Oil Change International publishes upwards of 20 reports and briefings every year focused on supporting the movement for a just phase-out of fossil fuels.
To have any hope of meeting globally-agreed climate goals, global financial flows must rapidly align with low-emission, climate-resilient development, and government-backed public finance institutions like the World Bank must signal this transition.
Instead of funding clean energy solutions, G20 governments and multilateral development banks still overwhelmingly fund the problem, averaging nearly $72 billion per year in public finance for fossil fuels compared to less than $19 billion per year for renewable energy.
This analysis provides five clear reasons why fossil gas is not a "bridge fuel.” It shows that even with zero methane leakage, gas is not a climate change solution.
Organizations from frontline communities - where Americans that are most impacted by climate change and the fossil fuel industry live - and organizations working in solidarity with them, are urging lawmakers to reject the FUTURE Act (S.1535) and the Carbon Capture Act (H.R.1379) - and to oppose its inclusion in a tax policy package.
More than 30 environmental, public health, consumer, and climate groups delivered a letter to members of Congress in opposition to the FUTURE Act (S.1535) and Carbon Capture Act (H.R.3761) - and any attempts in a tax policy package to extend or expand subsidies for enhanced oil production.
Germany is falling far short of true climate leadership – our new report details why it must end coal production swiftly with a just transition and stop funding fossil fuels aboard.
According to a new report released today by Rainforest Action Network, Oil Change International, and 10 organizations from around the world, commercial banks continue to finance the tar sands sector at levels that do not align with the Paris Agreement 1.5° to 2° target – and finance levels are surging in 2017.
The question now becomes: What does the path from here to zero carbon look like? Is it ambitious enough to avoid locking in emissions that we can’t afford? Is it intentional enough to protect workers and communities that depend on the carbon-based economy that has gotten us this far? Is it equitable enough to recognize that some countries must move further, faster? And is it honest enough about the reality that a decline of fossil fuels is actually a good thing?
A new report exposes the huge financial risks behind three major Canadian tar sands pipeline project proposals: Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Expansion, TransCanada’s Keystone XL and Enbridge’s Line 3 expansion.
This analysis explores the oil production, carbon emissions, and taxpayer cost implications of the proposed changes to Section 45Q in the U.S. tax code in S.1535 and H.R.3761.
