October, 30 2024, 08:27am EDT

New Research: UAE, Azerbaijan, and Brazil Undermine Climate Leadership with Massive Fossil Fuel Plans
GLOBAL
New research by Oil Change International shows COP Troika nations – previous, current, and next COP presidents UAE, Azerbaijan, and Brazil – plan to expand oil and gas production 32% by 2035, threatening the climate limits they have collectively pledged to protect.
While Global North countries such as the United States remain the biggest expanders of oil and gas production and have the responsibility and the means to lead in phasing out fossil fuels, the Troika countries have a special duty to lead by example. These three nations chose to host climate talks and have repeatedly committed to submitting 1.5°C-aligned Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) while urging all countries to do so. They must establish the benchmark that 1.5°C-aligned NDCs must include a clear plan to end new oil, coal, and gas projects, as backed by science.
- The projected increase in oil and gas production by 2035, the end date of the NDCs due next year, is 36% for Brazil, 34% for the UAE, and 14% for Azerbaijan. Globally, fossil fuel production must decline by 55% by 2035 to limit warming to 1.5°C, according to the International Energy Agency.
- Together, the Troika nations account for nearly one-third of the carbon pollution at risk from newly approved oil and gas fields in 2024. Despite leading the COP28 agreement to phase out fossil fuels, the UAE leads the world in approving new oil and gas expansion since December 2023 – including one project set to operate until 2100, half a century past the global 2050 phase-out deadline. Brazil, which under President Lula has called on countries to do more to fight climate change, ranks third for 2024.
- While the Troika’s expansion plans raise concerns, Global North countries remain the biggest expanders of oil and gas in the long-run. Previous Oil Change International research shows just five Global North countries – the U.S., Canada, Australia, Norway, and the United Kingdom – are on track to be responsible for around 50% of carbon pollution from new oil and gas fields and fracking wells through to 2050.
A Troubling Disparity Between Commitments and Actions
At COP28, all countries pledged to transition away from fossil fuels in a just, equitable, and orderly manner. The COP Troika have also publicly committed to submitting 1.5°C-aligned climate plans (NDCs) ahead of COP29 next month. However, these nations’ expansion plans contradict the urgent need to halt new fossil fuel developments. To limit warming to the 1.5°C threshold established by the Paris Agreement, all countries must immediately end the approval of new coal, oil, and gas projects, and entrench this commitment in their NDCs due in early 2025.
Global North Countries Must Lead the Phaseout of Fossil Fuels But Expansion Needs to End Everywhere
While the Troika’s expansion plans raise concerns, Global North countries remain the biggest expanders of oil and gas. Previous Oil Change International research shows just five Global North countries – the U.S., Canada, Australia, Norway, and the United Kingdom – are on track to be responsible for around half of the carbon pollution from new oil and gas fields and fracking wells through to 2050. These countries must immediately end oil, gas, and coal expansion, phase out existing production rapidly, and provide grant and grant-equivalent finance to Global South nations to enable a just energy transition. Without immediate action from these rich oil and gas producers, achieving a fair and equitable global phaseout of fossil fuels will meet a deadlock.
While Global North producing countries have a responsibility to lead the phaseout of fossil fuels, the science to avoid breaching 1.5°C is clear: the hard limits of the world’s remaining carbon budget mean that fossil fuel expansion must stop everywhere, including in the countries forming the so-called COP Troika.
Strong New Climate Finance Target Needed at COP29
The upcoming UN climate talks in Baku will be critical to ensure countries make the next key step in implementing the COP28 decision on fossil fuels – funding a fair phaseout. Climate experts have said the success of COP29 depends on nations agreeing to a new climate finance target (NCQG) of at least $1 trillion every year, which must include a subgoal of at least $300 billion annually for mitigation finance. This will allow countries to adopt national climate plans in 2025 that immediately end oil, gas, and coal expansion. Grant-based and highly concessional financing, not more debt-inducing loans, is an urgent need to fulfill the landmark COP28 decision to phase-out fossil fuels, especially for adaptation, loss and damage, and key mitigation projects in the Global South. Rich countries have the means to mobilize well over $5 trillion a year for climate action at home and for the NCQG, including by ending fossil fuel handouts, making big polluters pay, and changing unfair global financial rules.
