Read the latest insights and analysis from the experts at Oil Change International.
"When the world’s largest asset manager, BlackRock places sustainability and climate risk at the center of its investment approach, and commits to stronger sustainability advocacy actions, it is game-changing for capital markets.”
As yet another UN climate summit draws to a close without showing any real sense of urgency commensurate to our climate emergency, campaigners have criticised the UN process for being in a “parallel universe" and being riddled with conflicts.
Yesterday, the EIB announced it will end financing for fossil fuel energy projects from the end of 2021.
As Extinction Rebellion shuts down parts of London and other major citities, with ironic timing, the UK has approved four new gas-fired turbines against the advice of its own inspectors.
In these dark times, with daily doses of bad news of our growing climate emergency, we have to celebrate every climate victory we get. And last Friday there was one such victory.
The European Investment Bank (EIB) is the world’s largest multilateral lender, bigger even than the World Bank. As a public bank, it’s tasked with providing finance in the EU public interest, and it has an outsized influence on the EU’s energy system because of the private investment it can “crowd in” and the sheer amount of money it has at its disposal.
Even though the science says we cannot carry on drilling, the oil industry capital investment over the next decade is forecast to rise over 85%, reaching over $1 trillion a year.
One of Britain’s elite cycling teams has just announced that its new sponsor will be the UK’s richest man, petrochemical and fracking boss, Sir Jim Ratcliffe.
A study published today, by a group led by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), indicates that eliminating fossil fuel subsidies could curb global greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 5% through 2030 while saving hundreds of billions of dollars in public money. Despite this seemingly good news, the framing of the study was strangely downbeat, casting these reductions as “only a small effect on CO2 emissions.” What we know from reading the actual findings of this study, as well as several other analyses of the climate impacts of fossil fuel subsidy removal, is that nixing oil, gas, and coal subsidies would be a big win for the climate, would saves money, and could free up resources to help the poorest and most vulnerable.
The World Bank's pledge to end all upstream investment in the oil and gas sector by 2019 topples a key pillar holding up the social license around the fossil fuel industry.
