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
April, 05 2023, 07:32am EDT
Contact:
Nina Pusic, nina[at]priceofoil.org
OECD labels gas and other fossil-based technologies climate-friendly
PARIS
The OECD has adopted a new list of “climate-friendly” projects that will be able to benefit from preferential financial terms for export support. Yet, a number of projects included, such as ammonia, cause greenhouse gas emissions and others are poorly defined, potentially allowing for preferential financial incentives for export credit agency (ECA) investments in gas.
The list includes a wide array of vague, undefined terminology such as “environmentally sustainable energy production” and “clean hydrogen”. The “climate-friendly” category also includes fossil-based technologies that are unproven at scale and still cause emissions such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) and ammonia.
The climate-friendly incentives were intended to be adopted in November 2022 as part of a revision of the OECD’s Climate Change Sector Understanding dating from 2014, but the negotiations that took place behind closed doors did not conclude until now.
The OECD Arrangement on Export Credits governs OECD Export Credit Agencies (ECAs), which provide more public finance to fossil fuel projects than any other type of public finance institution, including the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs). From 2019-2021, G20 ECAs provided seven times as much export finance to fossil fuel projects ($33.5 billion USD) than for renewable energy ($4.7 billion USD). These practices of continued new fossil fuel support directly counter climate science. The IPCC’s and the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) scenarios show that keeping a 50% chance of limiting global warming to 1.5°C, means no new investments in coal, oil or gas supply or liquified natural gas (LNG) infrastructure.
The problematic definition of what constitutes as “climate-friendly” goes directly against a recent joint position launched by over 175 Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) calling on the OECD to end export finance for oil and gas. To align the OECD Arrangement and Export Credit Agencies with international climate goals and a 1.5°C trajectory, CSOs call for an immediate prohibition on all new oil and gas financial support, not the promotion of false solutions.
Nina Pusic, Oil Change International, said: “The new scope of ‘green’ incentives under the OECD Arrangement is completely contradictory to what we know is needed to keep 1.5°C within reach, which is, an end to new fossil fuel support. Labeling problematic technologies that extend the lifetime of fossil fuel projects, such as carbon capture and storage, ammonia, and hydrogen, as ‘climate-friendly’ detracts from the critical work needed to reach 100% renewable energy based systems.”
Steven Feit, Senior Attorney, Center for International Environmental Law, said: “The recently released statement fails to reflect the urgent need to end fossil finance and transition away from fossil fuels. The willingness of governments to extend favorable public financing terms to technologies that prolong reliance on fossil fuels, such as carbon capture, or launder fossil gas into the economy, as do most hydrogen and ammonia projects, undermines climate action rather than advancing it. Carbon capture, hydrogen, and ammonia are the primary avenues through which the industry seeks to legitimize itself in the wake of escalating climate catastrophe and climate action. Labeling these projects as ‘green or climate friendly’ perpetuates a false narrative and brings us further away from the urgent action needed today to phase out fossil fuels.”
Kate DeAngelis, Friends of the Earth United States, said: “The OECD Export Credit Group should not be a piggy bank for the fossil fuel industry. We reject the pretense that technologies like carbon, capture and storage are ‘climate friendly,’ which export credit agencies would have us believe. Exporting credit agencies supporting these technologies extends a lifeline to the fossil fuel industry rather than encouraging the necessary shift toward a just energy transition.”
Davide Maneschi, Climate Justice Programme Officer, Swedwatch, Sweden, said: “It is concerning to see the inclusion of technologies such as CO? capture and storage, hydrogen and ammonia, and energy minerals and ores as climate-friendly investments by the OECD without fully considering their implications on the environment and human rights. While these technologies may have the potential to reduce emissions, we cannot ignore the fact that criteria for what is considered “clean” or “green” are repeatedly stretched beyond any reasonable limit, and can come to be loopholes exploited to maintain the status quo. When employed wrongly, these technologies have the potential to exacerbate climate change and further perpetuate inequalities in our society. As we seek solutions to mitigate climate change, we must prioritize investments that truly prioritize sustainability and justice for all, and put energy democracy at the center of the transition.”
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
As Agents Pull Guns on ICE Observers, Lawmakers Make Stand Outside DC Headquarters: 'Fire Kristi Noem'
"We must not allow ICE to kidnap children and bring them to prisons where they profit off their pain, misery, and suffering," said Rep. Joaquin Castro.
Feb 03, 2026
A group of Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday demanded the termination of US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, as new footage emerged in Minneapolis of federal immigration officers drawing guns on unarmed observers.
More than a dozen Democrats serving in the US House of Representatives stood outside the Washington, DC headquarters of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Tuesday and demanded that President Donald Trump fire Noem, who has taken heat for making false claims in recent weeks about Minneapolis residents Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both of whom were gunned down by federal agents last month.
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) delivered a brief speech at the event where she described her home city of Minneapolis as being under "occupation" by federal agents sent by Trump and Noem.
"We do not exaggerate when we say we have schools where two-thirds of the students are afraid to go to school," she said. "We do not exaggerate when we say we have people who are afraid to go to the hospital because our hospitals have occupying paramilitary forces. We do not exaggerate when we say our restaurants are shutting down because there are not enough people to drive the employees to work and from work."
Omar went on to reiterate her past calls to abolish ICE, which she described as "not just rogue, but unlawful." She also said that “Democrats are ready and willing to impeach" Noem if Trump doesn't fire her.
Later in the event, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) spoke of his meeting last week with Liam Ramos, a 5-year-old boy from Minneapolis who had been detained at a Texas ICE facility before a judge last weekend ordered his release.
"While detained, he became lethargic and sick," Castro said, speaking of Ramos. "His father said that he'd become depressed. He was asking about his mother and his classmates, and most of all, he wanted to go home. But he also said that he was scared of the guards... he had clearly been traumatized."
Castro emphasized that, even though Ramos and his father have been freed from detention, there are still too many children being held at the facility, including at least one as young as two years old
"This is a machinery of cruelty and viciousness that Secretary Noem has overseen, the Trump administration has built, and people like Texas Gov. Greg Abbott have been complicit in upholding," he said. "We must not allow ICE to kidnap children and bring them to prisons where they profit off their pain, misery, and suffering."
As Democrats were making their case for Noem's removal, new footage emerged of federal immigration officers in Minneapolis pulling legal observers out of their cars at gun point.
In a video posted on social media by independent journalist Ford Fischer, agents can be seen swarming a vehicle with their guns drawn and demanding and its passengers exit the car.
Just now: ICE agents pull handguns and arrest observers who had been following them this morning in Minneapolis. pic.twitter.com/s3uIwWS3AA
— Ford Fischer (@FordFischer) February 3, 2026
After the observers were pulled from the vehicle and detained by officers on the scene, one officer in the video claims that the people in question had been threatening them with "hand guns."
An observer then asks the officer if he means that the people being taken into custody were waving firearms at them, and he replies that they were making fake guns with their fingers, not brandishing actual weapons.
As the officers left the scene, they were heckled by protesters.
"Put away your weapons you douchebag, nobody is threatening you!" yelled one.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Making America Unsafe Again': Alarm Over Environmental Review Exemption for Nuclear Reactors
"I think the DOE's attempts to cut corners on safety, security, and environmental protections are posing a grave risk to public health, safety, and our natural environment," said one expert.
Feb 03, 2026
Less than a week after NPR revealed that "the Trump administration has overhauled a set of nuclear safety directives and shared them with the companies it is charged with regulating, without making the new rules available to the public," the US Department of Energy announced Monday that it is allowing firms building experimental nuclear reactors to seek exemptions from legally required environmental reviews.
Citing executive orders signed by President Donald Trump in May, a notice published in the Federal Register states that the DOE "is establishing a categorical exclusion for authorization, siting, construction, operation, reauthorization, and decommissioning of advanced nuclear reactors for inclusion in its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing procedures."
NEPA has long been a target of energy industries and Republican elected officials, including Trump. The exemption policy has been expected since Trump's May orders—which also launched a DOE pilot program to rapidly build the experimental reactors—and the department said in a statement that even the exempted reactors will face some reviews.
"The US Department of Energy is establishing the potential option to obtain a streamlined approach for advanced nuclear reactors as part of the environmental review performed under NEPA," the DOE said. "The analysis on each reactor being considered will be informed by previously completed environmental reviews for similar advanced nuclear technologies."
"The fact is that any nuclear reactor, no matter how small, no matter how safe it looks on paper, is potentially subject to severe accidents."
However, the DOE announcement alarmed various experts, including Daniel P. Aldrich, director of the Resilience Studies Program at Northeastern University, who wrote on social media: "Making America unsafe again: Trump created an exclusion for new experimental reactors from disclosing how their construction and operation might harm the environment, and from a written, public assessment of the possible consequences of a nuclear accident."
Foreign policy reporter Laura Rozen described the policy as "terrifying," while Paul Dorfman, chair of the Nuclear Consulting Group and a scholar at the University of Sussex's Bennett Institute for Innovation and Policy Acceleration, called it "truly crazy."
As NPR reported Monday:
Until now, the test reactor designs currently under construction have primarily existed on paper, according to Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group. He believes the lack of real-world experience with the reactors means that they should be subject to more rigorous safety and environmental reviews before they're built.
"The fact is that any nuclear reactor, no matter how small, no matter how safe it looks on paper, is potentially subject to severe accidents," Lyman said.
"I think the DOE's attempts to cut corners on safety, security, and environmental protections are posing a grave risk to public health, safety, and our natural environment here in the United States," he added.
Lyman was also among the experts who criticized changes that NPR exposed last week, after senior editor and correspondent Geoff Brumfiel obtained documents detailing updates to "departmental orders, which dictate requirements for almost every aspect of the reactors' operations—including safety systems, environmental protections, site security, and accident investigations."
While the DOE said that it shared early versions of the rules with companies, "the reduction of unnecessary regulations will increase innovation in the industry without jeopardizing safety," and "the department anticipates publicly posting the directives later this year," Brumfiel noted that the orders he saw weren't labeled as drafts and had the word "approved" on their cover pages.
