

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.

Alex Doukas, Oil Change International, alex@priceofoil.org
Ian Rivera, Philippine Movement for Climate Justice, nationalcoordinatorpmcj@gmail.com
Mohamed Adow, Christian Aid, MAdow@christian-aid.org
Glen Tyler, 350.org, glen@350.org
As world leaders and global financial institutions gather for the One Planet Summit on December 12 in Paris, civil society groups have come together under the Big Shift Global campaign to underscore the massive finance gap remaining to shift away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy, in line with the aim of the Paris Agreement on climate change to limit warming to below 1.5degC.
As world leaders and global financial institutions gather for the One Planet Summit on December 12 in Paris, civil society groups have come together under the Big Shift Global campaign to underscore the massive finance gap remaining to shift away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy, in line with the aim of the Paris Agreement on climate change to limit warming to below 1.5degC.
Today, the Big Shift Global campaign released a briefing titled "Dirty Dozen: How Public Finance Drives the Climate Crisis through Oil, Gas, and Coal Expansion", highlighting fossil fuel projects by the World Bank Group, other multilateral and national development banks, and export credit agencies. These projects are examples that demonstrate how public finance is still acting as a critical lifeline for destructive fossil fuel projects, many of which could not otherwise be built, and how this support continues to this day, a full year after the Paris Agreement entered into force.
On average, public finance institutions controlled by G20 governments, along with multilateral development banks such as the World Bank Group, provide $71.8 billion per year in public finance for fossil fuels, and only $18.7 billion in public finance for clean energy (figure taken from from the report Talk is Cheap: How G20 Governments are Financing Climate Disaster, July 2017, available at https://priceofoil.org/2017/07/05/g20-financing-climate-disaster/).
Accompanying the briefing, more than 175 civil society groups from over 55 countries have signed a letter urging multilateral development banks, such as the World Bank Group, and export credit agencies and the governments backing them to stop funding fossil fuels by 2020, with an urgent and immediate need to move away from financing for oil and gas exploration projects, coal mining, and coal-fired power plants.
The Dirty Dozen briefing presents a wide spectrum of dirty projects, ranging from the Southern Gas Corridor (SGC) project running from Azerbaijan to Italy (the European Investment Bank will consider a proposed 1.5 billion EUR loan for the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline, the final leg of the SGC, at its 11-12 December board meeting), to the 1,000-MW Cirebon 2 coal plant in Indonesia. The World Bank Group, European Investment Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Asian Development Bank, and Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank together have offered $8.07 billion to the SGC in approved and proposed loans and guarantees out $45bn in estimated project costs, while the Cirebon 2 coal plant is receiving almost $1.15 in finance or guarantees from the Japan Bank for International Cooperation and the Korea Export Import Bank, two of the world's biggest coal financiers.
As the One Planet Summit is about to get underway, members of the Big Shift Global campaign made the following statements:
"It's been over a year since the Paris Agreement on climate change entered into force, and two years since it was agreed - yet our governments still provide billions more in public finance for fossil fuels than for clean energy", said Alex Doukas, Director of the Stop Funding Fossils Program at Oil Change International. "This briefing highlights some of the most egregious fossil fuel projects receiving government financing, including exploration for more oil and gas that can never be burned if we have any hope of limiting the damage from climate change".
"At a time when addressing climate change impacts is becoming more and more challenging, there should no longer be any room for development banks and financial institutions to provide funding to dirty and harmful energy projects, especially in the light of achieving our climate ambitions under the Paris Agreement", said Ian Rivera of the Philippine Movement for Climate Justice (PMCJ). "This is even more damaging to vulnerable countries like the Philippines, where IFC is providing funding to 19 coal projects through its intermediary. Communities are suffering, and environmental degradation has become widespread due to these projects. Continued funding to fossil fuels by development banks and financial institutions is, in a way, issuing a license to kill".
"It is shocking that despite its commitment to the Paris Agreement, the World Bank Group is still using taxpayers money to fund dirty energy projects. The only way the Paris Agreement goals will be met is through a swift transition away from dirty energy and towards renewables. It is imperative that the World Bank Group put its money where its mouth is and stop funding fossil fuels, and instead support countries to take advantage of the energy opportunities of the future", said Mohamed Adow, International Climate Lead at Christian Aid.
