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
June, 04 2024, 08:46am EDT
Contact:
Nicole Rodel, Oil Change International – nicole@priceofoil.org
Last opportunity for G7 to deliver on fossil fuel promises before updating climate plans
Data published today by Oil Change International shows G7 countries are continuing to overwhelmingly prop up fossil fuels at home and abroad, despite agreeing to phase them out at COP28. G7 countries are massively expanding fossil fuel production at home and investing billions in more fossil fuel infrastructure abroad.
G7 nations – Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom – will gather for the upcoming Leaders’ Summit in Italy from 13 – 15 June, at a historic time for climate politics. This will be the last time these governments meet before submitting enhanced climate plans under the Paris Agreement.
At home, G7 countries have both the capacity and the responsibility to lead in phasing out fossil fuels. However, not only are G7 countries among the world’s biggest extractors of fossil fuels, they also have large expansion plans that sabotage any hope of achieving the climate goals they have repeatedly committed to.
- Italy, which holds the G7 presidency this year, recently committed to doubling its production of natural gas, when it should be among the nations phasing out fossil fuel production fastest.
- The U.S. is both the largest oil and gas producer globally and has the biggest oil and gas expansion plans by far, despite President Biden’s climate promises.
To uphold the COP28 decision, G7 countries must quickly phase out all existing production, and immediately end fossil fuel expansion at home. Continued oil and gas expansion would lock in climate chaos and an unlivable future.
Abroad, G7 members continue to provide billions of dollars in taxpayer finance for international fossil fuel projects, despite repeatedly promising to end financial support for these projects. Last year, the G7 even misleadingly claimed it had ended such financing. However, as of May 15, 2024, OCI has tracked at least $8.5 billion in public support for fossil fuel projects abroad from the G7 since the end of 2022, with Japan and the United States providing the majority of this financing.
The G7’s financing of fossil fuels still dwarfs its financial support for renewable energy, using public money to enable high-risk fossil fuel projects worldwide, while delaying the transition to renewables.
Oil Change International’s recommendations for G7 leaders at the upcoming summit and beyond include:
- Strengthen fossil fuel phase-out language and targets agreed at the 2023 G7 Hiroshima Summit and at COP28
- Demonstrate robust implementation of the COP28 UAE consensus to transition away from fossil fuels
- Acknowledge reductions in future fossil fuel demand and the impact this will have on export-dependent producer countries
- Prioritize support for the clean energy transition with a clear clean energy finance offer, that dramatically scales up clean energy finance where it is most needed, on fair terms
- Reiterate and strengthen the G7 2022 commitment to “end new direct public support for the international unabated fossil fuel energy sector by the end of 2022.”
Adam McGibbon, Public Finance Strategist at Oil Change International, said:
“The G7 are not just delaying taking climate action – they are actively blocking a fair, fast, full, and funded phase out of fossil fuels with massive expansion plans at home, and backing fossil fuel projects abroad with billions in public money.
“This summit is a critical moment for G7 nations to demonstrate true leadership. We’re calling on G7 leaders to acknowledge that fossil fuel expansion is incompatible with the 1.5C limit, and to commit to submitting enhanced climate plans under the Paris Agreement that will deliver a science-aligned fossil fuel phaseout and support for an equitable transition to clean energy.
“There is no shortage of public money to make the COP28 decision on fossil fuels a reality – it is just poorly distributed to the most harmful parts of our economies that are driving the climate crisis and extreme inequalities. G7 countries must make good on their promise to stop funding fossil fuels, and pay their fair share for people-centered renewables on fair terms.
“The G7 are among the world’s most powerful and wealthiest nations. They have a responsibility to lead the way both at home and abroad. Anything less is hypocrisy and gross negligence, and risks endangering the implementation of the COP28 decision to transition away from fossil fuels.”
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
'Absolutely Shameful': Critics Slam Latest Law Firm to Cave Amid Trump's Revenge Threats
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP—where former Vice President Kamala Harris' husband is a partner—investigated the Capitol insurrection and successfully represented Georgia election workers defamed by Rudy Giuliani.
Apr 01, 2025
In the latest capitulation to his retributive attacks on Big Law, U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday announced that his administration struck a deal with a law firm that took part in the investigation into the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection and whose partners include the husband of former Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris.
"Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP proactively reached out to President Trump and his Administration, offering their decisive commitment to ending the Weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession," Trump said on his Truth Social network. "The President is delivering on his promises of eradicating Partisan Lawfare in America, and restoring Liberty and Justice FOR ALL."
According to Trump, Willkie—whose partners include former Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff—will provide a total of at least $100 million in pro bono services to veterans, active duty U.S.en troops, and Gold Star families; law enforcement and first responders; to "ensuring fairness in our justice system;" and combating antisemitism.
The firm also agreed to commit to "merit-based hiring" and refrain from "illegal" diversity, equity, and inclusion hiring, promotion, and retention. It must also "not deny representation to clients, such as members of politically disenfranchised groups... who have not historically received legal representation from major national law firms... because of the personal political views of individual lawyers."
Willkie said in a statement that "we reached an agreement with President Trump and his administration on matters of great importance to our firm. The substance of that agreement is consistent with our firm's views on access to legal representation by clients, including pro bono clients, our commitment to complying with the law as it relates to our employment practices, and our history of working with clients across a wide spectrum of political viewpoints."
"The firm looks forward to having a constructive relationship with the Trump administration, and remains committed to serving the needs of our clients, our employees, and the communities of which we are a part," the statement added.
The agreement averts what could have been a ruinous executive order from Trump targeting the firm. Willkie drew Trump's ire for actions including employing a top investigator for the House committee that examined his role in fomenting the attack on the U.S. Capitol and for representing two Georgia election workers who sued his former attorney and adviser, Rudy Giuliani, for defamation. In December 2023, the former New York City mayor was ordered to pay $148 million to the workers for falsely accusing them of engaging in a nonexistent conspiracy to "steal" the 2020 U.S. presidential election from Trump.
According toThe Associated Press, "Emhoff made it known internally that he disagreed with this deal and told firm leadership they should fight, according to a person familiar with the situation who insisted on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations."
Tuesday's deal outraged democracy defenders.
Absolutely shameful. Doug Emhoff of all people should understand the danger that will come from lawyers capitulating to a man hell-bent on destroying our democracy. Emhoff and other partners need to show they stand on the side of the rule of law by quitting—there’s absolutely no other option.
[image or embed]
— Molly Coleman ( @mollycoleman.bsky.social) April 1, 2025 at 2:19 PM
"Emhoff and other partners need to show they stand on the side of the rule of law by quitting—there's absolutely no other option," argued Molly Coleman, executive director of the People's Parity Project and PPP Action and a St. Paul, Minnesota City Council candidate.
The Willkie agreement follows
similar surrenders by white-shoe law firms including Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. Trump accused these and other law firms of weaponizing the judicial system, and last month, he issued a memo directing U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to "seek sanctions" against firms and lawyers that the administration says have engaged in "frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Wouldn't 'Ignore' Parliamentarian to Raise Minimum Wage, But GOP Plans to for Massive Tax Giveaway to the Rich
"They are deciding that the way we're gonna do this is break the Senate and make up our own rules," said Sen. Cory Booker.
Apr 01, 2025
During 2021 battles to raise the minimum wage and advance the Build Back Better agenda, congressional Democrats refused to "ignore" the unelected U.S. Senate parliamentarian—but Republican lawmakers are now planning to do just that, so they can give the wealthy trillions of more dollars in tax cuts, at the expense of programs that serve working people.
GOP Senate leadership and the White House want to make permanent tax cuts that President Donald Trumpsigned into law in 2017, "without having to account for how much it would add to the deficit," Axiosreported Tuesday. "Now, they're saying all they need is for Budget Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to decide that's what they're going to do."
"Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) backed the argument, laid out by Graham, that Republicans don't need the Senate parliamentarian to bless the current policy approach during Tuesday's Senate GOP lunch," Axios detailed. "Graham is expected to release the language of the budget resolution as soon as Tuesday, according to GOP Whip John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)."
As a trio of experts at the Center for American Progress—including economist Lawrence Summers—wrote Tuesday: "The majority is attempting to force the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) to say the fiscal impact is instead zero dollars by using a 'current policy' baseline rather than the 'current law' baseline that is defined in statute. This approach is unprecedented in the 50 years since the CBO was formed and Congress acted within the current budget framework."
"Whether one believes the United States should be cutting taxes or increasing spending, there should be no question that forcing the CBO and JCT to pretend that policies have no fiscal impact would allow Congress to make major tax and spending decisions with no arithmetic recognition of the cost," they argued. "This would be the epitome of fiscal irresponsibility. Congress needs to responsibly bring down deficits. Establishing principles that make it possible to incur huge costs without recognizing them would be an egregious and dangerous error."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)—who has faced calls to resign from his leadership post after caving to congressional Republicans during last month's shutdown fight—spoke out against the plan on Tuesday, as NBC Newsreported.
"That would be going nuclear," Schumer said. "And it shows that Republicans are so hell-bent on giving these tax breaks to the billionaires that they're willing to break any rules, norms, and things they promised they wouldn't do."
While Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) was in the midst of holding the chamber's floor in remarks that began Monday night and were ongoing as of press time, to protest Trump's sweeping attacks on government, Schumer also informed him of the GOP plan.
Booker read in full a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report from February titled, House Republican Budget's $4.5 Trillion Tax Cut Doubles Down on Costly Failures of 2017 Tax Law, as well as recent reporting in The New York Times about what the newspaper called "a maneuver so wonky that it might be best explained with sports cars and anime streaming."
"They found a way around the parliamentarian. They found a way around the rules of the Senate. They found a way around the ideals of reconciliation," Booker said of congressional Republicans. "They are deciding that the way we're gonna do this is break the Senate and make up our own rules. This is how they're gonna get a bill through that gives trillions [of] dollars of tax cuts to the wealthiest in our country who are doing very well."
While refusing to "hate on" wealthy Americans, Booker also had a message for them: "You don't need tax cuts, especially not that are gonna be given to you on the backs of the poor, on the backs of our elders, on the backs of our children, on the backs of expectant mothers, on the backs of my mom's, your mom's Social Security."
Booker's historic stunt—which set a new record for the longest Senate floor speech in history—came as polls show Democratic voters are frustrated with the party's failure to effectively stand up to Trump and fight for working people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Cuts, NATO Withdrawals Weakening Landmine Treaty and Endangering Lives
"The Trump administration's deep cuts to foreign aid are now disrupting mine clearance operations," one campaigner said ahead of International Day of Mine Action.
Apr 01, 2025
International Day for Mine Action on April 4 is typically an occasion to take stock of humanity's progress toward eradicating the scourge of landmines; however, with the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump dramatically slashing foreign aid and several European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organization members withdrawing from the landmark Mine Ban Treaty, campaigners say there's little worth celebrating this Friday.
Mary Wareham, deputy director of Human Rights Watch's Crisis, Conflict, and Arms program, said Tuesday that International Day of Mine Action "is a moment to highlight the work of the thousands of deminers around the world who clear and destroy landmines and explosive remnants of war."
"They risk their lives to help communities recover from armed conflict and its intergenerational impacts," Wareham—a joint recipient of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for her work with the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL)—continued. "But due to devastating developments driven largely by two countries that have not banned antipersonnel landmines, the United States and Russia, this Mine Action Day does not feel like much of a celebration."
"For over three decades, the U.S. has been the world's largest contributor to humanitarian demining, mine risk education, and rehabilitation programs for landmine survivors," Wareham noted. "But the Trump administration's deep cuts to foreign aid are now disrupting mine clearance operations. Thousands of deminers have been fired or put on administrative leave pending the completion of so-called reviews. It's unclear if this crucial support will continue. The price of Trump administration cuts will be evident as casualties increase."
Responding to the Trump cuts, Anne Héry, advocacy director at the Maryland-based group Humanity & Inclusion—a founding ICBL member—said:
Any delay in clearance prolongs the danger of contamination by explosive ordnance for affected populations. Clearance operations save lives, especially children, who are often victims of explosive devices. They also enable communities to use land for agriculture, construction, and other economic activities. This funding cut will further displace vulnerable populations who cannot return home due to contamination. It will also result in limited access to schools, healthcare facilities, and water sources in contaminated areas.
The Trump administration's seeming disdain for Ukrainian—and by extension much of Europe's—security concerns, combined with Russia's ongoing invasion and occupation of much of Ukraine, has some E.U. and NATO members looking for other ways to defend against potential Russian aggression.
Earlier this month, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania said they would withdraw from the 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, also known as the Ottawa Treaty and the Mine Ban Treaty.
In a joint statement, the four countries' defense ministers explained that "military threats to NATO member states bordering Russia and Belarus have significantly increased" and that "with this decision we are sending a clear message [that] our countries are prepared and can use every necessary measure to defend our security needs."
As Wareham also noted: "Russian forces have used antipersonnel landmines extensively in Ukraine since 2022, causing civilian casualties and contaminating agricultural land. Ukraine has also used antipersonnel mines and has received them from the U.S., in violation of the Mine Ban Treaty."
In another blow to the Mine Ban Treaty, Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo announced Tuesday that Finland is preparing to quit the pact, a move he said "will give us the possibility to prepare for the changes in the security environment in a more versatile way."
#Estonia #Latvia #Lithuania #Finland #Poland – DO NOT EXIT the Mine Ban Treaty! Your choices shape the future. "Young people are watching, and we’re counting on you" to uphold the ban on landmines! #MineFreeWorld #ProtectMineBan
[image or embed]
— International Campaign to Ban Landmines (@minefreeworld.bsky.social) April 1, 2025 at 7:04 AM
Wareham said that "the proposed treaty withdrawals raise the question of what other humanitarian disarmament treaties are at risk: chemical weapons? cluster munitions? The military utility of any weapon must be weighed against the expected humanitarian damage."
"To avoid further eroding humanitarian norms, Poland and the Baltic states should reject proposals to leave the Mine Ban Treaty," she added. "They should instead reaffirm their collective commitment to humanitarian norms aimed at safeguarding humanity in war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular