Common Dreams - breaking news & views for the progressive community

Today, the Associated Press reported that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is proposing rescheduling marijuana from a Schedule I drug, the most restrictive class, to a Schedule III drug, a less restrictive class. Under this proposed shift, marijuana criminalization would continue at the federal level and most penalties, including those for simple possession, would continue as long as marijuana remains anywhere on the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). On the 2020 campaign trail, then-candidate Biden repeatedly pledged to decriminalize marijuana and expunge related criminal records – identifying these issues as barriers to racial equity. However, the DEA’s proposal would leave most of the harms and racial disparities associated with criminalization unaddressed.

“Supporting federal marijuana decriminalization means supporting the removal of marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act, not changing its scheduling” said Cat Packer, Director of Drug Markets and Legal Regulation. “We all deserve a federal framework for marijuana that upholds the health, wellbeing, and safety of our communities – particularly Black communities who have borne the brunt of our country’s racist enforcement of marijuana laws. Rescheduling marijuana is not a policy solution for federal marijuana criminalization or its harms, and it won’t address the disproportionate impact that it has had on Black and Brown communities.”

Packer continued: “The individuals, families and communities adversely impacted by federal marijuana criminalization deserve more. Workers in the marijuana industry, people who use marijuana, all of us deserve more. Congress and the Biden Administration have a responsibility to take actions now to bring about marijuana reform that meaningfully improves the lives of people who have been harmed by decades of criminalization. Descheduling and legalizing marijuana the right way isn’t just good policy, it’s popular with voters, too.”

A majority of American voters support marijuana legalization and comprehensive reform, according to a Data for Progress poll. Policymakers, health professionals and criminal justice advocates agree that marijuana must be removed from the CSA and coupled with comprehensive Congressional legislative reform to address racial disparities, reduce harm, and move toward a federal marijuana policy and regulatory framework that benefits all communities. Descheduling has also amassed significant support in Congress, with Representatives Blumenauer (D-OR), Joyce (R-OH), Lee (D-CA), and Mast (R-FL) leading their Congressional colleagues in two letters (in December 2022 and October 2023) to the DEA calling for descheduling marijuana, and Senator Warren (D-MA) leading eleven of her colleagues, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-OH), urging President Biden’s Administration to remove marijuana from the CSA.

The Drug Policy Alliance and its coalition partners at United for Marijuana Decriminalization (UMD) plan to launch an ambitious outreach effort to encourage community members to tell President Biden and the DEA that marijuana must be descheduled once the public comment period is open. Members of the public will be able to submit comments in support of descheduling in response to the DEA’s proposal through a simple online form. During the brief, time-limited public comment period, UMD aims to solicit a historic number of public comments through extensive outreach to stakeholders, particularly those who have been harmed by marijuana criminalization, inviting participation in the public process and emphasizing the need for marijuana descheduling.

To end federal marijuana criminalization and create marijuana laws grounded in health, safety, and racial equity, the Drug Policy Alliance, fellow advocates, and Congressional leaders are calling on the DEA to deschedule marijuana by fully removing it from the CSA. While descheduling is critical to eliminating the ongoing harms of federal criminalization, marijuana reform can also take place through Executive Orders and Congressional legislation. President Biden can come closer to fulfilling his promise to end marijuana criminalization by taking immediate action to mitigate the harms of marijuana prohibition in people’s lives.

Additionally, Congressional legislation should provide relief from previous marijuana convictions, restore rights and benefits to people impacted by marijuana criminalization, reinvest in communities disproportionately harmed by criminal enforcement. Additionally, Congressional legislation should create a regulatory framework rooted in equity that prioritizes public health, workplace safety, and fair economic opportunities for small businesses. The House of Representatives has twice passed the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, a comprehensive descheduling bill with extensive criminal justice reform and community reinvestment. In 2022, the Senate introduced the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act (CAOA), the most comprehensive Congressional descheduling bill to date.

Rep. Barbara Lee (CA):

“While the rescheduling of marijuana is a historic step in the right direction, anything short of descheduling falls woefully short of remedying the harms of the current system and the failed racist War on Drugs,” said Rep. Lee. “Rescheduling would allow for the criminal penalties for recreational and medical marijuana use to continue – disproportionately impacting Black and Brown communities. The criminalization of marijuana is also increasingly out of step with state law and public opinion. We need full descheduling and to pass the MORE Act – which I proudly co-lead – as a solution for equitable comprehensive marijuana reform rooted in racial and restorative justice.”

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (NY):

“Descheduling marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act is not just a social justice issue; it’s an economic, medical, and public safety issue. Since marijuana was classified as a Schedule I substance during the war on drugs, countless lives have been torn apart, and individuals in primarily Black and brown communities have been targeted for nonviolent cannabis-related offenses,” said Senator Gillibrand. “Studies show that legalizing marijuana could help reduce violence in international drug trafficking and generate billions of dollars for the economy. The vast majority of Americans agree that marijuana should be legalized – that’s why I’m calling on the Attorney General and the Drug Enforcement Administration to swiftly deschedule marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act.”

Rep. Jerry Nadler (NY):

“While rescheduling marijuana is an important step, we must go further. It is time to end the prohibition and criminalization of marijuana at the federal level. That’s why I have introduced the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, or the MORE Act, which would not only decriminalize marijuana under federal law, but it would also expunge federal marijuana convictions and encourage states to do the same. The bill would also establish a fund to support programs assisting those communities who were most directly harmed by the War on Drugs and ensure that they have equal access to the benefits of decriminalization.”

Amber Senter, Co-Founder, Board Chair, and Executive Director, Supernova Women:

“There’s no doubt that the United States government recognizing cannabis has medicinal benefits is anything short of historic. Advocates have worked tirelessly for decades to reach this moment, banding together as patients, caregivers, social justice activists, and community members. However rescheduling cannabis to Schedule 3 is not enough. People will continue to be criminalized and punished for possessing and consuming cannabis, risking employment, housing, benefits and more. Workers in the cannabis industry will run the risk of federal prosecution for simply going to work and trying to provide for themselves and their families. Patients using cannabis as medicine through legal or state medical programs will also run the risk of federal criminalization by simply choosing a less harmful way to cope with pain from debilitating medical conditions. The war on drugs will continue to rage on, destroying lives and families as it’s done for decades. As a business owner in cannabis, I recognize the much-needed tax relief that rescheduling cannabis to Schedule 3 will bring. However, we cannot continue to allow some to capitalize from cannabis while others, primarily black and brown people, continue to be punished with their lives ruined. We must deschedule cannabis and stop criminalization for a medically beneficial plant.”

Chelsea Higgs Wise, Executive Director, Marijuana Justice:

“Since prohibiting marijuana there has been a targeted enforcement that has left communities of color disproportionately harmed at the individual, familial and community level. Rescheduling only brings benefits to businesses through tax relief, while our loved ones are left with the guarantee of repetitive surveillance, imprisonment, and collateral consequences. Any federal reform must directly address the disproportionate enforcement Black families continue to face. Presidential pardons are important but for true repair, we must continue to demand for marijuana to be descheduled along with people released and records expunged.”

Michelle Rutter Friberg, Director of Government Affairs, National Cannabis Industry Association:

“While rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III will undoubtedly provide much needed tax relief to cannabis businesses, the Biden Administration and Congress must act to deschedule marijuana and remove it from the Controlled Substances Act entirely. Only descheduling marijuana will harmonize federal law with the 37 states with some form of legal cannabis commerce, allow for the implementation of sensible regulations on hemp and marijuana derived products, and create a level playing field for small and minority owned businesses in the industry.”

Dr. Rachel Knox, MD, MBA, Board Chair, Association for Cannabis Health Equity and Medine (ACHEM):

“Cannabis must be removed from the Controlled Substances Act. From inception, its scheduling has been public health enemy #1, as it has underpinned decades of racist and classist provocation, perpetuating systemic harms directly linked to generational poverty and escalating health disparities in marginalized communities. Rescheduling does nothing to unravel this framework and, in fact, will allow it to continue unchecked. The only remedy to this chronic threat is descheduling, the swift overhaul of discriminatory cannabis policies across all sectors, and thoughtful regulation of diverse cannabis markets with standards rooted in science and social justice.”

Lt. Diane Goldstein (Ret.), Executive Director, Law Enforcement Action Partnership:

“As the failed policies of marijuana prohibition continue to drag on and waste law enforcement resources, the DEA’s move to reschedule marijuana to a less restrictive class would simply not go far enough,” she said. “It would not end federal marijuana criminalization and would do little to rectify the harms of the current system, in which an arrest record can lead to fewer employment opportunities, limited housing options, and obstacles to obtaining loans, all of which make people more, not less, disposed to crime and further drug use. The only way to end this unnecessary criminalization and its harms is to completely remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act.”

Dasheeda Dawson, Chair, Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition and Founding Director, Cannabis NYC:

“The time for descheduling cannabis is not just a matter of policy; it’s an imperative for justice and equity. Rescheduling would undermine the hard-fought progress made by cannabis equity and policy reform leaders like the Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition, jeopardizing the livelihoods and futures of those entrepreneurs and communities disproportionately affected by past criminalization. We cannot afford to backtrack on our commitment to repair the harm inflicted by outdated policies. Descheduling is not just about legality; it’s about rectifying historic injustices and ensuring a fair and inclusive future for all.”

Weldon Angelos, President & Co-Founder, The Weldon Project:

”As an advocate for ending federal marijuana prohibition, I acknowledge that the DEA’s decision to reschedule marijuana as a Schedule 3 substance is a significant step – but it’s far from the inevitable ultimate destination where marijuana is no longer treated as contraband in America’s failed war on drugs. Only the complete descheduling of marijuana will begin to dismantle the barriers of a nationwide criminal ban and ensure that no further damage is inflicted after decades of misguided federal policies. As we navigate this pivotal moment, our actions must be bold and unequivocal to ensure justice and equity for all those who have suffered under the weight of prohibition. If our ultimate goals are to liberate and restore American communities, now is not the time to settle for half measures or, worse yet, to declare victory and pretend like everything’s been solved. It hasn’t.”

Background:

38 states have laws that allow for medical cannabis use and 24 states have laws that allow for adult recreational cannabis use. Despite these reforms at the state level – as long as marijuana is a scheduled substance under the CSA, the repercussions of federal marijuana criminalization will continue – even for conduct that is authorized under state law. Individuals could still face criminal penalties, including mandatory minimum sentences, for personal use and distribution. Additionally, under a Schedule III classification, people with marijuana-related convictions could still lose access to federal housing and food benefits, or even face deportation. According to the ACLU, over 80% of people sentenced for federal marijuana charges were Black or Latino. This is a clear indication that maintaining federal criminalization in any form will perpetuate racially discriminatory policing and enforcement.

Learn more about federal marijuana scheduling here.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, today released the following statement after Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan announced that the FTC is taking action against the bogus patents Novo Nordisk filed to keep the outrageous price of Ozempic artificially high:

Let me commend the Federal Trade Commission, under the leadership of Chair Lina Khan, for taking bold action today against the bogus patents Novo Nordisk has filed to prevent Americans struggling with diabetes from receiving a generic version of Ozempic at a much lower price.

Novo Nordisk must not be allowed to make billions in profits by delaying generic competition for Ozempic by unlawfully filing junk patents that have nothing to do with the drug itself, but the injection pen.

Last week, the HELP Committee, that I chair, launched an investigation into the outrageously high prices Novo Nordisk is charging for Ozempic and Wegovy in the United States. In my view, we can no longer tolerate Novo Nordisk charging the American people $969 for Ozempic when that same exact drug can be purchased for just $155 in Canada and $59 in Germany while it costs less than $5 to manufacture.

I look forward to working with the Biden administration to take on the greed of Novo Nordisk and substantially reduce the price of Ozempic and other prescription drugs.

Today, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sent warning letters to 10 drug manufacturers challenging the “junk listings” of more than 300 patents in the FDA Orange Book for medicines treating diabetes, weight loss, asthma, and COPD. These letters follow FTC challenges to improper Orange Book patent listings last November, which were followed by companies delisting several of the challenged patents. Public Citizen’s Access to Medicines program advocate, Steve Knievel, issued the following statement:

“It’s becoming harder for drug corporations to use patent shenanigans to thwart competition, thanks to the FTC and Chair Lina Khan.

“Improperly listing patents in the FDA Orange Book stymies generic competition which is proven to dramatically lowerprescription drug prices, saving patients and the public billions of dollars.

“Today’s letter is yet another demonstration from the Biden-Harris administration that Big Pharma business-as-usual monopoly abuses and price gouging will not be tolerated. The FDA should supplement FTC’s action by clarifying guidelines for patents that can be listed in the Orange Book, as called for by Sen. Warren and Rep. Jayapal. The government should also explore using licensing authorities to overcome pharmaceutical monopoly abuses, leaving no option off the table.”

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.