November, 04 2021, 08:55am EDT
![350.org](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012661/origin.jpg)
CSOs welcome historic 20+ country-strong commitment to end international oil, gas, and coal finance by end of 2022, say others need to follow
AFRICA
Today at COP26, more than 20 countries and institutions, including the United States, Canada, Mali and Costa Rica, launched a joint statement committing to end direct international public finance for unabated coal, oil and gas by the end of 2022 and prioritize clean energy finance. After a wave of commitments to end international coal finance this year, this is the first international political commitment that also addresses public finance for oil and gas. If implemented effectively this initiative could directly shift more than USD 15 billion a year of preferential, government-backed support out of fossil fuels and into clean energy -- and much more if initial signatories are successful in convincing their peers to join.
Shifting public finance for energy out of all fossil fuels and into clean energy is an urgent task. The International Energy Agency (IEA) says that to limit global warming to 1.5degC, 2021 needs to mark the end of new investments in not just coal, but also new oil and gas supply.
Yet, new research by Oil Change International and Friends of the Earth US shows that between 2018 and 2020, G20 countries' international public finance institutions and Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) still backed at least $188 billion in fossil fuels abroad. This was 2.5 times more than G20 and MDB support for renewable energy, which averaged $26 billion per year. Public finance for clean energy has stagnated since 2014, despite the need for it to grow exponentially to ensure universal access to clean energy and to stay below the 1.5degC limit. The IEA finds that annual public and private investments into clean energy should reach nearly $4 trillion by 2030.
The joint statement unites some of the largest historic providers of public finance for fossil fuels -- Canada, the United States, the UK and the European Investment Bank (EIB). However, other large financiers have yet to join them.
Laggards include Japan ($10.9 bn/yr), Korea ($10.6 bn/yr), and China ($7.6 bn/yr), which are the largest providers of international public fossil fuel finance in the G20 and together account for 46% of G20 and MDB finance for fossil fuels. Italy ($2.8 bn/yr) and Spain ($1.9 bn/yr), some of the biggest EU fossil fuel financiers, are also missing.
But campaigners hope that the joint statement can help raise pressure on these countries that are lagging behind, similar to the momentum in place on ending coal finance. On the same morning of the statement launch, activists took to the streets of Glasgow in inflatable Pikachus to urge Japan to stop funding fossil fuels.
The EIB has signed the statement and the civil society coalition, Big Shift Global, is urging the other MDBs to also get on board, including the World Bank Group, the African Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Asian Development Bank, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Collectively the MDBs still provided at least $6.3 billion each year to fossil fuel projects between 2018 and 2020. Earlier this week the MDBs provided an update on their joint Paris alignment efforts in which they confirmed their framework will have no exclusions for oil and gas projects.
The combination of big polluters and low-income countries signing the statement is positive, and challenges the assumption that developing country signatories want or need investments in fossil fuels to achieve their development objectives. Alongside fulfilling their stated goal of "prioritizing support fully towards the clean energy transition", campaigners remind signatories that the ability of this initiative to support a just and 1.5degC-aligned global energy transition will also hinge on avoiding loopholes allowing for a dash for gas, acting on debt relief, increasing grant-based climate finance, and securing a growing number of signatories to the statement.
Quotes:
Tasneem Essop, Executive Director, Climate Action Network International, said:
"Shutting fossil fuels down is critical for tackling the climate crisis. This announcement is a step in the right direction but must be scaled up with more governments and public finance institutions, including the Multilateral Development Banks, committing to end finance for fossil fuels. This public money needs to be urgently redirected into a just energy transition that ensures clean universal energy access for communities in the global South and support for communities and coal, oil and gas workers without saddling countries with any further debt."
Laurie van der Burg, Global Public Finance Campaigns co-Manager at Oil Change International, said:
"The signatories of today's statement are doing what's most logical in a climate emergency: stop adding fuel to the fire and shift dirty finance to climate action. Only this way can we avoid the worst climate crisis scenarios. We need to see much more of this to help deliver and exceed climate finance promises and support real solutions that meet community needs - particularly in the Global South. Other countries and institutions must follow suit."
Kate DeAngelis, International Finance Program Manager, Friends of the Earth US, said:
"Last year at this time I would not have thought we would see countries commit to ending billions of dollars in support for international fossil fuel projects. While this is welcome progress, countries, especially the US, must hold firm to these commitments, shutting off the spigot to fossil fuel companies like Pemex and Exxon. Laggards like Japan and Korea must also step up and join this commitment to enhance its efficacy."
Lidy Nacpil, Asian's Peoples Movement for Debt and Development, said:
"We have been calling for an end to public financing of fossil fuels for so long, governments should have responded earlier. The world has no more space or time left to accommodate the expansion of fossil fuel energy. Instead governments must act immediately and decisively for a swift and just transition to 100% renewable and democratic energy systems. There should be no exceptions, no reliance on unproven and unreliable carbon capture and storage technologies that hide the lack of ambition and justify some level of continued GHG emissions. Governments must also compel the private sector to stop funding new fossil fuel projects. We call on all countries, public financial institutions, and private financiers to commit and disclose concrete plans to end all support and financing, direct and indirect, for all fossil fuels -- coal, gas and oil. Anything less will not be enough to limit global temperature rise to 1.5degC."
Ayumi Fukakusa, Friends of the Earth Japan, said:
"While world leaders commit to phasing out fossil fuel financing, Japan is the second largest public financier for fossil fuel and even still supports new coal projects both domestically and internationally. Japan, again failed to show its leadership for climate action. In addition to that, right before the COP26 started, a Japanese public financier decided to finance the LNG Canada project. The associate Coastal GasLink Pipeline is quite controversial. Next to being completely incompatible with climate goals, a UN Committee called out the lack of "Free prior, and informed consent (FPIC)" for the project. This is unacceptable."
Joojin Kim, Solutions for Our Climate, said:
"While the commitment represents a step forward in the global response to climate change, it is disappointing to find that major fossil fuel financing countries like South Korea have not joined the announcement. When it comes to public financing of fossil fuels, Asian economies like South Korea and Japan are among the largest contributors in the world. The world must know that the amount of fossil fuel public financing provided by these countries is several times (in the case of South Korea, thirteen times) higher than the amount they have provided for coal power project financing. These nations should immediately end public fossil fuel financing, instead of contributing to the build up of stranded assets around the world."
Daniel Willis, climate campaigner at Global Justice Now, said:
"This joint statement is welcome and necessary progress in the struggle to shift public finances away from fossil fuels, but that should not distract us from the challenges ahead. Just last week, MPs in the UK condemned the British development bank CDC Group's failure to stop funding gas infrastructure. When it comes to the climate crisis, every investment in fossil fuel infrastructure is like pouring petrol on a house fire. Hopefully we will now see the UK government get its own house in order by ending trade and development finance for gas power and rescinding licenses for North Sea oil exploration."
Paul Cook, Head of Advocacy, Tearfund, said:
"There is no room for new fossil fuels if we are to deliver climate justice for millions of the most vulnerable people around the world. This announcement is another nail in the coffin for the fossil fuel era as we seek to build a cleaner, safer and fairer world. We now urgently need others to join this commitment and go further by phasing out fossil fuels at home and abroad."
Dean Bhebhe, African Climate Reality Project, said:
"The African Development Bank and other Development Financial Institutions need to prioritize the development and implementation of a fossil fuel finance exclusion policy that will not fund, provide financial services, or capacity support to any coal, gas, or oil project or related infrastructure project that is carbon intensive on the African continent by 2022. At the least, establish an immediate ban on any new fossil fuel projects and publish a roadmap for phasing out all fossil fuel development financing to advance the just transition in line with the Paris Agreement. The policy should guide a managed and equitable phase-out, taking into account principles of equity and justice for those most affected. We need real climate action now."
Bronwen Tucker, Canada Lead at Oil Change International, said:
"This is one of the only climate commitments from Trudeau that has concretely addressed the oil and gas sector, and hopefully the beginning of many more. It means Canada will face lower risk of economic shocks from our overexposure to this sunsetting industry and that this influential financial support can be redirected to just transition and renewable energy globally instead. Today's announcement is a credit to the climate movement and Indigenous land defenders that have been pushing Trudeau to take real climate action since the day he took office. But the federal government should also hear loud and clear that they must keep their election promise and extend this commitment to cover Export Development Canada's closely related domestic finance for oil and gas as well."
Nick Bryer, European Campaigns Director, 350.org, said:
"Every cent that goes into fossil fuels is taking us further in the wrong direction. It's shocking that public money is still going into coal, oil and gas, when we so desperately need to keep fossil fuels in the ground, and invest in real solutions instead. It's hypocritical for any country to call themselves a climate champion if they're still helping to bankroll the fossil fuel industry."
Jon Sward, Environment Project Manager, Bretton Woods Project, said:
"The statement is an important first step in building international consensus that ending finance for fossil fuels and increasing support for a just energy transition in low- and middle-income countries are key aspects of achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement. It is disappointing that the World Bank - and many of its MDB counterparts - has chosen not to sign on to the statement. The UK, US, and other government signatories to the statement must continue to push for the World Bank and other international financial institutions to end support for fossil fuels while scaling up their support for clean energy systems that ensure a just transition for workers and communities."
Robin Mace-Snaith, Policy Lead - Climate and Energy, CAFOD, said:
"This statement is a start, but we urgently need more countries on board. Public finance shouldn't be anywhere near fossil fuels if we want any chance of keeping within 1.5degC. We challenge all signatories to ensure that the limited and clearly defined circumstances they reference are not just loopholes to continue supporting the fossil fuel sector. What's needed is a just energy transition, bringing electricity to the over 750 million people without and ensuring no community is left behind as a result. For many communities on the frontline of climate change, time has already run out, we must consign all fossil fuels to history now."
Lisa Fischer, Programme Leader Climate Neutral Energy Systems, E3G, said:
"This statement is a powerful signal to policy makers and investors alike that high climate and investment risks are an inherent part of oil and gas finance, and that no investment in new oil and gas supply is needed. It shows growing confidence that employment and revenue opportunities are strongest in the clean energy sector. Every cent of public finance should be used to open these opportunities for nations across the globe."
Maria Marta Di Paola - Research area director, Fundacion Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (FARN), said:
"While Global North countries and institutions are signing pledges on climate finance, they are still investing millions in extractive projects in Global South countries. For example, between 2016 and 2020, 88% of the World Bank Group investments in the energy sector in Argentina went to fossil fuels and the rest to renewables.
Global North countries should play a lead role in the transition to zero carbon economies coping with the singularities and needs of the Global South. This statement could be a clear sign of the risk associated with relying on fossil fuels to develop in the Global South."
Lucile Dufour, Senior Policy Advisor, International Institute for Sustainable Development, said:
"Shortly after the world's largest economies have ruled out overseas finance for coal, this statement shows that a much bigger shift is underway: one that could soon mark the end of not just coal, but also oil and gas finance. The science is clear that public support must be directed towards clean energy to avoid locking countries into high-carbon pathways, imperiling economies, and the global climate. Signatories should deliver boldly on their commitment and continue building momentum after COP26, to ensure other governments and institutions follow suit."
Katharina Rall, Senior Environment Researcher, Human Rights Watch said:
"This commitment to end international public finance for fossil fuels by 2022, if followed by effective implementation, will be an important step toward governments meeting their human rights obligations to address the climate crisis. All governments need to urgently end all support for fossil fuels and ensure a just transition to affordable clean energy to help prevent catastrophic climate impacts on human rights. Countries that choose not to sign on--including Japan, South Korea, Italy -- are signaling a lack of regard for their human rights obligations and for the rights of communities around the world already facing a mounting toll from climate impacts."
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
LATEST NEWS
'Monumental': Advocates Applaud Federal Rule to Protect Workers From Extreme Heat
The administration has established that "every worker in America has the right to shade, water, and rest while working in temperatures that could kill them," a labor leader said.
Jul 02, 2024
Labor advocates celebrated on Tuesday following the Biden administration's announcement of a proposed rule to protect workers from extreme heat—the first national workplace heat safety standard.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), an agency within the U.S. Department of Labor, published the rule, which the administration says would protect about 36 million indoor and outdoor employees from heat-related injuries and illnesses. It follows similar regulations that five states have approved in recent years.
Labor groups said the rule was the result of decades of advocacy by farmworkers and others subjected to extreme heat, who tend to be working-class people of color or immigrants. The movement was galvanized by heat-related deaths in workplaces around the country.
"This is a bittersweet moment for farmworkers," United Farm Workers president Teresa Romero said in a statement. "Every significant heat safety regulation at the state, and now federal, level was written in the blood of farmworkers."
"Today, the federal government put itself on the right side of history by seeking, for the first time, to establish the precedent that every worker in America has the right to shade, water, and rest while working in temperatures that could kill them," Romero added.
Juley Fulcher, a worker health and safety advocate at Public Citizen, an advocacy group that first called for a federal workplace heat protection standard in 2011, said in a statement that the OSHA rule was a "monumental victory for those who toil in the summer heat."
President Joe Biden has and will continue to protect workers. This President continues to show us where his priorities lie.
Thank you for prioritizing workers' right to safe working conditions, @POTUS. https://t.co/D4YMvWgIml
— Machinists Union (@MachinistsUnion) July 2, 2024
The focus on protection from heat comes as millions of Americans are under heat advisories this week and fossil-fuel driven climate change causes record-setting temperatures month after month.
The OSHA regulation, which will be the subject of written comments and a public hearing before being finalized, requires worker access to clean drinking water, indoor or shaded areas, rest breaks, and heat-related training. The regulation contains tiers so that certain protections kick in at a heat index of 80°F and still more at 90°F. The rule mandates an acclimatization process for new employees, as they are especially at risk in high temperatures.
The rule would also substantially increase the penalties that employers might pay in the case of heat-related employee injuries, according toThe Guardian.
Bill McGuire, a climate scientist at University College London, wrote on social media that the new rule was "absolutely vital" but warned that "working outside will not be possible at all in the extreme summer temperatures that coming years will bring."
The federal rule comes amid a push by labor and environmental groups to establish more workplace protections against extreme heat. Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) helped organize a "thirst strike" with unions and civil society groups on the U.S. Capitol steps last July. Responding to bottom-up pressure, California, Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, and Washington have passed workplace heat safety standards in recent years.
Industry groups have lobbied against the rules, with remarkable success in states such as Florida and Texas, both of which have gone as far as passing laws that prohibit local authorities from mandating heat protections for outdoor workers. The Texas law was ruled unconstitutional by a state district court judge last year.
The new federal rule comes as a part of a larger administration effort to address the extreme heat that Americans are increasingly facing. An OSHA program that began in 2022 has conducted more than 5,000 heat-related inspections in workplaces with the most heat exposure, according to a Labor Department statement.
Separately on Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced a set of 656 projects aimed at preparing for extreme heat and other weather disasters, at a total cost of nearly $1 billion.
Jean Su, energy justice director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in an emailed statement that the project funding "only scratches the surface of the nation's enormous need for tools to combat extreme heat" and pushed for FEMA to classify extreme heat and wildlife smoke events as "major disasters," which would unlock much more key funding.
Su did praise OSHA's "landmark rule" and called for an "urgent, government-wide game plan to tackle catastrophic extreme heat."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Israeli Bombings Kill More Palestinians as 250,000 Ordered to Evacuate Khan Younis
"It means yet another day, week, chapter of misery for these hundreds of thousands of people," said one United Nations worker.
Jul 02, 2024
Hearing once again from the Israel Defense Forces that they must evacuate to a so-called "humanitarian zone," hundreds of thousands of Palestinian people in the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis on Tuesday were forced to search for safety ahead of a likely ground offensive in the city.
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) said that roughly 250,000 people are living and seeking shelter in the evacuation zone—more than 10% of Gaza's population of 2.3 million.
The evacuation order, which was posted on social media on Monday, also includes nearby localities including al-Qarara and Bani Suhaila.
The IDF said after the order was announced that patients and healthcare providers at European Hospital, the largest operating medical facility in Gaza, were not required to evacuate, but the hospital director told the Associated Press that most had already been relocated.
"The hospital staff and the patients decided to already evacuate themselves," said Rik Peeperkorn, World Health Organization representative for the occupied Palestinian territories, in a press briefing. "We plea the European Gaza hospital will be spared, will be non-damaged."
Peeperkorn said three patients remained at the hospital.
Since Israel began its assault on Gaza and its near-total blockade on humanitarian aid in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack in October, the IDF has attacked hospitals across the enclave, even as they have served as shelters for forcibly displaced people.
The IDF has ordered evacuations from places including northern Gaza and the southern city of Rafah—only to bomb so-called "safe" zones after displacing people.
In late May, at least 46 people were killed when Israel bombed a tent encampment in a "humanitarian area" in Rafah after beginning a full-scale ground invasion of the city, where more than a million people had been displaced. At least 25 people were killed in another attack on an encampment in the area last month.
Sam Rose, a planning director for UNRWA, toldAl Jazeera that the latest evacuation order put a quarter of a million people in a "harrowing, horrific, and incredibly difficult" situation.
"It means yet another day, week, chapter of misery for these hundreds of thousands of people," said Rose. "Most of them have been displaced several times. Some had just returned from Rafah where they were displaced a few weeks ago... They go without knowing precisely where they will end up because this evacuation order told people to go urgently—they know that if they don't go out within 24 hours the worst is to come."
Soon after the evacuation order, at least nine people were killed in an Israeli strike on a home near European Hospital in Khan Younis.
Rose noted that the coastal area of al-Mawasi, where many people will likely go, is "already so overcrowded. There is no room to pitch a tent, there is no water, no infrastructure, no sanitary services. Many spend the night in vehicles or they sleep on their donkey carts."
Louise Wateridge, a spokesperson for UNRWA, told The Washington Post that the forced displacement is taking place amid temperatures over 86°F "every day."
"Even the healthiest people will struggle to make a move in this heat with lack of food, with lack of water," she said. "And then where do they go? That's the next question."
Ahmed al-Najjar, a 26-year-old resident of the Bani Suhaila neighborhood, toldAgence France Presse that with nowhere to flee, his family has been forced to stay in the area after first attempting to leave.
"We did not know where we would go and we do not have enough money to buy a new tent," he said. "We had to spend the night on the street and that has increased our stress. This morning we decided to go home again. There is nowhere else... Whatever happens, happens. We have nothing to lose now."
The IDF's apparent plan to expand its assault on Khan Younis came as The New York Timesreported that security leaders in Israel are pushing for a cease-fire in Gaza, objecting to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's plan to continue the assault until Hamas is eliminated—an objective even some top Israeli military officials believe is impossible—and all Israeli hostages are released.
The Times reported that senior military officials believe a cease-fire is the "swiftest way" to free captives remaining in Gaza.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bernie Sanders: Right-Wing Supreme Court 'Out of Control' and Must Be Stopped
"At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, billionaire control of our political system, and major threats to the foundations of American democracy, it is clear to me that we need real Supreme Court reform."
Jul 02, 2024
In the aftermath of the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court's potentially deadly rampage against federal regulators, its ruling in support of the criminalization of homelessness, and its decision to grant former President Donald Trump sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution, Sen. Bernie Sanders said late Monday that nation's highest judicial body is "out of control" and must be reined in before it can inflict even more damage.
"Over the years, among other disastrous rulings, this right-wing court has given us Citizens United, which created a corrupt, billionaire-dominated political system," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement. "It overturned Roe v. Wade, removing women's constitutional right to control their own bodies. Last week, the court chose to criminalize poverty by banning homeless encampments in public spaces—forcing more poor people into the cycle of debt and poverty."
"With the Chevron case," the senator continued, "they have made it far more difficult for the government to address the enormous crises we face in terms of climate change, public health, workers' rights, and many other areas. And, today, the court ruled in favor of broad presidential immunity, making it easier for Trump and other politicians to break the law without accountability."
"A strong, enforceable code of ethics is a start, but just a start. We'll need much more than that."
Such far-reaching and devastating decisions, Sanders argued, highlight the extent to which unelected Supreme Court justices—with the backing of
right-wing billionaires and corporations bent on sweeping away all regulatory constraints—have arrogated policymaking authority to themselves with disastrous consequences for U.S. society and the world.
"If these conservative justices want to make public policy, they should simply quit the Supreme Court and run for political office," said Sanders. "At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, billionaire control of our political system, and major threats to the foundations of American democracy, it is clear to me that we need real Supreme Court reform. A strong, enforceable code of ethics is a start, but just a start. We'll need much more than that."
The Supreme Court is out of control.
If these conservative right-wing, corporate-sponsored justices want to make public policy, they should simply quit the Supreme Court and run for political office. pic.twitter.com/jrm3ZdSti8
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) July 1, 2024
Sanders did not make specific reform recommendations beyond an ethics code in his statement Monday, but he has previously suggested rotating judges off the Supreme Court—which would effectively end lifetime appointments.
The Vermont senator's progressive colleagues floated a range of possible actions following the high court's presidential immunity ruling on Monday, including adding seats to the Supreme Court and impeaching individual justices.
"Today's decision, along with the court's decision to overturn Chevron, is an assault on the separation of powers under the Constitution," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said in response to the court's ruling in Corner Post Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
"An extremist Supreme Court stacked by Donald Trump has snatched power away from an elected Congress and handed lawmaking power over to a few far-right unelected judges," Warren added. "This Supreme Court is undermining the foundations of our democracy; Congress must restore balance by adding more justices to the court."
The Supreme Court's recent flurry of rulings has already thrown
existing cases into chaos and opened the floodgates to new corporate-backed lawsuits against longstanding federal regulations.
The Washington Postreported Sunday that "mere hours after the Supreme Court sharply curbed the power of federal agencies" by scrapping the Chevron doctrine, "conservatives and corporate lobbyists began plotting how to harness the favorable ruling in a redoubled quest to whittle down climate, finance, health, labor, and technology regulations in Washington."
"The National Association of Manufacturers, a lobbying group whose board of directors includes top executives from Dow, Caterpillar, ExxonMobil, and Johnson & Johnson, specifically called attention to what it described as regulatory overreach at the [Securities and Exchange Commission] and the Environmental Protection Agency," the Post noted.
The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's largest corporate lobbying organization, and the American Petroleum Institute were also among the big business groups applauding the fall of Chevron, fueling calls for Congress to codify the doctrine into federal law.
The American Prospect's Hassan Ali Kanu wrote Tuesday that the high court's latest term has "demonstrated how lacking our system is in terms of safeguards that can prevent or correct the Supreme Court when it oversteps its authority or engages in unjustified exercises of power."
"President Joe Biden's commission to explore Supreme Court reform produced a number of viable and sensible options," Kanu continued. "Congress could curtail or end judicial review, the power the court aggregated to itself to exclusively interpret the Constitution."
"Even more modest proposals could further democratize the Court and judiciary, like prohibiting them from declining to apply laws passed by Congress unless they have at least a supermajority vote; or implementing sortition, random assignment, and rotation into the process of appointing or assigning judges to the Supreme Court," he added. "At this point, when a six-member majority is literally declaring a former president who appointed three of them to be functionally above the law, against all prevailing opinion, scholarship, analysis, and experience, the case for court reform couldn't be clearer."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular