

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.

Katherine Quaid, WECAN International, katherine@wecaninternational.org, 541-325-1058
The World Bank's subsidizing of fossil fuels is fanning the flames of the climate emergency and must stop, a coalition of civil society organizations said in a letter sent to the Bank today. Despite the World Bank Group's (WBG) announcements at the Paris Climate Conference, it is clear that flagrant contradictions to climate pledges still exist.
Instead of helping countries make the transition out of fossil fuels, the WBG, from 2014 to 2018 alone, has assisted the development of fossil fuels in 45 countries, either through project finance or development policy finance and technical assistance, according to a database the climate group Urgewald built based on documents from the World Bank website.
During this time period, the WBG provided over $12 billion in project finance for 88 fossil fuel projects in 38 countries. In addition, the WBG assisted the development of fossil fuels through policy programs in at least 28 countries, including the development of coal in 6 countries.
But the World Bank Group can turn over a new leaf during its Annual Meetings this week. Member states should demand the Bank's managers to announce they are following the recommendations contained in the latter as set out by civil society and informed by the latest science:
Furthermore, the Bank should increase its investments in renewable energy, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, where access to electricity and clean cooking remains low.
The climate crisis is causing untold destruction across the world. The organizations calling on the Bank to correct course include those based, representing, or operating in parts of the world where millions of people have been hit by and are vulnerable to climate disasters.
"Beyond the greenhouse gas emissions of fossil fuel business lays the heavy health, social and cultural burdens that local communities carry on their backs. The World Bank cannot afford to continue to invest in a sector that negatively impacts the lives of these communities either directly or indirectly!" said Augustine Njamnshi, Coordinator of the African Coalition for Sustainable Energy and Access
"We are calling for the World Bank to stop financing fossil fuels--now is the time to show real climate leadership and dedication to ecological sustainability, and human and Indigenous rights, as we face the unprecedented dangers of a world plunging into climate chaos. The World Bank has invested billions of dollars into the fossil fuel industry since the signing of the Paris Climate Agreement. Business as usual cannot continue. Now is the time for investments in renewable, regenerative energy for all." said (Ms.) Osprey Orielle Lake, Executive Director of the Women's Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN)
"Deep water drilling for oil in Guyana's ocean is illegal and it is madness. The climate emergency and biodiversity collapse already threaten life on earth. The World Bank must immediately stop supporting oil related activities in Guyana," said Melinda Janki, international lawyer and attorney-at-law in Guyana.
"Finance without fossils must be the policy of the World Bank Group. The business model based on coal, oil and gas has led the world into the climate crisis. We call on the shareholders to end any support for fossils," demands (Ms.) Ute Koczy, Director IFI Program, urgewald (Germany)
"As a public Bank, the World Bank has a legal mandate to use its funds to end long term poverty, and a moral obligation not to fund climate change which perpetuates poverty for those most affected and left behind. The World Bank should therefore lead on solutions that end poverty, especially for the most vulnerable. The Bank should be focusing on the type of renewable energy that will bring sustainable, affordable energy to people around the world who don't yet have energy access. Investing in energy for the future is the way to lift people out of poverty, not locking countries into dirty fossil fuels of the past." said Amanda Mukwashi, CEO, Christian Aid
"Right now, Catholic bishops from around the world are gathering in Rome to respond to the social and environmental costs of fossil fuel extraction and climate change in the Amazon. But these challenges are also global, affecting communities everywhere. The World Bank must provide moral leadership and divest from fossil fuel projects today." Chloe Noel, Faith Economy Ecology Program Manager for the Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns.
"As one of the major funders of fossil fuel projects, the World Bank must take responsibility for its part in bankrolling the climate crisis. That means a swift and deliberate halt to funding all fossil fuel infrastructure and projects. Not a single new mine, not another pipeline, not one more compressor station or power plant can be built. Instead, the World Bank must heed the call of the millions of people who took part in the global climate strikes and commit to equitably funding projects that will accelerate transition to a liveable future and habitable climate." Tamara Toles O'Laughlin, North America Director for 350.org
Case after case demonstrates World Bank fossil fuel-generating projects fail to consider intersectional gendered and environmental impacts. In the Bank's low-income target countries where women compose the vast majority of farmers - eg women produce about 80 percent of crops in Africa -- fossil-fuel generating projects expose them to handling polluted water and soil in the production, collection, processing and preparation of food stuffs and fish. Then entire populations consume toxic-laden crops and fish. The Bank must stop violating rights to access clean natural resources and livelihoods which fossil-fuel generating projects destroy. Elaine Zuckerman, President, Gender Action
"The World Bank and the IMF have been spectacularly slow to wake up to the reality of climate change. The Bank continues to fund destructive oil and mining projects in the Global South, that not only fuel the climate crisis and escalate inequality, but rob women and indigenous people of their lands and livelihoods. Meanwhile, the IMF prolongs debt and financial crises with its austerity policies, which leave countries unable to invest in the public services needed to achieve the sustainable development goals and less able to recover from climate disasters. Despite its rosy rhetoric on gender, the Bank's policies exploit women's unpaid labour, making their lives harder and leaving too many unable to access decent work." (Ms.) Wangari Kinoti, policy advisor - women's rights, ActionAid International
"World Bank resources are helping states in northeast Brazil to legalize land takeovers by large companies that are also engaged in deforestation, misuse of pesticides, depletion of water sources, and forced evictions. Their agents are evicting communities from their territories, using death threats against indigenous and traditional rural communities that are fighting for their right to exist. Altamiran Ribeiro represents the Pastoral Land Commission of the Catholic Church in the state of Piaui, Brazil
"The Caribbean lives in fear during hurricane season. Those storms, so much stronger and more frequent now, not only kill people and destroy homes and businesses and infrastructure -- they set us back years economically. We end up saddled with new debts on top of old ones, and then there are cuts in social programs in order to pay them off, putting us in a poverty spiral. The World Bank and IMF must support a UN fund that provides funds and debt relief automatically to countries following a climate disaster. (Ms.) Heron Belfon, Project Coordinator, Jubilee Caribbean,
The Bank has been bankrolling the climate crisis. In the face of a climate emergency, there is no longer a place for the World Bank operating as it had for decades resulting in the poverty of millions, environmental plunder, displacement of communities, systematic violations of human rights and climate change. Not only has the Bank been a detriment to countries like the Philippines, it remains a hazard to humanity's survival by continuing to finance climate-change inducing projects like coal plants. We must not allow the Bank to reduce our future to a mere business proposition in favor of fossil fuels. The World Bank should stay out of climate and our future! - Aaron Pedrosa, Secretary-General, Sanlakas-Philippines
The Women's Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) International is a solutions-based organization established to engage women worldwide in policy advocacy, on-the-ground projects, direct action, trainings, and movement building for global climate justice.
"The American people need to know if this merger was approved as a political favor," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
The leadership of President Donald Trump's Justice Department shut down an investigation into Paramount's widely criticized bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery and issued a statement supporting the merger before career antitrust attorneys could finish scrutinizing the proposal, The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.
According to the Journal, which cited unnamed people familiar with the matter, "a team of career lawyers who had spent months scrutinizing the deal were leaning toward recommending a lawsuit challenging it on the grounds that the combination of the two movie studios would be anticompetitive and violate antitrust law." The newspaper reported that the antitrust staffers who investigated the $111 billion merger proposal "didn't participate in writing" the Justice Department statement greenlighting the deal.
“When we said this is what corruption looks like, this is what we meant," the Block the Merger coalition, an alliance of dozens of organizations opposed to the deal, said in a statement late Monday.
DOJ leadership's move to clear the deal was just the latest in a string of merger approvals that have drawn suspicion, given that the Justice Department has been accused of giving corporate lobbyists free rein over antitrust policy. The DOJ's antitrust section is currently headed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, who—according to a fired antitrust official—"perverted justice and acted inconsistent with the rule of law" during a separate merger investigation.
"The American people need to know if this merger was approved as a political favor," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote in response to the Journal's reporting. "This reeks of corruption."
Unreal. Justice Department staff were railroaded again by political interference in the Paramount-Warner Bros merger review.
None of the investigators on the deal had any role in writing the unprecedented clearance statement issued by DOJ last Friday. pic.twitter.com/yYcKUpuos3
— Lee Hepner (@LeeHepner) June 15, 2026
If finalized, Paramount Skydance's proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. would leave CBS, CNN, HBO, and other major media properties under the control of the son of billionaire Trump megadonor Larry Ellison, posing what one coalition called "an existential threat to the free press." David Ellison, the CEO of Paramount Skydance, dined with the president in April at an event "honoring the Trump White House."
The proposed merger is still facing antitrust scrutiny in Europe and from state attorneys general in the US.
The Journal reported that "some staffers" in the DOJ's antitrust division believe the Justice Department's statement backing the merger and getting it over a major regulatory hurdle "was designed to make it harder for state attorneys general to challenge the deal in court." In the statement, the DOJ declared that "the transaction is not likely to result in harm to competition or American consumers."
Rob Bonta, California's attorney general, said in response to the Justice Department's decision that "the merger of Warner Bros and Paramount is not a done deal and remains under investigation by my office."
"While Americans suffer from high prices and the Iran War imposes tens of billions of dollars of new costs on the American public, the oil industry wins big."
As President Donald Trump reached an interim peace deal with the Iranian government and Oxfam International revealed that 41 energy industry tycoons collectively increased their wealth by $23.5 billion since the war was launched in late February, a pair of US senators on Monday released their letters demanding answers from fossil fuel giants about their windfall profits and soaring gasoline prices during the conflict.
Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Committee on Environment and Public Works Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) last Thursday wrote to BP America chair and president Orlando Alvarez, Chevron chair and CEO Mike Wirth, ConocoPhillips chair and CEO Ryan Lance, Continental Resources president and CEO Robert Lawler, ExxonMobil chair and CEO Darren Woods, Occidental Petroleum president and CEO Richard Jackson, and Shell USA president Colette Hirstius.
"We write to question why American families are paying egregiously high prices at the pump while the fossil fuel industry collects massive windfall profits thanks to the Trump administration's war in Iran," Warren and Whitehouse wrote amid peace talks last week, noting that Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route for fossil fuels, led to what that the International Energy Agency (IEA) called "the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market."
"Gasoline prices rapidly increased by as much as 52%," the pair highlighted. "Before the Iran War, oil cost $71.32 per barrel. Since then, it has cost as much as $138.21 and currently sits at $98.29 per barrel. The Iran War has allowed 27 oil and gas companies to rake in over $40 billion in profit since the Iran War began."
Warren and Whitehouse also emphasized that "the opportunity to profit from high oil prices did not occur in a political vacuum. In April 2024, then-candidate Trump solicited a billion dollars from fossil fuel executives at a private dinner at Mar-a-Lago, promising in exchange to roll back environmental regulations, issue desired permits, and expand drilling opportunities."
Also pointing to Trump's invasion of Venezuela, abduction of President Nicolás Maduro, and takeover of the country's nationalized oil industry, the senators said that "the pattern is consistent: While Americans suffer from high prices and the Iran War imposes tens of billions of dollars of new costs on the American public, the oil industry wins big."
The pair requested answers to their questions on profits, pricing, federal policy, and communications with the Trump administration about the Iran War by June 25, They explained that the information "will aid our assessment of the appropriate scope, rate structure, and enforcement mechanisms as we actively consider the Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act," reintroduced by Whitehouse and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) in March, just weeks in to the war.
The information will also assist with investigations into "the extent to which Trump administration military, regulatory, and policy decisions benefited the oil industry and the extent to which any of these were the product of quid pro quo solicitations," as well as "whether oil and gas companies had advance knowledge of or ability to shape the administration's decision to go to war in Iran."
"Congress has a constitutional duty to investigate each of these matters and to legislate as necessary to protect the American people," the pair added. Both chambers are controlled by the GOP and have refused—largely along party lines—to pass war powers resolutions intended to prevent or end Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's illegal assault on Iran.
In response to Trump's new deal with Iran to extend a ceasefire reached in April and reopen the strait, oil prices dropped and the stock market rallied. Specifically, as The Associated Press detailed, "the S&P 500 rose 1.7%," while "the Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 468 points, or 0.9%, to a record, and the Nasdaq composite jumped 3.1%."
Allie Rosenbluth, US program manager at the advocacy group Oil Change International, said Monday that "any agreement that reduces further violence is welcome. But this announcement should not be mistaken as the end to the crisis, given Israel has vowed to remain in occupied areas of southern Lebanon indefinitely, while violence continues in Gaza and the West Bank. As attention turns to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and falling oil prices, we should not lose sight of the devastating human toll this conflict has inflicted across the region, nor the profound economic disruption it continues to cause around the world."
Rosenbluth continued:
The rapid rise and fall of oil prices in response to military escalation and diplomatic announcements is a reminder of how exposed the global economy is to fossil fuel volatility. For millions of people, this crisis has meant loss, displacement, food insecurity, and higher cost of living. For fossil fuel companies, it has meant windfall profits.
Oil Change International estimates that if US oil prices average around $90 per barrel through the end of the year, US oil companies could make an additional $38 billion in windfall revenues from crude oil exports alone as a result of Trump and Netanyahu's war on Iran. While households around the world have been hit by higher fuel, energy, and food costs, oil companies are cashing in billions.
The Strait of Hormuz may be reopening, but this crisis has once again exposed fossil fuels as a source of conflict, chaos, volatility, and disruption. While communities bear the costs, oil companies profit from the instability. Once renewables are installed, sunlight or wind does not become more expensive because of geopolitical conflict. The most durable form of energy security is reducing exposure to fossil fuels altogether, and making a just transition to renewable energy.
As Group of Seven leaders, including Trump, gathered in France on Monday, and Oxfam International released its report about how G7 energy billionaires have pocketed $300 million per day since the start of the Iran War, the organization's executive director, Amitabh Behar, argued that representatives from the other six countries, or G6, "can't plead powerlessness."
"They can cancel debt. They can tax windfall profits and extreme wealth. They can advocate for a new issuance of special drawing rights. They can provide poorer countries with aid," Behar added. "Refusing to act simply because Washington will not join them is not diplomacy, it is cowardice. And it will only accelerate the G6's slide into global irrelevance."
“The American people deserve a foreign policy that serves American interests and American values," said another critic, "not legislation that places the priorities of a foreign government above American sovereignty."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday urged congressional lawmakers to strike a highly controversial provision from next year's military spending authorization bill that is aimed at deepening integration of the US and Israeli armed forces under the guise of reducing aid.
A provision of the proposed $1.15 trillion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2027 originally titled Section 224 but now renumbered Section 219 would establish a formal “United States–Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative” requiring the US defense secretary to designate a Pentagon executive agent responsible for coordinating and expanding US-Israel defense technology collaboration.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza—has called the section his personal plan.
"Only 16% of Americans support arming Israel without restrictions. So what is Congress doing? Burying a provision in the defense bill that would give Israel more military integration than any NATO ally," Sanders (I-Vt.) said on social media. "We must strip Section 224 from the Pentagon budget."
Earlier this month, members of the House Armed Services Committee from both parties rejected an amendment introduced by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to remove the integration provision from the 2027 NDAA. The committee then advanced the broader defense package. The Senate Armed Services Committee subsequently voted to advance the proposed NDAA.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)—an anti-interventionist libertarian who recently lost his reelection primary to a challenger backed by President Donald Trump—said Sunday that he and Khanna have submitted an amendment to strip Section 219 from the proposed NDAA. Massie's measure requires the assent of seven of the House Rules Committee's 13 members to get a vote.
In addition to Section 219, another provision of the proposed NDAA, Section 622, would "expand and enhance intelligence sharing" with Israel, including "information relating to cybersecurity threats, terrorism, sanctions evasion, plans and intentions of state and nonstate actors, adversarial technology proliferation, missile threats, unmanned aerial systems, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, air and space domain awareness, and other aerial threats relevant to the defense of Israel, United States forces and interests in the region, and regional security partners."
Section 622, which was introduced by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), also limits restrictions on intelligence sharing with Israel.
"This proposal is one of several recent moves by those in Washington who carry the Israeli government’s water to keep the United States tied to Israel despite plummeting support for the country among the American public," Paul Pillar wrote last week for Responsible Statecraft.
"The most salient form of US support to Israel has been more than $300 billion in economic and especially military assistance. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has tried to get ahead of the declining public support and avoid embarrassing losses by suggesting it would be fine with him to phase out the military aid," he continued.
"Israel’s strategy and that of its US supporters is now to rely on ties with, and support from, the United States that are not as salient as the military aid with its prominent price tag," Pillar added. "The strategy includes forms of military integration that are less visible than congressionally appropriated grant aid and therefore less publicly accountable. Section [219] of a defense authorization bill currently in the House of Representatives embodies this form of integration."
Sections 219 and 622 come in the wake of the Pentagon's warning of growing espionage threats posed to the United States by Israel, which has a long history of spying on the US. Recent concerns center on Israel's alleged attempts to sabotage efforts to end the Iran War.
Responding to the proposed Sections 219 and 622, Robert McCaw, director of government affairs at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, recently said in a statement that “Congress must act to block these Israel‑first bills that would force a deeper US and Israel military and intelligence merger, a merger that will weaken independent American oversight, compromise US national interests, and pull the country into foreign conflicts without democratic consent."
“The American people did not elect Congress to merge our military infrastructure, intelligence systems, defense technologies, artificial intelligence capabilities, cyber operations, and regional security architecture with a foreign government accused of genocide, apartheid, war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, collective punishment, torture, starvation policies, and the unlawful targeting of civilians," he continued.
"Instead of demanding accountability... Congress is seeking to reward the Israeli government with even deeper access to American military capabilities, technologies, intelligence resources, and strategic infrastructure," McCaw added. "The American people deserve a foreign policy that serves American interests and American values, not legislation that places the priorities of a foreign government above American sovereignty, accountability, and self-government.”