November, 12 2021, 07:39am EDT

New Report Exposes Five Wealthy Countries Whose Fossil Fuel Production Threatens Chance at 1.5oC
After two weeks of talks, pledges and meetings in Glasgow, a scathing report has cut through the rhetoric of five wealthy nations, including the COP Hosts, by reviewing their plans to expand the production of the primary cause of climate change - fossil fuels.
GLASGOW
After two weeks of talks, pledges and meetings in Glasgow, a scathing report has cut through the rhetoric of five wealthy nations, including the COP Hosts, by reviewing their plans to expand the production of the primary cause of climate change - fossil fuels.
The report, coined The Fossil Fuelled 5, finds that the gap between climate rhetoric and reality is dangerously wide, with wealthy nations -- the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Norway and Australia -- planning to approve and subsidise new fossil fuel projects which undermines their recent claims of leadership in addressing the climate crisis.
The report that analysed recent government announcements and the latest data on fossil fuel production found that:
There is an alarming gap between what the Fossil Fuelled 5 are pledging to do to reduce their domestic emissions and their plans to expand fossil fuel production, undermining efforts to curtail global emissions and ignoring their responsibility to phase out fossil fuels, rapidly and justly.
Coal, oil and gas production must fall globally by 69%, 31% and 28% respectively between now and 2030 to keep the 1.5oC target alive. However, the projections suggest that the Fossil Fuelled 5 will reduce coal production by only 30%, and actually increase oil and gas production by 33% and 27%, respectively. As wealthy nations, the Fossil Fuelled 5 should be leading this transition away from fossil fuels.
Despite their net zero targets and climate pledges these five nations alone have provided over $150 billion in public support for the fossil fuel production and consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic. This level of support to fossil fuel production is more than the entire G7 put towards clean energy as part of the pandemic recovery ($147 billion).
The report released today on the final day of COP26, led by Freddie Daley from the University of Sussex, synthesises the most recent government emissions pledges and compares them to the fossil fuel production plans in the coming decade, as well as other factors such as fossil fuel subsidies. They show that several of the world's wealthiest nations "are doubling down on fossil fuel production" which will "have disastrous impacts for all life on our planet, but especially those communities in the Global South who have done the least to create this crisis and have the fewest resources to adapt to its impacts."
Despite their historical responsibility for emissions, and being well-placed to finance a global just transition, these countries are also guilty of exporting large amounts of coal, oil and gas, fuelling other countries' dependency on dirty energy sources.
Lead author Freddie Daley, Research Associate at the University of Sussex, said:
"There's an alarming gap between what wealthy nations are saying and what they are doing. You would expect these five nations to provide the leadership needed to move the global economy away from fossil fuels and reduce emissions to zero. However, they seem to be quite content to make pledges and promises with one hand, while expanding and subsidising fossil fuel production to the tune of billions on the other.
"Not only are these wealthy nations jeopardising their own futures and the futures of their citizens through this continued expansion, but they are condemning communities in the global south to a state of perpetual crisis which they did nothing to create. If these nations want to be climate pioneers, it is time they addressed the elephant in the room: fossil fuels."
Country-specific analysis from the paper's country profiles include:
The United States has pledged to halve emissions by 2030 yet have simultaneously provided $20 billion in annual support to the fossil fuel industry.
Despite hosting COP26, the United Kingdom is expected to green light the Cambo oil field, which contains approximately 255 million barrels of oil.
Canada is looking to increase their price on carbon but also provided approximately $17 billion in public finance to three fossil fuel pipelines between 2018 and 2020.
Norway has raised its ambition to decrease emissions but has already granted 60+ new licenses for fossil fuel production and access to 84 new exploration zones in 2021 alone.
Despite its recent commitment to net zero by 2050, Australia has over 100 fossil fuel projects currently in the approval pipeline.
The paper was produced by the University of Sussex and conducted in cooperation with the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, Oil Change International, Uplift UK, Greenpeace Norway, The Australia Institute, and Stand.earth.
Collin Rees, U.S. Program Manager, Oil Change International:
"The United States is the poster child for climate hypocrisy -- the world's largest historical emitter claiming the mantle of climate leadership while pouring fuel on the fire of the climate crisis. Joe Biden's words will ring hollow until he cancels deadly fossil fuel expansion projects like the Dakota Access Pipeline or the dozens of proposed oil and gas export terminals awaiting approval from his administration. This new report makes it clear the U.S. remains a massive driver of oil and gas expansion, and that won't change until our leaders commit to a managed phase-out of fossil fuel extraction that truly protects communities, workers, and the climate."
Tzeporah Berman, Chair of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty:
"Canada claims to be a climate leader yet its emissions have continued to rise since signing the Paris Agreement. This is not surprising given the unwillingness of political leaders to address the largest source of emissions - oil and gas. While important steps have been taken such as putting a price on carbon nationally, the Canadian government subsidizes the sector more than any other G20 nation. The Fossil Fuelled 5 report highlights why Canada is standing in the way of binding agreements for a wind down of oil, gas and coal at COP26. It's not too late to turn things around. When the Minister of Environment and Climate Change returns to Canada, it's imperative that we have a plan for winding down emissions and production so that no worker nor their family is left behind. This would include a meaningful cap placed on emissions from the oil and gas industry plus no more investment in the Trans Mountain pipeline or LNG. Canada must then rejoin the international negotiating table with a real intention to be part of the solution, rather than accelerating the climate emergency."
Tessa Khan, Founder & Director of Uplift UK:
"The UK government has invested a lot in trying to persuade people that it is taking action to tackle the climate crisis, but while it is still opening up new oil and gas fields we can discount most of it as hot air. We know that there can't be any fossil fuel developments if we want a liveable climate and yet the UK government wants to open 30 new oil and gas fields in the North Sea, starting with Cambo. And all the while subsiding fossil fuel companies to the tune of billions. Actions matter now not words. Just stop talking, Prime Minister and instead, stop Cambo."
Frode Pleym, Executive Director of Greenpeace Norway:
"The use of fossil fuels is the number one reason we are currently facing a climate emergency. Yet, the wealthiest countries with the greatest capacity to rapidly transition away from fossil fuels, keep allowing and even subsidising the development of new oil, gas and coal. It's time for the leaders of countries such as Norway to come together and lead the way out of climate chaos once and for all."
Richie Merizan, Climate & Energy Program Director at The Australia Institute:
"Not only is the Morrison Government unrepentant about Australia's fossil fuels production and export plans through to 2050 and beyond, it is openly boasting about these plans here at Glasgow. PM Morrison's Net Zero target does nothing to stop fossil fuel expansion, and goes so far as to explicitly build their continued use into its plan to reduce emissions. While the world moves forward in phasing out fossil fuels - a key aim of this COP, the Morrison Government is intent on driving Australia backwards. Australia is a wealthy country and is in the box seat to be leading the renewable energy transition."
The full report is available here.
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) 518-9029LATEST NEWS
'Moral Insanity': Biden Admin Bypasses Congress to Rush Tank Shells to Israel
"Rushing deadly weapons to the far-right and openly genocidal Israeli government without congressional review robs American voters of their voice in Congress," said one critic.
Dec 09, 2023
Hours after United States Ambassador Robert Wood on Friday acted alone to veto a United Nations Security Council resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire in Gaza, the Biden administration again illustrated its growing isolation in continuing to back Israel's onslaught as it bypassed Congress to send more weapons to the country's extreme right-wing government.
The U.S. Defense Department posted a notice online Saturday saying U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken had informed Congress that a government sale of 13,000 rounds of tank ammunition was moving forward, even though Congress had not completed an informal review of the transaction.
The State Department invoked an emergency provision of the Arms Control Export Act to bypass the review process generally required for weapons sales to foreign nations. The sale, which Congress has no power to stop now that the provision has been invoked, was valued at more than $106 million.
"Rushing deadly weapons to the far-right and openly genocidal Israeli government without congressional review robs American voters of their voice in Congress, emboldens Netanyahu to kill more Palestinian civilians, and furthers stains our nation's standing in the world," said Edward Ahmed Mitchell, national deputy director of the Council on AmericanâIslamic Relations (CAIR).
Mitchell noted that the sale was finalized as media outlets confirmed Israeli tanks have "deliberately targeted and slaughtered journalists in Lebanon."
"The Biden administration's decision is an affront to democracy and an act of moral insanity," he said.
The State Department notified congressional committees of the sale around 11:00 pm EST Friday, hours after a new Pew Research poll showed that only 35% of Americans support the Biden administration's backing of Israel's attacks on Gaza. The Israel Defense Forces have now killed more than 17,700 Palestinians in Gaza in just over two months, while claiming they are targeting Hamas.
Thirteen members of the U.N. Security Council on Friday voted in favor of a humanitarian cease-fire, while the U.K. abstained from voting. The U.S. vetoed the resolution in a move CAIR condemned as "unconscionable."
"It is not clear what level of suffering by the Palestinian people would prompt our nation's leaders to act in their defense," said CAIR national executive director Nihad Awad.
Also on Saturday, the global charity Save the Children warned that at least 7,685 children under age five in Gaza are now so malnourishedâa result of Israel's total blockade of the enclave that began in October and the delivery of just a small fraction of the aid that is neededâthat they require "urgent medical treatment to avoid death."
"The repeated failure of the international community to act signifies a death knell to children," said Jason Lee, country director for Save the Children. "I've seen children and families roaming the streets of what hasn't been flattened in Gaza, with no food, nowhere to go, and nothing to survive on. Even the internationally-funded humanitarian aid responseâGaza's last lifelineâhas been choked by Israeli-imposed restrictions."
"Gaza's children are being condemned to further bombardment, starvation, and disease," said Lee. "We must heed the lessons from the past and must immediately prevent 'atrocity crimes' from unfolding."
The intensifying opposition to Israel's U.S.- and U.K.-backed bombardment of Gaza was made apparent by an estimated 15,000-20,000 people who marched through London on Saturday to demand a cease-fire.
"We will continue to march," said the Stop the War Coalition, "until there's a cease-fire and justice for the Palestinians."
Keep ReadingShow Less
EU Deal on AI Act Is 'Missed Opportunity' to Ban Mass Surveillance, Say Privacy Groups
"Whilst the Parliament fought hard to limit the damage, the overall package on biometric surveillance and profiling is at best lukewarm," said one advocate.
Dec 09, 2023
Privacy advocates on Saturday said the AI Act, a sweeping proposed law to regulate artificial intelligence in the European Union whose language was finalized Friday, appeared likely to fail at protecting the public from one of AI's greatest threats: live facial recognition.
Representatives of the European Commission spent 37 hours this week negotiating provisions in the AI Act with the European Council and European Parliament, running up against Council representatives from France, Germany, and Italy who sought to water down the bill in the late stages of talks.
Thierry Breton, the European commissioner for internal market and a key negotiator of the deal, said the final product would establish the E.U. as "a pioneer, understanding the importance of its role as global standard setter."
But Amnesty Tech, the branch of global human rights group Amnesty International that focuses on technology and surveillance, was among the groups that raised concerns about the bloc's failure to include "an unconditional ban on live facial recognition," which was in an earlier draft, in the legislation.
The three institutions, said Mher Hakobyan, Amnesty Tech's advocacy adviser on AI, "in effect greenlighted dystopian digital surveillance in the 27 EU Member States, setting a devastating precedent globally concerning AI regulation."
"While proponents argue that the draft allows only limited use of facial recognition and subject to safeguards, Amnesty's research in New York City, Occupied Palestinian Territories, Hyderabad, and elsewhere demonstrates that no safeguards can prevent the human rights harms that facial recognition inflicts, which is why an outright ban is needed," said Hakobyan. "Not ensuring a full ban on facial recognition is therefore a hugely missed opportunity to stop and prevent colossal damage to human rights, civic space, and rule of law that are already under threat throughout the E.U."
The bill is focused on protecting Europeans against other significant risks of AI, including the automation of jobs, the spread of misinformation, and national security threats.
Tech companies would be required to complete rigorous testing on AI software before operating in the EU, particularly for applications like self-driving vehicles.
Tools that could pose risks to hiring practices would also need to be subjected to risk assessments, and human oversight would be required in deploying the software,
AI systems including chatbots would be subjected to new transparency rules to avoid the creation of manipulated images and videosâknown as deepfakesâwithout the public knowing that the images were generated by AI.
The indiscriminate scraping of internet or security footage images to create facial recognition databases would also be outright banned.
But the proposed AI Act, which could be passed before the end of the European Parliament session ends in May, includes exemptions to facial recognition provisions, allowing law enforcement agencies to use live facial recognition to search for human trafficking victims, prevent terrorist attacks, and arrest suspects of certain violent crimes.
Ella Jakubowska, a senior policy adviser at European Digital Rights, told The Washington Post that "some human rights safeguards have been won" in the AI Act.
"It's hard to be excited about a law which has, for the first time in the E.U., taken steps to legalize live public facial recognition across the bloc," Jakubowska toldReuters. "Whilst the Parliament fought hard to limit the damage, the overall package on biometric surveillance and profiling is at best lukewarm."
Hakobyan also noted that the bill did not include a ban on "the export of harmful AI technologies, including for social scoring, which would be illegal in the E.U."
"Allowing European companies to profit off from technologies that the law recognizes impermissibly harm human rights in their home states establishes a dangerous double standard," said Hakobyan.
After passage, many AI Act provisions would not take effect for 12 to 24 months.
Andreas Liebl, managing director of the German company AppliedAI Initiative, acknowledged that the law would likely have an impact on tech companies' ability to operate in the European Union.
"There will be a couple of innovations that are just not possible or economically feasible anymore," Liebl told the Post.
But Kris Shrishak, a senior fellow at the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, toldThe New York Times that the E.U. will have to prove its "regulatory prowess" after the law is passed.
"Without strong enforcement," said Shrishak, "this deal will have no meaning."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Texas Supreme Court Blocks Ruling Allowing Woman to Get Abortion
"Courts are arguing with each other about whether a woman can have a medically necessary abortion," said one advocate. "This is not a hypothetical nightmareâit is a living one."
Dec 09, 2023
Reproductive justice groups on Friday night said the Texas Supreme Court and Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton were "directly endangering" a pregnant women who recently received news that her fetus has a life-threatening condition, after the high court halted a judge's order permitting the woman to obtain abortion care.
The state Supreme Court issued a stay temporarily blocking Travis County Judge Maya Guerra Gamble's Thursday ruling. Gamble had issued a temporary restraining order, allowing Dallas resident Kate Cox to obtain an abortion and protecting her physician, Dr. Damla Karsan, from civil or criminal liability under Texas' near-total ban on abortions.
Paxton quickly appealed Gamble's ruling, telling the court, "Nothing can restore the unborn child's life that will be lost as a result."
Molly Duane, senior staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), which is representing Cox, said Friday night that the group is holding out hope that "the [state Supreme Court] ultimately rejects the state's request and does so quickly."
"In this case we fear that justice delayed will be justice denied," said Duane. "We are talking about urgent medical care... This is why people should not need to beg for healthcare in a court of law."
Cox, who is about 20 weeks pregnant, discovered last week that her fetus has abnormalities including trisomy 18, a condition that would result in a miscarriage, stillbirth, or the death of her baby in the hours or days after birth.
Cox has sought emergency medical care several times since finding out the diagnosis, reporting symptoms such as cramping and fluid loss to emergency room doctorsâbut while Texas' abortion bans claim to allow exceptions in cases where a pregnant person's life or health are at risk, many health professionals are unwilling to risk potential life imprisonment by providing care.
Karsan has advised Cox that continuing the pregnancy could put her health and fertility at risk. Under Texas' abortion bans, Cox's only options are to have a Caesarean section after carrying the pregnancy to termâeven as her health grows worseâor to have labor induced in the case of the fetal heartbeat stopping. Due to previous C-sections, doctors have told Cox that she could experience a uterine rupture if she is forced to give birth to the baby.
On PBS Newshour on Friday, Cox described how her baby "would need to be placed directly onto hospice" care if she is forced to go through childbirth.
Paxton and the state Supreme Court, which consists entirely of Republican judges, are "100% committed to torturing" Cox, said Slate journalist Mark Joseph Stern.
By challenging Gamble's ruling, CRR said in court filings that the state demonstrated "stunning... disregard for Ms. Cox's life, fertility, and the rule of law."
Before appealing Gamble's decision, Paxton wrote a letter to three hospitals where Karsan has admitting privileges, warning that if she provides abortion care to Cox there they could face civil or criminal penalties regardless of the lower court ruling. The attorney general said Gamble was "not medically qualified to make this determination."
The letter was the state's attempt to "intimidate [Karsan] to not act," Dr. Judy Levison, another obstetrician-gynecologist in Houston, toldThe New York Times.
"They named her and so, it's intimidating," Levison said.
On Thursday, Duane refused to comment in a news briefing about whether Cox and her doctors were planning to move forward with the abortion and when or where she might obtain care.
Cox is reportedly the first pregnant patient to request an emergency abortion from a court since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year.
On Friday, the day after Gamble ruled, a pregnant woman in Kentucky sued the state, saying its abortion ban violates residents' constitutional right to privacy and self-determination.
Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California at Davis who specializes in abortion, told The Washington Post that Paxton likely "wants to stop Cox from being an example" for other pregnant people who need or want to terminate their pregnancies.
"Courts are arguing with each other about whether a woman can have a medically necessary abortion while she continues to remain pregnant with an unviable pregnancy," said activist Olivia Julianna. "This is not a hypothetical nightmareâit is a living one."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular