

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Tomomi Shibata, tomomi@priceofoil.org (JST)
Nicole Rodel, nicole@priceofoil.org (CET)
Valentina Stackl, valentina@priceofoil.org (ET)
Today, G7 Leaders in Hiroshima concluded that there is “an important role” for “increased deliveries of LNG” and that “publicly supported gas investments can be appropriate”, jeopardizing the 1.5ºC warming limit and directly contradicting last year’s G7 commitment to end international public finance for fossil fuels by the end of 2022.
The G7 endorsement of increased gas finance comes despite strong opposition. Leading up to the Summit, activists organized over 50 actions in 22 countries to urge Japan and fellow G7 countries to end their support for fossil fuels and to stop driving the expansion of gas and other fossil-based technologies such as ammonia co-firing in coal-fired power plants. They say the science is clear: ending investments in fossil fuels and phasing them out is necessary to avoid climate breakdown and meet parallel energy security and affordability goals.
In their Leaders’ Communique, the G7 claim that “they are steadfast in their commitment to … keeping a limit of 1.5ºC global temperature rise within reach”. A true commitment to 1.5°C, however, requires the G7 to explicitly exclude continued investments in new upstream gas projects and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) infrastructure. Today’s G7 endorsement of increased gas investments came after a push from Japan and Germany, with Japan using its G7 Presidency to also promote other fossil fuel-based technologies such as hydrogen, ammonia and CCS.
The G7 play a central role in enabling the global buildout of LNG infrastructure. An Oil Change International briefing shows that 61% of LNG export terminal capacity built in the last decade had international public finance from the G7. A large portion of the G7’s fossil fuel finance went to support gas projects (42%), of which 75% went to support LNG projects, with Japan and the United States providing the majority of LNG finance.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), maintaining a 50% chance to limit global warming to 1.5°C requires an immediate end to investments not just in new coal, oil, and gas production, but also in LNG infrastructure. Such investments also come with serious stranded assets risks as gas demand, including for LNG, is forecasted to drop. These findings remain unchanged in the context of the war in Ukraine and its impact on global energy markets.
Reducing soaring energy costs and improving energy security requires phasing out fossil fuel reliance and shifting to clean energy, according to the IEA. Renewable energy technologies are more affordable, and can be scaled up more rapidly. They also help avoid fiscal instability linked to volatile fossil fuel prices and stranded asset risks as global gas demand drops. Today, the G7 failed to reap these benefits of an accelerated shift to clean energy.
Leaving the door open for new gas and LNG infrastructure is also in direct contradiction to last year’s G7 commitment to end international public finance for fossil fuels by the end of 2022 “except in limited circumstances … consistent with a 1.5°C warming limit…”. Today, G7 Leaders claim that they have fulfilled this commitment. However, data shows this is untrue, as Japan and Italy have continued to approve new international support to fossil fuel projects in 2023 that are not aligned with 1.5°C.
This year, Italy has already approved international public financing for the Santos Basin oil and gas production project in Brazil. The Japanese Export Credit Agency, JBIC, has provided USD 393 million for a gas-fired power plant (Syr Darya II Shirin combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT)) in Uzbekistan. During a recent visit to Mozambique, as part of Japan’s efforts to “deepen its involvement with the global south”, Prime Minister Kishida committed to help Mozambique revive its LNG project and support Japanese private investment in gas. The United States Export Import Bank (U.S. EXIM) voted to provide almost USD 100 million in export support to expand the controversial PT Kilang Pertamina Balikpapan Petroleum Refinery in Indonesia.
Had the G7 upheld their climate and fossil finance commitments, the group of nations could have collectively shifted over USD 24.3 billion per year out of fossil fuels and into clean energy and increased G7 clean energy finance to USD 34 billion annually, a sum nearly substantial enough to close the energy access finance gap. This would have catalyzed an even larger shift in public and private finance and further investments are needed for the G7 to deliver their fair share of climate, loss and damage and just energy transition finance support to the Global South.
Today, the G7 missed an opportunity to set the stage for success at key upcoming global climate events, including the UN Climate Action Summit in September and COP28 in December. World leaders must urgently change course to not forfeit the chance to limit global warming to 1.5°C while building a more energy secure and affordable future.
In response, experts at Oil Change International and partner organizations issued the following statements:
“This year’s G7 is revealing Japan’s failure of climate leadership at a global level. At a time when we rapidly need to phase out fossil fuels, this year’s G7 host has pushed for the expansion of gas and LNG and technologies that would prolong the use of coal. Activists mobilized 50 actions across 22 countries this week to demand that Japan end its fossil fuel finance and stop driving the expansion of gas and other fossil-based technologies. Japan will continue to face intense international scrutiny until it stops fueling the climate crisis,” said Susanne Wong, Asia Program Manager at Oil Change International.
“A month ago G7 ministers successfully pushed back against a Japan-led push for gas investments and fossil fuels. But Germany joining Japan in promoting gas investments means we now have a disastrous G7 Summit outcome. The repeated call for public gas investments directly contradicts the G7 Leaders’ claim that they have fulfilled their commitment to end public finance for fossil fuels by the end of last year. It also jeopardizes 1.5ºC and energy security goals. The G7 today missed an important opportunity to get on track for 1.5°C to set the stage for a successful G20 and COP28 — rather they have moved in the opposite direction. They need to urgently reroute to protect people and the planet,” said Laurie van der Burg, Global Public Finance Co-Manager at Oil Change International.
“Japan has used the G7 presidency to derail the global energy transition. Japan has been driving the push to increase gas investments and has been promoting its so-called ‘Green Transformation’ strategy. This greenwashing scheme includes fossil hydrogen, ammonia, CCS, and nuclear, technologies which will delay the urgently needed just energy transition. Japan and G7 governments must accelerate fossil fuel phase-out, not prolong the life of fossil fuel infrastructure. Japan must commit to a full fossil fuel phase-out and stop blocking efforts to phase out coal and fossil fuels at the G7,” said Ayumi Fukakusa, Deputy Executive Director at Friends of the Earth Japan.
“Last year, Germany led G7 discussions that secured a ground-breaking commitment to end international public finance for fossil fuels by the end of 2022. However, the G7’s continued approval for public investment in the gas sector, led by Germany and Japan, is in direct breach of that commitment and severely undermines progress made on this agenda. The immediate energy crisis has passed and G7 leaders have failed to act in accordance with clear market signals and climate science that new investments in fossil fuels are no longer needed. What is needed is a prioritisation of public investment in clean energy, that will help prevent fiscal instability and reduce stranded asset risks, especially as global gas demand will continue to drop. This is critical not only to meet climate targets but also to bring down energy costs and managing energy security,” said Louise Burrows, Energy Finance Lead at E3G.
“The endorsement of increased LNG deliveries and investment in gas in the G7 communique is no mere backsliding — it is a death sentence being dealt by the G7 to the 1.5°C limit and, in consequence, to the climate survival of vulnerable peoples in the Philippines, Southeast Asia, and across the world. Unless they genuinely put forward the phase out of all fossil fuels, Japan and all G7 nations spout nothing but lies when they say they have aligned to 1.5°C. They cannot claim to be promoting development while subjecting our people to decades more of pollution and soaring energy prices. We reject this notion of a development powered by fossil fuels. In the aftermath of the G7 Summit and lead up to this year’s COP, Japan and G7 leaders should already be warned that civic movements will not tire in pushing back against fossil fuels and false solutions and in demanding a renewable energy transition,” said Gerry Arances, Executive Director at Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development (Philippines).
“Where there was an opportunity to accelerate a renewable energy transition that would bring about energy security, accessibility, and keep us on track to meet climate targets, the G7 have chosen to remain on a fossil-fuelled collision course. Despite a week of sustained global calls from civil society, G7 leaders have let down their constituents on the frontlines. The final G7 communiqué does not heed the bold calls needed for our times and fails to include concrete plans to end the fossil fuel era. Instead of taking decisive action to tackle cost of living, energy, and climate crises, the text plays around the edges,” said May Boeve, Executive Director at 350.org.
