Common Dreams - breaking news & views for the progressive community

Today G7 climate, environment and energy ministers released a joint communique that falls short of carrying forward the ambition of the COP28 agreement to transition away from fossil fuels.

G7 countries represent 27% of global oil and gas production, and are responsible for nearly 48% of CO2 from new oil and gas production.

Oil Change International data shows between 2020 and 2022, the G7 provided USD $25.7 billion a year in international public finance for fossil fuels, compared to USD $10.3 billion for clean energy. Today’s communique reaffirmed the G7’s agreement to end this finance, but with no clear timeline.

This year’s G7 negotiations are at a historic time for climate politics. It is the first opportunity to reflect the landmark agreement from COP28 to phase out fossil fuels, and the last time the group of countries will meet before agreeing to a new climate finance goal and submitting updated climate plans to 2035. This is the last chance for this group of rich countries to align their plans with the agreed 1.5°C limit.

In response, Romain Ioualalen, Oil Change International Global Policy Campaign Manager, said:
“This was the first opportunity for the G7 to show they were taking the COP28 agreement seriously. They have failed.

“The G7 are falling far short of what’s needed to implement the COP28 agreement to phase out fossil fuels. They are not just delaying taking climate action – they are actively blocking a fair, fast, full, and funded phase out of fossil fuels. These leaders cannot say they’re committed to a livable climate, while slow walking coal phase out, endorsing expansion of fossil gas, failing to pledge new climate finance.

“While the G7 focuses on coal, it conveniently omits to stress that limiting warming to 1.5°C means they also need to end fossil fuel expansion at home, going fastest in phasing out existing production. They must end the billions of dollars in taxpayer finance still flowing to fossil fuel projects abroad and fund the buildout of affordable renewable energy on fair terms. If their oil and gas expansion plans are allowed to proceed, it would lock in climate chaos and an unlivable future.

Makiko Arima, Senior Finance Campaigner at Oil Change International said:
“At a time when we need to phase out fossil fuels, Japan is driving gas expansion across Asia and globally. Last month, Japan approved over $2.7 billion dollars in financing for new gas projects in Vietnam, Australia and Mexico, breaking its G7 promise to end public finance for overseas fossil fuel projects. Japan is especially active in promoting gas in Asia through the Asia Zero Emissions Community initiative, which is just greenwashing designed to benefit Japanese corporate interests. Committing to phase out coal is a step in the right direction, but the phase out must include technologies like co-firing ammonia at coal plants that prolong the use of coal, as well as other fossil fuels like gas to ensure it is 1.5 degree-aligned.”

Responding to an agreement reached by G7 member states today to phase out all unabated coal-fired electricity generation in the first half of the 2030s, Candy Ofime, Amnesty International’s Climate Justice Researcher, said:

“This is not the goal for coal we need and it will not deliver climate justice. Commitments put forward by G7 members – which have burnt coal for power for more than a century – to stop using this pollutant by 2035 are simply too late and weakened by unacceptable caveats.

“The end of coal power generation cannot come soon enough for those experiencing the worst effects of the climate crisis. Coal is one of the dirtiest energy sources and its burning has immense health impacts, particularly in lower income countries and among marginalized, often racialized, frontline communities globally.

The end of coal power generation cannot come soon enough for those experiencing the worst effects of the climate crisis. —Candy Ofime, Amnesty International’s Climate Justice Researcher

“Protection of human rights requires an urgent, full, fair and funded phase out of all fossil fuels. A just and equitable phase out means ending financing for coal production and coal energy everywhere. The rights of workers in the coal industry must be protected during this transition.

“There appears to be no curb in this deal on the use of coal for steel production, which accounts for about 30% of coal consumption, and the commitment to phase out just so-called ‘unabated’ coal is misleading. Abatement relies on the use of carbon capture and storage, and other technologies such as ammonia and hydrogen co-firing with coal, which are unproven at scale and can come with other risks. Coal pollution cannot be adequately abated, and harms health and the climate whenever it is used.

“This deal must not encourage an uptake of so-called natural gas, which is mostly methane, as an energy alternative. Its exploitation is increasingly associated with releases of this hugely potent greenhouse gas, which is a major contributor to global warming.

“As the world’s highest income countries, and among those most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, G7 states have the greatest responsibility to help lower income states to move away from all fossil fuels.”

Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CODEPINK, was arrested this morning for disrupting testimony from Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on the 2025 budget request.

During the hearing, Benjamin voiced her opposition to the United State’s support for the genocide in Gaza, calling it illegal, immoral, and disgraceful. She directly confronted Secretary Austin, emphasizing the global scrutiny on the actions in Gaza and condemning the shipment of weapons that violates US and international laws, as well as basic principles of decency.

"The whole world is watching what we are doing in Gaza right now. Secretary General, you are supporting a genocide,” Benjamin shouted.

While being arrested, Benjamin highlighted the urgency of speaking out against this genocide, donning a T-shirt “Another Jew That Speaks Out Against Genocide” she drew attention to the allocation of billions of dollars for Israel, urging for a redirection of resources towards humanitarian efforts.

View Video of Disruption and Arrest Here.

Despite facing arrests activists and state-sanctioned violence students, peace activists, and constituents across the country will continue to do everything in their power to stop the genocide in Gaza, end the occupation of Palestine, and cease U.S. military and financial support of Israel’s war crimes.

In a newly released interview with TIME, Donald Trump doubled down on his extremist anti-abortion policies. Trump endorsed punishing women who get an abortion and allowing states to monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute women who get an abortion. Trump also left the door open to signing legislation that could ban IVF and stood with extremist anti-abortion activists who want to ban medication abortion nationwide.

Reproductive Freedom for All President and CEO Mini Timmaraju released the following statement in response:

“There is zero doubt in my mind that Trump will choose anti-abortion extremists and their horrifying agenda over American families every single chance he gets, and this new interview proves that he will ban abortion in all 50 states. It’s imperative that we double down on our mission to reelect the Biden-Harris ticket and deliver Congressional majorities to lock our right to abortion care into federal law.”

Today, the Biden administration’s White House Council on Environmental Quality released a final rule guiding federal decision making under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

This rulemaking, which was initiated with Phase 1 in 2022, reverses Trump-era attacks on the bedrock environmental protection, as well as ensuring reviews fully and accurately consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of proposed projects and that affected communities are consulted as early as possible.

In response, Sierra Club Executive Director Ben Jealous released the following statement:

“This rule is yet another reminder that we do not have to choose between environmental justice and meeting our energy needs. Through this commonsense reform, we can unlock the benefits of the Inflation Reduction Act and bring abundant clean energy resources online without sacrificing communities or rubber-stamping more fossil fuels. We applaud the Biden administration for taking this important step toward ensuring certainty, efficiency, and transparency in the federal environmental review process.”

Today, the White House Council on Environmental Quality announced its final rule reinstating 2020 rollbacks to the National Environmental Policy Act. The rule will officially restore past gutting of the nation’s bedrock environmental protection law, as well as add climate change and environmental justice as factors that should formally be considered by federal agencies when implementing NEPA review.

CEQ’s announcement is the direct result of a 2020 lawsuit filed filed by a coalition of organizations, including Friends of the Earth, which challenged the Trump Administration’s attacks on NEPA. The litigation has been stayed pending CEQ’s restoration efforts. The 2020 attacks on NEPA attempted to exempt dirty energy projects from basic environmental reviews and silence public input. Today’s rule completes CEQ’s two-phase approach to undoing these unlawful rollbacks.

Hallie Templeton, legal director for Friends of the Earth, issued the following statement:

We commend CEQ for taking long-overdue actions to strengthen and restore NEPA, our nation’s most crucial environmental protection law. This marks a victory in our years-long litigation to reverse the rollbacks and benefits frontline communities who rely on NEPA for a voice in the permitting process and for transparency around our government’s activities. While much more must be done to shore up our nation’s environmental and environmental justice laws, this is a certain step in the right direction for safeguarding people and the planet.

CEQ issued its draft Phase 2 rule in Aug. 2023, the final publication of which completes a 2-phase approach to reinstating and strengthening NEPA. CEQ published the Phase 1 rule in April 2022. Plaintiffs in the litigation are reviewing the rule and determining next steps for their lawsuit over the unlawful 2020 rollbacks.

The White House Council on Environmental Quality today announced its final rule as part of a two-step process to restore and strengthen the critical National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This rule reinstates provisions that were gutted by the Trump administration to exempt industry from commonsense environmental safeguards. It also goes further by strengthening requirements to factor climate change risks into planned projects and consider the potential for disproportionate harm to human health or the environment in communities contending with ongoing environmental injustices. In effect for more than 50 years, NEPA is a foundational environmental law that helps ensure communities are meaningfully engaged in decisions about projects being built nearby or that affect them.

Below is a statement by David Watkins, the director of government affairs for the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

“Polluters have been attacking NEPA since it was signed into law 50 years ago, with the previous administration’s undermining efforts serving as the latest example. By restoring and strengthening key provisions of NEPA, the Biden administration has unequivocally declared that polluting industries will not have the only say in how federal investments and projects are evaluated.

“These new regulations will reverse the worst of the Trump administration’s attacks, implement bipartisan changes mandated by Congress, protect communities’ ability to weigh in on projects that affect their health and surrounding environment, and make NEPA a more effective tool for responding to the climate crisis. As an organization committed to scientific integrity and advancing environmental justice, we welcome these numerous improvements. A robust NEPA process leads to better public health outcomes, a cleaner environment and lower overall costs.”

In addition to Watkins, UCS has the following experts on staff available for interviews on this topic:

• Dr. Rachel Cleetus, the policy director for the Climate and Energy Program at UCS.
• Michell McIntyre, the policy director and program manager for the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS.

If you have any questions or would like to arrange an interview with Watkins or another UCS expert, please contact UCS Climate and Energy Media Manager Ashley Siefert Nunes.

Additional Resources:

• A blogpost by Watkins, “NEPA, the ‘Magna Carta’ of Federal Environmental Laws, May Be About to Improve.”

Today the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) released its final set of regulations to restore the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a bedrock environmental law that gives communities the ability to weigh in on federal actions that impact their air, water and public health.

The new rule is the second in a two-phase process to reverse a Trump administration rollback that gutted NEPA review to fast-track polluting projects and stifle community input.

In response, Food & Water Watch Legal Director Tarah Heinzen released the following statement:

“NEPA gives communities the power to participate and advocate for themselves when the federal government green-lights polluting projects like factory farms and fossil fuel power plants. Today’s rule restores strong environmental review of federal actions and will go a long way towards having a meaningful process to assess the health and safety impacts of an array of projects.
“Over the past few years, NEPA has been targeted by polluters and their political allies as an impediment to permitting sensible and necessary projects. But this is simply not the case; full, transparent consideration of a project’s impacts – including climate and environmental justice impacts – is critical to informed decision making and ultimately transitioning away from fossil fuels.”

The fourth session of the United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution, or INC-4, ended today without much-needed progress toward an international agreement to end plastic pollution and protect human health, the climate and biodiversity.

While INC-4 did manage a commitment to convene experts to conduct intersessional work before the final scheduled negotiation session in November, it was marred by aggressive efforts by low-ambition countries to clog the text with plastic-promoting edits.

“Countries should be rallying around plastic production cuts at this critical stage, not continuing to wrangle over the treaty’s scope,” said Julie Teel Simmonds, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, an observer at INC-4. “Despite hearing people from polluted communities around the world give sensible proposals to curb the lifecycle harms of plastics, fossil fuel and petrochemical interests are still shamelessly blocking progress and focusing on utterly inadequate plastic waste management.”

Throughout INC-4, U.N. member states discussed treaty text options proposed at previous negotiations and attempted to streamline the draft toward a final agreement. To the frustration of environmental, public health, and frontline organizations observing the session, nations struggled to agree even on the treaty’s scope and key substantive provisions.

Highlighting the ongoing division over the core issue of plastic production cuts, fossil fuel- and petrochemical-friendly countries could not even agree that intersessional work should cover the issue of primary plastic production.

The Center and many other groups from the Break Free From Plastic movement attended INC-4 in person to pressure member states to negotiate strong and effective treaty language that cuts plastic production and addresses pollution along the full lifecycle of plastic, from extraction and refining of the oil and gas that provides its raw materials to its disposal and loss in the environment.

Rwanda and Peru — both members of the “High Ambition Coalition” — released strong proposals for text on production reductions. In contrast, a coalition of fossil fuel–aligned countries, including Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia, continued to forcefully object to treaty measures to address plastic production. These member states, calling themselves the “Like-Minded Group,” suggested changes to the treaty text that gut it almost entirely.

“Rather than showing leadership, the United States has remained disappointedly in the middle,” said Teel Simmonds. “The U.S. proposals lack binding targets and focus on cutting demand for plastic rather than production itself. And they don’t go beyond existing U.S. policy, which has failed to curb plastic production or protect frontline communities and the environment from harm.”

The BFFP movement released a call for action expressing disappointment and demanding more from the U.S. delegation.

Representatives of the Indigenous Peoples Caucus attending the negotiations again highlighted the lack of resources and support to ensure their strong participation. The harms that Indigenous Peoples face from plastic production were underscored by INC-4 participants from the Aamjiwnaang First Nation, who are fighting to protect their health from an INEOS petrochemical facility recently shut down for leaking illegal levels of benzene.

Even more fossil fuel, chemical and beverage industry representatives attended INC-4 than previous sessions, and several groups again called for policies to protect the negotiation process from conflicts of interest.

“Despite mounting proof of plastics’ enormous harm to people and the planet, the petrochemical industry and the countries that put them first are ramping up efforts to water down this treaty,” Teel Simmonds said. “We’ll keep fighting their deception and obstruction because the world desperately needs a treaty that protects us from plastic production and pollution. And we’ll keep pushing the United States to lead.”

The next negotiating session, INC-5, will take place in Busan, Korea, in November 2024.

Today, the Senate Budget Committee, led by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, released a report detailing the fossil fuel industry's decades-long campaign of climate deception and delay. The report, which comes a day before the committee's hearing investigating Big Oil's role in the climate crisis, sheds new light on the industry's efforts to mislead the American people about the catastrophic impacts of their products on our climate.

The documents show that the oil majors were never serious about meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement and have instead used a false-commitment to climate action as cover to push false solutions like methane gas and carbon capture.

"This report is a scathing indictment of the fossil fuel industry's lies and corruption," said Cassidy DiPaola, spokesperson for the Make Polluters Pay campaign. "As the impacts of the climate crisis worsen, from deadly heat waves to devastating floods and wildfires, it's never been more important to hold polluters accountable for the damage they've knowingly caused. The Senate Budget Committee's investigation is a critical step towards justice, and it’s time the Biden Administration follows suit.”

Momentum for holding polluters accountable is growing across the country. Several states and cities, including California, Hawaii, and Chicago have filed lawsuits against Big Oil for climate damages and fraud. Climate superfund bills, which would make polluters pay into state funds to help communities prepare for and recover from climate disasters, are also rapidly moving forward in states like Vermont and California.

A new poll released by Fossil Free Media and Data for Progress today found that 72% of voters are angry to learn that oil companies lied to Americans about fossil fuel’s impact on the climate, even as they knew it was accelerating global warming. Furthermore, 66% of likely voters—including 89% of Democrats—support the passage of a climate superfund bill that would make oil companies cover the cost of climate damage caused by their pollution, and 63% of voters under 45 and 66% of Black voters are more inclined to support a candidate that prioritizes the passage of a climate superfund bill—a key finding as the Biden administration looks to galvanize its voting base ahead of what is likely to be another record-setting year for climate disasters.

Members of the U.S. House and Senate today jointly released new evidence shining further light on the fossil fuel industry’s decades-long efforts to deceive the American people about climate change.

Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, released the following statement:

“This new evidence of Big Oil’s climate lies will likely be used to hold these companies accountable in court — and it should generate renewed calls for the U.S. Department of Justice to finally open its own investigation into the fossil fuel industry.

“We applaud Senator Whitehouse, Representative Raskin, and their committees for helping to shine further light on Big Oil’s ongoing climate deception. Communities across the country are already taking these polluters to court to make them pay for their deceit, and many of their lawsuits have cited documents unearthed by Congress as evidence.

“Big Oil’s concerted efforts to mislead the public about their destructive industry are the most consequential corporate fraud in history. Tomorrow’s hearing should make clear that it’s time for the U.S. Justice Department to get off the sidelines and take action to hold Big Oil accountable for lying to the American people for decades."

Background on Congressional Investigations into Big Oil

In 2021, the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform launched an investigation into the role of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, the American Petroleum Institute, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in a “long-running, industry-wide campaign to spread disinformation about the role of fossil fuels in causing global warming.”

In a historic hearing, the Big Oil executives testified before the committee and refused under oath to pledge that they would stop spending money to oppose climate action. The committee subpoenaed the companies for documents, and in 2022, the committee twice released new evidence showing that the companies continue to obstruct climate action and deceive the public.

Background on Congressional Calls for DOJ Action Against Big Oil

Last summer, nearly two dozen House and Senate members wrote letters to Attorney General Merrick Garland urging the Department of Justice to either investigate or sue Exxon, Shell, and other fossil fuel companies for violating fraud, racketeering, and other federal laws.

Background on State and Local Climate Accountability Lawsuits Against Big Oil

The attorneys general of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia, as well as dozens of municipal governments in California, Colorado, Hawai`i, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Puerto Rico, and two tribal governments, have filed lawsuits to hold major oil and gas companies accountable for deceiving the public about their products’ role in climate change.

At least four of those lawsuits have cited evidence unearthed by the House Oversight investigation in their filings.

The G7 Climate, Energy and Environment Ministerial held in Turin, Italy released its final text on Tuesday with all seven member states committing to phase out domestic coal power generation before 2035 – marking an unprecedented commitment from the United States and Japan, the only outlying G7 countries not to have set a coal phase out date. Fossil gas, nuclear and biofuels featured heavily in the final communique, while restrictions to Russian fossil gas imports were also adopted.

While the G7 today reaffirmed its commitment to achieving the tripling of renewable energy and doubling of energy efficiency by 2030 agreed upon at COP28, the agreement to phase out coal power generation before 2035 does not align with the Paris Agreement target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees, with experts asserting that G7 and OECD countries must phase out coal across all sectors by 2030 and take urgent steps to phase out oil and fossil gas.

Quotes

Andreas Sieber, 350.org Associate Director of Global Campaigns says:

“The G7’s agreement to phase out domestic coal power in the first half of the 2030s is important yet insufficient progress, leaving room to push for the more urgent and complete phase out the climate crisis demands. To meet the Paris Agreement target, G7 countries must phase out coal well before 2030 and continue to push for the G7 to commit to phase out all fossil fuels including oil, gas, and reject the adoption of dangerous technologies like nuclear.

It is imperative that the world’s largest economies support the global renewable energy transition by providing finance at scale, particularly for the Global South, and urgently pull out of funding fossil fuels both at home and abroad.”

Masayoshi Iyoda, 350.org Japan Campaigner says:

“Japan agreeing to a specific deadline to phase out domestic coal power generation is momentous and long overdue. As an historic outlier amongst G7 countries on making coal phase-out commitments, and with the highest share of power generated from coal amongst its G7 peers, this is a step forward. However, 2035 is too late to meet the 1.5 degree target set in the Paris Agreement.

Along with phasing out domestic coal power by 2030 at the latest, Japan must stop its financing of coal and fossil gas projects across Asia and the globe. While acknowledging this progress, we must not allow Japan to take this opportunity to go all-in on nuclear, fossil gas, or ammonia co-firing technology, which serve as dangerous distractions from the urgent need to transition to fair, safe, and affordable renewable energy. We must use this momentum to collectively push for a tighter deadline for a full, fast, and fair transition away from all fossil fuels.”

Jeff Ordower, 350.org North America Director says:

"It is past time that the U.S. made concrete commitments to phase out coal power. While welcome this and all steps towards phasing out fossil fuels, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's recent announcement to further limit coal-fired power plants' CO2 emissions, we must not lose sight of what is really at stake.To keep global warming in line with what communities around the world need to survive, the U.S. must go much further and phase out all fossil fuels, including oil and gas.

The U.S. must not rely on unproven technologies like carbon capture, or dangerous, expensive and unequal ones like nuclear just so they can continue business as usual. Historically one of the world's largest emitters, the U.S. continues to invest tens of billions on fossil fuel subsidies annually. At the last COP, the U.S. agreed to triple renewable energy by 2030 and to phase-out fossil fuels – but we are yet to see the concrete commitments that will make that happen."

Nicolo Wojewoda, 350.org Europe Regional Director says:

“European G7 countries must go beyond rehashing existing coal phase out commitments, and instead replace all fossil fuels in the power sector with renewable energy well before 2035. France, Germany, Italy and the UK have the resources to achieve that – they just need to stop putting public money into the problem, and redirect it towards the solutions. We know taxes on Europe's most polluting companies and on the super rich could generate billions, and go a long way to support the energy revolution here in Europe and in the Global South”

Today, Groundwork Collaborative released a new video featuring Chief Economist Dr. Rakeen Mabud, who explains how the Federal Reserve’s refusal to lower interest rates is keeping housing costs high and making it more costly and more difficult for people to buy or even rent a home. The video comes ahead of the Federal Open Market Committee meeting on April 30 and May 1, where the Fed will announce the path forward on interest rates in the coming months.

“The Fed has jacked up interest rates to the highest level in 20 years. When the Fed raises interest rates, mortgage rates rise too. That means that many prospective homebuyers are priced out of the decision to buy a home. Where do these potential buyers go? Back into the rental market, increasing demand among renters and pushing up rent costs,” Mabud explains in the video.

“The Fed’s high interest rates also make building housing more expensive, and some reports find that we are short as many as six and a half million homes. That’s a housing crisis of epic proportions.”

“Even though sky-high interest rates are keeping inflation high and worsening an already dire housing crisis, the Fed may delay in cutting rates. It’s time for the Fed to cut interest rates and get our housing market moving again.”

Win Without War Executive Director Sara Haghdoosti released the following statement responding to scenes of police violence at university protests:

“The use of state violence against peaceful protestors is unacceptable. Police batons deployed against students calling for peace in Gaza are not a source of safety on campus, nor are they a bulwark against antisemitism. They hurt people, impinge on fundamental liberties, and serve an extreme right-wing agenda that threatens Jews, Muslims, and the right to protest across the country. University leaders and government officials must take steps to protect students exercising their right to protest, not enlist police to attack them.

“Antisemitism and anti-Muslim bigotry are on the rise and serious issues nationwide, including on college campuses. The people endangered by these scourges deserve better than to be the targets of cynical political ploys or to be used as excuses for violent repression. No one is made safer by police violence, and politicians who say otherwise are only attempting to sow division for their own reprehensible ends. What we need from our leaders right now is to de-escalate, permit protests, and not allow state violence against people exercising their fundamental rights.”

Thousands of Indigenous leaders and representatives and their allies converged on Brazil’s capital this week for the 20th Free Land Camp (Acampamento Terra Livre – ATL), a major annual mobilization to advance the struggle for Indigenous rights to land demarcation and sovereignty. Organized by the Association of Brazil’s Indigenous Peoples (APIB), this year’s gathering is entitled “Our Existence is Ancestral: We Have Always Been Here!” to counter the virulent anti-Indigenous narratives that underpin spiraling attacks waged principally by agribusiness and mining interests in Brazil’s Congress.

Today’s march through Brasilia’s Esplanade of Ministries displayed the strength of the country’s Indigenous movement and focused on threats emblematic of the current assault upon constitutional land rights. To symbolize these threats, a large vehicle entitled “Tracks of Destruction” showcased drivers of human rights violations and environmental devastation, from agribusiness efforts to cut the Ferrogrão mega-railway through the heart of the Amazon rainforest to the relentless push to open Indigenous lands to industrial mining. The action also denounced the scourge of illegal mining on native lands, which continues to flourish despite federal efforts to crack down on the activity.

“Ferrogrão is the train of death, of deforestation,” said Goldman Prize winner Alessandra Korap Munduruku. “The railroad is not going to carry people, as they claim, but grain production of international companies that are financing this project. It’s a project that will affect not only Indigenous people, but also traditional communities and the people who live in the towns alongside its route. In addition, it is a project that will affect people all over the world because it would exacerbate climate change with the massive deforestation it would cause.”

“Since Ferrogrão’s inception, hearings have only been held in cities, none in Indigenous villages,” said Kleber Karipuna, an Executive Coordinator at APIB. “Once again, we demand that the protocols for consulting Indigenous peoples be respected. Additionally, the absence of a consultation protocol should not be used as an excuse to deny consultation of peoples affected by the project.”

“The mere announcement of Ferrogrão has increased deforestation around our Indigenous lands,” said Doto Takak Ire, President of the Kayapó people’s Kabu Institute. “Land grabbing has increased, risks of land invasion have increased, and we have been forced to increase the monitoring of our territories. Soy cultivation has encroached to the edge of Menkragnoti Indigenous Land. It dirties the rivers that pass through our villages. We can already see all this. And Ferrogrão will only make it worse.”

“Ferrogrão represents the death of kilometers and kilometers of forest,” said Takakpe Tapayuna Metuktire, from the Raoni Institute. “While we should be thinking about how to preserve what remains and think about alternative infrastructure projects that respect our rights, nature and Indigenous and traditional peoples. We are fighting to prevent yet another project of death and destruction from prevailing in the Amazon. With Ferrogrão all that will be left is scorched earth.”

The Free Land Camp’s closing march prioritized Ferrogrão and mining on native lands because of the centrality of these threads to Indigenous land rights and the ecosystems sustained by Indigenous land defenders. Ferrogrão would impact at least 16 Indigenous lands and 104 rural settlements, threatening 4.9 million hectares of protected areas. Meanwhile, Brazil’s mining sector is projecting a new mineral boom in the Amazon and is openly seeking to prospect on Indigenous lands.

“Through today’s powerful action and protest, Brazil’s Indigenous movement denounced the trails of destruction left by illegal miners, multinational mining interests, and agribusiness companies in the Amazon and on Indigenous territories,” said Paula Vargas, Amazon Watch Brazil Program Director. “These companies and their political backers must be stopped and held accountable, and Brazilian authorities must defend the rights of Indigenous peoples and traditional communities.”

Notably absent from this year’s ATL was President Lula, who had attended the two previous mobilizations. APIB has criticized his government’s failure to fulfill a campaign promise to swiftly demarcate Indigenous lands, as well as its weak response to congressional attacks on Indigenous rights. Lula’s announcement that his government would only title 10 of 14 promised Indigenous territories has also sparked denunciations from Brazil’s Indigenous movement. Yet despite his absence at the mobilization, Lula received a group of leaders at the presidential palace today.

The ATL mobilization occurs within a backdrop of the most severe political rollacks on Indigenous rights since the ratification of Brazil’s constitution in 1988. Last year’s passage of Federal Law 14,701 which enshrined the “Marco Temporal” (time limit thesis) into law after overriding President Lula’s partial vetoes to the legislation, has effectively frozen Indigenous land demarcations while opening federally-titled territories to industrial activity, which could potentially include mining and agribusiness projects.

While the constitutional basis for Marco Temporal had been roundly rejected by Brazil’s Supreme Court (STF), this week STF justice Gilmar Mendes signaled the court would not rule on the constitutionality of Law 14,701, opening the possibility of negotiating away fundamental Indigenous rights in a major setback to the country’s Indigenous movement.

On Thursday, in a 3–2 vote, the Federal Communications Commission voted to restore Net Neutrality protections and reclassify high-speed-internet access services as telecom services subject to Title II of the Communications Act.

The decision is a major victory for the public interest: Title II authority empowers the FCC to hold companies like AT&T, Comcast, Spectrum and Verizon accountable for a wide range of harms to internet users across the United States. Prior to the historic vote, FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said: “[We] take this action today to help ensure that broadband is fast, open and fair for all of us.”

Since the Trump FCC repealed open-internet protections in 2017, people from across the political spectrum have called on the agency to reinstate Net Neutrality and assert the agency’s authority to prevent broadband providers from harming online users.

Free Press Co-CEO Craig Aaron said:

“Everyone should celebrate today’s FCC vote. Public support for Net Neutrality is overwhelming, and people understand why we need a federal watchdog to protect everyone’s access to the most essential communications platform of our time. The FCC heard the outcry and did its job: delivering on promises to stand with internet users and against big telecom companies and their trade groups, which have spent untold millions of dollars to spread lies about Net Neutrality and thwart any oversight or regulation.

“We’ve been fighting for this moment since well before the Trump FCC threw out strong Title II rules in 2017. It’s been nearly 20 years since Net Neutrality first came under threat. In the time since, the debate over Net Neutrality, like the internet itself, has evolved. But the central concern remains the same: Does the FCC have the authority, vested in Title II of the Communications Act, to step in when internet service providers treat their customers unjustly by blocking or interfering with the free flow of information online? Today, the FCC answered that question with a resounding yes.

“Chairwoman Rosenworcel and Commissioners Geoffrey Starks and Anna Gomez today reversed the Trump FCC’s gutting of these essential protections, and ensured that the agency can once again protect internet users whenever big phone and cable companies like AT&T, Comcast, Spectrum and Verizon attempt to harm them. By restoring the essential safeguards that millions fought so hard to make a reality, the FCC will once again follow the law that Congress wrote for modern internet-access service, reestablishing its oversight of the vital telecommunications service that connects all of us.

“This is common sense: The nation’s communications regulator must be able to oversee the nation’s communications infrastructure. Congress has already given the FCC the tools it needs to make the internet work better for everyone. After today’s vote, the FCC can actually use them. Under the agency’s strong but flexible rules, every ISP will be responsible for making resilient networks available to people on just and reasonable terms. The agency now has the ability to protect internet users from ISPs’ privacy invasions, promote broadband competition and deployment, and take action against hidden junk fees, data caps and billing rip-offs.

“Big cable and phone companies won’t be able to pick and choose what any of us can say or see online. Net Neutrality is a guarantee that these companies will carry our data across the internet without undue interference or unreasonable discrimination. Without this clear authority over broadband access, the FCC was vastly weakened, having to implore broadband providers during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic to agree to voluntary and toothless pledges to protect internet users — pledges many of these companies failed to uphold.

“We’re especially grateful to Chairwoman Rosenworcel and her staff for leading this effort to restore these essential rights to internet users, as well as for the strong support of Commissioners Starks and Gomez. Today’s decision shows a government agency doing what it’s supposed to do: Listen to the public and stand up for them against rich and powerful companies that for too long have called all the shots in D.C.

“Despite the many obstacles Net Neutrality advocates have faced, we are celebrating today’s vote. This is what democracy should look like: public servants responding to public sentiment, taking steps to protect just and reasonable services and free expression, and showing that the government is capable of defending the public interest.”

Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to restore Net Neutrality. The move restores the FCC’s authority under Title II of the Communications Act to oversee broadband providers and enforce the open-internet protections. The Open Internet Order was repealed during the Trump Administration in the face of widespread public opposition – including comments filed during the proceedings opposing the controversial reversal by the agency.

Common Cause, along with its partners, delivered a petition with over 126,000 signatures, thanking the Commissioners for their vote today, showing the continued widespread public support for Net Neutrality.

Statement of Michael Copps, Former FCC Chair and Common Cause Special Adviser

If I weren’t out of the country today, I would be personally at the FCC jumping up and down, saluting the majority for reinstituting the network neutrality rules that were so foolishly eliminated by the previous Commission. I have been personally and deeply involved in the battle for an open internet for more than 20 years, both as a Commissioner and more recently as a public interest advocate. Today’s action brings back moderate rules that have already passed court muster and are essential building blocks for a consumer-friendly and citizen-friendly internet. Congratulations to Chair Rosenworcel, Commissioner Starks, and Commissioner Gomez for getting us here today.

Our communications technologies are evolving so swiftly, affecting so many important aspects of our individual lives, that they must be available to all of us on a non-discriminatory basis. And they must advance the public interest, protecting consumers, fostering competition, and providing us all the news and information we need as we fight to maintain our democracy. We still have much to do; but today, let’s celebrate a huge step forward.

Statement of Ishan Mehta, Common Cause Media and Democracy Program Director

The restoration of Net Neutrality is a victory for every American household, and it is a victory for democracy. Today’s vote returns control of the Internet to the American people instead of corporate interests. The Internet is crucial to civic engagement in the United States today. It functions as a virtual public square where social justice movements organize and garner support.

Since the repeal of Net Neutrality during the Trump Administration broadband access has been unregulated and consumers have been left at the mercy of Internet providers. Americans have seen those providers throttle popular video streaming services, offer service plans that favor their own services over competitors, and degrade video quality in order extract higher prices for improved quality.

This Internet today is an essential public utility and in recent years, service providers proved themselves incapable of delivering that service without supervision.

The FCC’s vote today returns the Internet to the American people.

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument later today in Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States, a case brought by extreme politicians seeking to disregard a federal statute — the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) — and put doctors in jail for providing pregnant patients necessary emergency medical care. The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Idaho, and the law firm Cooley LLP previously filed an amicus brief in this case explaining that Idaho’s arguments cannot be justified under the Supreme Court’s own precedents, and that all three branches of government have long recognized that hospitals are required under EMTALA to provide emergency abortion care to any patient who needs it.

“For the second time in as many months, the Supreme Court will hear a case with extraordinary impacts on our ability to get the essential, and in some cases life-saving, health care we need,” said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “Anti-abortion politicians have brought this case to the nation’s highest court to challenge long-standing federal protections for emergency care abortion care. If these extreme politicians succeed, doctors will be forced to withhold critical care from their patients, and pregnant people will suffer severe, life-altering health consequences, and even death. We’re already seeing the devastating impact of this case play out in Idaho, where medical evacuations to transport patients to other states for the care they need have dramatically spiked since the Supreme Court allowed state politicians to block emergency abortion care. This case once again highlights the extraordinary lengths extremist politicians will go to control our bodies, our lives, and our ability to get the health care we need.”

The case comes to the Supreme Court after the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Idaho in August 2022, seeking an injunction to allow patients to receive abortions in emergency circumstances. The case argues that EMTALA — a nearly 40-year-old federal statute that requires hospitals that receive Medicare funds to provide emergency stabilizing treatment to any patient that needs it — prevents Idaho from banning emergency abortions. A lower court granted the injunction, but anti-abortion politicians appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, which lifted the injunction and took the case in January.

Medical professionals, from the American College of Emergency Physicians and American Hospital Association to the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have underscored that doctors must be able to provide their patients with the emergency abortion care they need.

Idaho is home to one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country, which went into effect following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in 2022. As a result of this ban, medical providers have found themselves having to decide between providing stabilizing care to a pregnant patient and facing criminal prosecution from the state, or declining medical care and leaving a patient in crisis while facing federal sanctions for violating EMTALA.

As a result, Idaho has lost nearly 1 in 5 obstetricians and gynecologists who have chosen to leave the state and practice elsewhere, which has led to hospital obstetrics programs around the state shuttering their doors.

The brief in Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States is a part of the ACLU’s Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.

On Tuesday, the Senate passed a bill that would force TikTok’s Chinese owner, ByteDance, to divest its holdings of the popular social-media site or face an effective ban in the United States. The White House has indicated that President Biden will sign the legislation, which – after failing to move quickly through the Senate – was folded into a foreign-aid bill that included support for Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan.

According to the bill, ByteDance must sell its TikTok shares within 270 days to a buyer that satisfies the U.S. government. If ByteDance refuses to sell, the government will prohibit cloud providers and app stores from distributing TikTok in the United States.

TikTok has approximately 170 million active monthly users in the United States alone and is especially popular with younger generations and people of color, who use TikTok to organize, communicate, educate and entertain.

Free Press Action Policy Counsel Jenna Ruddock said:

“If lawmakers want to rein in the harms of social-media platforms, targeting just one under the guise of national security ignores an entire industry predicated on surveillance capitalism. Like all popular platforms — including those that Meta and Google own — TikTok collects far too much user data. But banning a single platform will not address the privacy problem that’s rotting the core of the entire tech industry. At any given time, dozens of corporations are tracking us, analyzing our behavior and profiting off of our private information. An entire business sector is dedicated to harvesting our sensitive data, selling it both in the United States and abroad, where it’s used to discriminate, target people with unwelcome ads and political disinformation — and, potentially, pry into their personal lives.

