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
group of seven
In 'Grotesque Billionaire Bonanza,' 41 Energy Tycoons Saw Fortunes Grow by $23.5 Billion Since Trump Launched Iran War
“Conflict devastates countries and costs countless lives, yet for some it is extraordinarily profitable,” said the executive director of Oxfam International.
Jun 15, 2026
While much of the world is holding out hope that the US-Israeli war against Iran may finally be reaching an end amid news of a ceasefire agreement, the billionaire owners of some of the world's largest energy companies may not be so thrilled.
A handful of just 41 energy industry barons in Group of Seven (G7) countries collectively increased their wealth by $23.5 billion since the war was launched in late February, according to a report released by Oxfam International on Monday, as the leaders of the world's largest industrialized economies meet in France this week.
The oil shocks resulting from the war have caused fuel prices to spike dramatically, rippling inflation throughout the global economy and straining the pocketbooks of ordinary people around the world. One April report by the United Nations Development Program projected that, as a result of the conflict, an additional 32 million people would be pushed into poverty by the end of the year.
But between March 1 and May 18, owners of the largest oil and energy companies in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the US, and the UK were adding $300 million on average per day to their collective wealth, Oxfam found through an analysis of Forbes’ Real-Time Billionaire List.
PRESS RELEASE: G7 energy billionaires pocket $300 million a day since start of unlawful US and Israel war against Iran.
This is equivalent to about $1,000 in the time it takes to blink.
👀https://t.co/UVGHF4a3Tk pic.twitter.com/szSGASCAX8
— Oxfam International Media Team (@newsfromoxfam) June 15, 2026
“Conflict devastates countries and costs countless lives, yet for some it is extraordinarily profitable,” said Oxfam International's executive director Amitabh Behar. “This is a brutal system that redistributes wealth upwards—from workers to shareholders, from the poorest to the richest, from those with the least power to those who already have far too much of it. While families are skipping meals and governments slash life-saving aid, we are witnessing a grotesque billionaire bonanza.”
While their accumulation of wealth cannot solely be attributed to the war, Oxfam noted that the Big Six oil companies—Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, and TotalEnergies—are projected to grow their profits this year by 80% above the pre-war forecast, while the average large G7 company in the sample is projected to see just 8% growth.
Global billionaires saw their wealth increase on average by about 0.42% between March and mid-May. During the same period, G7 billionaires in the energy industry grew their riches by 9%, while those in oil and gas specifically became nearly 11% richer.
Oxfam notes that the Iran War has only widened the chasm between the rich and poor that was already gaping, in no small part thanks to nations in the G7.
While billionaire wealth has surged by nearly $10 trillion since 2020, G7 nations, mostly the US under President Donald Trump, have reduced aid to the poorest nations by $48 billion—equivalent to what billionaires in G7 countries accumulated for themselves in just nine days.
Meanwhile, since 2019, the last time France chaired a G7 summit, Oxfam estimated that 44 people per minute have come to be in need of humanitarian aid, based on 2025 data from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
.@Oxfam campaigners posing as #G7 leaders stand around a trash can overflowing with discarded files. The labels read: “gender inequality,” “climate,” and “tax the rich” —critical global issues scrubbed from the agenda to secure President Trump’s attendance at the G7 summit.@AP pic.twitter.com/aE7HkMvKFl
— Oxfam International Media Team (@newsfromoxfam) June 15, 2026
Behar said that in order to secure the participation of the US in this week’s summit, French President Emmanuel Macron has chosen to table any discussions that might offend Trump—including the devastating cost of his war in Iran, Israel’s US-backed wars in Gaza and Lebanon, and anything to do with the climate crisis, which Trump has referred to as "a scam."
"Rather than defending collective governance, Macron and his peers are accommodating its destruction. This will have consequences measured in lives," he said.
Oxfam called for the "G6"—all the Group of Seven member countries, excluding the US—to create a comprehensive plan to protect people from the economic turmoil caused by the war and other spiraling global crises.
“The G6 can’t plead powerlessness,” Behar added. “They can cancel debt. They can tax windfall profits and extreme wealth... They can provide poorer countries with aid. Refusing to act simply because Washington will not join them is not diplomacy—it is cowardice. And it will only accelerate the G6’s slide into global irrelevance.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Climate Group Says Rich Nations 'Must Tax Fossil Fuel Windfall Profits' Tied to Iran War
"If G7 countries are serious about stabilizing the market, they need to stop protecting profits and start taxing companies which fuel the climate crisis."
Mar 10, 2026
Campaigners with the global climate movement 350.org argued Tuesday that Group of Seven countries "must tax fossil fuel windfall profits" from price hikes related to the US-Israeli war on Iran.
"Wars expose a deep flaw in our energy system: When prices spike, fossil fuel companies stand ready to cash in while households and businesses struggle," said the group's global campaigns manager, Clémence Dubois, in a statement. "That's not just market volatility, it's the result of governments allowing fossil fuel companies to keep the power to shape the energy system and pass the costs onto everyone else."
In addition to the US, the G7 includes Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Dubois declared that they all "must stop reinforcing this model with fossil fuel tax cuts that only inflate corporate earnings. Cutting fossil fuel taxes during a crisis is not a relief for families, it's a subsidy for companies that are already enjoying windfall profits."
"The right response is a strong windfall tax, which should be redirected to support households and accelerate the transition to clean energy that reduces our dependence on the very fuels driving both climate disruption and global instability," she stressed, just days after new research revealed that the pace of global heating from fossil fuels has accelerated over the past decade.
While advocates have long called for taxing oil and gas companies to pay for a swift transition to clean power and the impacts of the climate emergency on communities around the world, the Trump administration and Israel's assault on Iran has generated fresh demands for an urgent transition away from dirty energy.
The US and Israel have bombarded civilian infrastructure, including Iranian oil facilities, sending clouds of smoke and black droplets falling over Tehran. Iran has threatened to fire upon ships crossing through the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial pathway for both oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.
The shutdown of both the key waterway and Qatari liquefied natural gas facilities damaged by Iranian attacks has sent oil prices soaring and led to estimates that US LNG companies could soon see $20 billion in monthly windfall profits, as they direct exports to the highest bidders.
As Politico reported: "News early Monday that the United States and other G7 countries were discussing a possible coordinated release of oil from their strategic petroleum reserves halted a panic-driven market spike that briefly pushed US oil to nearly $120 a barrel overnight. The French government later in the morning walked that back, saying the G7 was 'not there yet' as far as tapping oil stockpiles."
Speaking in Cyprus on Monday, French President Emmanuel Macron said that "we are in the process of setting up a purely defensive, purely escort mission, which must be prepared together with both European and non-European states, and whose purpose is to enable, as soon as possible after the most intense phase of the conflict has ended, the escort of container ships and tankers to gradually reopen the Strait of Hormuz."
Meanwhile, Fanny Petitbon, 350's France country manager, said Tuesday that "releasing emergency oil reserves is just a Band-Aid on a gaping wound. If G7 countries are serious about stabilizing the market, they need to stop protecting profits and start taxing companies which fuel the climate crisis."
"Working people shouldn't be paying the price while oil majors treat the war in the Middle East like a winning lottery ticket. We need the G7 to step up and establish a windfall tax now to put those profits back into the pockets of the people," Petitbon asserted. "The French government, as president of the G7, must also confront the elephant in the room—the urgent phaseout of fossil fuels. It can no longer look away from the reality, which is that we cannot stay addicted to oil and gas."
Among the countries significantly impacted by the Strait of Hormuz closure is Japan, which relies on the route for around 70% of its oil and 6% of its LNG imports, according to Reuters. Masayoshi Iyoda, a 350 campaigner for the country, said that "Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has moved to calm fears over rising energy and food prices, but reassurances and stopgap measures like releasing oil reserves are not enough."
"Fossil fuel companies are cashing in on this crisis. A windfall tax on polluting industries would make them pay by taking responsibility, not ordinary families already stretched by years of stagnant wages and price surges due to climate impacts," Iyoda continued, before looking toward Takaichi's planned meeting with US President Donald Trump next week.
"We urge her to reconsider Japan's alignment with the Trump administration's fossil fuel agenda," the campaigner said. "The attack on Iran has shown, once again, how that agenda means prosperity for oil and gas corporations, and higher bills for everyone else. Accelerating a just transition to renewable energy and phasing out fossil fuels is Japan's best option to secure affordable and sustainable energy based on democracy and peace."
Keep ReadingShow Less
G7 Leaders Blasted for 'Morally Indefensible' Failure on Crises of War, Poverty, and Climate
Amid interlocking catastrophes, the world's wealthiest and most powerful nations were told they "cannot retreat and hide."
Jun 18, 2025
The Group of Seven Leaders' Summit concluded in Canada on Tuesday with joint statements on artificial intelligence, critical minerals supply chains, foreign interference, quantum innovation, transnational crime, and wildfires, but campaigners called out attendees for failing to "take collective action to end conflicts, address climate change, and reduce poverty and inequality."
Although U.S. President Donald Trump bailed early, representatives from the other G7 member countries—Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom—and the European Union gathered in Kananaskis, Alberta from Sunday to Tuesday, with appearances by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.
"The summit fell short of delivering the leadership the world needs," the global advocacy group Oxfam said in a lengthy statement after the meeting ended. "Nowhere was this more apparent than in how this G7 totally missed its chance to exert any meaningful pressure toward peace in the Middle East."
"Even its call for a de-escalation between Israel and Iran, which is desperately needed, was corrupted by geo-political partiality and bias," the group continued, calling for "an immediate end to hostilities in the region," including "Israel's relentless assault on Gaza."
"With a planned 28% reduction by 2026 compared to 2024, these cuts are not just a policy failure but put the lives of millions of people at risk, especially those already facing hunger, poverty, and ever-worsening effects of climate change."
Unlike the 2002 G8 Summit in Kananaskis, "where leaders committed to an Africa Action Plan and development cooperation," G7 leaders are now "pursuing the largest aid cuts in its history," Oxfam also noted. "With a planned 28% reduction by 2026 compared to 2024, these cuts are not just a policy failure but put the lives of millions of people at risk, especially those already facing hunger, poverty, and ever-worsening effects of climate change."
"In a world grappling with war, rising inequality, food insecurity, and climate breakdown," Oxfam declared, "the G7's retreat from responsibility is not only morally indefensible but also strategically short-sighted."
Climate campaigners also took aim at summit attendees, with Greenpeace International's Tracy Carty saying Tuesday that "as G7 leaders grapple with how to de-escalate multiple conflicts they can ill afford to ignore another threat to global stability—the worsening climate emergency."
"But even before the latest intensification in the Middle East, the climate had already been sidelined, as the G7—under Canada's leadership—tiptoed around Trump's climate denialism," Carty continued. "The leaders of these nations—among the most responsible for global emissions—cannot retreat and hide."
"The G7 must urgently work towards bold action to cut emissions, hold the fossil fuel industry accountable, and ensure big polluters pay their fair share for the climate damage already unfolding across the globe," she asserted.
Her colleague at Greenpeace Canada, Keith Stewart, pointed out that "Canada is literally a country on fire, but despite wanting to discuss an improved joint response to wildfires, it allowed the summit to end with a statement on the issue that included no mention of tackling the climate crisis fueling the latest disaster."
📣This year's #G7Summit ended with clean energy & fossil fuel subsidy reform missing from final statements. Climate received only a passing reference in the Chair’s statement.IISD's @patriciafuller.bsky.social stresses previous climate commitments remain on the books. 👇 www.iisd.org/articles/sta...
[image or embed]
— IISD Energy (@energy.iisd.org) June 17, 2025 at 9:49 PM
Amara Possian, 350.org's Canada team lead, targeted Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney, arguing that "as one of the world's richest, most polluting countries, Canada has a responsibility to lead on climate justice" and he "should use the G7 presidency to raise the bar."
Specifically, "to do our fair share, Canada must triple climate finance through grants, cancel Global South debt, make polluters and billionaires pay, and end trade rules that block climate action," Possian said. "This is a defining test of Canada's commitment to long-term security and prosperity."
350.org leaders from Japan, the United States, Europe, and Latin America and the Caribbean also took aim at G7 leaders who "missed a crucial opportunity to lead on climate and to stand up against fossil fuel interests and the Trump administration."
U.S. senior policy analyst JL Andrepont said that "Trump's early exit from the G7 summit in Canada is part of a continued effort to remove our leadership and commitments from the world stage. We cannot move forward quickly enough on the needed clean, just energy transition with a U.S. government hostile to the very concept of the climate crisis and the readily available tools necessary to fight it—justly sourced and implemented, low-cost wind and solar."
"The rest of the planet must step forward in our absence to keep the fight to end the fossil fuel era going," Andrepont added. "Unfortunately, G7 leaders followed in Trump's footsteps and ended the meeting pretending climate change doesn't exist. Our people and our planet deserve better."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Call for Evacuation of Tehran—A City of 10 Million—Denounced as 'Terroristic' Threat
"It's like telling the entire country of Sweden to evacuate," said one scholar.
Jun 17, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump's social media post urging residents of Tehran to evacuate "immediately"—a call shared online at 2:00 am local time—intensified chaos in the densely populated Iranian capital amid Israel's deadly bombing campaign.
"Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!" Trump wrote on his social media platform as Israel's war on Iran entered its fifth day.
Video footage that emerged in the wake of Trump's post showed a highway full of traffic as Iranians attempted to flee Israel's onslaught, which has killed or injured more than a thousand people so far. There have also been reports of long lines at gas stations, some of which have been forced to close after running out of fuel.
"They should've done the deal." President Donald Trump called for the evacuation of Iran's capital of Tehran after Israeli attacks on the country sent the region into conflict and uncertainty. pic.twitter.com/sjnFRVEcFN
— USA TODAY Politics (@usatodayDC) June 17, 2025
The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention was among those condemning Trump's evacuation call for Tehran, denouncing it as a "terroristic" social media threat "unbecoming of a head of state." Tehran is home to around 10 million people, roughly equal to the population size of Israel.
"President Trump should be ashamed for being the lapdog of genocidaire and petty dictator Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel, and for following in the obsequious footsteps of former U.S. President Joe Biden," the Lemkin Institute said in a statement. "We call on President Trump to deescalate the situation immediately by pulling the Israeli PM back from this war of aggression and by pursuing a robust and truly independent U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East."
Assal Rad, a Middle East scholar and fellow at Arab Center Washington DC, asked, "Where are 10,000,000 people supposed to evacuate to?"
"It's like telling the entire country of Sweden to evacuate," Rad wrote on social media. "Even if that was possible and they all had places to go, the traffic is not moving and gas is scarce. Even if they could all get out, what are they coming back to?"
Following his social media post, Trump signed a joint statement with other Group of Seven leaders calling for a "resolution of the Iranian crisis" that "leads to a broader deescalaton of hostilities in the Middle East, including a cease-fire in Gaza."
The Washington Post reported that Trump initially declined to sign the G7 statement "but reversed his position following discussions with other leaders in the group and changes to the initial draft."
An unnamed U.S. official would not tell the Post what specific changes secured Trump's backing, but the final "statement omitted language that called for both Iran and Israel 'to show restraint,' which appeared in an earlier draft of the agreement."
Trump left the G7 summit in Canada early, soon after calling for the evacuation of Tehran. The National Iranian American Council expressed hope that the president's evacuation message "does not mean an unauthorized U.S. entry into the war, or that he has knowledge of further depraved attacks from Israel."
Trump is planning to hold a meeting on Iran in the White House Situation Room with his national security team on Tuesday, Axios reported, as congressional opposition to deeper U.S. involvement in the war grows.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Our Leaders Are Not Leading': Groups Decry Yet Another G7 Climate Failure
"If these embattled leaders want to leave a lasting legacy, they need to heed the will of voters demanding a safe environment and climate," one campaigner asserted.
Jun 14, 2024
As the Group of Seven summit wrapped up Friday in Italy, climate defenders condemned G7 leaders for their continued failure to take meaningful action to combat the worsening planetary emergency.
Taking aim at what critics called the G7 leaders' largely empty pledge to undertake "concrete steps to address the triple crisis of climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss," 350.org U.S. campaigns manager Candice Fortin lamented that "yet another meeting ends without real commitments to revert the situation rich countries like the U.S. put us in."
"As COP29 approaches and the world deals with worsening climate impacts, we can't afford to waste more time," Fortin said, referring to the United Nations Climate Change Conference scheduled to take place in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan—a major fossil fuel-producing nation—in November. COP29 is set to be chaired by a former oil executive.
"If the U.S. wants to pride itself on being a 'world leader,' it needs to show how it will pay its climate debt to climate-vulnerable countries that bear the most significant climate impacts without the necessary funds for adaptation," Fortin added.
While G7 governments hailed their recent agreement to phase out existing unabated coal power generation in energy systems during the first half of the 2030s, critics took issue with the policy's timeline and banks' continued financing of fossil fuels.
"Our leaders are not leading. In the hottest 12 consecutive months of recorded human history, our leaders are failing us,''
argued Bronwen Tucker, Oil Change International's public finance lead. "G7 countries are adopting an inadequate coal phaseout date and endorsing increased fossil gas production, sending a terrible signal at a time when countries should be focusing on accelerating the phaseout, not delaying it."
Tucker continued:
G7 leaders can't say they're committed to a livable climate while expanding and bankrolling the fossil fuel industry at home and abroad. At the same time, these rich countries should not be congratulating themselves for delivering $100 billion for climate finance two years too late. Trillions are needed to cover climate damages and the G7's finance was largely provided as loans which only worsens unjust debts.
"The G7 must end the billions of dollars in taxpayer finance still flowing to fossil fuel projects abroad and fund the buildout of affordable renewable energy on fair terms," Tucker asserted. "If their oil and gas expansion plans are allowed to proceed, it will lock in climate chaos and an unlivable future."
Greenpeace International climate politics expert Tracy Carty said in a statement that "if these embattled leaders want to leave a lasting legacy, they need to heed the will of voters demanding a safe environment and climate."
"Taxing the billions of dollars in profits of the fossil fuel industry to fund climate action at home and abroad could be their stake in history and a win for people and planet," Carty continued. "G7 leaders need to seize the moment ahead of the U.N. climate talks in Baku and show they will lead the transition away from fossil fuels and build trust they will significantly increase climate finance support to developing countries."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Scandalous': G7 Nations Spend 62 Times More on Military Than Humanitarian Aid
"More must be invested in eradicating poverty and fostering peace and development, not fueling war and destruction," said one campaigner.
Jun 14, 2024
Despite historic levels of forced displacement due to armed conflict, Group of Seven member countries have increased their military expenditures to record highs while they slash spending on humanitarian aid for people affected by wars that these powerful nations often started or stoked, an analysis published Friday revealed.
According to Birmingham, England-based Islamic Relief Worldwide, military spending by G7 members Canada, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States—which wrapped up Friday in Puglia, Italy—rose to $1.2 trillion last year, the overwhelming bulk of that amount attributable to the U.S.' $886.3 billion Pentagon budget.
"Too many governments are putting far more resources towards acquiring weapons of war than helping those suffering the deadly impacts of conflict."
That's a 7.3% increase over 2022 levels, and 62 times what those countries spent on all humanitarian aid in response to wars and disasters.
"From Gaza to Sudan, Ukraine to Myanmar, we see millions of lives destroyed by war," Islamic Relief head of global advocacy Shahin Ashraf said in a statement. "The humanitarian needs today are greater than ever before, so it's scandalous that many wealthy G7 nations are cutting aid while spending more than ever before on weapons."
It's not just the G7. According to this year's Stockholm International Peace Research Institute annual analysis, global military spending increased 6.8% to a record $2.4 trillion in 2023.
"Too many governments are putting far more resources towards acquiring weapons of war than helping those suffering the deadly impacts of conflict," Ashraf asserted. "More must be invested in eradicating poverty and fostering peace and development, not fueling war and destruction."
Islamic Relief Worldwide said:
While some of the discussions at the G7 summit focus on restricting immigration into rich developed nations, most people displaced by conflict remain in war-torn countries and impoverished neighbouring countries. After more than a year of brutal war, Sudan is now the world's biggest displacement crisis with over 10 million people—about a quarter of the population—now forced from their homes. The vast majority of people fleeing the violence in Sudan remain in the country, with many receiving aid from local communities, youth groups, and mosques.
"As rich nations increasingly shut their borders and cut aid, in places like Sudan it is heartening to see the generosity of some of the world's poorest communities taking displaced people into their homes and sharing their food and water with them," said Ashraf. "But they need more international support, especially from the wealthiest countries."
Another analysis published ahead of the G7 summit by Oxfam International revealed that just 3% of the seven countries' 2023 military expenditures would be enough to "help end world hunger and solve the debt crisis in the Global South."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Perils and Promise of the Emerging Multipolar World
The world economy is experiencing a deep process of economic convergence, according to which regions that once lagged the West in industrialization are now making up for lost time.
Jun 06, 2024
The World Bank’s release on May 30 of its latest estimates of national output (up to the year 2022) offers an occasion to reflect on the new geopolitics. The new data underscore the shift from a U.S.-led world economy to a multipolar world economy, a reality that U.S. strategists have so far failed to recognize, accept, or admit.
The World Bank figures make clear that the economic dominance of the West is over. In 1994, the G7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, U.K., U.S.) constituted 45.3% of world output, compared with 18.9% of world output in the BRICS countries (Brazil, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Russia, South Africa, United Arab Emirates). The tables have turned. The BRICS now produce 35.2% of world output, while the G7 countries produce 29.3%.
As of 2022, the largest five economies in descending order are China, the U.S., India, Russia, and Japan. China’s GDP is around 25% larger than the U.S.’ (roughly 30% of the U.S. GDP per person but with 4.2 times the population). Three of the top five countries are in the BRICS, while two are in the G7. In 1994, the largest five were the U.S., Japan, China, Germany, and India, with three in the G7 and two in the BRICS.
Despite the new global economic realities, the U.S. security state still pursues a grand strategy of “primacy,” that is, the aspiration of the U.S. to be the dominant economic, financial, technological, and military power in every region of the world.
As the shares of world output change, so too does global power. The core U.S.-led alliance, which includes the U.S., Canada, U.K., European Union, Japan, Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, was 56% of world output in 1994, but now is only 39.5%. As a result, the U.S. global influence is waning. As a recent vivid example, when the U.S.-led group introduced economic sanctions on Russia in 2022, very few countries outside the core alliance joined. As a result, Russia had little trouble shifting its trade to countries outside the U.S.-led alliance.
The world economy is experiencing a deep process of economic convergence, according to which regions that once lagged the West in industrialization in the 19th and 20th centuries are now making up for lost time. Economic convergence actually began in the 1950s as European imperial rule in Africa and Asia came to an end. It has proceeded in waves, starting first in East Asia, then roughly 20 years later India, and for the coming 20-40 years in Africa.
These and some other regions are growing much faster than the Western economies since they have more “headroom” to boost GDP by rapidly raising education levels, boosting workers’ skills, and installing modern infrastructure, including universal access to electrification and digital platforms. The emerging economies are often able to leapfrog the richer countries with state-of-the-art infrastructure (e.g., fast intercity rail, 5G, modern airports and seaports) while the richer countries remain stuck with aging infrastructure and expensive retrofits. The IMF’s World Economic Outlook projects that the emerging and developing economies will average growth of around 4% per year in the coming five years, while the high-income countries will average less than 2% per year.
It’s not only in skills and infrastructure that convergence is occurring. Many of the emerging economies, including China, Russia, Iran, and others, are advancing rapidly in technological innovations as well, in both civilian and military technologies.
China clearly has a large lead in the manufacturing of cutting-edge technologies needed for the global energy transition, including batteries, electric vehicles, 5G, photovoltaics, wind turbines, fourth generation nuclear power, and others. China’s rapid advances in space technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and other technologies is similarly impressive. In response, the U.S. has made the absurd claim that China has an “overcapacity” in these cutting-edge technologies, while the obvious truth is that the U.S. has a significant under-capacity in many sectors. China’s capacity for innovation and low-cost production is underpinned by enormous R&D spending and its vast and growing labor force of scientists and engineers.
Despite the new global economic realities, the U.S. security state still pursues a grand strategy of “primacy,” that is, the aspiration of the U.S. to be the dominant economic, financial, technological, and military power in every region of the world. The U.S. is still trying to maintain primacy in Europe by surrounding Russia in the Black Sea region with NATO forces, yet Russia has resisted this militarily in both Georgia and Ukraine. The U.S. is still trying to maintain primacy in Asia by surrounding China in the South China Sea, a folly that can lead the U.S. into a disastrous war over Taiwan. The U.S. is also losing its standing in the Middle East by resisting the united call of the Arab world for recognition of Palestine as the 194th United Nations member state.
Yet primacy is certainly not possible today, and was hubristic even 30 years ago when U.S. relative power was much greater. Today, the U.S. share of world output stands at 14.8%, compared with 18.5% for China, and the U.S. share of world population is a mere 4.1%, compared with 17.8% for China.
The trend toward broad global economic convergence means that U.S. hegemony will not be replaced by Chinese hegemony. Indeed, China’s share of world output is likely to peak at around 20% during the coming decade and thereafter to decline as China’s population declines. Other parts of the world, notably including India and Africa, are likely to show a large rise in their respective shares of global output, and with that, in their geopolitical weight as well.
We are therefore entering a post-hegemonic, multipolar world. It too is fraught with challenges. It could usher in a new “tragedy of great power politics,” in which several nuclear powers compete—in vain—for hegemony. It could lead to a breakdown of fragile global rules, such as open trade under the World Trade Organization. Or, it could lead to a world in which the great powers exercise mutual tolerance, restraint, and even cooperation, in accord with the U.N. Charter, because they recognize that only such statecraft will keep the world safe in the nuclear age.
Keep ReadingShow Less
G7 2035 Coal Phaseout Pledge Called 'Too Little, Too Late' to Match Climate Emergency
"If they are serious and aligned with what the science says is needed to keep 1.5°C within reach, G7 countries must ditch this dinosaur, planet-wrecking fuel no later than 2030," one advocate said.
Apr 30, 2024
The Group of Seven Climate, Energy, and Environment Ministerial concluded a meeting in Turin, Italy, on Tuesday with a commitment to phase out "unabated" coal use by 2035.
While the agreement is "unprecedented" for the U.S. and Japan, which had not previously set an expiration date on their burning of the dirtiest fossil fuel, it still does not align with the Paris agreement goal of limiting global heating to 1.5°C.
"The commitment to phase out coal is simply too little, too late. If they are serious and aligned with what the science says is needed to keep 1.5°C within reach, G7 countries must ditch this dinosaur, planet-wrecking fuel no later than 2030," Greenpeace International global climate politics expert Tracy Carty said in a statement. "And the climate emergency demands they just don't stop at coal. Fossil fuels are destroying people and planet and a commitment to rapidly phase out all fossil fuels—coal, oil, and gas—is urgently needed."
"This is not the goal for coal we need, and it will not deliver climate justice."
In their Climate, Energy, and Environment Ministers' Meeting Communiqué, the countries agreed to "phase out existing unabated coal power generation in our energy systems during the first half of 2030s or in a timeline consistent with keeping a limit of 1.5°C temperature rise within reach, in line with countries' net-zero pathways."
The agreement comes days after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyfinalized a rule mandating that all coal plants that plan to operate after 2039 must slash their climate-heating emissions by 90% by that date. Like the "unabated" language in the G7 communiqué, the EPA plan leaves open the possibility that coal plants could continue to run if they can effectively eliminate their carbon dioxide pollution with carbon capture and storage. However, this is an unproven technology that has not succeeded at scale; for example, Oil and Gas Watch News reported last Thursday that a taxpayer-funded CCS project at an ethanol plant in Illinois had only captured up to 10-12% of CO2 emissions each year for the past decade.
"It is past time that the U.S. made concrete commitments to phase out coal power," Jeff Ordower, the director of 350.org North America director, said in a statement. He added that while 350.org welcomed "this and all steps toward phasing out fossil fuels, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's recent announcement to further limit coal-fired power plants' CO2 emissions, we must not lose sight of what is really at stake."
Further, Ordower said that the U.S.' plans "must not rely on unproven technologies like carbon capture, or dangerous, expensive, and unequal ones like nuclear just so they can continue business as usual."
Similarly, 350.org Japan campaigner Masayoshi Iyoda said, "Japan agreeing to a specific deadline to phase out domestic coal power generation is momentous and long overdue."
"As an historic outlier among G7 countries on making coal phaseout commitments, and with the highest share of power generated from coal among its G7 peers, this is a step forward. However, 2035 is too late to meet the 1.5°C target set in the Paris agreement," Iyoda continued.
"This was the first opportunity for the G7 to show they were taking the COP28 agreement seriously. They have failed."
Amnesty International also criticized the timeline of the deal.
"This is not the goal for coal we need, and it will not deliver climate justice," Candy Ofime, Amnesty International's climate justice researcher, said in a statement. "Commitments put forward by G7 members—which have burnt coal for power for more than a century—to stop using this pollutant by 2035 are simply too late and weakened by unacceptable caveats."
Ofime pointed out that the deal appeared to make no mention of phasing out coal in steel production, despite the fact that the process burns up around 30% of total coal use. She also argued that the language around "unabated" coal use was "misleading."
"Abatement relies on the use of carbon capture and storage, and other technologies such as ammonia and hydrogen co-firing with coal, which are unproven at scale and can come with other risks," Ofime sad. "Coal pollution cannot be adequately abated, and harms health and the climate whenever it is used."
Campaigners also criticized the G7 countries for focusing their timeline on coal and not oil and gas, especially since all nations agreed to work toward "transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly, and equitable manner" at last year's COP28 United Nations climate talks in Dubai.
"This was the first opportunity for the G7 to show they were taking the COP28 agreement seriously. They have failed," said Romain Ioualalen, Oil Change International's global policy campaign manager.
Oil Change pointed out that G7 countries are responsible for nearly half of all CO2 emissions from new oil and gas production, as well as 27% of production overall. At the same time, they subsidized fossil fuels to the tune of $25.7 billion a year between 2020 and 2022, compared to only $10.3 billion for renewables. While the countries did reaffirm a pledge to end "inefficient" fossil fuel subsidies by 2025 or earlier, they did not offer any more details on the timeline.
"While the G7 focuses on coal, it conveniently omits to stress that limiting warming to 1.5°C means they also need to end fossil fuel expansion at home, going fastest in phasing out existing production," Ioualalen said. "They must end the billions of dollars in taxpayer finance still flowing to fossil fuel projects abroad and fund the buildout of affordable renewable energy on fair terms. If their oil and gas expansion plans are allowed to proceed, it would lock in climate chaos and an unlivable future."
The ministers also reaffirmed the importance of natural gas deliveries to Europe to help it replace Russian gas in the wake of Russia's ongoing war on Ukraine. However, European officials have said that they will have enough gas supplies to last through the next decade despite a Biden administration pause on new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export approvals.
"Faced with climate catastrophe, the G7's persistent endorsement of fossil gas is alarming," Carty of Greenpeace said. "Gas is not needed, not cheap, and is certainly not a 'bridge fuel' to a safe climate. The biggest fossil fuel threat today by wealthy nations is coming from the rapidly expanding LNG industry. An urgent shift is needed towards less, not more, gas—and massively expanded renewables."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Block the Black Sea Pipeline for Putin's War Chest
Nations should actively advocate for the diversification of energy sources and the establishment of sustainable transportation routes that do not hinge on potential shifts in the geopolitical landscape.
Mar 05, 2024
With the ongoing costly Russian war on Ukraine, and Russia's central funding of that war coming from its fossil fuel exports, we examine here those exports specifically on the Black Sea.
Russian energy exports also contribute to catastrophic climate disruption costing trillions, but for those bearing the brunt of their bullets, bombs, and rockets in Ukraine, drying up Russia's war chest is the top priority.
Russia Forced to Move Supply Chains Due to U.S. and European Embargo
In a strategic move starting December 5, 2022, the European Union implemented a sea route ban on Russian oil imports, reshaping the global oil landscape. Yet, rather than achieving a seamless transition, this embargo has sparked intricate manoeuvres, especially in the Black Sea, casting shadows on the efficacy of sanctions and Europe's energy security.
The E.U.'s embargo to curtail Russia's energy export revenues and support Ukraine in its struggle has triggered seismic shifts in the global oil market. The Black Sea, once a crucial route for Russian oil exports, has become a stage for intricate manoeuvres in energy policy.
Together, the E.U., alongside the United States and G7 counterparts, established a mechanism to cap the price of Russian oil exported to non-sanctioning countries. This mechanism includes a ban on maritime services for the transportation of Russian oil to third countries and insurance for cargo if their price exceeds a specific limit—a "ceiling" or price cap. The E.U. has set this ceiling at $60 per barrel.
Despite the embargo, the trade in oil persists, and the politics and economics of the Black Sea are becoming increasingly pivotal to the region.
This move, aimed at curbing Russia's revenues from energy exports and supporting Ukraine in the ongoing war, has set the stage for a complex dance in energy policy. As a result of the E.U. and G7 embargo on Russian oil imports via sea routes, the Black Sea was transformed into a hub of strategic importance. Despite the restrictions, Russian oil continued to enter the world markets through four key shipping points: Novorossiysk, Taman, Tuapse, and ship-to-ship transfer.
The volumes of transportation through these ports since the embargo indicate that the Black Sea remained a vital channel for Russian oil exports. These manoeuvres, often facilitated by both European and non-European shipowners, caused considerable concern among politicians and experts, as they undermined the effectiveness of the sanctions and raised new questions about the security of Europe's energy supply.
Who Is Transporting Russian Oil?
Although the embargo was supposed to stop Russian crude oil exports, they are vulnerable to restrictions, according to the Black Sea News and the Institute for Black Sea Strategic Studies.
Who transported Russian crude oil from Black Sea ports after the E.U. and G7 embargo was imposed.
(Image: Black Sea News)
Between December 2022 to December 2023, 47.5 million tons of oil were exported from the Black Sea, of which 41.09%—19.6 million tons—were transported by European shipowners. Even with the restrictions, ships from non-European countries and even from Russia continued to transport oil.
Since March 2023, non-European shipowners have significantly increased their transportation volumes and become major players in the transportation industry. Notably, Greek companies topped the list, transporting 36.53% of oil, followed by Russian companies with 24.77%. After the announcement of the 11th E.U. sanctions package on June 21, 2023, five Greek companies were recognized as sponsors of war. This led to a decrease in the transportation of Greek tankers, but later the figures rose again.
The tendency for Greek companies to be replaced by other shipowners, especially from "flag of convenience" countries and Russia, was noticeable. In 2023, Russian companies once again surged to the forefront, transporting 42% of oil, underscoring the need for vigilant oversight to prevent sanctions circumvention and mitigate geopolitical tensions. Despite the embargo, the trade in oil persists, and the politics and economics of the Black Sea are becoming increasingly pivotal to the region.
Effective Sanctions Require Closing Loopholes
The situation involving the transportation of Russian oil through the Black Sea under the E.U. and G7 embargo carries potentially serious consequences for energy security and geopolitical stability. Primarily, it presents a risk of violating sanctions and undermining general political coordination between countries. Actions taken by shipowners to circumvent the sanctions may instigate new economic and political conflicts, escalating tensions in the region and jeopardizing economic stability.
Given this situation, the European Union and the G7 countries must urgently implement measures to ensure compliance with sanctions and fortify the international legal order. Developing a collective strategy that considers all facets of energy security and geopolitical challenges is crucial. Efforts should be directed toward finding effective mechanisms to identify and prevent the circumvention of sanctions, thereby averting violations of international norms and rules.
Moreover, nations should actively advocate for the diversification of energy sources and the establishment of sustainable transportation routes that do not hinge on potential shifts in the geopolitical landscape. This approach will enhance the resilience of the energy sector and diminish susceptibility to external influences. A clean energy buildout will also help meet climate reduction targets and save up to $178 trillion in climate catastrophe costs by 2070 according to The Wall Street Journal.
Given the critical importance of energy security and geopolitical stability, immediate action and collaborative efforts are imperative to ensure a peaceful and stable global energy landscape.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Despite Global Pledge, US Still Pouring Public Money Into Fossil Fuel Projects Abroad
"The U.S., Italy, and Germany are going rogue by backtracking on their commitment to end international public finance for fossil fuels," said one analyst. "There needs to be accountability."
Sep 07, 2023
Amid a worsening climate emergency and preparations for a pair of United Nations summits to tackle it, an analysis released Wednesday called out multiple countries including the United States for continuing to dump a collective $4.4 billion into fossil fuel projects abroad after pledging to stop such public financing by the end of last year.
Oil Change International (OCI) found that the United States, Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, and Switzerland have more than 20 fossil fuel projects awaiting final approval and 15 approved projects. Four U.S.-financed projects in Indonesia, Poland, Singapore, and South Africa are already approved and getting $1.5 billion.
Six other U.S.-backed projects—located in the Bahamas, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Guyana, Iraq, and Papua New Guinea—are still pending. There are also two approved liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects located in the United States but with a total of $472 million in German financing along with a pending U.S.-based project supported by Japan.
Germany also has an approved project in Bangladesh and pending projects in Brazil, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Iraq, and Uzbekistan. Japan has approved projects in India, Indonesia, and Uzbekistan, and pending projects in Brazil, Jamaica, and Russia. Italy has approved projects in Indonesia, Peru, and Uzbekistan and pending projects in Brazil, Mozambique, Turkey, and Vietnam.
"Enough is Enough! No more sacrifice zones, no more fossil fuels—we refuse to be sacrificed!"
This financing is occuring despite the Statement on International Public Support for the Clean Energy Transition—often called the Glasgow Statement because it came out of the COP26 summit in Scotland—and a similar Group of Seven commitment. OCI, which has previously blasted "promise breakers" for neglecting these pledges, noted that "while the U.S. has reportedly adopted a policy to follow through on its commitments to end international public finance for fossil fuels, it is refusing to publish it."
OCI public finance analyst Claire O'Manique declared Wednesday that "the U.S., Italy, and Germany are going rogue by backtracking on their commitment to end international public finance for fossil fuels. Public money that should be going to support a just transition to renewable energy is instead being pumped into more climate-wrecking fossil fuel projects, harming communities."
"Other countries have kept their promise to end international public finance for fossil fuels," she stressed. "This is already shifting billions of dollars towards clean energy. There needs to be accountability for signatories who go back on their word."
Frontline community leaders also spoke out. Center for Environmental Law and Community Rights executive director Peter Bosip said: "The people of Papua New Guinea are already facing the full force of climate change. Rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and environmental degradation are already threatening many people's existence and threatening our way of life. Papua LNG will add to and exacerbate this climate crisis—and financiers cannot, and should not, finance it."
Anabela Lemos, director of Justiça Ambiental in Mozambique, charged that "rich countries are addicted to fossil fuels" and emphasized the importance of fighting against oil and gas projects.
"If there isn't a strong backlash, the rest [of the world] will follow soon and then there will be no chance for vulnerable countries like Mozambique to deal with the ravages of the climate crisis," Lemos warned. "Instead of supporting Mozambique to develop clean and just energy sources, these countries are pushing Mozambique down a fossil fuel development pathway."
The campaigner took aim at the Italian export credit finance agency, Servizi Assicurativi del Commercio Estero (SACE), for its involvement in "the gas rush in northern Mozambique, which has led to human rights abuses, devastated lives, increased conflict and militarization, and oppression of communities, journalists, and civil society."
Meanwhile, in the U.S. state of Texas, John Beard of the Port Arthur Community Action Network urged Germany "to stand with us against fossil fuels."
"By investing in Port Arthur LNG, Germany is investing in yet another destructive project in a community that is already overwhelmed by the deadly and toxic pollution of the fossil fuel industry," Beard said. "While the industry and shareholders will get rich, Port Arthur LNG will heap more destruction upon a predominantly black and brown community already facing cancer rates over two times higher average."
"Our relatives and friends are dying daily from heart, lung, and kidney diseases caused by industrial pollution. But the people of the Gulf are fighting back!" he added. "Enough is Enough! No more sacrifice zones, no more fossil fuels—we refuse to be sacrificed! We will keep fighting to accelerate the transition to clean green renewables."
The OCI analysis came as scientists confirmed that this summer has been the hottest on record and last year greenhouse gas concentrations, sea level, and ocean heat content hit historic highs. It was also published amid preparation for U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres' Climate Ambition Summit in New York City beginning September 20.
Ahead of the summit, climate campaigners plan to descend on the U.S. city for the September 17 March to End Fossil Fuels, which is backed by 500 groups including OCI. The mobilization and meeting this month will be followed in November by COP28, the next U.N. conference for parties to the Paris climate agreement, hosted by the United Arab Emirates.
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