View previous stories
	Eliminating Investor-State Dispute Settlement liability from trade and investment agreements by OHCHR, PSI, FES, agencies   Oct. 2023   Investor-State dispute settlements have catastrophic consequences for the environment and human rights. (OHCHR)   A UN expert has warned of the devastating effects of Investor-State dispute settlement with dire consequences for a wide range of human rights and climate action.   “At a time when it is imperative that States accelerate the pace and ambition of climate and environmental action to prevent planetary catastrophe and fulfil their human rights obligations, a daunting obstacle has emerged,” said David Boyd, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment presenting his report today to the General Assembly.   His report chronicles compelling evidence that a secretive international arbitration process called investor-State dispute settlement has become a major obstacle to urgent actions needed to address the planetary environmental and human rights crises.   “Foreign investors use the dispute settlement process to seek exorbitant compensation from States that strengthen environmental protection, with the fossil fuel and mining industries already winning over $100 billion in awards,” the expert said. “Such cases create regulatory chill.”   The surge in fossil-fuel ISDS claims could not come at a worse time. Humanity has reached the now or never point for achieving the Paris Agreement objective of limiting global warming to 1.5°C, a goal that requires achieving net zero emissions by 2050 - incompatible with new coal, oil or gas developments.   Governments fulfilling their commitments under the Paris Agreement on climate change may be liable to oil and gas corporations for $340 billion in future ISDS cases – a major disincentive for ambitious climate action.   “As ISDS arbitration tribunals routinely prioritise foreign investment and corporate interests above environmental and human rights considerations, ISDS claims have devastating consequences for a wide range of human rights, exacerbating the disproportionate harms suffered by vulnerable and marginalised populations,” the expert said.   As the overwhelming majority of fossil fuel and mining ISDS claims are brought by investors from the global North against respondent States in the global South, the ISDS system has especially devastating consequences for the global South, perpetuating extractivism and economic colonialism.   The Special Rapporteur identifies specific actions that States must take to avoid future claims under the investor-State dispute settlement process and fulfil their human rights obligations in his report.   http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/investor-state-dispute-settlements-have-catastrophic-consequences   May. 2023   Eliminate ISDS liability from existing trade and investment agreements   U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Lloyd Doggett this week led nearly three dozen progressive members of Congress in demanding an end to the Investor-State Dispute Settlement system, a key feature of corporate-managed trade agreements signed, and often initiated, by the United States.   "Large corporations have weaponized, and continue to weaponize, this faulty and undemocratic dispute settlement regime to benefit their own interests at the expense of workers, consumers, and small businesses globally," says Warren (D-Mass.) and Doggett's (D-Texas) letter to U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai and Secretary of State Antony Blinken.   After praising President Joe Biden's 2020 campaign pledge to exclude ISDS from future trade deals—such as the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework the White House has been negotiating—along with Tai's indication that she "will pursue a trade agenda in line with that commitment," the letter asks Tai's office and Blinken's department to "investigate any and all options at your disposal to eliminate ISDS liability from existing trade and investment agreements."   ISDS mechanisms enable multinational corporations to sue the governments of foreign trading partners for profits they claim have been forfeited as a result of domestic policies designed to protect workers, consumers, and ecosystems. Such lawsuits challenge meaningful labor, product safety, and environmental standards, and the mere threat of them can even preempt the enactment of robust regulations, placing ISDS at the heart of what critics have called neoliberal globalization's "race to the bottom."   The ISDS measures that corporations "successfully lobbied" to include in past trade deals grant them "special rights and privileges that ordinary citizens do not receive," the letter points out. "Under ISDS, disputes are handled not through the judicial system but by industry-friendly arbitration tribunals that can require taxpayers to shell out massive sums to big corporations, with no opportunity to appeal."   "Unlike the courts, 'tribunals have no set procedures or precedents. Standards of evidence are nonexistent, and mistruths or exaggerations go unpunished,'" the letter continues, citing journalist Sarah Lazare. "These provisions tilt the playing field even further in favor of large corporations, incentivizing offshoring and undermining the sovereignty of the United States and other governments."   A pending ISDS case launched recently by a Delaware-based company upset because Honduras' democratically elected government overturned a law that allowed corporations to establish self-regulated private cities inside the impoverished Central American nation exemplifies why the Biden administration needs "to take action to remove this problematic corporate handout from existing agreements," the letter says.   "Late last year," the members of Congress explained, "U.S. company Honduras Prospera launched an ISDS claim under the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) against the newly elected government of Honduras, seeking nearly $11 billion, equal to roughly two-thirds of the country's entire national budget this year."   They continued:   "The jaw-dropping sum sought by Próspera is not the only reason that this case raises serious concerns. Honduran President Xiomara Castro secured a major victory for democracy last year when the National Congress of Honduras repealed the country's Zonas de Empleo y Desarrollo Económico law (ZEDE, or "Economic Development and Employment Zones"). The legal name misleadingly implies that ZEDEs constitute standard special economic zones, areas within a country's borders that, while politically and fiscally part of the host nation, are governed by separate economic regulations as "a mechanism for attracting foreign direct investment, accelerating industrialization, and creating jobs." However, the legislation enabled the creation of far more radical private governance zones, which have "functional and administrative autonomy" from the national government.   The zones allowed investors to create their own governance systems and regulations and establish separate courts. And investors have used the law to create jurisdictions where companies can propose their own regulations and where most Hondurans cannot enter without authorization. In the case of Próspera, a ZEDE located largely on the Honduran island of Roatán, investors have created a governing council where 44% of members are appointed by the private company and 22% are elected by landowners in a system where their number of votes is proportional to the size of their property.   This anti-democratic policy, approved under the leadership of previous officials, including former president Juan Orlando Hernández, who have since been indicted on drug trafficking and firearms charges, was highly controversial. Honduran labor unions, small farmers, Indigenous organizations, and even the nation's largest business groups expressed vehement opposition. According to the U.S. State Department, the zones "were broadly unpopular, and viewed as a vector for corruption." The Honduran Congress unanimously approved President Castro's proposal abolishing this policy.   Prospera has repeatedly threatened to initiate ISDS arbitration under CAFTA-DR to bully the Honduran government into allowing them to continue operating under the abolished ZEDE framework. In December 2022, the company announced that it filed a CAFTA-DR claim with the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), which will force the government of Honduras to potentially spend millions of dollars defending itself for responding to the will of its people and asserting its sovereignty over these special governance jurisdictions operating in its territory".   The lawmakers asked Tai and Blinken to "intervene—through a statement of support, amicus brief, and any other means at your disposal—in support of Honduras' defense in the Próspera ISDS case and to ensure that such egregious cases can no longer disrupt democratic policymaking by working to eliminate ISDS liability in preexisting agreements in our hemisphere."   Notably, the suit against Honduras "is just the most recent example of the worrying trend of increased ISDS use in the Americas, both in the number of cases and the sky-high value of the claims," the letter observes. "Governments throughout Latin America have paid billions of dollars in compensation to foreign companies at their taxpayers' expense, simply for putting in place sound public policy to protect the environment and the health and economic well-being of their communities. Governments—and therefore taxpayers—throughout the region have been ordered by ISDS tribunals to pay close to $28 billion to corporations, with far more in pending ISDS claims."   Decrying how "the broken ISDS system has time and time again worked in favor of big business interests while infringing on the rights and sovereignty of our trading partners and their people," the lawmakers urged the Biden administration to "refrain from negotiating new trade agreements with ISDS, and also to address the existing ISDS mechanisms that corporations continue to exploit."   Melinda St. Louis, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, said in a statement that her group has been keeping a close eye on the "truly shocking" case against Honduras, "as well as the explosion of ISDS cases in the region."   Public Citizen "is coordinating with civil society groups across the hemisphere working to remove these increasingly unpopular ISDS provisions from trade agreements and investment treaties," said St. Louis. "President Biden's commitment to exclude ISDS in new agreements must be matched by immediate action to dismantle ISDS in existing agreements—or else shameful cases like the $11 billion one against Honduras will continue."   http://www.warren.senate.gov/oversight/letters/senator-warren-representative-doggett-call-for-elimination-of-investor-state-dispute-settlement-system-action-on-behalf-of-honduran-government   Apr. 2023   Public Services in the Crosshairs: The impacts of the investment protection regime on the sector in Latin America.   The report coordinated by Public Services International (PSI) and funded by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES) and produced by the Transnational Institute (TNI), exposes the risks that the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism implies for the Public Services in Latin American and Caribbean countries.   Latin America and the Caribbean is the region with the second highest number of investment protection treaty claims before arbitration tribunals in the world, and one third of these are related to public services. In Argentina and Bolivia, more than 60% of their ISDS claims are related to the services sector.   What is ISDS?   It is a mechanism embedded in Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). ISDS allows foreign investors to sue states before international arbitration tribunals if they believe that measures taken by the state violate the protections they have under a treaty - including public interest policies such as in the areas of health, energy, water, environment, and labour.   The most affected public service is energy supply, followed by telecommunications. 72% of the claims already settled in these cases ended in a decision that benefited investors and states were ordered to pay out more than $3.901 billion.   While the promise of BITs is to encourage foreign investment, there is no direct relationship between more BITs and more foreign investment, while the danger to sovereign state action is very high, affecting governments' possibilities to take policy measures that put the common good at the centre and ensure the proper functioning of public services.   This report aims to provide elements for debate, while analysing examples of states that have already modified or even terminated their investment protection treaties, such as Bolivia, Ecuador, Indonesia and South Africa. The findings of the report can support civil society organisations in defence of quality public services to require their governments not to sign new trade agreements and/or to audit their existing agreements to exit the ISDS system.   Key points of the report:   With 327 ISDS claims until the end of 2021, Latin America and the Caribbean is the second most sued region before arbitration tribunals globally on the basis of investment protection treaties. One third of the claims, more specifically 102, are related to public utilities.   In Argentina and Bolivia, the utilities sector is strongly targeted by foreign investors. More than 60% of their ISDS claims are related to this sector.   In almost 3 quarters of the claims related to the utilities sector that have already been settled, the investor has benefited and the states have been ordered to pay out more than $3.9 billion.   While the promise of BITs is to encourage foreign investment, there is no direct link between more BITs and more foreign investment, while the danger to sovereign state action is very high, affecting governments' possibilities to take policy measures that put the common good at the centre and ensure the proper functioning of public services.   http://publicservices.international/resources/publications/public-services-in-the-crosshairs-the-impacts-of-the-investment-protection-regime-on-the-sector-in-latin-america?id=13842&lang=en http://taxjustice.net/2023/01/26/the-santiago-declaration-on-public-services/ http://futureispublic.org/global-manifesto/ http://www.gi-escr.org/private-actors-public-services http://www.ei-ie.org/en/dossier/1537:go-public-fund-education http://www.ei-ie.org/en/dossier/1296:students-before-profit http://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2021/10/joint-statement-independent-united-nations-human-rights-experts-warning-threat http://www.eurodad.org/historyrepppeated   http://inequality.org/research/pakistan-khan-investment-treaties/ http://theconversation.com/world-bank-ruling-against-pakistan-shows-global-economic-governance-is-broken-120414 http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/big-issues/trade-and-corporate-accountability/investor-state-dispute-settlement/ http://www.isds.bilaterals.org/   May 2022   Investor-state disputes threaten the global green energy transition   Global action on climate change could generate upward of $340 billion in legal claims from oil and gas investors, write Kyla Tienhaara, Rachel Thrasher, B. Alexander Simmons, and Kevin Gallagher. (Science Journal)   To limit global warming to below 1.5°C, governments will have to simultaneously curb demand for fossil fuels and limit supply. However, efforts to limit supply will affect asset holders, particularly in the upstream (exploration and production) and midstream (transportation and storage) portions of the supply chain. Demands for compensation will ensue, and when the companies involved are foreign, legal claims may be brought to international arbitration in a process known as investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS).   The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently acknowledged that ISDS cases could lead to states refraining from, or delaying, measures to phase out fossil fuels. We illustrate legal and financial risks associated with limiting oil and gas production and argue that governments should take steps to prevent fossil fuel investors from accessing ISDS.   The International Energy Agency (IEA) Net-Zero Emissions Scenario (NZE) by 2050 has no new investments in fossil fuel supply after 2021. In a 1.5°C carbon budget, nearly 60% of oil and fossil methane gas reserves and 90% of coal reserves cannot be extracted, suggesting that even some existing operations are unviable.   Although many government plans for fossil fuel production are inconsistent with their commitments under the Paris Agreement, the launch of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA) in 2021, by 11 national and subnational governments pledging Paris-aligned dates for ending oil and gas production, suggests that the tide may be turning. At the same time, a UK firm, Rockhopper, is using ISDS to seek an undisclosed amount over Italy’s denial of a coastal drilling permit, and a Canadian firm, TC Energy, is claiming more than $15 billion in compensation for US President Biden’s cancellation of the Keystone XL Pipeline.   Protections for Foreign Investors   Thousands of bilateral and plurilateral investment treaties have been signed by states over the last 50 years. Investment treaties act as a form of political risk insurance and were presented to governments in the Global South as a means to increase foreign investment flows. Under these treaties, foreign investors are protected from certain forms of state conduct but have no responsibilities themselves.   Investors are empowered to bring claims that a state has breached a treaty directly to an ad hoc ISDS tribunal composed of three members—one chosen by the investor, one by the state, and one that is mutually agreed upon or appointed by an arbitration body such as the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).   Foreign investors have relied on various investment treaty rules to claim that policies to protect the environment, public health, or the economy are discriminatory, undermine their “legitimate expectations,” or impose a burden that is not justified or proportional to the state’s policy objectives.   If it is determined that a state has breached an investment treaty, the tribunal will typically require the government to pay the investor compensation. Increasingly, there is a tendency for tribunals to use projections of an investment’s expected future income across its entire life cycle as the basis of compensation, using discounted cash flow as the method of calculation. The result has been hugely inflated monetary awards in the hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars.   In some cases, the amount of compensation awarded has been described as “crippling” because it is incommensurate to the state’s capacity to pay. Governments don’t always lose, but the rules are sufficiently vague to make it difficult to predict outcomes. This, combined with the risk of a very large award, can create a chilling effect. Critically, despite a growing body of research, there is a lack of understanding on the part of many states that the treaties do not live up to their purported benefit of facilitating investment.   ISDS and the Fossil Fuel Sector   Law firms are advising investors that are “most affected by States’ climate change obligations” (i.e., those in the fossil fuel sector) to (re)structure their investments to ensure access to ISDS. To date, there have been at least 231 ISDS cases related to fossil fuel investments, which is almost 20% of the total known number of cases across all sectors. The vast majority (92%) of fossil fuel cases are related to oil and gas investments. Fossil fuel investors have been successful in 72% of cases that were decided on the merits where the final award was disclosed. Fossil fuel cases have a high average amount of compensation awarded ($600 million), and asset valuation is complicated by the volatility of oil prices, which are highly sensitive to exogenous shocks such as the pandemic and the war in Ukraine.   Although only a small number of ISDS cases to date concern climate actions, this will likely change if governments begin to adopt more stringent policies, particularly if those policies directly affect fossil fuel investors.   States can argue that investors should have anticipated that they would be affected by climate policies, given long-standing scientific consensus that fossil fuels are the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions and international agreements on climate change mitigation dating back 30 years.   Nevertheless, it remains unclear how tribunals will weigh generalized commitments by states to address climate change against specific commitments to further oil and gas production (e.g., through issuance of leases). Countries with a large share of fossil fuel assets under the protection of foreign investment treaties are faced with substantial legal and financial risks if they phase out fossil fuel production..   http://www.science.org/stoken/author-tokens/ST-467/full http://theconversation.com/how-treaties-protecting-fossil-fuel-investors-could-jeopardize-global-efforts-to-save-the-climate-and-cost-countries-billions-182135 http://www.clientearth.org/latest/press-office/press/companies-cannot-use-ect-to-sue-governments-for-climate-progress-top-court-says/ http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/the-climate-emergency-demands-a-new-approach-to-investor-state-disputes http://inequality.org/research/missing-from-the-climate-talks-corporate-powers-to-sue-governments-over-extractives-policies/   http://www.iied.org/international-treaties-threaten-affordability-climate-action-new-report http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/news/fossil-fuel-companies-claiming-18bn-against-government-climate-action-in-secret-courts/ http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/global-governments-risk-trillions-in-fossil-fuel-climate-litigation/ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3531256 http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/investor-state-dispute-settlement-as-a-new-avenue-for-climate-change-litigation/ http://www.iied.org/rethinking-investment-treaties-dispute-settlement-light-sustainable-development http://www.iied.org/climate-action-being-held-back-hidden-handbrakes   Mar. 2023   The growing reliance on big corporate consultancies is stunting state capacity and undermining democratic accountability, Mariana Mazzucato and Rosie Collington from University College London outline some of the concerns:   http://www.socialeurope.eu/consultants-and-the-crisis-of-capitalism http://www.icij.org/investigations/luxembourg-leaks/accounting-giant-pwc-is-in-crisis-mode-amid-a-growing-australian-tax-leak-scandal/ http://peopleoverprof.it/resources/news/the-pricewaterhouse-coopers-australia-scandal-and-the-crisis-of-public-service-outsourcing?id=14004&lang=en http://www.ipsnews.net/2023/12/big-cons-consultancy-firms-undermine-governments/ http://www.icij.org/investigations/luxembourg-leaks/big-4-audit-firms-play-big-role-offshore-murk/
	We must rapidly decarbonise the global economy by Chatham House, Amnesty, Global Witness, agencies   Feb. 2023   Worsening climate shocks risk distracting from efforts to reduce carbon emissions   The world is entering a more difficult stage of the climate and ecological crisis where its symptoms are drawing attention away from efforts to tackle its root causes, according to a new report published by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) and Chatham House think tanks.   Huge resources are being deployed to respond to the growing number of climate disasters and complex crises linked to environmental destruction. But such demands could come at the cost of diverting effort away from the rapid switch now needed to decarbonise the global economy.   The report argues that this risks creating a vicious circle, or ‘doom loop’: the impacts of the climate and nature crises draw focus and resources away from tackling their underlying causes and the urgent steps needed to address them.   The report explores how this dynamic can be seen in the disagreement over how best to inspire the faster changes now needed to reach the internationally agreed 1.5C target for maximum global temperature rises. Some argue that declaring the target to be still in reach remains the most powerful motivator, but others believe that breaching the limit could be the ‘wake-up call’ that would spur activists and policymakers to step up their efforts.   But both stances can be exploited by ‘climate delayers’ who don’t want to see rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and wish to block transformational change. Instead, these delayers recommend potentially dangerous and untested technologies, such as injecting reflective particles into the stratosphere to lower heating by the sun, or finding ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere on an implausible scale. Both could be used to justify continued fossil emissions.   Laurie Laybourn, associate fellow of IPPR and a visiting fellow at Chatham House, said:   “It’s too late to avoid the climate storm altogether, and the challenge of navigating around a storm is very different to the challenge of navigating through it. Our ability to steer out of the storm is frustrated by having to manage the impacts of the storm on the ship.   “This is an analogy for the challenge facing environmentalism as we head closer to 1.5C of global heating. The worsening symptoms of the climate and ecological crisis – storms, food price shocks, conflict – will increasingly distract us from realising action to tackle its root causes.   “Slower decarbonisation and restoration of nature will create worse crises, which could undermine the support and resources needed for the green transition. Breaking out of this doom loop requires governments, businesses, and environmentalists to more actively pre-empt these threats.”   Henry Throp, a co-author and research analyst at the Chatham House Sustainability Accelerator, said:   “Governments and businesses have so far been unable to realise the rapid and systemic transformation that the UN says is needed to limit global heating to 1.5°C.   “As global temperatures tick up ever closer to the 1.5°C threshold, collective narratives are needed that can convey the accelerating, cascading dangers and spur rapid transformative change.   “These narratives must challenge actors and assumptions that delay action on climate change and should create the basis, direction and momentum for a climate transition aligned with nature restoration and opportunities for sustainable development.”   http://www.ippr.org/research/publications/1-5c-dead-or-alive http://bit.ly/3k4lmzj http://globalenergymonitor.org/press-release/world-must-retire-coal-plants-almost-five-times-faster-to-meet-climate-goals/ http://globalenergymonitor.org/press-release/indias-99-new-coal-mine-projects-conflict-with-net-zero-by-2070/ http://www.noaa.gov/news-release/greenhouse-gases-continued-to-increase-rapidly-in-2022   Feb. 2023   Fears rising energy prices to push 140 million more people into extreme poverty.   Soaring energy prices triggered by the Russia-Ukraine conflict may push up to 141 million more people around the globe into extreme poverty, a study has found.   The cost of energy for households globally has increased by between 62.6% and 112.9% since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, according to the modelling study by an international group of scientists published in Nature Energy.   The study modelled the impact of higher energy prices on the spending of 201 groups, representing different expenditure levels, in 116 countries, covering 87.4% of the global population.   The report's authors from universities across Asia, Europe and the United States, noted the jump in energy costs had inflated household spending by up to 4.8 per cent on average. For many poorer countries, the rate of increase was much higher.   The researchers estimate that up to 140 million people worldwide could be pushed into extreme poverty.   Yuli Shan, a professor at the University of Birmingham: “High energy prices hit household finances in two ways: fuel price rises directly increase household energy bills, while energy inputs needed to produce goods and services push prices up for those products as well, and especially for food, which affects households indirectly.   “Unaffordable costs of energy and other necessities will push vulnerable populations into energy poverty and even extreme poverty.”   Shan added: “This unprecedented global energy crisis reminds us that an energy system highly reliant on fossil fuels perpetuates energy security risks, as well as accelerating climate change.”   Household gas and electricity bills rose sharply last year, while petrol and diesel prices hit record highs. The energy crisis has led to calls for nations to move much faster in building renewable energy sources, while a number of governments have turned to polluting fuels such as coal to ensure security of power supplies.   Klaus Hubacek of the University of Groningen: “This crisis is worsening energy poverty and extreme poverty worldwide. For poor countries, living costs undermine their hard-won gains in energy access and poverty alleviation. Ensuring access to affordable energy and other necessities is a priority for those countries, but short-term policies addressing the cost of living crisis must align with climate mitigation goals and other long-term sustainable development commitments.”   "The global energy crisis should come as a reminder that an energy system highly reliant on fossil fuels perpetuates energy-security risks and accelerates climate change".. It underlines the urgency to accelerate the clean energy transition for all countries.   http://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-023-01209-8   Feb. 2023   Record profits show taxes on Big Oil must rise to help alleviate the cost of living crisis   Reacting to record annual profits made by BP, and other big oil companies such as ExxonMobil, Shell and Chevron Corporation in recent weeks, Amnesty International’s Secretary General Agnès Callamard said:   “The fossil fuel industry should be in decline. Instead, it is making vast historical profits, profiteering from the rise in energy prices resulting from Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.   “That Big Oil’s profit margins have swelled so vastly is patently unjustifiable. These profits are an unmitigated disaster, both for the climate and for the millions of people deeply affected by exorbitant energy costs".   “The fossil fuel industry needs to be urgently phased out through a human rights compliant and just energy transition. In the interim, the billions of dollars of profits being made by these oil corporations must be adequately taxed so that governments can address effectively the rising cost of living for most vulnerable populations and better protect human rights in the face of multiple global crises.”   Combined, the annual profits of BP, ExxonMobil, Shell and Chevron Corporation in 2022 exceeded US$150 billion, more than the economic output of most countries. These profits derive, in part, from the successful efforts of fossil fuel companies over decades to fight climate action and regulation, and come as inequality, poverty and food insecurity are rising.   A third of the world will be in recession this year, according to the IMF, and the richest 1 per cent – including many fossil fuel company chief executives and their investors – have acquired two thirds of all new wealth created since 2020, according to a recent report by Oxfam.   http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/02/global-record-profits-show-taxes-on-big-oil-must-rise-to-help-alleviate-the-cost-of-living-crisis/ http://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly-twice-much-wealth-rest-world-put-together-over-past-two-years http://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/greenwashing/fossil-fuel-greenwash-since-launch-of-green-claims-code/ http://www.globalwitness.org/tagged/fossil-gas/   * Sep. 2022   UN chief António Guterres called for windfall taxes on oil and gas this week, arguing it is “immoral” for fossil fuel companies to reap record profits while ordinary people suffer from a cost of living squeeze.   In recent weeks, oil and gas companies have reported bumper profits. BP reported profits of $8.45bn between April and June this year – more than triple the amount it made at the same time last year. Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Shell and Total reaped $51bn between them and returned $23bn to shareholders in dividends and buybacks, according to news agencies.   “The combined profits of the largest energy companies in the first quarter of this year are close to $100 billion,” said the UN Secretary-General. “This grotesque greed is punishing the poorest and most vulnerable people, while destroying our only common home,” Guterres said during a media briefing.   “I urge all governments to tax these excessive profits, and use the funds to support the most vulnerable people through these difficult times.”   “Household budgets everywhere are feeling the pinch from high food, transport and energy prices, fuelled by climate breakdown and war. “This threatens a starvation crisis for the poorest households, and severe cutbacks for those on average incomes.”   As the war in Ukraine continues to rage, skyrocketing energy prices are compounding an existential cost-of-living crisis for hundreds of millions of people, the UN chief said as he introduced the third is a series of briefings from the Global Crisis Response Group (GCRG) on Food, Energy and Finance.   The brief from the GCRG recommends that governments find effective funding for energy solutions, such as publicly financed cash transfers and rebate policies to protect vulnerable communities, including windfall taxes on the largest oil and gas companies, while also advocating for a transition to more cost-effective renewables.   Since the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries that are already bearing the brunt of the cost-of-living crisis, continue to experience major difficulties accessing affordable energy.   “Developing countries don’t lack reasons to invest in renewables. Many of them are living with the severe impacts of the climate crisis including storms, floods and droughts,” said Mr. Guterres.   The brief makes clear that the Ukraine war and global energy crisis that it has caused, is a stark reminder that energy resilience and a stronger push for a renewable energy transition is needed.   Renewable energy production is often the lowest cost option, with the shortest installation time thanks to current technological development, and provides countries with energy security, while also reducing future exposure to volatile fossil fuel prices.   * New Climate Institute: Climate pledges of leading companies are misleading and go less than halfway of what is required by 2030.   We find that long-term net-zero climate pledges made by companies remain ambiguous and serve to distract from the urgent need to cut emissions this decade. In aggregate, the companies covered by our in-depth assessment commit to reduce just 15% of their full value chain emissions by 2030, or up to 21% under the most optimistic interpretation of their pledges.   This goes less than halfway to the 43% reduction in greenhouse gases we need to deliver at the global level to limit temperature rise to around 1.5°C. One of the report’s authors, Thomas Day of NewClimate Institute, said:   “In this critical decade for climate action, companies’ current plans do not reflect the necessary urgency for emission reductions. Regulators, voluntary initiatives and companies must place a renewed and urgent focus on the integrity of companies’ emission reduction plans up to 2030. The discourse on longer-term net zero should not distract from the immediate task at hand.”   http://newclimate.org/news/press-release-corporate-climate-responsibility-monitor-2023 Visit the related web page
	View more stories