The contrast with the other front page article "Paypal stops payouts to pornhubs models" is interesting. On one hand we don't like it when banks use their power to implement their moral panic regarding otherwise legal activities, on the other it's nice that they use it to avoid financing things we consider bad for the commons.
The EIB is a multi-state investment bank, owned by the European Union and carrying out the investment aims of the EU -- all of which are therefore political acts, based on political decisions.
> The decision to prioritise renewable and efficient energy follows a policy promise by the incoming European commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, to turn the EIB into a “climate bank”, unlocking a potential €1tn in funds to help move Europe’s economy toward cleaner energy.
PayPal is a private company providing (in the EU at least) retail banking services to businesses and individuals.
They’re also entirely different issues. One is about handling to payment for people who are not really harming anyone (or at least not doing massive environmental damage). The other is... doing massive environmental damage.
Cool, so I guess we just downvote stuff we disagree with.
It's worth remembering that the commons isn't well defined either. Lots of people view the current policy proposals of environmentalism as anti-poor and handouts to the third world. Whether you agree with that framing or not, there is plenty of data that shows mitigation and not outright prevention is an equally valid strategy to climate change. What you're really saying is that it's okay this time because it's an issue you agree with, a more neutral framing would be "...it's nice that they use it to avoid financing things we consider bad."
