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
friends of the earth
European Court of Human Rights Delivers 'Quantum Leap for Climate Accountability'
"Requiring governments to assess the global climate consequences of oil and gas combustion before approving new fossil projects is common sense, and long overdue," said one campaigner.
Oct 28, 2025
Although the European Court of Human Rights on Tuesday sided with the Norwegian government over six young adults and a pair of climate groups, the plaintiffs still welcomed the tribunal's ruling as "a major step forward," in the words of Frode Pleym, head of Greenpeace Norway.
The case stems from the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy granting 10 exploration licenses to 13 companies for fossil fuel production in the Arctic Barents Sea in 2016. The plaintiffs argued that doing so violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, or the right to respect for private and family life.
The court unanimously held that "there had been no violation" of Article 8, but it also affirmed that the government must conduct a full environmental impact assessment, including greenhouse gas emissions from combustion, for any new petroleum production.
"It's a relief to see the court recognize what science has told us for years—that new oil and gas fields threaten our most basic human rights," Pleym said in a statement. "Requiring governments to assess the global climate consequences of oil and gas combustion before approving new fossil projects is common sense, and long overdue."
Young Friends of the Earth Norway, which sued alongside Greenpeace and the six individuals, also praised the ruling as progress.
"This decision is a quantum leap for climate accountability," said the group's leader, Sigrid Hoddevik Losnegård. "The government can no longer continue its oil and gas policy as if climate change doesn't exist. This judgment will have ripple effects far beyond Norway."
I can think of at least seven ways fossil fuel producers could wiggle out of this, but still: holy shit this is huge.
[image or embed]
— Dr. Genevieve Guenther (she/they) (@doctorvive.bsky.social) October 28, 2025 at 7:17 AM
The plaintiffs noted in a joint statement that the ruling "builds on" recent decisions from the International Court of Justice and the UK Supreme Court. The ICJ said in a landmark advisory opinion in July that countries have a legal obligation to take cooperative action to address the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency. At the time, Danilo Garrido, legal counsel at Greenpeace International, hailed the development as "the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level."
That decision came roughly a year after the UK's top court ruled that Surrey authorities' approval of the Horse Hill drilling project "was unlawful" because they didn't consider "emissions that will occur when the oil produced is burnt as fuel," as required by law. Friends of the Earth UK called the ruling "a heavy blow for the fossil fuel industry" that could impact other projects.
The European court's Tuesday decision came less than two weeks away from the start of the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference in Belém, Brazil. In preparation for COP30, the UN on Tuesday released a report warning that governments' climate plans would reduce fossil fuel emissions by just 10% by 2035 compared to 2019 levels, far short of what is needed to meet the Paris Agreement goal of limiting temperature rise this century to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.
As Oil Change International pointed out in a June report, Norway and three other wealthy nations—Australia, Canada, and the United States—account for the majority of planned oil and gas expansion over the next decade. This month, the group commissioned a poll that found a majority of Norwegians believe their country should either stop exploring for new oil and gas or slow down the pace.
"The data show that Norwegians increasingly want political leadership that aligns the country's oil policy with its climate goals," Oil Change's North Sea campaign manager, Silje Lundberg, said Monday. "People are calling time on endless oil expansion—it's the government that's stuck in the past. The public clearly wants a plan to phase down oil and gas and deliver real climate leadership, not more empty talk from ministers protecting the industry."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Greenpeace Calls for Oil Giants' Ejection From Global Plastics Summit
"Corporate polluters that created this problem must not be allowed to stop the world from solving it," argued one Greenpeace campaigner.
Aug 07, 2025
With representatives from 175 nations gathered in Geneva, Switzerland for the final round of talks on a global plastics treaty, Greenpeace campaigners on Thursday created a symbolic trail of black oil and hung massive banners over the entrance to the event venue demanding the expulsion of fossil fuel industry lobbyists from the summit.
Greenpeace said 22 activists from 10 European nations climbed to the roof of the Palais des Nations, where the United Nations conference is taking place, to unfurl banners reading "Big Oil Polluting Inside" and "Plastics Treaty Not for Sale."
The environmental advocacy group said that fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists outnumbered scientists 4-to-1 at the talks.
"Each round of negotiations brings more oil and gas lobbyists into the room," Graham Forbes, who is leading Greenpeace's delegation to the summit, said in a statement. "Fossil fuel and petrochemical giants are polluting the negotiations from the inside, and we're calling on the U.N. to kick them out."
"Governments must not let a handful of backwards-looking fossil fuel companies override the clear call from all of civil society—including Indigenous peoples, frontline communities, youth activists, and many responsible businesses—demanding a strong agreement that cuts plastic production," Forbes added.
The huge presence of these plastic-loving lobbyists threatens the Global Plastics Treaty.They don’t want real solutions, all they want is more profits.Tell the UN to kick them out of the plastics talks now👇act.gp/4licpMq
[image or embed]
— Greenpeace UK (@greenpeaceuk.bsky.social) August 7, 2025 at 8:55 AM
In 2022, participating nations agreed to draft a legally binding global treaty to reduce waste and toxic chemicals in some plastics contain; however, no such agreement has been reached.
"It is clear that the plastics treaty negotiators have a mountain to climb to reach an agreement by August 14th," Friends of the Earth International said Tuesday, referring to the summit's end date. "There remain substantive differences between the vast majority of states that want action and the few blockers looking to prolong the era of plastics."
There is strong opposition to curbing plastic production from the fossil fuel industry—99% of plastic is made from petrochemicals—and oil-producing countries including Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United States.
Reuters reported Wednesday that the Trump administration sent letters to some countries participating in the Geneva talks urging them to reject "impractical global approaches such as plastic production targets or bans and restrictions on plastic additives or plastic products."
Oil producer pressure, Trump rollbacks threaten global treaty on plastics pollution. Plastics are derived from fossil fuels. www.reuters.com/sustainabili...
[image or embed]
— Antonia Juhasz (@antoniajuhasz.bsky.social) August 5, 2025 at 6:46 AM
Greenpeace noted that "the fossil fuel industry and its political allies are pushing hard to weaken the treaty's ambition."
According to the group:
If they succeed, plastic production could triple by 2050, fueling more environmental destruction, climate chaos, and harm to human health. A recent report from Greenpeace U.K. revealed that companies like Dow, ExxonMobil, BASF, Chevron Phillips, Shell, SABIC, and INEOS continue to ramp up plastic production. Since the global plastics treaty process began in November 2022, these seven companies have expanded plastic production capacity by 1.4 million tons. Over the same time period, they have also produced enough plastic to fill an estimated 6.3 million garbage trucks, or five-and-a-half trucks every minute. These companies also reaped enormous profits, with Dow alone earning an estimated US$5.1 billion from plastics, while sending at least 21 lobbyists into treaty negotiations.
A study published this week 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.
"These impacts fall disproportionately upon low-income and at-risk populations," the study's authors wrote. "The principal driver of this crisis is accelerating growth in plastic production—from 2 megatons (Mt) in 1950, to 475 Mt in 2022; that is projected to be 1,200 Mt by 2060."
Friends of the Earth International campaigner Sam Cossar-Gilbert noted that "coastlines across the Global South are drowning in plastic waste that isn't ours."
"Shipped in from wealthy nations under the guise of 'recycling,' the plastic waste trade forces marginalized communities to absorb the consequences of someone else's convenience," he added. "This is not just environmental degradation—it's environmental injustice. We refuse to accept false solutions that sacrifice frontline communities and the environment."
Forbes asserted that "this is a battle for our survival."
"Corporate polluters that created this problem must not be allowed to stop the world from solving it," he added. "Governments must show courage and deliver a strong treaty that puts people and planet first, not short-term corporate profits."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders-Omar Bill Would Repeal Big Oil 'Welfare' in Trump Budget Law
"We are done letting fossil fuel executives write the rules while our communities pay the price," said Rep. Ilhan Omar.
Jul 25, 2025
Two progressive lawmakers are teaming up to take down the subsidies for fossil fuel companies contained in the recently passed Republican budget law.
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) on Friday introduced a bill that is an update of a 2012 Sanders bill to repeal the nearly $200 billion worth of federal subsidies and tax loopholes that they describe as "welfare" for oil and gas companies.
While the United States has long provided such subsidies to fossil fuel companies, Sanders and Omar noted that the GOP budget law recently signed by President Donald Trump adds roughly "$20 billion in new subsidies for coal, oil drilling, methane emissions, pipelines, and other false climate solutions."
Among the budget law's expenses singled out by the lawmakers are $1.48 billion for the production of metallurgical coal, up to $3 billion for power plant owners to transport carbon, a $447 million initiative aimed at helping fossil fuel companies avoid having to pay the corporate minimum tax, and $1.5 billion in tax breaks for methane-emitting polluters.
"Donald Trump has sold out the young people of America and future generations," said Sanders. "Big Oil spent $450 million to elect Donald Trump and Republicans during the last election cycle. In return, the president has directed the full regulatory, legal, and financial weight of the federal government toward helping his fossil fuel executive friends get rich at the expense of a healthy and habitable planet for our kids and grandkids."
Omar said that "we are done letting fossil fuel executives write the rules while our communities pay the price."
"For decades, Big Oil has raked in billions in taxpayer handouts while destabilizing our climate," she added. "The End Polluter Welfare Act will finally hold polluters accountable and eliminate these harmful subsidies once and for all. I'm proud to reintroduce this legislation with Sen. Sanders because our planet can't wait, and neither can we."
In addition to Omar and Sanders, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) have signed on as co-sponsors of the bill, as have more than 20 lawmakers in the House of Representatives. Hundreds of nonprofit advocacy organizations, including the Sierra Club, Public Citizen, and Friends of the Earth U.S., have also endorsed the bill.
The GOP's budget package tore up most of the renewable energy subsidies and initiatives that were passed by Democrats in 2022 as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Heatwave Cooks US, 150+ Groups Urge Leaders to Ban Deadly Utility Shutoffs
"Millions of lives are at risk this week as extreme heat scorches our country," said one campaigner. "Trump and his billionaire buddies will have blood on their hands."
Jun 24, 2025
With extreme temperatures fueled by human-caused global heating gripping much of the United States, a coalition of more than 150 advocacy groups on Tuesday urged federal, state, and local elected leaders to ban potentially deadly utility disconnections, increase worker protections, and tax polluters to finance renewable energy.
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) led two letters—one to Democratic congressional leaders and another to governors and mayors—arguing that U.S. President Donald Trump "has put millions of lives at risk by dismantling federal agencies and lifesaving programs that help working families keep their homes cool and survive deadly heatwaves like the one this week."
"Since taking office Trump has stripped Americans of access to lifesaving measures, including the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and Low-Income Household Water Assistance Program, which help more than 8 million working families pay their utility bills," CBD noted.
"Every day of extreme heat in the United States claims about 154 lives."
The Trump administration has also laid off staff at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, "crippling the agency's ability to help communities before and after disaster strikes. And the country's first-ever proposed federal heat standard, which would prevent heat-related illness and injury in workplaces, is stalled after staff cuts at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration."
CBD said that extreme heat is the deadliest weather-related phenomenon, "claiming more lives each year than hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods combined."
"Every day of extreme heat in the United States claims about 154 lives," the group added. "In the past seven years there has been a nearly 17% increase each year in heat-related deaths. Among those most harmed by extreme heat are outdoor workers and children."
The diverse groups signing the letter—which include Climate Justice Alliance, Food & Water Watch, Free Press Action, Friends of the Earth U.S., Sunrise Movement, and Utility Workers Union of America—centered the voices of people who are most vulnerable to exposure to extreme heat, including outdoor workers like José, a Florida roofer.
"I've felt dizzy, weak, unable to breathe, with cramps, and my heart beats very fast, desperate," the 24-year-old said. "The heat suffocates me and many times I've been close to going to the hospital. While working on the roofs, it feels like the heat is over 110°F or 115°F and we only take one or two short breaks. I need this work to survive, but as the summers get hotter, I worry that one day I will collapse."
CBD senior attorney and energy justice program director Jean Su said in a statement Tuesday that "millions of lives are at risk this week as extreme heat scorches our country. Trump and his billionaire buddies will have blood on their hands."
"Corporations are taking advantage of working people and stripping them of access to lifesaving utilities, clean water, and a safe and resilient future," Su added. "Congress and especially state leaders must deliver emergency relief and tax greedy polluters who are endangering our lives and the climate. Everyone deserves heat-resilient homes, schools, and workplaces."
Will Humble, executive director of letter signatory Arizona Public Health Association, said: "We're not asking for the moon here. We're just looking for state and federal officials to help keep people alive during the summertime."
"Heat kills as many people in Arizona as influenza and pneumonia, and every one of those heat deaths is preventable," Humble added. "The least our elected officials can do is make sure people have places of refuge from these deadly fossil fuel-driven heatwaves. We also need stronger limits on summertime electricity shutoffs, so people aren't dying because the utility company has turned off their power."
"We're just looking for state and federal officials to help keep people alive during the summertime."
Last week, Oregon became the latest of more than two dozen states to ban power disconnections during high summer heat. However, as CBD and others have noted, utilities still find ways to shut off utilities during hot periods.
Six major investor-owned utilities—Georgia Power, DTE Energy, Duke Energy, Ameren Corporation, Pacific Gas & Electric, and Arizona Public Service—"shut off power to households at least 400,000 times during the summertime," according to a CBD report published in January. Those six utilities raked in $10 billion in profits while collectively hiking their customers' rates by at least $3.5 billion since 2023.
"Mayors and governors must act now with bold, local solutions, including expanded public transit and community-centered strategies like neighborhood cooling hubs," Climate Justice Alliance executive director KD Chavez said in a statement. "We also urge stronger labor protections, including municipal and state-level heat standards, to protect postal workers, farmworkers, and all outdoor workers who are increasingly exposed to deadly heat without adequate safeguards."
"Extreme heat has been endangering communities across the country," Chavez added. "We're feeling it closely this week and know it will only get worse. Our growing dependence on aging buildings, air conditioning and a fragile, fossil fuel-dependent power grid is putting lives at risk, especially in frontline, low-income neighborhoods and U.S. territories without government representation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Details 'Vicious Cycle' Between Climate and Biodiversity Crises
"What we need is real system change that gets to the root of the current economic, social, and political systems that prioritize maximizing profits over people and the environment," said the report's lead author.
Apr 22, 2025
As the world celebrated the 55th annual Earth Day, one leading green group released a report exploring how the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency and species loss impact each other, existing policies, and "false" and "real" solutions to the intertwined crises.
The Friends of the Earth International (FOIE) report, Climate and Biodiversity in Freefall, says that "the vicious cycle between climate change and biodiversity loss is harmful and dangerous. Climate change negatively impacts biodiversity in multiple ways."
"For example, ecosystems become unbalanced as different species respond and adapt to climate change in different ways and at different paces," the publication notes. "Pests become more prevalent, destroying entire ecosystems, while ocean acidification threatens coral reefs and the many species that depend on them."
"We can forge a path toward system change that protects our planet's ecosystems and provides a sustainable future for peoples and communities."
"At the same time, biodiversity loss further destabilizes the climate," the report continues. "Since life on Earth contains significant amounts of carbon, biodiversity loss also means the loss of important carbon reservoirs. Biodiversity loss will further reduce carbon storage in ecosystems, and we are fast approaching tipping points like the Amazon dieback where forests may turn from carbon sinks into carbon sources."
After sections that lay out how the climate and biodiversity crises affect each other, the report tackles problematic climate projects and policies: tree planting and monoculture tree plantations; carbon offsetting; nature-based solutions; geoengineering; bioenergy, including with carbon capture and storage; nuclear energy; and hydropower dams.
Tree plantations, for example, "are essentially 'green deserts,' often made up of a single non-native species, and thus require extensive pesticide use, provide no habitat for other species, and are highly prone to fire," the document details.
Projects labeled nature-based solutions, the report adds, "are primarily focused on compensating for climate emissions, and often serve as greenwashing tools for heavily polluting corporations, allowing them to continue their harmful practices under the guise of environmental responsibility."
There is also a section on United Nations policies, which points out that although the two crises "each have their own U.N. treaty—the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)—extremely little attention has been paid to the interlinkages."
"While the connection is often made at the discourse level, a systemic view that addresses climate and biodiversity simultaneously is largely absent in real policies," adds the U.N. section of the report, which was published just over six months away from the next United Nations climate summit, COP30, in Brazil.
In this blog, @nelemarien.bsky.social highlights how current climate policies worsen the climate and biodiversity crises, with disastrous consequences for communities & ecosystems! Read more here: www.foei.org/system-chang... #SystemChange #biodiversityloss #climatechange
[image or embed]
— Friends of the Earth International (@foeint.bsky.social) April 22, 2025 at 5:53 AM
The next section of the report, promoting what FOEI dubs "real solutions," calls for "rigorous regulation of all sectors that harm biodiversity," an end to financing for "environmentally destructive corporate activities," a moratorium on harmful "development" projects, ditching industrial agriculture in favor of agroecology, and investments in measures such as "reducing or eliminating pesticides and other toxins, curbing noise and light pollution, and encouraging native species to thrive."
The report also stresses the need for broader impact assessments and that "the impacts of the biodiversity and climate crises hit Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) and poor and marginalized people hard by undermining their livelihoods, jeopardizing food sovereignty, and worsening general living conditions." It calls for protecting these groups, including by "recognizing collective rights to land and community governance of territories."
On the climate front, the document emphasizes the necessity of "a rapid and just energy transition" that guarantees energy sufficiency for all; ensures direct democratic control and governance; guarantees the right to free, prior, and informed consent; and prioritizes "renewable technology that is climate resilient, locally appropriate, low impact, and not harmful to biodiversity."
Nele Marien, the report's lead author and FOEI's forests and biodiversity program coordinator, said in a Tuesday statement that "the intertwined crises of climate change and biodiversity loss call for a fundamental rethinking of our approach."
"What we need is real system change that gets to the root of the current economic, social, and political systems that prioritize maximizing profits over people and the environment," Marien asserted. "By recognizing these interconnections between the climate and biodiversity crises, halting detrimental climate policies, and supporting Indigenous knowledge, we can forge a path toward system change that protects our planet's ecosystems and provides a sustainable future for peoples and communities, especially those in the Global South who are most affected."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Big Oil Doesn't Just Want to Get Rich Wrecking the Climate—They Want Lower Taxes Too
"If this polluter handout is snuck into the GOP tax bill, then cuts to Medicaid and food stamps could well pay for another giveaway to Big Oil," said the co-author of a new report. "That's obscene."
Mar 24, 2025
Having helped install the most fossil fuel-friendly administration of the climate awareness era, Big Oil and their Republican boosters in Congress are now setting their sights on undermining a tax enacted by during the tenure of former President Joe Biden as part of the landmark Inflation Reduction Act.
Alan Zibel, research director at the consumer advocacy watchdog Public Citizen, and Lukas Shankar-Ross, deputy director of Friends of the Earth's Climate and Energy Justice Program, noted in a report published Monday that Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), who chairs the Senate Ethics Committee, earlier this year introduced industry-backed legislation, the Promoting Domestic Energy Production Act, for possible inclusion in Republicans' proposed $4.5 trillion tax giveaway to corporations and the ultrawealthy.
As Common Dreams reported in January, the fossil fuel industry spent an estimated $445 million during the 2024 election cycle to elect President Donald Trump and other GOP candidates who serve their climate-wrecking interests, and it expects much in return.
"Domestic oil and gas companies, including from Lankford's home state of Oklahoma, have warned their investors about the corporate alternative minimum tax," Zibel and Shankar-Ross wrote. "The industry could soon be rewarded with specially tailored tax relief courtesy of their Republican political allies."
As the report explains:
Here's how the tax scheme works: In August 2022, President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, which made historic climate investments. To help pay for new spending, the bill included a set of corporate tax increases, the largest of which was the $222 billion corporate alternative minimum tax. This tax is meant to prevent corporations that deliver massive profits to investors from paying nothing or nearly nothing in taxes because of corporate-friendly tax loopholes. Under the corporate minimum tax, if a company reports an average of at least $1 billion in annual income over three years, then it must pay 15% of that reported income in taxes, minus certain deductions.
The report highlights Republican efforts to eliminate the minimum tax, including via legislation introduced by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and endorsed by the American Petroleum Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, National Mining Association, Western Energy Alliance, and industry lobbyists.
The bill introduced by Lankford would enable fossil fuel companies to skirt the minimum tax by allowing them to deduct "intangible" drilling costs, a tactic used as an effective subsidy for more than 120 years. Zibel and Shankar-Ross described the tax dodge as "the oldest and the largest fossil fuel subsidy on the books," and one which "allows all of the costs for drilling an oil or gas well to be deducted immediately in the year they are incurred."
"If individual taxpayers understood the magnitude of the extreme subsidies for Big Oil, they would be shocked."
"It is simply outrageous that the GOP is using its trifecta to create yet another fossil fuel subsidy," Shankar-Ross said in a statement, referring to Republicans' control of the White House and both chambers of Congress. "If this polluter handout is snuck into the GOP tax bill, then cuts to Medicaid and food stamps could well pay for another giveaway to Big Oil. That's obscene."
Zibel asserted that "oil and gas companies are using the political influence they purchased to dodge paying even a minimal part of their fair share."
"If individual taxpayers understood the magnitude of the extreme subsidies for Big Oil, they would be shocked," he added. "The newest effort to bypass even the most modest of tax bills by the industry is shocking, but sadly not surprising."
Keep ReadingShow Less
EU Accused of 'Bowing to Pressure' From Trump With Plan to Increase LNG Investments
"The E.U.'s proposed foray into foreign LNG investments appears to be a high-stakes gamble fraught with pitfalls," wrote one market analyst.
Feb 26, 2025
On Wednesday, the European Commission, the executive branch of the European Union, unveiled its Affordable Energy Action Plan, a list of actions ostensibly aimed at securing affordable and clean energy for European citizens. But the plan includes a measure focused on funding international liquefied natural gas exports, which has been criticized as a win for Big Oil companies in the United States and for lacking business sense.
The plan calls for the European Union to back export infrastructure for liquefied natural gas (LNG)—which may have a worse carbon footprint than coal—and long-term LNG contracts to secure "a better deal for imported natural gas."
While the document does not directly single out U.S. LNG export projects, during a press conference on Wednesday centered on the Affordable Energy Action Plan, Dan Jørgensen, European Commissioner for Energy and Housing, said that the European Union has "been dependent on LNG from the U.S. and we will continue to be so in the future" when asked about reliable sources of LNG.
This "would mark a major change in the bloc's energy policies, strengthening the continent's links to the carbon-intensive liquefied natural gas it eventually wants to phase out," according to Politico, which reported on this provision of the plan before the full plan was released.
The business case for the LNG proposal would be "disastrous," wrote a spokesperson for the environmental group Friends of the Earth US in a statement Wednesday, adding that "the Action Plan is music to the ears of Trump's Big Oil buddies."
When it comes to LNG, the plan notes that the Commission will "explore options going beyond demand aggregation and will look into other approaches (e.g. the Japanese model)."
For the past five decades, Japan has been the world's biggest buyer of LNG, directly purchasing stakes in overseas LNG ventures in order to secure access to gas at "preferential prices," per Politico. Using this approach, Japan has become the largest public backer of American LNG projects.
However, as demand for natural gas has fallen in Japan, Japanese utilities—once purely buyers of LNG—are increasingly selling the product abroad, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
This trajectory makes the "Japanese model" more of a "cautionary tale" as opposed to something that the European Commission ought to pursue, wrote to Seb Kennedy, an energy journalist and market analyst.
"The E.U.'s proposed foray into foreign LNG investments appears to be a high-stakes gamble fraught with pitfalls. By risking public funds on ventures that have already demonstrated turbulent market behavior, Europe may be setting the stage for future financial misadventures," Kennedy wrote on Monday.
Meanwhile, Politico also reported that U.S. President Trump—who made restarting reviews of applications for approvals of liquified LNG projects one of his first official moves in office—is "pressing the EU to buy more American LNG, threatening to impose severe tariffs if the bloc doesn't meet that and other demands."
In her response to the European Commission's Action Plan, Laurie van der Burg, global public finance program manager at Oil Change International, a group that fights for a fossil fuel-free world, said that the proposal constitutes "bowing to pressure from the Trump administration and lining the pockets of the fossil fuel industry."
Climate and consumer groups argue U.S. LNG exports are harming public health, devastating the environment, and raising prices for working families.
"In my community, LNG has brought more than just terminals and pipelines; it has ushered in a wave of health crises, environmental degradation, and economic disparities," said Roishetta Ozane, founder of Vessel Project of Louisiana and co-director of Gulf Fossil Finance Hub, in a statement on Wednesday tied to the release of the Affordable Energy Action Plan.
"Our water is contaminated and we're forced to purchase water in plastic bottles. All while the promise of jobs feels hollow against the backdrop of our poisoned land," Ozane wrote. "We deserve better than to be collateral damage in the pursuit of energy profits. Enough is enough."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Geoengineering Fails Again': Coalition Cheers End of Arctic Ice Project
One campaigner said the cancellation "marks another monumental victory for our planet and future generations, a victory where Indigenous peoples' resistance has been central."
Jan 30, 2025
Environmental and Indigenous activists declared Thursday that "geoengineering fails again," welcoming the shutdown of a project that aimed to use "a reflective material to protect and restore Arctic sea ice," which is rapidly disappearing as humanity's reliance on fossil fuels heats the planet.
Noting that "we committed to moving forward only if we could conclusively demonstrate both the safety and effectiveness of our approach," the Arctic Ice Project team confirmed in an online statement that it "will be concluding its research and winding down the organization."
"While our climate impact simulations have shown promising results (with a new scientific paper forthcoming), recent ecotoxicological tests have revealed potential risks to the Arctic food chain," the team said. "Our initial approach was to continue research aimed at addressing these concerns. Upon further reflection, however, the board decided that the combination of these new test results with broad skepticism toward geoengineering, resistance to introducing new materials into the Arctic Ocean, and the increasingly challenging funding environment (and paucity of federal research dollars), the most realistic path was to conclude our research."
"Nature is not a laboratory; it is a living entity we are in relationship with."
Responding in a Thursday statement, Hands Off Mother Earth Alliance global coordinator Coraina de la Plaza said that "the cancellation of the Arctic Ice Project marks another monumental victory for our planet and future generations, a victory where Indigenous peoples' resistance has been central. This outcome reflects the power of community advocacy, and while the fight against geoengineering is far from over, this is a significant step to continue protecting the Arctic against industry greed and vested interests."
Panganga Pungowiyi, climate geoengineering organizer at Indigenous Environmental Network, called the decision "long overdue."
"We are concerned for the community members in Utqiaġvik who were made to spread football fields of this material onto their frozen lake. For years, we stood in defense of Indigenous lands and the sacred ice that has sustained our communities for generations," Pungowiyi explained. "Our concerns about the reckless use of harmful materials were dismissed, yet we knew that the health of our ecosystems and the wisdom of our people must not be overlooked. We continually showed up in defense of free prior and informed consent, and made our presence known."
"We continue to state firmly that nature is not a laboratory; it is a living entity we are in relationship with," the organizer added. "While we find relief in this victory, we remain vigilant against other forms of geoengineering that threaten our sacred spaces. Together, we will continue to educate and empower our communities, standing with our lands, waters, and air for the generations to come."
Silvia Ribeiro, Latin America director at ETC Group, said that "today we celebrate the wisdom, experience, and work of Indigenous peoples and organizations in Alaska that stopped this project and stand in solidarity with their vigilance against similar experiments that are planned in Arctic regions."
Mary Church, geoengineering campaign manager at the Center for International Environmental Law, also framed the development as "a huge victory for the Indigenous communities at the forefront of resistance to the industries and vested interests that are polluting the planet and gambling with our collective future."
"Geoengineering approaches do nothing to address the root causes of the climate crisis and instead delay real solutions, offering a free pass to polluters," she stressed. "Following the recent reaffirmation of the global moratorium on geoengineering at the U.N. biodiversity summit in Colombia, governments need to act to prevent harmful outdoor experiments and the slippery slope to legitimizing deployment. Instead of betting on highly speculative techno-fixes, governments must prioritize an urgent and just transition away from fossil fuels to protect vital Arctic ecosystems."
Benjamin Day, a senior campaigner for climate and energy justice at Friends of the Earth U.S., also looked to the fight ahead.
"The decision to shut down the Arctic Ice Project completes the Geoengineering Hype Cycle that we now see so often: Entrepreneurs swoop into local communities claiming they have a solution to global warming, assuring everyone it's completely safe and ignoring the red flags raised by those with deep knowledge of local ecosystems," Day said. "After countless wasted dollars and press attention, it's revealed the community was right and geoengineering is not a safe or responsible way to address climate change."
"Collectively," he argued, "we must stop enabling this cycle and work towards rapidly and equitably transitioning our communities to sustainable energy and land-use practices."
The winding down of the Arctic Ice Project comes amid global fears about what the recent return of Republican U.S. President Donald Trump—who cozied up to Big Oil executives on the campaign trail and promised to "drill, baby, drill," despite the devastating impacts of fossil fuels—will mean for the future of a planet that last year saw record-shattering temperatures.
Already, Trump has
ditched the Paris climate agreement (again), lifted a freeze on new liquefied natural gas exports, declared a "national energy emergency," and named various fossil fuel allies to key positions. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy took their posts earlier this week, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum was confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate Thursday evening, and Chris Wright, Trump's pick for energy secretary, awaits confirmation.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Momentous Victory for Climate Justice': Rosebank, Jackdaw Oilfields Ruled Unlawful
"There can be victories in the world of climate protest," said one organizer. "This is a big one."
Jan 30, 2025
After winning a landmark lawsuit to stop oil and gas production at two North Sea fossil fuel projects in the United Kingdom Thursday, the global climate action group Greenpeace called for applause for the campaigners who have spent years demanding no new pollution-causing developments.
"This is game-changing," said Greenpeace U.K. "And it's ONLY been possible thanks to YEARS of fighting by THOUSANDS of climate campaigners! Power to the people."
The comments came after Judge Andrew Stewart of Scotland's Court of Session ruled that Equinor and Shell, the fossil fuel giants behind the Rosebank oil and gas field and the Jackdaw gas project, respectively, cannot move ahead with extraction because the government did not take into account the emissions that would result from the projects.
The companies have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Rosebank and Jackdaw, with Equinor saying it had lined up $2.7 billion in contracts for the former field, with an estimated 300 million barrels of oil and gas expected to be extracted beginning in 2026 or 2027.
The Stop Rosebank coalition, made up of grassroots campaigners and organizations, said the climate pollution from Rosebank "would be more than the combined annual CO2 emissions of all 28 low-income countries in the world, including Uganda, Ethiopia, and Mozambique."
"In other words, emissions from this one U.K. field would be more than those created by the 700 million people in the world's poorest countries in a year," said the coalition. "These are among the same countries that have contributed the least to the climate crisis but are already experiencing the worst impacts of a warming planet."
Stewart said in his ruling that "the public interest in authorities acting lawfully and the private interest of members of the public in climate change outweigh the private interest of the developers."
The campaign group Fossil Free London promptly organized a rally outside the Norwegian embassy in the U.K. capital to celebrate the verdict and call on Norway-based Equinor not to appeal the ruling.
"There can be victories in the world of climate protest," said one organizer. "This is a big one."
The ruling was in line with a decision handed down by the U.K. Supreme Court last year, which said local authorities must consider the full environmental impact of all new fossil fuel projects before they are approved.
Thursday's ruling is the latest evidence, said Freya Aitchison, oil and gas campaigner at Friends of the Earth Scotland, that "new oil is over."
"This signals the beginning of the end for fossil fuel production in the U.K.," said Aitchison. "Political attention must immediately turn to developing an urgent and fair transition plan for workers."
"This is a momentous victory for climate justice. It shows the power of the hundreds of thousands of people who have fought against the climate-wrecking Rosebank and Jackdaw oil fields for years. The U.K. Government must now end this disastrous project, rule out all new oil fields and fossil fuel developments and focus on delivering a planned, funded transition for oil workers," added Aitchison. "This ruling is a turning point, we can and must choose a better future."
Carla Denyer, a Member of Parliament for the Green Party, called on the U.K. government, now led by the Labour Party, to "refuse consent for the 13 other oil and gas drilling projects licensed by the previous government."
Global Justice Now said the government should also turn its attention to the entire planet and support calls for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.
"This is a huge milestone towards a livable planet and away from polluting fossil fuels," said Liz Murray, head of the group's Scottish campaigns. "Now we need global coordination to end new oil and gas not just here but around the world. The U.K. government should back calls from some of the most climate vulnerable countries for a fossil fuel treaty to plan a clean energy future that leaves no worker, community or country behind."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Expanding LNG Over Renewable Energy Is Economic and National Security Failure: Report
"When comparing natural gas and renewables for energy security, renewables generally offer greater long-term energy security due to their local availability, reduced dependence on imports, and lower vulnerability to geopolitical disruptions."
Jan 17, 2025
As Republican President-elect Donald Trump prepares to further accelerate already near-record liquefied natural gas exports after taking office next week, a report published Friday details how soaring U.S. foreign LNG sales are "causing price volatility and environmental and safety risks for American families in addition to granting geopolitical advantages to the Chinese government."
The report, Strategic Implications of U.S. LNG Exports, was published by the American Security Project, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, and offers a "comprehensive analysis of the impact of the natural gas export boom from the advent of fracking through the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and provides insight into how the tidal wave of U.S. exports in the global market is altering regional and domestic security environments."
According to a summary of the publication:
The United States is the world's leading producer of natural gas and largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Over the past decade, affordable U.S. LNG exports have facilitated a global shift from coal and mitigated the geopolitical risks of fossil fuel imports from Russia and the Middle East. Today, U.S. LNG plays a critical role in diversifying global energy supplies and reducing reliance on adversarial energy suppliers. However, rising global dependence on natural gas is creating new vulnerabilities, including pricing fluctuations, shipping route bottlenecks, and inherent health, safety, and environmental hazards. The U.S. also faces geopolitical challenges related to the LNG trade, including China's stockpiling and resale of cheap U.S. LNG exports to advance its renewable energy industry and expand its global influence.
"When comparing natural gas and renewables for energy security, renewables generally offer greater long-term energy security due to their local availability, reduced dependence on imports, and lower vulnerability to geopolitical disruptions," the report states.
American Security Project CEO Matthew Wallin said in a statement that "action needs to be taken to ensure Americans are insulated from global price shocks, the impacts of climate change, and new health and safety risks."
"Our country must also do more to protect its interests from geopolitical rivals like China that subsidize their growth and influence by reselling cheap U.S. LNG at higher spot prices," Wallin asserted. "U.S. LNG has often been depicted as a transition fuel, and our country must ensure that it continues working towards that transition to clean sources instead of becoming dependent on yet another vulnerable fuel source."
Critics have
warned that LNG actually hampers the transition to a green economy. LNG is mostly composed of methane, which has more than 80 times the planetary heating power of carbon dioxide during its first two decades in the atmosphere.
Despite President Joe Biden's 2024 pause on LNG export permit applications, his administration has presided over what climate campaigners have called a "staggering" LNG expansion, including Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass 2 export terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana and more than a dozen other projects. Last month, the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledged that approving more LNG exports would raise domestic energy prices, increase pollution, and exacerbate the climate crisis.
In addition to promising to roll back Biden's recent ban on offshore oil and gas drilling across more than 625 million acres of U.S. coastal territory, Trump—who has nominated a bevy of fossil fuel proponents for his Cabinet—is expected to further increase LNG production and exports.
A separate report published Friday by Friends of the Earth and Public Citizen examined 14 proposed LNG export terminals that the Trump administration is expected to fast-track, creating 510 million metric tons of climate pollution–"equivalent to the annual emissions of 135 new coal plants."
While campaigning for president, Trump vowed to "frack, frack, frack; and drill, baby, drill." This, as fossil fuel interests poured $75 million into his campaign coffers, according to The New York Times.
"This research reveals the disturbing reality of an LNG export boom under a second Trump term," Friends of the Earth senior energy campaigner Raena Garcia said in a statement referring to her group's new report. "This reality will cement higher energy prices for Americans and push the world into even more devastating climate disasters. The incoming administration is poised to haphazardly greenlight LNG exports that are clearly intended to put profit over people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy