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
Ignoring climate scientists and campaigners, oil and gas companies have undermined global efforts to stem the climate crisis by continuing to make huge investments in offshore drilling and pipeline projects. (Photo: Backbone Campaign/flickr/cc)
'Definition of Insane Greed': Investing Billions in New Projects, Fossil Fuel Corporations Undermining World's Climate Targets
"These dirty fossil fuel companies are not getting the message, let alone acting on the urgency of the climate crisis."
Sep 06, 2019
Despite outward claims from the fossil fuel industry that it shares the public's concern over the rapidly warming planet, a new study shows that oil and gas companies are actively and aggressively undermining climate targets agreed to by world governments.
The thinktank Carbon Tracker released a report entitled "Breaking the Habit" on Thursday, detailing the immense investments powerful companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, and BP have continued to make in offshore drilling, tar sands, and fracking projects in the years after nearly 200 countries agreed that the warming of the globe must be limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
The companies have invested $50 billion in climate-warming fossil fuel projects since the beginning of 2018, according to the report.
"Every oil major is betting heavily against a 1.5C world and investing in projects that are contrary to the Paris goals," report author Andrew Grant told The Guardian.
Author and 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben shared The Guardian's report on the study on social media, saying its findings detail the "insane greed" of the fossil fuel industry at the expense of the planet.
\u201cImportant new study from the folks @CarbonBubble: the oil majors are all betting huge sums on projects that will guarantee we can't meet Paris targets. This is the working definition of insane greed. \nhttps://t.co/kaW1SNTQVP\u201d— Bill McKibben (@Bill McKibben) 1567791203
At least 30 percent of the companies' investments over the past two years have gone towards the kinds of energy projects that have been found to pump as much as 37 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere per year as well as endangering marine life, drinking water sources, and people who live near fracking and pipeline projects.
"Last year, all of the major oil companies sanctioned projects that fall outside a 'well below two degrees' budget on cost grounds," the report reads, referring to the goal of keeping global warming under 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels--and more ambitiously, under 1.5 degrees.
"These will not deliver adequate returns in a low-carbon world," Carbon Tracker said.
The continued investments in new fossil fuel projects come three years after the Paris climate agreement entered into force, when the E.U. pledged to reduce carbon emissions by 40 percent compared to its 1990 levels and the U.S. agreed to slash its emissions by 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
Since the agreement was forged fossil fuel companies have claimed to be working towards reducing their emissions.
"We agree that the world is not moving fast enough to tackle climate change," a spokesperson for Shell told The Guardian. "As the energy system evolves, so is our business."
Critics on social media said Friday that Carbon Tracker's report demonstrates how, with Shell's plans for a $13 billion natural gas investment and plans by BP and ExxonMobil to invest in an offshore project in Angola, profits still trump preserving the planet for powerful companies--priorities which will cause suffering for communities that have contributed the least to the climate crisis.
"None of the largest oil and gas companies are making investment decisions in line with the global climate goals," tweeted the group End Water Poverty.
\u201c'None of the largest oil & gas companies are making investment decisions in line with the global climate goals.'\n\nPursuing profits over people & sustainability will increase water insecurity for communities who contribute the least to global emissions. \n\nhttps://t.co/I7Q4a2TsIC\u201d— End Water Poverty (@End Water Poverty) 1567780900
Grant suggested that shareholders at Exxon, Shell, and other oil and gas companies must urge executives to shift away from emission-causing projects.
"Investors should challenge companies' spending on new fossil fuel production," Grant told The Guardian.
But others on social media said the power to stop companies and their wealthy investors lies with policymakers who need the political will to bring the fossil fuel sector to heel.
"These dirty fossil fuel companies are not getting the message, let alone acting on the urgency of the climate crisis," wrote British Green Party co-leader Jonathan Bartley. "But it is governments who must hold them to account, and end the subsidies that are funding their environmental destruction."
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Despite outward claims from the fossil fuel industry that it shares the public's concern over the rapidly warming planet, a new study shows that oil and gas companies are actively and aggressively undermining climate targets agreed to by world governments.
The thinktank Carbon Tracker released a report entitled "Breaking the Habit" on Thursday, detailing the immense investments powerful companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, and BP have continued to make in offshore drilling, tar sands, and fracking projects in the years after nearly 200 countries agreed that the warming of the globe must be limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
The companies have invested $50 billion in climate-warming fossil fuel projects since the beginning of 2018, according to the report.
"Every oil major is betting heavily against a 1.5C world and investing in projects that are contrary to the Paris goals," report author Andrew Grant told The Guardian.
Author and 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben shared The Guardian's report on the study on social media, saying its findings detail the "insane greed" of the fossil fuel industry at the expense of the planet.
\u201cImportant new study from the folks @CarbonBubble: the oil majors are all betting huge sums on projects that will guarantee we can't meet Paris targets. This is the working definition of insane greed. \nhttps://t.co/kaW1SNTQVP\u201d— Bill McKibben (@Bill McKibben) 1567791203
At least 30 percent of the companies' investments over the past two years have gone towards the kinds of energy projects that have been found to pump as much as 37 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere per year as well as endangering marine life, drinking water sources, and people who live near fracking and pipeline projects.
"Last year, all of the major oil companies sanctioned projects that fall outside a 'well below two degrees' budget on cost grounds," the report reads, referring to the goal of keeping global warming under 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels--and more ambitiously, under 1.5 degrees.
"These will not deliver adequate returns in a low-carbon world," Carbon Tracker said.
The continued investments in new fossil fuel projects come three years after the Paris climate agreement entered into force, when the E.U. pledged to reduce carbon emissions by 40 percent compared to its 1990 levels and the U.S. agreed to slash its emissions by 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
Since the agreement was forged fossil fuel companies have claimed to be working towards reducing their emissions.
"We agree that the world is not moving fast enough to tackle climate change," a spokesperson for Shell told The Guardian. "As the energy system evolves, so is our business."
Critics on social media said Friday that Carbon Tracker's report demonstrates how, with Shell's plans for a $13 billion natural gas investment and plans by BP and ExxonMobil to invest in an offshore project in Angola, profits still trump preserving the planet for powerful companies--priorities which will cause suffering for communities that have contributed the least to the climate crisis.
"None of the largest oil and gas companies are making investment decisions in line with the global climate goals," tweeted the group End Water Poverty.
\u201c'None of the largest oil & gas companies are making investment decisions in line with the global climate goals.'\n\nPursuing profits over people & sustainability will increase water insecurity for communities who contribute the least to global emissions. \n\nhttps://t.co/I7Q4a2TsIC\u201d— End Water Poverty (@End Water Poverty) 1567780900
Grant suggested that shareholders at Exxon, Shell, and other oil and gas companies must urge executives to shift away from emission-causing projects.
"Investors should challenge companies' spending on new fossil fuel production," Grant told The Guardian.
But others on social media said the power to stop companies and their wealthy investors lies with policymakers who need the political will to bring the fossil fuel sector to heel.
"These dirty fossil fuel companies are not getting the message, let alone acting on the urgency of the climate crisis," wrote British Green Party co-leader Jonathan Bartley. "But it is governments who must hold them to account, and end the subsidies that are funding their environmental destruction."
Despite outward claims from the fossil fuel industry that it shares the public's concern over the rapidly warming planet, a new study shows that oil and gas companies are actively and aggressively undermining climate targets agreed to by world governments.
The thinktank Carbon Tracker released a report entitled "Breaking the Habit" on Thursday, detailing the immense investments powerful companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, and BP have continued to make in offshore drilling, tar sands, and fracking projects in the years after nearly 200 countries agreed that the warming of the globe must be limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
The companies have invested $50 billion in climate-warming fossil fuel projects since the beginning of 2018, according to the report.
"Every oil major is betting heavily against a 1.5C world and investing in projects that are contrary to the Paris goals," report author Andrew Grant told The Guardian.
Author and 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben shared The Guardian's report on the study on social media, saying its findings detail the "insane greed" of the fossil fuel industry at the expense of the planet.
\u201cImportant new study from the folks @CarbonBubble: the oil majors are all betting huge sums on projects that will guarantee we can't meet Paris targets. This is the working definition of insane greed. \nhttps://t.co/kaW1SNTQVP\u201d— Bill McKibben (@Bill McKibben) 1567791203
At least 30 percent of the companies' investments over the past two years have gone towards the kinds of energy projects that have been found to pump as much as 37 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere per year as well as endangering marine life, drinking water sources, and people who live near fracking and pipeline projects.
"Last year, all of the major oil companies sanctioned projects that fall outside a 'well below two degrees' budget on cost grounds," the report reads, referring to the goal of keeping global warming under 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels--and more ambitiously, under 1.5 degrees.
"These will not deliver adequate returns in a low-carbon world," Carbon Tracker said.
The continued investments in new fossil fuel projects come three years after the Paris climate agreement entered into force, when the E.U. pledged to reduce carbon emissions by 40 percent compared to its 1990 levels and the U.S. agreed to slash its emissions by 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
Since the agreement was forged fossil fuel companies have claimed to be working towards reducing their emissions.
"We agree that the world is not moving fast enough to tackle climate change," a spokesperson for Shell told The Guardian. "As the energy system evolves, so is our business."
Critics on social media said Friday that Carbon Tracker's report demonstrates how, with Shell's plans for a $13 billion natural gas investment and plans by BP and ExxonMobil to invest in an offshore project in Angola, profits still trump preserving the planet for powerful companies--priorities which will cause suffering for communities that have contributed the least to the climate crisis.
"None of the largest oil and gas companies are making investment decisions in line with the global climate goals," tweeted the group End Water Poverty.
\u201c'None of the largest oil & gas companies are making investment decisions in line with the global climate goals.'\n\nPursuing profits over people & sustainability will increase water insecurity for communities who contribute the least to global emissions. \n\nhttps://t.co/I7Q4a2TsIC\u201d— End Water Poverty (@End Water Poverty) 1567780900
Grant suggested that shareholders at Exxon, Shell, and other oil and gas companies must urge executives to shift away from emission-causing projects.
"Investors should challenge companies' spending on new fossil fuel production," Grant told The Guardian.
But others on social media said the power to stop companies and their wealthy investors lies with policymakers who need the political will to bring the fossil fuel sector to heel.
"These dirty fossil fuel companies are not getting the message, let alone acting on the urgency of the climate crisis," wrote British Green Party co-leader Jonathan Bartley. "But it is governments who must hold them to account, and end the subsidies that are funding their environmental destruction."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
LATEST NEWS
House Report Warns Trump Tariffs Could Stymie US Manufacturing for 'Years to Come'
Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee said that "continued uncertainty" caused by the president's policies could reduce manufacturing investments by nearly half a trillion dollars by the end of this decade.
Aug 18, 2025
US President Donald Trump's tariff whiplash has already harmed domestic manufacturing and could continue to do so through at least the end of this decade to the tune of nearly half a trillion dollars, a report published Monday by congressional Democrats on a key economic committee warned.
The Joint Economic Committee (JEC)-Minority said that recent data belied Trump's claim that his global trade war would boost domestic manufacturing, pointing to the 37,000 manufacturing jobs lost since the president announced his so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs in April.
"Hiring in the manufacturing sector has dropped to its lowest level in nearly a decade," the Democrats on the committee wrote. "In addition, many experts have noted that in and of itself, the uncertainty created by the administration so far could significantly damage the broader economy long-term."
"Based on both US business investment projections and economic analyses of the UK in the aftermath of Brexit, the Joint Economic Committee-Minority calculates that a similarly prolonged period of uncertainty in the US could result in an average of 13% less manufacturing investment per year, amounting to approximately $490 billion in foregone investment by 2029," the report states.
"The uncertainty created by the administration so far could significantly damage the broader economy long-term."
"Although businesses have received additional clarity on reciprocal tariff rates in recent days, uncertainty over outstanding negotiations is likely to continue to delay long-term investments and pricing decisions," the publication adds. "Furthermore, even if the uncertainty about the US economy were to end tomorrow, evidence suggests that the uncertainty that businesses have already faced in recent months would still have long-term consequences for the manufacturing sector."
According to the JEC Democrats, the Trump administration has made nearly 100 different tariff policy decisions since April—"including threats, delays, and reversals"—creating uncertainty and insecurity in markets and economies around the world. It's not just manufacturing and markets—economic data released last week by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that businesses in some sectors are passing the costs of Trump's tariffs on to consumers.
As the new JEC minority report notes:
As independent research has shown, businesses are less likely to make long-term investments when they face high uncertainty about future policies and economic conditions. For manufacturers, decisions to expand production—which often entail major, irreversible investments in equipment and new facilities that typically take years to complete—require an especially high degree of confidence that these expenses will pay off. This barrier, along with other factors, makes manufacturing the sector most likely to see its growth affected by trade policy uncertainty, as noted recently by analysts at Goldman Sachs.
"Strengthening American manufacturing is critical to the future of our economy and our national security," Joint Economic Committee Ranking Member Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) said in a statement Monday. "While President Trump promised that he would expand our manufacturing sector, this report shows that, instead, the chaos and uncertainty created by his tariffs has placed a burden on American manufacturers that could weigh our country down for years to come."
GOP Congressman Cashed Out Hospital Investments Before Voting for Biggest Medicaid Cut in History
"Congressman Bresnahan didn't just vote to gut Pennsylvania hospitals. He looked out for his own bottom line before doing it," said one advocate.
Aug 18, 2025
Congressman Rob Bresnahan, a Republican who campaigned on banning stock trading by lawmakers only to make at least 626 stock trades since taking office in January, was under scrutiny Monday for a particular sale he made just before he voted for the largest Medicaid cut in US history.
Soon after a report showed that 10 rural hospitals in Bresnahan's state of Pennsylvania were at risk of being shut down, the congressman sold between $100,001 and $250,000 in bonds issued by the Allegheny County Hospital Development Authority for the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.
The New York Times reported on the sale a month after it was revealed that Bresnahan sold up to $15,000 of stock he held in Centene Corporation, the largest Medicaid provider in the country. When President Donald Trump signed the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law last month, Centene's stock plummeted by 40%.
Bresnahan repeatedly said he would not vote to cut the safety net before he voted in favor of the bill.
The law is expected to cut $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade, with 10-15 million people projected to lose health coverage through the safety net program, according to one recent analysis. More than 700 hospitals, particularly those in rural areas, are likely to close due to a loss of Medicaid funding.
"His prolific stock trading is more than just a broken promise," said Cousin. "It's political malpractice and a scandal of his own making."
The economic justice group Unrig the Economy said that despite Bresnahan's introduction of a bill in May to bar members of Congress from buying and selling stocks—with the caveat that they could keep stocks they held before starting their terms in a blind trust—the congressman is "the one doing the selling... out of Pennsylvania hospitals."
"Congressman Bresnahan didn't just vote to gut Pennsylvania hospitals. He looked out for his own bottom line before doing it," said Unrig Our Economy campaign director Leor Tal. "Hospitals across Pennsylvania could close thanks to his vote, forcing families to drive long distances and experience longer wait times for critical care."
"Not everyone has a secret helicopter they can use whenever they want," added Tal, referring to recent reports that the multi-millionaire congressman owns a helicopter worth as much as $1.5 million, which he purchased through a limited liability company he set up.
Eli Cousin, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told the Times that Bresnahan's stock trading "will define his time in Washington and be a major reason why he will lose his seat."
"His prolific stock trading is more than just a broken promise," said Cousin. "It's political malpractice and a scandal of his own making."
As Trump's Takeover of DC Grows, So Do Warnings of 'Brazen Abuse of Power'
"If troops or federal agents violate our rights, they must be held accountable," the ACLU said.
Aug 18, 2025
As President Donald Trump escalates the US military occupation of Washington, DC—including by importing hundreds of out-of-state National Guard troops and allowing others to start carrying guns on missions in the nation's capital—the ACLU on Monday reminded his administration that federal forces are constitutionally obligated to protect, not violate, residents' rights.
"With additional state National Guard troops deploying to DC as untrained federal law enforcement agents perform local police duties in city streets, the American Civil Liberties Union is issuing a stark reminder to all federal and military officials that—no matter what uniform they wear or what authority they claim—they are bound by the US Constitution and all federal and local laws," the group said in a statement.
Over the weekend, the Republican governors of Ohio, South Carolina, and West Virginia announced that they are deploying hundreds of National Guard troops to join the 800 DC guardsmen and women recently activated by Trump, who also asserted federal control over the city's Metropolitan Police Department (MPD).
Sending military troops and heavily-armed federal agents to patrol the streets and scare vulnerable communities does not make us safer.
— ACLU (@aclu.org) August 18, 2025 at 12:08 PM
Trump dubiously declared a public safety emergency in a city where violent crime is down 26% from a year ago, when it was at its second-lowest level since 1966, according to official statistics. Critics have noted that Trump's crackdown isn't just targeting criminals, but also unhoused and mentally ill people, who have had their homes destroyed and property taken.
Contradicting assurances from military officials, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that the newly deployed troops may be ordered to start carrying firearms. This, along with the president's vow to let police "do whatever the hell they want" to reduce crime in the city and other statements, have raised serious concerns of possible abuses.
"Through his manufactured emergency, President Trump is engaging in dangerous political theater to expand his power and sow fear in our communities," ACLU National Security Project director Hina Shamsi said Monday. "Sending heavily armed federal agents and National Guard troops from hundreds of miles away into our nation's capital is unnecessary, inflammatory, and puts people's rights at high risk of being violated."
Shamsi stressed that "federal agents and military troops are bound by the Constitution, including our rights to peaceful assembly, freedom of speech, due process, and safeguards against unlawful searches and seizures. If troops or federal agents violate our rights, they must be held accountable."
On Friday, the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration to block its order asserting federal authority over the MPD, arguing the move violated the Home Rule Act. U.S. Attorney General Bondi subsequently rescinded her order to replace DC Police Chief Pamela Smith with Drug Enforcement Administration Administrator Terry Cole.
Also on Friday, a group of House Democrats introduced a resolution to terminate Trump's emergency declaration.
The deployment of out-of-state National Guard troops onto our streets is a brazen abuse of power meant to create fear in the District.Join us in the fight for statehood to give D.C. residents the same guardrails against federal overreach as other states: dcstatehoodnow.org
[image or embed]
— ACLU of the District of Columbia (@aclu-dc.bsky.social) August 18, 2025 at 7:23 AM
ACLU of DC executive director Monica Hopkins argued Monday that there is a way to curb Trump's "brazen abuse of power" in the District.
"We need the nation to join us in the fight for statehood so that DC residents are treated like those in every other state and have the same guardrails against federal overreach," she said.
Most Popular
We cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Please support our journalism.