May, 19 2022, 08:56am EDT

122 CSOs warn there is only six months left to meet joint COP26 commitment to end international public finance for fossil fuels
Russia’s war in Ukraine and fuel price spikes mean international public finance institutions must roll out rapid decarbonization and aid packages, not back track by locking in new fossil infrastructure
WASHINGTON
Today, 122 civil society groups are releasing letters to eleven government signatories to the Glasgow Statement on International Public Support for the Clean Energy Transition, laying out the actions they must take as soon as possible to meet their commitment. In this joint statement at COP26, 35 countries and 5 public finance institutions committed to end their international public finance for 'unabated' fossil fuels by the end of 2022, and instead prioritise their "support fully towards the clean energy transition."
The Glasgow Statement has the potential to directly shift at least USD $24 billion a year in influential trade and development finance from governments away from oil, gas, and coal towards the clean energy transition if it is implemented well -- and much more if these initial signatories can convince peers to join them and bring their commitment into other multilateral settings like the G7 and OECD.
However, todays' letters to Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, France, Portugal, and New Zealand warn that the initiative will fail to have this transformative impact if initial implementation is late, creates large loopholes for gas or carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS), or is not paired with an exponential increase in public finance for renewable energy. Letters with similar recommendations have already been sent to the United Kingdom and United States, and will be sent this month to Costa Rica and El Salvador.
The warning from civil society comes at the halfway mark for countries to implement their commitment, and right ahead of the G7 where public finance for energy is set to be a key issue. As Russia's war in Ukraine has continued, the United States and Canada have signalled they may backtrack and instead rely on significant loopholes to continue trade finance for fossil gas.
Last month's IPCC Working Group III report was clear that continued fossil fuel finance of any kind is misaligned with the Paris climate goals, and that public finance for fossil fuels in particular plays a key role in determining our global future energy systems. In light of this, civil society groups are also emphasizing the need for wealthy country signatories to prioritize public finance for a just energy transition for low-income countries and communities and to avoid hypocrisy by ending any public finance and other subsidies for fossil fuels they still provide domestically. The letters to Costa Rica and El Salvador also emphasize the role Global South country signatories can play in holding wealthier signatories accountable to these responsibilities.
Quotes:
Bronwen Tucker, Public Finance Campaign Co-Manager, Oil Change International said: "The Glasgow Statement on public finance was a truly exciting break from most multilateral climate agreements because it named both a near-term timeline and concrete actions that signatories would take. But now that we are at the halfway point to implementation, too many signatories are missing vital ingredients for what will be needed for it to have a transformative impact: binding fossil fuel exclusion policies that include gas, clear definitions for CCUS, and meaningful increases in support for a globally just energy transition."
Julia Levin, National Climate Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada said: "As the largest provider of public finance to oil and gas companies in the G20, Canada's commitments to end subsidies to the sector are critical. But so far, Canada has been dragging its feet on this key climate promise - and has instead created new subsidy and bond programs geared toward false solutions like carbon capture. Oil and gas companies have profited immensely for decades from activities that are fueling the climate crisis and polluting communities' land and water. Public financing should not keep getting funneled to these companies period, no matter where in the world they operate or whether they are promising to lower their emissions."
Diana Cardenas Monar, General Coordinator, Climate Finance Group for Latin America and the Caribbean (GFLAC) said: "In line with Article 2.1c of the Paris Agreement and the need for financial flows to become a driver of the climate agenda and the energy transition, the Glasgow Statement on public finance was an important step forward. But what is needed is to go beyond words into action, with a sense of urgency and considering the current geopolitical context. In Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), with only two countries as signatories, the region has a long path ahead with specific political and socio-economic challenges to address. Thus, shifting financial flows of developed countries from fossil fuels to support a just energy transition in LAC and other regions will be key for a global alignment of public finances with climate objectives."
Kate DeAngelis, International Finance Program Manager, Friends of the Earth US said: "President Biden started his presidency with bold statements on the need to end overseas fossil fuel financing, but has spent the past year taking little real action. Rather than using this moment to cave to the oil and gas industry, the Biden-Harris Administration must end US financing for international fossil fuels and promote a sustainable, renewable energy future."
Simone Ogno, Finance and Climate campaigner, ReCommon said: "Italy's dependence on Russian gas has been made possible thanks to public finance, especially SACE, the Italian export credit agency. Public finance is now at risk of driving the country toward new 'bloody' gas suppliers while gas prices stay high and more and more people are forced to choose between a meal and paying their energy bills. It's time for Italy's public finance to play its part and Draghi's government has to clarify how it will implement the Glasgow Statement by pulling SACE out of fossil finance and breaking the country's dependence on fossil fuels once and for all."
Marius Troost, Policy Officer, Both ENDS said: "Signing the Glasgow Statement is one thing, translating it into ambitious policy is another. The science is clear about the need to stop financing fossil fuels and the role public finance plays in this process. It is therefore crucial that the signatories of the Statement, including The Netherlands, follow up on their promises. There can be no room for exceptions and loopholes that water down the commitment."
David Ryfisch, Team Leader International Climate Policy, Germanwatch said: "Fossil energies are risky and create long-term dependencies. This has become painfully clear for many G7 states, particularly Germany, in the last few months. Learning from their own mistakes, all G7 countries should join the Glasgow Statement and stop international investments into fossil fuels and instead accelerate their renewable energy finance."
Anna-Lena Rebaud, Climate and Just Transition campaigner, Friends of the Earth France said: "During his first mandate, Emmanuel Macron has been a master in communication, but has repeatedly failed at ambitious climate action. The climate plan on export finance adopted in 2020 is a good example. After joining the Glasgow Statement, the new government cannot fail again at effectively putting an end to all public support to fossil fuels."
Nicole Rodel, Communications Campaigner, Oil Change International said: "Russia's war in Ukraine and the current fuel prices spikes have prompted some Glasgow Statement signatories to suggest they may backtrack and use their international public finance to lock-in new fossil infrastructure like the East African Crude Oil Pipeline, new import terminals for U.S. LNG, and Equinor's extraction projects in Tanzania and Canada. We cannot afford this. What is desperately needed instead is for global leaders to double down on the Glasgow statement and support rapid decarbonization packages for renewables and energy efficiency in the areas that need it most. The pandemic has shown that governments can rapidly mobilize massive sums of public money. This is the moment to do it, and accelerate the transition to a clean and fair future without fossil-fueled conflict."
Read the letters in full:
- Canada
- Italy
- France
- Germany
- Netherlands
- New Zealand
- Portugal
- United Kingdom (November 2021)
- United States (April 2022)
Notes:
- The $24 billion per year quoted above is from the open-access Public Finance for Energy Database (energyfinance.org), a project of Oil Change International that tracks financial flows to fossil fuels and clean energy from G20 bilateral development finance institutions (DFIs), export finance agencies (ECAs), and the multilateral development banks (MDBs). For non-G20 countries, Oil Change International has used the same methodology to estimate fossil fuel finance totals.
- The countries and the institutions that have signed the joint Glasgow statementon public finance include: Agence Francaise de Developpement (AFD), Albania, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Banco de Desenvolvimento de Minas Gerais (BDMG), The East African Development Bank (EADB), El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Netherlands Development Finance Company (FMO), France, Germany, Mali, Marshall Islands, New Zealand, Moldova, Portugal, Slovenia, South Sudan, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, the European Investment Bank, The Gambia, The United Kingdom, the United States and Zambia.
- An April 2022 briefing from Oil Change International on recent trends in international public finance for fossil fuels, and how these financial flows could be used instead to unlock a globally just transition.
- A March 2022 report from BankTrack, Milieudefensie, and Oil Change International found that Global North public finance institutions have backed at least $37 billion for fossil fuels in Africa since the Paris Agreement. Government backing and preferential rates meant this finance has had an outsized impact on private financial flows, pushing forward fossil fuel projects and crowding out renewable alternatives. Meanwhile, poor contract terms, debt traps, and disproportionate ownership by foreign multinationals have meant this finance has undermined development.
- A legal opinion by Professor Jorge E Vinuales from the University of Cambridge and Barrister Kate Cook of Matrix Chambers argues that governments and public finance institutions that continue to finance fossil fuel infrastructure are potentially at risk of climate litigation.
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
'Evil': Critics Recoil as Trump DHS Moves to Bar Disaster Aid for Undocumented Immigrants
"This is unfathomable discrimination against immigrants that will cost our country lives," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
Aug 27, 2025
The Trump administration is reportedly putting new restrictions on nonprofit organizations that would bar them from helping undocumented immigrants affected by natural disasters.
The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is "now barring states and volunteer groups that receive government funds from helping undocumented immigrants" while also requiring these groups "to cooperate with immigration officials and enforcement operations."
Documents obtained by the paper reveal that all volunteer groups that receive government money to help in the wake of disasters must not "operate any program that benefits illegal immigrants or incentivizes illegal immigration." What's more, the groups are prohibited from "harboring, concealing, or shielding from detection illegal aliens" and must "provide access to detainees, such as when an immigration officer seeks to interview a person who might be a removable alien."
The order pertains to faith-based aid groups such as the Salvation Army and Red Cross that are normally on the front lines building shelters and providing assistance during disasters.
Scott Robinson, an emergency management expert who teaches at Arizona State University, told The Washington Post that there is no historical precedent for requiring disaster victims to prove proof of their legal status before receiving assistance.
"The notion that the federal government would use these operations for surveillance is entirely new territory," he said.
Many critics were quick to attack the administration for threatening to punish nonprofit groups that help undocumented immigrants during natural disasters.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) lashed out at the decision to bar certain people from receiving assistance during humanitarian emergencies.
"When disaster hits, we cannot only help those with certain legal status," she wrote in a social media post. "We have an obligation to help every single person in need. This is unfathomable discrimination against immigrants that will cost our country lives."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said that restrictions on faith-based groups such as the Salvation Army amounted to a violation of their First Amendment rights.
"Arguably the most anti-religious administration in history," he wrote. "Just nakedly hostile to those who wish to practice their faith."
Bloomberg columnist Erika Smith labeled the new DHS policy "truly cruel and crazy—even for this administration."
Author Charles Fishman also labeled the new policy "crazy" and said it looks like the Trump administration is "trying to crush even charity."
Catherine Rampell, a former columnist at The Washington Post, simply described the new DHS policy as "evil."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Minneapolis Mass Shooting Exposes Trump-GOP Lies on Crime and Gun Violence, Critics Say
"Trump will send the military into DC to pick up litter and arrest homeless people, but won't do a damn thing to end the gun violence epidemic killing our kids," said one healthcare advocate.
Aug 27, 2025
Another horrific mass shooting that left multiple children dead and injured has once again ignited a wave of fury at Republican lawmakers who refuse to take action to stop gun violence.
Two children—ages 8 and 10—were killed when a gunman fired through the windows of a church at the Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis on Wednesday morning. Another 17 people, including 14 more children, were also injured in the attack before the gunman died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Minneapolis police say the gunman carried out his attack, which is now being investigated as an act of domestic terrorism, using three weapons: a rifle, a shotgun, and a pistol.
According to the Gun Violence Archive, not even eight months into 2025, there have already been 286 mass shootings—defined as cases in which four or more people are shot or killed—in the United States just this year, averaging more than one per day.
Gun violence is the number-one killer of children in the US, causing more deaths each year than car accidents, poisonings, and cancer. The victims of the shooting in Minneapolis join the more than 800 children killed and more than 2,200 injured by firearms this year.
Like dozens of mass shootings before it, Wednesday's deadly attack has stoked calls in Minnesota and around the country from Democratic lawmakers and gun control advocates for stricter gun laws, which have been repeatedly shot down by Republicans in Congress.
"We need better laws on the books nationally," said Minnesota's Democratic senator, Amy Klobuchar. "When you have so much access to guns right now and so many guns out there on the streets, you're going to continue to see these kinds of mass shootings."
"Don't just say this is about thoughts and prayers right now," said Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. "These kids were literally praying. It was the first week of school. They were in a church."
"They should be able to go to school or church in peace without the fear or risk of violence, and their parents should have the same kind of assurance," Frey said. "These are the sort of basic assurances that every family should have every step of the day, regardless of where they are in our country."
Congress has not passed a significant piece of gun legislation since 2022, when it passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in the wake of the horrific school shooting in Uvalde, Texas.
That law, which was supported by just 15 Republicans, introduced some modest reforms—including extended background checks for firearm purchasers under 21, funding for state red flag laws, and the closure of gun purchasing loopholes.
However, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) only agreed to negotiate the bill if Democrats abandoned more ambitious reforms, such as bans on high-capacity magazines and universal background checks.
Since its passage, even this watered-down piece of legislation has been fought aggressively by Republican lawmakers backed by the gun industry's lobbying arm, the National Rifle Association, who have attempted to have it repealed.
Earlier this year, President Donald Trump ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to present an action plan to reverse any law that the Department of Justice determines has "impinged on the Second Amendment rights of our citizens."
Through executive orders, Trump has rolled back efforts under the Biden administration to regulate ghost guns and enhance background checks.
The administration has also choked off more than $800 million in grants to local gun violence prevention groups and pushed for "concealed carry reciprocity" legislation, which would require all states to honor concealed carry permits issued by other states.
Instead of stricter gun control measures, Trump has personally advocated for schools to arm teachers and focus on improving mental healthcare—even as he's rolled back rules ensuring Americans have access to that care.
"Until we have more elected officials willing to place gun safety over allegiance to the gun lobby, more and more families will face unbearable suffering from random acts of violence," said Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) on Wednesday. "Congress could—and should—pass stricter gun safety laws, but continues to cave to the gun lobby."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) added: "The United States continues to be the only country where school shootings are a regular occurrence. We must stop this epidemic of gun violence and finally put the lives of our kids first."
Other advocates noted the contrast between Trump's response to the imaginary "crime wave" in Washington, DC, where he has initiated a militarized takeover, and his lack of interest in fighting America's endless wave of gun violence.
"Guns are the leading cause of death for kids in the US," said Melanie D'Arrigo, the executive director of the Campaign for New York Health. "Trump will send the military into DC to pick up litter and arrest homeless people, but won't do a damn thing to end the gun violence epidemic killing our kids."
Charles Idelson, a former communications director for National Nurses United, said: "If Trump wants to pretend he is 'fighting crimes,' stop protecting the pro-gun violence cabal."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'No Public Lands Are Safe': Trump USDA Moves Forward With Gutting Roadless Rule
"The Trump administration's move to gut this bedrock protection is nothing more than a handout to logging interests at the expense of clean water, wildlife, and local communities," said one advocate.
Aug 27, 2025
The U.S. Department of Agriculture on Wednesday moved to rescind a conservation policy dating back nearly 25 years that has protected more than 45 million acres of pristine public lands, as the Trump administration announced a public comment period of just three weeks regarding the rollback of the "Roadless Rule."
The rule, officially called the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, has protected against the building of roads for logging and oil and gas drilling in forest lands including Alaska's Tongass National Forest, the nation's largest national woodland.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said in June as she announced her intention of repealing the rule that the administration aims to "get more logs on trucks," in accordance with President Donald Trump's executive order calling for expanded logging in the nation's forests. The president has asserted more trees must be cut down to protect from wildfires, a claim that's been rejected by environmental groups that note fires are more likely to be ignited in areas where vehicles travel.
The public comment period on rescinding the Roadless Rule is set to open this week and end September 19.
The environmental legal firm Earthjustice, which has fought to defend the Roadless Rule for years, including when Trump moved to exempt the Tongass from the regulation during his first term, noted that roadless forests provide vulnerable and endangered wildlife "with needed habitat, offer people a wide range of recreational activities, and protect the headwaters of major rivers, which are vital for maintaining clean, mountain-fed drinking water nationwide."
"If the Roadless Rule is rescinded nationally, logging and other destructive, extractive development is set to increase in public forests that currently function as intact ecosystems that benefit wildlife and people alike," said the group.
Gloria Burns, president of the Ketchikan Indian Community, said the people of her tribe "are the Tongass."
"This is an attack on Tribes and our people who depend on the land to eat," said Burns. "The federal government must act and provide us the safeguards we need or leave our home roadless. We are not willing to risk the destruction of our homelands when no effort has been made to ensure our future is the one our ancestors envisioned for us. Without our lungs (the Tongass) we cannot breathe life into our future generations."
Garett Rose, senior attorney at the Natural Defenses Resource Council, said Rollins and Trump have declared "open season on America's forests."
"For decades, the Roadless Rule has stood as one of America's most important conservation safeguards, protecting the public's wildest forests from the bulldozer and chainsaw," said Rose. "The Trump administration's move to gut this bedrock protection is nothing more than a handout to logging interests at the expense of clean water, wildlife, and local communities. But we're not backing down and will continue to defend these unparalleled wild forests from attacks, just as we have done for decades."
The Alaska Wilderness League (AWL) noted that 15 million acres of intact temperate rain forest, including the Tongass and the Chugach, would be impacted by the rulemaking, as would taxpayers who would be burdened by the need to maintain even more roads run by the US Forest Service.
The service currently maintains more than 380,000 miles of road—a system larger than the US Interstate Highway System—with a "maintenance backlog that has ballooned to billions in needed repairs," said AWL.
"More roads mean more taxpayer liability, more wildfire risk, and more damage to salmon streams and clean water sources," added the group.
"No public lands are safe from the Trump administration, not even Alaska's globally significant forests," said Andy Moderow, senior director of policy at AWL. "Rolling back the Roadless Rule means bulldozing taxpayer-funded roads into irreplaceable old growth forest, and favoring short-term industry profits over long-term, sustainable forest uses. The Roadless Rule is one of the most effective, commonsense conservation protections in U.S. history. Scrapping it would sacrifice Alaska's public lands to the highest bidder."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, emphasized that the group "has successfully defended the Roadless Rule in court for decades."
"Nothing will stop us," he said, "from taking up that fight again."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular