May, 20 2023, 01:13pm EDT
![Oil Change International](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012638/origin.png)
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
Billionaire Megadonor Draws Backlash for Urging Kamala Harris to Fire Lina Khan
"He's pushing her to go soft on corporate power, which is certainly not where voters are."
Jul 25, 2024
A billionaire megadonor's call for Vice President Kamala Harris to fire Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan if the presumptive Democratic nominee wins in November drew swift backlash from progressives on Thursday, with Sen. Bernie Sanders citing the demand as yet another example of "why we have to overturn Citizens United and end big money in politics."
Reid Hoffman, the billionaire founder of LinkedIn and a major Democratic benefactor, told CNN that he believes Khan is "waging war on American business" and expressed hope that a President Harris would replace the FTC chair, who has used her position to aggressively fight corporate concentration that harms consumers and small businesses.
Watch Hoffman's interview:
Billionaire LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman gave $7 million to the Harris campaign.
Then he went on TV demanding she fire FTC Chair Lina Khan, who leads the Biden admin in suing companies like Amazon, stopping megamergers, and protecting workers.
Harris must reject his demand. pic.twitter.com/gcw8bMA9us
— More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) July 25, 2024
Faiz Shakir, an adviser to Sanders (I-Vt.) and founder of the progressive media outlet More Perfect Union, accused Hoffman of "purposefully trying to fracture and divide the Kamala Harris coalition that's needed to win."
"He's pushing her to go soft on corporate power, which is certainly not where voters are," Shakir wrote on social media. "But it is where the billionaire class is."
Nidhi Hegde of the American Economic Liberties Project added that Hoffman "clearly does not understand how Khan's work has been pro-worker and pro-business."
"The Biden-Harris record on competition speaks for itself," Hegde wrote. "Also, that's real arrogant to go on national TV and just tell a presidential nominee what to do. That's not how democracy works."
Hoffman had already given more than $8.6 million to organizations supporting President Joe Biden before he dropped out of the race over the weekend and endorsed Harris, who has swiftly taken over the campaign apparatus and consolidated support among Democratic lawmakers and donors as she prepares for a matchup against Republican nominee Donald Trump.
Trump is also backed by tech billionaires, including the richest man in the world.
Hoffman told CNN that he intends to continue injecting money into the presidential race in support of Harris, who is reportedly planning a "Silicon Valley fundraising swing" with the LinkedIn founder.
According toThe Information, Hoffman convinced Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings to donate $7 million to a super PAC supporting Harris. CNBCreported Wednesday that efforts by Hoffman and other Silicon Valley moguls "are on track to raise over $100 million from major tech industry donors."
Progressives have raised concern about Harris' ties to and views about Big Tech. As The Financial Timesnoted Wednesday: "Harris has not yet articulated her antitrust policy. But in 2010, when Big Tech was not facing as fierce a pushback from Washington and the public over its alleged market abuses, she said: 'We cannot be short-sighted... we have to allow these [tech] businesses to develop and grow because that's where the models will be created."
Citing an unnamed "donor who has spoken privately" with Harris, The New York Timesreported Wednesday that the vice president has "expressed skepticism of Ms. Khan's expansive view of antitrust powers."
Harris counts among her advisers attorney Karen Dunn, who helped defend Google earlier this year against an antitrust lawsuit brought by the U.S. Justice Department and a number of states—including Harris' home state of California.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gaza Newborn Saved From Womb of Mother Killed in Israeli Airstrike
Malek Yassin was born into the hell that is Gaza during the 293 days of relentless Israeli bombings and blockade that have claimed the lives of more than 16,000 Palestinian children.
Jul 25, 2024
The recent rescue of a newborn from the womb of his mother after she was killed by an Israeli airstrike on a Gaza refugee camp has renewed focus on the horrors endured by Palestinian children and their families during Israel's nine-and-a-half-month onslaught.
Ola Al-Kurd was nine months pregnant and "wanted to hold her child and fill our home with his presence," Adnan Al-Kurd, the slain woman's father, toldReuters.
But last Friday, an Israeli strike on their family home in the Al-Nuseirat refugee camp in central Gaza killed the woman and several of her relatives. Surgeons at Al-Awda Hospital were able to safely deliver her baby, Malek Yassin, who was transferred to Al-Aqsa Hospital in Deir al-Balah and placed in an incubator.
"This baby's life was saved and he is now alive and well," said Al-Aqsa physician Dr. Khalil Al-Dakran. However, the infant's survival is far from guaranteed.
"We are in fact facing very great difficulties in the nursery department," Al-Dakran explained, pointing to an acute lack of medication, fuel to run generators, and other critical supplies.
"What is the fault of this child to start his life under difficult and very bad circumstances, deprived of the most basic necessities of life?" he asked.
Earlier this year, another Gaza newborn rescued from her slain mother's womb at just 30 weeks' gestation died days later at Emirati Maternity Hospital in Rafah.
Israel's 293-day siege, bombardment, and invasion of Gaza—which has killed, wounded, or left missing at least 140,000 Palestinians—has been hell on children and their mothers. The embattled enclave's healthcare infrastructure has been largely obliterated, forcing many mothers to give birth in precarious places, including in tents, streets, and even public bathrooms.
Basic survival items like diapers and formula have also been in extremely short supply in Gaza, which the United Nations Children's Fund has called "the world's most dangerous place to be a child."
As The British Medical Journalreported earlier this year, mothers in Gaza are "burying their newborns every day" as they have nothing to feed them due to what United Nations experts, human rights groups, and parties to the South Africa-led genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have called Israel's use of starvation as a weapon of war.
Oxfam said early in the war that children in Gaza were dying from preventable causes including diarrhea, hypothermia, dehydration, and infections.
In January, the ICJ ordered Israel to prevent genocidal acts including blocking food and other aid from entering Gaza. Human rights groups accused Israel of ignoring the order.
The World Court then issued a new order in March, reiterating its directive to prevent genocide, citing "worsening conditions" in Gaza, including "the spread of famine and starvation."
Dozens of Palestinians—almost all of them children—have died from malnutrition, dehydration, and lack of access to healthcare in Gaza over recent months.
Of the more than 39,000 Gazans who have been killed by Israel's bombs, bullets, and blockade, at least 16,000 are children, according to Palestinian and international agencies.
Israeli forces have allegedly deliberately targeted and executed children and their mothers. Israeli Air Force warplanes are dropping shrapnel-packed fragmentation bombs that doctors say are eviscerating children's bodies and causing a "constant flow of amputations."
The humanitarian group Save the Children said late last month that nearly 21,000 Palestinian children are missing in Gaza, with 17,000 orphaned and around 4,000 others believed to be dead and buried beneath the rubble of hundreds of thousands of bombed buildings. An unknown number of children are also believed to be buried in mass graves.
Israeli bombardments have wiped out entire Palestinian families.
Israel's onslaught is also causing what one Gaza mother called the "complete psychological destruction" of child survivors.
Last month, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres added Israel to the so-called "List of Shame" of countries and groups that kill and injure children.
On Wednesday, U.S. Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and 13 Democratic colleagues sent a letter to the Israeli and Egyptian ambassadors to the United States urging them to expedite the evacuation of critically ill and injured Palestinian children from Gaza.
"While people disagree about the war in Gaza, everyone should agree that no government should prevent injured children access to potentially lifesaving medical care," the senators wrote. "Rather, governments should be doing everything possible to assist in this situation."
"We must all treat the welfare of children in Gaza as an urgent humanitarian priority and work together to prevent further suffering," the lawmakers added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Dem Launches Push to Overturn Supreme Court Immunity Ruling
"It is incumbent upon Congress to fix this problem, and with his proposed constitutional amendment, Rep. Joseph Morelle is taking the first step," said the head of one group backing the effort.
Jul 25, 2024
The top Democrat of the Committee on House Administration on Wednesday proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would reverse the Supreme Court's recent decision to grant presidents "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution for "official acts."
Led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court's right-wing members ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump, the GOP nominee for the November election, triggering a wave of warnings, including from liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote in her early July dissent that "the president is now a king above the law."
Congressman Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.) is leading the fight for an amendment to reverse that ruling. He said in a statement that the high court "undermined not just the foundation of our constitutional government, but the foundation of our democracy."
"At its core, our nation relies on the principle that no American stands above another in the eyes of the law," he continued. "I introduced this constitutional amendment to correct a grave error of this Supreme Court and protect our democracy by ensuring no president is ever above the law. The American people expect their leaders to be held to the same standards we hold for any member of our community. Presidents are not monarchy, they are not tyrants, and shall not be immune."
Morelle proposed an amendment that would make clear "there is no immunity from criminal prosecution for an act on the grounds that such act was within the constitutional authority or official duties of an individual," and presidents may not pardon themselves.
"The Roberts Court, in a fit of neomonarchical enthusiasm for Donald Trump, has tried to lay out the red carpet for a lawless autocratic president."
The effort is backed by over 40 other House Democrats, including Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, a constitutional law scholar.
"We must do everything in our power to reverse the Supreme Court's outrageous betrayal of more than two centuries of constitutional law in America," said Raskin. "Nothing has been more sacred to American constitutional jurisprudence than the idea that no one is above the law, but the Roberts Court, in a fit of neomonarchical enthusiasm for Donald Trump, has tried to lay out the red carpet for a lawless autocratic president."
"We should do everything we can in a statutory way to repair the damage," he argued, "but ultimately, this will require some kind of constitutional amendment to block a fundamental change in American constitutional and political culture."
Advocacy groups are also supporting Morelle's proposal and highlighting what the recent ruling could mean for the future.
"The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States has imposed serious obstacles to holding Trump accountable for his role in the violence on January 6 and the attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of power," said Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert. "As Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, under the holding of Trump v. United States, a president could order the assassination of a rival, take a bribe for pardons, or order a military coup and—in each case—be immune from criminal liability."
"It is incumbent upon Congress to fix this problem, and with his proposed constitutional amendment, Rep. Joseph Morelle is taking the first step to right an obvious constitutional wrong," she continued. "By design, it's not easy to pass a constitutional amendment. But it can be done—and in this case, it must be done. Public Citizen strongly supports this amendment, and along with our allies in the Not Above the Law coalition are committed to ensuring its passage, to restore presidential accountability and basic democratic norms."
People for the American Way president and CEO Svante Myrick stressed that "big problems need big solutions, and the Supreme Court's ruling granting presidents unprecedented immunity is a big problem. Not just now, in the specific case involving Donald Trump, but in countless foreseeable and unforeseeable ways in the future."
"Our democracy is built on the principle that nobody is above the law," he added. "People For the American Way is proud to support this proposed amendment to strengthen and shore up that principle at this critical moment in our history."
Common Cause has also endorsed the effort. Virginia Kase Solomón, the group's president and CEO, called the court's decision "dangerous" and a departure from "what the framers intended."
"We thank Congressman Morelle for his leadership to uphold the rule of law and ensure accountability for all Americans, and we urge Congress to quickly pass this constitutional amendment," she said.
In the United States, constitutional amendments may be proposed either by Congress with two-thirds majority support in both chambers or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures.
Although Morelle's proposal lacks the support it would need to get through Congress, it sends a clear signal to voters going into the November election, when control of both chambers is up for grabs and the American people will likely get to choose between Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic nominee.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular