentdirector.https://comptroller.nyc.gov/newsroom/comptroller-stringer-and-pension-fund-trustees-launch-vote-no-campaign-against-lee-raymond-at-jpmorgan/ …

Comptroller Stringer and Pension Fund Trustees Launch “VOTE NO” Campaign Against Lee Raymond at...

(New York, NY)—Today, New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer, on behalf of the New York City Employees’ Retirement System, Teachers Retirement System of the City of New York and New York City...

comptroller.nyc.gov

165

“As part of a broader plan for the bank to seriously grapple with the risks climate change poses to investors, Raymond should plan to retire from the board entirely,” said Maryland State Treasurer Nancy Kopp in a statement. Kopp and state treasurers of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin united with efforts of the Pennsylvania treasurer, comptrollers of New York City and New York State, and the California public employee retirement program in pressuring JPMorgan on its climate governance.

Shareholders Pushing JPMorgan on Climate

While JPMorgan touts the “leadership role” it says it has taken to address the “challenges and opportunities of a carbon-constrained environment,” climate activist shareholders are calling for it to publish “if and how” it plans to put its investments in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement and whether it is considering setting emissions reduction targets for its lending. Activist shareholders increasingly have been using the AGMs of fossil fuel companies and their funders to push for climate action from the inside.

JPMorgan currently only publishes the emissions produced by the bank’s own operations, with its first “climate change report” released last year stating that it was “focused on defining and obtaining the right data” on its clients’ “climate-related risk” but that it was at the “early stages of this journey.”

Another proposal to be considered at the AGM next week, put forward by Trillium Asset Management, a Boston-based company focused on socially responsible investing, urges the bank to outline how it plans to respond to “rising reputational risks” relating to its investments in the controversial Canadian tar sands and oil and gas companies operating in the Arctic.

JPMorgan announced in February that it would stop financing companies involved in thermal coal and new Arctic oil and gas development, while increasing its financing of renewables.

Bill McKibben

@billmckibben

Over the past 3 years @Chase has lent $196 billion to the fossil fuel industry; if you look at the worst projects, they've lent 63% more than anyone else. They are the Doomsday Bankhttps://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/jpmorgan-chase-bank-biggest-investor-fossil-fuels-956927/ …

MANHATTAN, NEW YORK, UNITED STATES - 2019/11/20: Protesters picketing outside a Chase Bank branch. Expanding on the momentum of the quickly growing national movement to hold Chase Bank accountable for its central role in funding the global fossil fuel industry, dozens of New York residents with the organization Rise and Resist, with co-sponsor Rainforest Action Network stormed the new JPMorgan Chase headquarters in...

How JPMorgan Chase Became the Doomsday Bank

Protesters hope a campaign of civil disobedience will force JPMorgan Chase — the biggest lender to fossil fuel companies — to change course

rollingstone.com

But Trillium’s proposal argues that the bank is the “largest global lender and underwriter” to the top 30 companies already operating in the Arctic, as well as the top 34 companies involved in the Canadian tar sands.

The bank’s Board of Directors are advising shareholders to vote against both motions, in a move that activists argue puts them at odds with their American peers.

A recent report by the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) said JPMorgan had become “the first bank to blow past the quarter-trillion dollar mark in post-Paris fossil financing, with $269 billion in 2016-2019.”

RAN’s findings have galvanized shareholder calls for banks to phase out fossil fuels, with activists pointing to RAN’s research to push for change at JPMorgan’s AGM.

Bank Resists ‘Moderate’ Carbon Footprint Proposal

Danielle Fugere, President of shareholder advocacy group As You Sow, which filed the proposal on carbon emissions disclosure, told DeSmog: “What we are asking them to do is measure, disclose, and set a target to become Paris aligned.”

“We are asking this not only because climate change poses risk to the bank, but because it poses systemic risk to shareholders.”

“Many U.S. banks are waiting for a perfect system to emerge for them to begin measuring climate risk — if they wait for that, it’ll be too late — we are really trying to press them to move faster than they may think they need to,” she added.

Yet, in a position that Fugere feels is out of step even with its fellow American investment banks, JP Morgan has resisted what she calls a “moderate” proposal to commit to and report on a plan to reduce so-called “financed emissions” produced by the companies to which it lends.

As You Sow

@AsYouSow

“The global financial system has a small window of opportunity to reduce financing of high-carbon activities or risk catastrophic levels of #globalwarming. Banks no longer have a free pass to fund high-carbon activities.” @Danielle_Fugerehttps://www.asyousow.org/press-releases/2020/3/12/jpmorgan-chase-climate-change-resolution …

SEC Denies JPMorgan’s Bid to Silence Shareholders; Other Major Banks Begin Taking Responsibility...

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently held that JPMorgan Chase, the world’s largest funder of fossil fuels, must include a climate-related shareholder proposal on its proxy this...

asyousow.org

Defending its current approach on climate change in response to the proposal, JPMorgan argues it provides “transparent disclosure of our approach to and performance on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) topics through multiple channels” and “supports public sector leadership to drive carbon emissions reductions on a global scale.”

In response to the proposal on oil and gas developments in the Arctic and Canadian tar sands, JPMorgan pointed to its recent commitment to end project financing for new Arctic developments and said both Arctic and tar sands developments were “sensitive sectors” and therefore subject to “enhanced review” by its Global Environmental and Social Risk Management team.

Alison Kirsch, a researcher for RAN, told DeSmog their research showed TC Energy, the infrastructure company formerly known as TransCanada that is building the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, was the bank’s “single biggest fossil fuel client” between 2016 and 2019. Following TC Energy’s announcement in March that it would be proceeding with the project, designed to carry oil from Canada’s tar sands region to U.S. refineries, JPMorgan led a $1.25 billion bond issuance for TC Energy, along with the multinational bank Citi.

Kirsch called JPMorgan’s Arctic announcement “small potatoes in light of what it needs to do to stop being a climate villain.”

As You Sow’s Fugere argues the bank’s gradual shift on fossil fuel financing is leaving it behind the curve. Over the last year As You Sow has researched the investments of five leading U.S. financiers and filed similar shareholder proposals with Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America.

Those banks have appeared to shift to accommodate shareholders’ requests, Fugere says, leading the group to withdraw their motions, “because those banks agreed to begin the process of finding an appropriate method for measuring their carbon footprints.”

JPMorgan Chase is, by contrast, resisting such pressure ahead of its AGM and instead directing its shareholders to vote against the proposal.

Eli Kasargod-Staub, cofounder of shareholder activist nonprofit Majority Action, says JPMorgan’s next shareholder meeting will be a “litmus test” for big asset managers such as Vanguard and BlackRock, which together hold nearly 15 percent of shares, to see if they are really committed to their pledges on climate change.

JPMorgan declined to provide comment for this article when approached by DeSmog.

~ rev billy 1019

World May Hit 2 Degrees of Warming in 10-15 Years Thanks to Fracking, Says Cornell Scientist

In 2011, a Cornell University research team first made the groundbreaking discovery that leaking methane from the shale gas fracking boom could make burning fracked gas worse for the climate than ...

---

https://www.ecowatch.com/wall-street-fracking-revolution-2566742237.html

How Wall Street Enabled the Fracking 'Revolution' That's Losing Billions

By Justin Mikulka

The U.S. shale oil industry hailed as a "revolution" has burned through a quarter trillion dollars more than it has brought in over the last decade. It has been a money-losing endeavor of epic proportions.

In September 2016, the financial ratings service Moody's released a report on U.S. oil companies, many of which were hurting from the massive drop in oil prices. Moody's found that "the financial toll from the oil bust can only be described as catastrophic," particularly for small companies that took on huge debt to finance fracking shale formations when oil prices were high.

And even though shale companies still aren't turning a profit, Wall Street continues to lend the industry more money while touting these companies as good investments. Why would investors do that?

David Einhorn, star hedge fund investor and the founder of Greenlight Capital, has referred to the shale industry as "a joke."

"A business that burns cash and doesn't grow isn't worth anything," said Einhorn, who often goes against the grain in the financial world.

Aren't investors supposed to be focused on putting money toward profitable companies? While, in theory, yes, the reality is quite different for industries like shale oil and housing.

If the U.S. financial crisis of 2008 has revealed anything, it is that Wall Street isn't concerned with making a "shitty deal" when it means profits and bonuses for its traders and executives, despite their roles in the crash.

Wall Street makes money by facilitating deals much like a Vegas bookie makes money by taking bets. As the saying about Las Vegas goes: "The house always wins." What's true about casinos and gambling also holds true for Wall Street.

Wall Street caused the 2008 financial crisis, with some of its architects personally benefiting. However, while a few executives profited, the result was a drop in employment of 8.8 million people, and according to Bloomberg News in 2010, "at one point last year [2009] the U.S. had lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the economy."

JP Morgan (along with much of Wall Street) required large sums of money in the form of bailouts to survive the fallout from all of the bad loans made, which brought about the housing crisis. Is JP Morgan steering clear of making loans to the shale industry? No. Quite the opposite.

As shown in this chart of which banks are loaning money to shale company EOGResources, while all of the big players in Wall Street are in on the action, JP Morgan has the biggest bet.

To understand whyJP Morgan and the rest of these banks would loan money to shale companies that continue to lose it, it's important to understand the gambling concept of "the vigorish" or the vig. Merriam-Webster defines vigorish as "a charge taken (as by a bookie or a gambling house) on bets."

Wall Street makes money by taking a cut of other people's money. To a gambling house, it doesn't matter if everyone else is making money or losing it, as long as the house gets its cut (the vig)—or as it's known in the financial world—fees.

Understanding this concept gives insight into why investors have lent a quarter trillion dollars to the shale industry, which has burned through it. If you take the vig on a quarter trillion dollars, you have a big pile of cash. And while those oil companies may all go bankrupt, Wall Street never gives back the vig.

Trent Stedman of the investment firm Columbia Pacific Advisors LLC explained to The Wall Street Journal at the end of 2017 why shale producers would keep drilling more oil even when the companies are bleeding money on every barrel produced:

"Some would say, 'We know it's bad economics, but it's what The Street wants.'"

And "The Street" generally gets what it wants, even when it is clear that loaning money to shale companies that have been losing money for a decade and are already deep in debt is "bad economics." But Wall Street bonuses are based on how many "fees" an employee can bring to the bank. More fees mean a bigger bonus. And loans—even ones that are clearly bad economics—mean a lot more fees.

Shale Oil Companies Are "Creatures of the Capital Markets"

In 2017 "legendary" hedge fund manager Jim Chanos referred to shale oil companies as "creatures of the capital markets," meaning that without Wall Street money, they would not exist. Chanos is also on record as shorting the stock of heavily leveraged shale oil giant Continental Resources because the company can't even make enough money to pay the interest on its loans.

And he has a point. In 2017 Continental spent $294.5 millionon interest expenses, which is approximately 155 percent of its 2017 adjusted net income generation. When you can't even pay the interest on your credit cards, you are broke.

And yet in 2017, investor capital was still flowing, with Continental Resources among those bellying up to the Wall Street trough for another billion in debt.

"In 2017, U.S. [exploration and production] firms raised more from bond sales than in any year since the price collapse started in 2014, with offerings coming in at around $60 billion — up nearly 30 percent from 2016, according to Dealogic. Large-cap players like Whiting Petroleum, Continental Resources, Southwestern, Noble, Concho and Endeavor Energy Resources each raised $1 billion or more in the second half of 2017."

