A push to get rich nations to end their export credit support for overseas oil and gas projects has failed, after opposition from South Korea and Türkiye – and only late and lukewarm support from the United States.
The European Union, UK, Canada and Norway have been trying to get the 38 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) to agree to expand a 2021 ban on support for coal to the other planet-heating fossil fuels – oil and gas.
But South Korea and Türkiye opposed this effort, according to a document released by a South Korean government agency and seen by Climate Home. With pro-fossil fuel Donald Trump becoming US president on January 20, campaigners following the OECD talks said negotiators had given up trying to reach a deal.
An OECD spokesperson confirmed on Tuesday that governments had been “unable to reach an agreement to further restrict the provision of support for fossil-fuel related projects”, although “this issue may be revisited in the future”. Talks will continue in March but, because of Trump’s election as the incoming US leader, expectations of a breakthrough are low.
Missed chance
Climate campaigners lamented the lack of progress by OECD countries before Trump takes office. Kate DeAngelis, deputy director of international finance at Friends of the Earth US, said she had been “pretty hopeful that they were going to reach a deal” but “in the end, they failed”.
Dongjae Oh, gas lead at Korean campaign group Solutions for Our Climate, told Climate Home that “given the change in US administration, the 2024 momentum was a key moment for positive change – and it has been deeply regrettable to see talks stall, even with the majority of countries supporting the fossil fuel-finance restrictions”.
According to analysis from Oil Change International, the export credit agencies of OECD governments provide about $40 billion in support to foreign fossil fuel projects every year, with the vast majority going to oil and gas projects.
For example, before it promised to end support for fossil fuels in 2021, the UK’s export credit agency provided $300 million in loans to British companies working on a project to extract gas in Mozambique.
A joint UK-Canadian proposal and a separate one from the European Union would have committed governments – with some exceptions – to end their support for foreign projects that produce, transport, store, refine or distribute fossil fuels.
Opponents revealed
These OECD negotiations take place in secret, with no journalists or observers allowed to attend. But the Korean Trade Insurance Corporation (K-SURE) was present at the negotiations in March and June 2024. The organisation wrote up a summary of the talks and countries’ positions, which was released to a member of the Korean National Assembly – and an English translation has been seen by Climate Home.
It said that South Korea, Australia and Türkiye were opposed to the export credit proposals while the US, Japan and Switzerland were “reserved”.
According to K-SURE, South Korea argued that the ban would unfairly affect developing countries which are not members of the OECD and said there is a need to consider the pace of the green transition.
Record-hot 2024 shows world must adapt to extremes, says EU climate service
Türkiye said that fossil fuels should be reduced only gradually, without disrupting energy supply chains and energy security, and Australia said it was “unable to accept the current proposal”.
In March, according to K-SURE, the US argued that options other than a blanket ban should be considered, while Japan pushed for more exceptions and Switzerland wanted additional time for discussions between Swiss ministries.
In June, K-SURE reported that most countries other than South Korea and Türkiye agreed on the “fundamental direction” of the ban but differences remained on the details.
“South Korea conveyed its dissenting opinion,” K-SURE noted, while Türkiye said the proposal was “not feasible” because of national and energy security.
Trump deadline
The talks continued – and, according to DeAngelis, intensified after the election of Donald Trump on November 5 last year “put a fire under the Biden White House to take this seriously and really engage in the talks”.
Oil Change campaign strategist Adam McGibbon told Climate Home there were several rounds of talks throughout November and December, but those talks broke down without agreement on December 20.
McGibbon, DeAngelis and Oh criticised Türkiye and especially South Korea for opposing the agreement. South Korea is a leading producer of the ships that carry liquefied natural gas, and its export credit agencies often loan companies the money to buy them.
Oxfam: Super-rich have already burned more than their fair share of carbon for 2025
“Continuing to hinder global climate ambitions in the year ahead would be harmful both for domestic development and Korea’s global ambitions,” Oh said.
But DeAngelis believes the US should take “a lot of the blame” for only supporting the proposal late and for failing to persuade South Korea to agree to it, as she said the US had done for the previous OECD ban on coal finance.
Next steps
DeAngelis said that while the OECD talks seem to have stalled for at least the four-year period of Trump’s presidential term, climate campaigners would encourage countries to sign up individually to the Clean Energy Transition Partnership (CETP).
This initiative was launched at COP26 in 2021 and commits countries and public finance institutions to end overseas support for fossil fuels. Its members now number 41 after Norway and Australia joined at COP28. While the OECD only addresses export credit agencies, the CETP also includes support from development finance institutions and contributions to multilateral development banks.
Research released last August by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) found signatories were largely delivering on their promise, with their collective fossil fuel financing in 2023 amounting to $5.2 billion – a decrease of two thirds from the pre-CETP baseline. This, IISD said, was “a historic achievement”.
DeAngelis said campaigners are trying to get South Korea and Japan to join the CETP, particularly if there is a change of government in Korea after the current political turmoil triggered by the suspended president’s short-lived declaration of martial law.
The OECD spokesperson said that, when it comes to limiting international support for fossil fuel projects, any government “that wishes to do so is free to join those who have already voluntarily adopted more restrictive terms and conditions for such transactions”.
(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)
The post Bid to end export credit help for oil and gas fails, with Korea and Türkiye opposed appeared first on Climate Home News.
Bid to end export credit help for oil and gas fails, with Korea and Türkiye opposed
Climate Change
DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
Blazing heat hits Europe
FANNING THE FLAMES: Wildfires “fanned by a heatwave and strong winds” caused havoc across southern Europe, Reuters reported. It added: “Fire has affected nearly 440,000 hectares (1,700 square miles) in the eurozone so far in 2025, double the average for the same period of the year since 2006.” Extreme heat is “breaking temperature records across Europe”, the Guardian said, with several countries reporting readings of around 40C.
HUMAN TOLL: At least three people have died in the wildfires erupting across Spain, Turkey and Albania, France24 said, adding that the fires have “displaced thousands in Greece and Albania”. Le Monde reported that a child in Italy “died of heatstroke”, while thousands were evacuated from Spain and firefighters “battled three large wildfires” in Portugal.
UK WILDFIRE RISK: The UK saw temperatures as high as 33.4C this week as England “entered its fourth heatwave”, BBC News said. The high heat is causing “nationally significant” water shortfalls, it added, “hitting farms, damaging wildlife and increasing wildfires”. The Daily Mirror noted that these conditions “could last until mid-autumn”. Scientists warn the UK faces possible “firewaves” due to climate change, BBC News also reported.
Around the world
- GRID PRESSURES: Iraq suffered a “near nationwide blackout” as elevated power demand – due to extreme temperatures of around 50C – triggered a transmission line failure, Bloomberg reported.
- ‘DIRE’ DOWN UNDER: The Australian government is keeping a climate risk assessment that contains “dire” implications for the continent “under wraps”, the Australian Financial Review said.
- EXTREME RAINFALL: Mexico City is “seeing one of its heaviest rainy seasons in years”, the Washington Post said. Downpours in the Japanese island of Kyushu “caused flooding and mudslides”, according to Politico. In Kashmir, flash floods killed 56 and left “scores missing”, the Associated Press said.
- SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION: China and Brazil agreed to “ensure the success” of COP30 in a recent phone call, Chinese state news agency Xinhua reported.
- PLASTIC ‘DEADLOCK’: Talks on a plastic pollution treaty have failed again at a summit in Geneva, according to the Guardian, with countries “deadlocked” on whether it should include “curbs on production and toxic chemicals”.
15
The number of times by which the most ethnically-diverse areas in England are more likely to experience extreme heat than its “least diverse” areas, according to new analysis by Carbon Brief.
Latest climate research
- As many as 13 minerals critical for low-carbon energy may face shortages under 2C pathways | Nature Climate Change
- A “scoping review” examined the impact of climate change on poor sexual and reproductive health and rights in sub-Saharan Africa | PLOS One
- A UK university cut the carbon footprint of its weekly canteen menu by 31% “without students noticing” | Nature Food
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
Factchecking Trump’s climate report
A report commissioned by the US government to justify rolling back climate regulations contains “at least 100 false or misleading statements”, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists. The report, compiled in two months by five hand-picked researchers, inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed” and misleadingly states that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”80
Spotlight
Does Xi Jinping care about climate change?
This week, Carbon Brief unpacks new research on Chinese president Xi Jinping’s policy priorities.
On this day in 2005, Xi Jinping, a local official in eastern China, made an unplanned speech when touring a small village – a rare occurrence in China’s highly-choreographed political culture.
In it, he observed that “lucid waters and lush mountains are mountains of silver and gold” – that is, the environment cannot be sacrificed for the sake of growth.
(The full text of the speech is not available, although Xi discussed the concept in a brief newspaper column – see below – a few days later.)
In a time where most government officials were laser-focused on delivering economic growth, this message was highly unusual.
Forward-thinking on environment
As a local official in the early 2000s, Xi endorsed the concept of “green GDP”, which integrates the value of natural resources and the environment into GDP calculations.
He also penned a regular newspaper column, 22 of which discussed environmental protection – although “climate change” was never mentioned.
This focus carried over to China’s national agenda when Xi became president.
New research from the Asia Society Policy Institute tracked policies in which Xi is reported by state media to have “personally” taken action.
It found that environmental protection is one of six topics in which he is often said to have directly steered policymaking.
Such policies include guidelines to build a “Beautiful China”, the creation of an environmental protection inspection team and the “three-north shelterbelt” afforestation programme.
“It’s important to know what Xi’s priorities are because the top leader wields outsized influence in the Chinese political system,” Neil Thomas, Asia Society Policy Institute fellow and report co-author, told Carbon Brief.
Local policymakers are “more likely” to invest resources in addressing policies they know have Xi’s attention, to increase their chances for promotion, he added.
What about climate and energy?
However, the research noted, climate and energy policies have not been publicised as bearing Xi’s personal touch.
“I think Xi prioritises environmental protection more than climate change because reducing pollution is an issue of social stability,” Thomas said, noting that “smoggy skies and polluted rivers” were more visible and more likely to trigger civil society pushback than gradual temperature increases.
The paper also said topics might not be linked to Xi personally when they are “too technical” or “politically sensitive”.
For example, Xi’s landmark decision for China to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 is widely reported as having only been made after climate modelling – facilitated by former climate envoy Xie Zhenhua – showed that this goal was achievable.
Prior to this, Xi had never spoken publicly about carbon neutrality.
Prof Alex Wang, a University of California, Los Angeles professor of law not involved in the research, noted that emphasising Xi’s personal attention may signal “top” political priorities, but not necessarily Xi’s “personal interests”.
By not emphasising climate, he said, Xi may be trying to avoid “pushing the system to overprioritise climate to the exclusion of the other priorities”.
There are other ways to know where climate ranks on the policy agenda, Thomas noted:
“Climate watchers should look at what Xi says, what Xi does and what policies Xi authorises in the name of the ‘central committee’. Is Xi talking more about climate? Is Xi establishing institutions and convening meetings that focus on climate? Is climate becoming a more prominent theme in top-level documents?”
Watch, read, listen
TRUMP EFFECT: The Columbia Energy Exchange podcast examined how pressure from US tariffs could affect India’s clean energy transition.
NAMIBIAN ‘DESTRUCTION’: The National Observer investigated the failure to address “human rights abuses and environmental destruction” claims against a Canadian oil company in Namibia.
‘RED AI’: The Network for the Digital Economy and the Environment studied the state of current research on “Red AI”, or the “negative environmental implications of AI”.
Coming up
- 17 August: Bolivian general elections
- 18-29 August: Preparatory talks on the entry into force of the “High Seas Treaty”, New York
- 18-22 August: Y20 Summit, Johannesburg
- 21 August: Advancing the “Africa clean air programme” through Africa-Asia collaboration, Yokohama
Pick of the jobs
- Lancaster Environment Centre, senior research associate: JUST Centre | Salary: £39,355-£45,413. Location: Lancaster, UK
- Environmental Justice Foundation, communications and media officer, Francophone Africa | Salary: XOF600,000-XOF800,000. Location: Dakar, Senegal
- Politico, energy & climate editor | Salary: Unknown. Location: Brussels, Belgium
- EnviroCatalysts, meteorologist | Salary: Unknown. Location: New Delhi, India
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report appeared first on Carbon Brief.
DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report
Climate Change
New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit
The specter of a “gas-for-wind” compromise between the governor and the White House is drawing the ire of residents as a deadline looms.
Hundreds of New Yorkers rallied against new natural gas pipelines in their state as a deadline loomed for the public to comment on a revived proposal to expand the gas pipeline that supplies downstate New York.
New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit
A “critical assessment” report commissioned by the Trump administration to justify a rollback of US climate regulations contains at least 100 false or misleading statements, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists.
The report – “A critical review of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the US climate” – was published by the US Department of Energy (DoE) on 23 July, just days before the government laid out plans to revoke a scientific finding used as the legal basis for emissions regulation.
The executive summary of the controversial report inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed”.
It also states misleadingly that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”.
Compiled in just two months by five “independent” researchers hand-selected by the climate-sceptic US secretary of energy Chris Wright, the document has sparked fierce criticism from climate scientists, who have pointed to factual errors, misrepresentation of research, messy citations and the cherry-picking of data.
Experts have also noted the authors’ track record of promoting views at odds with the mainstream understanding of climate science.
Wright’s department claims the report – which is currently open to public comment as part of a 30-day review – underwent an “internal peer-review period amongst [the] DoE’s scientific research community”.
The report is designed to provide a scientific underpinning to one flank of the Trump administration’s plans to rescind a finding that serves as the legal prerequisite for federal emissions regulation. (The second flank is about legal authority to regulate emissions.)
The “endangerment finding” – enacted by the Obama administration in 2009 – states that six greenhouse gases are contributing to the net-negative impacts of climate change and, thus, put the public in danger.
In a press release on 29 July, the US Environmental Protection Agency said “updated studies and information” set out in the new report would “challenge the assumptions” of the 2009 finding.
Carbon Brief asked a wide range of climate scientists, including those cited in the “critical review” itself, to factcheck the report’s various claims and statements.
The post Factcheck: Trump’s climate report includes more than 100 false or misleading claims appeared first on Carbon Brief.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-trumps-climate-report-includes-more-than-100-false-or-misleading-claims/
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change1 year ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Carbon Footprint1 year agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Some firms unaware of England’s new single-use plastic ban