November, 18 2022, 09:09am 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
COP27 Negotiations Risk Collapse as Phasing Out Fossil Fuels kept from the Text
SHARM EL-SHEIK, Egypt
Tensions are mounting in the final hours of COP27 as the newly released cover decision text fails to commit to the swift, just, and equitable phase-out of fossil fuels. Despite calls from civil society organizations and governments worldwide including India, Tuvalu, the UK, Norway, Denmark, Spain, and the EU, the Egyptian Presidency continues to ignore calls for phase-out to be included in the text, said campaigners at a press conference this morning.
People across the world are depending on governments to commit to phasing out oil, gas and coal in order to uphold the Paris Agreement 1.5C target and meet the demands of science. A petition from the Prime Minister of Tuvalu, Kausea Natano, for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty and for delivering funding on loss and damage has been signed by more than 500,000 people in the past week alone, was presented by Tuvalu Minister of Finance, H.E. Mr. Seve Paneniu, during the press conference.
Zeina Khalil Hajj 350.org
"This conference cannot be considered an implementation conference because there is no implementation without phasing out all fossil fuels. The Egyptian Presidency is failing Africa, it's failing frontline communities, it's failing civil society, it's failing its own promise to implement, and it is failing the recommendations of the science community."
H.E. Mr. Seve Paeniu, Minister of Finance, Tuvalu
"If we are to really be serious about keeping the 1.5degC target alive we need to include those objectives and targets in the cover decision by the end of today. We need stronger language in the text cover decision on a ban for new fossil fuel extraction and production. We saw a breakthrough in the EU position overnight, whereby they are agreeing to set up a response fund for Loss and Damage for the most vulnerable countries. To me that is a major concession and a major breakthrough. It is our hope that will end up in the text of the cover decision. There has been a widespread call from community-based, grassroots groups and individuals for a Fossil Fuel non Proliferation Treaty - over half a million signatories have been gathered in support of the treaty. The phase-out of all fossil fuels must be included in the cover decision for this COP."
Honourable Minister Susana Muhamad Gonzalez, Minister for the Environment, Colombia
"It is necessary to take a clear decision at COP27 to reduce our general dependency on all fossil fuels and to accelerate a just and clean energy transition. Improving our approach under the UN Convention and the Paris Agreement with a multilateral decision."
Catherine Abreu, Destination Zero
"This is a matter of justice, it's a matter of saving lives and it is a measure of building accountability for producing and polluting nations. We made a leap in Glasgow last year, finally acknowledging the source of climate change - fossil fuels - but the weasley references to "unabated" coal phasedown and "inefficient" fossil fuel subsidies was relatively weak. Yet this COP risks backtracking from even the baby steps made in Glasgow. If we don't see an outcome at COP27 that balances strong progress on energy transition away from all fossil fuels and toward renewables, and equity in the form of a loss and damage fund, we will be calling this COP a failure."
Lorraine Chiponda, Africa Climate Movement of Movements
COP27 happened on African soil and as African people and African communities, we thought that this was a chance for African people to speak to the solutions that are here on this continent. The need for just transition finance is not a matter of African communities begging for funds, it is a matter of justice, it's a matter of saving lives and it is a measure of building accountability for polluting nations and a measure to build transparency around issues to do with climate.
This COP was supposed to be a place for us to hold leaders accountable, but instead we've had our leaders drinking tea with fossil fuel lobbyists, who took centre stage. The process here has been captured by polluters. Corporates and fossil fuel companies are here to influence the process to continue with business as usual, to continue to pollute.
The big elephant in the room that our own leaders fail to address is the issue of gas. There is still no answer, there is still no solution for African people.
Jean Su, Center for Biological Diversity
"This is a breakthrough COP, one that for the first time in the history of three decades of COPs sees major oil and gas producing countries calling for the phase-out of fossil fuels. So what is blocking this from getting into the text? The COP Egypt Presidency.
We are urging the Egyptian presidency to step up their responsibilities as hosts of this COP27. They must heed the calls of major oil and gas producing countries and major polluters and of incredible advocates like Tuvalu whose lives depend on this, to phase out gas, phase out oil and phase out coal."
John Beard, Port Arthur Community Action Network
"Once again we stand at another crossroads very similar to the one we were at in Glasgow last year where baby steps were taken, but now we must go further - we must extend that reach, we must elevate our demand, we must elevate our voices. We must call for this cover text to contain those things that are going to bring about an end to the era of fossil fuels, and promote an age of energy equity and also compensation for those who have been so adversely affected by the fossil fuel industry.
"There can be no equivocation, there can be no mincing of words, there can be no sleight of hand with language, no fuzziwuzziness. We have to be very precise and clear, the call must go out from this COP that we will accept nothing less. "
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
Call Grows to Impeach Trump, 'The Most Dangerous Man on the Planet'
"Trump’s illegal war on Iran and the rule of law," said one pair of campaigners, "establish an intolerable pattern of egregious abuses of power, directly threatening our constitutional order, our safety, and our way of life."
Mar 02, 2026
After the unprovoked bombing of Iran over the weekend by the United States—strikes that included the unlawful assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei—the call for US President Donald Trump to be impeached and removed from office has grown as the straightest path to hold the US leader to account for the attacks which policy and human rights experts have condemned as a serious war crime.
With a regional war in the Middle East that was already boiling from Gaza to Lebanon and from Syria to Yemen now exploding in the wake of the US-Israeli attacks on Iran, Globe and Mail columnist Debra Thompson on Sunday called Trump "the most dangerous man on the planet."
"Rather than ending wars," Thompson notes, "Trump has initiated military action eight times, carrying out attacks in seven countries (Syria, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Yemen, Somalia, and Venezuela) in 2025." Such a pattern of violence and warmongering should make clear that failure to restrain Trump has only emboldened him.
"The recurring danger in this latest presidential aggression is that there are no guardrails, no constraints, and no post-hoc justification," writes Thomson, "other than that Mr. Trump is the President of the United States and can do whatever he wants."
But American presidents cannot simply do whatever they want. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll out Sunday, less than 25% support the president's aggression against Iran. In the first wave of the US military attack, an Iranian school for girls was bombed, killing over 108 civilians, mostly children.
While some congressional lawmakers are pushing for a vote this week on a War Powers Resolution to curtail US military operations against Iran, others are demanding more robust action from Congress to bring Trump's war-making to an end.
"Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war, as well as to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and fund and regulate the military," declared novelist and political activists Stephen King on Saturday. "Impeach the SOB."
Mike Hersh and Alan Minsky, respectively the communications director and executive director of the Progressive Democrats of America, argued in a Sunday op-ed for Common Dreams that "Trump's illegal, unconstitutional war on Iran is not only a moral and humanitarian disaster, but also a profound constitutional crisis."
According to Hersh and Minsky:
Trump’s illegal war on Iran and the rule of law establish an intolerable pattern of egregious abuses of power, directly threatening our constitutional order, our safety, and our way of life. These intertwined crises cry out for an immediate, decisive response by the Congress and the US public.
Therefore, PDA demands that all members of Congress, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike, uphold their oath of office to defend our constitutional republic. The Constitution offers one and only one remedy when President a repeatedly breaks the law and arrogantly refuses to abide by the limits on the power clearly laid out in the Constitution. That remedy is impeachment, followed by removal from office.
Matt Duss, executive vice president for the Center for International Policy, said that US lawmakers, as well as the American people they represent, "must also be ready to hold the president and his administration accountable for this breach of US and international law."
"The failure to hold past presidents liable for war crimes and related violations of our own laws has helped lead to this dangerous moment, with a seemingly unrestrained president endangering millions of lives with impunity," warned Duss. "The forever wars and the imperial presidency must finally come to an end.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Insane This Is Legal': Bettors Make Huge Profits From Suspiciously Timed Wagers on Iran War
"Reminder that Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket's advisory board and his firm invested double-digit millions into the platform last year."
Mar 01, 2026
Bettors on the prediction platform Polymarket made a killing with suspiciously timed wagers that the United States would attack Iran by February 28, the day President Donald Trump announced a bombing campaign against the Middle East nation.
Bloomberg reported that six accounts on Polymarket, all newly created this month, "made around $1 million in profit" by betting on the timing of the US attack on Iran. The accounts, according to Bloomberg, "had only ever placed bets on when US strikes might occur," and "some of their shares were purchased, in some cases at roughly a dime apiece, hours before the first explosions were reported in Tehran."
One account with the name Magamyman raked in over $515,000 by betting roughly $87,000 that the "US strikes Iran by February 28, 2026."
The lucrative bets quickly drew scrutiny from lawmakers. US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote on social media that "it’s insane this is legal."
"People around Trump are profiting off war and death," Murphy alleged. "I’m introducing legislation ASAP to ban this."
Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) wrote that "prediction markets cannot be a vehicle for profiting off advance knowledge of military action" and demanded "answers, transparency, and oversight."
"Reminder that Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket's advisory board and his firm invested double-digit millions into the platform last year," Levin wrote, referring to the president's eldest son. "The [Justice Department] and [Commodity Futures Trading Commission] both had active investigations into Polymarket that were dropped after Trump took office."
There's no concrete evidence that Trump administration officials or staffers were behind the hugely profitable bets, but the wagers heightened concerns about the possibility of insider trading using increasingly popular prediction market platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi. Last month, bettors used Polymarket to make big profits on suspiciously timed wagers on when the US would oust Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Polymarket currently allows users to bet on when Iran will have a new supreme leader, when the US and Iran will reach a ceasefire agreement, and when the US will invade Iran.
The celebrity news tabloid TMZ reported Saturday that "a group at a Washington, DC restaurant was talking openly in the bar area Friday afternoon about a national secret that was about to literally explode hours later—the bombing of Iran."
As journalist David Bernstein noted, that—if true—leaves open the possibility that "these 'insider' bets have been placed by any rich person with good ears in DC."
"Not to mention that for all we know these administration clowns were probably gossiping about it on a text chain with half a dozen people they accidentally invited," Bernstein added. "This is hardly the locked lips brigade we’re dealing with."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Experts Pillory Trump Case for War on Iran: 'Flimsiest Excuse for Initiating a Major Attack' in Decades
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said one analyst.
Mar 01, 2026
Senior Trump administration officials attempted during a briefing with reporters on Saturday to make their case for the joint US-Israeli military assault on Iran that has so far killed hundreds and plunged the Middle East into chaos.
According to experts who listened to the briefing, which was conducted on background, the justification for war was incredibly weak. Daryl Kimball, president of the Arms Control Association, told Laura Rozen of the Diplomatic newsletter that the administration's argument was "the flimsiest excuse for initiating a major attack on another country without congressional authorization, in violation of the UN Charter, in many decades."
During his early Saturday remarks announcing the attacks, President Donald Trump claimed that "imminent threats from the Iranian regime" against "the American people" drove him to act. But Kimball said that administration officials "provided absolutely no evidence" to back that assertion during the briefing.
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said Kimball.
Following the start of Saturday's assault, which Trump explicitly characterized as a war aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government, unnamed administration officials began leaking the claim that Trump feared an Iranian attack on the massive US military buildup in the Middle East, prompting him to greenlight the bombing campaign in coordination with Israel and with a nudge from Saudi Arabia.
Kimball, in a social media post, took members of the US media to task for echoing the administration's narrative. "Reporters need to do more than stenography," he wrote in response to Punchbowl's Jake Sherman.
"The American people were lied to about Iraq. The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Trump and top administration officials also repeated the longstanding claim from US warhawks that Iran is bent on developing a nuclear weapon, something Iranian leaders have publicly denied—including during recent diplomatic talks. Neither US intelligence assessments nor international nuclear watchdogs have produced evidence indicating that Iran is moving rapidly in the direction of nukes, as claimed by the administration.
Rozen noted that some remarks from administration officials during Saturday's briefing "suggested Trump’s negotiators"—a team that included Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff—"may not have had the expertise or experience to understand the Iranian proposal to curb its nuclear program." Rozen reported that one administration official kept misstating the acronym for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog.
Trump administration officials, according to Rozen, seemed astonished that Iranian negotiators would not accept the US offer to provide free nuclear fuel "forever" for Iran's peaceful energy development, viewing the rejection as a suspicious indication that Iran was opposed to a diplomatic resolution—even though, according to Oman's foreign minister, Iran had already made concessions that went well beyond the terms of the 2015 nuclear accord that Trump abandoned during his first stint in the White House.
Experts said it should be obvious—particularly given Trump's decision to ditch the previous nuclear accord—why Iran would not trust the US to stick by such a commitment.
The administration's inability to provide a coherent justification for war tracks with the rapidly shifting narrative preceding Saturday's strikes—an indication, according to some observers, that Trump had made the decision to attack Iran even in the face of diplomatic progress and left officials to try to cobble together a rationale after the fact.
In a lengthy social media post, Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted war was necessary because Iran "refused to make a deal" and because the Iranian government "has targeted and killed Americans," hardly the claim of an imminent threat push by the president and other administration officials.
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, noted in response that the Trump administration has "sidelined anyone who could articulate... a coherent argument, partly because expertise is deep state and woke and partly because they just don't care."
The result is another potentially catastrophic war that runs roughshod over US and international law, puts countless civilians at risk, and threatens to spark a region-wide conflict.
"President Trump, along with his right-wing extremist Israeli ally Benjamin Netanyahu, has begun an illegal, premeditated, and unconstitutional war," US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement on Saturday. "Tragically, Trump is gambling with American lives and treasure to fulfill Netanyahu's decades-long ambition of dragging the United States into armed conflict with Iran."
"The American people were lied to about Vietnam. The American people were lied to about Iraq," Sanders added. "The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


