

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.
"It is, to date, the Noboa government’s biggest electoral defeat."
Ecuador's voters on Sunday delivered a major blow to right-wing President Daniel Noboa by decisively rejecting the proposed return of foreign military bases to the South American country's soil—including installations run by the United States.
Around two-thirds of voters opposed the measure with most ballots tallied, a result that was widely seen as a surprise. Voters also rejected a separate effort to rewrite the country's progressive 2008 constitution, which enshrined strong labor and environmental rights.
The stinging defeat for Noboa, an ally of US President Donald Trump, comes as the United States carries out an aggressive military buildup and deadly airstrike campaign in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific—and weighs a direct attack on Venezuela. The BBC reported that the Trump administration "had hoped the referendum would pave the way to opening a military base in Ecuador, 16 years after it was made to close a site on its Pacific coast."
"The former US military base on Ecuador's Pacific coast was closed after left-wing President Rafael Correa decided not to renew its lease and pushed for the constitutional ban," the outlet noted.
Correa celebrated Sunday's results in a social media post, expressing hope that the vote would mark "the beginning of a definitive constitutional stability for the country."
"Our constitution is one of the best in the world; we just need to comply with it," he wrote.
The American people are grateful to the people of Ecuador for blocking the attempt by @SecRubio @SecWar to install US military bases in Ecuador!
Unlike DC elites, working class Americans want to bring our troops home, not send more abroad.
Thank you to the people of Ecuador! https://t.co/Emt4OBsHdt pic.twitter.com/J35z77iaSJ
— Just Foreign Policy (@justfp) November 17, 2025
The vote followed a recent trip to Ecuador by US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, a prominent figure in the Trump administration's lawless assault in immigrants in the United States. The Trump administration and Noboa's government have ramped up cooperation efforts in recent months, and both governments have unleashed military forces on their own citizens, illegally repressed protests, and carried out enforced disappearances and other grave human rights violations.
During her visit to Ecuador earlier this month, Noem toured the site of what Noboa's office described as a potential US military base in the port city of Manta.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) said in a statement late Sunday that "by inviting direct US military involvement and permanent presence in military bases—framed as a partnership to combat drug trafficking and organized crime—Noboa has tied the country’s safety and sovereignty to Washington’s regional ambitions."
"Today’s 'no' vote therefore underscores widespread public unease with that approach and reflects the Ecuadorian people’s skepticism toward the government’s heavy reliance on the Trump administration’s support," CEPR continued. "More generally, this vote raises questions about the effects and popularity of the last few years of security rapprochement and cooperation between Ecuador and the United States, which include, among other agreements, a Statute of Forces Agreement signed in 2023 that enables the presence of—and grants immunity to—US forces in Ecuador."
"It is, to date, the Noboa government’s biggest electoral defeat," the group added.
"None of this would have been possible without everyday New Yorkers willing to spare $5, $10, or $20 to help build a government that will deliver for working people," said the mayor-elect.
Hundreds of people in New York City gathered on Sunday in Union Square with calls to "Tax the Rich" as they showed their support for the progressive agenda of mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist elected earlier this month who will take the helm of the nation's largest city on January 1.
The "Tax the Rich — Seize Our Future" event was co-sponsored by the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialist of America, Housing Justice For All and NYS Tenant Bloc, Jewish Voice for Peace NYC, UAW Region 9A, the Invest in Our New Coalition, and others.
The groups are backing Mamdani's call for universal childcare, free public busses, a rent freeze, and city-operated grocery stores in the city, all which will be made more possible with revenue raised by increased taxes on the city's wealthiest individuals and for-profit companies.
"Zohran Mamdani’s cost-of-living agenda has the support of masses of working class New Yorkers—but winning an ambitious affordability agenda cannot be won with one mayor alone," said the NYC-DSA in a post about the "Tax the Rich" event on their website. "To build the universal public goods we deserve, we need to ensure the wealthiest individuals and corporations in our state are paying their fair share in taxes."
"It will take a movement to push Albany to put working New Yorkers before billionaire donors and tax the rich," said Danny Zaldes, a DSA member and organizer as he called on others to join the effort.
"As we know, power concedes nothing without a demand,” declared Democratic state Sen. Jabari Brisport (D-25) during his speech at the rally, “and today we demand to tax the rich!”
The rally served as the launch of a new campaign by coalition members behind the event, one aimed at making sure that Mamdani maintains grassroots support even as he takes charge of the city's municipal government in the New Year.
In order to fund his transition and maintain that popular support, Mamdani has asked supporters and donors to crowdfund for the transition and has created a nonprofit entity to mobilize on behalf of his progressive vision for the city going forward.
On Sunday, Mamdani's office said it has raised approximately $1 million in just 10 days, coming from over 12,00 individuals with an average gift of $77.
Contrasting the money raised with that of previous administrations, a statement from Mamdani's office said that "during Mayor Eric Adams' transition, he had just 884 individual donors, with an average donation of more than $1,000, and former Mayor Bill de Blasio had 820 individual donors, with an average donation of $2,392."
As it readies to take on the most powerful interests in the city as well as some of the wealthiest people on the planet who call New York City home, Mamdani said in a statement that the support of working people will be crucial to his administration's success.
"None of this would have been possible without everyday New Yorkers willing to spare $5, $10, or $20 to help build a government that will deliver for working people," said the mayor-elect. "I'm grateful for every dollar New Yorkers have contributed to make this vision of an affordable, more livable city a reality."
The campaign said the money will be used primarily for recruiting and retaining during the transition period as the administration takes shape.
"More than 12,000 New Yorkers are contributing to this transition to turn the page on the politics of the past and build a new era for New York City," said Elana Leopold, executive director of Mamdani's transition, in a statement. "Thanks to New Yorkers' supporter, we will be ready on day one with top talent in place and ready to deliver."
"Healthcare is becoming unsustainable under Trump," says one progressive politician running for US Senate. "Medicare for All would fix it."
The Trump administration came under fire on Sunday after sending Dr. Mehmet Oz, the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, onto CNN's weekend news show to try to explain the Republican Party's elusive "solution" to the nation's healthcare crisis, a topic of much interest in recent weeks amid the longest government shutdown in the nation's history and growing fears over massive premium increases or loss of coverage for tens millions of Americans.
Asked during his appearance to explain what Republicans are considering to address the surging cost of healthcare, Oz talked about direct cash payments—something Trump himself has floated in recent weeks—as well as the idea of health saving accounts (or HSAs) which allow for personalized accounts set up to help pay for out-of-pocket medical needs, though not premium payments.
"If you had a check in the mail, you could buy the insurance you thought was best for you," Oz stated without explaining in what way that is different from people who received tax credits to purchase plans on the insurance exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act signed into law by former President Barack Obama.
Pushing such empty ideas while claiming them as viable solutions to soaring costs is partly what led critics like Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) this week to issue a public service announcement which stated flatly: "There is no Republican health care plan"—despite repeated claims to the contrary by GOP lawmakers, including Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.).
Dr Oz: "If you had a check in the mail, you could buy the insurance you thought was best for you" pic.twitter.com/rLoMdxhNPV
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 16, 2025
"Dr. Oz a few years ago was pitching Medicare Advantage for All—a scheme to put every person on the corporate health insurance plans he used to sell," said Andrew Perez, a politics editor for Zeteo, in response to the interview. "Now, he’s saying let’s take away insurance from millions and give them a few bucks for their health care instead. Insane."
In a blog post published last week, Nicole Rapfogel, a senior policy analyst with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a nonpartisan policy think tank, explained why expanded HSAs, backed by the government or otherwise, would do little to nothing to improve access or lower costs for healthcare.
"Expanding HSAs has been a consistent theme, including in the House-passed version of the Republican megabill, though those provisions didn’t pass the Senate," explained Rapfogel. "But these policies are misguided and would do little to preserve access to affordable, comprehensive coverage."
She further explains that HSAs generally are better for wealthier people who have spare income to direct into such accounts, but of little use to poorer Americans who are already struggling to make ends meet each month. According to Rapfogel:
Most people do not have spare cash to set aside in HSAs; an estimated 4 in 10 people are in debt due to medical and dental bills.
People in lower tax brackets also benefit less from HSA tax savings. For example, a married couple making $800,000 saves 37 cents for each dollar contributed to an HSA, more than three times the 12 cents per dollar a married couple making $30,000 would save.
Further, HSAs do not promote efficient use of health care services. Research has shown that HSAs do not reduce health care spending, but rather shield more of that spending from taxes.
Given that understanding of the well-known limitations of HSAs or other avenues of government backstopping of private insurance, the level of bullshitting or straight up ignorance by Oz on Sunday morning, for many, was hard to take.
It's "pretty amazing," said economist Dean Baker on Sunday, "that Dr. Oz doesn't know that people choose their insurance under Obamacare, but no one ever said Dr. Oz knew anything about healthcare."
In an interview with Newsmax earlier this month, Johnson—who has argued that the GOP has reams of policy proposals on the topic—accused Democrats of having no reform solutions to the nation's healthcare crisis other than permanently fighting to save the status quo, including the "subsidizing the insurance companies" which is at the heart of the Affordable Care Act.
Taxpayer subsidies for private insurance giants "is not the solution," Johnson admitted at the time, though his party has refused to offer anything resembling a departure from the for-profit model which experts have demonstrated is the central flaw in the US healthcare system, one that spends more money per capita than any other developed nation but with the worst outcomes.
Meanwhile, as Republicans show in word and deed that they have nothing to offer people concerned about healthcare premiums in the nation's for-profit system, only a relative handful of Democratic Party members have matched renewed focus on the nation's long-simmering healthcare crisis with the popular solution that experts and economists have long favored: a single-payer system now commonly known as Medicare for All.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Independent from Vermont who caucuses with the Senate Democrats, made the demand for Medicare for All a cornerpost of his two presidential campaigns, first in 2016 and then again in 2020. On the heals of those campaigns, which put the demand for a universal healthcare system before voters in a serious way for the first time in several generations, a growing number of lawmakers in Congress embraced the idea even as the party's establishment leadership treated the idea as toxic.
While a 2018 study by the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst detailed why it is "easy to pay for something that costs less," people in the United States exposed to the arguments of Medicare for All over the last decade a majority have shown their desire for such a system in poll after poll after poll.
A single-payer system like Medicare for All would nullify the need for private, for-profit insurance plans and the billions of dollars in spending they waste each year in the form of profits, outrageous pay packages for executives, marketing budgets, and administrative inefficiences.
Despite its popularity and the opportunity it presents to show the working class that the Democratic Party is willing to turn its back on corporate interests by putting the healthcare needs of individuals and families first, the party leadership continues to hold back its support.
Lawmakers like Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who served as national co-chair to Sanders' second presidential run, has been arguing in recent weeks, amid the government shutdown fight, that Democrats should be "screaming" their support for universal healthcare "from the rooftops" in order to seize on a moment in which voters from across the political spectrum are more atuned than usual to the pervasive and fundamental failures of the for-profit system.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), lead sponsor of the Medicare for All Act in the US House, on Thursday reiterated her support for universal coverage by saying, "Instead of raising premiums for millions, how about we just get rid of them? Medicare for All!!"
As former Ohio state senator and progressive organizer Nina Turner said on Saturday, "This is a moment to mobilize for Medicare for All."
I went on Fox News to make the case for national health insurance & Medicare for All.
Democrats need to be screaming this from the rooftops. pic.twitter.com/eq9VO0pAxw
— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) November 15, 2025
Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, another former Sanders surrogate now running for the Democratic nomination in Michigan's US Senate race, has been another outspoken champion of Medicare for All in recent weeks.
"While MAGA slowly suffocates our healthcare system, we’re watching corporate health insurance choose profits—and corporate Democrats capitulating," El-Sayed said last week, expressing frustration over how the shutdown fight came to end. "Who suffers? The rest of us. It’s time for a healthcare system that doesn’t leave our insurance in the hands of big corporations—but guarantees health insurance for all of us."
Following Dr. Oz's remarks on Sunday, El-Sayed rebuked the top cabinet official as emblematic of the entire healthcare charade being perpetrated by the Republican Party under President Donald Trump.
"They think we're dumb," said El-Sayed of Oz's convoluted explanation of direct payments. "They know that no check they send will cover even a month of the healthcare Trump bump we can’t afford—but they think we’re not smart enough to know the difference. Healthcare is becoming unsustainable under Trump. Medicare for All would fix it."
In Maine on Sunday, another Democratic candidate running for the US Senate, Graham Platner, also championed the solution of Medicare for All.
After watching Oz's peformance on CNN, Tyler Evans, creative director who works for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) declared in a social media post: "If we had Medicare for All, you could simply go to the doctor."