How big of a problem is this business of loaning money to an industry burning through billions and burying itself in debt? So big that the CEO of shale company Anadarko Petroleum is blaming Wall Street and asking its companies to please stop loaning money to the shale oil industry. Yes, that's right.

In 2017, Anadarko CEO Al Walker told an investor conference that Wall Street investors were the problem:

"The biggest problem our industry faces today is you guys. You guys can help us help ourselves. It's kind of like going to AA. You know, we need a partner. We really need the investment community to show discipline."

The Wall Street Journal reported that Walker maintains: "Wall Street has become an enabler that pushes companies to grow production at any cost, while punishing those that try to live within their means."

Imagine begging banks to stop loaning you money. And being ignored.

Growing production at any cost is the story of the shale "revolution." The financial cost paid so far has been the more than $280 billion the industry has burned through—money that its companies have received from Wall Street and, despite the plea from Al Walker, continue to receive.

The Economist summarized the situation in 2017:

"It [the shale industry] has burned up cash whether the oil price was at $100, as in 2014, or at about $50, as it was during the past three months. The biggest 60 firms in aggregate have used up $9 billion per quarter on average for the past five years."

Higher oil prices are now being touted as the industry's savior but, as The Economist noted, the shale industry was losing money even when oil was $100 a barrel.

Still Wall Street keeps giving the shale industry money and the shale industry keeps losing it as it ramps up production. To be clear, this arrangement makes shale company CEOs and financial lenders very rich, which is why the trend is likely to continue. And why Continental Resources CEO Harold Hamm will continue to repeat the myth that his industry is making money, as he did at the end of 2017:

"For anybody to even put forth the suggestion we haven't had great expansion and wealth creation in this industry with horizontal drilling and all the technology that's come about the last 10 years, I mean, it's totally ridiculous."

No one will argue that Hamm and his partners on Wall Street are not extremely wealthy. That has happened despite Hamm's company and the rest of the fracking industry losing epic sums of money. The same year Hamm made that statement, his company couldn't even cover its interest expenses. To put that in perspective, Continental Resources couldn't even make the equivalent of the minimum payment on its credit card.

Watch What the Industry Does, Not What It Says

Higher oil prices are yielding more storiesabout how 2018 will be the year that the shale industry finally makes a profit. Harold Hamm refers to it as Continental Resources' "breakout year." Interesting how potentially not losing money for a year is considered a "breakout year" in the shale industry.

As reported on DeSmog, the industry certainly got a huge boost from the recenttax law,which will help its companies' short-term finances. Continental Resources alone took home $700 million in tax relief.

Recent reports in the financial press detail how the new approach in the shale industry will be to focus only on profitable oil production, not just producing more barrels at a loss. As The Wall Street Journal put it in a headline: Wall Street Tells Frackers to Stop Counting Barrels, Start Making Profits.

In that very article, Continental CEO Hamm assures that he is on board with this new approach, saying, "You are really preaching to the choir."

But has Continental actually embraced this new approach of fiscal responsibility and restraint?

Not so much.

The fracking firm appears to have done the opposite, increasing production to record levels along with the rest of the shale industry. Continental recently reported plans to drill 350 new wells at an estimated cost of $11.7 million per well, which adds up to over $4 billion in total costs on those wells. The company currently holds more than $6 billion in debt and less than $100 million cash.

How will Continental fund those new wells? Hamm has promised that going forward, there would be "absolutely no new debt." Perhaps Continental will fund it by selling assets because without more debt, Continental does not have the money to fund those new wells. However, if past is prelude, then Wall Street will happily lend Continental as much money as it wants.

Why would Hamm say one thing and do another? Well, he personally has accrued billions of dollars while his company has burned through billions.

Despite leading Continental to another money-losing year in 2017, Hamm took home a fat raise.

---

http://www.alternet.org/environment/your-bank-funding-climate-disaster

Less than two months ago, the CEOs of JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs signed an open letter to Donald Trump, urging him to keep the United States in the Paris climate accord, which provides “a framework to manage climate change” and achieve emissions reductions while also expanding markets for “clean, energy-efficient technologies which will generate jobs and economic growth.”

To be clear, it is highly commendable to see corporations willing to stick their necks out for a principle. However, in order for the actual practice of these banks to align with these public principles—and specifically, to align with the Paris Agreement ambition of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees—the banking sector needs to address the billions they continue to pour into the most problematic fossil fuel sectors in the world.

In 2016 alone, that figure is $86.6 billion. That means the biggest global banks signed deals to the tune of$86.6 billion for the dirtiest of oils such as tar sands, Arctic, and ultra-deepwater oil; for coal and coal-fired power plants; and for liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals that drive fracking projects upstream and release massive amounts of methane, which is many times more potent than carbon dioxide.

As the top Western funder in this arena, JPMorgan Chase alone funneled more than $6.9 billion to extreme fossil fuels last year. Chase is number one in tar sands oil, Arctic oil, ultra-deepwater oil, coal power and LNG export. And it’s getting worse. In fact, Chase’s funding to extreme fossil fuels actually increased from 2015 to 2016, the first full year after the adoption of the Paris Climate Accord.

Simply put, financing extreme fossil fuels needs to end.

Banks need to accept that these activities are bankrupting all of us, economically, environmentally and ethically. The hard truth is that any bank that facilitates capital for extreme fossil fuels has no grounds to call itself socially responsible. The examples mount daily—tar sands pipelines face unified opposition from 122 Indigenous tribes and First Nations through the Treaty Alliance Against Tar Sands Expansion.

Less than two weeks after President Trump approved the Keystone XL pipeline, the Seattle City Council voted to divest from banks that finance TransCanada, the company behind the pipeline. In February, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio told 17 banks to withdraw from financing the Dakota Access Pipeline. “The people of Standing Rock should not be threatened by the greed of a few wealthy oil industry executives.”

And it’s not just oil—the Rio Grande Valley, in South Texas, is facing three planned liquefied natural gas export terminals that would destroy the coastline, threaten children’s health, trample Indigenous cultural sites, and threaten the critical tourism economy.

There is a silver lining: 2016 saw an actual decrease in this extreme sector funding from the previous year. Over the past three years, global bank financing to more than 150 extreme fossil fuel companies went from $92.3 billion in 2014, up to $111.0 billion in 2015—and down to $86.6 billion last year. While positive news, it is far from enough. This decline needs to not only continue—it needs to accelerate. And banking institutions need to play their part. They can no longer profit in the shadows by financing projects like the Keystone XL, Dakotas Access or Trans Mountain pipelines.

The fact is that banks do not have strong policies in place to ensure this downward trend accelerates. The only sector that has even halfway-decent policy safeguards is coal mining, in which many U.S. and European banks have made commitments to move away from the sector. Thanks to a six year long campaign by activists across the country, Bank of America was the first bank to adopt a policy to reduce its funding for coal mining—and though Bank of America’s overall extreme fossil fuel investment has increased over the past three years, their coal mining numbers have dropped. Remarkably, Bank of America was the number one funder of coal mining just five years ago.

Without policy guardrails in other sectors, we could see extreme fossil fuel funding reverse direction — especially with the current administration in the U.S. issuing dangerous promises to “bring back coal” and “unleash fossil fuels.” The truth is, if we extract all the oil, gas, and coal in the fields and mines that are already in production, we would blow the world past the Paris Agreement’s 2 degrees goals on global warming. In fact, even if we stopped burning coal completely—today—currently operating oil and gas fields alone would tip us over the 1.5 degrees goal.

Expansion in the extreme fossil fuel sector will not only decimate our environment but will stunt our investment in emerging clean technologies. A January Department of Energy report made the facts clear: In 2016, the solar industry employed 373,807 Americans. Coal? 160,119.