Amidst a climate crisis and global pandemic, it’s essential that countries develop public finance packages that phase out fossil fuel production and invest in a just, green transition toward renewable energy that benefits communities and industry workers. While the Netherlands has committed to redirect financial flows from fossil fuels to climate action, this report reveals that the Dutch Government continues to provide billions — at least €8.3 billion per year — in taxpayer backed support for the production and use of fossil fuels.
Still Digging: G20 Governments Continue to Finance the Climate Crisis
This report reveals G20 countries have provided at least $77 billion a year in public finance to oil, gas and coal projects since the Paris Agreement through their international public finance institutions. This government-backed support to fossil fuels from export credit agencies, development finance institutions, and multilateral development banks is more than three times what they are providing to clean energy
Banking on Climate Change 2020: Fossil Fuel Finance Report Card
A new report, Banking on Climate Change 2020, reveals that 35 private-sector banks across Canada, China, Europe, Japan, and the U.S. have financed fossil fuels with USD $2.7 trillion since the Paris Agreement was adopted (2016-2019), with financing on the rise each year.
The report finds that fossil fuel financing continues to be dominated by the big U.S. banks – JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citi, and Bank of America – together, these four banks account for a staggering 30% of all fossil fuel financing from the 35 major global banks since the Paris Agreement was adopted.
Adding Fuel to the Fire: Export Credit Agencies and Fossil Fuel Finance
This report from Oil Change International and Friends of the Earth U.S. shows that since the Paris Agreement was made, G20 countries have used their export credit agencies to provide nearly 12 times more finance to fossil fuels than to clean energy.
The Sky’s Limit Denmark: Why Denmark Must Phase Out North Sea Oil and Gas Extraction
A new study released by Oil Change International examines the role of Danish oil and gas production in a Paris-aligned global carbon budget. The report confirms that while Denmark has positioned itself as a global climate leader, its plans to expand North Sea oil and fossil gas extraction would undermine its record of climate action and would be incompatible with achieving its Paris climate commitments.
G20 Coal Subsidies: Tracking Government Support to a Fading Industry
G20 governments continue to provide billions of dollars for the production and consumption of fossil fuels. This report finds that they provide at least USD $63.9 billion per year in government support to the production and consumption of coal alone, with almost three-quarters of the support identified being directed to coal-fired power production.
Burning the Gas ‘Bridge Fuel’ Myth: Why Gas Is Not Clean, Cheap, or Necessary
This report unpacks and debunks the enduring myth that gas can form a bridge to a decarbonized future. As the global crisis intensifies while the production and consumption of gas soars, it is clearer than ever that gas is not a solution to the climate crisis.
Sea Change: Climate Emergency, Jobs and Managing the Phase-Out of UK Oil and Gas Extraction
This new report reveals, for the first time, the climate impact of North Sea oil and gas extraction, and shows the way to a job-creating energy transition. To deal with the climate emergency, the UK needs to immediately stop approving new oil and gas drilling and redirect support to clean jobs and renewable energy.
Banking on Climate Change 2019: Fossil Fuel Finance Report Card
This 10th annual “Banking on Climate Change” fossil fuel finance report card reveals that overall bank financing continues to be aligned with climate disaster, and that financing for fossil fuels has increased every year since the Paris Agreement was signed.
The Vanishing Need for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Diminishing consumer demand coupled with more affordable renewables are casting doubt on the overall feasibility and potential profitability of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline.