Five Rich Nations Jeopardizing Future With Plans for Fossil Fuel Expansion: Report

The United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and Norway "are condemning communities in the Global South to a state of perpetual crisis which they did nothing to create."


Ocean Rebellion staged a theatrical action with a Boris Johnson head and an "Oil head" burning a boat on Marazion beach on June 5, 2021 in Cornwall, United Kingdom.

 (Photo: Gav Goulder/In Pictures via Getty Images)


KENNY STANCIL

COMMONDREAMS.ORG

November 12, 2021


As the COP26 climate summit draws to a close following two weeks of talks and pledges in Glasgow, a new report out Friday details five wealthy nations' life-threatening plans to expand fossil fuel production, exposing the utter emptiness of their professed commitments to decarbonization.

"Coal, oil, and gas production must fall globally by 69%, 31%, and 28% respectively between now and 2030... Projections suggest that the Fossil Fuelled 5 will... actually increase oil and gas production by 33% and 27%."

Shedding further light on the enormous gap between rhetoric and reality, the report, titled The Fossil Fuelled 5, compares governments' most recent emission reduction targets with their future energy plans and finds that even as they refer to themselves as climate leaders, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and Norway intend to approve and subsidize new fossil fuel projects that "will be in operation for decades to come."

Despite climate scientists' repeated warnings about the need to keep coal, oil, and gas underground to have a fighting chance of limiting global warming to 1.5ºC above preindustrial levels by the end of the century, several of the world's wealthiest nations "are doubling down on fossil fuel production," says the report, which was assembled by Freddie Daley, a research associate at the University of Sussex, in collaboration with the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, as well as key partners in each of the five countries analyzed—Oil Change International, Uplift U.K., The Australia Institute, Stand.earth, and Greenpeace Norway.

The world is currently on pace for catastrophic levels of heating, and further increasing the extraction and burning of fossil fuels—the main driver of the climate emergency—will "have disastrous impacts for all life on our planet," the report notes, "but especially those communities in the Global South who have done the least to create this crisis and have the fewest resources to adapt to its impacts."

According to the report, "Coal, oil, and gas production must fall globally by 69%, 31%, and 28% respectively between now and 2030 to keep the 1.5ºC target alive." Exemplifying how "net-zero" by mid-century promises "do not focus on the urgent need to stop production and consumption of fossil fuels in the immediate term," the report adds that over the course of this decade, "projections suggest that the Fossil Fuelled 5 will reduce coal production by only 30%, and actually increase oil and gas production by 33% and 27%, respectively."

Related Content

'Dangerous Trajectory': Report Details a World Set to Consume Fossil Fuels at Full Speed
Julia Conley

Many had hoped that countries would respond to the coronavirus crisis by jumpstarting the renewable energy transition. Although they vowed to "build back better," the U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada, and Norway have provided "more than $150 billion USD to support the production and consumption of fossil fuels since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic," states the report. "This level of support from the Fossil Fuelled 5 is more than the entire G7 put towards clean energy as part of the pandemic recovery effort ($147 billion)."

"There's an alarming gap between what wealthy nations are saying and what they are doing," Daley said in a statement. "They seem to be quite content to make pledges and promises with one hand, while expanding and subsidizing fossil fuel production to the tune of billions on the other."

"Not only are these wealthy nations jeopardizing their own futures and the futures of their citizens through this continued expansion," he added, "but they are condemning communities in the Global South to a state of perpetual crisis which they did nothing to create."

Country-specific findings from the report include:

The United States has pledged to halve emissions by 2030 yet has simultaneously provided $20 billion in annual support to the fossil fuel industry;

Despite hosting COP26, the United Kingdom is expected to greenlight the Cambo oil field, which contains approximately 255 million barrels of oil;

Despite its recent commitment to net-zero by 2050, Australia has over 100 fossil fuel projects currently in the approval pipeline;

Canada is looking to increase their price on carbon but also provided approximately $17 billion in public finance to three fossil fuel pipelines between 2018 and 2020; and
Norway has raised its ambition to decrease emissions but has already granted 60+ new licenses for fossil fuel production and access to 84 new exploration zones in 2021 alone.

Progressive advocates from all five countries denounced their respective governments for subsidizing planet-wrecking fossil fuels when the world is demanding a rapid and just transition to clean energy.

The United States—which has planned to expand oil and gas production more than any other country between 2019 and 2030—was described by Collin Rees, U.S. program manager at Oil Change International, as "the poster child for climate hypocrisy."

"If we are to prevent the worst impacts of the climate crisis from becoming a reality, we must address the root of our collective problem: fossil fuels."

"The world's largest historical emitter [is] claiming the mantle of climate leadership while pouring fuel on the fire of the climate crisis," Rees continued. "[President] Joe Biden's words will ring hollow until he cancels deadly fossil fuel expansion projects like the Dakota Access Pipeline or the dozens of proposed oil and gas export terminals awaiting approval from his administration."

He added that "the U.S. remains a massive driver of oil and gas expansion, and that won't change until our leaders commit to a managed phase-out of fossil fuel extraction that truly protects communities, workers, and the climate."

The U.S., U.K., Austalia, Canada, and Norway "have the responsibility and capacity to transition rapidly away from fossil fuels with limited impact to their own economies, and to support developing countries around the world to move away from fossil fuels, under timeframes and conditions that are fair, reasonable, and just," says the report. "Instead, they are downplaying their historical responsibility for the climate crisis and effectively appropriating the limited remaining fossil fuels that can be produced before humanity breaches 1.5ºC."

One reason why wealthy signatories to the Paris agreement have been able to avoid scrutiny for "expanding fossil fuel production in the face of overwhelming evidence that they need to do the opposite" is because exported fossil fuels are not reflected in the producer country's domestic emissions, which is why the report calls them "the elephant in the room" that must be addressed.

While the countries that import fossil fuels are held responsible for those emissions on paper, the reality is that major coal, oil, and gas exporters are still exacerbating global greenhouse gas pollution and therefore undermining efforts to curb rising temperatures, "impacting the lives of billions alive today and those yet to be born," the report notes.

"Together, the Fossil Fuelled 5 account for 25% of global fossil fuel exports," says the report. "Nations such as Australia, Norway, and the United States continue to export huge amounts of coal, oil, and/or gas, essentially exporting their greenhouse gas emissions and contributing to the continued fossil fuel dependence of many countries worldwide."

The report emphasizes that "the principles of fairness and equity are vital for collective international action on climate," adding:

Wealthy countries failing to phase down fossil fuel production leaves little incentive for developing nations, who are typically more dependent on the revenues and employment opportunities derived from fossil fuel production, to do the same.

Wealthy nations expanding fossil fuel production has a symbolic effect. Continuing to extract and burn fossil fuels, as well as supporting the fossil fuel industry through subsidies, implies that large-scale fossil fuel production is compatible with steep declines in emissions and essential to future prosperity, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

To "end the era of fossil fuels," the report urges the U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada, and Norway to:

Halt the licensing for further exploration and extraction of fossil fuels;

Commit to a timeline for domestic phase-out of fossil fuels in line with 1.5ºC, noting that wealthy countries can and should move first and should therefore exceed the average rates identified in the Production Gap Report of phasing out coal, oil and gas on average by 11%, 4% and 3% respectively each year;

End the support for fossil fuel production through subsidies, tax relief and other mechanisms of government support;

Join the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA) to work with other ambitious governments to end fossil fuel production and fund a just transition for workers;

Act as first movers as part of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty; and
Redirect the vast financial support currently provided to fossil fuel industries towards helping developing countries shift away from a reliance on fossil fuel production and consumption.

"If we are to prevent the worst impacts of the climate crisis from becoming a reality," the report concludes, "we must address the root of our collective problem: fossil fuels."

Bank CEOs Rake In Big Profits as Wall Street Ramps Up Fossil Fuel Financing

The 65 biggest banks committed $869 billion to firms expanding the fossil fuel industry last year, a new report says.

By Derek Seidman ,

Truthout

August 25, 2025

Climate activists rally outside Bank of America Tower in Midtown Manhattan as part of the March to End Fossil Fuels on September 19, 2023.

Erik McGregor / LightRocket via Getty Images

Big banks across the world are substantially increasing their financing of the fossil fuel industry, including for the industry’s expansion during a time of intensifying climate crisis, all while pulling back from previously stated climate commitments.

These are among the key highlights of the most recent Banking on Climate Chaos report, which found that the 65 biggest banks globally committed a whopping $869 billion to companies conducting business in fossil fuels in 2024, representing a huge $162 billion increase from 2023.

“These financial flows reflect the policy retreat of banks abandoning climate goals for short-term profits,” Campaign Director for the Climate and Energy Program at Rainforest Action Network Dianne Enriquez told Truthout.

Banking on Climate Chaos, co-authored by several organizations including Rainforest Action Network, Oil Change International, Indigenous Environmental Network, and Sierra Club, is an authoritative annual study — endorsed by hundreds of organizations across the world — of how banks finance the fossil fuel industry.

The report also shows that U.S. banks like JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo dominated the heights of fossil fuel financing. A Truthout analysis reveals that the CEOs of the top six U.S. banks that are financing fossil fuels together made over a half-billion dollars from 2022 to 2024. CEO pay is astronomically larger than the average incomes of communities most impacted by their fossil fuel financing.

Gulf Coast Communities Take on Insurers Backing Trump-Approved Fossil Fuels

Organizers in Louisiana are fighting the Trump administration’s efforts to expand methane export infrastructure. By Derek Seidman , Truthout June 6, 2025

“These billion-dollar industries are making money off of our backs while killing us,” Roishetta Ozane, founder of the Vessel Project in Lake Charles, Louisiana, which endorsed the report, told Truthout.

Ramping Up Fossil Fuel Financing

The most notable finding in the new report is that, during 2024, global banks “significantly increased their fossil fuel financing, including ramping up finance for fossil fuel expansion,” with the 65 biggest banks globally committing $429 billion to companies expanding fossil fuel production and infrastructure in 2024.

As the report notes, the “growth in fossil fuel finance is troubling because new fossil fuel infrastructure locks in more decades of fossil fuel dependence.”

“Global banks continue to fuel the climate crisis at an alarming scale,” Jessye Waxman, Sustainable Finance Campaign Advisor for the Sierra Club, told Truthout.

This comes amid intensifying climate chaos and the desperate need to vastly ramp down fossil fuel production, according to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has called for “a substantial reduction in fossil fuel use” without delay.

U.S. banks dominated the list of banks increasing their fossil fuel financing, with JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, and Morgan Stanley holding six of the top eight spots. These banks all increased their fossil fuel financing from 2023 to 2024 by a range of 30 percent to 50 percent, amounting to nearly $70 billion more fossil fuel funding between them.

“U.S. banks are leading this surge,” said Waxman, who noted that JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo alone “collectively represent over 21 percent of the total global fossil fuel financing covered in the report.”

The report shows that banks based in the U.S., Canada, Europe, and Japan account for around 83 percent of fossil fuel financing globally, highlighting the massive imbalance of fossil financing profiteering that comes from the Global North while disproportionately impacting the Global South. The report includes case studies on the banking behind contested companies and projects worldwide, such as Mozambique LNG and JSW Steel in India.

“Globally, people are paying dearly,” said RAN’s Enriquez.

All told, the 65 biggest banks in the report have committed a staggering $7.9 trillion in fossil fuel financing since 2016, the year the Paris Agreement, an international treaty to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, went into effect, the report notes.

Loopholes and Greenwashing

Banking on Climate Chaos also contains findings on howbanks finance fossil fuel corporations — findings that support the claim that banks have been “greenwashing” themselves by giving lip service to climate concerns even as they continue to bankroll climate catastrophe.

Notably, the report found that only 5.3 percent of financing to fossil fuel companies came at the project level, whereas 94.7 percent of it came at the corporate level. This corporate-level financing increased by nearly $117 billion from 2023 to 2024.

In other words, while banks have restricted direct financing of dirty fossil fuel projects that could garner bad publicity, they’ve simultaneously increased direct, unhindered financing to the corporationsdoing business in fossil fuels.

“Banks’ corporate financing loophole is a textbook case of greenwashing,” said Sierra Club’s Waxman, noting that the loophole “gives fossil fuel companies unrestricted capital to pursue harmful expansion.”

“It renders banks’ climate policies toothless by allowing them to maintain the illusion of responsibility, while behind the scenes, they continue to bankroll the fossil fuel industry,” said Waxman.

All this adds weight to accusations of greenwashing: Banks are making face-saving gestures even as they continue to bolster the corporate coffers of the fossil fuel industry.

Meanwhile, the report also highlights many banks’ rapid flight from the net-zero “commitments” that they so adamantly committed themselves to just a few years ago.

The prime evidence of this is the near-total collapse of the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), a United Nations-supported initiative to align global banks’ lending and underwriting practices with the goal of reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Leading fossil fuel financiers like JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo had previously celebrated their self-proclaimed climate concerns by joining the NZBA. But in the face of rising opportunities to capitalize on fossil fuel expansion — from corporate mergers and expanded drilling practices to a new oil-friendly Trump administration — these banks and many more have quit the NZBA entirely. U.S. lawmakers have suggested that banks like JPMorgan Chase have misled the public and investors as it backed away from its purported climate commitments.

All told, the report’s data and analysis support the notion that banks are not passive actors when it comes to the global climate crisis. Rather, banks are active agents maneuvering to keep bankrolling fossil fuels corporations, and they have revealed their climate commitments to be exceedingly thin.

CEOs Profit Big

The report starkly illustrates how U.S. banks dominated global fossil fuel financing in 2024, occupying half of the top dozen slots. JPMorgan Chase was the top bank financing fossil fuels ($53.5 billion), with Bank of America second ($46 billion), Citigroup third ($44.7 billion), Wells Fargo fifth ($39.3 billion), Goldman Sachs tenth ($28.5 billion), and Morgan Stanley twelfth ($27 billion).

Top executives at these banks have also personally profited enormously as they’ve overseen an expansion in fossil fuel financing in recent years. A Truthout analysis shows that, according to their banks’ most recent proxy statements, from 2022 and 2024, the CEOs of these banks together raked in well over a half-billion dollars — $543.75 million in total — in their total compensation.

CEO Compensation of Top Six U.S. Fossil Financing Banks, 2022-2024, based on 2025 Proxy Fillings.  Derek Seidman

In 2024, these six banks’ CEOs took in a total of $185,350,903 million, or an average of nearly $31 million.

Notably, this CEO compensation is astronomically higher than the per capita incomes of communities most impacted by the fossil fuel projects overseen by companies that their banks are financing.

One of those communities is Lake Charles, Louisiana, which is surrounded by fossil fuel and petrochemical facilities. As Truthout previously reported, local organizers like the Vessel Project’s Ozane are resisting the construction of facilities like Venture Global’s huge new LNG export terminal, Calcasieu Pass 2.

Banking on Climate Chaos notes that Venture Global LNG’s top two bankers in 2024 were Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase.

In 2024, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, was the top earner in 2024 with $39 million. (As of April 2025, Dimon also owned 7,186,564 units of JPMorgan stock, worth today around over $2 billion.) By contrast, the per capita income in Lake Charles, Louisiana, is $35,847. This means Dimon took in 1,087 times the per capita income of a Lake Charles resident last year. Ted Pick, CEO of Morgan Stanley, took in $24,881,032 in 2024, or 694 times the income of an average Lake Charles resident. (It’s worth noting that while Morgan Stanley’s April 2025 proxy statement reported Pick’s 2024 compensation at $24,881,032, an earlier February 2025 filing said his 2024 compensation was set as $34 million, which would be 948 times the income of an average Lake Charles resident).

The injustice of these stark disparities resonates with Ozane, who told Truthout she founded the Vessel Project amid the destruction caused by climate-induced disasters that included Hurricanes Laura and Delta. “I started connecting the dots and really looking at the intersection between these low-income neighborhoods facing these crises versus the polluters who are causing these climate-induced disasters,” Ozane said.

Ozane called Jamie Dimon’s 2024 compensation of $39 million “staggering,” especially given that it was “based off investments in fossil fuel projects that are not only killing the people in my community, but harming this entire world.”

“It highlights the troubling disconnect between the financial elite like Jamie Dimon and everyday people like myself and my community members,” she said. “It’s especially troubling when his bank finances a project like Venture Global, which is the largest polluter when it comes to methane gas, and it’s right there in my community, a community that is struggling.”

People Over Profit

Banking on Climate Chaos ends with robust demands aimed at curbing bank financing of fossil fuel expansion, instituting policies to advance the transition from fossil fuels and securing climate, protecting human and Indigenous rights, and securing a just and fair energy transition.

“Ultimately, we’d like for banks to immediately halt financing fossil fuel companies that are doing fossil fuel expansion,” Enriquez said.

Waxman also pointed out the need for regulators to “set strong, binding policies — at all levels from regional to state to national — that incentivize banks to clean up their act or face significant penalties.”

Ozane wants to see financial institutions from Citi and JPMorgan in the U.S. to Mizuho and MUFG in Japan take a more responsible approach to their investments and prioritize funding for renewable energy.

“It’s time for these institutions to align their practices with the urgent need for climate action and the urgent need to put people before profit,” she said.


This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.

Derek Seidman is a writer, researcher and historian living in Buffalo, New York. He is a regular contributor for Truthout and a contributing writer for LittleSis.

 

Research: Top scientists issue urgent warning on fossil fuels

Fossil fuels drive interlinked crises that harm health, wildlife, planet

Center for Biological Diversity

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

WASHINGTON— In a review published today in the peer-reviewed journal Oxford Open Climate Change, top scientists issued an urgent warning that fossil fuels and the fossil fuel industry are driving interlinked crises that threaten people, wildlife, and a livable future. 

Today’s review synthesizes the extensive scientific evidence showing that fossil fuels and the fossil fuel industry are fueling not only the climate crisis but also public health harms, environmental injustice, biodiversity loss, and the plastics and agrochemical pollution crises.

The review focuses on the United States as the world’s largest oil and gas producer and dominant contributor to these fossil fuel crises. It presents the solutions already available to phase out fossil fuel extraction and use and transition rapidly and fairly to affordable clean, renewable energy and materials across the economy. 

“The science can’t be any clearer that fossil fuels are killing us,” said Shaye Wolf, Ph.D., climate science director at the Center for Biological Diversity and lead author of the report. “Oil, gas and coal will continue to condemn us to more deaths, wildlife extinctions and extreme weather disasters unless we make dirty fossil fuels a thing of the past. Clean, renewable energy is here, it’s affordable, and it will save millions of lives and trillions of dollars once we make it the centerpiece of our economy.”    

The review highlights that fossil fuels account for about 90% of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions, heating the climate, acidifying oceans, and fueling unprecedented climate disasters. Air pollution from fossil fuel combustion is responsible for millions of premature deaths worldwide and hundreds of thousands of premature deaths in the United States every year. The climate crisis causes additional deaths and physical and mental health harms from escalating climate disasters, disease transmission, food insecurity, and displacement of people. 

Based on their findings and decades of research, the authors urge governments to immediately stop fossil fuel expansion and phase out existing fossil fuel development to limit the damages from the climate crisis. 

“Fossil fuel pollution impacts health at every stage of life, with elevated risks for conditions ranging from premature births to childhood leukemia and severe depression,” said co-author David J.X. González, Ph.D., an assistant professor of environmental health sciences at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health. “We’ve got to work fast to end fossil fuel operations near our homes, schools and hospitals and trade fossil fuel infrastructure for healthy, clean energy.” 

While fossil fuels harm everyone, the review details disproportionate harms of fossil fuel extraction, processing and use on communities of color and low-income communities. 

“Decades of discriminatory policies, such as redlining, have concentrated fossil fuel development in Black, Brown, Indigenous and poor white communities, resulting in devastating consequences,” said Robin Saha, Ph.D., an associate professor at the University of Montana. “For far too long, these fenceline communities have been treated as sacrifice zones by greedy, callous industries. The most polluted communities should be prioritized for clean energy investments and removal and cleanup of dirty fossil fuel infrastructure.”   

Fossil-fuel-induced climate change and pollution are also accelerating extinction risk. Up to one-third of animals and plants could be lost forever in the next 50 years if fossil fuels go unchecked. To protect biodiversity, the review highlights the importance of siting renewable energy infrastructure in the built environment and increasing protections for ecosystems that provide vital carbon storage, among numerous other benefits. 

The review further shows that the fossil fuel industry is increasing the production of plastics, creating pervasive pollution that contaminates the air, water, soil, food systems, wildlife and human bodies.  

The review recommends ambitious targets to reduce primary plastics production and plastic chemicals of concern while incentivizing safe and sustainable plastics alternatives and nonplastic substitutes, as well as sustainable agricultural practices to limit fossil-fueled petrochemical pollution from pesticides and fertilizers.  

The review also discusses a key barrier to transitioning from fossil fuels to clean energy: The fossil fuel industry’s decades-long, multibillion-dollar disinformation campaign to conceal the dangers of its products and block policies to phase out fossil fuels.   

“The fossil fuel industry has spent decades misleading us about the harms of their products and working to prevent meaningful climate action,” said Naomi Oreskes, professor of the history of science at Harvard University. “Perversely, our governments continue to give out hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to this damaging industry. It is past time that stops.”

The 11 coauthors are Shaye Wolf, Ph.D. (Center for Biological Diversity), Robert Bullard, Ph.D. (Texas Southern University), Jonathan J. Buonocore, Ph.D. (Boston University), Nathan Donley, Ph.D. (Center for Biological Diversity),Trisia Farrelly, Ph.D. (Cawthron Institute), John Fleming, Ph.D. (Center for Biological Diversity), David J.X. González, Ph.D. (University of California Berkeley), Naomi Oreskes, Ph.D. (Harvard University), William Ripple, Ph.D. (Oregon State University), Robin Saha, Ph.D. (University of Montana, Missoula), and Mary D. Willis, Ph.D. (Boston University). 

 

---

Journal

Oxford Open Climate Change

DOI

10.1093/oxfclm/kgaf011 

Method of Research

Commentary/editorial

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Scientists’ Warning on Fossil Fuels

Article Publication Date

31-Mar-2025

Latest COP28 draft text sets new options on fossil fuel phase out

William James and Elizabeth Piper
Fri, December 8, 2023 

Climate activists protest against fossil fuels at Dubai's Expo City during the United Nations Climate Change Conference COP28 in Dubai


By William James and Elizabeth Piper

DUBAI (Reuters) - The U.N. climate agency published a new draft of its COP28 agreement on Friday which included a range of options for the future of fossil fuel use, the most contentious issue at the summit.

Over the next few days countries are expected to focus on the issue in hopes of reaching a consensus before the summit's scheduled end on Dec. 12.

The options included in the text, which is still under negotiation, were for the final deal to call upon countries to "take further action in this critical decade towards":

- "A phase out of fossil fuels in line with best available science"

- "Phasing out of fossil fuels in line with best available science, the IPCC's 1.5 pathways and the principles and provisions of the Paris Agreement"

- "A phase-out of unabated fossil fuels recognizing the need for a peak in their consumption in this decade and underlining the importance for the energy sector to be predominantly free of fossil fuels well ahead of 2050"

- "Phasing out unabated fossil fuels and to rapidly reducing their use so as to achieve net-zero CO2 in energy systems by or around mid-century"

- No language on the future use of fossil fuels.

The document also set out an option for a "rapid phase out of unabated coal power this decade and an immediate cessation of the permitting of new unabated coal power generation". The other option for this paragraph was to include no text on the issue.

Elsewhere the draft offers an option to call either for "the phase out of fossil fuel subsidies that do not address energy poverty or just transition", or to include no text on the issue.

(Reporting by William James and Elizabeth Piper; Editing by Katy Daigle)
View comments (8)

At COP28, pageantry is over and negotiations get intense; 'It's go time' to save planet in peril

SETH BORENSTEIN, DAVID KEYTON and JON GAMBRELL
Updated Fri, December 8, 2023 















DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Teams of veteran negotiators fanned out Friday at the United Nations climate conference with orders to get the strongest, most ambitious agreements possible, especially on the central issue of the fading future of fossil fuels for a dangerously warming planet.

The leadership of climate talks, called COP28, sent out four pairs of veteran and high-level ministers to push countries together on four key but stubborn issues as the summit went into its second week after a day of rest Thursday.

New proposed language on how to curb warming released Friday afternoon strengthened the options for a phase-out of fossil fuels that negotiators could choose from. Four of the five options call for some version of a rapid phase-out.

Major oil-producing nations were always seen as likely to resist that, and late Friday, multiple news organizations reported that OPEC's top official, Secretary-General Haitham Al Ghais, had written to member countries urging them to reject any text that targets fossil fuels rather than emissions. OPEC didn't immediately respond to an email from The Associated Press seeking comment.

Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa, called the letter “shameful.”

“These letters show that fossil fuel interests are starting to realize that the writing is on the wall for dirty energy," Sadow said in a statement. “Their fossil fuels have imperiled the planet, pushed millions of people to the brink of survival and sadly, too many over that line. Climate change is killing poor people around the globe and these petrostates don’t want COP28 to phase out fossil fuels because it will hurt their short-term profits.”

Earlier, Adow had been among environmental advocates who had some qualified optimism about the expanded 27-page draft language.

“The bare bones of a historic agreement is there,” Adow said. "What we now need is for countries to rally behind the stronger of the options and strengthen them further.”

Making a possible final document stronger was also a priority for top United Nations officials.

“It’s go time for governments at COP28 this week,” U.N. Climate Chief Simon Stiell said at a press event. “If we want to save lives now and keep (the international goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius, 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, of warming since pre-industrial times) within reach, the highest ambition COP outcomes must stay front and center in these negotiations.”

Stiell underlined the challenge ahead if the world doesn’t limit emissions, describing ice shelves melting to cause catastrophic flooding in coastal cities around the globe.

“If we pass these key thresholds, we can never go back from the planet’s perspective,” he said. A report released Wednesday on the sidelines of the summit warned that melting of ice sheets could reach the point of no return with more warming.

COP28 President Sultan al-Jaber said he was “quite positive, hopeful and optimistic” that the summit could bring a “paradigm shift centered around and based on the science.”

Members of the four pairs of high level special teams — who will work with negotiators from nearly 200 countries — said they too thought they'd be able to get the job done.

“I think there is some momentum. Having spoken to all parties' groups of countries for months now there really is this sense of urgency,” Denmark's Environment Minister Dan Jorgensen, told The Associated Press. “We need an agreement, so I am optimistic.”

EU countries, some Latin American countries and the small island countries often victimized by climate change are aligned on calling for a phase-out of fossil fuels, negotiators said.

Two groups of countries are likely to oppose, in some manner, a full and quick phase out of fossil fuels, said World Resources Institute CEO Ani Dasgupta. One is developing nations, like India and Indonesia, that think they need fossil fuels to power up their economies, but with financial and other aid, they can be pulled out of that position, he said.

The other group are fossil fuel producers. The United States is the biggest oil producer in the world and Special Envoy John Kerry earlier this week said the U.S. is committed to supporting strong phase-out language. But a big country looming against it is Saudi Arabia and they are close partners with the United Arab Emirates, the country hosting and running the conference, Dasgupta said.

The UAE has a lot to gain from a successful climate conference and “I think they will bring Saudi Arabia as close as possible,” Dasgupta said. When asked at a press conference about working with Saudi Arabia, al-Jaber, who also leads his country's national oil company, avoided answering that part of the question.

The Arab group is a major blocker so far, a negotiator said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid affecting negotiations.

“I felt from the consultations that very many parties understand that we have to have a real progress on mitigation,” climate talk for emissions cuts, said Norway Foreign Minister Espen Barth-Eide. “That was not as true in Sharm el-Sheikh” in 2022 climate talks.

Annalena Baerbock, Germany’s foreign minister, said: “What we need to be successful here is to achieve the goal of phasing out fossil fuels ... not emissions. It does make quite a substantial difference.”

European negotiators provided some extra hope. The EU goal is to cut emissions by 55% by 2030, but European Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra said Friday that the European parliament hopes to do better than than and instead slice 57%.

Negotiators said there is a sense of urgency because of floods, droughts, storms and heat waves in a world that keeps setting heat records.

"We cannot negotiate with nature,” Jorgensen said. “The climate cannot compromise.”

As analysts and activists examined the new text they kept looking for more clarity, especially when it comes to fossil fuels and adaptation plans.

The frequent use of phase-out in the draft is good, "but it also has terms that would leave parties in an ambiguous position," said Jamal Srouji of World Resources Institute. He worried that it would not tell people clearly “who needs to do what when."

“We have never been closer to an agreement on a fossil fuel phase-out,” said Oil Change International's Romain Ioualalen.

Asked when talks would start to go around the clock, Danish negotiator Jorgensen looked at his watch and said, “Now.”

___

Associated Press journalist Sibi Arasu and Gaurav Saini from The Press Trust of India contributed to this report.

___

Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations. See more about AP’s climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

UN talks look for deal on winding down fossil fuels

Shaun Tandon and Laurent Thomet
Fri, December 8, 2023 

Negotiations over phasing out fossil fuels are at the heart of the UN climate conference in Dubai (Giuseppe CACACE)


Negotiators strived for a compromise on phasing out fossil fuels at UN climate talks Friday as momentum gathered to strike a historic deal in Dubai.

After the arrival of ministers for the summit's final stretch, a new draft was released with more options on the most difficult part of an emerging deal -- cutting fossil fuels to tame the planet's soaring temperatures.

The third version of the draft, which represents views of various countries, offers five options. One that remains from previous versions calls for not mentioning fossil fuels at all.

Other options include phasing out "unabated" fossil fuels -- those whose emissions cannot be captured -- with a goal of peaking consumption this decade and aiming for the world's energy sector to be "predominantly free of fossil fuels well ahead of 2050".

A new line calls for ramping up renewable energy to displace fossil fuels -- oil, gas and coal -- with a goal of "significantly reducing global reliance on non-renewable and high-emission energy sources".

That language is in line with an agreement between the United States and China, the world's top emitters of greenhouse gases, at talks in California last month.

COP28 president Sultan Al Jaber wants to wrap up the talks on schedule at 11 am (0700 GMT) on Tuesday, which means that all the nearly 200 nations will have to come to a consensus.

"Let us please get this job done," he said.

- 'Never closer' -

Romain Ioualalen, global policy manager of the advocacy group Oil Change International, said that the latest text "shows we have never been closer to an agreement on a fossil fuel phaseout."

But he voiced alarm over "large loopholes" under consideration for the fossil fuel industry.

The most vocal holdout to calls to end fossil fuels is Saudi Arabia, which like summit host United Arab Emirates has grown wealthy on oil.

While China has sided with the camp opposed to a phase-out so far, the country is seen as a constructive partner in the talks, negotiators said.

"We won't reach a deal without China," said a French delegation official.

In a sign that oil-rich countries are growing worried, OPEC chief Haitham Al Ghais sent a letter to members of the cartel and their allies on Wednesday, urging them to "proactively reject" any COP28 deal that "targets" fossil fuels instead of emissions.

"It seems that the undue and disproportionate pressure against fossil fuels may reach a tipping point with irreversible consequences," Ghais wrote in the letter seen by AFP.

Climate campaigners have viewed Jaber with deep suspicion as he is head of the UAE national oil firm ADNOC.

But he has sought to reassure doubters by stating that a phase-down of fossil fuels is "inevitable".

Wopke Hoekstra, the European Union's climate commissioner, acknowledged that the fossil fuel question was the most difficult at COP28.

He voiced doubt about technologies promoted by energy producers -- including the US -- to rely on new technologies when extracting fossil fuels, so-called carbon capture and storage or CCS.

It is "crystal clear that CCS is part of the solution. But make no mistake -- we cannot CCS ourselves out of this problem," Hoekstra said.

The level of technology "simply doesn't exist. We need to drive down emissions."

- 'Credibility' on line -

Scientists warn that greenhouse gas emissions -- the bulk of which come from burning fossil fuels -- must fall by 43 percent by 2030 for the world to reach the goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

"I think many countries at the end might be able to agree to phase-out if the word unabated is included because unabated will weaken the phase-out and make it more of a phase-down," John Verdieck, director of international climate policy at The Nature Conservancy, told AFP.

This would still "create a good signal because the word phase-out could be in there", said Verdieck, a former climate negotiator at the US State Department.

Ugandan climate justice activist and UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador Vanessa Nakate said there were a record 2,400 fossil fuel lobbyists at the talks and the whole process was at stake.

"If after all of this, leaders still don't have the courage to agree upon a fossil fuel phase out, then it will put in question the credibility not only of COP28 but of the entire COP process," she said.

lth-sct/pvh

OPEC Oil Cartel Tells Members to Reject Efforts to Phase Out Fossil Fuels

Charisma Madarang

ROLLING STONE
Fri, December 8, 2023 


As delegates at the 2023 COP28 UN climate change summit work to identify global climate actions by the Dec. 12 deadline, the head of the OPEC oil cartel urged the group’s members to block any deal aimed at phasing out fossil fuels.

In a letter dated Dec. 6, first reported by Reuters, Haitham Al-Ghais, secretary general of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, insisted producers “proactively reject any text or formula that targets energy i.e. fossil fuels rather than emissions.”

“It seems that the undue and disproportionate pressure against fossil fuels may reach a tipping point with irreversible consequences, as the draft decision still contains options on fossil fuels phase out,” Al-Ghais wrote. “It would be unacceptable that politically motivated campaigns put our people’s prosperity and future at risk,” he added. According to the New York Times, the letter was sent to top ministers in all 13 OPEC countries, and 10 nations in an expanded organization known as OPEC Plus, which includes Russia.

In a statement to Bloomberg, Al-Ghais said that OPEC “will continue to advocate for is reducing emissions, not choosing energy sources,” adding, “The world requires major investments in all energies, including hydrocarbons, all technologies, and an understanding of the energy needs of all peoples. Energy transitions must be just, fair and inclusive.”

Earlier this week, The Guardian reported that the host of COP28 had cast doubt on whether eliminating fossil fuels would help limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, saying there is “no science” behind it.

“There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C,” Sultan Al-Jaber, CEO of United Arab Emirates state oil company ADNOC, said in November during an online SHE Changes Climate event.

Environmental activists expressed concern in January when Al-Jaber was announced to lead the 2023 COP, noting that his position as an oil executive constitutes a conflict of interest. “Like last year’s summit, we’re increasingly seeing fossil fuel interests taking control of the process and shaping it to meet their own needs,” Teresa Anderson, global lead of climate justice at ActionAid, said in a statement at the time.

Scientists at the summit released a new report warning that without “a rapid and managed fossil fuel phase-out,” the 1.5C threshold is unobtainable, and surpassing it is almost inevitable.

Despite the mounting calls for countries to come together to mitigate Earth’s climate crisis, the oil-rich kingdom of Saudi Arabia recently attempted to claim clean energy is bad for the environment, and called for nations to take action against wind and solar power.

More from Rolling Stone

Oil-Rich Saudi Arabia Tries to Claim Clean Energy Is Bad for the Environment


COP28 Climate Host: There's 'No Science' Behind Calls to Eliminate Fossil Fuels

OPEC push on fossil fuels draws ire at climate talks
Laurent THOMET
Sat, December 9, 2023 

Climate negotiators are scrambling to reach a compromise over the future of fossil fuels (Giuseppe CACACE)

Negotiations over the future of fossil fuels heated up at UN climate talks on Saturday, with OPEC catching flak over the oil cartel's push to block any phase-out in the final deal.

The tone has veered between optimism and concern about the pace of talks as negotiators have held marathon sessions aimed at finding a compromise on the fate of oil, gas and coal.

OPEC added fuel to the fire after it emerged that its Kuwaiti secretary general, Haitham Al Ghais, sent a letter to the group's 13 members and 10 allies this week urging them to "proactively reject" any language that "targets" fossil fuels instead of emissions.


"I think that it is quite, quite a disgusting thing that OPEC countries are pushing against getting the bar where it has to be," Spanish ecology transition minister Teresa Ribera, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency, told reporters.

Dramatically scaling up the deployment of renewable energy while winding down the production and consumption of fossil fuels is crucial to achieve the global goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The High Ambition Coalition, a broad group of nations ranging from Barbados to France, Kenya and Pacific island states, also criticised the OPEC move.

"Nothing puts the prosperity and future of all people on Earth, including all of the citizens of OPEC countries, at greater risk than fossil fuels," said Tina Stege, climate envoy for the Marshall Islands, which chairs the coalition.

"1.5 is not negotiable, and that means an end to fossil fuels," Stege added.

- Iraq supports OPEC -

A third draft deal released Friday offers various ways to phase out of fossil fuels, but it also includes the option to not mention them at all in the final text.

Saudi Arabia had until now been the most vocal country against a phase-out or phase-down of fossil fuels.

In the OPEC letter sent Wednesday, Ghais said it "seems that the undue and disproportionate pressure against fossil fuels may reach a tipping point with irreversible consequences".

Assem Jihad, spokesman for Iraq's oil ministry, told AFP his country supports the OPEC letter.

Iraqi oil minister Hayan Abdel Ghani "has rejected attempts to target fossil fuels", Jihad said.

He added that Ghani has tasked Iraq's COP28 delegation to "ensure that the wording of the final statement puts the emphasis on world cooperation on a reduction of emissions in order to preserve the environment and climate".

But another OPEC member, COP28 host the United Arab Emirates, has taken a conciliatory tone throughout the negotiations and acknowledged that a phase-down was "inevitable".

- 'Critical stage' -

Canadian climate minister Steven Guilbeault told AFP he was "confident" that the final text would contain language on fossil fuels.

Guilbeault is among a group of ministers who have been tasked by COP28 president Sultan Al Jaber to shepherd the negotiations and find an agreement by Tuesday, when the summit is due to end.

"It's a conversation that will last a few more days," Guilbeault said.

"Different groups are talking and trying to understand on what we could agree, but it's still quite an embryonic conversation," he added.

German climate envoy Jennifer Morgan said countries were "now moving into the critical stage of negotiations" but she was "concerned that not all are constructively engaging".

Fresh calls for a phase-out were made by ministers addressing a plenary session on Saturday.

"We are extremely concerned about the pace of the negotiations, given the limited time we have left here in Dubai," said Toeolesulusulu Cedric Schuster, chairman of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS).

AOSIS has pushed hard for a phase-out, warning that their nations were on the frontlines of climate change, with rising seas threatening their existence.

"I implore you, let this COP28 be the summit where we leaders are remembered for turning the tide," Schuster said, adding that stepping up renewable energy "cannot be a substitute for a stronger commitment to fossil fuel phase-out."

Banks Still Play a Major Role in Oil and Gas Funding

By Felicity Bradstock - Jul 13, 2024

Major banks provided $6.8 trillion to fossil fuels since the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Banks argue their financing supports energy transition, but critics say it's not enough.

Greater transparency is needed to understand how bank funds are actually used.



Despite increasing pressure to defund oil and gas firms in support of international decarbonisation efforts, many major banks are continuing to provide financing to fossil fuel companies. A recent report from the U.S. organisation Rainforest Action Network (RAN) and partners revealed that in the years following the 2015 Paris Agreement, the 60 largest private banks in the world provided $6.8 trillion in funding to fossil fuels. Over the past eight years, approximately $3.3 trillion went to fossil fuel expansion. These banks supported over 4,200 fossil fuel companies with loans and securities transactions or underwriting. In 2023, after many major banks had pledged to reduce or end funding to oil and gas companies as part of the Net Zero Banking Alliance, financing for fossil fuel companies reached $705 billion, with $347 going towards expansion.

The report shows that JPMorgan Chase was the biggest financer for fossil fuels, contributing $40.8 billion in funding to fossil fuel companies in 2023. This is followed by the Japanese bank Mizuho, which provided $37 billion in financing, with $18.8 billion contributing to fossil fuel expansion. Citibank was also a major contributor, providing $204 billion to fossil fuel companies since 2016. Meanwhile, Deutsche Bank gave nearly $13.4 billion, DZ Bank $2.5 billion, Barclays $24.2 billion and Santander $14.5 billion to the fossil fuel industry in 2023.

The Research and Policy Manager at RAN and the report’s co-author April Merleaux stated, “Wall Street’s biggest concern is profit, our main concern is climate and human rights. While the banks profiting from climate chaos create new greenwashing tales every year, our data shows how much money they are actually pouring into fossil fuels. Merleaux added, “Our report’s new methodology uncovers previously unknown details about bank financing of fossil fuels and gives activists new tools to confront the banks. Our data shows that bank financing of fossil fuels is not declining nearly fast enough. In 2023, nearly $350 billion has flowed to fossil fuel companies, incompatible with real climate commitments.”

Critics of the report said there was little evidence showing where the funding went in the fossil fuel sector, with several banks responding that their financing mainly went towards green transition efforts by energy companies. It was unclear whether some of the expansion funding went to supporting new green energy projects or fossil fuel activities.

U.S. banking institutions were found to be the biggest contributors to the fossil fuel sector, providing 30 percent of the financing in 2023. JPMorgan responded to the report saying it was one of the world’s biggest funders to both traditional and clean energy firms. It stated that it would disclose the proportion of financing contributing to low-carbon energy compared to fossil fuel energy financing, following a request from the New York City comptroller on behalf of pensions it manages. JPMorgan stated, “We believe our data reflects our activities more comprehensively and accurately than estimates by third parties.”

Meanwhile, Bank of America, the third biggest funder of fossil fuels worldwide, according to the report, said that it was a market leader in terms of energy transition funding. It stated, “We are engaged with clients across the energy spectrum to help them with their energy transition goals.” Citibank said that by 2020 it had achieved $441 billion towards a $1 trillion sustainable finance goal, suggesting that much of its energy financing is going towards transition sectors.

In June, the boss of Barclays bank, CS Venkatakrishnan, said he thought it was unrealistic to ask banks to stop this financing funding fossil fuel companies altogether. He said that lenders “cannot go cold turkey” and emphasised the importance of a transition away from the most polluting fossil fuels to cleaner alternatives, such as gas. Venkatakrishnan said that Barclays is “very much moving away from” coal and oil, but suggested that fossil fuels will be around “for quite some time” and “We are very much moving away from coal to oil, oil to gas, gas to clean energy and the reality is that for quite some time fossil fuels will be with us, especially natural gas.”

In February, Barclays announced plans to stop directly financing new oil and gas projects following mounting pressure to decarbonise operations. However, environmentalists continue to put pressure on Barclays to do more in support of a green transition. Recent reports suggest that Cambridge University is considering cutting ties with Barclays due to its poor climate change record.

Most major banks around the globe are continuing to finance fossil fuel companies, despite mounting pressure from governments and environmentalists to reduce funding in support of a green transition. However, it is still unclear how much of the financing is going towards fossil fuels compared to how much contributes to the transition energy sector. Greater transparency from these banks could help consumers understand where the financing is going as well as put pressure on banks to make a change.

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com

Students and staff are calling on Imperial College London to end its complicity in the climate crisis

 by The Canary
7 May 2024
in Analysis

This article was updated on 7 May at 8pm to reflect an error. Imperial College London informed us that as of 31 January 2024 it no longer invests in EOG Resources and Berkshire Hathaway. It also claimed that it “does not have any existing fossil fuel investments – its investment portfolio currently has no exposure to companies that derive revenues from fossil fuel extraction”. The Canary looked into this last claim. Read more below.

Hundreds of Imperial College London students, staff, and alumni – including former government chief scientific advisor David King – have called on the university to fully divest its £542m endowment from the fossil fuel industry.

Imperial College London must divest from fossil fuels

In December 2022, the student group Imperial Climate Action (ICA) released a student petition, which has now received 792 signatures. A similar open letter has garnered over 200 signatures from Imperial academics. The Imperial College Union, which represents the university’s student body, also supports full divestment.

The open letter is directed towards professor Brady, professor Walmsley, and professor Ryan – the president, provost, and vice-provost of the university, respectively.


Prominent alumnus David King, as well as special representative for climate change and alumna Harvard professor Naomi Oreskes who has written extensively on the fossil fuel industry misinformation, have joined calls on Imperial College London to divest from fossil fuels.

The student open letter outlines the profound misalignment of all major fossil fuel companies with the goals of the Paris Agreement. It also notes the disproportionate impact of the climate crisis on women, Indigenous Peoples, working-class communities, and low-emitting nations in the Global South.

The letter goes on to state that:


the College’s continued investment in fossil fuel companies is in contradiction with the climate science being produced by its own academics.

This makes clear that all new investment in oil, coal or gas expansion must cease immediately.


‘Imperial Net Zero’… Really?

The fossil fuel companies that remained in Imperial’s portfolio, EOG Resources and Berkshire Hathaway, were there until 31 January 2024; something this article previously did not state. Imperial College London told the Canary that:


The university does not have any existing fossil fuel investments – its investment portfolio currently has no exposure to companies that derive revenues from fossil fuel extraction.

The Canary looked at Imperial College London’s latest endowment fund breakdown. Aside from it having direct investments in some of the most notoriously unethical, environment and human rights-abusing companies on the planet – like Rio Tinto Mining, McDonald’s, and Nike – it also still has indirect holdings in companies that, contrary to its claims, do indeed “derive revenues from fossil fuel extraction” – albeit they don’t take the fossil fuels directly out of the ground themselves.

For example, Imperial College London has indirect (i.e. through an investment vehicle) holdings in General Electric. As campaign group As You Sow wrote in November 2023:


the General Electric Company (GE), whose technology is used to produce 30% of global electricity, continues to expand global reliance on fossil fuels through the sale of high-emitting, long-lived products including natural gas-powered turbines and liquid natural gas infrastructure. The emissions from downstream use of these carbon-intensive products accounts for 90% of GE’s total carbon footprint. Continued investments in such high-carbon energy infrastructure locks in high emissions for decades, jeopardizing the achievement of global net zero targets.

In the past year, GE’s sales of natural gas-powered turbines have increased.

So, while Imperial College London can claim it doesn’t have investments in “companies that derive revenues from fossil fuel extraction” – this has a distinct stench of whataboutery when it has investments in companies like General Electric that directly derive revenue from the burning of fossil fuels.

It all seems a bit like Imperial College London are greenwashing, don’t you think?
Greenwashing?

Students at Imperial stated their grave concern that, until it divests, Imperial is lending its world-renowned reputation for scientific excellence to companies ignoring climate science at every turn, helping to greenwash their reputations and add legitimacy to their false sustainability claims.

Amidst these calls for divestment, Imperial has announced the release of the Imperial Zero Index. The index will be used to ‘assess annually how its energy industry collaborators are performing in their commitment, strategy and operational efforts towards net zero’.


The university has stated that it will disengage from collaborations with companies that score poorly in this assessment.

However, it remains unclear if investments are to be included in this assessment, yet campaigners are urging the university not to apply this index to its investments – where evidence and precedent in the sector for divestment, is overwhelming – and to heed the calls of the Imperial community to fully divest from the fossil fuel industry.

Imperial’s investment policy currently states that it will only invest in Fossil Fuel companies that are aligned to the Paris Agreement. Yet, there is already overwhelming evidence that the fossil fuel industry is not transitioning its business model in line with the Paris Agreement, instead doubling down on long-term fossil fuel expansion several orders of magnitude greater than the planet can withstand.
Unresponsive to demands

In addition, the Imperial Climate Action group has stated that “decades of investor engagement efforts” have failed to transition these companies away from their core oil, coal and gas business models. Fossil fuel companies continue to invest billions into new long-term fossil fuel expansion projects.

The student letter makes the case that “divestment by respected public institutions is a key strategy… as it helps to expose fossil fuel companies’ failure to voluntarily shift their business models”, helping to pave the way for the necessary legislative action to compel companies to halt destructive business practices.

In other words, investor engagement approaches rely on companies voluntarily transitioning their business models. Divestment approaches aim to increase public awareness of company malpractice, and therefore pressure on governments to force companies to halt practices and make the necessary transitions within the timelines dictated by science.

Imperial College has continued to delay taking action on the matter, and has been unresponsive to demands of its staff and students.
Break up with fossil fuels for Valentine’s Day

In response to this, ICA undertook an action for Valentines Day, in which multiple students signed a valentine’s day card asking Hugh Brady (the university president) to break up with fossil fuels. A response has not been given to the student group:



This action is the latest in Imperial Climate Action’s Fossil Free campaign It is coordinated by student-led campaigning charity People & Planet in partnership with SOS UK’s Invest for Change campaign.

The Fossil Free campaign has seen almost 75% of UK universities divest from fossil fuels. This includes 21 out of the UK’s 24 research-intensive Russell Group universities, further showing how Imperial College London is falling behind in the sector.

Ioana Balabasciuc, divestment campaign leader at Imperial Climate Action, said:


With time running out, and the fossil fuel industry rolling back the inadequate climate transition plans it had committed to, it has never been clearer that light-touch shareholder engagement is not the answer.

We need institutions like Imperial to join the rest of the university sector and stop pedalling this myth. Instead, Imperial must mobilise its reputational influence to put pressure on our government to finally legislate against the fossil fuel industry’s catastrophic business practices.

The scientific evidence is unequivocal and strongly condemns the fossil fuel industry’s deliberate disregard for alarming indicators of climate change. We don’t require yet another index to comprehend this; we need full divestment from fossil fuels.
Imperial College London: it’s time to act

Naomi Oreskes said:


Around the globe, world leaders and citizens have recognized the need for immediate action to address the climate crisis. Yet, fossil fuel development continues unabated, in part because banks, financial institutions and individual investors continue to invest in it.

The time has come to stop the flow of finance that supports and sustains this damaging industry. As a leader in science, technology, and engineering, Imperial College should have been at the forefront of the divestment movement. Instead, Imperial stands as one of the few Russell Group universities still investing its endowment in fossil fuels. It is time to fix this!

David King said:


The climate crisis has entered a new phase.

Key scientific information now available on the rapid rate of ice loss from Greenland to 30m tons per hour following on from the data showing that over the past 15 years the Arctic Circle has been heating up at four times the rate of the global average temperature rise since the pre-industrial period.

I strongly urge the College to divest from those fossil fuel industries, including Shell, BP and Exxon-Mobil, that are still investing in new oil and gas discovery. As many economists point out, this will not only worsen our chances of a manageable future for humanity, it will also prove to be a stranded economic asset.