In a lengthy statement about last week's reporting, Lyman said on the Union of Concerned Scientists website that "this deeply troubling development confirms my worst fears about the dire state of nuclear power safety and security oversight under the Trump administration. Such a brazen rewriting of hundreds of crucial safeguards for the public underscores why preservation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as an independent, transparent nuclear regulator is so critical."
"The Energy Department has not only taken a sledgehammer to the basic principles that underlie effective nuclear regulation, but it has also done so in the shadows, keeping the public in the dark," he continued. "These long-standing principles were developed over the course of many decades and consider lessons learned from painful events such as the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters. This is a massive experiment in the deregulation of novel, untested nuclear facilities that could pose grave threats to public health and safety."
"These drastic changes may extend beyond the Reactor Pilot Program, which was created by President Trump last year to circumvent the more rigorous licensing rules employed by the NRC," Lyman warned. "While the DOE created a legally dubious framework to designate these reactors as 'test' reactors to bypass the NRC's statutory authority, these dramatic alterations may further weaken standards used in the broader DOE authorization process and propagate across the entire fleet of commercial nuclear facilities, severely degrading nuclear safety throughout the United States."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Tariffs Haven't Helped': 72,000 Manufacturing Jobs—and Counting—Obliterated Since Trump's Liberation Day
“There’s very little in our product portfolio that has benefited from tariffs,” said the CEO of one North Carolina-based steel product company.
Feb 03, 2026
US President Donald Trump pledged that the manufacturing industry would come "roaring back into our country" after what he called "Liberation Day" last April, which was marked by the announcement of sweeping tariffs on imported goods—a policy that has shifted constantly in the past 10 months as Trump has changed rates, canceled tariffs, and threatened new ones.
But after promising to turn around economic trends that have developed over decades—the shipping of jobs overseas, automation, and the obliteration of towns and cities that had once been manufacturing centers—Trump's trade policy appears to have put any progress achieved in the sector in recent years "in reverse," as the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.
Federal data shows that in each of the eight months that followed Trump's Liberation Day tariffs, manufacturing companies reduced their workforce, with a total of 72,000 jobs in the industry lost since April 2025.
The Census Bureau also estimates that construction spending in the manufacturing industry contracted in the first nine months of Trump's second term, after surging during the Biden administration due to investments in renewable energy and semiconductor chips.
"But the tariffs haven’t helped," said Hanson.
Trump has insisted that his tariff policy would force companies to manufacture goods domestically to avoid paying more for foreign materials—just as he has claimed consumers would see lower prices.
But numerous analyses have shown American families are paying more, not less, for essentials like groceries as companies have passed on their higher operating costs to consumers, and federal data has made clear that companies are also avoiding investing in labor since Trump introduced the tariffs—while the trade war the president has kicked off hasn't changed the realities faced by many manufacturing sectors.
"While tariffs do reduce import competition, they can also increase the cost of key components for domestic manufacturers," wrote Emma Ockerman at Yahoo Finance. "Take US electric vehicle plants that rely on batteries made with rare earth elements imported from overseas, for instance. Some parts simply aren’t made in the United States."
At the National Interest, Ryan Mulholland of the Center for American Progress wrote that Trump's tariffs have created "three overlapping challenges" for US businesses.
"The imported components and materials needed to produce goods domestically now cost more—in some cases, a lot more," wrote Mulholland. "Foreign buyers are now looking elsewhere, often to protest Trump’s global belligerence, costing US firms market share abroad that will be difficult to win back. And if bad policy wasn’t enough, US manufacturers must also contend with the Trump administration’s unpredictability, which has made long-term investment decisions nearly impossible. Perhaps it’s no surprise, then, that small business bankruptcies have surged to their highest level in years."
Trump's unpredictable threats of new tariffs and his retreats on the policy, as with European countries in recent weeks when he said he would impose new levies on countries that didn't support his push to take control of Greenland, have also led to "a lost year for investment" for many firms, along with the possibility that the US Supreme Court could soon rule against the president's tariffs.
“If Trump just picked a number—whatever it was, 10% or 15% to 20%—we might all say it’s bad, I’d say it’s bad, I think most economists would say it’s bad,” Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, told Yahoo Finance. “But the worst thing is there’s no certainty about it.”
Constantly changing tariff rates make it "very difficult for businesses... to plan," said Baker. “I think you’ve had a lot of businesses curtail investment plans because they just don’t know whether the plans will make sense.”
While US manufacturers have struggled to compete globally, China and other countries have continued exporting their goods.
“There’s very little in our product portfolio that has benefited from tariffs,” H.O. Woltz III, chief executive of North Carolina-based Insteel Industries, told the Wall Street Journal.
US Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) noted Monday that the data on manufacturing job losses comes a week after Vice President JD Vance visited his home state to tout "record job growth."
"Here’s the reality: Families face higher costs, tariffs are costing manufacturing jobs, and over $200 million in approved federal infrastructure and manufacturing investments here were cut by this administration," said Kaptur. "Ohio deserves better."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular