

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,
David Tong, david.tong@priceofoil.org,
Twelve of the largest central banks around the globe continue to support climate chaos-causing fossil fuels through policy and direct finance, a new report released today finds. Ahead of an annual convening of central bankers in Jackson Hole, Wyoming later this week, the analysis strikes a critical contrast to promises in recent months by the same central banks to align their operations with climate goals.
Using a ten-point rubric to gauge central banks' responses to the climate crisis, the new analysis finds that not one of the twelve major central banks analyzed comes close to alignment with the Paris Agreement on any of the criteria. The analysis reviews policies and financing of central banks from Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The criteria focus on three aspects of central banks' functions:
"Central banks have access to powerful tools to confront the climate crisis, but they aren't using them. Instead of using their power to cut off finance for fossil fuels, they are making themselves busy tinkering around the edges of the climate crisis," said David Tong, Global Industry Campaign Manager at Oil Change International and an author of the report. "The climate crisis is too dire and too urgent for such critical institutions to be dawdling when they could be leading the finance sector in a new, climate-safe direction."
While some central banks have taken steps to increase transparency and reporting of climate-related risks, the limited measures taken are overshadowed by inaction on financial flows to fossil fuels. Between 2016 and 2020, central banks have failed to prevent financial flows to fossil fuels on the order of USD 3.8 trillion from commercial banks. Financial flows to exploration and development projects, which will allow fossil fuel production to grow in future - as well as to other aspects of fossil fuel producers' businesses - have continued to increase.
The report finds that, in their role as supervisors of commercial banks, central banks have largely failed to use the levers at their disposal to stem the flow of fossil fuel finance. Central banks have ignored proposals to use reserves requirements or prudential regulation to this end and have resisted calls to adjust their mandates in light of the climate crisis.
"Central banks' roles have evolved over time. They reinterpreted their roles to confront the 2008-2009 financial crisis, and again in response to the COVID-19 crisis. Now, they must do the same to confront the climate crisis - not just as a threat to financial stability, but as a threat to humanity," Tong of Oil Change International said. "If these central banks won't act, the governments they report to must step in. They need to make it clear that central banks can be leaders in ending dangerous fossil fuel finance, rather than laggards propping up an industry driving our climate chaos."
The report provides a series of recommendations to better align central banks' activities with climate goals:
The report, entitled "Unused Tools: How Central Banks Are Fueling the Climate Crisis" was published by Oil Change International in partnership with 350.org, Alliance Climatique Suisse, BankTrack, Campax, CIEL, Democracy Collaborative, E3G, Earthworks, Environmental Defense, Fossil Free Schweiz, Friends of the Earth United States, Indigenous Environmental Network, Laudato Si Movement, Public Citizen, Positive Money, Rainforest Action Network, Reclaim Finance, Recourse, Shift, Stand.earth, The Sunrise Project, Urgewald, and WECAN.
In response to the report, Danisha Kazi, Senior Economist at UK organization Positive Money, which has endorsed the report, said:
"There is a growing consensus amongst civil society that the world's major central banks are failing to play their part in tackling the climate crisis. By propelling finance towards environmental destruction, they are placing both financial and planetary stability at risk.
"With its new remit to support net-zero and environmental sustainability, the Bank of England is in a particularly good position to lead the way, but it has yet to turn its words into actions and actively transition the financial system to a more sustainable footing.
"While central banks continue to shy away from their duty to the public, the most vulnerable, particularly communities in the Global South, will continue to bear the ever-intensifying brunt of their inaction."
In response to the report, Paul Schreiber of Reclaim Finance said:
"Despite recognizing that climate change is fully relevant to their mandate and being bound by the Paris Agreement, central banks continue to help fossil fuel companies to benefit from cheap and ample funding. While the ECB and Bank of England are contemplating how to align part of their activities with the Paris Agreement, this report underlines that they will fail unless they adopt strong fossil fuel policies, starting with a clear cut of their support to companies that develop new fossil fuel projects. Failure to do so would come down to greenwashing."
With a focus on the U.S. Federal Reserve, Tracey Lewis of 350.org said:
"This report is yet another reminder that central banks are the referees of our economy. When banks do bad -- like financing fossil fuel companies hell-bent on planetary destruction -- the ref is supposed to blow the whistle. Ahead of COP26 in November, the Federal Reserve must use their legal authority to manage climate risk and steer us off fossil fuels fast."
With regard to Germany, Regine Richter, finance expert at Urgewald, commented:
"The Deutsche Bundesbank and especially the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority play an important role in setting rules for private banks and their financing. They must use this to stop financial flows into fossil fuel companies - and do it quickly. Bundesbank President Weidmann's constant emphasis on 'market neutrality' is yesterday's news and irresponsible in the face of the climate crisis."
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 administration is "now acknowledging what economists and business leaders have told us from the beginning: that tariffs are driving up prices," said one journalist.
Although President Donald Trump didn't actually confess that his global trade war is driving up the cost of groceries for Americans, he did finally drop his dubiously named "reciprocal" tariffs on key imports on Friday.
According to a White House fact sheet, Trump's new executive order ends his tariffs on beef; cocoa and spices; coffee and tea; bananas, oranges, and tomatoes; other tropical fruits and fruit juices; and fertilizers.
The New York Times had reported Thursday that "the Trump administration is preparing broad exemptions to certain tariffs in an effort to ease elevated food prices that have provoked anxiety for American consumers."
The reporting drew critiques of the administration's economic policies, including from members of Congress such as Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who said that "Trump just admitted it: Americans are footing the bill for his disastrous tariffs."
"While this move may alleviate some of the cost increases Trump caused, it will not stop the larger problems of rising inflation, business uncertainty, and economic damage done by Trump's crazy tariff scheme."
Also responding to the Times reporting, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote on social media Friday: "After months of increasing grocery prices, Donald Trump is finally admitting he was wrong. Americans are literally paying the price for Trump's mistakes."
More lawmakers and other critics piled on after Trump issued the order. CNN's Jim Sciutto said: "Trump administration now acknowledging what economists and business leaders have told us from the beginning: that tariffs are driving up prices."
MeidasTouch and its editor in chief, Ron Filipkowski, also called out the president on social media, with the outlet sarcastically noting, "But Trump said his tariffs don't raise prices."
OR, Trump Admits His Tariffs Caused Grocery Prices to Rise.
[image or embed]
— Ron Filipkowski (@ronfilipkowski.bsky.social) November 14, 2025 at 5:52 PM
Congressman Don Beyer (D-Va), who serves on the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, said in a Friday statement that "President Trump is finally admitting what we always knew: His tariffs are raising prices for the American people."
"After getting drubbed in recent elections because of voters' fury that Trump has broken his promises to fix inflation, the White House is trying to cast this tariff retreat as a 'pivot to affordability,'" Beyer said, referencing Democrats who won key races last week, from more moderate Mikie Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger, the incoming governors of New Jersey and Virginia, to democratic socialist Mayors-elect Zohran Mamdani of New York City and Katie Wilson of Seattle.
In addition to those electoral victories for Democrats, last week featured a debate over Trump's trade war at the US Supreme Court. According to Beyer: "The simple truth is that Republicans want credit for something they think the Supreme Court will force them to do anyway, after oral arguments before the court on Trump's illegal abuses of trade authorities went badly for the administration. Trump is still keeping the vast majority of his tariffs in place, and his administration is also planning new tariffs in anticipation of a Supreme Court loss."
"The same logic—that Trump's tariffs are driving up prices on coffee, fruit, and other comestibles—is equally true for the thousands of other goods on which his tariffs remain," he continued. "While this move may alleviate some of the cost increases Trump caused, it will not stop the larger problems of rising inflation, business uncertainty, and economic damage done by Trump's crazy tariff scheme."
"Only Congress can do that, by reclaiming its legal responsibility under the Constitution to regulate trade, and permanently ending Trump's trade war chaos," he stressed. "All but a handful of Republicans in Congress are still refusing to stand up to Trump, stop his tariffs, and lower costs for the American people, and unless they find a backbone, our economy will continue to suffer."
Huh. Trump dropped the tariffs on coffee, beef, and tropical fruit to LOWER PRICES. I thought other countries paid for those?
— Angry (@angrystaffer.bsky.social) November 14, 2025 at 5:50 PM
As the Associated Press noted Friday, "The president signed the executive order after announcing that the U.S. had reached framework agreements with Ecuador, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Argentina designed to ease import levies on agricultural products produced in those countries."
Trump's order also came just a day after Democrats on the congressional Joint Economic Committee released a report showing that US families are paying roughly $700 more each month for basic items since Trump returned to office in January—with households in some states, such as Alaska and California, facing an average of over $1,000 monthly.
The president has floated sending Americans a $2,000 check, purportedly funded by revenue collected from his tariffs, but as Common Dreams reported Wednesday, economist Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research crunched the numbers and found that the proposed "dividend" doesn't add up.
"After over two years of slaughter, forced starvation, and mass atrocities in Gaza, the global consensus is clear: The Israeli government has committed genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza."
Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib and 20 Democratic colleagues on Friday introduced legislation that would officially recognize Israel's 25-month war on Gaza as a genocide, a move that came as Israeli forces continued killing Palestinians in the coastal strip and violating a tenuous ceasefire with Hamas.
Tlaib (D-Mich.)—the only Palestinian American in Congress—introduced H.Res. 876, which, if passed, would "officially recognize that the state of Israel has committed the crime of genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza" and affirm that it is official US policy to "prevent and punish the crime of genocide, wherever it occurs."
“The Israeli government’s genocide in Gaza has not ended, and it will not end until we act," Tlaib said in a statement Friday. "Since the so-called ‘ceasefire’ was announced, Israeli forces haven’t stopped killing Palestinians."
According to Gaza's Government Media Office (GMO), Israel has violated the ceasefire agreement 282 times as of November 10, 2025—exactly one month after the US-brokered truce took effect. Alleged violations include airstrikes resulting in massacres, shootings of civilians, property demolitions, and raids beyond the ceasefire's "yellow line" buffer zones.
GMO says Israeli forces have killed least 242 Palestinians and injured more than 620 others during the truce.
This, in addition to the at least 249,000 Palestinians who have been killed or wounded by Israeli forces since October 2023, including upward of 10,000 people who are missing and presumed dead and buried beneath the ruins of Gaza, which could take decades to clear. Around 2 million Palestinians have been starved, sickened, and forcibly displaced. Many others have been arbitrarily imprisoned, tortured, and allegedly subjected to rape and other sexual abuse.
"After over two years of slaughter, forced starvation, and mass atrocities in Gaza, the global consensus is clear: The Israeli government has committed genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza," Tlaib noted.
She continued:
Palestinians in Gaza have attested to this genocide for over two years and it has been concluded by the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and highly respected international, Palestinian, and Israeli human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Doctors Without Borders, Al-Haq, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, B’Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights Israel, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, Forensic Architecture, and the University Network for Human Rights.
The resolution calls for the United States to "respect its obligations under the Genocide Convention by employing all means reasonably available to it to prevent and punish the crime of genocide."
These include:
“Impunity only enables more atrocity," Tlaib warned. "As our government continues to send a blank check for war crimes and ethnic cleansing, Palestinian children’s smiles are extinguished by bombs and bullets that say made in the USA."
"To end this horror, we must reject genocide denial and follow our binding legal obligations under the Genocide Convention to take immediate action to pursue justice and accountability to prevent and punish the crime of genocide," she added. "We must hold individual perpetrators and complicit corporations to account. We must stop sending weapons to a genocidal military. We must follow international law and use all means available to us, including sanctions, to bring this genocide to an end.”
Despite existing laws prohibiting US assistance to foreign security forces that commit gross human rights violations, the United States—which grew into a world power in part via genocide of Indigenous Americans—has provided arms and diplomatic cover to the perpetrators of genocides in Paraguay, Guatemala, Bangladesh, East Timor, Kurdistan, and Gaza over the past half-century, while turning a blind eye to other genocides.
Under the Biden and Trump administrations, the US has provided Israel with more than $20 billion in armed aid while thwarting efforts to end the genocide by vetoing numerous United Nations Security Council ceasefire resolutions.
The Trump administration has also slapped sanctions on ICC judges after the tribunal issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, including murder and forced starvation.
Trump has also targeted individuals and nations who seek justice for Palestinians, acknowledge the Gaza genocide, or recognize Palestinian statehood.
Tlaib's resolution is co-sponsored by Democratic Reps. Becca Balint (Vt.), André Carson (Ind.), Greg Casar (Texas), Maxine Dexter (Ore.), Maxwell Alejandro Frost (Fla.), Jesús "Chuy" García (Ill.), Al Green (Texas), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), “Hank” Johnson Jr. (Ga.), Ro Khanna (Calif.), Summer Lee (Pa.), Jim McGovern (Mass.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Mark Pocan (Wis.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Delia Ramirez (Ill.), Lateefah Simon (Calif.), Nydia Velázquez (NY), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ).
The resolution—which is unlikely to get through the Republican-controlled Congress—is also endorsed by more than 100 organizations.
“This resolution is an important step towards recognizing Israel’s actions against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip for what they are—genocide," Amnesty International Middle East and North Africa advocacy director Elizabeth Rghebi said in support of the measure.
"The US ratified the Genocide Convention which imposes a duty on states to prevent and punish the crime," Rghebi added. "Amnesty International calls on all members of Congress to urgently support this resolution and ensure the US begins taking the actions necessary to prevent and punish Israel’s genocide in Gaza."
Beth Miller, political director at Jewish Voice for Peace Action, said that “for over two years, the US has been a full partner in the Israeli government’s genocide against Palestinians. Presidents and members of Congress have denied and erased Israel’s ongoing atrocities in Gaza, shielded Israel from accountability in the international arena, and attempted to dehumanize Palestinians."
"Congresswoman Tlaib and the original co-sponsors joining her on this historic resolution are making clear that this complicity must come to an end," Miller added. "These representatives are heeding the call of the overwhelming majority of Americans who want to see an end to his genocide and a halt to US support for war crimes."
A letter implored the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to "stand up to the executive order’s marching orders to 'promote' nuclear power."
A series of nuclear power-related executive orders issued by President Donald Trump seek to legitimize people's "suffering as the price of nuclear expansion," said one expert at Beyond Nuclear on Friday, as the nongovernmental organization spearheaded a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and top Trump administration officials warning of the public health risks of the orders.
More than 40 civil society groups—including Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), Sierra Club, Nuclear Watch South, and the Appalachian Peace Education Center—signed the letter to the commission, calling on officials not to revise the NRC's Standards for Protection Against Radiation, as they were directed to earlier this year by Trump.
"NRC has not made a revision yet, and has been hearing that the Part 20 exposure (external only) should be taken from the existing 100 mr [milliroentgen] a year, per license, to 500 mr a year, and in view of some, even to 10 Rems [Roentgen Equivalent Man], which would be 100 times the current level," reads the letter.
In 2021, noted PSR, the NRC "roundly rejected" a petition "to raise allowable radiation exposures for all Americans, including children and pregnant women, to 10 Rems a year."
The revision to radiation limit standards would result in anywhere from 5-100 times less protection for Americans, said the groups, with 4 out of 5 adult males exposed over a 70-year lifetime developing cancer that they otherwise would not have.
"Radiation is dangerous for everyone,” said Amanda M. Nichols, lead author of the 2024 study Gender and Ionizing Radiation. “[Trump’s] executive order will allow the industry to relax the current standards for radiological protection, which are already far from adequate. This will have detrimental health consequences for humans and for our shared environments and puts us all at higher risk for negative health consequences. ”
The change in standards would be even more consequential for women, including pregnant women, and children—all of whom are disproportionately susceptible to health impacts of ionizing radiation, compared to adult males.
"Radiation causes infertility, loss of pregnancy, birth complications and defects, as well as solid tumor cancer, leukemia, non-cancer outcomes including cardiovascular disease, increased incidence of autoimmune disease, and ongoing new findings.”
In Gender and Ionizing Radiation, Nichols and biologist Mary Olson examined atomic bomb survivor data and found that young girls "face twice the risk as boys of the same age, and have four to five times the risk of developing cancer later in life than a woman exposed in adulthood."
Despite the risks to some of the country's most vulnerable people, Trump has also called for a revision of "the basis of the NRC regulation," reads Friday's letter: the Linear No Threshold (LNT) model, the principle that there is no safe level of radiation and that cancer risk to proportional to dose.
The LNT model is supported by decades of peer-reviewed research, the letter states, but one of Trump's executive orders calls for "an additional weakening of protection by setting a threshold, or level, below which radiation exposure would not 'count' or be considered as to have not occurred."
The Standards for Protection Against Radiation are "based on the well-documented findings that even exposures so small that they cannot be measured may, sometimes, result in fatal cancer," reads the letter. "The only way to reduce risk to zero requires zero radiation exposure."
Trump's orders "would undermine public trust by falsely claiming that the NRC’s radiation risk models lack scientific basis, despite decades of peer-reviewed evidence and international consensus supporting the LNT model," it adds.
The signatories noted that the US government could and should strengthen radiation regulations by ending its reliance on "Reference Man"—a model that the NRC uses to create its risk assessments, which is based on a young adult male and fails to reflect the greater impact on infants, young children, and women.
“Newer research has shown that external radiation harms children more than adults and female bodies more than male bodies," reads the letter. "Existing standards should therefore be strengthened to account for these life-stage and gender disparities… not weakened. Radiation causes infertility, loss of pregnancy, birth complications and defects, as well as solid tumor cancer, leukemia, non-cancer outcomes including cardiovascular disease, increased incidence of autoimmune disease, and ongoing new findings.”
Olson, who is the CEO of the Generational Radiation Impact Project, which also helped organize the letter, warned that "radiation causes cancer in women at twice the rate of adult men, while the same exposure in early childhood, will, across their lifetimes, produce seven times more cancer in young females, and four times more in young males.”
The groups emphasized that "executive orders do not have the power to require federal agencies to take actions that violate their governing statutes, nor to grant them powers and authorities that contradict those governing statutes. The NRC needs to stand up to the executive order’s marching orders to 'promote' nuclear power—a mission outside its legal regulatory mandate under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and the concurrent amendments to the Atomic Energy Act."
Federal agencies including the NRC, they added, "should not favor industry propaganda asserting that some radiation is safe over science-based protection of the public. This is a deliberate subversion of science and public health in favor of corporate interests."