"If any financial institutions should not be supporting projects that threaten catastrophic climate change, it is the development banks. Despite this, the projects documented in Dirty Dozen show that banks such as the World Bank, the Development Bank of Southern Africa and others are gambling with our future. The financing of projects such as the Thabametsi coal fired power plant, using some of the worst coal burning technology in terms of GHG emissions and pollution, does not deserve to be considered, and should be dropped immediately. With cheaper, cleaner options available, considering such a project is nothing short of reckless." said Robyn Hugo, Centre for Environmental Rights, South Africa.
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 new data comes as Tesla is removing human safety monitors from its driverless taxi fleet.
Proponents of driverless cars often tout them as a safer alternative to cars with human drivers—but such claims don't appear to be holding up so far in the case of Tesla's Robotaxis.
A Monday report from Elektrek found that Tesla Robotaxis are crashing much more frequently than cars driven by humans, as the company has now reported eight crashes of its driverless taxi fleet in Austin, Texas to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration since July.
Elektrek also crunched some numbers based on data released by Tesla last month and estimated that the Tesla Robotaxis are involved in a crash for every 40,000 miles they drive. For comparison, the publication reported, cars driven by humans crash about once every 500,000 miles, meaning the Robotaxis so far have crashed 12.5 times more frequently than human-driven cars.
All of the Robotaxi crashes so far have occurred with human safety monitors—who have been trained to take control of the car in the event of a software error—present in the vehicles.
This is significant because, as TechCrunch reported on Monday, Tesla is starting to send out its Robotaxi fleet without safety monitors.
TechCrunch noted that "the removal of the human safety monitors brings the company a critical step closer to its goal of launching a real commercial Robotaxi service," but also said it "will most likely ramp up the scrutiny on Tesla’s ongoing testing in Austin, doubly so when the company starts offering rides in the empty cars."
Tesla's bet on Robotaxis has grown more important given that its vehicle sales in the US and around the world have been dropping significantly so far this year, in part due to a boycott campaign inspired by outrage over CEO Elon Musk's support for far-right political parties.
According to a report from Reuters, the most recent data from car software company Cox Automotive shows that US Tesla sales dropped to a four-year low last month. The news agency also pointed out that Tesla now "is offering financing deals as low as 0% on the Standard Model Y," which is "a sign of weak demand."
"AI toys are not safe for kids," said a spokesperson for the children's advocacy group Fairplay. "They disrupt children's relationships, invade family privacy, displace key learning activities, and more."
As scrutiny of the dangers of artificial intelligence technology increases, Mattel is delaying the release of a toy collaboration it had planned with OpenAI for the holiday season, and children’s advocates hope the company will scrap the project for good.
The $6 billion company behind Barbie and Hot Wheels announced a partnership with OpenAI in June, promising, with little detail, to collaborate on "AI-powered products and experiences" to hit US shelves later in the year, an announcement that was met with fear about potential dangers to developing minds.
At the time, Robert Weissman, the president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, warned: “Endowing toys with human-seeming voices that are able to engage in human-like conversations risks inflicting real damage on children. It may undermine social development, interfere with children’s ability to form peer relationships, pull children away from playtime with peers, and possibly inflict long-term harm."
In November, dozens of child development experts and organizations signed an advisory from the group Fairplay warning parents not to buy the plushies, dolls, action figures, and robots that were coming embedded with "the very same AI systems that have produced unsafe, confusing, or harmful experiences for older kids and teens, including urging them to self harm or take their own lives."
In addition to fears about stunted emotional development, they said the toys also posed security risks: "Using audio, video, and even facial or gesture recognition, AI toys record and analyze sensitive family information even when they appear to be off... Companies can then use or sell this data to make the toys more addictive, push paid upgrades, or fuel targeted advertising directed at children."
The warnings have proved prescient in the months after Mattel's partnership was announced. As Victor Tangermann wrote for Futurism:
Toy makers have unleashed a flood of AI toys that have already been caught telling tykes how to find knives, light fires with matches, and giving crash courses in sexual fetishes.
Most recently, tests found that an AI toy from China is regaling children with Chinese Communist Party talking points, telling them that “Taiwan is an inalienable part of China” and defending the honor of the country’s president Xi Jinping.
As these horror stories rolled in, Mattel went silent for months on the future of its collaboration with Sam Altman's AI juggernaut. That is, until Monday, when it told Axios that the still-ill-defined product's rollout had been delayed.
A spokesperson for OpenAI confirmed, "We don't have anything planned for the holiday season," and added that when a product finally comes out, it will be aimed at older teenagers rather than young children.
Rachel Franz, director of Fairplay’s Young Children Thrive Offline program, praised Mattel's decision to delay the release: "Given the threat that AI poses to children’s development, not to mention their safety and privacy, such caution is more than warranted," she said.
But she added that merely putting the rollout of AI toys on pause was not enough.
"We urge Mattel to make this delay permanent. AI toys are not safe for kids. They disrupt children's relationships, invade family privacy, displace key learning activities, and more," Franz said. "Mattel has an opportunity to be a real leader here—not in the race to the bottom to hook kids on AI—but in putting children’s needs first and scrapping its plans for AI toys altogether.”
"With the average home sales price having already risen by 31%—or over $120,000—since 2020, this tariff-induced change could put homeownership further out of reach for millions of Americans," warns a new report.
After campaigning last year on reducing the cost of living and as he attempts to claim progressive Democrats' push for affordability as his own, President Donald Trump's policies have been directly linked to making life more expensive for people across the US—and along with electricity, healthcare, and groceries, housing costs are set to rise, according to a new analysis out Tuesday, which examines the impact of Trump's tariffs.
The Center for American Progress (CAP) found that the impact on home construction materials by Trump's tariffs could force builders to scale back significantly over the next five years, reducing new home construction by 450,000 homes through 2030.
According to the analysis, the average cost of building a home in the coming years will increase by $17,500 if current home building rates continue.
"With the average home sales price having already risen by 31%—or over $120,000—since 2020, this tariff-induced change could put homeownership further out of reach for millions of Americans," said CAP.
Trump's tariffs are as high as 50% for some countries, and some of the highest levies have been imposed on key building materials, including lumber, copper, aluminum, and steel products. Imports of upholstered products and kitchen cabinets are set to face tariffs that could increase by up to 50%.
The tariffs were unveiled amid a growing housing affordability crisis, with the number of available homes falling short by 2 million units or more, according to some estimates.
Following the Great Recession, home construction has not returned to pre-2008 levels and the country requires "sustained, above-average construction rates to correct" the persistent underbuilding, according to CAP.
"Yet the Trump administration’s tariff policies are pushing home building in the opposite direction by raising construction costs, which will slow new construction activity, raise costs, and worsen housing affordability," reads the report by Cory Husak, Natalie Baker, and Mimla Wardak.
The analysis found that while Trump has insisted that the tariffs will target the countries that import goods to the US, but as with groceries—which have gone up in price by up to 40% at some stores—the levies on home building materials are projected to ultimately impact American families who are already struggling to afford healthcare and other essentials.
The tariffs are expected to add $27 billion to the annual cost of constructing new homes by 2027, effectively raising the cost of building a new home by about 3.3%.
🚨Hot off the presses 🚨 New tariffs are going to kill 450,000 homes over the next 5 yearsTariffs on lumber, steel, cabinets, vanities, copper add an average $17,500 to the cost of building a new home. Yearly home losses will soon total 100k per year-www.americanprogress.org/article/trum...
[image or embed]
— Corey Husak (@chusak.bsky.social) December 16, 2025 at 1:08 PM
From 2030 onward, the number of new homes being built is expected to be down by 100,000 yearly.
"This would be equivalent to eliminating 6 percent of the homes constructed in the five years from 2020 to 2024," said CAP.
If home building falls as CAP projects, the cost of construction will rise to $18,500 per home in 2028, CAP projected.
“Families are already struggling to afford a place to live, and the administration is adding fuel to the housing costs fire,” said Husak, director of tax policy at CAP. “These tariffs are a tax on builders and aspiring homeowners, raising construction costs, slowing the pace of new building, and pushing homeownership even further out of reach for millions of Americans.”
The group urged the federal government to act to stop the tariffs from continuously "driving up construction costs, slowing homebuilding, and worsening the nation’s already severe housing shortage."
"Building new housing supply is crucial to solving the housing shortage," said CAP, "and canceling tariffs on homebuilding materials is a necessary step to bring more housing online and improve housing affordability."