October, 20 2021, 12:28pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Lindsay Meiman
Senior U.S. Communications Specialist
lindsay@350.org
us-comms@350.org
+1 347 460 9082
New York, USA
Governments' Fossil Fuel Production Plans Dangerously Out of Sync With Paris Limits
The 2021 Production Gap Report, by leading research institutes and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), finds that despite increased climate ambitions and net-zero commitments, governments still plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than what would be consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5degC.
WASHINGTON
The 2021 Production Gap Report, by leading research institutes and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), finds that despite increased climate ambitions and net-zero commitments, governments still plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than what would be consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5degC.
The report, first launched in 2019, measures the gap between governments' planned production of coal, oil, and gas and the global production levels consistent with meeting the Paris Agreement temperature limits. Two years later, the 2021 report finds the production gap largely unchanged.
Namrata Chowdhary, Chief of Public Engagement at 350.org
"Ahead of the UN Climate summit in two weeks time, the report is a damning indictment for governments whose fossil fuel production plans set the planet on a dangerous trajectory. World leaders need to put their resources where their rhetoric has been; stopping the extraction of oil and gas and directing attention to how we will finance the transition to climate justice instead. For the first time in 30 years, fossil fuel reductions are on the table at the UN climate negotiations - the only real question is whether political leaders will demonstrate the urgency and wisdom required of them, or whether the outcome will once again contain only empty promises."
Over the next two decades, governments are collectively projecting an increase in global oil and gas production, and only a modest decrease in coal production. Taken together, their plans and projections see global, total fossil fuel production increasing out to at least 2040, creating an ever-widening production gap.
"The devastating impacts of climate change are here for all to see. There is still time to limit long-term warming to 1.5degC, but this window of opportunity is rapidly closing," says Inger Andersen, Executive Director of UNEP. "At COP26 and beyond, the world's governments must step up, taking rapid and immediate steps to close the fossil fuel production gap and ensure a just and equitable transition. This is what climate ambition looks like."
The 2021 Production Gap Report provides country profiles for 15 major producer countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The country profiles show that most of these governments continue to provide significant policy support for fossil fuel production.
"The research is clear: global coal, oil, and gas production must start declining immediately and steeply to be consistent with limiting long-term warming to 1.5degC," says Ploy Achakulwisut, a lead author on the report and SEI scientist. "However, governments continue to plan for and support levels of fossil fuel production that are vastly in excess of what we can safely burn."
The report's main findings include:
- The world's governments plan to produce around 110% more fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5degC, and 45% more than consistent with 2degC. The size of the production gap has remained largely unchanged compared to our prior assessments.
- Governments' production plans and projections would lead to about 240% more coal, 57% more oil, and 71% more gas in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5degC.
- Global gas production is projected to increase the most between 2020 and 2040 based on governments' plans. This continued, long-term global expansion in gas production is inconsistent with the Paris Agreement's temperature limits.
- Countries have directed over USD 300 billion in new funds towards fossil fuel activities since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic -- more than they have towards clean energy.
- In contrast, international public finance for production of fossil fuels from G20 countries and major multilateral development banks (MDBs) has significantly decreased in recent years; one-third of MDBs and G20 development finance institutions (DFIs) by asset size have adopted policies that exclude fossil fuel production activities from future finance.
- Verifiable and comparable information on fossil fuel production and support -- from both governments and companies -- is essential to addressing the production gap.
"Early efforts from development finance institutions to cut international support for fossil fuel production are encouraging, but these changes need to be followed by concrete and ambitious fossil fuel exclusion policies to limit global warming to 1.5degC", says Lucile Dufour, Senior Policy Advisor, International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).
"Fossil-fuel-producing nations must recognize their role and responsibility in closing the production gap and steering us towards a safe climate future," says Mans Nilsson, executive director at SEI. "As countries increasingly commit to net-zero emissions by mid-century, they also need to recognize the rapid reduction in fossil fuel production that their climate targets will require."
The report is produced by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), ODI, E3G, and UNEP. More than 80 researchers contributed to the analysis and review, spanning numerous universities, think tanks and other research organizations.
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
LATEST NEWS
Trump Taps 'Manifestly Unqualified' Peter Thiel Protégé as Acting CDC Director After RFK's Purge
A health researcher for Public Citizen said Trump's interim CDC director has "no medical or public health background and extremist libertarian views."
Aug 29, 2025
After pushing out his own handpicked Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director, infectious disease expert Susan Monarez, fueling a wave of outraged resignations this week, US President Donald Trump has appointed a loyal acolyte to replace her at Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s side.
On Thursday, the president tapped one of RFK's top aides as interim CDC director: biotech investor Jim O'Neill, a man with no medical experience but extensive experience profiting from healthcare while working at billionaire GOP megadonor Peter Thiel's venture capital firm, Mithril Capital.
Unlike his predecessor, whose ouster came as she tried to push back against RFK's anti-vaccine agenda, O'Neill fits snugly into the secretary's efforts to restrict access to the Covid-19 vaccine, and potentially ban it outright, as the Daily Beast reported earlier this week.
"A tech investor with no medical or public health background and extremist libertarian views, Jim O'Neill was unfit for the number two position at HHS and manifestly unqualified to lead the CDC," said Dr. Robert Steinbrook, director of Public Citizen's health research group, on Friday.
Just as Kennedy did during his confirmation hearings, O'Neill insisted he was "pro-vaccine," noting that he was "an adviser to a vaccine company." However, this is belied by his record on the subject.
He has championed unproven cures like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and vitamin D supplements to protect against Covid-19, and has accused the CDC under the administration of former President Joe Biden of downplaying the vaccine's dangers while railing against mandates.
O'Neill has also praised Kennedy's response to the measles outbreak that swept across the US earlier this year, during which the secretary downplayed the severity and cast unfounded doubt on the effectiveness and safety of the measles vaccine that had virtually eradicated the disease before vaccination rates began to decline.
"Unlike Susan Monarez," Steinbrook said, "O'Neill is likely to rubber-stamp dangerous vaccine recommendations from HHS Secretary Kennedy's handpicked appointees to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and obey orders to fire CDC public health experts with scientific integrity."
O'Neill melds medical crankery with a Thielite strain of anarcho-libertarianism. He has served on the board of the Seasteading Institute, an organization founded by Patri Friedman, the grandson of the right-wing economist Milton Friedman, who advocates for corporations like Apple and Google to form their own floating cities at sea, which would be governed as corporate "dictatorships" free from the constraints of democratic governance.
That anti-government ethos extends to his views on the healthcare system, which O'Neill says is flawed not because of the rampant profiteering of the private companies that run it, but because it is supposedly not "free market" enough.
In 2014, he advocated for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to begin approving drugs for the market without conducting clinical trials to determine their effectiveness. "Let people start using them, at their own risk," he argued, "Let's prove efficacy after they've been legalized."
He has also argued for the government to allow people to sell their own internal organs. This process often results in deteriorating health for the disproportionately poor people who partake.
While working at HHS under the administration of former President George W. Bush, O'Neill also opposed the FDA regulation of companies that use algorithms to perform laboratory tests.
At the time, he was focused on DNA testing products like 23andMe, but a report from the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen says that "a decade after he made this remark, it's clear how dangerous such a concept is," noting that "with the development and proliferation of artificial intelligence, algorithms are omnipresent in the practice of medicine, including in diagnostic tools, medical devices, AI assistants to doctors, and personalized medicine."
In addition to Thiel's ideology, he reportedly brings several conflicts of interest to the CDC director job from his time working at Thiel's venture capital firm.
Accountable.US reported Friday that O'Neill "took money from, helped incubate, or was otherwise linked to at least eight medical industry startups with direct business before the department he could help run."
These include firms he advised, like the pharmaceutical company ADvantage Therapeutics or the National Institutes of Health grantee Rational Vaccines, which manufactures herpes drugs.
It also includes four companies seeded by his Thiel-affiliated venture capital firm Breakout Labs, some of which have received government funding or have products awaiting FDA approval.
Though O'Neill agreed to divest from some of these companies and abstain from involvement in decision-making with them as part of his ethics agreement, the report notes that "he did not promise to abstain from decisions involving these companies for the duration of his term, or to abstain from doing business with them after departing HHS."
"O'Neill would be in a prime position to ensure favorable outcomes for several medical industry startups he's been financially linked to that have direct business before HHS and the CDC," said Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk. "How can American patients be sure that proper vetting of these companies would take place on O'Neill's watch and that public health will be a higher priority over the profits of his former clients?"
Though Steinbrook describes O'Neill as "manifestly unqualified" for the position, he said, "No credible public health authority is likely to work for Kennedy, who is dictating the agency's decisions based on whim, not science."
"The only path forward," Steinbrook said, "is for Kennedy to go, which Congress, professional organizations, medical journals, and the public should demand."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'AI Death Panels': Trump Pilot Program Seeks to Bring 'Very Worst' For-Profit Insurance Practices to Medicare
The administration, warned two union leaders, "is inserting private AI companies, which have a giant financial stake in the denial of care, into the doctor-patient relationship."
Aug 29, 2025
Creating what critics are equating to "AI death panels" elderly Americans in need of care, the Trump administration is launching a pilot program in six states that will use artificial intelligence to determine whether Medicare recipients should qualify for certain procedures.
As reported by The New York Times on Thursday, the pilot program will hire private firms to deploy AI to make what are known as "prior authorization" decisions regarding whether Medicare should pay for certain procedures, including spinal surgeries and steroid injections. The program is set to run first in Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and Washington.
According to the paper, the program will rely on algorithms similar to those "used by insurers have been the subject of several high-profile lawsuits, which have asserted that the technology allowed the companies to swiftly deny large batches of claims and cut patients off from care in rehabilitation facilities."
The way the program is being structured will also give AI firms big incentives to maximize the denial of claims for Medicare recipients, as the Times reported that "Medicare plans to pay them a share of the savings generated from rejections."
Abe Sutton, the director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, emphasized in an interview with the Times that this program would not be used to review emergency services or hospital stays.
Even so, some experts and advocates have warned that this program risks bringing the same problems experienced by people who use private insurance to Medicare.
"It's basically the same set of financial incentives that has created issues in Medicare Advantage and drawn so much scrutiny," Ohio-based surgeon Dr. Vinay Rathi, who is also an expert in Medicare payment policies, explained to the Times. "It directly puts them at odds with the clinicians."
Jathan Sadowski, a senior lecturer and research fellow in the Emerging Technologies Research Lab at Monash University, also warned about private insurance practices creeping into traditional Medicare.
"The government is hiring companies using AI to make those determinations about healthcare," he wrote on X. "This is exactly the same tactic that private insurers like UnitedHealth use to delay and deny treatment."
The reported pilot program also drew harsh reviews from the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), as president Randi Weingarten and the union's Retirees Program and Policy Council co-chair Tom Murphy issued a joint statement accusing the Trump administration of "attempting to transform Medicare into the very worst of private insurance."
"Instead of making life easier and better for older Americans, this administration is introducing extra hurdles that are burdensome to patients and often get in the way of their desperately needed treatments," they said. "And the administration is inserting private AI companies, which have a giant financial stake in the denial of care, into the doctor-patient relationship."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Another Act of Revenge': Trump Cancels Secret Service Extended Protection for Kamala Harris
"The safety of our public officials should never be subject to erratic, vindictive political impulses," said a spokesman for California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Aug 29, 2025
US President Donald Trump has canceled extended Secret Service protection for former Vice President Kamala Harris just as she was scheduled to go on a multi-city book tour.
CNN reported on Friday that Trump this week sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security that simply read, "You are hereby authorized to discontinue any security-related procedures previously authorized by executive memorandum, beyond those required by law, for the following individual, effective September 1, 2025: Former Vice President Kamala D. Harris."
As CNN explained, former vice presidents are entitled by federal law to six months of Secret Service protection after leaving office.
However, former President Joe Biden late in his term signed a directive that extended Harris' protection past the standard six-month window. The reason for the extension—its existence not reported publicly until Trump moved to revoke it—has not been made clear.
Harris last year was the Democratic Party's presidential nominee after then-President Joe Biden decided against running for a second term.
As California is Harris' home state, both California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass are aware of and have been discussing Harris' security situation, and CNN noted she could get added protection in the future from the Los Angeles Police Department or potentially another state agency.
In a statement given to CNN, Bass delivered a scathing denunciation of the president for revoking his former rival's Secret Service protection.
"This is another act of revenge following a long list of political retaliation in the form of firings, the revoking of security clearances and more," she said. "This puts the former Vice President in danger and I look forward to working with the Governor to make sure Vice President Harris is safe in Los Angeles."
Bob Salladay, a spokesman for Newsom, also ripped the president for his actions.
"The safety of our public officials should never be subject to erratic, vindictive political impulses," he said.
Harris is scheduled to go on tour starting next month in New York to promote her book "107 Days," which reflects on her failed 2024 presidential campaign.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular