November, 01 2022, 12:03pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Bronwen Tucker — bronwen@priceofoil.org
Nicole Rodel – nicole@priceofoil.org
Shaye Skiff – kskiff@foe.org
Report: Despite 2021 Funding Cuts, International Public Finance for Fossils Could Rebound if Gas Is Excluded From Us Climate Policy
Biden breaks promise to end overseas fossil fuel finance by investing 83% of U.S. international public energy finance into fossil fuels from 2019-2021.
WASHINGTON
New research released today by Oil Change International and Friends of the Earth U.S. reveals that in 2021, G20 countries and major multilateral development banks financed USD 33 billion for oil, gas, and coal projects, about half of their 65 billion average for 2018-2020. This preferential, government-backed fossil fuel financing still continues to outweigh support for renewable energy, which received just $33 billion in 2021.
Early data from 2022 added to some temporary data limitations for Korea - one of the largest financiers - in 2021 suggest that a rebound in support for fossil fuels is likely, as key countries send signals of returning to gas. Such backsliding could only be prevented if countries implement their Glasgow commitments to end international fossil fuel finance by the end of 2022.
At last year's global climate conference in Glasgow, the United States made headlines when it joined a pledge with 38 other countries and institutions to end international public finance for fossil fuels by the end of 2022, and fully prioritize public finance for clean energy. Yet from 2019 to 2021, the United States supported an annual average of $2.6 billion in fossil fuel projects, compared to $358 million for renewables - more than seven times greater than its $358 million investment in renewables. Today's report shows that, with less than two months left until the end of 2022 deadline, a drastic trajectory change is needed for the United States to keep its promise.
The report also shows that the United States trails other countries in implementing its pledge to shift public financing out of fossil fuels and into clean energy. The UK, France, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden and Finland have already published policies to turn the COP26 pledge into action. The United States has refused to make public the December 2021 guidance it released internally. The new NGO report recommends that the U.S. release its guidance and avoid loopholes - like gas - that will render the policy useless.
Key findings:
- Japan, Canada, Korea, and China again provided the most public finance for fossil fuels between 2019 and 2021, providing an annual average of $10.6 billion; $9.8 billion; $7.1 billion, and $6.7 billion respectively. These countries have remained in the top position for the entire 2013-2021 dataset.
- 53% of international public finance for fossil fuels flowed specifically to gas projects. This funding of $30 billion a year is larger than what any other energy type received from 2019 to 2021, and greater than all renewable energy finance combined. In comparison, coal received $5.9 billion a year, and the aggregated "oil and gas" category $23 billion.
- International public finance for renewable energy has remained largely stagnant. Trade and development finance for renewable energy has increased only slightly from an annual average of $27 billion between 2016-2018 to $30 billion from 2019-2021 instead of growing exponentially, as is needed to support a globally just energy transition. This means that initial decreases in fossil fuel support do not indicate a clear shift to renewable energy support.
- ECAs were the worst public finance actors, providing 7 times as much support for fossil fuels than clean energy, with $34 billion per year for fossils and just $5 billion for clean energy.
- G20 countries and major multilateral development banks (MDBs) financed an annual average of USD 56 billion for oil, gas, and coal projects in 2019-2021. This preferential, government-backed fossil fuel financing also still outweighed support for renewable energy, which received an annual average $29 billion in clean energy support in 2019-2021.
Quotes:
"As the world's largest historical contributor to climate change, the United States has a duty to show true leadership by upholding President Biden's commitment to shift international public finance away from fossil fuels toward clean energy, said Kate DeAngelis, international finance program manager at Friends of the Earth U.S. "Instead the U.S. Export-Import Bank and U.S. International Development Finance Corporation have bankrolled tens of billions of dollars to overseas fossil fuel projects that harm communities, kill workers and community members, and cause environmental destruction. Biden's failure to publish a comprehensive policy for international energy finance means the U.S. is breaking its promise rather than ending this deleterious financing."
"International public finance is urgently needed to build a globally just energy transition. But it cannot play this critical role if G20 countries and MDBs continue to funnel $55 billion annually into climate-wrecking fossil fuel projects," said Claire O'Manique, a lead author and Public Finance Analyst at Oil Change International. "The climate movement will continue to hold these public institutions accountable for their role in funding the climate crisis. It is well past time that public finance dollars are spent to remedy fossil fuel colonialism by funding real solutions."
