

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Peri Dias, Latin America Comms Manager, +591 7899-2202, peri.dias@350.org
Despite the devastating impacts on coastal communities, marine ecosystems, and the climate, major fossil fuel corporations keep attempting to expand oil drilling in Brazil - and profiting from it.
Despite the devastating impacts on coastal communities, marine ecosystems, and the climate, major fossil fuel corporations keep attempting to expand oil drilling in Brazil - and profiting from it.
As coastal communities from the Northeast of Brazil suffer the consequences of a huge oil spill, which is being considered one of the biggest environmental disasters in the history of the country, Exxonmobil and Chevron are about to engage in a new auction of huge offshore oil blocks in Brazil, on November 6th.
Experts predict that this oil auction might become the world's "priciest" ever. Oil corporations hope that the new blocks will generate from 6 to 15 billion barrels of crude oil, twice as much as Norway's reserves, ignoring the current trends for oil demand and the evaporating social license for the industry. Polluting mega-corporations like Exxon are particularly interested in this auction because the presence of large reserves of oil in the regions to be explored has already been proven.
Meanwhile, more than 60,000 artisanal fishermen and fisherwomen across the Northeast coast of Brazil are struggling to sell their catch because of the contamination of the marine life in the region by a thick, toxic oil. Most of these families depend on the fishery as their primary source of food and livelihood.
"The disaster we are witnessing could not better illustrate the complete neglect of these fossil fuel companies with the risks and damage that their activities cause to the lives of the poorest communities and the environment. In respect of the victims and due to governmental inability to contain the current spill, we demand the cancellation of the oil auction," said Nicole Oliveira, 350.org's Managing Director for Latin America.
The Northeast of Brazil is a region well-known for its paradisiac beaches and for being a hotspot of marine biodiversity, but it is also one of the poorest areas in the country.
In the first weeks of the spill, the Brazilian government tried to publicly deny the environmental and social crisis. Even after the scale became clear, the government did not put in place all of the institutional and financial resources it could have to contain the spread of the problem, according to several specialists interviewed by major Brazilian media outlets. Experts say that the effects on marine life and fishery might last for decades.
Touched by the images of animals such as marine turtles dying because of the oil and by the inaction of the authorities, hundreds of volunteers gathered by their own initiative to clean the beaches, even though they did not have the adequate protection equipment to perform this job. Because of the contact with the toxic substance, a number of them are now vulnerable to health problems such as vomiting, allergies or even a higher probability of cancer, in the case of prolonged exposure.
This dramatic situation generated a picture that shocked many in Brazil, on October 25: covered by a plastic sack, used as an improvised protection, a young boy who was trying to help in the cleaning of the beach where his mother works selling food for tourists leaves the sea with arms and hands covered by oil and a facial expression of tiredness and desolation.
"The Brazilian government has not been able to properly address the consequences of this spillage, and there is no reason to believe that it will be prepared to avoid and mitigate any future accidents. Despite these facts that are as clear as an oil stain on a pristine beach, companies such as ExxonMobil and Chevron are happily joining this new auction, literally at the same time that families covered in oil demand more protection," stated Nicole Oliveira.
Three weeks ago, fossil fuel companies such as ExxonMobil and Chevron participated in another auction of oil blocks in Brazil, which included the right of exploring oil in an area that, in case of spillage, could destroy the National Marine Park of Abrolhos, one of the most biodiverse sea areas of the southern hemisphere. Due to the pressure of environmental and local organizations, including 350.org, these companies did not dare to put a proposal for the blocks closer to the marine sanctuary and it was saved, at least for now.
Claudia Cristina Ferreira dos Santos is a local social justice activist from Bahia, one of the states affected by the spill, and coordinates a recently created mobilization group called SOS Abrolhos, which gathers more than 250 members of the communities affected or under risk of suffering harms because of the oil spill. They collected signatures to avoid the auction of the oil blocks near Abrolhos, in September, and now are pressuring Congress representatives to demand the end of the auctions.
"Many fishermen and fisherwomen are not eligible to receive the small compensations that the government will pay for the communities that had to stop fishing because of the spill. They simply do not know anymore how they are going to make a living," Claudia Cristina Ferreira dos Santos said.
"It makes me outraged to hear from the government and the companies that the oil drill will bring development to our region. We see the impacts of this activity to the families and ask ourselves 'is this development?'. In a region of paradisiac beaches, why don't they invest in boosting tourism and improving education to our children and workers, so that we can benefit from nature, instead of destroying it and harming those who live here?" said Claudia Cristina Ferreira dos Santos.
From November 5th to 6th, 350.org and a number of local civil society organizations will hold protests in Rio de Janeiro, where the auction will happen, to oppose to oil extraction, demand respect for the rights of communities and draw attention to the global climate crisis.
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."