SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
December, 04 2019, 11:00pm EDT
Contact:
Phoebe Sweet, ClimateNexus, psweet@climatenexus.org, 1-202-256-3041
Cara Pike, Climate Access, cara@climateaccess.org, 1-250-709-1861
Investments in Oil and Gas Production Over the Next Five Years Will Lock-In More than 1.5degC of Global Warming
85 Percent of Global Oil and Gas Expansion Plans are in North America.
WASHINGTON
Over the coming five years, the oil and gas sector intends to invest USD 1.4 trillion developing new oil and gas extraction. This risks locking in enough carbon emissions to push warming beyond 2degC, let alone 1.5degC, according to a new report by the Global Gas and Oil Network supported by Oil Change International; 350.org; Center for Biological Diversity; Center for International Environmental Law; CAN-Rac Canada; Earthworks; Environmental Defence Canada; Fundacion Ambiente y Recursos Naturales: FARN; Global Witness; Greenpeace; Naturvernforbundet; Overseas Development Institute; Platform; Sierra Club; Stand.Earth.
"If your house is on fire you don't add more fuel. Expanding production of oil and gas at this moment in history is like the fire department showing up with gas rather than water to save a planet on fire. No one is saying turn off the taps overnight. We still use oil and gas today, but we must act now to stop the planned expansion by the oil and gas industry that could lock us in to an unsafe climate." -- Tzeporah Berman, International Campaign Director at Stand.Earth.
The report finds that:
- Carbon emissions from oil and gas in existing fields and mines take the world beyond 1.5degC of warming and nearly exhaust a 2degC carbon budget.
- Between 2020 and 2024, the oil and gas industry plans to sink USD 1.4 trillion into new extraction projects. This would lock in 148 gigatonnes of cumulative carbon dioxide emissions, equivalent to 1200 new US coal-fired power plants.
- This new production could result in warming beyond 2degC unless the industry rapidly shuts down considerable levels of existing production.
- 85 percent of the expanded production is slated to come from the United States and Canada over that period. The other countries where the largest expansion is planned are Argentina, China, Norway, Australia, Mexico, UK, Brazil, Nigeria.
- Twenty-five companies are responsible for nearly 50 percent of the production to 2050 resulting from new expansion of oil and gas in the next five years. These include supposedly progressive European oil majors such as Shell, BP, Total, Equinor.
"The oil and gas industry is betting big on fracking the Permian and building the infrastructure to export what it extracts. Unfortunately that expansion is a carbon bomb waiting to explode, with those living nearest at the most immediate risk. That's why communities across the region are uniting to oppose this expansion, and even an oil and gas state like New Mexico is acting to rein in oil & gas methane pollution." -- Nathalie Eddy, Earthworks' CO/NM Field Advocate
The report is the latest in a growing body of work highlighting the critical importance of addressing fossil fuel production in order to limit warming to 1.5degC and meet the full ambition of the Paris Agreement. Most recently, the Production Gap report published by UN Environment Program (UNEP), Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), and other leading research organizations found that national governments plan to extract 120% more oil, gas and coal in 2030 than is aligned with 1.5degC.
"Oil and gas companies have spent the last five decades lying to the public about the threat of climate change. Now they're trying to sell themselves as part of the solution. The public isn't falling for it. We know the only solution in line with the latest science is to stop all new fossil fuel projects and phaseout existing production as soon as possible." -- Jamie Henn, Strategic Communications Director, 350.org and 350 Action
The world can't afford and doesn't need more oil and gas development. In addition to locking in catastrophic climate change -- expansion puts countries, communities, workers and investors currently dependent on oil and gas financially at risk.
"Leadership in the face of a climate emergency means no fossil fuel exploration, new expansion, or financing paired with an ambitious and just transition away from oil and gas production. The cost of inaction is immeasurable not only in dollars, but in lives and livelihoods. Failure is not an option." -- Hannah McKinnon, Director, Energy Transitions and Futures Program, Oil Change International
A growing number of nations are restricting extraction, major economic institutions are moving out of fossil fuels, and demand is projected to decline faster than anticipated due to the cost competitiveness and reliability of renewable energy. Meanwhile, jurisdictions leading on climate action are saving money, reducing health and environmental risks, and creating new economic opportunities. For example, in California, there are five times as many jobs in clean energy than in fossil fuels.
The report points to the urgent need for governments and institutions to follow the new standard of climate leadership being set by the likes of New Zealand and just last month the European Investment Bank. This includes implementing bans on licenses, contracts and permits; removing finance and subsidies; and creating and implementing transition plans that consider the needs of workers and communities impacted by fossil fuel development with high-income countries leading the way.
This echoes the demands of the Lofoten Declaration, signed by over 700 civil society organizations from more than 80 countries affirming that, "it is the urgent responsibility and moral obligation of wealthy fossil fuel producers to lead in putting an end to fossil fuel development and to manage the decline of existing production."
"For six decades, oil and gas companies misled consumers, investors and the world about the risks of climate change. As those risks have turned to grim and growing realities, these companies are pushing a new myth: that the massive expansion of oil and gas production can be reconciled with MEANINGFUL climate action. It cannot. Countries, fossil fuel companies and investors need to take steps now to exit from fossil fuels. It's time to invest in low-carbon solutions rather than subsidizing the fossil fuel industry and further accelerating the climate crisis."-- Carroll Muffett, President and CEO of the Center for Inter- national Environmental Law.
Since 1989, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) has worked to strengthen and use international law and institutions to protect the environment, promote human health, and ensure a just and sustainable society.
LATEST NEWS
Mamdani Backers Rally to 'Tax the Rich' as Transition Raises $1 Million in 10 Days From 12,000 Donors
"None of this would have been possible without everyday New Yorkers willing to spare $5, $10, or $20 to help build a government that will deliver for working people," said the mayor-elect.
Nov 16, 2025
Hundreds of people in New York City gathered on Sunday in Union Square with calls to "Tax the Rich" as they showed their support for the progressive agenda of mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist elected earlier this month who will take the helm of the nation's largest city on January 1.
The "Tax the Rich — Seize Our Future" event was co-sponsored by the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialist of America, Housing Justice For All and NYS Tenant Bloc, Jewish Voice for Peace NYC, UAW Region 9A, the Invest in Our New Coalition, and others.
The groups are backing Mamdani's call for universal childcare, free public busses, a rent freeze, and city-operated grocery stores in the city, all which will be made more possible with revenue raised by increased taxes on the city's wealthiest individuals and for-profit companies.
"Zohran Mamdani’s cost-of-living agenda has the support of masses of working class New Yorkers—but winning an ambitious affordability agenda cannot be won with one mayor alone," said the NYC-DSA in a post about the "Tax the Rich" event on their website. "To build the universal public goods we deserve, we need to ensure the wealthiest individuals and corporations in our state are paying their fair share in taxes."
"It will take a movement to push Albany to put working New Yorkers before billionaire donors and tax the rich," said Danny Zaldes, a DSA member and organizer as he called on others to join the effort.
"As we know, power concedes nothing without a demand,” declared Democratic state Sen. Jabari Brisport (D-25) during his speech at the rally, “and today we demand to tax the rich!”
The rally served as the launch of a new campaign by coalition members behind the event, one aimed at making sure that Mamdani maintains grassroots support even as he takes charge of the city's municipal government in the New Year.
In order to fund his transition and maintain that popular support, Mamdani has asked supporters and donors to crowdfund for the transition and has created a nonprofit entity to mobilize on behalf of his progressive vision for the city going forward.
On Sunday, Mamdani's office said it has raised approximately $1 million in just 10 days, coming from over 12,00 individuals with an average gift of $77.
Contrasting the money raised with that of previous administrations, a statement from Mamdani's office said that "during Mayor Eric Adams' transition, he had just 884 individual donors, with an average donation of more than $1,000, and former Mayor Bill de Blasio had 820 individual donors, with an average donation of $2,392."
As it readies to take on the most powerful interests in the city as well as some of the wealthiest people on the planet who call New York City home, Mamdani said in a statement that the support of working people will be crucial to his administration's success.
"None of this would have been possible without everyday New Yorkers willing to spare $5, $10, or $20 to help build a government that will deliver for working people," said the mayor-elect. "I'm grateful for every dollar New Yorkers have contributed to make this vision of an affordable, more livable city a reality."
The campaign said the money will be used primarily for recruiting and retaining during the transition period as the administration takes shape.
"More than 12,000 New Yorkers are contributing to this transition to turn the page on the politics of the past and build a new era for New York City," said Elana Leopold, executive director of Mamdani's transition, in a statement. "Thanks to New Yorkers' supporter, we will be ready on day one with top talent in place and ready to deliver."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Dr. Oz Helps Prove 'There Is No Republican Health Care Plan,' Democrats Have Solution Most Refuse to Embrace: Medicare for All
"Healthcare is becoming unsustainable under Trump," says one progressive politician running for US Senate. "Medicare for All would fix it."
Nov 16, 2025
The Trump administration came under fire on Sunday after sending Dr. Mehmet Oz, the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, onto CNN's weekend news show to try to explain the Republican Party's elusive "solution" to the nation's healthcare crisis, a topic of much interest in recent weeks amid the longest government shutdown in the nation's history and growing fears over massive premium increases or loss of coverage for tens millions of Americans.
Asked during his appearance to explain what Republicans are considering to address the surging cost of healthcare, Oz talked about direct cash payments—something Trump himself has floated in recent weeks—as well as the idea of health saving accounts (or HSAs) which allow for personalized accounts set up to help pay for out-of-pocket medical needs, though not premium payments.
"If you had a check in the mail, you could buy the insurance you thought was best for you," Oz stated without explaining in what way that is different from people who received tax credits to purchase plans on the insurance exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act signed into law by former President Barack Obama.
Pushing such empty ideas while claiming them as viable solutions to soaring costs is partly what led critics like Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) this week to issue a public service announcement which stated flatly: "There is no Republican health care plan"—despite repeated claims to the contrary by GOP lawmakers, including Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.).
Dr Oz: "If you had a check in the mail, you could buy the insurance you thought was best for you" pic.twitter.com/rLoMdxhNPV
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 16, 2025
"Dr. Oz a few years ago was pitching Medicare Advantage for All—a scheme to put every person on the corporate health insurance plans he used to sell," said Andrew Perez, a politics editor for Zeteo, in response to the interview. "Now, he’s saying let’s take away insurance from millions and give them a few bucks for their health care instead. Insane."
In a blog post published last week, Nicole Rapfogel, a senior policy analyst with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a nonpartisan policy think tank, explained why expanded HSAs, backed by the government or otherwise, would do little to nothing to improve access or lower costs for healthcare.
"Expanding HSAs has been a consistent theme, including in the House-passed version of the Republican megabill, though those provisions didn’t pass the Senate," explained Rapfogel. "But these policies are misguided and would do little to preserve access to affordable, comprehensive coverage."
She further explains that HSAs generally are better for wealthier people who have spare income to direct into such accounts, but of little use to poorer Americans who are already struggling to make ends meet each month. According to Rapfogel:
Most people do not have spare cash to set aside in HSAs; an estimated 4 in 10 people are in debt due to medical and dental bills.
People in lower tax brackets also benefit less from HSA tax savings. For example, a married couple making $800,000 saves 37 cents for each dollar contributed to an HSA, more than three times the 12 cents per dollar a married couple making $30,000 would save.
Further, HSAs do not promote efficient use of health care services. Research has shown that HSAs do not reduce health care spending, but rather shield more of that spending from taxes.
Given that understanding of the well-known limitations of HSAs or other avenues of government backstopping of private insurance, the level of bullshitting or straight up ignorance by Oz on Sunday morning, for many, was hard to take.
It's "pretty amazing," said economist Dean Baker on Sunday, "that Dr. Oz doesn't know that people choose their insurance under Obamacare, but no one ever said Dr. Oz knew anything about healthcare."
In an interview with Newsmax earlier this month, Johnson—who has argued that the GOP has reams of policy proposals on the topic—accused Democrats of having no reform solutions to the nation's healthcare crisis other than permanently fighting to save the status quo, including the "subsidizing the insurance companies" which is at the heart of the Affordable Care Act.
Taxpayer subsidies for private insurance giants "is not the solution," Johnson admitted at the time, though his party has refused to offer anything resembling a departure from the for-profit model which experts have demonstrated is the central flaw in the US healthcare system, one that spends more money per capita than any other developed nation but with the worst outcomes.
Meanwhile, as Republicans show in word and deed that they have nothing to offer people concerned about healthcare premiums in the nation's for-profit system, only a relative handful of Democratic Party members have matched renewed focus on the nation's long-simmering healthcare crisis with the popular solution that experts and economists have long favored: a single-payer system now commonly known as Medicare for All.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Independent from Vermont who caucuses with the Senate Democrats, made the demand for Medicare for All a cornerpost of his two presidential campaigns, first in 2016 and then again in 2020. On the heals of those campaigns, which put the demand for a universal healthcare system before voters in a serious way for the first time in several generations, a growing number of lawmakers in Congress embraced the idea even as the party's establishment leadership treated the idea as toxic.
While a 2018 study by the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst detailed why it is "easy to pay for something that costs less," people in the United States exposed to the arguments of Medicare for All over the last decade a majority have shown their desire for such a system in poll after poll after poll.
A single-payer system like Medicare for All would nullify the need for private, for-profit insurance plans and the billions of dollars in spending they waste each year in the form of profits, outrageous pay packages for executives, marketing budgets, and administrative inefficiences.
Despite its popularity and the opportunity it presents to show the working class that the Democratic Party is willing to turn its back on corporate interests by putting the healthcare needs of individuals and families first, the party leadership continues to hold back its support.
Lawmakers like Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who served as national co-chair to Sanders' second presidential run, has been arguing in recent weeks, amid the government shutdown fight, that Democrats should be "screaming" their support for universal healthcare "from the rooftops" in order to seize on a moment in which voters from across the political spectrum are more atuned than usual to the pervasive and fundamental failures of the for-profit system.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), lead sponsor of the Medicare for All Act in the US House, on Thursday reiterated her support for universal coverage by saying, "Instead of raising premiums for millions, how about we just get rid of them? Medicare for All!!"
As former Ohio state senator and progressive organizer Nina Turner said on Saturday, "This is a moment to mobilize for Medicare for All."
I went on Fox News to make the case for national health insurance & Medicare for All.
Democrats need to be screaming this from the rooftops. pic.twitter.com/eq9VO0pAxw
— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) November 15, 2025
Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, another former Sanders surrogate now running for the Democratic nomination in Michigan's US Senate race, has been another outspoken champion of Medicare for All in recent weeks.
"While MAGA slowly suffocates our healthcare system, we’re watching corporate health insurance choose profits—and corporate Democrats capitulating," El-Sayed said last week, expressing frustration over how the shutdown fight came to end. "Who suffers? The rest of us. It’s time for a healthcare system that doesn’t leave our insurance in the hands of big corporations—but guarantees health insurance for all of us."
Following Dr. Oz's remarks on Sunday, El-Sayed rebuked the top cabinet official as emblematic of the entire healthcare charade being perpetrated by the Republican Party under President Donald Trump.
"They think we're dumb," said El-Sayed of Oz's convoluted explanation of direct payments. "They know that no check they send will cover even a month of the healthcare Trump bump we can’t afford—but they think we’re not smart enough to know the difference. Healthcare is becoming unsustainable under Trump. Medicare for All would fix it."
In Maine on Sunday, another Democratic candidate running for the US Senate, Graham Platner, also championed the solution of Medicare for All.
After watching Oz's peformance on CNN, Tyler Evans, creative director who works for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) declared in a social media post: "If we had Medicare for All, you could simply go to the doctor."
Keep ReadingShow Less
50,000 March in Brazil to Celebrate Death of Fossil Fuel Industry at COP30
"It is time to put these old fuels where they belong—in the ground of history.”
Nov 16, 2025
An estimated 50,000 people took to the streets of Belém do Pará, Brazil, on Saturday to demonstrate outside the halls of the United Nations annual climate summit, holding a "Great People's March" and makeshift "Funeral for Fossil Fuels" as they demanded a just transition toward a more renewable energy system and egalitarian economy.
Organized by civil society organizations and Indigenous Peoples groups from Brazil and beyond, the tens of thousands who marched outside the thirtieth Conference of the Parties (COP30) summit called for an end to the rapacious greed of the oil, gas, and coal companies as they advocated for big polluters to pay for the large-scale damage their businesses have caused worldwide over the last century.
“We are tens of thousands here today, on the streets of Belém, to show negotiators at COP30 that this is what people power looks like," said Carolina Pasquali, executive director of Greenpeace Brazil, said as the march took hold. "Yesterday we found out that one in every 25 COP30 participants is a fossil fuel lobbyist, proportionally a 12% increase from last year’s COP. How can the climate crisis be solved while those creating it are influencing the talks and delaying decisions? The people are getting fed up–enough talking, we need action and we need it now.”
The report by the Kick Big Polluters Out coalition last week showed that at least 1,600 lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry are present at the conference, making it the second-largest delegation overall, second only to Brazil's, the host nation.
"It’s common sense that you cannot solve a problem by giving power to those who caused it," said Jax Bongon from the Philippines-based IBON International, a member of the coalition, in a Friday statement. "Yet three decades and 30 COPs later, more than 1,500 fossil fuel lobbyists are roaming the climate talks as if they belong here. It is infuriating to watch their influence deepen year after year, making a mockery of the process and of the communities suffering its consequences."
While the overwhelming presence of fossil fuel lobbyists has once again diminished hopes that anything worthwhile will emerge from the conference, the tens of thousands in the streets on Saturday represented the ongoing determination of the global climate movement.
João Talocchi, co-founder of Alianza Potência Energética Latin America, one of the key groups behind the "Funeral for Fossil Fuels" portion of the day's action—which included mock caskets for the oil, gas, and coal companies alongside parades of jungle animals, wind turbines, and solar panels representing what's at stake and the better path forward—noted the key leadership of Indigenous groups from across the Global South.
"From the Global South to the world, we are showing what a fair and courageous energy transition must look like," said Talochhi.
Ilan Zugman, director of 350.org in Latin America and the Caribbean, noted the significance of the demonstration, including the symbolism of the funeral procession.
"We march symbolically burying fossil fuels because they are the root of the crisis threatening our lives," explained Zugman. "Humanity already knows the way forward: clean energy, climate justice, and respect for the peoples who protect life. What is missing is political courage to break once and for all with oil, gas, and coal. It is time to put these old fuels where they belong—in the ground of history.”
With the COP30 at its midway point, climate activists warn that not nearly enough progress is being made, with the outsized influence of the fossil fuel industry one of the key reasons that governments, year after year and decade after decade, continue to drag their feet when it comes to taking the kind of aggressive actions to stem the climate crisis that scientists and experts say is necessary.
“We are taking to the streets because, while governments are not acting fast enough to make polluters pay for their climate damages at COP30, extreme weather events continue to wreak havoc across the globe," said Abdoulaye Diallo, co-head of Greenpeace International's "Make Polluters Pay" campaign. "That is why we are here, carrying the climate polluters bill, showing the projected economic damages of more than $5 trillion from the emissions of just five oil and gas companies over the last decade."
"Fossil fuel companies are destroying our planet, and people are paying the price," said Diallo. "Negotiators must wake up to the growing public and political pressure to make polluters pay, and agree to new polluter taxes in the final COP30 outcome."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular