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.
In the past three years, the North American and European commercial and investment banking sector has engaged in fossil fuel financing practices that are deeply at odds with the global climate agreement reached at COP 21 last December.
In providing public finance for coal projects, Japan ranks as the worst offender among the G7 nations for supporting more than $22 billion in overseas coal projects from 2007-2015, and for plans to finance another $10 billion in future coal projects. Other G7 nations also financed coal development between 2007-2015
Last updated:
The World Bank Group continues to invest in exploration for new fossil fuel reserves despite clear signs that we already have far more fossil fuels than we can afford to burn, and over the last five years, the World Bank Group’s total fossil fuel finance has trended upwards, with finance into the billions of dollars nearly every year.
This report assesses how four multilateral development banks (MDBs) — World Bank Group, Inter- American Development Bank, African Development Bank, and Asian Development Bank — are measuring up in their efforts to address the global energy access challenge.
New analysis released today at the COP21 climate negotiations reveals that G7 countries along with Australia spend 40 times more on support for fossil fuel production than they do in contributions to the Green Climate Fund.
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.
An examination of crude-by-rail data shows that the U.S. east coast has become one of the busiest regional destinations for hazardous crude-by-rail traffic. Oil Change International used publicly available Department of Energy (EIA) data as well as subscription data from Genscape to examine the growth of crude-by-rail to one of the most densely populated areas of the United States.
Today we’re releasing a new briefing, entitled “Lift the Ban, Cook the Climate: Why Eliminating the Crude Export Ban Fails the Climate Test,” detailing why Congress and the President should stand up to current efforts by the oil industry to eliminate the ban on crude oil exports.
Public support for fossil fuel exploration in rich countries is nearly triple the amount pledged to the Green Climate Fund.
Today, Oil Change International and the Sierra Club released a report finding that none of the major multilateral development banks are succeeding in reaching the world’s poor with their energy projects.
