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
For Immediate Release
December, 04 2019, 11:00pm EDT
Contact:
Phoebe Sweet, ClimateNexus, psweet@climatenexus.org, 1-202-256-3041
Cara Pike, Climate Access, cara@climateaccess.org, 1-250-709-1861
Investments in Oil and Gas Production Over the Next Five Years Will Lock-In More than 1.5degC of Global Warming
85 Percent of Global Oil and Gas Expansion Plans are in North America.
WASHINGTON
Over the coming five years, the oil and gas sector intends to invest USD 1.4 trillion developing new oil and gas extraction. This risks locking in enough carbon emissions to push warming beyond 2degC, let alone 1.5degC, according to a new report by the Global Gas and Oil Network supported by Oil Change International; 350.org; Center for Biological Diversity; Center for International Environmental Law; CAN-Rac Canada; Earthworks; Environmental Defence Canada; Fundacion Ambiente y Recursos Naturales: FARN; Global Witness; Greenpeace; Naturvernforbundet; Overseas Development Institute; Platform; Sierra Club; Stand.Earth.
"If your house is on fire you don't add more fuel. Expanding production of oil and gas at this moment in history is like the fire department showing up with gas rather than water to save a planet on fire. No one is saying turn off the taps overnight. We still use oil and gas today, but we must act now to stop the planned expansion by the oil and gas industry that could lock us in to an unsafe climate." -- Tzeporah Berman, International Campaign Director at Stand.Earth.
The report finds that:
- Carbon emissions from oil and gas in existing fields and mines take the world beyond 1.5degC of warming and nearly exhaust a 2degC carbon budget.
- Between 2020 and 2024, the oil and gas industry plans to sink USD 1.4 trillion into new extraction projects. This would lock in 148 gigatonnes of cumulative carbon dioxide emissions, equivalent to 1200 new US coal-fired power plants.
- This new production could result in warming beyond 2degC unless the industry rapidly shuts down considerable levels of existing production.
- 85 percent of the expanded production is slated to come from the United States and Canada over that period. The other countries where the largest expansion is planned are Argentina, China, Norway, Australia, Mexico, UK, Brazil, Nigeria.
- Twenty-five companies are responsible for nearly 50 percent of the production to 2050 resulting from new expansion of oil and gas in the next five years. These include supposedly progressive European oil majors such as Shell, BP, Total, Equinor.
"The oil and gas industry is betting big on fracking the Permian and building the infrastructure to export what it extracts. Unfortunately that expansion is a carbon bomb waiting to explode, with those living nearest at the most immediate risk. That's why communities across the region are uniting to oppose this expansion, and even an oil and gas state like New Mexico is acting to rein in oil & gas methane pollution." -- Nathalie Eddy, Earthworks' CO/NM Field Advocate
The report is the latest in a growing body of work highlighting the critical importance of addressing fossil fuel production in order to limit warming to 1.5degC and meet the full ambition of the Paris Agreement. Most recently, the Production Gap report published by UN Environment Program (UNEP), Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), and other leading research organizations found that national governments plan to extract 120% more oil, gas and coal in 2030 than is aligned with 1.5degC.
"Oil and gas companies have spent the last five decades lying to the public about the threat of climate change. Now they're trying to sell themselves as part of the solution. The public isn't falling for it. We know the only solution in line with the latest science is to stop all new fossil fuel projects and phaseout existing production as soon as possible." -- Jamie Henn, Strategic Communications Director, 350.org and 350 Action
The world can't afford and doesn't need more oil and gas development. In addition to locking in catastrophic climate change -- expansion puts countries, communities, workers and investors currently dependent on oil and gas financially at risk.
"Leadership in the face of a climate emergency means no fossil fuel exploration, new expansion, or financing paired with an ambitious and just transition away from oil and gas production. The cost of inaction is immeasurable not only in dollars, but in lives and livelihoods. Failure is not an option." -- Hannah McKinnon, Director, Energy Transitions and Futures Program, Oil Change International
A growing number of nations are restricting extraction, major economic institutions are moving out of fossil fuels, and demand is projected to decline faster than anticipated due to the cost competitiveness and reliability of renewable energy. Meanwhile, jurisdictions leading on climate action are saving money, reducing health and environmental risks, and creating new economic opportunities. For example, in California, there are five times as many jobs in clean energy than in fossil fuels.
The report points to the urgent need for governments and institutions to follow the new standard of climate leadership being set by the likes of New Zealand and just last month the European Investment Bank. This includes implementing bans on licenses, contracts and permits; removing finance and subsidies; and creating and implementing transition plans that consider the needs of workers and communities impacted by fossil fuel development with high-income countries leading the way.
This echoes the demands of the Lofoten Declaration, signed by over 700 civil society organizations from more than 80 countries affirming that, "it is the urgent responsibility and moral obligation of wealthy fossil fuel producers to lead in putting an end to fossil fuel development and to manage the decline of existing production."
"For six decades, oil and gas companies misled consumers, investors and the world about the risks of climate change. As those risks have turned to grim and growing realities, these companies are pushing a new myth: that the massive expansion of oil and gas production can be reconciled with MEANINGFUL climate action. It cannot. Countries, fossil fuel companies and investors need to take steps now to exit from fossil fuels. It's time to invest in low-carbon solutions rather than subsidizing the fossil fuel industry and further accelerating the climate crisis."-- Carroll Muffett, President and CEO of the Center for Inter- national Environmental Law.
Since 1989, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) has worked to strengthen and use international law and institutions to protect the environment, promote human health, and ensure a just and sustainable society.
LATEST NEWS
Trump Cuts, NATO Withdrawals Weakening Landmine Treaty and Endangering Lives
"The Trump administration's deep cuts to foreign aid are now disrupting mine clearance operations," one campaigner said ahead of International Day of Mine Action.
Apr 01, 2025
International Day for Mine Action on April 4 is typically an occasion to take stock of humanity's progress toward eradicating the scourge of landmines; however, with the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump dramatically slashing foreign aid and several European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organization members withdrawing from the landmark Mine Ban Treaty, campaigners say there's little worth celebrating this Friday.
Mary Wareham, deputy director of Human Rights Watch's Crisis, Conflict, and Arms program, said Tuesday that International Day of Mine Action "is a moment to highlight the work of the thousands of deminers around the world who clear and destroy landmines and explosive remnants of war."
"They risk their lives to help communities recover from armed conflict and its intergenerational impacts," Wareham—a joint recipient of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for her work with the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL)—continued. "But due to devastating developments driven largely by two countries that have not banned antipersonnel landmines, the United States and Russia, this Mine Action Day does not feel like much of a celebration."
"For over three decades, the U.S. has been the world's largest contributor to humanitarian demining, mine risk education, and rehabilitation programs for landmine survivors," Wareham noted. "But the Trump administration's deep cuts to foreign aid are now disrupting mine clearance operations. Thousands of deminers have been fired or put on administrative leave pending the completion of so-called reviews. It's unclear if this crucial support will continue. The price of Trump administration cuts will be evident as casualties increase."
Responding to the Trump cuts, Anne Héry, advocacy director at the Maryland-based group Humanity & Inclusion—a founding ICBL member—said:
Any delay in clearance prolongs the danger of contamination by explosive ordnance for affected populations. Clearance operations save lives, especially children, who are often victims of explosive devices. They also enable communities to use land for agriculture, construction, and other economic activities. This funding cut will further displace vulnerable populations who cannot return home due to contamination. It will also result in limited access to schools, healthcare facilities, and water sources in contaminated areas.
The Trump administration's seeming disdain for Ukrainian—and by extension much of Europe's—security concerns, combined with Russia's ongoing invasion and occupation of much of Ukraine, has some E.U. and NATO members looking for other ways to defend against potential Russian aggression.
Earlier this month, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania said they would withdraw from the 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, also known as the Ottawa Treaty and the Mine Ban Treaty.
In a joint statement, the four countries' defense ministers explained that "military threats to NATO member states bordering Russia and Belarus have significantly increased" and that "with this decision we are sending a clear message [that] our countries are prepared and can use every necessary measure to defend our security needs."
As Wareham also noted: "Russian forces have used antipersonnel landmines extensively in Ukraine since 2022, causing civilian casualties and contaminating agricultural land. Ukraine has also used antipersonnel mines and has received them from the U.S., in violation of the Mine Ban Treaty."
In another blow to the Mine Ban Treaty, Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo announced Tuesday that Finland is preparing to quit the pact, a move he said "will give us the possibility to prepare for the changes in the security environment in a more versatile way."
#Estonia #Latvia #Lithuania #Finland #Poland – DO NOT EXIT the Mine Ban Treaty! Your choices shape the future. "Young people are watching, and we’re counting on you" to uphold the ban on landmines! #MineFreeWorld #ProtectMineBan
[image or embed]
— International Campaign to Ban Landmines (@minefreeworld.bsky.social) April 1, 2025 at 7:04 AM
Wareham said that "the proposed treaty withdrawals raise the question of what other humanitarian disarmament treaties are at risk: chemical weapons? cluster munitions? The military utility of any weapon must be weighed against the expected humanitarian damage."
"To avoid further eroding humanitarian norms, Poland and the Baltic states should reject proposals to leave the Mine Ban Treaty," she added. "They should instead reaffirm their collective commitment to humanitarian norms aimed at safeguarding humanity in war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Harvard and Princeton Are the Latest Ivies to Have Their Funding Targeted By Trump
One critic wrote that an email from Harvard University's president about the Trump administration's funding review capitulated to the "bogus premise that this is about 'protecting' students against antisemitism."
Apr 01, 2025
This week, Harvard University learned that Trump administration is reviewing nearly $9 billion in federal grants awarded to the school and Princeton University has had multiple research grants suspended by multiple federal agencies—making the two institutions the latest in series of elite colleges to have their funding threatened by U.S. President Donald Trump.
In the case of Harvard, the scrutiny from the Trump administration is explicitly tied to Trump's pledge to crackdown on what he sees as rampant antisemitism on college campuses.
In the name of opposing antisemitism, Trump has vowed to target foreign-born students who have engaged in pro-Palestine protests, activities that the president has described as "pro-jihadist." Several students who have taken part in pro-Palestine activism have already been targeted for deportation.
According to a Monday statement from the U.S. Department of Education, multiple federal agencies are launching a comprehensive review of federal contracts and grants at Harvard as part of the ongoing efforts of the Trump administration's Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism.
The task force will review over $255.6 million in contracts between Harvard, its affiliates, and the federal government, as well as $8.7 billion in multiyear grant commitments to the university and its affiliates to ensure "the university is in compliance with federal regulations, including its civil rights responsibilities."
"Harvard's failure to protect students on campus from antisemitic discrimination—all while promoting divisive ideologies over free inquiry—has put its reputation in serious jeopardy. Harvard can right these wrongs and restore itself to a campus dedicated to academic excellence and truth-seeking, where all students feel safe on its campus," said Education Secretary Linda McMahon in a statement on Monday.
In a message that was denounced by multiple observers, Harvard's president Alan Garber wrote in a Monday message to the Harvard community that the school has devoted "considerable effort" to addressing antisemitism on its campus over the past 15 months, including by "enhancing training and education on antisemitism."
"We still have much work to do," wrote Garber. "We will engage with members of the federal government's task force to combat antisemitism to ensure that they have a full account of the work we have done and the actions we will take going forward to combat antisemitism."
"If this funding is stopped, it will halt lifesaving research and imperil important scientific research and innovation," he also wrote.
Researcher Hannah Gais, a graduate of Harvard Divinity School, wrote on Monday that Garber's message "completely caves to the administration and its bogus premise that this is about 'protecting' students against antisemitism."
"What a disgraceful letter from Harvard president Alan Garber, surrendering entirely to Trump and the pernicious nonsense that America's universities, some of the greatest and most Jewish institutions in American life, are rife with antisemitism," wrote historian and editor Sam Haselby on X.
Meanwhile, the president of Princeton told the university community on Tuesday that several research grants to the university have been suspended by the federal government.
"The full rationale for this action is not yet clear, but I want to be clear about the principles that will guide our response," wrote Princeton president Christopher L. Eisgruber on Tuesday, according to The New York Times. "Princeton University will comply with the law. We are committed to fighting antisemitism and all forms of discrimination, and we will cooperate with the government in combating antisemitism."
In February, the Task Force to Combat Antisemitism announced that it would be investigating 10 universities, including Harvard and Columbia University—which recently had $400 million in federal grants revoked by the Trump administration. That list did not include Princeton, though Princeton was one of 60 colleges that received letters last month from the U.S. Department of Education that warned of potential actions against schools if the government found they had not done enough to protect Jewish students.
After the Trump administration stripped Columbia of the $400 million, the administration announced later in March that it was freezing $175 million in federal funds for the University of Pennsylvania, citing the university's policies on transgender athletes.
In March, Columbia announced a number of changes to the school that aligned with the wishes of the Trump administration as part of negotiations over the rescinded $400 million in federal grants—prompting a wave of criticism of the university.
In an opinion piece for Common Dreamspublished on Tuesday, Steve Striffler, the director of the Labor Resource Center at the University of Massachusetts Boston, argued that it is not wholly accurate to say that Columbia's changes were a "capitulation" to the Trump administration.
Instead, "it seems quite likely that Columbia's leaders accepted Trump's demands not so much because they were forced to (capitulate), or because they saw fighting as either futile or potentially disastrous, but because they welcomed the opportunity and political cover that Trump's order provided," he wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'It Can't Be Business as Usual': Cory Booker Praised for Marathon Stand Against Trump-Musk
"More of this energy from every Democrat please," said one progressive commentator as the New Jersey lawmaker continued to hold the floor of the U.S. Senate with a speech that has lasted more than 20 hours—and counting.
Apr 01, 2025
This is a developing news story... Please check back for possible updates.
Answering the voting public's growing call for the Democratic Party to actually stand up to Republicans' sweeping assault on the federal government, led by U.S. President Donald Trump and his billionaire adviser Elon Musk, Sen. Cory Booker took to the Senate floor at 7:00 pm Eastern Time on Monday and was still speaking as of Tuesday afternoon.
Early in his remarks, Booker (D-N.J.) cited the example of late Congressman John Lewis (D-Ga.), a civil rights icon who famously declared in 2020, "Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, and help redeem the soul of America."
Booker, who ran for president in 2020, explained Monday that he asked himself, "If he's my hero, how am I living up to his words?"
"What's happened in the past 71 days in a patent demonstration of a time where John Lewis' call to everyone has, I think, become more urgent and more pressing," Booker said. "So, tonight, I rise tonight with the intention of getting in some good trouble. I rise with the intention of disrupting the normal business of the United States Senate for as long as I am physically able."
"I rise tonight because I believe sincerely that our country is in crisis—and I believe that not in a partisan sense, because so many of the people that have been reaching out to my office in pain, in fear, having their lives upended, so many of them identify themselves as Republicans," the senator continued.
Booker stressed that "bedrock commitments are being broken, unnecessary hardships are being borne by Americans of all backgrounds, and institutions which are special in America, which are precious, which are unique in our country, are being recklessly and I would say even unconstitutionally affected, attacked, and even shattered."
"In just 71 days, the president of the United States has inflicted so much harm on Americans' safety, financial stability, the core foundations of our democracy, and even our aspirations as a people for, from our highest offices, a sense of common decency. These are not normal times in America, and they should not be treated as such," he argued. "I can't allow this body to continue without doing something different, speaking out. The threats to American people and American democracy are grave and urgent, and we all must do more—we all must do more against them."
Booker accused the president of "betraying" America and causing "chaos, instability, and harm" by working to gut a wide range of programs—an effort spearheaded by Trump's Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency—while seeking tax cuts for wealthy people and corporations, which Republicans are trying to push through Congress.
Over several hours, the senator addressed topics such as GOP attacks on healthcare, including efforts to cut Medicaid; attempts to dismantle the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Department of Education; a mass deportation agenda that has swept up immigrants like Kilmar Abrego Garcia; and the administration's "national security policies that are leaving our allies abandoned, our adversaries emboldened, and Americans less safe."
Throughout Booker's many hours standing at the podium—he reportedly had the chair removed to avoid the temptation to sit down—he sporadically yielded for a question from a Democratic colleague while retaining the floor, which gave him opportunities to rest his voice and transition from topic to topic.
As The Associated Pressreported: "Democratic aides watched from the chamber's gallery, and Sen. Chris Murphy accompanied Booker throughout his speech. Murphy was returning the comradeship that Booker had given to him in 2016 when the Connecticut Democrat held the floor for almost 15 hours to argue for gun control legislation."
Other Democrats who asked questions of Booker included Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and Sens. Angela Alsobrooks (Md.), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Chris Coons (Del.), Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Ben Ray Luján (N.M.), Ed Markey (Mass.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Alex Padilla (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Adam Schiff (Calif.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Chris Van Hollen (Md.), Raphael Warnock (Ga.), Mark Warner (Va.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Peter Welch (Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), and Ron Wyden (Ore.). Independent Sen. Angus King (Maine), who caucuses with Democrats, also joined in.
Many of them praised Booker's stunt—as did Trump critics across social media, including Democrats in the lower chamber such as former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (Minn.), who declared that "this is the kind of relentless resistance our democracy demands."
As of press time, Booker had been speaking for over 20 hours. Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said: "Proud of Cory Booker! It would be poetic justice if he beats Strom Thurmond's record of speaking 24 hours and 18 minutes to block the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Yes, the longest filibuster in our nation's history was to block civil rights."
Booker's move came amid calls for Schumer to step down as minority leader after caving to Republicans during the latest government shutdown crisis, and as polling shows that a large majority of registered Democrats and Independent voters who lean Democratic are frustrated with the party for not effectively fighting Trump and supporting working poeple.
Sharing the livestream on social media Tuesday, the American Federation of Teachers said: "Sen. Booker has been standing on the Senate floor since last night, speaking powerfully on behalf of families and our nation. Thank you for your unwavering leadership, Sen. Booker."
Matt Royer of Young Democrats of America asserted that what Booker "is doing is heroic and courageous and exactly what we're looking for from Washington during this time. If you are not following along with this and why he is doing it, you absolutely should."
Podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen similarly pleaded, "More of this energy from every Democrat please."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular