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
oil change international
Voluntary Pledges 'Aren’t Working,' Report Shows as Big Banks Continue to Sow Climate Chaos
"Banks keep telling us they’re committed to climate. Then they abandon their own policies the moment political pressure mounts. Voluntary pledges have had their chance. We need binding rules—not promises.”
Jun 09, 2026
Calls for an end to oil, gas, and coal extraction grew louder in 2025 as the impact of fossil-fueled planetary heating was starkly illustrated by devastating wildfires across the Los Angeles area, deadly flash floods in Texas, a European heatwave that was blamed for the deaths of more than 24,000 people, and cyclones and floods that killed thousands.
But as climate action groups demanded that governments and financial institutions end support for fossil fuel projects and companies last year, according to a report released Monday by several organizations, the world's largest banks only committed more financing to projects like the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a planned liquefied natural gas (LNG) "boom" in the Philippines, and fracking in the Permian Basin.
Last year, according to Banking on Climate Chaos—released by groups including the Rainforest Action Network, Sierra Club, and Oil Change International—the world's largest financial institutions committed $906 billion in financing to fossil fuel companies, representing an 8% increase over funding the previous year.
The groups emphasized that the banks financed pollution-causing oil, gas, and coal projects even as they made "voluntary commitments" to “aligning their lending, investment, and capital markets activities with net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050," as a now-defunct United Nations-backed scheme called the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) pledged.
More than a decade after countries agreed to the Paris climate accord and pledged to take action in a push to avert planetary heating over 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures, the report notes, "banks maintain and are expected to uphold climate policies independent of the NZBA."
However, it continues, "the collapse of the NZBA—culminating in its cessation of operations in October 2025—freed banks to further unwind from climate targets and other elements of their climate strategies."
"Notably, throughout 2025 and the first half of 2026, banks have further weakened their commitments to uphold 1.5˚C temperature rise limits, widened loopholes, and undercut sector policies for coal, oil, and gas energy or power supply primarily by removing or diluting exclusion criteria and commitments. Most policy changes in the past year were downgrades of existing policies rather than improvements," reads the report.
"Voluntary commitments aren’t working. No major oil and gas company is doing anything even close to what is needed to hold global heating to 1.5°C, and voluntary banking sector pledges like the Net Zero Banking Alliance aren’t cutting their pipeline of cash."
Diogo Silva, campaign lead for BankTrack and a co-author of the report, said: "Banks keep telling us they’re committed to climate. Then they abandon their own policies the moment political pressure mounts. Voluntary pledges have had their chance. We need binding rules—not promises.”
Banking on Climate Chaos highlights the banks that spent the most money investing in fossil fuel projects, with JPMorgan Chase named the leading financier of oil, coal, and gas. The Wall Street firm spent $58 billion in 2025, the same year it also "weakened" its own climate policy.
"Of the 15 North American banks in scope, 12 now have no meaningful fossil fuel commitments," said Rainforest Action network. "JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs abandoned their coal and Arctic exclusions entirely, converting them into case-by-case due diligence standards."
JPMorgan Chase is one of three US banks listed in the top five fossil fuel backers; Bank of America financed the second-largest amount of pollution-causing projects at $47 billion, while Citigroup poured more than $45 billion into fossil fuels. Two Japanese institutions, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group and Mizuho Financial, were also in the top five.
With President Donald Trump taking executive action last year aimed at pressuring companies to back fossil fuel interests and "disregard social or environmental considerations," the report notes, US banks' share of all global fossil fuel financing increased to 32%, representing "the single largest source of fossil capital in the world." In 2021, US banks provided 28% of fossil fuel investment.
Trump has also aggressively pushed for more coal production since taking office for his second term in January 2025, and financing for coal mining expansion surged 77% in 2025, to $84 billion. Funding for coal power also grew by 40%, with companies pouring $81 billion into coal-fired plants.
Even when asked about the report's findings, top banks pointed to their own voluntary commitments to finance renewable energy projects and "achieve net zero financed emissions by 2050," as a spokesperson for Citigroup said to The Guardian.
The spokesperson said the bank "supports clients in the low‑carbon transition while recognizing the real need for secure, affordable and reliable energy today. We are committed to... advancing our $1 trillion sustainable finance goal, with a focus on balancing the transition with global energy resilience”.
David Tong, global industry campaign manager for Oil Change International and a co-author of the report, warned that "every dollar of finance for oil and gas helps an industry of war profiteers squeeze out short-term profits, further trapping communities into paying higher fossil fuel energy bills, fueling war and conflict, and burning all our futures."
"Voluntary commitments aren’t working. No major oil and gas company is doing anything even close to what is needed to hold global heating to 1.5°C, and voluntary banking sector pledges like the Net Zero Banking Alliance aren’t cutting their pipeline of cash," he said. "Instead, banks have injected over staggering $900 billion into fossil fuel financing in 2025 alone. Governments must step in and take urgent action to hold financial institutions and fossil fuel companies accountable for their role in the climate crisis.”
Since the Paris climate agreement, the report says, banks have poured a staggering $8.7 trillion into the fossil fuel industry, with the "Dirty Dozen," as the authors call the 12 largest fossil fuel financial backers, providing nearly 40% of all investment for coal, oil, and gas extraction.
The report makes demands of banks, calling on them to "exclude all finance for fossil fuel expansion immediately" and "require robust, 1.5°C-aligned transition plans from all existing fossil fuel clients"—but emphasizes that governments must compel financial institutions to end financing for oil, gas, and coal.
"After two consecutive years of fossil fuel finance increases by global banks—especially the increase in fossil fuel expansion finance and the continued backtracking from banks on their climate pledges—it is clear that the banking sector will not voluntarily take the necessary steps to transition out of fossil fuel finance at the pace and scale needed for the world to deliver on the Paris Agreement goals," reads the report.
Instead, it says, governments must mandate transition planning by banks, private equity holders, insurers, and other companies; make polluters pay for climate damages; ensure public finance institutions are subject to transparent reporting and legal accountability to international standards, and rapidly wind down supply-side fossil fuel subsidies, tax exemptions, subsidies, guarantees or other public assistance for new oil, gas, and coal projects.
"A decade after Paris, just twelve banks now drive more than a third of the world’s fossil fuel financing—proof that this is no longer a problem of markets, but of a small set of decision-makers making active choices," said Niko Lusiani, research director for Rainforest Action Network. "They are choosing to lock in an energy system that hands record profits to a few fossil firms while passing the costs onto the three of every four people on Earth who depend on imported fuel."
"The good news is that what a handful of banks built," said Lusiani, "governments and people worldwide have the power to change.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Thanks to Trump's Iran War, US LNG Giants Could See $20 Billion in Monthly Windfall Profits
"Oil and gas companies may achieve huge windfall profits in a year that previously looked far less lucrative for them, and billions of people could see their energy bills soar," warned one campaigner.
Mar 04, 2026
From declaring an energy emergency and ditching global climate initiatives to abducting the Venezuelan leader to seize control of the country's nationalized oil industry, President Donald Trump has taken various actions to serve his fossil fuel donors since returning to power last year. Now, his and Israel's war on Iran could soon lead to US liquefied natural gas giants pocketing tens of billions in windfall profits.
"The Persian Gulf has some of the world's largest oil and gas producers," Oil Change International research co-director Lorne Stockman explained in a Tuesday blog post, "and a large proportion of that production, around 20% of global petroleum, must pass through a relatively narrow corridor controlled by Iran to reach global markets: the Strait of Hormuz," between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.
Stockman—whose advocacy group works to expose the costs of fossil fuels and facilitate a just transition to clean energy—noted that "crude oil, refined petroleum products, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) traverse the strait in vast quantities every day. But not since Saturday. With missiles, fighter jets, and drones circling, shipping has ground to a halt, and Iran reportedly threatened to close the strait by force on Monday."
As the conflict in the Persian Gulf continues, fossil fuel companies are preparing for record-breaking profits while billions of people face soaring energy bills and "energy poverty."We’re tired of a world where our energy system fuels war and destroys our climate. oilchange.org/blogs/trumps...
[image or embed]
— 350.org (@350.org) March 4, 2026 at 4:43 AM
Based on ship-tracking data from MarineTraffic, Reuters estimated Wednesday that "at least 200 ships, including oil and liquefied natural gas tankers as well as cargo ships, remained at anchor in open waters off the coast of major Gulf producers including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar," and "hundreds of other vessels remained outside Hormuz unable to reach ports."
Stockman warned that "depending on how long the violence and its atrocious human toll continues—Trump said it may take weeks until his undefined objectives are achieved—this will have huge implications for energy markets. Oil and gas companies may achieve huge windfall profits in a year that previously looked far less lucrative for them, and billions of people could see their energy bills soar."
Since Trump and Israeli Benjamin Netanyahu launched "Operation Epic Fury" on Saturday, over 1,000 people had been killed as of Wednesday, according to the Iranian government, and oil prices have surged—highlighting how, as Greenpeace International executive director Mads Christensen put it earlier this week, "as long as our world runs on oil and gas, our peace, security and our pockets will always be at the mercy of geopolitics."
Qatar exports about 20% of the global LNG supply, second only to the United States. All of that LNG goes through the Strait of Hormuz. An Iranian drone attack on Monday targeted Qatari LNG facilities, leading state-owned QatarEnergy to declare force majeure on exports. Two unnamed sources told Reuters that QE "will fully shut down gas liquefaction on Wednesday," and "it may take at least a month to return to normal production volumes."
The Qatari shutdown is expected to boost the US LNG industry, which exported about 108 million metric tons last year. Already, shares of the two largest LNG producers in the United States, Cheniere and Venture Global, have surged.
"We've got an acute contraction of global LNG supply," Alex Munton, an expert on natural gas markets at consulting firm Rapidan Energy, told CNBC. "The world is now down 20% from where it was, and that leaves the world short."
As CNBC reported Tuesday:
US producers can't ramp LNG production beyond current levels, Munton said. "They're basically running at capacity," he said.
But since their customer contracts don't have fixed destinations, they can reroute LNG to meet demand, he said. The flexible capacity at US LNG producers like Venture and Cheniere plays a crucial role in moments of crisis, the analyst said. It's a unique feature of the US LNG industry, he added.
"The volumes are able to reroute to where the demand is greatest," Munton said. "We saw this in 2022 after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Suddenly, Europe was left short, and it was able to call on US LNG and utilize the inherent flexibility of US LNG.
US LNG cannot replace lost supply from Qatar, but buyers who really need the gas and are willing to pay a high enough price will get it, Munton said.
Seb Kennedy, the energy journalist and market analyst behind the newsletter Energy Flux, estimated Wednesday that "American LNG exports could generate up to $4 billion in windfall profits if the force majeure remains in effect for one month. This figure could rise as high as $20 billion per month if the market is deprived of Qatari supply until the summer."
"Over the first four months, US LNG profits could reach more than $33 billion above the pre-Iran average. Over eight months, that figure rises to $108 billion," he continued. "And if, in an extreme scenario, Qatari LNG is shut-in for a full year, the excess profits raining down on US LNG exports could stack up to almost $170 billion—a figure that would represent one of the most concentrated commodity windfalls of the post-2000 era."
"To put that in context, the 12-month Ukraine war windfall accruing to US LNG exporters, from August 2021 through August 2022, is estimated at $84 billion," Kennedy noted. "Iran could, in certain circumstances, eclipse that total in just over six months."
My latest for Energy Flux:💥 War profits, quantified 💥As Middle East regional war upends global gas markets, US LNG exporters stand to pocket a multi-billion-dollar windfallCheck it out 👉 www.energyflux.news/war-profits...
[image or embed]
— Seb Kennedy (@sebkennedy.bsky.social) March 4, 2026 at 11:58 AM
As the US Senate prepared for a vote on a war powers resolution that is not expected to pass but would swiftly halt Trump's assault on Iran, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that the war could last at least eight weeks. He also announced that an American submarine fired a torpedo that sank an Iranian naval ship off the coast of Sri Lanka.
On Tuesday, Trump had responded to Iran's attempt to shut down the Strait of Hormuz with a post on his Truth Social platform: "Effective IMMEDIATELY, I have ordered the United States Development Finance Corporation (DFC) to provide, at a very reasonable price, political risk insurance and guarantees for the Financial Security of ALL Maritime Trade, especially Energy, traveling through the Gulf. This will be available to all Shipping Lines. If necessary, the United States Navy will begin escorting tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, as soon as possible. No matter what, the United States will ensure the FREE FLOW of ENERGY to the WORLD. The United States’ ECONOMIC and MILITARY MIGHT is the GREATEST ON EARTH—More actions to come."
However, as the New York Times highlighted Wednesday, "shipping company officials and analysts are skeptical" of Trump's promised fixes, and "some industry executives also worried how quickly these could get up and running."
For example, Helima Croft, the global head of commodity strategy at RBC Capital Markets, wrote to clients on Tuesday that "we think the insurance proposal is likely in a concepts-of-a-plan stage," and she questioned whether there are enough US naval assets in the region to actually provide escorts.
Keep ReadingShow Less
120+ Groups Call on EU to Resist Trump's 'Fossil-Fueled Imperialism' and Cancel US Trade Deal
"The EU is at a fork in the road: It can follow the US down a volatile, destructive path or it can forge its own course toward stability."
Jan 29, 2026
As the European Parliament debates the trade agreement reached last year by President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, more than 120 civil society groups from across Europe and the globe on Thursday warned that the demands Trump has made on the bloc and his "contempt for international law" have made clear that the US is currently "no longer a good-faith partner."
In solidarity with countries that have been directly threatened with Trump's "fossil-fueled imperialism"—Venezuela and Greenland—the EU must reduce its reliance on US fossil fuels and cancel the negotiation and implementation of the trade deal, said Oil Change International, one of the signatories of the open letter that was sent to von der Leyen and other top EU officials.
The letter notes that Trump has already shown that in a deal with the US, the EU will be pressured to "dilute its own climate commitments" and "enrich US fossil fuel companies" at the bloc's expense.
"His administration has attacked the EU's methane regulation and its Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, seeking to weaken Europe's ability to hold corporations accountable for climate and human rights harms," reads the letter, which was also signed by Coal Action Network in the UK, Urgewald in Germany, and a number of US-based groups including Public Citizen.
Von der Leyen agreed to the deal last July after Trump threatened the bloc with "economically devastating tariffs," the groups wrote, ensuring the EU would import $750 billion in US energy products including liquefied natural gas (LNG).
Those imports will "contaminate the air and water of nearby communities, increasing their risk of cancers, asthma, and other serious health harms," warns the letter, while also being projected to raise energy costs for households across Europe.
Up to 1 in 4 homes in the EU already struggle to adequately heat, cool, or light their homes, wrote the groups.
James Hiatt, executive director of the US group For a Better Bayou, called on EU leaders to "side with communities like mine, not the fossil fuel executives bankrolling Trump, by ending its reliance on US gas.”
“There’s nothing clean about US LNG," said Hiatt. "This industry has destroyed wetlands, damaged fishermen’s livelihoods, and condemned Gulf South communities like mine to higher rates of heart conditions, asthma, and cancer. We’re also on the frontlines of hurricanes and flooding made worse by continued fossil-fuel dependency Europe keeps importing."
The groups wrote that "every euro spent on US non-renewable energy, and every fossil fuel investment made by European companies and banks in the United States, fuels Trump's authoritarian agenda at home and his imperial ambitions abroad."
"The only way Europe can reach energy independence and free itself from outside pressures is by implementing a just transition away from fossil fuels and relying on energy sufficiency/efficiency and homegrown renewable energy," reads the letter. "Done well, this can support decent jobs and sound local economies."
By ratifying the deal with the US, the groups added, the EU will only be "switching one dangerous dependency for another," following its phase-out of oil imports from Russia.
The bloc will also be "giving up its sovereignty bit by bit, losing the competitiveness battle, deepening the climate crisis which will be putting its own people's lives at even higher risk from extreme weather, and jeopardizing its ambitions to be seen as a global climate leader," reads the letter.
Trump's threat to seize Greenland from the Danish kingdom and his illegal strikes on Venezuela—aimed, his administration has admitted, at taking control of its oil—have shown how willing the president is to violate international law if it serves his own interests, the groups suggested.
The groups made specific demands of EU leaders, calling on them to:
- Stand in solidarity with Latin American nations threatened by the US, including Venezuela, and with Greenland, affirming that "it is up to its people, and only them, to decide on their future";
- Put forward a motion at the United Nations condemning the Trump administration's "blatant violations of international law";
- Immediately cancel negotiations and implementation of the US-EU trade deal;
- Engage with EU member states to renew the European Green Deal and establish a binding roadmap for the phase-out of fossil gas, in particular US LNG;
- Defend the existing EU Methane Regulation and ensure it is applied to imports; and
- Support the First International Conference on the Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels, organized by the governments of Colombia and the Netherlands.
“Under Trump, the US has become a rogue state that violates international law and bullies sovereign nations into submitting to its ‘energy dominance’ agenda," said Myriam Douo, false solutions senior campaigner for Oil Change International. "The EU must stop wasting money on risky, expensive US fossil fuels, which threaten climate goals, put people at greater risk of climate disasters, and harm communities with toxic pollution."
"The EU is at a fork in the road: It can follow the US down a volatile, destructive path or it can forge its own course toward stability," said Douo. "It can save billions, build a resilient economy, and ensure its long-term energy security and independence through a just transition to renewable energy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The US Is Becoming a Pariah': Trump Officially Ditches Paris Agreement, Again
"Trump is trying to drag the rest of the world backwards by launching conflicts for oil and bullying other countries into deepening their reliance on dirty, dangerous fossil fuels," warned one campaigner.
Jan 27, 2026
President Donald Trump faced a fresh flood of fury on Tuesday as he formally withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement a second time, part of the broader anti-climate agenda he's pursued since returning to power.
The US initially completed the one-year withdrawal process in November 2020, as ballots from the general election were still being counted. After winning the race, former President Joe Biden swiftly rejoined the climate treaty, but Trump reclaimed the White House four years later—with help from Big Oil—and moved to abandon the pact again on his first day back in the Oval Office.
"Thanks to President Trump, the US has officially escaped from the Paris Climate Agreement, which undermined American values and priorities, wasted hard-earned taxpayer dollars, and stifled economic growth," a White House spokesperson, Taylor Rogers, said in a Tuesday statement celebrating the "America First victory."
Advocates for ambitious action on the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency struck a much different tone about the president exiting the 2015 deal, which aims to limit global temperature rise this century to 1.5ºC, relative to preindustrial levels. Oil Change International US campaign manager Allie Rosenbluth declared that "Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is a betrayal of the communities at risk from climate disaster, especially those on the frontlines of the crisis in the Global South."
"Trump is entrenching petro imperialism and enriching his fossil fuel CEO donors, at the cost of a livable planet," she said. "The US is the largest historic emitter and the current planet-wrecker-in chief, responsible for a greater increase in oil and gas extraction than any other country since the Paris Agreement. Now, Trump is pulling out of the agreement that commits it to help solve a crisis it largely created—deepening global risk of climate-fueled hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, and floods."
Rosenbluth argued that "under Trump, the US is becoming a pariah on the world stage and should be treated as such by the countries claiming to defend climate multilateralism and international cooperation. It is clinging to fossil fuel dependency as many other nations embrace the clean, affordable energy sources of the future. Trump is trying to drag the rest of the world backwards by launching conflicts for oil and bullying other countries into deepening their reliance on dirty, dangerous fossil fuels."
"Trump can withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement, but can't change that millions of people will fight for climate justice, including leaders from the Global South and US states and localities," she added. "While Trump turns the US into a rogue state, we must redouble global efforts to end the fossil era and fight for safety and dignity for all."
In an interview with the Guardian, Basav Sen, climate justice project director at the Institute for Policy Studies, suggested that US disengagement has already encouraged others to take action.
At the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) in Brazil last November—which the Trump administration did not attend—Colombia, the Netherlands, and Pacific Island nations announced plans to host historic talks on phasing out fossil fuels. Sen said, "I have to believe that the reactionary position of the US acted as further impetus for those countries to step up."
Still, the Trump administration's position means "it will be that much harder for low-income countries, who are very dependent on fossil fuel production and exports, to be able to make their transitions with the US saying that we won't fund any of it," he said. Sen also stressed that "if the domestic market in the US continues to be dominated by fossil fuels through the fiat of an authoritarian government, that will continue to have an impact on the rest of the world."
In the lead-up to COP30, Amnesty International secretary general Agnès Callamard urged other governments "to resist aligning with the Trump administration's denial of the accelerating climate crisis and instead demonstrate true climate leadership."
On Tuesday, Marta Schaaf, Amnesty's program director for climate, economic and social justice, and corporate accountability, said that "the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement sets a disturbing precedent that seeks to instigate a race to the bottom, and, along with its withdrawal from other major global climate pacts, aims to dismantle the global system of cooperation on climate action."
Despite "increasingly deadly and expensive" weather disasters, Trump has left not only the Paris Agreement but also dozens of other international treaties and organizations intended to coordinate on key issues, including human rights and the climate crisis.
"The US is one of several powerful anti-climate actors," Schaaf acknowledged, "but as an influential superpower, this decision, along with acts of coercion and bullying of other countries and powerful actors to double down on fossil fuels, causes particular harm and threatens to reverse more than a decade of global climate progress under the agreement."
"While the US may no longer be a party to the Paris Agreement, it still has legal obligations to protect humanity from the worsening impacts of climate change as confirmed by the International Court of Justice in its landmark 2025 advisory opinion," she emphasized. "US-based climate advocates and activists now find themselves on the frontlines of a fight with implications for current and future generations everywhere."
"Global solidarity and support to ensure accelerating momentum to address climate change has never been more urgent," Schaaf added. "Those who witness the harms caused by climate change and who can speak safely—must speak up. Other governments too must push back against all coercive efforts by the US. Ceding ground now risks losing it for years. Neither the planet nor the people living on the frontlines of proliferating unnatural disasters have that much time."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Meeting With Big Oil Underscores Venezuela Agenda: Enriching ‘Himself and His Fossil Fuel Donors’
"Today’s meeting is meant to ensure the future of Venezuela is being shaped in a way that maximizes Big Oil profits and Trump’s power."
Jan 09, 2026
US President Donald Trump is set to meet at the White House on Friday afternoon with executives from some of the world's largest fossil fuel companies to discuss the future of Venezuela's oil infrastructure, a gathering that critics said throws into stark relief the true aims of the administration's military assault on a sovereign nation and abduction of its president.
The meeting, scheduled for 2 pm ET, will come after Trump declared on social media early Friday that "at least 100 Billion Dollars will be invested by BIG OIL," an industry that donated heavily to the president's 2024 campaign and inaugural fund. Attendees of Friday's White House meeting will reportedly include the CEOs of Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Halliburton, and Shell.
Harold Hamm, the founder of Continental Resources and major Trump donor, is also expected to attend. Hamm organized the now-infamous 2024 event where Trump asked oil executives for $1 billion in campaign donations in exchange for industry-friendly policies.
“American fossil fuel companies who’ve bought access to the Trump administration stand to benefit most from Trump’s illegal acts of aggression in Venezuela," Allie Rosenbluth, US program manager at Oil Change International, said in a statement ahead of Friday's gathering.
"Today’s meeting is meant to ensure the future of Venezuela is being shaped in a way that maximizes Big Oil profits and Trump’s power," said Rosenbluth. "Trump’s aggression in Venezuela is leading us to a hotter, more polluted, and more dangerous world—all to enrich himself and his fossil fuel donors. Today’s meeting is proof of that. To protect our communities from climate disasters and more wars for oil, we need to reject extractive energy models and build democratic systems that prioritize community health and safety."
