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.
This new legal opinion finds that export credit agencies could be in violation of their international legal obligations if they do not take action to reduce their financing of fossil fuel-related activities imminently.
As COVID-19 and other factors force an unmanaged decline of oil and gas, a new peer-reviewed study outlines how policymakers can plan for a better future, with an equitable phase-out of fossil fuels.
In January 2020, organizations, networks and community resistance groups from Africa and around the world deliberated on issues including fossil fuels dependence, climate change, energy access and the just transition. Following two days of discussions, they released the following communiqué.
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?
With Shell in the Arctic, the scale and volume of the blowback from the environmental community has clearly caught the Administration flat footed. When confronted, they usually first mumble something about highest standards (which is completely irrelevant to the climate argument) but if pressed, the Administration and its defenders invoke a sober, scolding tone to explain: 1) We need oil and we will need oil for a long time. While we’re all concerned about climate, we’re still going to need oil and gas in the future and we might as well make as much of it as possible right here at home. 2) U.S. oil production is essentially irrelevant for climate, because “more oil production in one place generally means less oil production elsewhere – that’s how markets and prices work”. Together, these two arguments form what we can think of as the Convenient Lie that we can be serious about fighting climate change and also approve virtually all new fossil fuel infrastructure in the U.S. It’s the Convenient Lie that keeps us from dealing with the Inconvenient Truth.
Big Oil is working to extract every last drop of oil on the continent — regardless of the cost to our communities or climate. To succeed, they need ways to transport their explosive fuels, which is why they’re pushing new pipelines and increased crude-by-rail simultaneously. But recent pipeline spills and train accidents show that neither is safe. That’s why we’ve developed the materials on this page to help push back against the industry’s dangerous expansion.
World Bank Group finance for fossil fuel exploration projects from FY2008 to 2013 was highest in 2013, at nearly $1 billion out of $2.7 billion total for fossil fuel projects.
In 2009, President Obama made a commitment to reduce U.S. greenhouse gases by 17 percent by 2020. The Obama administration put this forward as the U.S. share of a global effort to limit climate change to no more than two degrees Celsius – the target scientists tell us may be safe. Achieving this target, which has been unanimously agreed on a global level, is central to the success of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, announced in June of last year.
Refineries that may be supplied by Keystone XL continue to increase exports. Gulf Coast refined product exports have grown 172% since 2008.
Oil Change International has launched a new online tool today that tracks the flow of Canadian tar sands crude oil to North America’s refineries.