Azerbaijan, as COP29 president, must guide the success of these negotiations in securing a strong NCQG. As the countries steering the current COP process, the Troika has a unique responsibility to set ambitious global climate targets, and set the precedent for truly 1.5°C-aligned national climate plans. The Troika countries have a clear choice to make. Halting new fossil fuel projects would begin to align COP Troika nations with 1.5°C goals, while ignoring expansion in NDCs would betray climate commitments.
Shady Khalil, Global Policy Senior Strategist at Oil Change International, said:
“The COP Troika was created to generate collaboration and ambition in support of the 1.5°C temperature limit, and the science is indisputable: there is no room for fossil fuel expansion if we are to meet this goal. By pushing forward with massive new fossil fuel projects, the Troika risks undermining the goal they are supposed to be the guardians of and set a terrible example for other countries currently working on their NDCs. While the Global North must lead by phasing out first and providing the financial support other countries need to implement a just transition, the Troika’s contradictory actions threaten to erode global trust and weaken climate efforts. They stand at a crossroads – either honor the science and lead a true and fair fossil fuel phaseout, or continue down a path that endangers a livable future and jeopardizes their legacy. The only way to ensure NDCs are 1.5°C-compatible is to halt new fossil fuel expansion everywhere.”
Shereen Talaat Founder and Director at MENA FEM Movement, said:
“The expansion of fossil fuel production by the Troika countries is a major obstacle to achieving the 1.5°C climate goal. Given the historical responsibility of the Global North on the crisis, it’s imperative that these nations not only need to halt new projects but also develop clear plans to phase out existing production in a just and equitable manner. This crisis demands immediate action, and the Troika countries must lead the way in accelerating the transition to renewable energy; they can demonstrate their commitment to a sustainable future and inspire other nations to follow suit. However, if they continue to expand their oil and gas production, they risk undermining their own credibility and jeopardizing the future of our planet.”
Claudio Angelo, head of International Policy at Observatório do Clima, said:
“Each of the world’s major fossil fuel producers is gambling on being the last seller of oil and gas. This is a Russian roulette that will either roast the planet or result in massive stranded assets. And while it is obvious that planet-wreckers like the United States, Norway, Canada, and Australia must be the first to phase out, Troika countries must live up to their own said commitment to 1.5°C and stop expansion now. The Troika is supposed to lead by example, but looking at their massive fossil expansion plans, it becomes clear that the only example they are setting is how to greenwash oneself away from climate action.”
Ilan Zugman, Latin America Director at 350.org, said:
“Fossil fuels do not equate to development, nor can they meet the ambition required for the 1.5°C threshold. The Brazilian and other Troika governments must confront this misconception. For Brazil to lead the global energy transition, its updated NDC must commit to ending new fossil fuel projects and provide a plan to phase out existing ones. It should also allocate resources to triple global renewable energy capacity. To advance energy justice, Brazil must ensure solar power reaches vulnerable communities. As COP30 host and a G20 leader, Brazil is in a prime position to set this precedent.”
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
Trump Regulators Ripped for 'Rushed' Approval of Bill Gates' Nuclear Reactor in Wyoming
"Make no mistake, this type of reactor has major safety flaws compared to conventional nuclear reactors that comprise the operating fleet," said one expert.
Dec 03, 2025
A leading nuclear safety expert sounded the alarm Tuesday over the Trump administration's expedited safety review of an experimental nuclear reactor in Wyoming designed by a company co-founded by tech billionaire Bill Gates and derided as a "Cowboy Chernobyl."