“Singling out TikTok for privacy concerns, when so much personal information is available on the open market to U.S. law enforcement and foreign intelligence agencies alike, is a misguided detour from doing what’s needed to protect everyone’s digital rights. A sell-or-be-banned law targeting one platform runs afoul of the First Amendment and unilaterally closes off essential spaces for people to connect and communicate. The government should never have the right to cherry-pick the venues we use to explore new ideas. Many of the same lawmakers who passed this effective ban on TikTok are often heard decrying the rise of censorship. Such rhetoric gives a distinct whiff of hypocrisy to this latest legislative move.

“TikTok users include a disproportionate number of younger people and people of color, who traditional media outlets too often ignore or neglect. Free Press Action will continue to fight for the free-speech rights of these and all other social-media users. Instead of banning TikTok, lawmakers should focus their energies on passing a federal privacy law that limits how all of these companies collect, store, analyze and sell our personal data.”

Happy Disinfectant Injection Day to those survivors who four years ago ignored the "stratospherically insane" advice, even for him, of a demented buffoon babbling hokum in the face of a pandemic he couldn't spin his way out of - which, thanks to his ineptness, needlessly killed over 200,000 Americans. "I see the disinfectant, it knocks it out in a minute," he raved to a stricken Dr. Birx. "And is there a way we can do something like that?" Yeah, sure, let's elect him again.

Tuesday's fourth Bleachiversary, aka Stick a Light Up Your Ass Day or Bleach Injection Day, marks what's been deemed "the most surreal moment ever witnessed (in) a presidential press conference." For weeks, Trump had been giving "stream-of-consciousness" updates on a pandemic he insisted would soon vanish, but wasn't. Earlier that day, the COVID task force had met, as usual without him, to discuss new findings on the effects of sunlight and humidity on the virus; Trump was briefed, didn't get it, went out and winged it 'cause he loved free TV airtime and what's a few hundred thousand deaths anyway? "So supposing we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light. And I think you said you're going to test it?" he prattled to Birx cringing behind him. "And then I see the disinfectant, it knocks it out in a minute...And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? So you’re going to use medical doctors, right? But it sounds interesting to me. So we’ll see..."

And we did. Because, alas, dumb people listened. Calls to Poison Control Centers after ingesting bleach, Lysol and other (deadly) household cleaners soared - this was even before he started touting hydroxychloroquine - and the day's deranged press bleaching went on to live in infamy. Ultimately, thanks to Trump's cumulative health policy cluster-fucks, America saw the highest number of COVID deaths in the world - over a million - of which, experts say, roughly 234,000 could have been prevented. In the moment, video shows a grim, mute Dr. Birx curled in horror - one witness swore you could see her soul leave her body - though it would have been far more useful for her to shriek WTF?! as the madman burbled. "I wanted it to be 'The Twilight Zone' and all go away," she said in a later interview. "I could just see everything unraveling." From then on, said a former Obama official, "We knew without any doubt the government was in way over its head, and its ability to respond effectively (was) not going to be anywhere close to meeting the moment."

— (@)

And so it went. And here we are. And now he is not just "gaspingly stupid" but, experts say, "in the advanced stages of dementia," from word salad - “space capsicule" and "Yoonayded Nations" - to 4th grade vocabulary - big, strong, great - to memory issues - Pelosi/ Haley - to a growing inability to control his behavior: "All of this will only get worse. The Trump you see today is the best Trump you're ever going to see." Last week, he described the Battle of Gettysburg - "What an unbelievable battle that was. Gettysburg. Wow" - as either a mash-up of the Civil War and Pirates of the Caribbean or a horse giving birth. This week outside court, accordion hands flying, he gabbled about his hush money crimes to reporters: "It’s a case as to book-keeping, which is a very minor thing in terms of the law in terms of all the violent crime that's going on outside…"This is a case where you pay a lawyer, he's a lawyer and they call it a legal expense. That's the exact term they use. We never even deducted it as a tax deduction..."

In court, meanwhile, he slumps, glowers, nods off as his hapless lawyers - admonished by the judge with, "I have to tell you right now, you're losing all credibility with the court" - struggle to explain how he's innocent of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up a sex scandal in an act of election interference. Between sessions, he whines: "I'm here in a courtroom, sitting here...Sitting up as straight as I can all day long. It’s a very unfair situation.” So does Fox' Jesse Watters, who evidently doesn't realize that before sitting up straight in court Trump spent his time riding a golf cart like a beached whale: "They're draining his brain and his body...You're taking a man who's usually (in) action and you're gonna sit him in a chair in freezing temperatures. He needs sunlight and he needs activity. It's really cruel and unusual punishment to make a man do that." But the Super Man of his digital trading cards is "extraordinarily resilient," a co-host reminds him. So yeah, sure, four more years, even from a prison cell.

"There are several stages of grief after someone dies," a wise patriot notes, and often even before they do. "Like realizing your own dad has lung cancer, realizing he is not well and is not going to be well down the road...The fact is that Trump has a cancer, a cancer of his soul that affects us all...It is time to let ‘dad’ go...People need to let Donald Trump go. Let him fade into the shadows where he came from." For a reminder of why that is necessary, see Sarah Cooper four years ago depict his moment of COVID ignominy, one of far, far too many, in How To Medical. Biden is already on it. “Remember when he told us, literally, inject bleach?" he asked last week. “Bless me, Father.” So many crimes, so few consequences, so much at stake. Are we better off than we were four years ago? For fuck's sake, yes. "Don't inject bleach," Biden urges. "And don’t vote for the guy who told you to inject bleach."