

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.

Robbie Blake, Biofuels campaigner, Friends of the Earth Europe:
robbie.blake@foeeurope.org, +32 491 290096
Kirtana Chandrasekaran, Food sovereignty coordinator, Friends of the Earth International:
kirtana.chandrasekaran@foe.co.uk, +30 693 8131226
Kurniawan Sabar, Campaign Manager for WALHI/Friends of the Earth Indonesia:
kurniawan.walhi@gmail.com, +62 81 24 14 81 868
Today, the European Parliament agreed new EU laws to limit the use of crop-based biofuels.
EU law makers ruled that biofuels can compete with food production, contribute to climate change, and put pressure on land use - and so have set a limit on the quantity of biofuels that can be used to meet EU energy targets (at no more than 7% of transport energy).[1]
Today, the European Parliament agreed new EU laws to limit the use of crop-based biofuels.
EU law makers ruled that biofuels can compete with food production, contribute to climate change, and put pressure on land use - and so have set a limit on the quantity of biofuels that can be used to meet EU energy targets (at no more than 7% of transport energy).[1]
With Europe the world's biggest user and importer of biodiesel - from crops such as palm oil, soy and rapeseed - the vote will have a major impact around the world, notably in the EU's main international supplier countries Indonesia, Malaysia and Argentina. It is likely to signal the end to the expanding use of food crops for transport fuel.
Robbie Blake, Friends of the Earth Europe's biofuels campaigner, said:
"Let no-one be in doubt, the biofuels bubble has burst. These fuels do more harm than good for people, the environment and the climate. The EU's long-awaited move to put the brakes on biofuels is a clear signal to the rest of the world that this is a false solution to the climate crisis. This must spark the end of burning food for fuel."
This decision brings to an end ten years of debate in the EU [2] over the unintended detrimental effects of biofuels demand on food prices, hunger, forest destruction, land consumption, and climate change.
Kirtana Chandrasekaran, Friends of the Earth International's food sovereignty coordinator, said:
"While the EU has not gone far enough to stop the irresponsible use of food crops for car fuel, this new law acknowledges a reality that small scale food producers worldwide know - that biofuel crops cripple their ability to feed the world, compete for the land that provides their livelihood, and for the water that sustains us. The EU has had to backtrack on its harmful biofuels policy and this should be a lesson to other countries considering similar toxic targets for biofuels."
Around the world, 64 countries have or are considering increasing the amount of biofuels used in transport fuel [3], including most recently Indonesia [4].
Kurniawan Sabar, campaign manager for WALHI/Friends of the Earth Indonesia, said:
"The people of Indonesia will be relieved to hear that the EU has taken some action to limit Europe's demand for palm oil for biofuels, which has escalated deforestation, land grabbing, and conflicts in Indonesia. The Indonesian government should take note and abandon its own plans for new subsidies to expand biofuels plantations in Indonesian forests."
Friends of the Earth now calls on EU countries to phase out the use of food for biofuels completely.
***
NOTES
[1] What the EU has agreed:
* A limit on biofuels from agricultural crops at 7% of EU transport energy - with an option for Member states to go lower. By comparison, the expected business as usual scenario was for biofuels of 8.6% of EU transport energy by 2020; current usage is at 4.7%, having declined in 2013 https://www.energies-renouvelables.org/observ-er/stat_baro/observ/baro222_en.pdf.
* Indirect greenhouse emissions released by expanding biofuels production will be reported on every year by the European Commission and by fuel suppliers. This will increase the transparency of the impacts of this policy.
* Member states should set a 0.5% non-binding target on so-called 'advanced' biofuels (most often derived from straw, household waste, forest and agricultural residues), while giving "due regard" to certain safeguards (such as waste hierarchy).
[2] Background:
The production and consumption of biofuels grew dramatically from 2008-2009 when two EU directives - on Renewable Energy (RED) and Fuel Quality (FQD) - were adopted that included binding targets for 10% of transport energy to be derived from renewable energy by 2020, almost all biofuels. Friends of the Earth opposed targets for biofuels at the time, and has since been campaigning to limit the use of food for fuel.
In October 2012, the European Commission proposed to amend this legislation in reaction to evidence showing the climate impact of some biofuels could be worse for the climate than using fossil fuels, by introducing a 5% limit for food based biofuels (set at current consumption levels). This was subsequently amended by the European Parliament (setting a 6% limit) and EU member states (setting a 7% limit). The vote in the European Parliament in Strasbourg on 29 April 2015, combined with one final approval by European energy ministers, sets this reform into European law.
The EU Commission has additionally stated it intends to scrap all future targets and support for "food based" biofuels after 2020, and future renewable energy targets for transport.
For more information on the problems with biofuels and the background to the EU decision see [briefing].
[3] https://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/15-01WiseMandates.pdf
[4] The Indonesian government is planning to boost domestic use of biofuel including from palm oil, with extra subsidies and a mandatory target of 15% biofuel blended into diesel fuel https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/04/06/govt-levies-palm-oil-exports-fund-biodiesel-push.html.
Environmentalists have criticised this decision as "a mistake"
https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/02/16/transfer-subsidy-biofuel-accelerates-deforestation-says-walhi.html
Friends of the Earth International is the world's largest grassroots environmental network, uniting 74 national member groups and some 5,000 local activist groups on every continent. With over 2 million members and supporters around the world, FOEI campaigns on today's most urgent environmental and social issues.
"While this is a positive short-term development, no one can rest easy when our ability to get this safe, effective medication for abortion and miscarriage care still hangs in the balance," stressed an ACLU attorney.
The US Supreme Court on Monday temporarily restored access to mifepristone, a medication commonly used for abortion and early miscarriage care, through the mail while the justices review a decision requiring it to be dispensed in person by a medical provider.
Justice Samuel Alito, who is part of the high court's right-wing supermajority, oversees the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. He issued a one-week stay for the appellate court's Friday dispensing decision, which critics had condemned as "sweeping and dangerous."
"This is not particularly surprising from Alito. He's the circuit justice here, acting—in essence—until the full court can act," explained Law Dork's Chris Geidner. He noted that both Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, another right-winger, "have issued administrative stays in the past until the full court can rule in similar circumstances, regardless of their ultimate votes on the matters."
The drug companies Danco Laboratories, which makes the brand-name version of mifepristone, Mifeprex, and GenBioPro, which makes the generic pill, asked the nation's top court to intervene following Friday's ruling, which threatened patients nationwide.
"Even this Supreme Court can see that this 5th Circuit decision is reckless," declared Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, on Monday. "While mifepristone access returns to where it was on Friday morning, the whiplash and chaos that patients and providers are navigating have already had real consequences for real people's lives and futures."
Since the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade in June 2022, the anti-choice movement and right-wing politicians have ramped up attacks on reproductive freedom at the state level. Meanwhile, the Biden administration's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) permanently lifted mifepristone's in-person dispensing requirement in early 2023, allowing doctors in pro-choice states to serve patients across the country via telehealth and the mail, regardless of local laws.
Louisiana responded to the eased restrictions on mifepristone—which is generally taken with another drug, misoprostol, for abortions—by suing, which led to the battle that has now reached the Supreme Court. Prior to Friday's decision by the infamously far-right 5th Circuit, a district judge in the state paused the case due to what the ACLU on Monday called "a sham FDA review announced by the Trump administration," which is ongoing.
"While this is a positive short-term development, no one can rest easy when our ability to get this safe, effective medication for abortion and miscarriage care still hangs in the balance," Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney for the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, stressed Monday. "The Supreme Court needs to put an end to this baseless attack on our reproductive freedom, once and for all."
One foreign policy expert urged skepticism of the administration's claim, noting its consistent pattern of "immediate, unequivocal denial, then slowly dribbling out confirmation."
The Trump administration has denied reports from Iranian media on Monday that a US Navy warship was hit in the Strait of Hormuz.
After US President Donald Trump said this weekend that the US Navy would help “guide” commercial ships through the strait, in what was referred to as "Project Freedom," an Iranian official described it as a ploy to "provoke" retaliation and pledged that any vessels attempting to navigate the waterway without authorization would be "promptly intercepted" by Iranian forces.
According to Iranian news agencies, that is just what occurred on Monday morning. The Fars News Agency, which is linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), said that according to local news sources, “two missiles” had made impact in an attack on a US Navy frigate that had entered the strait without permission from the Iranian government.
It said the ship “violated security protocols for transit and navigation near Jask with the intent to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, [and] came under missile attack after ignoring warnings from the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Navy.” Fars added that the ship "has been prevented from continuing its course due to these strikes and has been forced to retreat and flee the area."
In a comment to Reuters, a senior Iranian official added that it was unclear whether the warship had sustained any damage.
The Tasnim news agency published a statement from the Iranian army’s public relations department, saying that “with the decisive and swift warning from the Navy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the entry of enemy American Zionist destroyers into the Strait of Hormuz area was prevented.”
US Central Command (CENTCOM) quickly denied the claim, posting a "fact check" on social media.
"CLAIM: Iranian state media claims that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps hit a US warship with two missiles," the post said. "TRUTH: No US Navy ships have been struck. US forces are supporting Project Freedom and enforcing the naval blockade on Iranian ports."
Another post stated that "US Navy guided-missile destroyers are currently operating in the Arabian [Persian] Gulf after transiting the Strait of Hormuz in support of Project Freedom" and that "American forces are actively assisting efforts to restore transit for commercial shipping."
It added that "as a first step, two US-flagged merchant vessels have successfully transited through the Strait of Hormuz and are safely headed on their journey."
Iran's shuttering of the Strait of Hormuz to unauthorized ships has allowed it to wreak havoc on the Western economy in retaliation for the war launched by the US and Israel at the end of February.
About 20% of the globe's seaborne oil shipments pass through the waterway, and its closure has caused global oil prices to spike, driving US gas prices to more than $4 on average and rippling inflation through the economy.
Observers of open-source marine tracking reports have said it did not show that two US-flagged merchant ships passed through the strait on Monday. However, it is possible the ships could have navigated the strait with the tracking technology disabled.
While information from the strait remains scarce, Matt Duss, a former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has said the public should remain skeptical of the Trump administration's denials given its track record.
"Watch closely," he wrote on social media. "The Trump administration's consistent pattern has been immediate, unequivocal denial, then slowly dribbling out confirmation that 'yeah, that happened, it was bad, actually very bad,' and hope coverage has already moved on, and no one notices."
As an example, he pointed to the first Trump administration's claim following the 2020 assassination of IRGC Gen. Qassem Soleimani that retaliatory attacks against the Al Asad airbase, a US military installation, had resulted in zero casualties.
“Initially, Trump claimed, ‘We suffered no casualties,’” Duss said. “In the weeks that followed, we learned that there were actually over 100 casualties." At least 109 US troops had suffered brain injuries from the strikes, according to the Pentagon.
More recently, CENTCOM initially denied claims that Iran had shot down US fighter jets in early April, claiming that "all aircraft are accounted for" when a plane had, in fact, been shot down, requiring a multi-day operation to rescue two pilots from Iranian territory.
The threat of election-denying candidates is particularly acute in Arizona, where they are running for governor, secretary of state, and attorney general.
As President Donald Trump continues to push Republicans to aggressively gerrymander ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, a new analysis has found more than 50 candidates running for key offices who have in the past engaged in efforts to nullify election results.
As reported by NPR on Monday, election watchdog States United Action has released a report showing that election-denying candidates are running for offices in 23 states where, if victorious, they would have a direct role in certifying future elections.
States United classifies election deniers as candidates who meet one of five criteria: Falsely claiming that Trump won the 2020 election, spreading conspiracy theories about the election results, refusing to certify the 2020 election, supporting litigation to overturn election results, and refusing to concede a race after being defeated.
In total, States United found at least 53 such candidates running for positions this year, including secretaries of state and governorships, that would put them in position to try to block or impede the certification of elections.
The threat is particularly acute in Arizona, where election deniers are running for governor, secretary of state, and attorney general.
This prospective Arizona election denial ticket is headlined by MAGA hardliner Andy Biggs, who voted against certification of the 2020 election results as a US congressman and who is running to unseat incumbent Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs.
States United CEO Joanna Lydgate told NPR that her organization is tracking election deniers running for office to "provide voters with the most accurate information possible" and "understand exactly what these candidates stand for and whether they fundamentally believe in free and fair elections in this country."
As election deniers are trying to win key offices throughout the US, the Trump administration is working to get more directly involved in purging voter rolls ahead of the midterms.
According to a Monday report from CNN, "Republicans and the Trump administration are now testing the scope of the federal law that imposes that ban on 'systematic' removal programs within three months of an election, as President Donald Trump pushes for more aggressive reviews of voter rolls for non-citizens and other ineligible voters."
What this means is that states could in theory purge voter rolls just weeks ahead of elections, giving people removed from the rolls almost no time to file challenges.
Wren Orey, director of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Elections Project, told CNN that purging voter rolls less than three months before an election means there's a high risk that "voters won’t have adequate time or notice to be able to provide the documents that they’ll need ahead of the election."
"Maybe their birth certificate doesn’t meet the requirements," Orey explained. "Maybe they don’t have one handy, maybe they don’t have a passport. That could take months to get."
Brent Ferguson, the senior director of strategic litigation at Campaign Legal Center, told CNN that he was particularly disturbed by the Trump White House's involvement in this effort to manage voter rolls.
"It sets up a situation where the federal government itself is the actor trying to purge voters from the rolls in the days before the election," Ferguson said, "which is clearly illegal."