

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.

Nicole Rodel, Oil Change International – nicole@priceofoil.org (CET)
Valentina Stackl, Oil Change International – valentina@priceofoil.org (ET)
Only 20 countries, led overwhelmingly by the United States, are responsible for nearly 90 percent of the carbon-dioxide (CO2) pollution threatened by new oil and gas fields and fracking wells planned between 2023 and 2050. If this oil and gas expansion [1] is allowed to proceed, it would lock in climate chaos and an unlivable future, according to Planet Wreckers, a new report by Oil Change International.
The research is released days ahead of United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres’ Climate Ambition Summit in New York City, where more than 10,000 people will march in protest of inaction against fossil fuels. Guterres has called for countries to show up with commitments to stop oil and gas expansion and plan a phase out of existing production in line with the 1.5°C limit.
If these 20 countries, which the report dubs “Planet Wreckers”, halted their planned new oil and gas extraction, 173 billion tonnes (Gt) of carbon pollution would be kept in the ground. This is equivalent to the lifetime pollution of nearly 1,100 new coal plants, or more than 30 years of annual U.S. carbon emissions. On top of oil and gas extraction from already operating sites worldwide, this amount of new carbon pollution would make it impossible to hold temperature rise to 1.5°C.
Five global north countries with the greatest economic means and moral responsibility to rapidly phase out production are responsible for a majority (51%) of planned expansion from new oil and gas fields through 2050: the United States, Canada, Australia, Norway, and the United Kingdom.
Key Findings:
The United States is “Planet Wrecker-In-Chief”, accounting for more than one-third of CO2 pollution from planned global oil and gas expansion through 2050.[2] The United States is already the largest producer of oil and gas in the world and the largest historical climate polluter.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE), this year’s host of crucial UN negotiations, is also set to be one of the largest expanders of oil and gas production despite pledging to use its COP presidency to “keep 1.5°C alive”.
Oil and gas expansion from the 20 countries would make it impossible to hold temperature rise to 1.5°C. Even extracting just the fossil fuels from existing sites globally would result in 140% more carbon pollution than the allowed budget for 1.5°C. If these countries proceed with new extraction, committed carbon pollution from fossil fuel production will be 190% over the 1.5°C budget, risking locking in more than a dangerous 2°C of warming, and an unlivable future for all.
Romain Ioualalen, Global Policy lead and report co-author at Oil Change International, said: “It’s simple: when you are in a hole, the first step is to stop digging. The climate crisis is global in nature – but is atrociously unjust. A handful of the world’s richest nations’ are risking our future by willingly ignoring the calls to rapidly phase out fossil fuels. Despite very clear science telling us what is in store beyond 1.5°C, these so-called climate leaders are planning for climate chaos. Continuing to increase fossil fuel production anywhere is not compatible with a liveable future and has been rightly called “moral and economic madness” by UN Secretary General Guterres. All countries must show up to the UN Climate Ambition Summit with plans to stop oil and gas expansion immediately, but these five countries have the additional responsibility to move first and fastest to phase out their production, and pay their fair share to fund a just global energy transition. The world is watching, and those intent on leading us into disaster will be held accountable.”
Julia Levin, Associate Director, National Climate, Environmental Defence Canada said: “Canada has been rightly exposed as one of the worst polluters on the planet, as a result of its plans to increase oil and gas production. It has been a devastating summer for people across Canada, who have lost their lives, their homes and their communities as a result of climate disasters. Yet governments in Canada are throwing fuel on the fire by expanding oil and gas production, while the federal government drags its feet on new rules that would cap and cut emissions from the oil and gas sector. Further delay in reducing oil and gas pollution is inexcusable.”
Tessa Khan, Executive Director at Uplift, said: “We’re often told that the UK is a climate leader, but this confirms that we’re now part of a tiny club of countries that are having an outsized role in driving the climate crisis. We know we cannot keep opening up new oil and gas fields if we want a habitable world, yet that is exactly what this government is doing.
Rishi Sunak needs to stop bowing to the demands of the fossil fuel firms, who continue to rake in obscene profits while millions of us cannot afford to heat our homes.
What’s worse is that we don’t need to be part of this wrecking club. The UK has renewable resources in abundance, enough to provide us with a cheaper, clean supply of energy. Oil and gas companies cannot be allowed to influence the UK’s energy or climate policies any longer.”
James Sherley, Climate Justice Campaigner at Jubilee Australia, said: “Despite the reality of the climate crisis the Australian government continues to facilitate the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. In recent years Australians have been devastated by the most severe bushfires and floods in our history, it is inconceivable that our taxpayer dollars are still propping up the industry causing this destruction. By signing the Glasgow Statement the government can end its support for fossil fuel exports and redirect that integral capital into the clean energy revolution. This is just one step Australia must take if we are to rebuild some credibility on global climate action, especially pertinent considering our bid to host COP31 with our Pacific Islands neighbors.”
Frode Pleym, head of Greenpeace Norway, said: “This report confirms that Norway is on a highway to climate hell. The science could not be more clear: There is no room for a single drop of oil from new fields. Yet, the state is spending billions on exploring for ever more resources, even in the vulnerable arctic.”
Caroline Brouillette, Executive Director of Climate Action Network Canada, said: “From heatwaves to wildfires to floods, Canadians have experienced devastating climate impacts this summer – all of which are linked to fossil fuels. Pollution from Canada’s oil and gas sector has risen unchecked for decades, and the sector is still planning further expansion, actively destroying our chance at a safe and healthy future. Fossil fuel companies won’t clean up their act on their own: Canada needs a strong and ambitious emissions cap to ensure the oil and gas industry finally takes responsibility.”
Helen Mancini, 16 year old Fridays For Future from New York City, said: “The Planet-Wreckers report presents unmistakable evidence of the peril of fossil fuel expansion while reckoning with the world’s historic polluters, namely the United States, and how we must hold them accountable. The activism youth are doing is not radical, it’s a demand for survival that the Planet-Wreckers must heed.”
Lavetanalagi Seru, Regional Coordinator for Pacific Islands Climate Action Network (PICAN) said: “Australia’s treachery is once again laid bare for all to see. This report cuts through the supposed change in rhetoric on climate by the Albanese Government and exposes Australia for what it truly is: a captive of the fossil fuel industry shackled to its insidious agenda.
It’s unfathomable that the Australian government continues to stoke the flames of the climate crisis, despite the brutal scars of unprecedented bushfires and floods etched into its landscape, and with full knowledge of the profound impacts that the fossil fuel industry inflicts upon First Nations communities and the Pacific.
With the window of opportunity to limit global warming to 1.5°C rapidly closing, a global fossil fuel phase out that is fast, fair and funded must be our paramount priority. Pacific Leaders must strongly insist on Australia to course correct before lending its support to the COP31 bid.”
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"Only Trump’s get-rich-quick bros would come up with this corrupt and moronic scheme," wrote Democratic Sen. Ed Markey.
A prominent US senator on Tuesday implored President Donald Trump to cancel his administration's plan to give private companies enough plutonium to build around 2,000 nuclear bombs, warning the move raises "serious weapons proliferation concerns" along with potentially massive safety issues and conflicts of interest.
"If implemented, this would be the first time the US government has made weapons-grade plutonium available to private companies," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) wrote in a letter to Trump. "I urge you to cancel this misguided scheme."
The New York Times reported last week that the US Department of Energy currently has "more than 50 tons of surplus plutonium left over from nuclear weapons programs, and the agency had previously been planning to dilute much of that material and bury it."
But last May, Trump signed an executive order halting the dilution program and instructing his energy secretary to "establish a program to dispose of surplus plutonium by processing and making it available to industry in a form that can be utilized for the fabrication of fuel for advanced nuclear technologies."
Last Tuesday, the Energy Department said it has entered into "advanced negotiations" with five nuclear energy companies—Oklo, Flibe Energy, Exodys Energy, Shine Technologies, and Standard Nuclear—to potentially distribute the Cold War-era plutonium.
Markey noted in his letter that Energy Secretary Chris Wright previously served on the board of Oklo, a California-based nuclear technology company whose stock price jumped in response to the department's announcement.
"I am concerned that your administration is moving forward with plans to give plutonium to Oklo not because this makes
sense for the United States, but because Oklo stands to benefit financially and Secretary Wright is acting in his former company's interest. Secretary Wright's close ties to the company present an appearance of impropriety."
The senator also expressed opposition to the plan on its merits, warning that "the transfer of weapons-usable plutonium to private industry would increase the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, including to rogue states or terrorists."
"Your plan—which would provide US companies with plutonium from US military stocks and subsidize them both to reprocess plutonium domestically and export reprocessing technology—would reverse our successful nonproliferation policy," Markey wrote. "The United States cannot effectively discourage other countries from using plutonium for civil purposes if we use it ourselves."
Trump wants to give 2,000 nuclear bombs worth of weapons-ready plutonium to private companies including Oklo, where Energy Secretary Wright served on the board. This is a clear conflict of interest and dangerous for our security. Trump must cancel this plan now. pic.twitter.com/rIZnLSpZJe
— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) June 2, 2026
Nuclear experts have raised similar concerns about the Trump administration's plan to transfer weapons-grade plutonium into the hands of private, for-profit corporations.
"Plutonium-based fuels and reprocessing have a poor track record when introduced in civilian nuclear energy programs," Ernest Moniz, a nuclear physicist who headed the Energy Department during the Obama administration, wrote last year, warning that transfer schemes such as the one put forth by Trump would "produce new radioactive waste streams that must be managed" and "elevate the risk of a safety or security incident at a nuclear facility."
In a social media post last week, Markey condemned the Trump administration's plan in scathing terms, writing that "using plutonium for nuclear power is stupid and dangerous."
"This material is used in nukes, and it’s too unsafe for widespread commercial use. Do we want Iran using plutonium in its reactor? No," Markey wrote. "Only Trump’s get-rich-quick bros would come up with this corrupt and moronic scheme."
“This would strip long-held investor protections from retirement savers and encourage the use of more risky, complex, and expensive investments."
Two progressive US senators are leading the charge against a new Trump administration scheme that would allow Americans' retirement funds to invest in cryptocurrencies.
As reported by The Guardian on Tuesday, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), along with Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), sent a letter to the US Department of Labor (DOL) warning against enacting a proposed rule change that would allow 401(k) investments to include crypto.
Cryptocurrencies have long proven to be volatile assets that have been involved in multiple fraud schemes, which the FBI estimates cost Americans more than $20 billion in 2025 alone.
“This would strip long-held investor protections from retirement savers and encourage the use of more risky, complex, and expensive investments,” states the letter. “The proposed rule is harmful to American workers.”
Offering an example of the dangers of investing in crypto, the letter cites President Donald Trump's personal meme coin, whose value has cratered since its peak in January 2025.
The push to let 401(k)s invest in crypto has also drawn criticism from Americans for Financial Reform (AFR), which on Monday released a white paper outlining how the plan would put Americans' retirement savings at risk while also serving as a boon to the private equity industry.
Oscar Valdés Viera, senior policy analyst for private equity and capital markets at AFR, accused the DOL of handing over US retirement savings to "the worst Wall Street predators and crypto scammers."
"This proposal would use 401(k)s to bail out a struggling industry and advance the administration’s push to embed crypto deeper into the financial system," Valdés Viera explained. "Driving workers into the arms of private equity firms and crypto insiders would let the president’s Wall Street and crypto cronies pocket billions at the expense of families’ retirement security."
Democracy Defenders Fund (DDF) last week noted that Trump and his family, who have major ties to the cryptocurrency industry, would stand to personally profit from the DOL's proposed rule change.
"President Trump stands to benefit if ordinary people can use their employer-sponsored retirement plans to invest in crypto," said Virginia Canter, chief counsel and director of ethics and anti-corruption at DDF. "The administration claims the proposed rule would 'relieve regulatory burdens,' but it looks more like self-dealing."
In addition to allowing 401(k)s to invest in cryptocurrencies, the proposed DOL rule change would also allow them to invest in private credit assets, which are typically loans negotiated with non-bank lenders.
Benjamin Schiffrin, director of securities policy for Better Markets, said on Tuesday that letting 401(k)s invest in these assets would be a similarly risky bet to letting them invest in crypto.
"This is exactly the wrong approach at the wrong time," said Schiffrin. "There could hardly be a proposal more dangerous to Americans’ retirement security. Investors already in private credit are currently running for the exits. DOL’s proposal means that one day millions of Americans with 401(k)s may have to do the same."
"The more Netanyahu prevents the war with Iran from ending, the more obvious it becomes that he convinced Trump to start it."
The death toll from Israel's assault on Lebanon continued to rise on Tuesday despite President Donald Trump's claims of de-escalation following Monday phone calls with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and an intermediary for Hezbollah.
The Lebanese Ministry of Public Health said Tuesday that "the cumulative toll of the aggression from March 2 to June 2 has reached 3,468 dead and 10,577 injured," even amid a ceasefire agreed to in April. The deal stemmed from Trump and Netanyahu's illegal war on Iran, and Israel initially claimed it did not include Lebanon.
After Iran on Monday reportedly halted talks with the US over Israel's attacks on Lebanon, Trump said on his Truth Social platform that due to his phone calls, Israeli troops "have already been turned back" from Beirut, and Hezbollah "agreed that all shooting will stop—That Israel will not attack them, and they will not attack Israel."
However, Netanyahu said later Monday that "I spoke this evening with President Trump and told him that if Hezbollah does not stop attacking our cities and civilians, Israel will strike terrorist targets in Beirut. This position remains unchanged."
According to Axios reporting contested by a senior Israeli official, one US source summarized Trump's remarks to Netanyahu as follows: "You're fucking crazy. You'd be in prison if it weren't for me. I'm saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this."
Another source said that Trump was "pissed" and at one point yelled at the prime minister, "What the fuck are you doing?"
While "the story has understandably been met with considerable skepticism," wrote Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, there are "a few important counterexamples—particularly from Trump's second term—that suggest the Axios story is not entirely implausible."
"What is also plausible, however, is that Trump will once again fail to sustain the pressure and, by that, allow for Netanyahu's potential retreat to prove temporary," Parsi predicted.
Republican Congressman Thomas Massie (Ky.), a libertarian who recently lost his reelection primary to a Trump-backed challenger, responded to the reporting on social media: "It's all talk. Just withhold foreign aid to Israel for a month, and they'll stop bombing their neighbors—instant peace, the Strait of Hormuz can be opened, and gas drops $2 a gallon. Israel has been, and continues to be, the biggest welfare recipient from American taxpayers."
Massie also said that "the more Netanyahu prevents the war with Iran from ending, the more obvious it becomes that he convinced Trump to start it."
Progressive Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (Minn.) similarly said late Monday: "The lesson Israel has learned, time and again, is that it can commit genocide and other atrocities with near-total impunity. Now it's exporting the Gaza playbook to Lebanon. Israel's war in Lebanon is killing thousands and displacing over a million. NO MORE US AID TO ISRAEL."
Citing Lebanon's National News Agency (NNA) on Tuesday, Al Jazeera cataloged Israel's killings since Trump's de-escalation claims:
Two Syrians were killed in an Israeli attack on a plant nursery where they were working in the town of Jebchit in the Nabatieh governorate, NNA said on Tuesday.
Israeli drone strikes hit a motorcycle on Martyr Sabra Street in Toul and a car in the Dhi’at al-Arab neighborhood of Ansar, killing two people, NNA said.
The third strike hit a car near the village of Harouf, killing one person.
Separately, an Israeli drone strike hit a car on the road linking the southern town of Marjayoun with the city of Nabatieh, killing James Karam, a dentist from the nearby Christian municipality of Qlayaa, along with his daughter and son, NNA reported.
Those deaths followed Israel's Monday airstrike in the southern village of Marwaniyeh, which killed six members of the Hassan Abdullah family, according to the Lebanese Civil Defense. Palestine Chronicle reported that "rescue teams worked throughout the night and into Tuesday morning to recover victims trapped beneath the rubble of the destroyed building. Three additional people were pulled from the debris during the operation."
Also on Monday, Israel attacked the Jabal Amel Hospital in Tyre, killing at least four people and injuring dozens more.
Dr. Abdinasir Abubakar, the World Health Organization (WHO) representative in Lebanon, said Tuesday that the hospital is one of the few operating in the country's south, and the attack "caused significant damage... to the emergency department and intensive care unit."
"Six hospitals have not yet resumed maternity delivery services and are currently providing only emergency room care," he noted. "For pregnant women and newborns, delays in care can mean the difference between life and death."
WHO has verified nearly 200 attacks on healthcare facilities and workers in Lebanon over the past three months. Calling for such attacks "to stop" and "active protection for healthcare," Abubakar stressed that "these attacks kill and maim, they also deprive people of the health services they need."
Israel hit Jabal Amel Hospital after a strike near Hiram Hospital the previous day, according to Doctors Without Borders, which supports both facilities. Omar Ebeid, the organization's project coordinator in southern Lebanon, said Tuesday that "these repeated attacks reflect a grave failure to protect the medical mission and underscore the urgent need to safeguard civilians, medical staff, health facilities, and continuous access to lifesaving care."
Faced with a rising death toll and Israeli forces' destruction of civilian infrastructure, The Associated Press reported, "another round of talks between Israel and Lebanon began Tuesday in Washington, where Lebanese negotiators are set to seek a full ceasefire that will prevent future attacks."