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
g7
As G7 Weighs Measures to Confront Growing Energy Crisis, Officials Urged to Tackle 'Fossil Fuel Profiteering'
“It is obscene that companies like TotalEnergies are making enormous profits from war, while ordinary people’s lives are being shattered and the world faces a spiraling economic crisis," said one campaigner.
Mar 31, 2026
As energy and finance officials from across the European Union prepared to review energy supply levels amid the US-Israeli war on Iran on Tuesday, campaigners from a leading climate action group renewed their call for officials to go further than just releasing oil reserves in order to keep costs down.
Oil giants that have benefited from the growing global energy crisis set off by the US-Israeli attacks and Iran's retaliatory closing of the Strait of Hormuz should be held to account for their "fossil fuel profiteering," said 350.org.
After a virtual meeting of energy ministers from the G7 countries on Monday, 350.org called on officials to tax the windfall profits of companies like France's TotalEnergies, which is estimated to have made $1 billion in profits in just the last month since Iran closed the strait in retaliation for the US and Israeli attacks.
Total has reportedly "monopolized" about 70 crude oil shipments from the UAE and Oman in the last month, as Murban crude prices surged from $70 to $170 per barrel.
As Common Dreams reported Monday, 350.org released an analysis showing that spiking oil and gas prices resulting from the US-Israeli war have cost consumers and businesses more than $100 billion in the past month.
“It is obscene that companies like TotalEnergies are making enormous profits from war, while ordinary people’s lives are being shattered and the world faces a spiraling economic crisis," said Fanny Petitbon, France team lead for 350.org. "At a time of such profound human suffering, no company should be allowed to exploit chaos and conflict for financial gain. The G7’s deafening silence on these windfall profits speaks volumes, signaling a failure to hold corporate greed accountable while the rest of the world pays the price.”
Revenues from taxing windfall profits could "be used to support vulnerable households, accelerate the transition to renewable energy, and fund recovery efforts in regions affected by conflict," said Petitbon.
“The principle is clear: extraordinary profits made in times of crisis should be redirected for the public good, not concentrated in the hands of a few," she said.
The ministers from the G7 countries—which include the United States, Canada, Japan, Britain, France, Germany, and Italy—met virtually to discuss how the war in Iran is affecting energy and commodity markets and inflation. They called on countries “to refrain from imposing unjustified export restrictions” on oil and gas, but did not announce any specific steps they plan to take.
"We stand ready to take all necessary measures in close coordination with our partners, including to preserve the stability and security of the energy market," the ministers said in a statement. "We recognize the importance of coordinated international action to mitigate spill overs and safeguard macroeconomic stability."
Earlier this month, the International Energy Agency coordinated the release of 400 million barrels of oil to mitigate the supply shortfall caused by the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, from which about one-fifth of the world's oil supply flows.
But gas prices across Europe have continued to rise by 70% nonetheless. In the US, the average price of gas rose to $4 per gallon on Tuesday for the first time since August 2022.
Brent crude oil, which cost about $70 per barrel before the war, has gone up to $119 per barrel, and analysts are projecting prices as high as $200 as the conflict continues.
Monday's virtual summit was held ahead of an emergency meeting of EU energy ministers, who were told by EU Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen in a letter Monday that they were "encouraged to make timely preparations in anticipation of a potentially prolonged disruption" of energy imports.
Jørgensen emphasized in a video posted on social media Monday that the growing energy crisis underscores how a transition away from oil and gas toward renewable sources is crucial for economies as well as the planet.
The crisis in the Middle East is affecting energy prices also here in Europe.
My message on what we must do to protect our citizens and businesses.
Now and in the future.
↓ pic.twitter.com/jiLmavxV8K
— Dan Jørgensen (@DanJoergensen) March 30, 2026
"We will need immediate targeted measures to combat this crisis, but all of these measures need to be in line with our long-term strategy, which is more renewables as fast as possible," said Jørgensen.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Imperative': Oxfam Pushes G7 to Use Fraction of Military Spending to Fix Hunger, Debt Crises
"Governments are finding their pockets run deep to fund war today, but when it comes to stopping starvation they are suddenly broke," an Oxfam director said.
Jun 12, 2024
Oxfam International called for Group of Seven countries to redirect a fraction of military spending toward solving world hunger and relieving poor countries' sovereign debts as leaders prepare to gather in Italy this week.
In a new analysis, the nonprofit found that just 3% of the seven countries' annual military spending—$1.2 trillion in 2023, with the U.S. alone spending $916 billion, according to SIPRI data that Oxfam used—would be enough to "help end world hunger and solve the debt crisis in the Global South," a statement said.
"Governments are finding their pockets run deep to fund war today, but when it comes to stopping starvation they are suddenly broke," Max Lawson, Oxfam International's head of inequality, said in the statement.
"We're talking about a small commitment with the potential for huge impact," he said. "Imagine a world where no one goes to bed hungry and where countries in the Global South can put money into public schools and hospitals instead of debt interest payments. The G7 not only has the means, but the moral and strategic imperative to make this happen."
Oxfam found that eradicating world hunger, both acute and chronic, would cost $31.7 billion per year—most of the proposed 3% redirection in funds. More than 281 million face severe hunger and malnutrition, Oxfam said. The nonprofit's statement cited Somalia, Guatemala, Yemen, and Kenya as places where hunger is on the rise. It also said that the G7 was complicit in the ongoing suffering and starvation in Gaza. The G7 nations are the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, and the United Kingdom.
"The G7's collective failure has basically given the Israeli military a free pass to commit terrible atrocities against Palestinian people," Lawson said. "G7 leaders must do everything in their power to make sure there is an immediate and permanent cease-fire to stop the death and destruction. They also need to ensure full and permanent access of humanitarian aid through all ground crossings, and the release of all hostages and unlawfully detained Palestinian prisoners."
"Low- and middle-income countries are now spending nearly a third of their budgets on servicing debts―as much as on public education, healthcare, and social protection combined."
Oxfam also recommended redirecting a relatively small amount of military spending toward sovereign debt relief. Currently, Global South countries collectively are asked to pay $291 million a day in total debt payments, including on interest.
"Low- and middle-income countries are now spending nearly a third of their budgets on servicing debts―as much as on public education, healthcare, and social protection combined," the Oxfam statement said.
Poor countries currently owe about $4 billion to G7 governments, Oxfam found, based on World Bank and International Monetary Fund data, but G7 countries don't pay what they owe in social and climate aid: $15 trillion, according to Oxfam. This follows on an Oxfam analysis last year that found the figure was above $13 trillion.
"It's really the G7 which owes a debt to the low- and middle-income countries. It's not the other way around," Amitabh Behar, Oxfam International's interim executive director, told Al Jazeera last year.
"We need to shift that gaze," he added.
Oxfam also called for G7 countries to follow up on a recent G20 effort to tax the super rich. In April, top G20 ministers—from Brazil, Germany, Spain, and South Africa—called for a 2% wealth tax on billionaires "to invest in public goods such as health, education, the environment, and infrastructure."
Following preliminary meetings, G7 ministers pledged to "increase our efforts aimed at progressive and fair taxation of individuals" and work with Brazil, which currently holds the G20 presidency and is led by progressive President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
Keep ReadingShow Less
On Nuclear Weapons, G7 Leaders Not Good Enough
Summit in Hiroshima fails to meaningfully contribute to nuclear disarmament.
May 23, 2023
Last summer, after it was announced that Japan would host the G7 Summit of leaders from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, and United States in Hiroshima, the nuclear disarmament movement was abuzz. The hope was that, after all these years of mostly avoiding the subject, the leaders were going to have a chance to listen to hibakusha, reflect deeply on the lessons learned from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, confront escalating dangers of nuclear war and the threat to all of humanity that this would pose, and finally make concrete commitments on nuclear disarmament.
Part of the reason for optimism, I think, was that many of those same activists had their lives changed by visits to Hiroshima. As if the whole city were a shrine to the horror, the devastation, the pain, the shame, the misery, but also the resilience and the beauty of humanity, people regularly depart Hiroshima with a changed worldview and a newfound or renewed passion for nuclear abolition. And so, the thinking went, surely the leaders would be similarly transformed and recognize that such collective civilian suffering must never happen again and that the only way to ensure that it wouldn’t is to get rid of nuclear weapons once and for all.
We were wrong.
This past weekend, the G7 leaders went to Hiroshima, laid wreaths in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park, staying there for just 30 minutes, and then published a statement that could have been produced as a result of meeting anywhere in the world. In fact, it was probably written long before they even arrived in Hiroshima. They didn’t need to go to Japan to offer empty words and zero concrete solutions or steps. According to them, a nuclear weapons-free world is just a dream, and they are determined to keep it that way.
[G7 leaders] didn’t need to go to Japan to offer empty words and zero concrete solutions or steps. According to them, a nuclear weapons-free world is just a dream, and they are determined to keep it that way.
Many people think that when it comes to nuclear weapons, those of us arguing for their abolition and elimination are trying to prevent another Hiroshima or Nagasaki from happening. And while a repeat of what took place during that tragic week in August of 1945 would be devastating, chances are that use of a nuclear weapon today would have far worse consequences. In 1945, the US used the only two weapons that were on hand, having tested the third in July in New Mexico. Today, there are nearly 13,000 nuclear warheads in the world, most of which are more powerful than the bomb used in Hiroshima on August 6. But even the use of a single, Hiroshima-sized - sometimes referred to as tactical nuclear weapon - is expected to lead to full-out nuclear war, according to simulations from Princeton’s Program on Science and Global Security. And nuclear war would in turn cause nuclear winter - due to soot in the atmosphere as a result of widespread fires - a state of prolonged climate cooling that would result in drastic reductions in agricultural output and starvation around the world. The stakes simply couldn’t be higher.
How has the G7 statement on nuclear disarmament failed? The answer is pretty much across the board. There are no concrete steps outlined for disarmament, no commitments to stop modernizing or to reduce stockpiles, and not even a mention of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), the one internationally binding instrument that actually provides a framework for getting to nuclear zero, while also acknowledging the tremendous humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons use and testing.
The G7 leaders refused to understand that bringing about the end of the world as we know it is not why we elected them.
In fact, the G7 statement reaffirms the importance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which a science and policy expert recently referred to as “being in a coma.” The NPT, having been in force for over 52 years, has failed miserably in its obligations to deliver nuclear and total and complete disarmament. The TPNW, rather than competing with the NPT, could help the NPT achieve their common objective.
Were we not loud enough? Not clear enough? Or do they just not want to hear what we have to say? In my own letters to each of the leaders, I wrote, “If there is a nuclear war and hundreds of millions of people die in the explosions and from ensuing radiation and billions die from starvation due to the onset of nuclear winter, there will be no history books to judge you. Human civilization, which we have patiently built for thousands of years, will have met its end. If you survive the initial stage, you will regret that you didn’t do more when you could. Don’t let that happen. You have the power to change the status quo.” This is about as clear as I could be.
At this summit, the G7 leaders refused to understand that bringing about the end of the world as we know it is not why we elected them. No national or alliance goals could possibly justify the risk to all of humanity. It’s time for regular people from all walks of life and a wide range of political opinions to demand real action on nuclear disarmament. The G7 leaders must sign the TPNW. There is a world to save.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular