

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) 518-9029"The president of the United States would like everyone to know that he is acting with criminal intent, in case there was any ambiguity," a US law professor said of his social media post with bridge bombing footage.
After pledging in a prime-time address that the United States and Israel would bomb Iran "back to the Stone Ages where they belong," President Donald Trump on Thursday shared a video of the US blowing up an Iranian bridge and promised, "Much more to follow!"
"The biggest bridge in Iran comes tumbling down, never to be used again," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, sharing footage of an attack on the B1 highway bridge that connects Iran's capital, Tehran, to the city of Karaj.
Trump added a message to the Middle East nation's government, writing, "IT IS TIME FOR IRAN TO MAKE A DEAL BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE, AND THERE IS NOTHING LEFT OF WHAT STILL COULD BECOME A GREAT COUNTRY!"
Citing an unnamed source, Israel's i24NEWS reported that the bridge's "destruction was intended to cut off supply routes that bring drone parts and missiles to Iranian firing units that launch them at US and Israeli forces."
According to Reuters national security correspondent Idrees Ali, "Iranian state media says eight people were killed and 95 wounded in the attack."
While war cheerleader Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) welcomed Trump's social media post, anti-war activists, journalists, and legal experts called out the US president for not only engaging in war crimes, but promoting them with his "atrocity propaganda."
Progressive US-Middle East policy analyst Omar Baddar said that Trump was "openly bragging about destroying civilian infrastructure to force the Iranian government to meet his political demands."
Rutgers University law professor Adil Haque said in a series of social media posts that "the president of the United States would like everyone to know that he is acting with criminal intent, in case there was any ambiguity."
"Attacking civilian infrastructure—to create political pressure or punish civilians—is both illegal and stupid," Haque added, blasting Trump's post as "obscene," and stressing that "states must act now to end this lawless war."
British writer Owen Jones declared that "Donald Trump is openly flaunting his war crimes. Journalists who won't call them that are complicit."
Zeteo editor-in-chief Mehdi Hasan said that "this is what terrorism looks like, state terrorism, we do it to others, and then we act shocked when others do it back to us."
Drop Site News co-founder Ryan Grim described Trump's post as, "An extremist group in Washington, DC has claimed credit for the terrorist attack on the Iranian bridge."
Earlier Thursday, Grim noted that Iran has shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman that's a key shipping route for fossil fuels. Oil prices have surged, as Americans have already seen at the gasoline pump.
"The more civilian infrastructure we destroy in Iran and the more we set back their economy, the more determined Iran will be to extract the maximum possible toll from oil passing through what is now their strait," Grim wrote. "That toll will be paid by us and the rest of the world through a higher cost of living. So just be aware that every video of a bridge being blown up, a pharmaceutical [plant] destroyed, a medical clinic flattened, is a video of something *you* are going to pay to rebuild."
As Common Dreams reported earlier Thursday, online retailer Amazon is planning to add 3.5% fuel and logistics surcharge for vendors that use its fulfillment service in the United States and Canada, and fresh food distributors have been adding such fees to deliveries, due to increased fuel costs caused by the Iran war.
Responding to the bridge attack, Iran's foreign minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, said that "striking civilian structures, including unfinished bridges, will not compel Iranians to surrender. It only conveys the defeat and moral collapse of an enemy in disarray. Every bridge and building will be built back stronger. What will never recover: damage to America's standing."
Since launching the war in late February, the US and Israel have also bombed at least tens of thousands of other civilian locations, including homes, schools, medical facilities, energy installations, courthouses, and UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization World Heritage sites.
A decade after the Panama Papers, the global rich are still hiding more than $2.8 trillion in tax havens. Just a fraction of that money could end extreme hunger and provide clean water to everyone on Earth.
The richest 0.1% of people on Earth are hiding more than $2.8 trillion in offshore accounts to avoid taxes. That money alone is more wealth than is owned by the entire bottom half of humanity, more than 4.1 billion people.
These findings were published in a report released Thursday by Oxfam International on the 10th anniversary of the 2016 Panama Papers, which provided an unprecedented look at how the world's most powerful capitalists, financiers, political leaders, celebrities, and criminals exploited offshore tax havens to stash their money.
"Ten years on, the superrich are still sequestering oceans of wealth in offshore vaults,” said Christian Hallum, Oxfam International’s tax lead.
The percentage of untaxed wealth in offshore accounts has dropped in the past 10 years, in large part due to global reforms like the adoption of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Automatic Exchange of Information framework (AEOI), which allows revenue authorities around the world to easily share information and crack down on cheats.
However, many nations in the Global South are excluded from this system, even though they need the tax revenue the most.
Oxfam found that a staggering $3.5 trillion, more than 3.2% of the global gross domestic product, still remains in untaxed accounts. That's more than the entire GDP of France and is more than twice the combined wealth of the world's 44 poorest nations.
And while the percentage of untaxed wealth is shrinking, that doesn't mean inequality has shrunk.
On the contrary, the December 2025 "World Inequality Report" found that the richest 0.001% of humanity—fewer than 60,000 multimillionaires and billionaires—now have three times as much wealth as the poorest half of the world’s population combined.
Inequality has surged around the world in part due to taxation policies and pandemic recovery packages that overwhelmingly favor the rich. The most glaring was adopted in the world's financial hub, the United States, last year.
The megabudget passed by Republicans and signed into law by President Donald Trump handed a $1 trillion tax cut to America's wealthiest 1% while slashing more than $1 trillion in spending from Medicaid, food assistance, and other safety net programs. It has been described by some economists as the largest upward transfer of wealth in US history.
While the global top 0.1% holds about 80% of untaxed offshore wealth, an even smaller group of uber-wealthy individuals does most of the cheating. The world's richest 0.01%, who hold at least $50 million apiece, control about half of all money in global tax shelters—$1.7 trillion.
According to the Tax Justice Network's Corporate Tax Haven Index, Caribbean islands under UK ownership, including the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, and Bermuda, are among the worst offenders. Other notable tax havens include Switzerland, Singapore, Hong Kong, Ireland, and the Netherlands.
A February Oxfam report on Elon Musk, who is well on his way to becoming the world's first trillionaire, found that his company, Tesla—which managed to pay zero dollars on its $2.3 billion income in 2024—has not published a country-by-country report on its taxes and that it has subsidiaries in many countries considered to be tax havens.
Big Pharma companies, including AbbVie and Merck, also used tax shelters to lower their total tax expense in 2025 by more than $1 billion, according to a report released earlier this month by the Financial Accountability & Corporate Transparency Coalition.
"This isn’t just about clever accounting—it’s about power and impunity," Hallum said. "When millionaires and billionaires stash trillions of dollars in offshore tax havens, they place themselves above the obligations that bind the rest of society."
"The consequences are as predictable as they are devastating," he continued. "We see our public hospitals and schools starved of funds, our social fabric shredded by rising inequality, and ordinary people forced to shoulder the costs of a system rigged to enrich a tiny few.”
Even a fraction of the money currently stashed away by the world's wealthiest could alleviate untold amounts of suffering.
In November, the United Nations' World Food Program estimated that extreme hunger, which currently affects more than 318 million people around the world, could be eradicated by 2030 with investments of about $93 billion per year, but that global hunger programs instead remain “slow, fragmented, and underfunded."
According to a 2021 UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) report, investments of around $114 billion per year would similarly be enough to ensure that everyone on Earth has access to safe drinking water and sanitation.
Oxfam called on governments around the world to increase coordination to prevent the wealthy from hiding their riches from tax authorities. It also urged them to adopt more aggressive policies to tax the 1%'s wealth at home, including taxes on income and on extreme wealth.
The retail giant said the surcharge was needed due to "elevated costs in fulfillment and logistics" that "have increased the cost of operating across the industry."
Americans having been paying more for gasoline since the start of President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran, and now it seems the war's costs are spreading to other areas of the economy.
Amazon announced on Thursday that, beginning April 17, it would add a "3.5% fuel and logistics-related surcharge" to vendors that use its Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA) service in the US and Canada.
The company said that it needed to add the surcharge due to "elevated costs in fulfillment and logistics" that "have increased the cost of operating across the industry."
"We have absorbed these increased costs so far," Amazon said. "However, similar to other major carriers, when costs remain elevated, we implement temporary surcharges on our fulfillment fees to recover a portion of the actual cost increases we are experiencing."
Amazon spokesperson Ashley Vanicek told CNBC that the company's surcharge will be "meaningfully lower" than rival carriers, and insisted that "we remain committed to our selling partners' success and to maintaining broad selection and low prices for customers."
Tahra Hoops, director of economic analysis at Chamber of Progress, said that Amazon's surcharge is "yet another example of more increased costs to come," as "the ongoing supply shock" caused by the Iran war "has lasted longer than expected."
Amazon isn't alone in adding surcharges due to the war's impact on fuel costs.
According to a Tuesday report in The New York Times, fresh food distributors across the US have been adding surcharges to deliveries to make up for the increased fuel costs caused by the Iran war, with the result being that "grocery stores, restaurants, hospitals, and even schools are most likely seeing costs for their food shipping climb."
John Ross, the chief executive of the Independent Grocers Alliance, told the Times that the increased shipping costs from the surge in diesel fuel costs have come at a particularly inopportune time since many Americans were already stretched thin financially before Trump attacked Iran.
"For people who spend every nickel they have on daily expenses, if grocery prices go up $5, that $5 has to come from something else," Ross said. "But it’s hard for the grocers to eat it also. For every $1 that consumers spend at the register, the grocery store is keeping about two pennies. There’s very little room there."
The price of fuel isn't the only factor seen driving food prices higher, as CNBC on Thursday reported that experts expect to see a spike in food prices later this year thanks to the Iran war's impact on fertilizer prices.
University of Minnesota economist Kjetil Storesletten told CNBC that "the price of food is going to move quite a lot" in the coming months, predicting that "all of the increased price in fertilizer is going to be passed through to food."
Storesletten said that food prices won't jump immediately, but warned that coming grocery sticker shock will grow more severe if Iran keeps its stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz for the foreseeable future.
"Imagine [the strait] remains closed until the summer," the economist said. "We will see substantial increases in food prices."