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.
WASHINGTON, Jun 7 (IPS) - A controversial gas pipeline in the pristine heart of the Amazon forest that has ruptured six times since its inception received a clean bill of health this week from the main financial backer, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), drawing scepticism from indigenous groups and international environmentalists.
The results of the two IDB audits contradict a study conducted last year by E-Tech, a California-based non-profit technical research firm, which found that the quality of materials and construction procedures used in the Camisea gas pipeline was substandard and caused the pipeline to repeatedly leak into the ecologically sensitive area.
The author of the E-Tech report, Carlos Salazar Tirado, is a certified pipeline welding inspector who examined sections of the Camisea pipeline during the construction phase in 2002-2003.
The report's allegations prompted the IDB to freeze further funding to the companies building the Camisea pipeline in the Peruvian Amazon.
The companies, led by Texas-based Hunt, SK Corporation and Repsol YPF S.A., are seeking a 400-million-dollar loan to partially fund a liquid natural gas terminal and other infrastructure on the coast that would turn Peru into an exporter of liquefied natural gas.
The IDB had already approved a 75-million-dollar loan for the transportation component of the project in 2003. In 2002, the Bank provided a five-million-dollar loan to the government of Peru for capacity building and oversight of the project.
The gas will be exported to markets in Mexico, and possibly Chile and the United States as well, for re-gasification.
But after the findings of the E-Tech report were made public, the IDB promised to wait for the results of its own audits before it approved more money.
Now that the IDB's two audits, both announced this week, appear to vouch for the integrity of the pipeline, more funds are expected to be released soon.
The first review commissioned by the IDB, an environmental and social audit, was carried out by ICF International. It found "generally acceptable performance" in the four areas of environmental protection, social, health and occupational safety concerns, and contingency planning and emergency response.
It also said the two companies behind the project had "effective" performance in the areas of erosion monitoring, re-vegetation and biodiversity.
The second audit commissioned by the IDB studied the pipeline's physical integrity and was prepared by Exponent, Inc.
That audit attributed the cause of the six spill incidents to geologic conditions rather than shoddy workmanship and materials. The auditors said that geotechnical stabilisation measures have reduced the risk.
The IDB says it commissioned the audits as part of its review of funding for the project, which has drawn intense criticism for its impacts on the local environment and social rights of indigenous residents.
This week, the bank aired the results in public meetings on Camisea, held every six months and alternating between Lima and Washington.
More than 70 representatives from different interest groups, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), government agencies and private sector companies attended the meeting.
Despite the IDB's assurances, environmental groups and indigenous representatives remain convinced that the Camisea project is one of the most damaging in the Western hemisphere
They say its negative impacts include deforestation, gas spills and the loss of fish on which vulnerable local indigenous populations depend, including some of the last native communities still living in isolation anywhere in the world.
The advocacy groups fear that without resolving these issues, the IDB's potential 400-million-dollar loan for Camisea's second phase could impact an even vaster area of the Amazon and its indigenous peoples.
Amazon Watch, a group that fought the project, says the audits by the IDB omit fundamental criteria, including damage done to biodiversity and health impacts on indigenous communities.
They say that the environmental and policy consultants ICF relied on in its 300-page study on "management indicators" overlooked alleged health and human rights abuses against the native communities of the Lower Urubamba river basin of southern Peru.
They also say it lacks concrete data about impacts on the area's fragile ecosystem.
"We feared this audit would be a rubber stamp for pushing forward with financing the second phase of Camisea, regardless of whether the problems with the first phase were resolved," said Maria Lya Ramos, of Amazon Watch. "Upon initial review, it looks like we were right."
The Camisea natural gas project is one of Latin America's key energy infrastructure projects, involving the extraction, transportation, and distribution of natural gas for domestic consumption and export.
The 1.6-billion-dollar original project is based in a remote, ecologically fragile tropical area, the Lower Urubamba Valley of the Peruvian Amazon.
"We have been calling for a truly independent audit for years," noted Aaron Goldzimer from Environmental Defence.
"Our suggestion was to recruit an impartial panel of eminent experts, but instead, according to yesterday's presentation, we get an audit on whether plans and systems are in place, but say s nothing on project impacts," he added after the conclusion of the meetings in Washington.
(c) 2007 Inter Press Service
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
WASHINGTON, Jun 7 (IPS) - A controversial gas pipeline in the pristine heart of the Amazon forest that has ruptured six times since its inception received a clean bill of health this week from the main financial backer, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), drawing scepticism from indigenous groups and international environmentalists.
The results of the two IDB audits contradict a study conducted last year by E-Tech, a California-based non-profit technical research firm, which found that the quality of materials and construction procedures used in the Camisea gas pipeline was substandard and caused the pipeline to repeatedly leak into the ecologically sensitive area.
The author of the E-Tech report, Carlos Salazar Tirado, is a certified pipeline welding inspector who examined sections of the Camisea pipeline during the construction phase in 2002-2003.
The report's allegations prompted the IDB to freeze further funding to the companies building the Camisea pipeline in the Peruvian Amazon.
The companies, led by Texas-based Hunt, SK Corporation and Repsol YPF S.A., are seeking a 400-million-dollar loan to partially fund a liquid natural gas terminal and other infrastructure on the coast that would turn Peru into an exporter of liquefied natural gas.
The IDB had already approved a 75-million-dollar loan for the transportation component of the project in 2003. In 2002, the Bank provided a five-million-dollar loan to the government of Peru for capacity building and oversight of the project.
The gas will be exported to markets in Mexico, and possibly Chile and the United States as well, for re-gasification.
But after the findings of the E-Tech report were made public, the IDB promised to wait for the results of its own audits before it approved more money.
Now that the IDB's two audits, both announced this week, appear to vouch for the integrity of the pipeline, more funds are expected to be released soon.
The first review commissioned by the IDB, an environmental and social audit, was carried out by ICF International. It found "generally acceptable performance" in the four areas of environmental protection, social, health and occupational safety concerns, and contingency planning and emergency response.
It also said the two companies behind the project had "effective" performance in the areas of erosion monitoring, re-vegetation and biodiversity.
The second audit commissioned by the IDB studied the pipeline's physical integrity and was prepared by Exponent, Inc.
That audit attributed the cause of the six spill incidents to geologic conditions rather than shoddy workmanship and materials. The auditors said that geotechnical stabilisation measures have reduced the risk.
The IDB says it commissioned the audits as part of its review of funding for the project, which has drawn intense criticism for its impacts on the local environment and social rights of indigenous residents.
This week, the bank aired the results in public meetings on Camisea, held every six months and alternating between Lima and Washington.
More than 70 representatives from different interest groups, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), government agencies and private sector companies attended the meeting.
Despite the IDB's assurances, environmental groups and indigenous representatives remain convinced that the Camisea project is one of the most damaging in the Western hemisphere
They say its negative impacts include deforestation, gas spills and the loss of fish on which vulnerable local indigenous populations depend, including some of the last native communities still living in isolation anywhere in the world.
The advocacy groups fear that without resolving these issues, the IDB's potential 400-million-dollar loan for Camisea's second phase could impact an even vaster area of the Amazon and its indigenous peoples.
Amazon Watch, a group that fought the project, says the audits by the IDB omit fundamental criteria, including damage done to biodiversity and health impacts on indigenous communities.
They say that the environmental and policy consultants ICF relied on in its 300-page study on "management indicators" overlooked alleged health and human rights abuses against the native communities of the Lower Urubamba river basin of southern Peru.
They also say it lacks concrete data about impacts on the area's fragile ecosystem.
"We feared this audit would be a rubber stamp for pushing forward with financing the second phase of Camisea, regardless of whether the problems with the first phase were resolved," said Maria Lya Ramos, of Amazon Watch. "Upon initial review, it looks like we were right."
The Camisea natural gas project is one of Latin America's key energy infrastructure projects, involving the extraction, transportation, and distribution of natural gas for domestic consumption and export.
The 1.6-billion-dollar original project is based in a remote, ecologically fragile tropical area, the Lower Urubamba Valley of the Peruvian Amazon.
"We have been calling for a truly independent audit for years," noted Aaron Goldzimer from Environmental Defence.
"Our suggestion was to recruit an impartial panel of eminent experts, but instead, according to yesterday's presentation, we get an audit on whether plans and systems are in place, but say s nothing on project impacts," he added after the conclusion of the meetings in Washington.
(c) 2007 Inter Press Service
WASHINGTON, Jun 7 (IPS) - A controversial gas pipeline in the pristine heart of the Amazon forest that has ruptured six times since its inception received a clean bill of health this week from the main financial backer, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), drawing scepticism from indigenous groups and international environmentalists.
The results of the two IDB audits contradict a study conducted last year by E-Tech, a California-based non-profit technical research firm, which found that the quality of materials and construction procedures used in the Camisea gas pipeline was substandard and caused the pipeline to repeatedly leak into the ecologically sensitive area.
The author of the E-Tech report, Carlos Salazar Tirado, is a certified pipeline welding inspector who examined sections of the Camisea pipeline during the construction phase in 2002-2003.
The report's allegations prompted the IDB to freeze further funding to the companies building the Camisea pipeline in the Peruvian Amazon.
The companies, led by Texas-based Hunt, SK Corporation and Repsol YPF S.A., are seeking a 400-million-dollar loan to partially fund a liquid natural gas terminal and other infrastructure on the coast that would turn Peru into an exporter of liquefied natural gas.
The IDB had already approved a 75-million-dollar loan for the transportation component of the project in 2003. In 2002, the Bank provided a five-million-dollar loan to the government of Peru for capacity building and oversight of the project.
The gas will be exported to markets in Mexico, and possibly Chile and the United States as well, for re-gasification.
But after the findings of the E-Tech report were made public, the IDB promised to wait for the results of its own audits before it approved more money.
Now that the IDB's two audits, both announced this week, appear to vouch for the integrity of the pipeline, more funds are expected to be released soon.
The first review commissioned by the IDB, an environmental and social audit, was carried out by ICF International. It found "generally acceptable performance" in the four areas of environmental protection, social, health and occupational safety concerns, and contingency planning and emergency response.
It also said the two companies behind the project had "effective" performance in the areas of erosion monitoring, re-vegetation and biodiversity.
The second audit commissioned by the IDB studied the pipeline's physical integrity and was prepared by Exponent, Inc.
That audit attributed the cause of the six spill incidents to geologic conditions rather than shoddy workmanship and materials. The auditors said that geotechnical stabilisation measures have reduced the risk.
The IDB says it commissioned the audits as part of its review of funding for the project, which has drawn intense criticism for its impacts on the local environment and social rights of indigenous residents.
This week, the bank aired the results in public meetings on Camisea, held every six months and alternating between Lima and Washington.
More than 70 representatives from different interest groups, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), government agencies and private sector companies attended the meeting.
Despite the IDB's assurances, environmental groups and indigenous representatives remain convinced that the Camisea project is one of the most damaging in the Western hemisphere
They say its negative impacts include deforestation, gas spills and the loss of fish on which vulnerable local indigenous populations depend, including some of the last native communities still living in isolation anywhere in the world.
The advocacy groups fear that without resolving these issues, the IDB's potential 400-million-dollar loan for Camisea's second phase could impact an even vaster area of the Amazon and its indigenous peoples.
Amazon Watch, a group that fought the project, says the audits by the IDB omit fundamental criteria, including damage done to biodiversity and health impacts on indigenous communities.
They say that the environmental and policy consultants ICF relied on in its 300-page study on "management indicators" overlooked alleged health and human rights abuses against the native communities of the Lower Urubamba river basin of southern Peru.
They also say it lacks concrete data about impacts on the area's fragile ecosystem.
"We feared this audit would be a rubber stamp for pushing forward with financing the second phase of Camisea, regardless of whether the problems with the first phase were resolved," said Maria Lya Ramos, of Amazon Watch. "Upon initial review, it looks like we were right."
The Camisea natural gas project is one of Latin America's key energy infrastructure projects, involving the extraction, transportation, and distribution of natural gas for domestic consumption and export.
The 1.6-billion-dollar original project is based in a remote, ecologically fragile tropical area, the Lower Urubamba Valley of the Peruvian Amazon.
"We have been calling for a truly independent audit for years," noted Aaron Goldzimer from Environmental Defence.
"Our suggestion was to recruit an impartial panel of eminent experts, but instead, according to yesterday's presentation, we get an audit on whether plans and systems are in place, but say s nothing on project impacts," he added after the conclusion of the meetings in Washington.
(c) 2007 Inter Press Service
Trump earlier this year lobbed baseless accusations at South African President Cyril Ramaphosa that his government was engaging in "genocide" against white farmers.
A Friday report from Reuters claims that a senior Trump administration official recently informed diplomats in South Africa that a refugee program set up by U.S. President Donald Trump earlier this year was explicitly intended for white people.
According to Reuters, American diplomats in South Africa earlier this month asked the U.S. State Department whether it was allowed to process refugee claims from South African citizens who spoke the Afrikaans language but who were of mixed-race descent.
The diplomats received a response from Spencer Chretien, the senior bureau official in the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, who informed them that "the program is intended for white people," writes Reuters.
The State Department told Reuters that the scope of the program is actually broader than what was outlined in Chretien's message and that its policy is "to consider both Afrikaners and other racial minorities for resettlement," which lines up with guidance posted earlier this year stating that applicants for refugee status under the program "must be of Afrikaner ethnicity or be a member of a racial minority in South Africa."
Trump back in February issued an executive order establishing a refugee program for what the order described as "Afrikaners in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination." The president also lobbed baseless accusations at South African President Cyril Ramaphosa this past May that his government was engaging in "genocide" against white farmers in his country.
The notion that whites in South Africa face severe racial discrimination, let alone the threat of genocide, is difficult to square with the reality that white South Africans own three-quarters of the private land in the nation despite being a mere 7% of the population.
Dara Lind of the American Immigration Council, reacting to the Reuters report, explained on social media platform Bluesky the reasons that Trump's refugee program for Afrikaners is highly unusual. Lind pointed to the fact that the United States government at the moment is still trying to block refugees who have already gone through a two-year vetting process from entering the country, whereas it let many Afrikaner refugees into the country after a mere two weeks of vetting.
"Two years of vetting is insufficient, but two weeks is enough to know if someone will 'be assimilated easily'—as admin officials said when the Afrikaners came," she observed.
Amid intensifying tariffs, just 30% of Americans say they can afford the cost of living, according to a poll from Data for Progress.
The White House says the U.S. is in the midst of an "economic boom" under President Donald Trump. But voters aren't feeling it in their wallets.
Polling released by Gallup Thursday found the president's approval rating at just 37%, the lowest point of his second term so far, with an all-time low approval rating of 29% among independents.
This precipitous decline has been helped along by sagging approval on the economy, which has historically been the issue where he gets the most support. After a high of 42% in February, approval for his handling of the economy is likewise down to just 37%.
An uptick in inflation seen over the past month has exacerbated the cost of living crisis Trump promised to abate on the campaign trail.
A poll released Friday by Data for Progress found that, "Only 30% of likely voters report having enough income to be able to comfortably provide for their household's needs, while a plurality of voters (43%) say they have enough income but money is tight, and 20% say they do not make enough to provide for all household members' needs."
(Graphic: Data for Progress)
"As his approval tanks, President Trump has finally lost voters on the one issue where they've historically trusted him: the economy," said Lindsay Owens, the executive director of the Groundwork Collaborative. "Not only has Trump shirked his promise to lower prices, he's made the situation substantially worse as his tax and tariff policies have landed a double blow to household budgets."
According to data from Indeed, cited by Forbes, 43% of Americans have seen their wages lagging behind the cost of living over the past year. The jobs feeling the worst crunch are those "at the low-to-middle end of the pay spectrum."
Trump has imposed the highest tariffs on imported goods since the Great Depression. After months of relative quiet, they began to make their impact felt this past month, with consumer prices up 2.7% from the previous year, compared with just 2.4% in May.
While rising rent costs were the top driver of inflation in June, prices for clothing, toys, and consumer appliances all rose, as did food and energy.
The president was elected on promises to tackle the cost of living. But now 70% say that he is not focused enough on lowering prices, according to polling released Sunday by CBS News. Meanwhile, 61% say Trump is focusing too much on his tariff policy, which remains broadly unpopular.
Yale's Budget Lab estimates that it would cost the average household $2,770 worth of disposable income per year if tariffs stayed at their current rate indefinitely, with the worst impact—especially in the short term—on the poorest Americans.
(Graphic: Yale Budget Lab)
But they are set to grow more intense beginning on August 1, when Trump has said he'll roll out new levies on imports from some of America's top trading partners, including Canada, the European Union, Mexico, Brazil, and South Korea.
According to economists who spoke with Vox, the worst effects are likely yet to come. Preston Caldwell, chief U.S. economist for Morningstar, said inflation would likely peak in 2026 rather than 2025.
"Companies have started paying tariffs on their imported goods, but as far as the goods that are being sold in stores right now, those are primarily being drawn from the inventory of goods that were brought in before the tariffs," Caldwell said. "So most companies are still not really having to recognize the loss of tariffs yet to a great degree."
"The more that it becomes clear that tariffs are here for at least the foreseeable future," he continued, "the more that they are going to have to eventually adjust to this new reality, which will entail increasing their prices."
Owens said that will likely translate to even fiercer backlash against Trump.
"Working families," she said, "know exactly who to blame as they pay higher prices on everything from groceries and electricity bills to school supplies and appliances."
"These state-sanctioned fear tactics are opening the door for vulnerable communities to be abused and must not become the norm," said Rep. Summer Lee.
Pressing the Trump administration to explain its rationale for allowing federal agents to don masks and drive unmarked vehicles when carrying out immigration raids and arrests, two Democratic members of Congress on Friday pointed to numerous times in recent months when authorities working under President Donald Trump have eroded "public trust and fundamental constitutional rights" by concealing their identities.
"In Los Angeles, agents were photographed in June 2025 wearing face covers during residential raids," wrote Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) and Summer Lee (D-Pa.) in a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. "In Chicago, witnesses reported masked agents detaining individuals without identification. Similarly, in New York City, then-mayoral candidate Brad Lander was arrested by masked federal agents."
The two progressive lawmakers sit on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, with Garcia serving as ranking member and Lee serving as ranking member of the Federal Law Enforcement Subcommittee. They reminded Noem that the panel has "broad authority to investigate 'any matter' at 'any time' under House Rule X" as they requested documents regarding Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) protocols "governing agent identification and accountability during operations in civilian settings."
DHS, said Garcia and Lee, has been "in direct violation" of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution as it has allowed ICE and other federal agents to conceal their identities and the agencies they work for while raiding workplaces and residential neighborhoods, and waiting outside courtrooms and daycare centers to arrest immigrants.
"This causes a dangerous erosion of public trust, due process, and transparency in law enforcement. It also makes it nearly impossible for individuals to determine whether they are being detained by legitimate law enforcement agents or unlawfully abducted," wrote Garcia and Lee. "These tactics contradict long-standing democratic principles such as the public's right to accountability from those who enforce the law and pave the way for increased crime, making our communities less safe."
The lawmakers noted that federal agents' use of masks and unmarked cars has allowed some people to leverage "the opacity and fear surrounding immigration operations to commit serious crimes," such as an armed man who entered an auto repair shop in Philadelphia wearing a tactical vest labeled "Security Enforcement Agent" and restrained a female employee before stealing $1,000. Another man in Houston recently claimed to be an ICE agent as he used his vehicle to block another driver's car and stole $1,800 and a Guatemalan ID from the victim.
"These cases starkly illustrate how the use of masks, unmarked vehicles, and minimal identification by actual ICE agents does not just erode trust—it effectively hands bad actors a roadmap to exploit vulnerable communities," said Lee and Garcia.
In a statement, Lee accused federal agents, with the Trump administration's approval, of "cowardly concealing their identities behind masks."
"Federal agents under the Trump administration are operating like a secret police force on U.S. soil. These agents must identify themselves," said Lee. "Every person—regardless of immigration status—has a constitutional right to due process and protection from unlawful searches and seizures. These state-sanctioned fear tactics are opening the door for vulnerable communities to be abused and must not become the norm."
Lee and Garcia also noted that lawyers representing ICE and the Trump administration have begun concealing their identities by refusing to give their names when appearing in court to argue immigration cases.
The lawmakers quoted one immigration law expert who told The Intercept last week, "Not identifying an attorney for the government means if there are unethical or professional concerns regarding [DHS], the individual cannot be held accountable."