

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.

David Turnbull, david@priceofoil.org, Alex Doukas, alex@priceofoil.org, Patrick Davis, pdavis@foe.org, Cindy Carr, cindy.carr@sierraclub.org
Each year, G20 countries provide nearly four times more public finance to fossil fuels than to clean energy, according to a new report released today by Oil Change International, Friends of the Earth U.S., the Sierra Club and WWF European Policy Office. In total, public fossil fuel financing from G20 countries averaged some $71.8 billion per year, for a total of $215.3 billion in sweetheart deals for oil, gas, and coal over the 2013-2015 timeframe covered by the report. Fifty percent of all G20 public finance for energy supported oil and gas production alone.
The report, for the first time ever, details public support for energy projects from G20 public finance institutions (such as overseas development aid agencies and export credit agencies) and multilateral development banks. It finds that just 15 percent of this energy finance supports clean energy, while tens of billions of dollars are funneled to oil, gas, and coal producers annually. The best available science indicates that at least 85% of fossil fuel reserves must remain in the ground to meet the aims of the Paris Agreement on climate change. Yet of the $71.8 billion in fossil fuel finance, $13.5 billion goes to activities that supercharge the exploration phase for even more unburnable reserves of oil, gas, and coal.These findings directly contradict the goals espoused in the Paris climate agreement -- touted by these same governments -- which specifically calls on countries to align financial flows with low-emission development.
The report, entitled "Talk is Cheap: How G20 Governments are Financing Climate Disaster," can be found at https://priceofoil.org/2017/07/05/g20-financing-climate-disaster. In addition to the authoring organizations, it has also been endorsed by CAN-Europe, Urgewald (Germany), FOE-France, Re:Common (Italy), Legambiente (Italy), Environmental Defence (Canada), FOE-Japan, Kiko Network (Japan), JACSES (Japan), and KFEM (Korea).
"Our research shows that the G20 still hasn't put its money where its mouth is when it comes to the clean energy transition. If other G20 governments are serious about standing up to Trump's climate denial and meeting their commitments under the Paris Agreement, they need to stop propping up the outdated fossil fuel industry with public money," said Alex Doukas, Senior Campaigner at Oil Change International and one of the report's authors. "The best climate science points to an urgent need to transition to clean energy, but public finance from G20 governments drags us in the opposite direction. We must stop funding fossils and shift these subsidies."
Utilizing data from Oil Change International's Shift the Subsidies database, the groundbreaking report analyzes support coming from public finance institutions -- those institutions controlled by or backed by governments, such as export credit agencies and development finance institutions. It looks specifically at provision of grants, equity, loans, guarantees and insurance by majority government-owned institutions for domestic and international fossil fuel exploration and production. It presents a detailed picture of public finance for all energy -- clean, fossil fuel, or otherwise.
"G20 leaders may like to talk about climate, but it's clear their talk is cheap," said Kate DeAngelis, international policy analyst at Friends of the Earth U.S. "While praising each other for investing in renewable energy at home, they bankroll billions of dollars for dirty fossil fuel projects in developing countries. G20 leaders' handouts to fossil fuel companies destroys the health of people and the planet. G20 countries must commit to transitioning from brown to green, once and for all."
The report shows that public financing for fossil fuels has a three-pronged effect on efforts to address climate change. First, it acts as a "negative carbon price" that helps to subsidize and incentivize more fossil fuel production. Second, it helps drive high-carbon lock-in, making the transition to clean energy more difficult and costly. Third, this public finance makes uneconomical dirty energy economical, thereby enabling "zombie energy" projects that would never even begin operating without such support.
"When the G20 countries committed to the Paris Agreement, they made a pact with the world that they would take meaningful steps to reduce their carbon emissions in an effort to avert the worst effects of the climate crisis," said Nicole Ghio, a senior international campaign representative at the Sierra Club. "But as we now know, these countries have been talking out of both sides of their mouths. It's unconscionable that any nation would continue to waste public funds on fossil fuels when clean energy sources like wind and solar are not only readily available but are more cost-effective and healthier for families and communities across the globe. It is past time for G20 nations to stop subsidizing fossil fuels once and for all."
"The Paris Agreement should lead policymakers to refocus public finance on energy savings and sustainable renewable energy, which actually offer effective solutions to our future energy challenges," said Sebastien Godinot with the WWF European Policy Office.
Oil Change International is a research, communications, and advocacy organization focused on exposing the true costs of fossil fuels and facilitating the ongoing transition to clean energy.
(202) 518-9029The State Department said the women were related to the assassinated Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani, but Iranian media said they had no connection to him.
With a majority of Americans including President Donald Trump's own base demanding a swift end to the war in Iran—and Iran's military capabilities proving difficult to overpower—observers suggested on Saturday that the White House was looking elsewhere to score "victories," as Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that federal agents had arrested relatives of the late Major General Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian military commander who the US assassinated in 2020 during President Donald Trump's first term.
Rubio accused Soleimani's niece, Hamideh Soleimani Afshar, of promoting "regime propaganda" and voicing support for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and said she had been living a "lavish lifestyle" in the US. Afshar's husband has been barred from entering the US and the lawful permanent resident status she and her daughter had has been terminated, said the State Department.
"Are we losing so badly we need to arrest the distant relatives of long-since-dead Iranian commanders?" asked Ryan Grim of Drop Site News.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American Immigration Council noted that the administration had used the same legal authority to arrest Soleimani's reported family members as it did to detain former Columbia University student organizer Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts University scholar Rümeysa Öztürk for speaking out against US support for Israel—a tactic which is being challenged in court as unconstitutional.
Far-right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer, who has wielded influence in the White House during the second Trump administration, claimed credit for the arrest of the two women, saying that in communications with the State Department, she had "exposed the fact that Qasem Soleimani’s Niece Hamideh Soleimani Afshar has been living in the United States (Los Angeles, California) where she posts pro-Iranian regime and pro-IRGC content on her social media while she lives a life of luxury."
"She has been arrested and will be deported back to Iran!" she added. "Over the last few months, I have quietly been documenting all of Hamideh Soleimani Afshar’s social media activity. I uploaded it all to a secure file and shared it with [the Department of Homeland Security] and Department of State, and now she has been arrested and she will be deported from our country."
In Iran on Saturday, media outlets were reporting that the two women arrested by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement were not related to Soleimani—who had no nieces, according to journalist Kourosh Ziabari.
Soleimani's daughter told the news outlet Jamaran that "none" of her extended family has ever lived in the US.
Regardless of the women's relation to Soleimani or lack thereof, journalist Ryan Grim said the arbitrary arrest "actively puts innocent Americans around the world at risk."
Rubio's explanation for the detention and his move to revoke the women's green cards is the latest evidence that "the US is now deporting people for thought crimes," said historian Zachary Foster.
Journalist Sana Saeed said the case shows that constitutional protections for due process and free speech, which are supposed to apply to green card holders, "no longer mean anything."
"People cannot lose their green card status simply because of familial relationships, so the justification shifts here to their alleged support for the Iranian government," said Saeed. "But supporting a foreign government is not a criminal offense. And if you begin to treat it as one—as the US government effectively is in this case—then expect a lot more of this."
"It will not stop here, and it will not remain limited to Iranians," she said. "The logic does not contain itself, it expands."
The president demanded once again that Iran open the Strait of Hormuz and said that "all Hell will reign down" on the country if officials don't "make a deal."
As the US military's frantic search continued Saturday for an airman who was aboard an F-15E fighter jet when it was downed by Iranian forces a day earlier, and analysts and Iranian media alike suggested the Trump administration has lost control of its war against Iran, President Donald Trump issued his latest threat against the country—once again appearing to threaten tens of millions of Iranians with war crimes.
Renewing his demand that Iran "MAKE A DEAL or OPEN UP THE HORMUZ STRAIT," the president said he was giving the Iranian government "48 hours before all Hell will reign down on them," appearing to confuse the word "reign" with "rain."
"Time is running out," said Trump in a post on his social media platform, Truth Social.
In his post, Trump did not directly address the ongoing search for the airman, who was one of two who ejected from the fighter jet when Iran reportedly used new air defense systems to shoot down the plane. One crew member was found and rescued on Friday.
Iranian officials were also looking for the missing airman on Saturday, raising concerns that the service member could be taken as a hostage and used as leverage.
The president has said little about the ongoing search, but spoke briefly to The Independent in a phone call Saturday about the possibility that Iran could find the service member first.
"We hope that’s not going to happen,” he said.
Trump's comments on social media, meanwhile, appeared to signal "a countdown to massive war crimes," said New York University law professor Ryan Goodman.
The president has also previously warned Iran with an ultimatum, only to delay the threatened action. He said on March 22 that the US would "hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!" if officials did not reopen the strait—prompting critics to condemn him as a "maniacal tyrant."
The March 22 threat was likely a reference to Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, the vicinity of which was struck by a projectile on Saturday, prompting condemnation from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Human rights experts have repeated warnings in recent weeks that striking power plants would constitute war crimes.
At least five people were killed and 170 were injured in airstrikes on a petrochemical hub in Iran's Khuzestan province on Saturday morning, in addition to the Bushehr attack.
After his initial threat, Trump later said direct strikes on energy infrastructure would not be launched until April 6, and demanded that Iran open the key waterway before then.
Despite Trump's increasingly belligerent threats of "hell" and destruction of civilian infrastructure, a number of media critics noted on Saturday that mainstream Western news outlets including The New York Times, The Economist, and Bloomberg described Iran's use of air defense systems to shoot down US war planes involved in the invasion as an "escalation from Iran's leadership."
"Does Iran have a right to defend itself? Does Palestine? Does Lebanon?" asked commentator Hasan Piker, noting that the US and Israel have claimed they launched the invasion of Iran to "defend" themselves against an imminent attack, contrary to US intelligence analysis. "Or is it just Israel and America who get to claim self-defense as they engage in wars of conquest?"
The International Atomic Energy Agency warned of "the paramount importance of adhering to the seven pillars for ensuring nuclear safety and security during a conflict."
The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Saturday demanded "maximum military restraint" from the US and Israel as it confirmed reports that strikes had targeted a location close to Iran's Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, killing at least one person.
In a statement released via social media, the IAEA relayed a message from Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi, who expressed "deep concern about the reported incident."
Grossi warned that nuclear power plants or nearby areas "must never be attacked, noting that auxiliary site buildings may contain vital safety equipment" and stressed "the paramount importance of adhering to the seven pillars for ensuring nuclear safety and security during a conflict."
The IAEA said the attack near the Bushehr plant, Iran's only operational nuclear power facility, was the fourth such attack since Israel and the US began its invasion of Iran on February 28. The plant lies in a city inhabited by about 250,000 people.
A security staff member was killed by a projectile fragment and a building on the Bushehr site was impacted by shockwaves and fragments. Grossi said that no increase in radiation levels was reported.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also condemned the Bushehr strike and issued a reminder of the "Western outrage about hostilities near Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine" when Russia attacked the site.
"Israel-US have bombed our Bushehr plant four times now. Radioactive fallout will end life in [Gulf Cooperation Council] capitals, not Tehran. Attacks on our petrochemicals also convey real objectives," said Araghchi.
Al Jazeera reported that at least two petrochemical facilities had been hit by the US and Israel in southern Iran’s Khuzestan province, an energy hub in the country. At least five people were injured in those attacks,
Iranian news agency Mehr reported that the state-run Bandar Imam petrochemical complex, which produces liquefied petroleum gas and chemicals as well as other products, sustained damage.
President Donald Trump said late last month that he would delay any attacks on Iran's energy infrastructure until April 6 and said the delay was "subject to the success of the ongoing meetings and discussions.”
He has threatened to destroy Iran's power plants and other civilian infrastructure if Iranian leaders don't end the blockade on the oil export waterway the Strait of Hormuz, which they began in retaliation for the US-Israeli strikes that started more than a month ago and which has fueled skyrocketing global energy prices.
The threat amounted to Trump warning that he could soon commit a war crime, said international law experts.