Despite Trump's lofty promises and suggestion of taxpayer reimbursement, major US oil companies have yet to make any concrete investment pledges related to Venezuela's oil infrastructure.
Earlier this week, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said the Trump administration intends to manage Venezuela oil sales and revenue indefinitely. On Tuesday, Trump proclaimed that he himself would control the proceeds from the sale of Venezuelan oil.
While Venezuela's known oil reserves are the largest in the world, some leading oil executives have "privately expressed reservations about committing the kind of money it would take to meaningfully boost Venezuelan oil production," the New York Times reported Friday.
"Some oil companies have discussed the possibility of seeking some form of financial guarantee from the federal government before agreeing to establish or expand production in Venezuela," the Times added.
"Along with blocking further military action against Venezuela, Congress must act to ensure US taxpayers don’t subsidize Big Oil’s exploitation of Venezuela’s oil resources.”
The watchdog group Public Citizen noted in a report released Thursday that "Big Oil companies have a long history of demanding that taxpayers shoulder their risks, even when they choose to operate in politically volatile jurisdictions."
"They rake in billions in profit exploiting the natural resources from impoverished nations, then demand taxpayer compensation if those nations require them to clean up their pollution or if affected communities convince their governments to halt harmful projects," the group observed. "And so it seems likely that these companies are going to require their investments in Venezuela to have some sort of 'guarantees and conditions'—that’s the exact phrase [US Secretary of State] Marco Rubio used on 'Face the Nation' on Monday."
Robert Weissman, Public Citizen's co-president, said in a statement that "the Trump administration’s shocking actions to use force to exploit Venezuela’s oil resources echo the imperial arrogance of the United States after the invasion of Iraq and a century of military intervention in Central and South America."
"Along with blocking further military action against Venezuela," said Weissman, "Congress must act to ensure US taxpayers don’t subsidize Big Oil’s exploitation of Venezuela’s oil resources.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Groups Condemn 'Exceptionally Weak' Language on Fossil Fuel Phaseout in COP30 Draft Text
"A roadmap for delivering on 1.5°C without a credible fossil fuel phaseout at its core is hollow," said one campaigner.
Nov 18, 2025
Climate justice organizers on Tuesday expressed some cautious optimism that a draft text out of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Belém, Brazil contained "building blocks" of a climate justice package that is needed to draw down planet-heating fossil fuel emissions and help the poorest and least-polluting countries confront the climate emergency—but advocates said that with just three days to go until the summit is over, the document still falls far short of delivering solutions.
The draft text, released by COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago, includes references to a "transition away from fossil fuels," and calls for annual reviews of countries' Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the efforts they pledge to make to reduce their emissions.
But a day after campaigners expressed optimism about 62 countries and country groups endorsing Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's call for a Transition Away From Fossil Fuels (TAFF) Roadmap, 350.org condemned the draft text for mentioning the roadmap only in paragraph 44—and excluding a fossil fuel phaseout from that section of the proposal.
The TAFF Roadmap, according to the draft, would recognize that "finance, capacity-building, and technology transfer are critical enablers of climate action."
The text also calls for "a high-level ministerial roundtable" where countries would discuss national circumstances, pathways to limiting planetary heating to 1.5°C over preindustrial temperatures, and approaches to supporting government in developing just transition roadmaps, "including to progressively overcome their dependency on fossil fuels and towards halting and reversing deforestation."
But 350.org condemned that call as an "exceptionally weak," sole reference to a fossil fuel transition, warning that "a mandated ministerial and a report... offer symbolism, not action."
"For the decision to carry credibility, the presidency must embed a fossil fuel transition roadmap directly into the 1.5°C response, not relegate it to the margins," said the group in its analysis of the document. "The roadmap must be placed in the section addressing the 1.5°C ambition gap, where it is currently absent."
Andreas Sieber, associate director of policy and campaigns for 350.org, said that "the draft text may contain the right ingredients, but it’s been assembled in a way that leaves a bitter aftertaste."
"For the decision to carry credibility, the presidency must embed a fossil fuel transition roadmap directly into the 1.5°C response, not relegate it to the margins. The roadmap must be placed in the section addressing the 1.5°C ambition gap, where it is currently absent."
"A roadmap for delivering on 1.5°C without a credible fossil fuel phaseout at its core is hollow. The COP30 presidency must heed the many parties, including President Lula, calling for a clear transition pathway and put it where it belongs: at the center of the 1.5°C response, balanced with adequate finance," said Sieber. "Without this, the overall effort will fall short.”
The group emphasized that a credible COP30 final text will include "a balanced package that delivers climate finance, strengthened adaptation measures, and a clear road map for phasing out fossil fuels."
"Without all three pillars in place, a durable and effective agreement will not be possible," said 350.org
The text mentions climate finance 26 times, the Guardian reported, and urges wealthy countries to clearly lay out their plans to provide financial assistance to the Global South—at a ministerial roundtable in one option included in the document, or through a "Belém Global De-Risking and Project Preparation and Development Facility," which would "catalyze climate finance and implementation in developing country parties by translating Nationally Determined Contributions and national adaptation plans into project pipelines."
But 350.org noted that pledges made to a global adaptation fund on Monday "once again fell short with only $133 million secured out of the $300 million target."
Fanny Petitbon, France team lead for 350.org, warned that "adaptation has long been forgotten in climate finance," and called on the presidency to ensure it has a central role in the final text.
"Crucially, the call to triple adaptation finance must stay," said Petitbon. "There is no credible ambition without supporting communities already facing the devastating impacts of the climate emergency. The presidency has begun to respond to strong demands for developed countries to pay their climate debt, which is key for rebuilding trust in all negotiating rooms."
"But the text still lacks a plan to fully deliver on the collective climate finance goal agreed upon in Baku [at COP29]—ignoring innovative sources of finance like taxing major polluters and the superrich," Petitibon added, "and fails to guarantee direct access for the most vulnerable, including Indigenous peoples."
At Oil Change International, global policy leader Romain Ioualalen said the options related to fossil fuels presented in the draft were "wildly unacceptable and a blatant dereliction of duty while the world burns."
"We don’t need a COP decision to convene a workshop or ministerial roundtable on fossil fuels. What we need is a clear collective direction of travel on how countries intend to phase out fossil fuels based on equity, and how rich Global North countries will provide finance and support to the countries that need it," said Ioualalen.
"Ministers must fix this mess," he added, "and deliver the progress that we need to make the fair and funded transition away from fossil fuels they promised in Dubai [at COP28] a reality.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Behind Every Barrel of Oil Is a Trace of Blood': 25 Countries Helped Fuel Gaza Genocide
"States have a moral and legal obligation to end these fuel flows immediately," one campaigner said.
Nov 13, 2025
A total of 25 countries sent 323 shipments of oil to Israel while it was committing genocide in Gaza, according to a new analysis released by Oil Change International on Thursday.
The report, Behind the Barrel: An Update on the Origins of Israel’s Fuel Supply, was launched at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) in Belém, Brazil. It concluded that the countries sent almost 21.2 million metric tons of both crude and refined oil to Israel between November 1, 2023 and October 1, 2025 while Israel was conducting a campaign of bombing and mass starvation against Gaza that killed over 69,000 people.
"Governments permitted fuel supplies to Israel even after it became clear Israel was committing genocide in Gaza, a finding now backed by a UN commission," Bronwen Tucker of Oil Change International said in a statement. "States have a moral and legal obligation to end these fuel flows immediately. The same fossil fuel system that drives the climate crisis also drives war, occupation, and genocide."
The countries that supplied the most crude oil were Azerbaijan through Turkey and Kazakhstan through Russia, accounting for around 70% of shipments. Russia supplied the most refined oil at nearly 1.5 million metric tons, followed by Greece at over 0.5 million metric tons and the US at over 0.4 million metric tons. However, the US was the only country that supplied Israel with JP-8, a specialized military jet fuel.
"The same system that burns the planet also fuels Israel’s genocidal machine and upholds its colonial regime of illegal occupation and apartheid."
The US "sent nine shipments totaling 360,000 tonnes of JP-8, as well as two shipments of diesel, all from Valero’s Bill Greehey Refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas," the report found.
"A genocide needs media complicity, government complicity, weapons, funding, but it also needs oil to keep operating, and we need to stop that oil from flowing there," said Leandro Lanfredi, Rio de Janeiro director of the National Federation of Oil Workers Brasil, during a press briefing unveiling the report at COP30.
The report argued that the nations who sent oil to Israel acted in violation of their obligations under international law, with some continuing the shipments even after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) said that Israel's actions were illegal in July 2024 and a United Nations commission determined that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza in September 2025.
“The obligation of states to comply with the ICJ interim order flow directly from Article I of the Genocide Convention, which requires states to undertake [actions] ‘to prevent and to punish genocide,'" Irene Pietropaoli, senior fellow in business and human rights at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, told Oil Change in an email. "The ICJ Order finding ‘a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights found by the court to be plausible’ means that states are now aware of the risk of genocide being committed in Gaza. States must consider that their military or other assistance to Israel’s military operations in Gaza may put them at a risk of being complicit in genocide under the Genocide Convention.”
Mohammed Usrof, executive director of the Palestinian Institute for Climate Strategy, said: “Behind the Barrel confirms what Palestinians and climate justice movements have long said: Fossil fuel supply chains are weapons of war. Governments and corporations that continue to trade oil, diesel, and jet fuel with Israel—even through intermediaries—are enabling genocide. States must impose a full energy embargo and close the legal loopholes that make complicity profitable."
At the panel announcing the report, speakers called out the hypocrisy of nations who try to present themselves as climate leaders while sending money to Israel and companies like Maersk who attend COPs while facilitating those shipments. For example, Brazil, which is hosting COP30, has not directly shipped oil to Israel since March 2024. However, it does send crude oil to a refinery in Sardinia that then exports to Israel.
"We don't want any single drop of oil to get to Israel."
"Behind every barrel of oil is a trace of blood and behind every shipment is a logistic of genocide, and we need to recognize how it all starts, and we need to recognize the complicity of the companies, the corporations, and the governments that continue acting, especially in spaces such as COP," Usrof said during the briefing.
At the same time, advocates noted that the same fossil fuel companies profit from both climate collapse and genocide.
"The fossil fuel industry lies at the core of today’s global crisis, driving climate collapse, militarization, and genocide. The same system that burns the planet also fuels Israel’s genocidal machine and upholds its colonial regime of illegal occupation and apartheid," said Ana Sánchez, general coordinator for the Global Energy Embargo for Palestine, in a statement.
Sánchez continued: "From oil fields to shipping routes, fossil capitalism turns profit into power over life itself. At COP30, we remind the world that energy justice is inseparable from liberation: ending these fuel flows is not just a moral imperative but a necessary act of decolonization. People everywhere are rising to build a new global order that puts life above the privilege of business as usual.”
In particular, the panelists held up the example of workers in Italy who conducted general strikes in solidarity with Gaza.
Partly inspired by the Italian strikes, Lanfredi said his trade union had recently voted to oppose any oil reaching Israel from Brazil.
"We need a growing workers' movement worldwide... for an energy embargo in support of the Palestinian people. We don't want any single drop of oil to get to Israel," he said.
Usrof encouraged people living in all complicit countries to "realize that they have the power to resist at the docks, at each of the conduits of power, the conduits of oil and gas and energy in general."
Shady Khalil of Oil Change International concluded: "The call is clear: We are calling for countries to act on their legal and moral obligation to stop providing fossil fuel to Israel and stop contributing to this genocide and join their people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Reckless’ Countries to Extract More Than Double the Fossil Fuels Consistent With 1.5°C
“It’s astonishing that in the two years since countries agreed in Dubai to transition off fossil fuels, the US is leading the abandonment of affordable renewables for deadly oil and gas," said one advocate.
Sep 22, 2025
Climate advocates on Monday said a new report from three climate think tanks reveals how "just how reckless" some of the world's biggest polluters are when it comes to oil, gas, and coal extraction—which they are planning to ramp up in the coming years despite pledging to take steps to avoid catastrophic fossil-fueled planetary heating a decade ago.
Ten years after the Paris agreement on keeping global warming well below 2°C and just two years after the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28), where countries agreed for the first time to transition "away from fossil fuels," the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) joined Climate Analytics and the International Institute for Sustainable Development in releasing its latest Production Gap Report—and revealed that powerful governments are in fact moving in the opposite direction.
"Governments plan to produce 120% the volume of fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C, and 77% more than would be consistent with 2°C," the report found.
In their last analysis in 2023, the groups found a 110% and 69% gap over the 1.5°C and 2°C limits, respectively.
The groups analyzed the 20 largest producers of fossil fuels around the world—including the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Russia, and Canada—that are responsible for 80% of fossil fuel extraction.
Only three of the countries—Norway, the UK, and Australia—currently have plans to reduce oil and gas production by 2030 compared with 2023 levels. Eleven of them—including the US, Germany, and Saudi Arabia—are planning for higher production of at least one type of fossil fuel.
"Trump is fulfilling his dream of petrostate authoritarianism, backed by oil and gas billionaires. Unless we fight to stop it, the whole world is going to pay the price."
Derik Broekhoff, the lead author of the report and a senior scientist at SEI, said in a statement that "while many countries have committed to a clean energy transition, many others appear to be stuck using a fossil-fuel-dependent playbook, planning even more production than they were two years ago.”
The authors stressed that fossil fuel-producing countries are persisting in oil, gas, and coal extraction even as industries know "fossil fuels are on their last legs."
"Clean energy attracted $2 trillion in investment last year—$800 billion more than fossil fuels, and a 70% increase since the Paris agreement," reads the report. "In 2024, 92% of new global power capacity came from renewables, which undercut fossil fuels on price, efficiency, and emissions—even with subsidies artificially keeping fossil fuel prices down."
Neil Grant, a senior expert at Climate Analytics, noted that less demand for fossil fuels could make them cheaper, which could prolong the transition to renewable energy that the vast majority of the world population supports, according to one poll last year.
"We are in the foothills of an energy transition that is going to reshape fossil fuel demand,” Grant told The Guardian. “But many governments are thinking in terms of a world where the energy transition happens very incrementally. There’s a lot of danger, [including that] the voice of the fossil fuel lobby only gets louder and holds us back from this change to a cleaner, better, greener economy. That would lead to climate chaos or significant negative economic impacts.”
"Governments are blundering backwards towards our fossil past," said Grant in a statement, but "rapid reductions are possible, feasible, and they would make our lives better."
Emily Ghosh, a program director at SEI, warned that to limit planetary heating to 1.5°C, "fossil fuel production should have peaked and started to fall."
"Every year of delay significantly increases the pressure," she told The Guardian, adding that a "course correction" is urgently needed.
Jean Su, director of the Energy Justice program at the Center for Biological Diversity, pointed to US President Donald Trump's climate policy, including his move to end tax credits for solar panels and electric vehicles and to cancel the construction of an offshore wind farm.
"Trump is fulfilling his dream of petrostate authoritarianism, backed by oil and gas billionaires. Unless we fight to stop it, the whole world is going to pay the price," said Su.
“This report shows just how reckless the U.S. and other countries are in doubling down on fossil fuels,” she added. “It’s astonishing that in the two years since countries agreed in Dubai to transition off fossil fuels, the U.S. is leading the abandonment of affordable renewables for deadly oil and gas."
Kelly Trout, research director at Oil Change International, emphasized that "it is not yet too late to act."
"With the US driving the majority of global projected oil and gas expansion over the next decade, governments must resist bowing to the Trump administration’s pro-fossil fuel agenda, and instead seize the chance to rapidly shift course," said Trout. "Countries can still deliver the just energy transition away from fossil fuels they promised us two years ago, with other rich Global North producers taking the lead."
The report was released as Colombia announced at the UN General Assembly its intention to host the First International Conference for the Phaseout of Fossil Fuels, aligning with the International Court of Justice's historic advisory opinion this year recognizing countries' legal obligation to protect the climate.
As advocates called for the Production Gap Report to be "both a warning and a guide," Tzeporah Berman of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative said Colombia had signaled "a bold and necessary step towards climate leadership."
"This conference offers a vital opportunity to translate growing support into concrete action," said Berman, "accelerating our shift towards a more sustainable and just energy future for all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Paying for Climate Chaos': Report Exposes $35 Billion a Year in US Handouts to Big Oil
"It's time to stop paying polluters to wreck our planet," said one environmental advocate.
Sep 09, 2025
Research and advocacy organization Oil Change International on Tuesday released a new report documenting the massive subsidies that fossil fuel companies receive from the US government every year.
The report, titled "Paying for Climate Chaos," found that the government will hand out $34.8 billion to big oil and gas companies this year, and that these companies are set to get almost an additional $4 billion in subsidies thanks to the so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" passed by congressional Republicans and signed into law by US President Donald Trump earlier this year.
Among the added benefits fossil fuel companies receive from the GOP's budget law are $1.2 billion in the form of reduced royalty rates for extracting oil and gas on public lands; $720 million from a delay in the implementation of a per-ton methane emissions fee; and $359 million from the expansion of a corporate tax exemption to include categories such as carbon capture and hydrogen storage.
The report found that total subsidies to fossil fuel companies had grown significantly since Oil Change International first began studying the issue back in 2017 when subsidies totaled a comparatively modest $20 billion.
What's more, it noted that the price tag for these subsidies only looks set to increase over the next decade.
"Many subsidies identified are projected to soar over the next decade and beyond," Oil Change International writes. "If federal leaders fail to act, fossil fuel production subsidies could skyrocket to hundreds of billions of dollars per year. This is due to the recent introduction of new subsidies for carbon capture, utilization, and storage and hydrogen, which increase fossil fuel production."
The report concluded by urging federal lawmakers to repeal the billions handed out in fossil fuel subsidies every year, including the recently passed ones for carbon capture and fossil hydrogen. It also said a future administration should "end subsidies across federal agencies, including the US Department of Energy, US Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management," and others.
Collin Rees, US campaign manager for Oil Change International, called these subsidies particularly wasteful in light of cuts Republicans made to programs such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program as part of their budget law.
"Congress must stand up to big oil and gas, eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, and redirect those billions toward the things our communities actually need: healthcare, housing, and clean, affordable, renewable energy," he said. "It's time to stop paying polluters to wreck our planet. The Trump administration's fossil-fueled corruption and attacks on working people provide an opportunity for a new agenda grounded in a bold vision to end the fossil fuel era."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Call to Conscience': Damning Report Shows Every Major US LNG Project Fails Climate Test
"What we found was crystal clear—any further investment in LNG is not compatible with a livable climate."
Jul 09, 2025
As U.S. President Donald Trump ramps up fossil fuel production under his "drill, baby, drill" energy policy, a report published Wednesday highlights the climate and financial harms posed by new liquefied natural gas export projects—all of which fail a "climate test" that the Department of Energy issued during the Biden administration.
The report—published by Greenpeace USA, Earthworks, and Oil Change International—examines five major U.S. LNG projects: Venture Global CP2, Cameron LNG Phase II, Sabine Pass Stage V, Cheniere Corpus Christi LNG Midscale 8-9, and Freeport LNG Expansion.
Instead of giving into Trump’s pressure to import + finance more LNG, leaders must invest in a just transition to renewable energy that will protect our communities from deadly pollution and climate disasters. Learn more: www.greenpeace.org/usa/failing-...
[image or embed]
— Oil Change International (@oilchange.bsky.social) July 9, 2025 at 6:57 AM
All but one of the projects is awaiting a final investment decision. None passes a "climate test" derived from the Department of Energy's (DOE) December 2024 LNG export public interest studies, as they all would result in a net increase in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions regardless of sustainability measures including supply basin switching, LNG terminal methane abatement, and powering liquefaction with renewable electricity.
"Increasing LNG exports from the Gulf Coast would still lead to global GHG emissions increases above the level consistent with the DOE's most stringent climate mitigation scenario," the report states. Data suggests "no realistic mitigation can make U.S. LNG exports aligned with limiting warming to 1.5ºC," the more ambitious goal of the Paris climate agreement. Trump has twice withdrawn the United States from the landmark accord.
"What we found was crystal clear—any further investment in LNG is not compatible with a livable climate," Greenpeace USA senior research specialist Andres Chang, the report's lead author, said in a statement.
"The massive growth in infrastructure along the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast has already created significant public health and ecosystem impacts, threatening entire coastal communities," Chang added. "But it doesn't stop there. This report shows that if built, these projects would put global climate goals even further out of reach."
"No realistic mitigation can make U.S. LNG exports aligned with limiting warming to 1.5ºC."
The United States is the world's leading natural gas producer and LNG exporter. While the fossil fuel industry often calls LNG a "bridge fuel"—a cleaner alternative to coal that will ease the transition to sustainable energy sources—critics have warned that the fossil gas 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 his own DOE's acknowledgment that approving more LNG exports would raise domestic energy prices, increase pollution, and exacerbate the climate crisis, former President Joe Biden oversaw what climate campaigners 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.
Trump—who during his 2024 campaign vowed to "frack, frack, frack; and drill, baby, drill" as fossil fuel interests poured $75 million into his campaign coffers—is planning to increase LNG exports even more, in part by invoking his bogus "energy emergency" to fast-track polluting projects.
A report published in January by Friends of the Earth and Public Citizen examined 14 proposed LNG export terminals that the Trump administration sought to fast-track and found they would create 510 million metric tons of climate pollution—equivalent to the annual emissions of 135 new coal plants.
Oil Change International noted Wednesday that "future administrations could revoke export authorizations that were rubber-stamped under Trump based on their failure to pass the DOE 'climate test,' which introduces a new layer of uncertainty to these already-risky projects."
The report also underscores that while the DOE climate test "is a major improvement upon previous federal analyses," its methodology "still fails to sufficiently account for emissions from large, accidental releases (such as 'super-emitter' events), equipment malfunction, and malpractice."
"High rates of methane emissions during the ocean transport stage of the LNG supply chain are also not represented," the report adds. "Incorporating measurement-based data and more realistic assumptions would make clearer the immense climate impact of building new liquefied gas infrastructure, especially in the near-term."
The report's authors call on the DOE to invoke the "climate test" to reject pending and future LNG export applications and exercise its authority under the Natural Gas Act "to reevaluate the public interest status of LNG projects that received authorizations without consideration of climate impacts or under analyses that predate the 2024 LNG Study."
The publication also calls on Congress to pass legislation "that makes it a statutory requirement under the Natural Gas Act to assess the climate impact of gas exports and reject applications that would increase global GHG emissions under a credible scenario to limit warming to 1.5ºC."
"Additionally, U.S. federal agencies should require all new proposed fossil fuel production and infrastructure projects to meet a similarly high standard under the National Environmental Policy Act," the report asserts.
"Energy purchasers, financial institutions, and foreign governments should refrain from entering into long-term offtake agreements for U.S. LNG and financing of LNG infrastructure," the authors wrote. "Instead, these parties should prioritize measures that accelerate the renewable energy transition and plan for a managed phase-out of fossil fuels. Group of Seven nations, in particular, should abide by their 2022 commitment to stop financing overseas fossil fuel infrastructure with taxpayer money."
James Hiatt, founder and director of the Lake Charles, Louisiana-based advocacy group For a Better Bayou, said Wednesday that "fossil fuel dependency has long externalized its true costs, forcing communities to bear the burden of pollution, sickness, and economic instability."
"For decades the oil and gas industry has known about the devastating health and climate impacts of its operations, yet it continues to expand, backed by billions in private and public financing," Hiatt continued. "These harms are not isolated—they're systemic, and they threaten all of us."
"This report is a call to conscience," he added. "It's time we stop propping up deadly false solutions and start investing in a transition to energy systems that sustain life, not sacrifice it."
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