"This report highlights the immense amount of funding that the world's wealthiest countries continue to pour into fossil fuel projects in Africa to the detriment of Africa's citizens," said Anabela Lemos of Justica Ambiental/Friends of the Earth Mozambique. "The current rush for Africa's fossil fuel resources amounts to a perpetuation of extractive modes of colonial exploitation, devastating the continent's agricultural and forest resources and depriving local communities of their livelihoods and sometimes even their lives."
"Public finance continues to support coal and other fossil fuels in Asia despite the current climate emergency," said Lidy Nacpil of Asian Peoples' Movement on Debt and Development. "The devastating impacts of the climate crisis is most dramatically and tragically demonstrated by the recent catastrophic flooding that saw a third of Pakistan under water. If governments and multilateral institutions do not end their support for the fossil fuel industry, these tragic events will only become more common and more severe.
"Hard earned taxpayers' money cannot be used by governments to prop up fossil fuel projects domestically or abroad. The G20 countries who together contribute more than 80% of global emissions cannot support this criminal waste of public resources that is driving the climate emergency, exacerbating conflicts, adding to the cost of living crisis and increasing poverty, sickness and climate disasters," said Tasneem Essop, Executive Director at CAN International. "Public finance - the people's money - must be used to help people transition to clean and sustainable energy systems and towards a climate safe future for all."
"It's time for governments to show what real climate leadership looks like and end international public finance for fossil fuels," said May Boeve, Executive Director at 350.org. "If we want to keep global heating below 1.5 degrees, a managed decline of fossil fuel production is the only way, and the only language these profit-mongering fossil fuel companies understand is money. We need an efficient use of energy alongside a massive roll-out of renewables. It's time to turn off the money pipeline to dirty fossil fuels and invest in all of our futures."
"Especially considering the current energy crisis in Germany, there is a clear need to support other countries to avoid German mistakes that have exacerbated its vulnerability. That means building energy security through renewables and not future fossil fuel dependency," said Aki Kachi, Senior Climate Finance Policy Analyst at NewClimate Institute. "It is imperative that Germany's implementation of the Glasgow Statement is ambitious instead of seeking to find loopholes."
"International financing from wealthy G20 governments' public finance institutions for energy projects with fossil fuel sources in Indonesia, has contributed greatly to the sinking of coastal villages in Indonesia. Every year, 1 hectare of land is lost along the coastal area of Demak, Central Java Province due to rising sea levels, besides the financing of this climate-destroying project has also destroyed the economic life of fishermen and increased the number of fishermen who died at sea," said Hadi Jatmiko, Head of WALHI's National Campaign Division. "In 2010 the number of fishermen who died was recorded as 87 people. But in 2020, the number has increased to 251 people. Due to unpredictable weather driven by climate change, fishermen in Indonesia can only go to sea for six months of the year. The rest of the year they have to change professions to become rough coolies or hawkers. On top of this, flash floods, landslides, and seroja storms are becoming more intense and more frequent throughout Indonesia. Stopping financing for climate-destroying projects and fake solutions to the climate crisis cannot be delayed, must be done now unconditionally, shifting financing to clean, equitable, sustainable and decentralized energy projects."
Friends of the Earth fights for a more healthy and just world. Together we speak truth to power and expose those who endanger the health of people and the planet for corporate profit. We organize to build long-term political power and campaign to change the rules of our economic and political systems that create injustice and destroy nature.
(202) 783-7400LATEST NEWS
‘Don't Give the Pentagon $1 Trillion,’ Critics Say as House Passes Record US Military Spending Bill
"From ending the nursing shortage to insuring uninsured children, preventing evictions, and replacing lead pipes, every dollar the Pentagon wastes is a dollar that isn't helping Americans get by," said one group.
Dec 10, 2025
US House lawmakers on Wednesday approved a $900.6 billion military spending bill, prompting critics to highlight ways in which taxpayer funds could be better spent on programs of social uplift instead of perpetual wars.
The lower chamber voted 312-112 in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2026, which will fund what President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans call a "peace through strength" national security policy. The proposal now heads for a vote in the Senate, where it is also expected to pass.
Combined with $156 billion in supplemental funding included in the One Big Beautiful Bill signed in July by Trump, the NDAA would push military spending this fiscal year to over $1 trillion—a new record in absolute terms and a relative level unseen since World War II.
The House is about to vote on authorizing $901 billion in military spending, on top of the $156 billion included in the Big Beautiful Bill.70% of global military spending already comes from the US and its major allies.www.stephensemler.com/p/congress-s...
[image or embed]
— Stephen Semler (@stephensemler.bsky.social) December 10, 2025 at 1:16 PM
The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) led opposition to the bill on Capitol Hill, focusing on what lawmakers called misplaced national priorities, as well as Trump's abuse of emergency powers to deploy National Guard troops in Democratic-controlled cities under pretext of fighting crime and unauthorized immigration.
Others sounded the alarm over the Trump administration's apparent march toward a war on Venezuela—which has never attacked the US or any other country in its nearly 200-year history but is rich in oil and is ruled by socialists offering an alternative to American-style capitalism.
"I will always support giving service members what they need to stay safe but that does not mean rubber-stamping bloated budgets or enabling unchecked executive war powers," CPC Deputy Chair Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said on social media, explaining her vote against legislation that "pours billions into weapons systems the Pentagon itself has said it does not need."
"It increases funding for defense contractors who profit from global instability and it advances a vision of national security rooted in militarization instead of diplomacy, human rights, or community well-being," Omar continued.
"At a time when families in Minnesota’s 5th District are struggling with rising costs, when our schools and social services remain underfunded, and when the Pentagon continues to evade a clean audit year after year, Congress should be investing in people," she added.
The Congressional Equality Caucus decried the NDAA's inclusion of a provision banning transgender women from full participation in sports programs at US military academies:
The NDAA should invest in our military, not target minority communities for exclusion.While we're grateful that most anti-LGBTQI+ provisions were removed, the GOP kept one anti-trans provision in the final bill—and that's one too many.We're committed to repealing it.
[image or embed]
— Congressional Equality Caucus (@equality.house.gov) December 10, 2025 at 3:03 PM
Advocacy groups also denounced the legislation, with the Institute for Policy Studies' National Priorities Project (NPP) noting that "from ending the nursing shortage to insuring uninsured children, preventing evictions, and replacing lead pipes, every dollar the Pentagon wastes is a dollar that isn't helping Americans get by."
"The last thing Congress should do is deliver $1 trillion into the hands of [Defense] Secretary Pete Hegseth," NPP program director Lindsay Koshgarian said in a statement Wednesday. "Under Secretary Hegseth's leadership, the Pentagon has killed unidentified boaters in the Caribbean, sent the National Guard to occupy peaceful US cities, and driven a destructive and divisive anti-diversity agenda in the military."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fed Cut Interest Rates But Can't Undo 'Damage Created by Trump's Chaos Economy,' Expert Says
"Working families are heading into the holidays feeling stretched, stressed, and far from jolly."
Dec 10, 2025
A leading economist and key congressional Democrat on Wednesday pointed to the Federal Reserve's benchmark interest rate cut as just the latest evidence of the havoc that President Donald Trump is wreaking on the economy.
The US central bank has a dual mandate to promote price stability and maximum employment. The Federal Open Market Committee may raise the benchmark rate to reduce inflation, or cut it to spur economic growth, including hiring. However, the FOMC is currently contending with a cooling job market and soaring costs.
After the FOMC's two-day monthly meeting, the divided committee announced a quarter-point reduction to 3.5-3.75%. It's the third time the panel has cut the federal funds rate in recent months after a pause during the early part of Trump's second term.
"Today's decision shows that the Trump economy is in a sorry state and that the Federal Reserve is concerned about a weakening job market," House Budget Committee Ranking Member Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) said in a statement. "On top of a flailing job market, the president's tariffs—his national sales tax—continue to fuel inflation."
"To make matters worse, extreme Republican policies, including Trump's Big Ugly Law, are driving healthcare costs sharply higher," he continued, pointing to the budget package that the president signed in July. "I will keep fighting to lower costs and for an economy that works for every American."
Alex Jacquez, a former Obama administration official who is now chief of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative, similarly said that "Trump's reckless handling of the economy has backed the Fed into a corner—stuck between rising costs and a weakening job market, it has no choice but to try and offer what little relief they can to consumers via rate cuts."
"But the Fed cannot undo the damage created by Trump's chaos economy," Jacquez added, "and working families are heading into the holidays feeling stretched, stressed, and far from jolly."
Thanks to the historically long federal government shutdown, the FOMC didn't have typical data—the consumer price index or jobs report—to inform Wednesday's decision. Instead, its new statement and projections "relied on 'available indicators,' which Fed officials have said include their own internal surveys, community contacts, and private data," Reuters reported.
"The most recent official data on unemployment and inflation is for September, and showed the unemployment rate rising to 4.4% from 4.3%, while the Fed's preferred measure of inflation also increased slightly to 2.8% from 2.7%," the news agency noted. "The Fed has a 2% inflation target, but the pace of price increases has risen steadily from 2.3% in April, a fact at least partly attributable to the pass-through of rising import taxes to consumers and a driving force behind the central bank's policy divide."
The lack of government data has also shifted journalists' attention to other sources, including the revelation from global payroll processing firm ADP that the US lost 32,000 jobs in November, as well as Gallup's finding last week that Americans' confidence in the economy has fallen by seven points over the past month and is now at its lowest level in over a year.
The Associated Press highlighted that the rate cut is "good news" for US job-seekers:
"Overall, we've seen a slowing demand for workers with employers not hiring the way they did a couple of years ago," said Cory Stahle, senior economist at the Indeed Hiring Lab. "By lowering the interest rate, you make it a little more financially reasonable for employers to hire additional people. Especially in some areas—like startups, where companies lean pretty heavily on borrowed money—that's the hope here."
Stahle acknowledged that it could take time for the rate cuts to filter down to employers and then to workers, but he said the signal of the reduction is also important.
"Beyond the size of the cut, it tells employers and job-seekers something about the Federal Reserve's priorities and focus. That they're concerned about the labor market and willing to step in and support the labor market. It's an assurance of the reserve's priorities."
The Federal Reserve is now projecting only one rate cut next year. During a Wednesday press conference, Fed Chair Jerome Powell pointed to the three cuts since September and said that "we are well positioned to wait to see how the economy evolves."
However, Powell is on his way out, with his term ending in May, and Trump signaled in a Tuesday interview with Politico that agreeing with immediate interest rate cuts is a litmus test for his next nominee to fill the role.
Trump—who embarked on a nationwide "affordability tour" this week after claiming last week that "the word 'affordability' is a Democrat scam"—also graded the US economy on his watch, giving it an A+++++.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) responded: "Really? 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. 800,000 are homeless. Food prices are at record highs. Wages lag behind inflation. God help us when we have a B+++++ economy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Champions Those Fighting Back Against Water-Sucking, Energy-Draining, Cost-Boosting Data Centers
Dec 10, 2025
Americans who are resisting the expansion of artificial intelligence data centers in their communities are up against local law enforcement and the Trump administration, which is seeking to compel cities and towns to host the massive facilities without residents' input.
On Wednesday, US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) urged AI data center opponents to keep up the pressure on local, state, and federal leaders, warning that the rapid expansion of the multi-billion-dollar behemoths in places like northern Virginia, Wisconsin, and Michigan is set to benefit "oligarchs," while working people pay "with higher water and electric bills."
"Americans must fight back against billionaires who put profits over people," said the senator.
In a video posted on the social media platform X, Sanders pointed to two major AI projects—a $165 billion data center being built in Abilene, Texas by OpenAI and Oracle and one being constructed in Louisiana by Meta.
The centers are projected to use as much electricity as 750,000 homes and 1.2 million homes, respectively, and Meta's project will be "the size of Manhattan."
Hundreds gathered in Abilene in October for a "No Kings" protest where one local Democratic political candidate spoke out against "billion-dollar corporations like Oracle" and others "moving into our rural communities."
"They’re exploiting them for all of their resources, and they are creating a surveillance state,” said Riley Rodriguez, a candidate for Texas state Senate District 28.
In Holly Ridge, Lousiana, the construction of the world's largest data center has brought thousands of dump trucks and 18-wheelers driving through town on a daily basis, causing crashes to rise 600% and forcing a local school to shut down its playground due to safety concerns.
And people in communities across the US know the construction of massive data centers are only the beginning of their troubles, as electricity bills have surged this year in areas like northern Virginia, Illinois, and Ohio, which have a high concentration of the facilities.
The centers are also projected to use the same amount of water as 18.5 million homes normally, according to a letter signed by more than 200 environmental justice groups this week.
And in a survey of Pennsylvanians last week, Emerson College found 55% of respondents believed the expansion of AI will decrease the number of jobs available in their current industry. Sanders released an analysis in October showing that corporations including Amazon, Walmart, and UnitedHealth Group are already openly planning to slash jobs by shifting operations to AI.
In his video on Wednesday, Sanders applauded residents who have spoken out against the encroachment of Big Tech firms in their towns and cities.
"In community after community, Americans are fighting back against the data centers being built by some of the largest and most powerful corporations in the world," said Sanders. "They are opposing the destruction of their local environment, soaring electric bills, and the diversion of scarce water supplies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