“The G7 leaders’ communiqué shows a serious disconnect with science, as it enables new investment in fossil gas infrastructure, despite the very clear messages from both the International Energy Agency and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which show that a future below 1.5 degrees can’t include more fossil fuels. Most likely, the German chancellor Olaf Scholz has been a driving force behind the weak language on gas, which is a serious blow to Germany’s international credibility on climate,” said Petter Lydén, Head of International Climate Policy at Germanwatch.
“The G7, among the richest nations in the world, have once again proved to be poor leaders on climate with their statement from the Hiroshima Summit. Emphasising the need to keep global warming below 1.5ºC while at the same time committing to continue to invest in gas and LNG shows a bizarre political disconnect from science and a complete disregard for the severity of the climate emergency. This continued hypocrisy from historical polluters as climate impacts continue to increase sets a low bar and jeopardises global efforts to fight the climate crisis. The G7 countries must come to COP28 with a clear focus on doing their fair share on phasing out fossil fuels and delivering climate finance,” said Harjeet Singh, Head of Global Political Strategy at Climate Action Network.
“The G7 energy outcome correctly diagnoses a short-term need for energy security, then promotes a dangerous and inappropriate lock-in of fossil gas that would do nothing to address this need. Energy security can only be achieved by rapidly and equitably phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable energy, not locking in deadly fossil fuels and lining the pockets of oil and gas executives. This betrayal continues a disturbing turn by President Biden and Chancellor Scholz from rhetorically committing to climate leadership to openly boosting fossil fuel expansion. History will not look kindly on world leaders who accelerate the pace of fossil fuel buildout in the face of worsening climate crisis,” said Collin Rees, United States Program Manager at Oil Change International.
Oil Change International is a research, communications, and advocacy organization focused on exposing the true costs of fossil fuels and facilitating the ongoing transition to clean energy.
(202) 518-9029UN experts have said Israel's "destruction of urban and village housing that displaced persons would have returned to, is consistent with the pattern of domicide that was initiated during the genocide in Gaza."
Despite a ceasefire announced Friday, after US President Donald Trump said Israel was "PROHIBITED" from continuing to strike Lebanon, Israel continued to level villages and homes across southern Lebanon from Friday into Saturday in what has been described as a continuation of its "Gaza tactics."
Just as it did in Gaza, Israeli Army Radio announced Friday night that Israel had established a "yellow line" in southern Lebanon about 10 kilometers north of the Israeli border, effectively allowing Israel to occupy about 10% of Lebanese territory and maintain control of 55 towns and villages.
According to a report by Lebanon’s National Council for Scientific Research, Israeli forces have been destroying more than 1,000 homes per day since March 2, sometimes wiping out entire villages across southern Lebanon.
The campaign escalated later in the month after Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz ordered the military to "accelerate the destruction of Lebanese homes" near the Israeli border based on the "model in Gaza," where Israel has destroyed around 90% of all infrastructure and left most of the population sheltering in tents.
Israel has described this as an effort to destroy Hezbollah infrastructure. But the razing of entire villages has often appeared indiscriminate, and numerous attacks have targeted or damaged schools, hospitals, and other nonmilitary infrastructure. More than 40,000 homes have reportedly been destroyed or damaged.
Demolitions and land-clearing operations have continued after Friday's ceasefire, according to reporters on the ground in Lebanon for Al Jazeera. Israeli artillery also reportedly shelled areas around Beit Lif, al-Qantara, and Toul.
On Friday, Israel warned tens of thousands of displaced Lebanese civilians in southern Lebanon not to return to their homes despite the ceasefire, although some have begun to make the trek anyway. Many have found their former homes reduced to rubble.
“There’s destruction, and it’s unlivable," said one resident who was displaced from his home in Nabatieh. "We’re taking our things and leaving again."
Israel said Saturday that it had also carried out new airstrikes in southern Lebanon against people who approached the newly established yellow line. The Israeli military claimed that individuals crossed from north of the line toward Israeli troops, prompting "precise strikes" by air and ground forces against them.
An Israeli military statement described those approaching as "terrorists" who violated the ceasefire and said it carried out the strikes in "self-defense against threats." However, it did not specify what threat those approaching the line posed.
Previous attacks that Israel has said were directed at Hezbollah fighters have devastated civilian areas in southern Lebanon, as well as Beirut and its surrounding suburbs.
According to Lebanon’s Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between military and civilian casualties, more than 2,167 people have been killed since Israel renewed its attacks in Lebanon on March 2.
In Gaza, despite a ceasefire, nearly 100 Palestinians have been killed near the yellow line since it was established in October 2025. Those killed have included at least 36 women, children, and elderly people, according to TRT World.
On Wednesday, a group of United Nations experts denounced what they called Israel's "illegal aggression and indiscriminate bombing campaign" aimed at occupying land in violation of the UN Charter.
“The issuance of blanket evacuation orders, combined with the destruction of urban and village housing that displaced persons would have returned to, is consistent with the pattern of domicide that was initiated during the genocide in Gaza,” they warned.
On Saturday, a group of peacekeepers with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon also came under attack, resulting in the death of a French soldier. Lebanon's Foreign Ministry condemned the attack and pledged to identify the "perpetrators."
UN peacekeepers and French officials have said the attack was most likely carried out by Hezbollah, but Hezbollah has denied responsibility.
Israel's continued attacks on Lebanon also threaten to derail not only its ceasefire with Lebanon but also the US ceasefire with Iran.
After the announcement of a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon on Friday, Iran briefly reopened the Strait of Hormuz to unrestricted travel. But on Saturday, following reports of Israel's violations of the ceasefire, it was once again closed.
While Iranian officials said the proximate reason for the closure was the continuation of US President Donald Trump's blockade of the strait, they have also indicated that they want Israel to stop attacking Lebanon as part of the ceasefire.
Trump's recent actions have convinced Tehran that the US is not "a trustworthy partner for any kind of deal," according to one Iranian professor.
The ceasefire between the US and Iran is in grave peril after Iran announced on Saturday that, in response to the continued US blockade, it would once again impose travel restrictions on the Strait of Hormuz after briefly reopening it on Friday.
Iran has used the strait—through which about 20% of the world's oil passes—as a chokepoint on Western commerce in response to the illegal US-Israeli war launched in February, and it has been the linchpin of the two-week ceasefire between the two sides, which is scheduled to end Wednesday.
Tehran announced Friday that the strait was "completely open" again in response to a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, which had taken effect. That agreement is also already falling apart following a slew of apparent violations by Israel, which has continued shelling southern Lebanon and demolishing homes even as displaced civilians return.
Iranian officials said they opted to reimpose their blockade of the strait because they believe that by continuing its own naval blockade of Iranian ports and vessels, which began over the past weekend, the US is not upholding its end of the deal.
According to a social media post from US Central Command on Saturday, the US military has already turned around at least 23 ships near the strait since its blockade began on April 13.
US President Donald Trump claimed Friday that Iran had agreed to reopen the strait without conditions, but that the US blockade would “remain in full force” until a broader deal was reached surrounding Iran's nuclear program.
But Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Khatibzadeh said during a panel Saturday that "That is not the term we agreed on."
Iran's military headquarters later issued a formal statement declaring that it would begin limiting travel through the strait.
“The Islamic Republic of Iran, following previous agreements met in the negotiations conducted in good faith, agreed to manage the passage of a limited number of oil and commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz," the statement said. "Unfortunately, the Americans, with their repeated breaches of trust that are part of their history, continue their acts of piracy and maritime theft under the pretext of a so-called blockade."
"This strategic waterway is under strict management and control by the armed forces," it continued. "As long as the United States does not end the complete freedom of movement for vessels from Iran to their destinations and back, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz will remain under strict control and will remain as it was before.”
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) gunboats later opened fire on an oil tanker traveling through the strait on Saturday. No injuries were reported.
As Al Jazeera reporter Ali Hashem described, talks between the US and Iran have been brought "back to square one."
The gap appears increasingly unlikely to be bridged by Wednesday, as Trump continues to demand that Iran allow the US to remove all its enriched uranium, which Iran has said is a nonstarter.
US and Israeli strikes in Iran have already killed more than 1,700 civilians, according to the US-based Human Rights Activist News Agency, and more than 3 million Iranians have been displaced since the war began, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency.
Trump said Friday that perhaps he "won't extend" the ceasefire and that "the blockade is going to remain. If an agreement is not reached by Wednesday, he said, "unfortunately, we'll have to start dropping bombs again."
The president said that Iran "got a little cute" on Saturday by closing the strait again, but said Iran "can't blackmail us."
Shutting the waterway has, however, proven to be one of Iran's most effective points of leverage against the US. It has caused gas prices to soar above $4 and inflation to ripple through the entire Western economy, further tanking Trump's already grim approval ratings as the US midterm elections approach.
Jennifer Parker, an adjunct fellow in naval studies at the University of New South Wales, told Al Jazeera that the US blockade of the strait does not have the ability to cripple Iran in the same way Iran can cripple the US.
“It is not the US blockade on Iranian ports that is impacting the majority of shipping going through that strait. It is the attacks the Iranian navy and IRGC have undertaken on civilian ships,” she said. "To solve the problem in the Strait of Hormuz, there either needs to be an agreement for Iran to stop attacking vessels, or a forcible military intervention that stops them from attacking vessels, and then general reassurance across the strait that it is clear of mines and that if the IRGC start trying to attack merchant ships, they will be defended... We are a long way from all of that.”
Iranian professor Mostafa Khoshcheshm said that Trump's contradictory statements surrounding the ceasefire have convinced Tehran that the United States is not "a trustworthy partner for any kind of deal," and that, as Trump continues to behave erratically, "Iran will continue the war.”
He told Al Jazeera: "Iran believes it has the upper hand and that this must be established in any future confrontation."
"The oil industry's allies in Congress are ignoring public opinion and the undeniable realities of the climate crisis by moving to drill on the sacred Coastal Plain and endanger the freedom of local communities."
Indigenous leaders joined with climate and wildlife defenders on Friday to blast President Donald Trump's administration and Republicans in Congress over the newly announced fossil fuel lease sale for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's Coastal Plain in Alaska.
The US Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management revealed Friday that it will hold the first of four legally mandated lease sales on June 5. The so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act—which congressional Republicans passed and Trump signed last summer—requires BLM to hold the other three sales by 2035.
ANWR's Coastal Plain spans over 1.5 million acres and is known for its biodiversity. As a BLM webpage details, it is also believed to contain 4.25-11.8 billion barrels of "technically recoverable oil," according to US Geological Survey estimates.
Trump returned to the White House last year backed by Big Oil's campaign cash, and his deputy interior secretary, Kate MacGregor, said Friday that "after three acts of Congress and several successful lawsuits making it abundantly clear that oil and gas leasing in this area of Alaska is lawful, it is a great honor to once again announce another Coastal Plain lease sale."
MacGregor framed the forthcoming sale as just one piece of the administration's pro-fossil fuel agenda, adding that "President Trump has long supported Alaska's important contribution to American energy dominance, and Interior is proud to take the necessary and durable steps to unleash these important resources on behalf of the American people."
Earlier attempts to open up ANWR to drilling suggest that the sale may not draw much industry interest. Taxpayers for Common Sense pointed out Friday that two previous ones required by the Trump GOP's Tax Cut and Jobs Act "were originally estimated to bring taxpayers almost $1 billion in revenue but fell far short of this projection. The first lease sale, held in January 2021, brought in just $16.5 million. The second lease sale, held in January 2025, attracted no bidders and generated no revenue."
However, as the Anchorage Daily News reported, the plan for the next sale "comes on the heels of another recent lease sale, in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska to the west of the refuge, that drew heavy interest from oil companies," which "raises questions about how much bidding might occur in the refuge," particularly as Trump's war on Iran has driven up global oil prices.
Still, critics highlighted the previous ANWR sales—including the Wilderness Society's Alaska senior manager, Meda DeWitt, who said: "Once again, the oil industry's allies in Congress are ignoring public opinion and the undeniable realities of the climate crisis by moving to drill on the sacred Coastal Plain and endanger the freedom of local communities to sustain their cultures and lifestyles for generations to come."
"Two previous lease sales have already been economic failures, proving that the absurd Arctic Refuge leasing program should be eliminated and permanent protection must be provided for the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou herd," DeWitt argued.
The Arctic Refuge is the crown jewel of the American National Wildlife Refuge System – opening it up to drilling endangers the wildlife and the indigenous communities who have called the refuge their home for thousands of years.
— Senate Energy Dems (@energydems.senate.gov) April 17, 2026 at 1:24 PM
America Fitzpatrick of the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) similarly said that "time and again, the American people have said that they oppose drilling in the Arctic Refuge. The last lease sale in 2024 yielded no bids. Drilling here is not only bad economic—it's reckless and wildly unpopular. Instead of further handcuffing us to be more dependent on fossil fuels, the administration should focus on prioritizing cleaner, more affordable, and more reliable energy sources like clean energy."
"We simply cannot drill our way out of high energy costs," declared Fitzpatrick, the group's conservation program director. "The US is already producing more oil and gas than ever before, but when Trump forced a global energy crisis, prices skyrocketed once again. LCV stands with the Gwich'in people in their fight to ensure there is no drilling in the Arctic Refuge. Not now, not ever."
The Gwich'in, Indigenous people who live in Alaska and Canada, have long defended the refuge from fossil fuel intrusion, and are currently engaged in litigation over the Trump Interior Department's leasing program for the Coastal Plain.
"The Neets'ąįį Gwich'in have made our position clear that any development on the Coastal Plain would have irreversible, adverse effects on our people, our culture, and our way of life," Raeann Garnett, first chief of the Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, said Friday. "This lease sale, once again, disregards our sovereignty and is a direct threat to the sacred land that sustains our people."
Karlas Norman, first chief of the Venetie Village Council, stressed that "no amount of money will make this land any less sacred to our people or any less vital to our way of life. The Trump administration's most recent actions to advance oil and gas development on the Coastal Plain does not change the fact that this land is sacred, that industry has walked away, and that the Gwich'in people will never stop fighting to protect it."
Galen Gilbert, first chief of the Arctic Village Council, charged that "the Trump administration's relentless push to auction off this sacred land despite overwhelming public opposition and industry that has already signaled they are not interested, makes clear that this administration values corporate interests over the rights and lives of Indigenous peoples."
Gilbert also vowed that "we will continue to fight with every tool available to protect the Coastal Plain for our children and all future generations."
Kristen Moreland, executive director of the Gwich'in Steering Committee, also pledged that "the Gwich’in Nation remains committed to be a voice for the caribou, and to fight oil and gas development in the Arctic Refuge."
"We condemn these efforts by the Trump administration to exploit the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou herd for short-term gain, and we know that the majority of Americans stand beside us in opposing development in this cherished and irreplaceable landscape," Moreland continued. "We have been raising our voices and fight[ing] for the protection of this sacred land and our way of life for decades—and we are not backing down now."
Also noting the US public's position, Andy Moderow, senior director of policy at Alaska Wilderness League, put pressure on the industry to stay away from the lease sale later this spring.
"For decades, the American people have recognized that the Arctic Refuge is not an industrial zone for oil development, and this sale simply runs counter to common sense," said Moderow. "Any oil and gas company that is even thinking about buying these leases should know that, if they do, they will be sending a clear message to the American people—that no place in Alaska is too sacred to drill in a quest for corporate profits. We urge companies to take a pass on the Arctic Refuge lease sale, and we look forward to rightfully restoring protections for this landscape in the years to come."
According to the Anchorage Daily News, "Elizabeth Manning, a spokesperson with Earthjustice, said in an email Friday that any new leases will be subject to a lawsuit brought by Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity, and Friends of the Earth."