SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
December, 05 2023, 08:19am EDT
Contact:
Sanjali De Silva Communications Officer Energy, Climate Accountability: SDeSilva@ucsusa.org
Fossil Fuel Interests Threaten to Undermine UN Climate Talks
Statement by Kathy Mulvey, Union of Concerned Scientists
At the annual United Nations climate talks—COP28—in Dubai, fossil fuel interests are front and center and threatening to water down ambitious climate action. A new report today released by Kick Big Polluters Out showed that more than 2,400 fossil fuel industry lobbyists are attending COP28—significantly more than almost every country delegation.
Conflict of interest has been a concern for this year’s COP since Sultan Al-Jaber, president of United Arab Emirates' national oil company, was announced as the presidency. Days before delegates arrived in Dubai, leaked documents revealed that the UAE planned to use its role as host to secure deals and gas deals. In recent days, a recording surfaced of the COP Presidency claiming that there is “no science” behind phasing out fossil fuels and that the “role of fossil fuels” must be included in the COP28 decision. In addition to lobbyists, ExxonMobil Chair and CEO Darren Woods himself has been on the ground in Dubai attending negotiations for the first time. Woods is pushing for leaders to focus on emissions, not fossil fuels.
Among the flurry of announcements in the early days of COP28, is the Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter. Led by the president of this year’s talks, the charter is a voluntary climate action initiative by oil and gas corporations. The charter largely restates existing emissions reduction pledges already made by investor-owned fossil fuel corporations while bringing national oil companies under its umbrella.
The science is clear that a fair, fast, and funded phaseout of fossil fuels is urgently needed in order to curb climate change and other harmful health impacts of fossil fuels. Scientists across a range of disciplines agree, as evidenced by a letter sent by 650 scientists to President Biden ahead of COP28. Among other asks, the letter urges him to agree to a fast and fair phaseout of all fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) and to protect international climate negotiations from fossil fuel industry interference, disinformation, and greenwashing.
Below is a statement by Kathy Mulvey, accountability campaign director at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
“It’s extremely alarming to witness the pervasive influence of fossil fuel industry interests at COP28. Fossil fuel lobbyists and leaders are actively deploying deceptive tactics to mislead the public and policymakers, sow doubt about climate science, and obstruct critical climate action. Their agenda is crystal clear: safeguarding their profits at the expense of a livable future for all of us. The urgency of phasing out fossil fuels demands a unified, unwavering commitment from global leaders, unencumbered by the fossil fuel industry’s self-serving agenda.
“The COP28 Presidency-led Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter is a lot of fanfare around the restatement of woefully insufficient emissions reductions pledges already made by many of the signatory corporations. Less than a week into negotiations, we have serious concerns about fossil fuel industry influence—both public deception and behind-the- scenes manipulation—and the risk it poses to securing the scientifically-necessary agreement for a fast, fair, and funded phase out of fossil fuels at COP28. We need world leaders to step up and make commitments that align with the urgency and scale of the crisis and prioritize dramatic emission cuts, not recycled voluntary corporate promises.”
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
LATEST NEWS
'New Year's Eve Massacre': Trump Administration Makes Deep Cuts at FEMA as Climate Crisis Accelerates
A former FEMA official said that the agency "can't do disaster response and recovery without" the employees being terminated by the Trump administration.
Jan 02, 2026
The Trump administration this week made abrupt cuts to the top federal disaster response agency, even as US communities face increased threats from natural disasters caused by the global climate crisis.
Independent journalist Marisa Kabas reported on Wednesday that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) "has begun issuing termination notices" to staff at the agency's Cadre of On-Call Response and Recovery (CORE) that are effective as of January 2.
A FEMA staffer who spoke with Kabas described the terminations as "The New Year's Eve Massacre," and explained that "the driving force behind all CORE employees is supporting and enacting the mission of preparing for, responding to, and recovering from disasters."
A Thursday report from CNN added some additional details to Kabas' reporting, including that the decision to issue the layoffs was made by Acting Administrator Karen Evans, who was appointed to the role after former Acting Administrator David Richardson resigned in November.
One former FEMA official bluntly told CNN that the agency "can't do disaster response and recovery without CORE employees" that are being laid off by the administration.
The former FEMA official added that regional agency offices throughout the US "are almost entirely CORE staff, so the first FEMA people who are usually onsite won’t be there," which will mean that "states are on their own" when it comes to disaster response.
CNN also reported that there is anxiety among remaining FEMA staffers that these cuts could just be the start "of a larger effort" by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem "to shrink FEMA, potentially axing thousands of workers in the coming months who deploy during hurricanes, wildfires and other national emergencies."
President Donald Trump has been targeting FEMA for potential termination for nearly a year now, and he said shortly after being inaugurated last January that a goal in his second term would be "fundamentally reforming and overhauling FEMA or maybe getting rid of FEMA," while emphasizing that individual states should bear the cost of responding to natural disasters.
“I think, frankly, FEMA’s not good,” the president said. “I think when you have a problem like this, I think you want to go, and whether it’s a Democrat or Republican governor, you want to use your state to fix it and not waste time calling FEMA.”
The Trump administration's deep cuts to FEMA come as the intensity of natural disasters is only projected to increase thanks to climate change.
According to a report published on Tuesday by the Yale School of the Environment, 2025 was the second hottest on record and was only surpassed by the previous year.
"The last three years have been, by a wide margin, the hottest ever recorded," stressed the report. "Each of the last three years has measured more than 1.5°C warmer than preindustrial times, putting the world at least temporarily in breach of an international goal to limit warming below that level."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Says US ‘Locked and Loaded’ in Latest Threat of War With Iran
"Trump should know that American interference in this issue is equivalent to chaos in the entire region and will destroy America’s interests," responded one top Iranian official.
Jan 02, 2026
US President Donald Trump on Friday issued his latest threat to attack Iran militarily, warning in a social media post that the United States is "ready to go" if Tehran intensifies its crackdown on ongoing street protests.
"If Iran shots [sic] and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "We are locked and loaded."
Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, quickly hit back, writing on X that "Trump should know that American interference in this issue is equivalent to chaos in the entire region and will destroy America’s interests."
Trump's post came days after the president suggested, following a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that he would support another round of military strikes against Iran after greenlighting the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities last year.
Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), said in response to Trump's meeting with Netanyahu that the Israeli prime minister "came to the US with the goal of moving the goalposts for military action on Iran."
"Trump’s comments are a dangerous signal the president may have taken the bait," Abdi warned. "The US should not be involved in joining, supporting, or enabling another war on Iran for Israel. The president should instead be pursuing a diplomatic resolution to take war with Iran off the table for Americans, not continuing to follow Netanyahu into a quagmire."
"President Trump likely views his own reckless comments as diplomatic posturing to pressure Iran to the table," Abdi added. "But such rhetoric risks seriously backfiring and is more likely to remove diplomatic off-ramps, which also serves Netanyahu’s agenda — not America’s."
"A familiar playbook is unfolding: Israeli government officials and their allies are cynically co-opting the legitimate grievances of ordinary Iranians to advance their own agenda of militarism and outside-led regime change."
The protests in Iran began last weekend in response to deteriorating economic conditions, specifically the collapse of the nation's currency. Analyst Sina Toossi noted on his Substack Dissident Foreign Policy that the demonstrations, which now include students, were "sparked by a group of mobile phone and technology merchants in Tehran going on strike."
"From there, the protests spilled into surrounding streets of the capital and, over subsequent days, into other cities across the country," Toossi wrote. "As they spread, economic grievances increasingly mixed with overt anti-government slogans, as seen in past protest movements."
Reports indicate that several protesters have been killed by Iranian security forces.
NIAC's Etan Mabourakh and Ehsan Zahedani wrote Wednesday that "as protests erupt across Iran in response to economic collapse and broken promises of reform, a familiar playbook is unfolding: Israeli government officials and their allies are cynically co-opting the legitimate grievances of ordinary Iranians to advance their own agenda of militarism and outside-led regime change."
"The Iranian people’s struggle for dignity, economic justice, and freedom is their own," they added. "It deserves self-aware solidarity from the diaspora that asserts their self-determination—not Western 'salvation' in the form of more bombs on Tehran."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Billionaires Seethe, Organizers Say Proposed Wealth Tax in California Is 'Not Radical'
"Asking the handful of wealthiest Californians to contribute less than the annual appreciation on their fortunes to mitigate these crises is a small, reasonable, and administrable request," argued a group of experts.
Jan 02, 2026
Billionaire outrage against a proposed one-time wealth tax on the richest Californians reached a fever pitch in recent days as organizers began the process of gathering the hundreds of thousands of signatures needed to get the initiative on the November ballot.
Without providing specifics, billionaire Bay Area investor Chamath Palihapitiya claimed in a social media post that he knows people "with a collective net worth of $500 billion" who "scrambled and left California for good yesterday" to avoid the potential 5% wealth tax, which would apply to billionaires living in California as of January 1, 2026. (The evidence for significant billionaire tax avoidance via physical relocation is virtually nonexistent.)
Palihapitiya characterized the proposed ballot initiative, which is aimed at raising revenue to avert a healthcare crisis spurred by federal Medicaid cuts, as an "asset seizure tax."
Bill Ackman, a billionaire hedge fund manager who lives in New York, similarly described the proposed tax as "an expropriation of private property."
The Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post, meanwhile, published a hostile editorial on Thursday denouncing the proposed tax and mocking its supporters, including Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW).
"Many progressives think of taxation the way teenage boys think about cologne: If some is good, more must be great," the editorial reads. "California, already reeks of overtaxation, but it’s thinking about trying out its most potent scent yet: a wealth tax. Just a whiff has some of the state’s wealthiest residents fleeing."
The Wall Street Journal reported that "the firms of two high-profile California investors issued announcements on New Year’s Eve about establishing new offices out of state, without saying anything about the proposed Golden State tax."
"Tech investor Peter Thiel’s investment firm, Thiel Capital, said it signed a lease in December for office space in Miami," the newspaper added. "The office will 'complement Thiel Capital’s existing operations in Los Angeles,' the company said."
Supporters say the response from billionaires and other opponents of the proposed tax—including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is helping raise money to fight the initiative—badly misses the mark. According to organizers, most billionaires see larger capital gains increases in months than the amount they would pay if California voters approved the tax.
“Asking those who have benefited most from the economy to contribute more—particularly to stabilize healthcare systems under direct threat—is not radical. It is reasonable,” Suzanne Jimenez, the chief of staff of SEIU-UHW, told the Journal.
Earlier this week, as Common Dreams reported, US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) endorsed the proposed wealth tax, which proponents say would raise roughly $100 billion in revenue from around 200 California billionaires. Under the proposal, most of the resulting revenue would be allocated to a Billionaire Tax Health Account, while the rest would go toward an account to fund food assistance and education.
A new expert analysis of the proposal, authored by some of those involved in drafting the initiative, argues that the one-time tax is urgent because "decisions at the federal level have put—and will put—California's healthcare system, education system, and broader economy under severe stress."
"Asking the handful of wealthiest Californians to contribute less than the annual appreciation on their fortunes to mitigate these crises is a small, reasonable, and administrable request," the experts write. "And that is all that this ballot measure does."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular