

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Andrzej Ancygier, Climate Analytics: +49 30 259 22 95 38, andrzej.ancygier@climateanalytics.org
Niklas Höhne, NewClimate Institute: +49 173 715 2279, n.hoehne@newclimate.org
Bill Hare, Climate Analytics: (in Perth, Australia): +61 468 372 179 bill.hare@climateanalytics.org
Yvonne Deng, Ecofys: + 44 7788 973 714, y.deng@ecofys.com
The future of natural gas is limited, even as a bridging fuel. Continued investments into the sector create the risk of breaching the Paris Agreement's long-term temperature goal and will result in stranded assets, the Climate Action Tracker (CAT) said today.
The future of natural gas is limited, even as a bridging fuel. Continued investments into the sector create the risk of breaching the Paris Agreement's long-term temperature goal and will result in stranded assets, the Climate Action Tracker (CAT) said today.
As part of its decarbonisation series, the CAT today released an examination of gas in the power sector. The report, titled "Foot off the gas: increased reliance on natural gas in the power sector risks an emissions lock-in", warns that natural gas will have to be phased out along with coal, if the world is to limit warming to 1.5@C, as spelt out in the Paris Agreement long term temperature goal.
The CAT foresees a dwindling role for natural gas in the power sector toward the middle of the century, not only to meet the Paris Agreement goals, but also due to increasing competition from renewables.
This outlook challenges projections that forecast an increase in natural gas consumption. Although these projections have proven too bullish in the past, governments and companies are staking significant investments in natural gas infrastructure on them, ignoring the increasing role of low-carbon alternatives, and the need to reduce emissions to combat climate change.
"Natural gas is often perceived as a 'clean' source of energy that complements variable renewable technologies. However, there are persistent issues with fugitive emissions during gas extraction and transport that show that gas is not as 'clean' as often thought," said Bill Hare of Climate Analytics.
"Natural gas will disappear from the power sector in a Paris Agreement-compatible world, where emissions need to be around zero by mid-century."
Although the emissions from gas plants can be reduced by up to 90% with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), this is not sufficient for full decarbonisation. Even if these capture rates could be increased, ultimately, the cost of gas with CCS is unlikely to be competitive with renewables and a flexible grid, the CAT said.
"The idea of a continuing role for natural gas as a bridging technology is not consistent with the reality of advances in flexibility enabling technologies, such as grid expansion, supply and demand response, as well as storage," said Yvonne Deng of Ecofys, a Navigant company.
Many projections for the use of natural gas--including from the International Energy Agency, investors, and many governments--not only fail to consider the need for complete decarbonisation within three decades, but they also ignore the increasing role of low-carbon alternatives.
"One example is China, where in 2016 the IEA projected renewables would rise to 7.2% of the power supply by 2020--but by the end of 2016 they had already reached 8%. Additionally, India and the Middle East are also seeing renewables rising much faster than mainstream projections," said Niklas Hohne from NewClimate Institute.
Despite these developments, massive investments into LNG pipelines and terminals continue, even as the utilisation rates of such infrastructure are decreasing. For example, utilisation rates in US natural gas infrastructure are at 54%, and are even lower in Europe at 25%.
"This overinvestment in natural gas infrastructure is likely to lead to either emissions overshooting the Paris Agreement's 1.5degC and 2degC goals--or a large number of stranded assets as the shift to cheaper renewables takes place, " said Andrzej Ancygier of Climate Analytics.
ENDS
Download report here
The Climate Action Tracker is an independent scientific analysis that measures government climate action against the globally agreed aim of holding warming well below 2degC, and pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5degC.
"This is a massive and unprecedented presidential plunder of the American people," said Rep. Jamie Raskin.
The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday accused US President Donald Trump of "orchestrating a $1,700,000,000 fraud on the American taxpayer to line the pockets of his MAGA political allies" amid new reporting on the terms Trump is seeking in talks to settle his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service.
ABC News reported late Thursday that Trump is expected to drop his lawsuit in the coming days "in exchange for the creation of a $1.7 billion fund to compensate allies who claim they were wrongfully targeted by the Biden administration." The money would come from the Treasury Department's Judgment Fund, which pays out court judgments and settlements against the federal government.
The president is also expected to receive a public apology from the IRS for the leak of his tax returns during his first White House term.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said in a statement that the reported settlement terms represent "another installment" in Trump's "ongoing effort to turn the federal government into a personal cash machine for his unpopular extremist movement."
"This is a massive and unprecedented presidential plunder of the American people," said Raskin. "Worse still, this is only the beginning—a declaration that the prior payouts were just a down payment, and that he now intends to earmark billions more in taxpayer dollars for his political allies, sycophants, and private militia of unemployed insurrectionists."
“The president has no authority to conjure up billion-dollar compensation schemes or raid the Judgment Fund, which exists to settle valid lawsuits. Trump is systematically converting neutral government mechanisms into a presidential slush fund to build his army of political dependents," Raskin continued. "Congress must act immediately to reassert the power of the purse and stop this brazen looting of taxpayer funds before this ‘pilot program’ for corruption becomes the permanent operating system of our government."
According to ABC, which cited unnamed sources who emphasized that the settlement's terms should not be considered final until officially announced, the deal is "expected to prohibit Trump from directly receiving payments related to those three legal claims; however, entities associated with Trump are not explicitly barred from filing additional claims."
"The arrangement would be an unprecedented use of taxpayer dollars with little oversight," ABC noted. "Under the terms of the potential settlement agreement, President Trump would have the authority to remove members of the commission running the fund without cause, and the commission would be under no obligation to disclose its procedures or decision-making process for awarding more than a billion dollars."
ABC's story came on the heels of reports earlier this week revealing internal Justice Department discussions on settling Trump's lawsuit, which he filed in late January. Last month, a federal judge questioned the constitutionality of Trump's suit, noting that "he is the sitting president and his named adversaries are entities whose decisions are subject to his direction."
"Real story: Judge was about to throw out the case because Trump controls both parties," Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) wrote late Thursday. "Before it’s dismissed, Trump tells both parties to reach a 'settlement.' Settlement shields Trump from any future audit and creates a secret slush fund that can dole out money to anyone with no transparency."
"Mind-boggling corruption," Goldman added.
"We are relieved that access to mifepristone remains protected for now, but this should never have been on the table in the first place," said one campaigner.
While welcoming that the US Supreme Court on Thursday blocked restrictions on dispensing mifepristone—a medication commonly used in abortion and miscarriage care—as a legal battle over it moves forward, rights advocates also continued to sound the alarm about attacks on reproductive freedom and argue that "temporary relief isn't enough."
At issue is the 2023 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decision to permanently lift mifepristone's in-person dispensing requirement, which has enabled doctors to serve patients nationwide via telehealth and the mail, as forced pregnancy advocates have intensified the fight for state laws cutting off access to abortion care since the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade in 2022.
Louisiana sued over the FDA's move, and early this month, the notoriously right-wing US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit halted the agency's rule easing restrictions. Drugmakers Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro appealed, and Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the high court's right-wing supermajority, issued a one-week stay, which he then extended to Thursday evening.
With that deadline looming, the court ultimately blocked the 5th Circuit's ruling. Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, another right-winger, dissented.
"While it is good news that, for now, patients can continue to get this safe medication by mail and at pharmacies as they have for more than five years, we all know abortion opponents are continuing their unpopular and baseless attacks," Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney for the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, said in a statement.
"And let's be clear about the Trump administration's role here: When nationwide access to a critical abortion and miscarriage medication was on the line, the Trump administration refused to defend the FDA's action and threw patients under the bus," Kaye noted. "The American people have made clear time and again that they oppose political efforts to interfere with their ability to make their own healthcare decisions—and the ACLU will keep fighting with them every step of the way."
Advocates stressed that the fight is far from over. Monica Simpson, executive director of SisterSong: Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, said that her organization "is relieved that the Supreme Court granted the emergency appeal to keep mifepristone accessible through telehealth and mail nationwide."
"This decision ensures that people, especially Black, brown, queer, trans, immigrant, poor, and people living in rural communities who already face barriers to healthcare, can continue accessing essential reproductive care," she noted. "While today's decision prevents immediate harm, people's lives shouldn't hang in the balance between back-and-forth litigation."
"Attacks on mifepristone have never been about safety or medicine," Simpson added. "They are about power and control—about who gets to make decisions about their body, their family, and their future."
All* Above All president Nourbese Flint also welcomed the decision while arguing that "the fact that patients and providers were forced to endure the confusion and disruption of care because of yet another court ruling on whether basic healthcare would remain available is unacceptable."
"This legal whiplash is exhausting, dangerous, and completely disconnected from science," Flint continued. "We know that mifepristone is safe and effective, and has been for over 25 years. People should not have to navigate a week-to-week roller coaster just to find out if they can still access basic healthcare and medication they need."
Serra Sippel, executive director of the Brigid Alliance, which helps people forced to travel for abortion care, similarly said that "we are relieved that access to mifepristone remains protected for now, but this should never have been on the table in the first place. Patients and providers should not be forced to wait on court rulings to know whether people can access critical healthcare."
"The back-and-forth of this case does have a cost. Confusion and uncertainty can delay care, and every day makes a difference. When people are pushed later into pregnancy, care becomes harder to access, more expensive, and many more miles further from home," Sippel explained. "We're seeing this firsthand. Last year, the Brigid Alliance helped 1,879 people travel for abortion care—a 35% increase from the year before—and those numbers will continue to rise as state abortion restrictions force more people to cross state lines for care."
"Those who consider waving the flag of a state to be 'inciting hatred' have either lost their judgment or been blinded by their own ignominy."
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez hit back Thursday after senior Israeli officials condemned FC Barcelona star Lamine Yamal for waving a Palestinian flag during a parade celebrating the soccer team's La Liga championship.
The 18-year-old winger—who has established himself as one of the world's best soccer players—waved the flag from atop an open team bus during Monday's celebration in Barcelona. Yamal also shared a photo of him holding the flag with his 42.5 million Instagram followers. The post had nearly 7 million "likes" as of Thursday afternoon.
The display of solidarity with Palestine—whose people have endured 31 months of genocide in Gaza and generations of illegal occupation, settler colonization, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank—drew predictably baseless claims of "antisemitism" and "supporting terrorism" from numerous Israelis, including Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who in 2007 was convicted of supporting a Jewish terror group.
"He is raising the flag of a nonexistent entity," Ben-Gvir said of Yamal in a Facebook post. Numerous Israeli officials including Ben-Gvir deny the existence of the Palestinian people and nation.
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said on X Thursday that Yamal "chose to incite against Israel and foment hatred while our soldiers are fighting the terrorist organization Hamas, an organization that massacred, raped, burned, and murdered Jewish children, women, and elderly" during the October 7, 2023 attack.
"Whoever supports this type of message should ask themselves: Does he consider this humanitarian? Is this moral?" added Katz, who oversees military forces that have killed or wounded more than 250,000 Palestinians in Gaza in a war that United Nations experts and many others, including prominent Israeli Holocaust scholars, have called a genocide.
Responding to the criticism, Sánchez wrote on X: "Those who consider waving the flag of a state to be 'inciting hatred' have either lost their judgment or been blinded by their own ignominy. Lamine has only expressed the solidarity with Palestine felt by millions of Spaniards. Another reason to be proud of him."
The Spanish government's support for Palestine includes intervention in the International Court of Justice genocide case against Israel, backing the International Criminal Court's effort to bring Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to justice for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza, promotion of United Nations Gaza ceasefire resolutions, an arms embargo against Israel, and formal recognition of Palestinian statehood.
Katz also said on X that he expects "a great and respected club like FC Barcelona to distance itself" from Yamal's display of solidarity "and make it unequivocally clear that there is no place for incitement or for support of terrorism."
FC Barcelona coach Hansi Flick said Tuesday that if Yamal wants to show support for Palestine, "it is his decision. He is old enough. He's 18 years old."
Yamal's display came just weeks before the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) Men's World Cup kicks off in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Yamal is a member of the Spanish national team. Some observers have voiced concerns about possible backlash from the Trump administration, which has revoked and denied visas for people who publicly support Palestine.