May, 20 2023, 01:13pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Tomomi Shibata, tomomi@priceofoil.org (JST)
Nicole Rodel, nicole@priceofoil.org (CET)
Valentina Stackl, valentina@priceofoil.org (ET)
CSOs Condemn G7 Leaders for Dangerous Backsliding on Gas, Breaching Commitments to End Fossil Fuel Finance
Hiroshima
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) 518-9029LATEST NEWS
ICE Goons Pepper Spray Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva During Tucson Raid
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said.
Dec 05, 2025
In what Arizona's attorney general slammed as an "unacceptable and outrageous" act of "unchecked aggression," a federal immigration officer fired pepper spray toward recently sworn-in Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva during a Friday raid on a Tucson restaurant.
Grijalva (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers "just conducted a raid by Taco Giro in Tucson—a small mom-and-pop restaurant that has served our community for years."
"When I presented myself as a member of Congress asking for more information, I was pushed aside and pepper sprayed," she added.
Grijalva said in a video uploaded to the post that she was "sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others, when I literally was not being aggressive, I was asking for clarification, which is my right as a member of Congress."
The video shows Grijalva among a group of protesters who verbally confronted federal agents over the raid. Following an order to "clear," an agent is seen firing what appears to be a pepper ball at the ground very near the congresswoman's feet. Video footage also shows agents deploying gas against the crowd.
"They're targeting small mom-and-pop businesses that don't have the financial resources to fight back," Grijalva told reporters after the incident. "They're targeting small businesses and people that are helping in our communities in order to try to fill the quota that [President Donald] Trump has given them."
Mocking the incident on social media, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contended that Grijalva "wasn’t pepper sprayed."
"She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement," she added. "In fact, two law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that [Grijalva] joined."
McLaughlin provided no further details regarding the nature of those injuries.
Democrats in Arizona and beyond condemned Friday's incident, with US Sen. Ruben Gallego writing on social media that Grijalva "was doing her job, standing up for her community."
"Pepper spraying a sitting member of Congress is disgraceful, unacceptable, and absolutely not what we voted for," he added. "Period."
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said on social media: "This is unacceptable and outrageous. Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions. Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also weighed in on social media, calling the incident "outrageous."
"Rep. Grijalva was completely within her rights to stand up for her constituents," she added. "ICE is completely lawless."
Friday's incident follows federal agents' violent removal of Sen. Alexa Padilla (D-Calif.) from a June press conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Congresswoman LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) was federally indicted in June for allegedly “forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers" during an oversight visit at a privately operated migrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey and subsequent confrontation with ICE agents outside of the lockup in which US Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez, both New Jersey Democrats, were also involved.
Violent assaults by federal agents on suspected undocumented immigrants—including US citizens—protesters, journalists, and others are a regular occurrence amid the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign.
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said late Friday on social media. "It’s time for Congress to rein in this rogue agency NOW."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gavin Newsom Wants a 'Big Tent Party,' But Opposes Wealth Tax Supported by Large Majority of Americans
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," said one progressive organizer.
Dec 05, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, considered by some to be the frontrunner to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, said during a panel on Wednesday that he wants his party to be a “big tent” that welcomes large numbers of people into the fold. But he’s “adamantly against” one of the most popular proposals Democrats have to offer: a wealth tax.
In October, progressive economists Emmanuel Saez and Robert Reich joined forces with one of California's most powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, to propose that California put the nation’s first-ever wealth tax on the ballot in November 2026.
They described the measure as an "emergency billionaires tax" aimed at recouping the tens of billions of dollars that will be stripped from California's 15 million Medicaid recipients over the next five years, after Republicans enacted historic cuts to the program in July with President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which dramatically reduced taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Among those beneficiaries were the approximately 200 billionaires living in California, whose average annual income, Saez pointed out, has risen by 7.5% per year, compared with 1.5% for median-income residents.
Under the proposal, they would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total net worth, which is estimated to raise $100 billion. The vast majority of the funds, about 90%, would be used to restore Medicaid funding, while the rest would go towards funding K-12 education, which the GOP has also slashed.
The proposal in California has strong support from unions and healthcare groups. But Newsom has called it “bad policy” and “another attempt to grab money for special purposes.”
Meanwhile, several of his longtime consultants, including Dan Newman and Brian Brokaw, have launched a campaign alongside “business and tech leaders” to kill the measure, which they’ve dubbed “Stop the Squeeze." They've issued familiar warnings that pinching the wealthy too hard will drive them from the state, along with the critical tax base they provide.
At Wednesday's New York Times DealBook Summit, Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Newsom about his opposition to the wealth tax idea, comparing it to a proposal by recent New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who pledged to increase the income taxes of New Yorkers who earn more than $1 million per year by 2% in order to fund his city-wide free buses, universal childcare, and city-owned grocery store programs.
Mamdani's proposal was met with a litany of similar warnings from Big Apple bigwigs who threatened to flee the city and others around the country who said they'd never move in.
But as Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein explained in October for the American Prospect: "The evidence for this is thin: mostly memes shared by tech and finance people... Research shows that the truth of the matter is closer to the opposite. Wealthy individuals and their income move at lower rates than other income brackets, even in response to an increase of personal income tax." Many of those who sulked about Mamdani's victory have notably begun making amends with the incoming mayor.
Moreover, the comparison between Mamdani's plan and the one proposed in California is faulty to begin with. As Harold Meyerson explained, also for the Prospect: "It is a one-time-only tax, to be levied exclusively on billionaires’ current (i.e., 2025) net worth. Even if they move to Tasmania, they will still be liable for 5% of this year’s net worth."
"Crucially, the tax won’t crimp the fortunes of any billionaire who moves into the state next year or any later year, as it only applies to the billionaires living in the state this year," he added. "Therefore... the horrific specter of billionaire flight can’t be levied against the California proposal."
Nevertheless, Sorkin framed Newsom as being in an existential battle of ideas with Mamdani, asking how the two could both represent the Democratic Party when they are so "diametrically opposed."
"Well, I want to be a big-tent party," Newsom replied. "It's about addition, not subtraction."
Pushed on the question of whether there should be a "unifying theory of the case," Newsom responded that “we all want to be protected, we all want to be respected, we all want to be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental values that I think define our party, about social justice, economic justice.”
"We have pre-distribution Democrats, and we have re-distribution Democrats," he continued. "Therein lies the dialectic and therein lies the debate."
Polling is scarce so far on the likelihood of such a measure passing in California. But nationally, polls suggest that the vast majority of Democrats fall on the "re-distribution" side of Newsom's "dialectic." In fact, the majority of all Americans do, regardless of party affiliation.
Last year, Inequality.org examined 55 national and state polls about a number of different taxation policies and found:
A billionaire income tax garnered the most support across party identification. On average, two out of three (67%) of Americans supported the tax including 84% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
In national polls, a wealth tax had similarly high levels of support. More than three out of five Americans supported the tax including 78% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
That sentiment only seems to have grown since the return of President Donald Trump. An Economist/YouGov poll released in early November found that 72% of Americans said that taxes on billionaires should be raised—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Across the board, just 15% said they should not be raised.
Support remains high when the proposal is more specific as well. On the eve of Mamdani's election, despitre months of fearmongering, 64% of New Yorkers said they backed his proposal, including a slight plurality of self-identified conservatives, according to a Siena College poll.
Many observers were perplexed by how Newsom proposes to maintain a “big tent” while opposing policies supported by most of the people inside it.
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," wrote Jonathan Cohn, the political director for Progressive Mass, a grassroots organization in Massachusetts, on social media.
"Gavin Newsom—estimated net worth between $20 and $30 million—says he's opposed to a billionaire wealth tax. Color me shocked," wrote the Columbia University lecturer Anthony Zenkus. "Democrats holding him up as a potential savior for 2028 is a clear example of not reading the room."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Could Bless Trump's Bid to End Birthright Citizenship
"That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," said one critic.
Dec 05, 2025
The United States Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether US President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment for more than 150 years—is constitutional.
Next spring, the justices will hear oral arguments in Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down parts of an executive order—titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship—signed on the first day of the president's second term. Under the directive, which has not taken effect due to legal challenges, people born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to US citizenship if their parents are in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
Enacted in 1868, the 14th Amendment affirms that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
While the Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant US citizenship to freed slaves, not travelers or undocumented immigrants, two key Supreme Court cases have affirmed birthright citizenship under the Constitution—United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
Here is the question presented. It's a relatively clean vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether it is lawful for the president to deny birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Several district court judges have issued universal preliminary injunctions to block Trump's order. However, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority found in June that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
In July, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that executive order is an unconstitutional violation of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. In total, four federal courts and two appellate courts have blocked Trump's order.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, national legal director at the ACLU—which is leading the nationwide class action challenge to Trump's order—said in a statement Friday. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the advocacy group Stand Up America, was among those who suggested that the high court justices should have refused to hear the case given the long-settled precedent regarding the 14th Amendment.
“This case is a right-wing fantasy, full stop. That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," Edkins continued, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.
"Even if the court ultimately rules against Trump, in a laughable display of its supposed independence, the fact that fringe attacks on our most basic rights as citizens are being seriously considered is outrageous and alarming," he added.
Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, said that “it’s deeply troubling that we must waste precious judicial resources relitigating what has been settled constitutional law for over a century," adding that "every federal judge who has considered this executive order has found it unconstitutional."
Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund, asserted, “The attack on the fundamental right of birthright citizenship is an attack on the 14th Amendment and our Constitution."
"We are confident the court will affirm this basic right, which has stood for over a century," Mays added. "Millions of families across the country deserve and require that clarity and stability.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


