“Behind every transaction lies a financial system that quietly shapes not only our economy but also – less visibly – our planet”

In an article on The Conversation website, Styliani Panetsidou, Assistant Professor of Finance, Coventry University and Angelos Synapis, Assistant Professor of Accounting and Finance, Centre for Resilient Business and Society, Coventry University help us understand how banks operate, what they finance and how transparent they are intersect with climate realities.

 

How banks affect the environment and the role your money plays in it

When you think about your environmental footprint, what comes to mind first? Maybe the flights you take, the car you drive or whether you choose the train instead. Perhaps it is the plastic you try to avoid, the clothes you buy or the food on your plate. But what about your money – how often do you think about where it is kept and what it supports?

Banks are a part of our everyday lives. We use them to receive salaries, make transactions, pay bills or take out loans and mortgages. Yet behind every transaction lies a financial system that quietly shapes not only our economy but also – less visibly – our planet. The way banks operate can influence which industries thrive, which decline and how businesses affect the environment.

Banks worldwide function on what is called “fractional reserve banking”. Under this system, when we make a deposit the money is not simply stored in a vault. Banks use most deposits to issue loans – for housing, businesses or infrastructure – keeping only a small portion as reserves.

Some central banks require a fraction of the deposits to be held as minimum reserves, but many countries, including the UK and the US no longer impose such a requirement. As a result, banks decide how much of the deposits they will hold as reserves while the remainder facilitates lending to borrowers.

But decisions about lending are powerful. Since banks can decide where credit goes, they can also influence where new money enters the economy. To put it simply, lending for housing can expand the property market, financing renewable energy can support low-carbon infrastructure, while funding coal mines or oil and gas extraction may risk locking in future carbon emissions over decades.

These choices affect which sectors see lower borrowing costs and greater capital flows. Banks serve as stewards of economic growth and, as such, as stewards of environmental impact.

Yet a large share of bank lending goes to carbon-intensive sectors. For example, between 2021 and 2024, the 65 largest banks worldwide have allocated around US$3.29 trillion (£2.45 trillion) to fossil fuels, compared to about US$1.37 trillion to sustainable power including solar, wind and related infrastructure.

Similarly, BloombergNEF’s recent Energy Supply Banking Ratio shows that for every dollar that the world’s leading banks invest in oil, natural gas or coal, only 89 cents are invested in low-carbon energy companies. Even in the face of the climate crisis, green financing still lags behind.

Does it matter where we bank?

Banks have traditionally favoured fossil fuel projects due to the sector’s strong profitability and reliable credit ratings. However, as more capital flows into renewable projects, it could accelerate the low-carbon transition, reducing financing costs and lowering perceived risks.

With this in mind, perhaps it is time to consider whether the bank we select could subtly influence environmental outcomes.

Individuals might feel small compared with the might of the banking sector, but they really could influence these dynamics through their choices. Most people would assume that their deposits play only a minor role, but collectively they represent vast sums of money.

To illustrate this, in August 2025 alone, UK households’ deposits with banks and building societies increased by £5.4 billion, following a net increase of £7.1 billion in July 2025. These deposits would include funds in current accounts, savings accounts and ISAs.

The sums involved are huge, yet our banking decisions are rarely framed as environmental ones – even though they are part of the broader system that directs capital flows. Each depositor’s choice contributes, however modestly, to the overall pattern of where credit flows.

An individual account may not shift global outcomes on its own. But many small choices, made by millions of people over time, can shape incentives and expectations. Understanding how banks operate, what they finance and how transparent they are, is another way our financial decisions intersect with climate realities.

External link

One thought on ““Behind every transaction lies a financial system that quietly shapes not only our economy but also – less visibly – our planet”

  1. I was weeping as I read this article – with laughter. I’m not an expert
    on banking (see: https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/ if you want in
    depth stuff) but I’d suggest the guys writing the article are not
    either. The link to “fractional reserve banking” – oh dear: “Fractional
    reserve banking allows banks to keep only a fraction of deposits on
    hand, using the remainder to create loans and stimulate economic growth”
    nope – as wrong as it could be. If you want a definition: try this 2014
    report by the Bank of England
    (https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy)

    Banks have assets (both deposits & other assets). They can loan a
    multiple (roughly x9) against these assets. Banks do not “create money”
    the give loans on the basis of a licence from a banking regulator. Once
    the loan is repaid the money is cancelled i.e. it ceases to exist.

    “Some central banks require a fraction of the deposits to be held as
    minimum reserves, but many countries, including the UK
    https://energyindemand.wordpress.com?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=a4d085a863d48ce14d6cd70b5f88f33ff3127d3a428b4bf4ae90f78e0ddf6b55&blog_id=31556390&post_id=21689&user_id=258430153&subs_id=492660167&signature=33b5f110ae6371b7bd23feb6c8a47066&email_name=new-post&user_email=mike.parr@pwr.co.uk&encoded_url=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmlzLm9yZy9tYy9jdXJyZW5jeV9hcmVhcy9nYi5odG0/dXRtX3NvdXJjZT1jaGF0Z3B0LmNvbQ=&email_id=03f553b6f754ace1a61a971d76288bfe and
    the US
    https://energyindemand.wordpress.com?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=6af761c2939ce5a77410a3f0f24a68471139de6f26de285f11325de448f40e70&blog_id=31556390&post_id=21689&user_id=258430153&subs_id=492660167&signature=ad78780fbbd0d5391db87019bbea806c&email_name=new-post&user_email=mike.parr@pwr.co.uk&encoded_url=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZmVkZXJhbHJlc2VydmUuZ292L21vbmV0YXJ5cG9saWN5L3Jlc2VydmVyZXEuaHRt&email_id=03f553b6f754ace1a61a971d76288bfe no
    longer impose such a requirement” Basel III requires minimum amount of
    assets vs loans.

    Anyway – the below the line comments also echo my own. The writers do
    not know what they are talking about with respect to money creation
    (only a central bank can do that). For the rest – they are correct.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.