On Monday, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced that it has "completed its final safety evaluation" for Power Station Unit 1 of TerraPower's Natrium reactor in Kemmerer, Wyoming, adding that it found "no safety aspects that would preclude issuing the construction permit."
Co-founded by Microsoft's Gates, TerraPower received a 50-50 cost-share grant for up to $2 billion from the US Department of Energy’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program. The 345-megawatt sodium-cooled small modular reactor (SMR) relies upon so-called passive safety features that experts argue could potentially make nuclear accidents worse.
However, federal regulators "are loosening safety and security requirements for SMRs in ways which could cancel out any safety benefits from passive features," according to Union of Concerned Scientists nuclear power safety director Edwin Lyman.
"The only way they could pull this off is by sweeping difficult safety issues under the rug."
The reactor’s construction permit application—which was submitted in March 2024—was originally scheduled for August 2026 completion but was expedited amid political pressure from the Trump administration and Congress in order to comply with an 18-month timeline established in President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14300.
“The NRC’s rush to complete the Kemmerer plant’s safety evaluation to meet the recklessly abbreviated schedule dictated by President Trump represents a complete abandonment of its obligation to protect public health, safety, and the environment from catastrophic nuclear power plant accidents or terrorist attacks," Lyman said in a statement Tuesday.
Lyman continued:
The only way the staff could finish its review on such a short timeline is by sweeping serious unresolved safety issues under the rug or deferring consideration of them until TerraPower applies for an operating license, at which point it may be too late to correct any problems. Make no mistake, this type of reactor has major safety flaws compared to conventional nuclear reactors that comprise the operating fleet. Its liquid sodium coolant can catch fire, and the reactor has inherent instabilities that could lead to a rapid and uncontrolled increase in power, causing damage to the reactor’s hot and highly radioactive nuclear fuel.
Of particular concern, NRC staff has assented to a design that lacks a physical containment structure to reduce the release of radioactive materials into the environment if a core melt occurs. TerraPower argues that the reactor has a so-called "functional" containment that eliminates the need for a real containment structure. But the NRC staff plainly states that it "did not come to a final determination of the adequacy and acceptability of functional containment performance due to the preliminary nature of the design and analysis."
"Even if the NRC determines later that the functional containment is inadequate, it would be utterly impractical to retrofit the design and build a physical containment after construction has begun," Lyman added. "The potential for rapid power excursions and the lack of a real containment make the Kemmerer plant a true ‘Cowboy Chernobyl.’”
The proposed reactor still faces additional hurdles before construction can begin, including a final environmental impact assessment. However, given the Trump administration's dramatic regulatory rollback, approval and construction are highly likely.
Former NRC officials have voiced alarm over the Trump administration's tightened control over the agency, which include compelling it to send proposed reactor safety rules to the White House for review and possible editing.
Allison Macfarlane, who was nominated to head the NRC during the Obama administration, said earlier this year that Trump's approach marks “the end of independence of the agency.”
“If you aren’t independent of political and industry influence, then you are at risk of an accident,” she warned.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Shows How Recycling Is Largely a 'Toxic Lie' Pushed by Plastics Industry
"These corporations and their partners continue to sell the public a comforting lie to hide the hard truth: that we simply have to stop producing so much plastic," said one campaigner.
Dec 03, 2025
A report published Wednesday by Greenpeace exposes the plastics industry as "merchants of myth" still peddling the false promise of recycling as a solution to the global pollution crisis, even as the vast bulk of commonly produced plastics remain unrecyclable.
"After decades of meager investments accompanied by misleading claims and a very well-funded industry public relations campaign aimed at persuading people that recycling can make plastic use sustainable, plastic recycling remains a failed enterprise that is economically and technically unviable and environmentally unjustifiable," the report begins.
"The latest US government data indicates that just 5% of US plastic waste is recycled annually, down from a high of 9.5% in 2014," the publication continues. "Meanwhile, the amount of single-use plastics produced every year continues to grow, driving the generation of ever greater amounts of plastic waste and pollution."
Among the report's findings:
- Only a fifth of the 8.8 million tons of the most commonly produced types of plastics—found in items like bottles, jugs, food containers, and caps—are actually recyclable;
- Major brands like Coca-Cola, Unilever, and Nestlé have been quietly retracting sustainability commitments while continuing to rely on single-use plastic packaging; and
- The US plastic industry is undermining meaningful plastic regulation by making false claims about the recyclability of their products to avoid bans and reduce public backlash.
"Recycling is a toxic lie pushed by the plastics industry that is now being propped up by a pro-plastic narrative emanating from the White House," Greenpeace USA oceans campaign director John Hocevar said in a statement. "These corporations and their partners continue to sell the public a comforting lie to hide the hard truth: that we simply have to stop producing so much plastic."
"Instead of investing in real solutions, they’ve poured billions into public relations campaigns that keep us hooked on single-use plastic while our communities, oceans, and bodies pay the price," he added.
Greenpeace is among the many climate and environmental groups supporting a global plastics treaty, an accord that remains elusive after six rounds of talks due to opposition from the United States, Saudi Arabia, and other nations that produce the petroleum products from which almost all plastics are made.
Honed from decades of funding and promoting dubious research aimed at casting doubts about the climate crisis caused by its products, the petrochemical industry has sent a small army of lobbyists to influence global treaty negotiations.
In addition to environmental and climate harms, plastics—whose chemicals often leach into the food and water people eat and drink—are linked to a wide range of health risks, including infertility, developmental issues, metabolic disorders, and certain cancers.
Plastics also break down into tiny particles found almost everywhere on Earth—including in human bodies—called microplastics, which cause ailments such as inflammation, immune dysfunction, and possibly cardiovascular disease and gut biome imbalance.
A study published earlier this year in the British medical journal The Lancet estimated that plastics are responsible for more than $1.5 trillion in health-related economic losses worldwide annually—impacts that disproportionately affect low-income and at-risk populations.
As Jo Banner, executive director of the Descendants Project—a Louisiana advocacy group dedicated to fighting environmental racism in frontline communities—said in response to the new Greenpeace report, "It’s the same story everywhere: poor, Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities turned into sacrifice zones so oil companies and big brands can keep making money."
"They call it development—but it’s exploitation, plain and simple," Banner added. "There’s nothing acceptable about poisoning our air, water, and food to sell more throwaway plastic. Our communities are not sacrifice zones, and we are not disposable people.”
Writing for Time this week, Judith Enck, a former regional administrator at the US Environmental Protection Agency and current president of the environmental justice group Beyond Plastics, said that "throwing your plastic bottles in the recycling bin may make you feel good about yourself, or ease your guilt about your climate impact. But recycling plastic will not address the plastic pollution crisis—and it is time we stop pretending as such."
"So what can we do?" Enck continued. "First, companies need to stop producing so much plastic and shift to reusable and refillable systems. If reducing packaging or using reusable packaging is not possible, companies should at least shift to paper, cardboard, glass, or metal."
"Companies are not going to do this on their own, which is why policymakers—the officials we elected to protect us—need to require them to do so," she added.
Although lawmakers in the 119th US Congress have introduced a handful of bills aimed at tackling plastic pollution, such proposals are all but sure to fail given Republican control of both the House of Representatives and Senate and the Trump administration's pro-petroleum policies.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Platner 20 Points Ahead of Mills in Maine Senate Race as Critics Spotlight Her Anti-Worker Veto Record
The new poll, said the progressive candidate, “lays clear what our theory is, which is that we are not going to defeat Susan Collins running the same exact kind of playbook that we’ve run in the past."
Dec 03, 2025
It's been more than a month since a media firestorm over old Reddit posts and a tattoo thrust US Senate candidate Graham Platner into the national spotlight, just as Maine Gov. Janet Mills was entering the Democratic primary race in hopes of challenging Republican Sen. Susan Collins—a controversy that did not appear at the time to make a dent in political newcomer Platner's chances in the election.
On Wednesday, the latest polling showed that the progressive combat veteran and oyster farmer has maintained the lead that was reported in a number of surveys just after the national media descended on the New England state to report on his past online comments and a tattoo that some said resembled a Nazi symbol, which he subsequently had covered up.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), which endorsed Platner on Wednesday, commissioned the new poll, which showed him polling at 58% compared to Mills' 38%.
Nancy Zdunkewicz, a pollster with Z to A Polling, which conducted the survey on behalf of the PCCC, said the poll represented "really impressive early consolidation" for Platner, with the primary election still six months away.
“Platner isn’t just leading in the Democratic primary. He’s leading by a lot, 20 points—58% are supporting him,” Zdunkewicz told Zeteo. “Only 38% are supporting Mills. There are very few undecided voters or weak supporters for Mills to win over at this point in the race."
Platner has consistently spoken to packed rooms across Maine since launching his campaign in August, promoting a platform that is unapologetically focused on delivering affordability and a better quality of life for Mainers.
He supports expanding the popular Medicare program to all Americans; drew raucous applause at an early rally by declaring, “Our taxpayer dollars can build schools and hospitals in America, not bombs to destroy them in Gaza"; and has spoken in support of breaking up tech giants and a federal war crimes investigation into Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over his deadly boat strikes in the Caribbean.
Mills entered the race after Democratic leaders including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) urged her to. She garnered national attention earlier this year for standing up to President Donald Trump when he threatened federal funding for Maine over the state's policy of allowing students to play on school athletic teams that correspond with their gender.
But the PCCC survey found that when respondents learned details about each candidate, negative critiques of Mills were more damaging to her than Platner's old Reddit posts and tattoo.
Zdunkewicz disclosed Platner's recent controversy to the voters she surveyed, as well as his statements about how his views have shifted in recent years, and found that 21% of voters were more likely to back him after learning about his background. Thirty-nine percent said they were less likely to support him.
The pollster also talked to respondents about the fact that establishment Democrats pushed Mills, who is 77, to enter the race, and about a number of bills she has vetoed as governor, including a tax on the wealthy, a bill to set up a tracking system for rape kits, two bills to reduce prescription drug costs, and several bills promoting workers' rights.
Only 14% of Mainers said they were more likely to vote for Mills after learning those details, while 50% said they were less likely to support her.
At The Lever, Luke Goldstein on Wednesday reported that Mills' vetoes have left many with the "perception that she’s mostly concerned with business interests," as former Democratic Maine state lawmaker Andy O'Brien said. Corporate interests gave more than $200,000 to Mills' two gubernatorial campaigns.
Earlier this year, Mills struck down a labor-backed bill to allow farm workers to discuss their pay with one another without fear of retaliation. Last year, she blocked a bill to set a minimum wage for farm laborers, opposing a provision that would have allowed workers to sue their employers.
She also vetoed a bill banning noncompete agreements and one that would have banned anti-union tactics by corporations.
"In previous years," Goldstein reported, "she blocked efforts to stop employers from punishing employees who took state-guaranteed paid time off, killed a permitting reform bill to streamline offshore wind developments because it included a provision mandating union jobs, and vetoed a modest labor bill that would have required the state government to merely study the issue of paper mill workers being forced to work overtime without adequate compensation."
Speaking to PCCC supporters on Wednesday, Platner suggested the new polling shows that many Mainers agree with the central argument of his campaign: "We need to build power again for working people, both in Maine and nationally.”
The survey, he said, “lays clear what our theory is, which is that we are not going to defeat Susan Collins running the same exact kind of playbook that we’ve run in the past—which is an establishment politician supported by the power structures, supported by Washington, DC, coming up to Maine and trying to run a kind of standard race... We are really trying to build a grassroots movement up here."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


