SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
November, 25 2015, 01:00pm EDT
Contact:
Stefano Ambrogi,sambrogi@carbontracker.org,+44 7557 916940,David Mason,david.mason@greenhousepr.co.uk,+44 7799 072320
Fossil fuel firms risk wasting $2 trillion on uneconomic projects
Governments and companies must align plans with the energy transition underway to deliver a low-carbon future
LONDON / NEW YORK
Fossil fuel companies risk wasting up to $2.2 trillion in the next decade, threatening substantially lower investor returns, by pursuing projects that could be uneconomic in the face of a perfect storm of factors including international action to limit climate change to 2@C and rapid advances in clean technologies, think tank the Carbon Tracker Initiative warns today.
No new coal mines will be needed, oil demand will peak around 2020, and growth in gas will disappoint industry expectations, it finds in a new report highlighting the danger zone between industry business-as-usual strategies and action that would be needed to meet the UN commitment to limit climate change to 2@C.
The $2 trillion stranded assets danger zone: How fossil fuel firms risk destroying investor returns, maps out coal, oil and gas supply that makes neither financial nor climate sense in a 2@C world and how this affects both listed and public companies. The report warns: "If the industry misreads future demand by underestimating technology and policy advances, this can lead to an excess of supply and create stranded assets. This is where shareholders should be concerned - if companies are committing to future production which may never generate the returns expected."
James Leaton, head of research and co-author of the report, said: "Too few energy companies recognise that they will need to reduce supply of their carbon-intensive products to avoid pushing us beyond the internationally recognised carbon budget. Clean technology and climate policy are already reducing fossil fuel demand - misreading these trends will destroy shareholder value. Companies need to apply 2@C stress tests to their business models now."
The US has the greatest financial exposure with $412 billion of unneeded fossil fuel projects to 2025 at risk of becoming stranded assets, followed by Canada ($220bln), China ($179bln), Russia ($147bln) and Australia ($103bln).
The companies that represent the biggest risk in a demand misread to the climate and shareholders alike in the next decade are a mix of state and listed companies, including oil majors Royal Dutch Shell, Pemex, Exxon Mobil, and coal miners Peabody, Coal India, and Glencore. Around 20-25% of oil and gas majors' potential investment is on projects that will not be needed in a 2@C scenario, and cancelling them would mean going ex-growth.
The report looks at production to 2035 and capital investment to 2025. It warns that energy companies must avoid projects that would generate 156 billion tons of carbon dioxide (156Gt CO2), in order to be consistent with the carbon budget in the International Energy Agency's 450 demand scenario, which sets out an energy pathway with a 50% chance of meeting the UN 20C climate change target.
Mark Fulton, advisor to Carbon Tracker, former head of research at Deutsche Bank Climate Change Advisors, and co-author of the report, said: "Our work shows thermal coal has the most significant overhang of unneeded supply in terms of carbon of all fossil fuels on any scenario. No new mines are needed globally in a 2@C world."
Carbon Tracker warned last month that big energy companies are ignoring rapid advances in clean technologies which threaten to undermine their business models, such as renewables, battery storage and electric cars, in a report[1] challenging nine business as usual assumptions made by the industry to argue that coal, oil and gas will all continue to grow in the next decades.
Anthony Hobley, CEO of Carbon Tracker, said: "Business history is littered with examples of incumbents[2] who fail to see the transition coming. Fossil fuel incumbents seem intent on wasting capital trying to hold onto growth by doing what they have always done rather than embracing the energy transition and preserving value by adopting an ex-growth strategy. Our report offers these companies both a warning and a strategy for avoiding significant value destruction."
COAL - In a 2@C world, demand can be met from existing mines and no new mines will be needed. "It is the end of the road for expansion of the coal sector," the new report states. Over the next decade, capital expenditure of $177 billion on new projects and $42 billion on existing ones is unneeded.
China, the US, Australia, India and Indonesia have the greatest exposure, accounting for over 90% of unneeded investment. Export markets are in structural decline as China seeks to peak its coal demand and India aims to become more self-sufficient in energy, threatening big exporters like Australia and Indonesia. In the US half of all potential projects from Peabody, Murray and Foresight will be unneeded.
OIL - "In the 450 scenario oil demand peaks around 2020. This means the oil sector does not need to continue to grow, which is inconsistent with the narrative of many companies," the report states. Spending of $1.3 trillion on new projects and $124 billion on existing projects is unneeded. Overall 43% of investment in new projects and 33% of new supply should be avoided to align with a 2@C scenario, avoiding 28Gt of CO2.
The countries with the greatest financial exposure are the US, Canada, Russia, Mexico and Kazakhstan. The biggest risk is from shale oil in the US, oil sands in Canada and conventional oil in Russia. All three, with Norway, are exposed to Arctic oil. Deep water projects in the US and Mexico and Venezuela's heavy oil are also in the danger zone. However, OPEC conventional production faces little risk due to its low cost.
GAS - In a 2C world gas growth will be "at a lower level than expected under a business as usual scenario", the report finds. Capital expenditure of $459 billion on new projects and $73 billion on existing projects is surplus to requirements. Overall 41% of investment in new projects and 25% of new supply, accounting for 9 Gt of CO2, is unneeded.
The US, Australia, Indonesia, Canada and Malaysia have the greatest exposure, accounting for three-quarters of investment risk. Within the markets we analyse (North America, Europe, and the LNG export market), two-thirds of new coal bed methane and Arctic projects are in the danger zone; half of the supply in new LNG projects is unneeded and very little new capacity will be needed in the US and Canada in a 2@C scenario.
CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE - Carbon Tracker's analysis assumes 24Gt of CO2 will be captured by CCS by 2035 in line with the IEA 450 scenario, but it warns that this would require CCS to grow to a level 150 times where it is today. Delays in CCS could significantly increase the reductions in coal that will be needed and the IEA has estimated that a 10-year delay in large-scale CCS deployment from 2020 to 2030 could cost fossil fuel producers $1.35 trillion in lost revenues.
From Wednesday 25th November the report will be available for download at https://www.carbontracker.org/report/stranded-assets-danger-zone/
The Carbon Tracker Initiative is a not-for-profit financial think tank that seeks to promote a climate-secure global energy market by aligning capital markets with climate reality. Our research to date on unburnable carbon and stranded assets has begun a new debate on how to align the financial system with the energy transition to a low carbon future. www.carbontracker.org
LATEST NEWS
Trump Has Spent $40 Million in Secretive Deals Deporting Hundreds of People to Third Countries
“Through its third country deportation deals, the Trump administration is putting millions of taxpayer dollars into the hands of foreign governments, while turning a blind eye to the human costs," reads a new Senate report.
Feb 13, 2026
Using secretive agreements, often with countries that have histories of human rights abuses, the Trump administration has "expanded and institutionalized" a system in which the government deports migrants to nations where they have never lived, according to a report released Friday by Democrats on the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The report, titled At What Cost? Inside the Trump Administration’s Secret Deportation Deals, was commissioned by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and is the first comprehensive review of the administration's coercive and secretive agreements with countries including El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, and Eswatini.
Third-country deportations were "previously a rare tool used only in exceptional circumstances," said the authors, but "the Trump administration has broadened this practice into a sprawling system of global removals," sending direct financial payments of $32 million in taxpayer money to foreign governments.
Five countries, which also include Palau and Rwanda, entered into those deals and have taken 300 people. In all, the administration has spent more than $40 million on the deportations, according to the report.
“This report outlines the troubling practice by the Trump administration of deporting individuals to third countries—places where these people have no connection—at great expense to the American taxpayer and raises serious questions,” said Shaheen, the ranking member of the committee. “Through its third country deportation deals, the Trump administration is putting millions of taxpayer dollars into the hands of foreign governments... For an administration that claims to be reigning in fraud, waste, and abuse, this policy is the epitome of all three.”
The senators conducted a 10-month review of the administration's agreements and third country deportations through January 2026, with staff traveling to the countries and meeting with people who have been deported, attorneys, US and foreign officials, and human rights organizations.
The agreements, said the senators, amount to an "expensive and dangerous form of shadow diplomacy that prioritizes the appearance of toughness over the security of Americans" and includes little oversight over whether public funds are being used to finance human trafficking or rights abuses.
While the agreements include "blanket language" on upholding international human rights laws, the report states, the senators' extensive review uncovered no evidence that the administration is conducting systemic monitoring or follow-up enforcement, "raising serious concerns that the assurances made by foreign governments exist only on paper and that the United States is turning a blind eye to what happens to migrants in third countries."
Cart Weiland, a deputy assistant secretary at the US State Department, was questioned by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about his work helping to establish the third country agreements and "could not articulate whether any oversight on their treatment had been conducted. Instead, he reiterated that 'the agreement has a provision that explicitly mandates adherence to international human rights treaties and conventions.'"
Committee staff members also heard from US officials in one country that they had been instructed "not to follow up on the treatment of deportees."
A Trump administration attorney even acknowledged in a federal court case regarding deportations to Ghana, another country that has entered into agreements with the administration, that it appeared "Ghana was violating assurances it had provided the United States, including that it would comply with the Convention Against Torture, after sending a migrant onward to a country where they would likely be tortured."
The senators also found that the administration is likely using third countries to circumvent US immigration law—carrying out removals "that US law would otherwise prohibit, such as sending protected individuals onward to countries where they may face persecution or death."
The majority of migrants flown to third countries have had court-ordered protections prohibiting the US from sending them back to their home countries, where they could face persecution or torture.
"One migrant with protective orders stated: 'While at the fuel stop in the US Virgin Islands, the apparent head [US Immigration and Customs Enforcement] official on the plane... told me that those on the plane were being sent to Ghana and that Ghana would send us to our home countries," according to the report.
The document said that "the Trump administration’s defense is that the United States 'does not have the power to tell Ghana what to do,'" a claim it also made after garnering condemnation for its use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport about 250 Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador, where they were imprisoned in the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT).
The report also details how the administration has threatened some countries with increased tariffs, travel bans, or cuts to US foreign aid if they don't enter into the deals.
"The Trump administration is expending political capital in its bilateral relationships that could instead be used to advance more pressing USb national security interests, while not being transparent about the full extent of its deal-making, including what is being offered to foreign governments," reads the report.
The senators emphasized that they released their report "as the administration is aggressively seeking to strip hundreds of thousands of migrants of legal status in the United States through the ending of temporary protected status and humanitarian parole, among other avenues, increasing the risk of expanded third country deportations."
The Democrats on the committee said they would continue to conduct oversight of the agreements and demand transparency.
"The Trump administration should cease its use of these third country deportation deals," they said, "which are putting millions of taxpayer dollars into the hands of foreign governments without oversight while turning a blind eye to the potential human cost."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Sends Second Massive Aircraft Carrier to Middle East, Ramping Up Iran Threats
Analyst Mouin Rabbani said the deployment comes as “Netanyahu is seeking to... inject poison pills into the negotiations in order to ensure that they fail and thereby set the stage for a new armed conflict with Iran.”
Feb 13, 2026
President Donald Trump further escalated his threats to attack Iran on Thursday by deploying another massive aircraft carrier to the Middle East.
According to Axios, Trump decided to send the USS Gerald Ford to the region shortly after his Wednesday talk with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the seventh such meeting in just over a year since he returned to the presidency.
The Ford, America’s largest aircraft carrier, will take approximately 3-4 weeks to reach the Persian Gulf from Venezuela, where it was used as part of Trump’s operation to overthrow President Nicolás Maduro in January. It will join the USS Abraham Lincoln, which was sent to the region earlier this month.
Trump has said he wants to finalize a new nuclear deal with Iran by next month after ripping up the old one during his first term, and has threatened war if one is not reached.
Iranian President Masud Pezeshkian has said Iran is open to making a deal to limit its capabilities to develop nuclear weapons in the future and to allow weapons inspectors to ensure compliance with the deal.
“We are not seeking nuclear weapons, and we are ready for any kind of verification,” Pezeshkian said on Wednesday.
However, its leaders have said they are not willing to negotiate on their broader ballistic missile program, which they view as the only deterrent against attacks by Israel and the US.
Netanyahu, who met with Trump for nearly two and a half hours on Wednesday, has pushed the president to pursue maximalist demands that Iran is unlikely to accept.
"I said that any agreement must include... not just the nuclear issue, but also the ballistic missiles and the Iranian proxies in the region," Netanyahu said.
Middle East analyst Mouin Rabbani said in an interview Thursday with Democracy Now that "what Netanyahu is seeking to do with this visit is to inject poison pills into the negotiations in order to ensure that they fail and thereby set the stage for a new armed conflict with Iran."
So far, this appears not to have worked, as Trump has said he is willing to negotiate on the narrower issue of nuclear weapons.
But, according to Rabbani, "it's really impossible to take any statement he says either seriously or literally because his subsequent actions could either be a very accurate reflection of what he said or the precise opposite."
"Trump seems to think that a deal limited to the nuclear issue may be preferable to going to war to tackle everything else," said Christian Emery, an associate professor of international politics at the University College London. "Yet opponents of US military action, which include all of Washington’s Middle Eastern allies except Israel, should still be worried."
"It is far from clear whether Iran will offer the kind of nuclear deal Trump would find acceptable, and Trump himself does not seem to know what else to do other than double down on military threats," Emery said. "That alone may scupper the talks."
"The danger here... is that Washington, encouraged by Israel, is looking at Iran as a substantially weakened power," Rabbani said. "It has taken note of the widespread unrest in Iran last month. And coming straight off the successful abduction of the Venezuelan president, they may believe that it's just going to be one and done and that there can be a limited clean conflict with Iran."
“But of course, Iran is a very different kettle of fish than Venezuela,” he continued. “Iran has already indicated that should there be a new armed conflict, it will observe neither strategic patience nor restraint or proportionality as it has in previous realms.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Most Vile Scumbags on Earth': Critics Appalled by Explosive Report on Kristi Noem's Corruption
"Noem and Lewandowski are like the most toxic couple you have ever met given full rein of a government agency."
Feb 13, 2026
An explosive report published by the Wall Street Journal on Thursday shed fresh light on what critics have described as "outrageous corruption" by US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Among other things, the Journal report highlighted Noem's relationship with top adviser Corey Lewandowski, whom sources said is romantically involved with the Trump Cabinet official despite both of them being married.
Of particular note, the Journal wrote, is the way Lewandowski has taken over the contracting process at the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) despite being classified as a special government employee whose service is supposed to be capped at a maximum of 130 days per year.
"Given Lewandowski’s continuing business interests in the private sector, his role in awarding contracts has raised alarm bells inside the White House and DHS," reported the Journal. "Several officials inside the department said contracts and grants are being awarded in an opaque and arbitrary manner, and some are being held up without explanation."
The report also claimed that Noem and Lewandowski have been flying around the country together on a luxury 737 MAX jet, complete with a private cabin.
DHS has been leasing the plane, although the Journal's sources said it is in the process of buying it for $70 million, which "would be double the cost of each of seven other commercial planes the department is also buying at the pair’s direction to carry out deportations."
Additionally, the report outlined allegedly abusive behavior by Noem and Lewandowski toward DHS staff members, as sources said they "frequently berate senior level staff, give polygraph tests to employees they don’t trust, and have fired employees," including one incident where "Lewandowski fired a US Coast Guard pilot after Noem’s blanket was left behind on a plane."
The report generated fierce reaction from critics on social media.
"Noem and Lewandowski are like the most toxic couple you have ever met," wrote New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie, "given full rein of a government agency."
Veteran foreign policy journalist Laura Rozen described Noem and Lewandowski as "the most vile scumbags on Earth" after reading the report, highlighting the details about the pair flying on the luxury jet as particularly egregious.
Investigative journalist Sarah Posner found herself floored by the conduct outlined in the Journal's report.
"There is so much crazy shit, outrageous corruption, and naked, ham-fisted ambition in this WSJ piece about Noem, Lewandowski, and DHS," she wrote. "Read and take note of the of eye-popping number of sources who have knives out for Kristi and Corey."
Former Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.) argued the report showed Noem and Lewandowski "are wholly unqualified and a disaster at DHS," and have been "been very effective in driving [President Donald] Trump’s ratings into the ditch."
Ron Filipkowski, editor-in-chief of MeidasTouch, expressed disbelief at how much power Lewandowski had accumulated despite only being a special government employee.
"How the fuck is Corey Lewandowski in any position to fire a Coast Guard pilot?" he asked. "What is his title? What is his job? What is his official position in the US government? If you are Kristi Noem’s boyfriend you get to fire Coast Guard officers?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular