

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Tomomi Shibata, tomomi@priceofoil.org (JST)
Nicole Rodel, nicole@priceofoil.org (CET)
Valentina Stackl, valentina@priceofoil.org (ET)
Today, G7 Leaders in Hiroshima concluded that there is “an important role” for “increased deliveries of LNG” and that “publicly supported gas investments can be appropriate”, jeopardizing the 1.5ºC warming limit and directly contradicting last year’s G7 commitment to end international public finance for fossil fuels by the end of 2022.
The G7 endorsement of increased gas finance comes despite strong opposition. Leading up to the Summit, activists organized over 50 actions in 22 countries to urge Japan and fellow G7 countries to end their support for fossil fuels and to stop driving the expansion of gas and other fossil-based technologies such as ammonia co-firing in coal-fired power plants. They say the science is clear: ending investments in fossil fuels and phasing them out is necessary to avoid climate breakdown and meet parallel energy security and affordability goals.
In their Leaders’ Communique, the G7 claim that “they are steadfast in their commitment to … keeping a limit of 1.5ºC global temperature rise within reach”. A true commitment to 1.5°C, however, requires the G7 to explicitly exclude continued investments in new upstream gas projects and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) infrastructure. Today’s G7 endorsement of increased gas investments came after a push from Japan and Germany, with Japan using its G7 Presidency to also promote other fossil fuel-based technologies such as hydrogen, ammonia and CCS.
The G7 play a central role in enabling the global buildout of LNG infrastructure. An Oil Change International briefing shows that 61% of LNG export terminal capacity built in the last decade had international public finance from the G7. A large portion of the G7’s fossil fuel finance went to support gas projects (42%), of which 75% went to support LNG projects, with Japan and the United States providing the majority of LNG finance.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), maintaining a 50% chance to limit global warming to 1.5°C requires an immediate end to investments not just in new coal, oil, and gas production, but also in LNG infrastructure. Such investments also come with serious stranded assets risks as gas demand, including for LNG, is forecasted to drop. These findings remain unchanged in the context of the war in Ukraine and its impact on global energy markets.
Reducing soaring energy costs and improving energy security requires phasing out fossil fuel reliance and shifting to clean energy, according to the IEA. Renewable energy technologies are more affordable, and can be scaled up more rapidly. They also help avoid fiscal instability linked to volatile fossil fuel prices and stranded asset risks as global gas demand drops. Today, the G7 failed to reap these benefits of an accelerated shift to clean energy.
Leaving the door open for new gas and LNG infrastructure is also in direct contradiction to last year’s G7 commitment to end international public finance for fossil fuels by the end of 2022 “except in limited circumstances … consistent with a 1.5°C warming limit…”. Today, G7 Leaders claim that they have fulfilled this commitment. However, data shows this is untrue, as Japan and Italy have continued to approve new international support to fossil fuel projects in 2023 that are not aligned with 1.5°C.
This year, Italy has already approved international public financing for the Santos Basin oil and gas production project in Brazil. The Japanese Export Credit Agency, JBIC, has provided USD 393 million for a gas-fired power plant (Syr Darya II Shirin combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT)) in Uzbekistan. During a recent visit to Mozambique, as part of Japan’s efforts to “deepen its involvement with the global south”, Prime Minister Kishida committed to help Mozambique revive its LNG project and support Japanese private investment in gas. The United States Export Import Bank (U.S. EXIM) voted to provide almost USD 100 million in export support to expand the controversial PT Kilang Pertamina Balikpapan Petroleum Refinery in Indonesia.
Had the G7 upheld their climate and fossil finance commitments, the group of nations could have collectively shifted over USD 24.3 billion per year out of fossil fuels and into clean energy and increased G7 clean energy finance to USD 34 billion annually, a sum nearly substantial enough to close the energy access finance gap. This would have catalyzed an even larger shift in public and private finance and further investments are needed for the G7 to deliver their fair share of climate, loss and damage and just energy transition finance support to the Global South.
Today, the G7 missed an opportunity to set the stage for success at key upcoming global climate events, including the UN Climate Action Summit in September and COP28 in December. World leaders must urgently change course to not forfeit the chance to limit global warming to 1.5°C while building a more energy secure and affordable future.
In response, experts at Oil Change International and partner organizations issued the following statements:
“This year’s G7 is revealing Japan’s failure of climate leadership at a global level. At a time when we rapidly need to phase out fossil fuels, this year’s G7 host has pushed for the expansion of gas and LNG and technologies that would prolong the use of coal. Activists mobilized 50 actions across 22 countries this week to demand that Japan end its fossil fuel finance and stop driving the expansion of gas and other fossil-based technologies. Japan will continue to face intense international scrutiny until it stops fueling the climate crisis,” said Susanne Wong, Asia Program Manager at Oil Change International.
“A month ago G7 ministers successfully pushed back against a Japan-led push for gas investments and fossil fuels. But Germany joining Japan in promoting gas investments means we now have a disastrous G7 Summit outcome. The repeated call for public gas investments directly contradicts the G7 Leaders’ claim that they have fulfilled their commitment to end public finance for fossil fuels by the end of last year. It also jeopardizes 1.5ºC and energy security goals. The G7 today missed an important opportunity to get on track for 1.5°C to set the stage for a successful G20 and COP28 — rather they have moved in the opposite direction. They need to urgently reroute to protect people and the planet,” said Laurie van der Burg, Global Public Finance Co-Manager at Oil Change International.
“Japan has used the G7 presidency to derail the global energy transition. Japan has been driving the push to increase gas investments and has been promoting its so-called ‘Green Transformation’ strategy. This greenwashing scheme includes fossil hydrogen, ammonia, CCS, and nuclear, technologies which will delay the urgently needed just energy transition. Japan and G7 governments must accelerate fossil fuel phase-out, not prolong the life of fossil fuel infrastructure. Japan must commit to a full fossil fuel phase-out and stop blocking efforts to phase out coal and fossil fuels at the G7,” said Ayumi Fukakusa, Deputy Executive Director at Friends of the Earth Japan.
“Last year, Germany led G7 discussions that secured a ground-breaking commitment to end international public finance for fossil fuels by the end of 2022. However, the G7’s continued approval for public investment in the gas sector, led by Germany and Japan, is in direct breach of that commitment and severely undermines progress made on this agenda. The immediate energy crisis has passed and G7 leaders have failed to act in accordance with clear market signals and climate science that new investments in fossil fuels are no longer needed. What is needed is a prioritisation of public investment in clean energy, that will help prevent fiscal instability and reduce stranded asset risks, especially as global gas demand will continue to drop. This is critical not only to meet climate targets but also to bring down energy costs and managing energy security,” said Louise Burrows, Energy Finance Lead at E3G.
“The endorsement of increased LNG deliveries and investment in gas in the G7 communique is no mere backsliding — it is a death sentence being dealt by the G7 to the 1.5°C limit and, in consequence, to the climate survival of vulnerable peoples in the Philippines, Southeast Asia, and across the world. Unless they genuinely put forward the phase out of all fossil fuels, Japan and all G7 nations spout nothing but lies when they say they have aligned to 1.5°C. They cannot claim to be promoting development while subjecting our people to decades more of pollution and soaring energy prices. We reject this notion of a development powered by fossil fuels. In the aftermath of the G7 Summit and lead up to this year’s COP, Japan and G7 leaders should already be warned that civic movements will not tire in pushing back against fossil fuels and false solutions and in demanding a renewable energy transition,” said Gerry Arances, Executive Director at Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development (Philippines).
“Where there was an opportunity to accelerate a renewable energy transition that would bring about energy security, accessibility, and keep us on track to meet climate targets, the G7 have chosen to remain on a fossil-fuelled collision course. Despite a week of sustained global calls from civil society, G7 leaders have let down their constituents on the frontlines. The final G7 communiqué does not heed the bold calls needed for our times and fails to include concrete plans to end the fossil fuel era. Instead of taking decisive action to tackle cost of living, energy, and climate crises, the text plays around the edges,” said May Boeve, Executive Director at 350.org.
“The G7 leaders’ communiqué shows a serious disconnect with science, as it enables new investment in fossil gas infrastructure, despite the very clear messages from both the International Energy Agency and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which show that a future below 1.5 degrees can’t include more fossil fuels. Most likely, the German chancellor Olaf Scholz has been a driving force behind the weak language on gas, which is a serious blow to Germany’s international credibility on climate,” said Petter Lydén, Head of International Climate Policy at Germanwatch.
“The G7, among the richest nations in the world, have once again proved to be poor leaders on climate with their statement from the Hiroshima Summit. Emphasising the need to keep global warming below 1.5ºC while at the same time committing to continue to invest in gas and LNG shows a bizarre political disconnect from science and a complete disregard for the severity of the climate emergency. This continued hypocrisy from historical polluters as climate impacts continue to increase sets a low bar and jeopardises global efforts to fight the climate crisis. The G7 countries must come to COP28 with a clear focus on doing their fair share on phasing out fossil fuels and delivering climate finance,” said Harjeet Singh, Head of Global Political Strategy at Climate Action Network.
“The G7 energy outcome correctly diagnoses a short-term need for energy security, then promotes a dangerous and inappropriate lock-in of fossil gas that would do nothing to address this need. Energy security can only be achieved by rapidly and equitably phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable energy, not locking in deadly fossil fuels and lining the pockets of oil and gas executives. This betrayal continues a disturbing turn by President Biden and Chancellor Scholz from rhetorically committing to climate leadership to openly boosting fossil fuel expansion. History will not look kindly on world leaders who accelerate the pace of fossil fuel buildout in the face of worsening climate crisis,” said Collin Rees, United States Program Manager at Oil Change International.
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) 518-9029"If a US role were to be confirmed, the strike would rank among the worst cases of civilian casualties in decades of US conflicts in the Middle East."
US investigators reportedly believe that American forces were behind the bombing of an Iranian girls' school that killed more than 160 people—mostly young children—during the initial wave of attacks launched Saturday by President Donald Trump in coordination with the Israeli military.
Citing two unnamed officials, Reuters reported Thursday that US military investigators have found it is "likely" that American forces were responsible for the deadly strike on the school in the southern Iranian town of Minab, though the investigation has not yet been completed. Schools are protected under international law, and targeting them is a war crime.
"Reuters was unable to determine more details about the investigation, including what evidence contributed to the tentative assessment, what type of munition was used, who was responsible, or why the U.S. might have struck the school," the outlet noted. "The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military matters, did not rule out the possibility that new evidence could emerge that absolves the U.S. of responsibility and points to another responsible party in the incident."
"If a US role were to be confirmed," Reuters added, "the strike would rank among the worst cases of civilian casualties in decades of US conflicts in the Middle East."
HuffPost's Akbar Shahid Ahmed echoed Reuters' reporting, writing that Pentagon officials "told Congress in multiple briefings this week that they believed the US was most likely responsible (though probe ongoing)."
The reporting came on the heels of a New York Times analysis that concluded the US was "most likely to have carried out the strike," given that American forces were simultaneously bombarding an adjacent Iranian naval base. The Times also rejected the claim that an Iranian missile hit the elementary school.
"The strikes were first reported on social media shortly after 11:30 am local time," the Times reported. "An analysis of those posts—as well as bystander photos and videos captured within an hour of the strikes—helps corroborate that the school was hit at the same time as the naval base. One video, pinpointed by geolocation experts, showed several large plumes of smoke billowing from the area of the base and the school."
Beth Van Schaack, a former State Department official who currently teaches at Stanford University’s Center for Human Rights and International Justice, told the Times that "given the US' intelligence capabilities, they should have known that a school was in the vicinity."
Trump administration officials have said very little about the Iranian school strike in their triumphant rhetoric about the war, which Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth hailed as the "most lethal, most complex, and most precise aerial operation in history." Hegseth has also openly dismissed what he's called "stupid rules of engagement," rejecting constraints on US forces that are designed to prevent the killing of civilians.
Asked about the school strike during a March 4 press conference, Hegseth responded: "All I know—all I can say is that we're investigating that. We, of course, never target civilian targets, but we're taking a look and investigating that."
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio referred reporters to the Pentagon when asked about the attack, but added that "the United States would not target, deliberately target, a school," in purported contrast to the Iranian government, which Rubio claimed is "deliberately targeting civilians" because "they are a terroristic regime."
Two first responders to the scene of the attack, as well as a parent of one of the killed children, told Middle East Eye earlier this week that the school was hit by two strikes, a possible "double-tap" attack. An Al Jazeera investigation concluded the attack on the school was likely deliberate.
Jeremy Konyndyk, president of Refugees International, called the school attack "a horrific US war crime, up there with My Lai," referring to US soldiers' massacre of Vietnamese civilians in 1968. The US military initially covered up the massacre.
"In a sane world, Hegseth would resign, Congress would hold immediate hearings and establish an investigation, and the US would come clean," Konyndyk wrote on social media. "None of that is likely, so international mechanisms should kick in, including the [International Criminal Court]. And Hegseth should probably talk to a lawyer."
On Thursday, as US and Israeli officials vowed to ramp up their assault on Iran, two boys' schools southwest of Tehran were reportedly bombed.
"The targeting of civilians, educational facilities, and medical institutions constitutes a grave violation of international humanitarian law and human rights law," a group of United Nations experts said earlier this week.
"This disgraceful vote does not change Congress' legal duty, and it certainly does not silence the millions of Americans who oppose another illegal war," said an ACLU director.
As US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared Thursday that "the amount of firepower over Iran and over Tehran is about to surge dramatically," four Democrats in the House of Representatives voted with nearly all Republicans to reject a bipartisan war powers resolution that would have halted President Donald Trump and Israel's assault on the Middle East country.
Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar (Texas), Jared Golden (Maine), Greg Landsman (Ohio), and Juan Vargas (Calif.) stood with the GOP for the 212-219 vote against H.Con.Res.38, which was led by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). The only other Republican to support the resolution was Rep. Warren Davidson (Ohio)—though GOP Rep. Tony Gonzales (Texas), who is facing an unrelated scandal, did not participate.
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the think tank Center for International Policy, highlighted that given Massie and Davidson's votes, "if those four Democrats had stuck with their caucus and their voters, it would have passed."
"Everyone who opposed the resolution owns this war—along with the casualties, rising gas prices, and regional chaos that comes with it."
The House vote came just a day after Democratic US Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) and all of the chamber's Republicans but Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) rejected S.J.Res.104, a similar resolution sponsored by Paul and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.). As with the Wednesday vote, a range of critics called out Congress for enabling Trump's illegal and already seemingly endless war.
"This is a shameful abdication of Congress' constitutional authority to take the country to war," said Defending Rights & Dissent, noting the rising death toll. "US and Israeli strikes have hit elementary schools, hospitals, and the capital city of Tehran, home to 10 million. Six US service members have died. Trump is carrying out yet another regime change war of choice, and the American people have been overwhelmingly clear that they don't support it."
"This was Congress' best chance to stop further killings, to stop an all-out regional war with no end in sight, and to uphold the constitutional principle that prevents presidents from going rogue," the group continued. "We are deeply disappointed in both chambers' failure to stand up to this dangerous insanity."
Christopher Anders, director of the ACLU's democracy and technology division, stressed in a statement that "this failed war powers vote is nothing short of cowardly, but Congress can't dodge the Constitution forever."
"By refusing to rein in President Trump's unauthorized war with Iran, Congress has allowed President Trump to make a mockery of the Constitution and is trying to duck responsibility for putting service members and civilians in great danger," Anders added. "But, this disgraceful vote does not change Congress' legal duty, and it certainly does not silence the millions of Americans who oppose another illegal war. We will hold President Trump accountable for this abuse of power."
In the lead-up to Thursday's vote, one unnamed "senior progressive House Democrat" told Axios that the groups including Justice Democrats, MoveOn, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and Our Revolution "will primary anyone" who votes no.
After the vote, Justice Democrats shared the congressional office numbers of the four Democrats, and said to "call these spineless Dems who support Trump's new forever war with Iran and tell them to go to war themselves if they want it so bad."
Another progressive group, a youth-led climate organization Sunrise Movement, also took aim at the House Democrats who voted with the GOP, declaring on social media: "Absolutely ridiculous. Call them out. Vote them out."
Council on American-Islamic Relations government affairs director Robert S. McCaw commended all lawmakers "who voted to uphold Congress' constitutional duty and demand an end to unauthorized hostilities with Iran," particularly Massie and Davidson for their "courage to break with their party and stand on principle."
It is also "deeply disappointing" that some Democrats "joined Republicans to defeat this effort and enable an unconstitutional war," he said, warning that "their votes helped give the administration a green light to continue a dangerous escalation that threatens American lives and regional stability."
Earlier this week, Cuellar, Golden, and Landsman joined Democratic Reps. Jim Costa (Calif.), Josh Gottheimer (NJ), and Jimmy Panetta (Calif.) to introduce a competing war powers resolution that would let Trump wage war on Iran for a month. Noting that proposal, McCaw argued that "Americans did not elect Congress to issue a '30 days of carnage hall pass' for an unauthorized war. If a war is unconstitutional today, it should not be allowed to continue for another month."
“The Constitution is clear: Congress, not the president, has the authority to decide when this nation goes to war," he added. "The American people must continue pressing their elected representatives to reclaim that authority and stop another disastrous war in the Middle East before it spirals further out of control."
As of Thursday, the Iranian government put the death toll at 1,230, though US and Israeli attacks continue, and Hegseth said that "we have only just begun to fight and fight decisively... If you think you've seen something, just wait. The amount of combat power that's still flowing, that's still coming, that we'll be able to project over Iran is a multiples of what it currently is right now."
On top of the lives lost, recent reporting suggests that Trump's war on Iran could be costing US taxpayers $1 billion per day. Calling the House vote "profoundly disappointing," Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian said that "everyone who opposed the resolution owns this war—along with the casualties, rising gas prices, and regional chaos that comes with it."
"Congress needs to stop listening to warmongering elites," Kharrazian added, "and start listening to the American people who are sick and tired of being dragged into forever wars."
"Israel built AI targeting systems in Gaza—approved kills in 20 seconds, 10% error rate accepted," said one expert. "Now those same systems are running over Iran... and there’s an arms industry IPO-ing off the back of it."
After Israel's unprecedented use of artificial intelligence to select bombing targets in Gaza, experts are now sounding the alarm regarding what one analyst on Thursday called a lack of human supervision over Israeli AI targeting in Iran.
"Similarities between Israel's bombing of Gaza and Tehran are growing stronger," Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft executive vice president Trita Parsi said Thursday on X. "In both cases, it appears Israel is using AI without any human oversight."
"For instance, Israel has bombed a park in Tehran called 'Police Park,'" Parsi added. "It has nothing to do with the police. But it appears AI identified it as a target since Israel is bombing all government-related buildings. No one in Israel bothered to check and find out that it is just a park."
Borrowing from startup vernacular, tech journalist Jacob Ward calls Israel's use and export of AI technology in the post-Gaza era "lethal beta."
"Gaza was the prototype," Ward explained in a video posted this week on Bluesky. "Iran is the launch."
"[It's] a live-fire, live-ordnance lab experiment on people, killing people, that creates a pipeline of exportable products to the rest of the world, and it has become a big industry in Israel—and it's something that we in the United States have been dealing with and doing business with for some time as well."
Israel built AI targeting systems in Gaza — approved kills in 20 seconds, 10% error rate accepted. Now those same systems are running over Iran and being exported all over the world. I’m calling this “lethal beta,” and there’s an arms industry IPO-ing off the back of it. Full breakdown at
[image or embed]
— Jacob Ward (@byjacobward.bsky.social) March 3, 2026 at 4:45 PM
Previous investigations have detailed how the IDF uses Habsora, an Israeli AI system that can automatically select airstrike targets at an exponentially faster rate than ever before. One Israeli intelligence source asserted that the technology has transformed the IDF into a “mass assassination factory” in which the “emphasis is on quantity and not quality” of kills.
Mistakes were all but inevitable, but expert critics argue Israeli policy has made matters worse. In the tense hours following the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023, mid-ranking IDF officers were empowered to order attacks on not only senior Hamas commanders but any fighter in the resistance group, no matter how low-ranking.
According to a New York Times investigation, IDF officers were also permitted to risk up to 20 civilian lives in each airstrike, and up to 500 noncombatant lives per day. Even that limit was lifted after just a few days. Officers could order any number of strikes as they believed were legal, with no limits on civilian harm.
Senior IDF commanders sometimes approved strikes they knew could kill more than 100 civilians if the target was considered high-value. In one AI-aided airstrike targeting one senior Hamas commander, the IDF dropped multiple US-supplied 2,000-pound bombs, which can level an entire city block, on the Jabalia refugee camp in October 2023.
That bombing killed at least 126 people, 68 of them children, and wounded 280 others. Hamas said four Israeli and three international hostages were also killed in the attack.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that the US military in Iran has "leveraged the most advanced artificial intelligence it’s ever used in warfare, a tool that could be difficult for the Pentagon to give up even as it severs ties with the company that created it."
According to the Post, Palantir's Maven Smart System—which contains Anthropic's Claude AI language model—reportedly helped US commanders select 1,000 Iranian targets during the war's first 24 hours alone.
Experts are urging a more cautious approach to military AI use. Paul Scharre, executive vice president at the Center for a New American Security, told the Post that “AI gets it wrong... We need humans to check the output of generative AI when the stakes are life and death.”
It is not publicly known whether AI was used in connection with any of the deadliest massacres of the current war on Iran, which has left more than 1,000 Iranians dead, including around 175 children and others who were killed by what first responders and victims' relatives said was a double-tap strike on a girls' school last Saturday in the southern city of Minab.
Last week, Trump ordered all federal agencies including the Department of Defense to stop using all Anthropic products in apparent retaliation for the San Francisco-based company's refusal to allow unrestricted government and military use of its technology over fears it could be used for mass surveillance of Americans and in automated weapons systems, also known as "killer robots."
Trump gave the Pentagon six months to phase out Anthropic products, allowing their continued use in the Iran war pending replacements.
Project Nimbus—a $1.2 billion cloud-computing and AI contract signed in 2021 between the Israeli government and Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud—provides cloud infrastructure, AI tools, and data storage for the IDF and other agencies. The deal prohibits Google or Amazon from refusing service to Israeli government, military, or intelligence agencies.
Academics and jurists are gathered this week in Geneva, Switzerland—with a second four-day round of talks starting August 31—for a United Nations-sponsored conference on lethal autonomous weapons systems.
Attendees are examining the risks posed by killer robots that can select and engage targets without meaningful human control. They are also studying the legal, military, and technological implications of autonomous weapons systems and working to build international consensus on regulation.
“The current failure to regulate AI warfare, or to pause its usage until there is some agreement on lawful usage, seems to suggest potential proliferation of AI warfare is imminent,” Craig Jones, a political geographer at Newcastle University in England who researches military targeting, told Nature's Nicola Jones on Thursday.
While some proponents of AI weapons systems have claimed their use will reduce civilian harm, Jones stressed that "there is no evidence that AI lowers civilian deaths or wrongful targeting decisions—and it may be that the opposite is true."