

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.

Amnesty International today called the situation in the Niger Delta
a "human rights tragedy," saying that the people of the Niger Delta
have seen their human rights abused by oil companies that their
government cannot or will not hold to account.
Amnesty International today called the situation in the Niger Delta
a "human rights tragedy," saying that the people of the Niger Delta
have seen their human rights abused by oil companies that their
government cannot or will not hold to account.
"The Niger Delta provides a stark example of the lack of
accountability of a government to its people, and of multinational
companies' almost total lack of accountability when it comes to the
impact of their operations on human rights," said Audrey Gaughran,
Amnesty International's Head of Business and Human Rights and co-author
of a major new report, Petroleum, Pollution and Poverty in the Niger
Delta, released today at a press conference in Abuja.
The report examines oil spills, gas flaring, waste dumping and other
environmental impacts of the oil industry. The majority of the evidence
on pollution and environment damage gathered by Amnesty International,
and contained in its new report, relates to the operations of Shell,
the main oil company operating on land in the Niger Delta.
"People living in the Niger Delta have to drink, cook with and wash
in polluted water. They eat fish contaminated with oil and other toxins
- if they are lucky enough to be able to still find fish. The land they
farm on is being destroyed. After oil spills the air they breathe
smells of oil, gas and other pollutants. People complain of breathing
problems and skin lesions - and yet neither the government nor the oil
companies monitor the human impacts of oil pollution," said Audrey
Gaughran.
The human rights impact of pollution in the Niger Delta is greatly
under-reported. The majority of people in the Niger Delta depend on the
natural environment for their food and livelihood, particularly through
agriculture and fisheries.
"The Nigerian government is aware of the risks that oil-related
pollution poses for human rights, but has failed to take measures to
ensure those rights are not harmed. Despite the widespread pollution of
the Niger Delta's land, rivers and creeks - and the many complaints
from people living in the region - we could find almost no government
data on the impact on humans of any aspect of oil pollution in the
Niger Delta."
Amnesty International said that government regulation of the oil industry has been wholly inadequate.
"The Nigerian government is failing in its obligation to respect and
protect the rights of people in the Niger Delta to food, water, health
and livelihood," said Audrey Gaughran. "Some oil companies, for their
part, have taken advantage of this government failure, and have shown a
shocking disregard for the human impact of their activities."
There have been some recent signs of improvement, however. The
recently-established National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency
(NOSDRA) appears to have a more robust approach.
"We welcome the more pro-active approach NOSDRA appears to want to take - but it needs more resources," said Audrey Gaughran.
"The government must address the human impact of oil industry
pollution. They have a duty to protect their citizens from human rights
abuse or harm by businesses - and they are failing in that duty."
The organization also accused the Nigerian government of effectively
placing substantial responsibility for remedying human rights abuses in
the hands of the very actors responsible for the abuse - the oil
companies. As a result, remedies are often ineffective.
However, in its report, Amnesty International does not lay the blame solely on the Nigerian government.
"A government's failure to protect the human rights of its people
does not absolve companies from responsibility for their actions," said
Audrey Gaughran. "Oil companies such as Shell are not free to ignore
the consequences of their actions just because the government has
failed to hold them to account. The international standard is not
'whatever a company can get away with' - there are international
standards for oil industry operations, and in relation to environmental
and social impacts, that oil companies in the Niger Delta are very well
aware of."
"Despite its public claims to be a socially and environmentally
responsible corporation, Shell continues to directly harm human rights
through its failure to adequately prevent and mitigate pollution and
environmental damage in the Niger Delta," said Audrey Gaughran.
Shell and other companies also do no adequate monitoring of - or
disclosure of information on - the human impacts of oil operations.
Communities in the Niger Delta frequently do not have access to even
basic information about the impact the oil industry has on their lives
- even when they are the "host" community. This lack of information
feeds fears and insecurity within communities, contributes to conflict
and fundamentally undermines human rights.
Amnesty International said that clean-up processes in the Niger
Delta frequently fail to meet any expert understanding of good
practice, with some companies negligently allowing unqualified staff to
clean up oil spills, resulting in ongoing contamination of land and
water.
Almost every community visited by Amnesty International recounted
that creeks, ponds or rivers had been damaged by oil spills or other
oil-related pollution - often more than once, leading to community
anger.
Communities and armed groups in the Niger Delta have also
contributed to the problem of pollution, by vandalizing oil
infrastructure and the theft of oil. But the scale of this problem is
not clear.
"The Nigerian government desperately wants to see an end to the
conflict in the Niger Delta," said Audrey Gaughran. "But the poverty
and conflict that continues to scar the Niger Delta will not be
resolved until underlying causes - including decades of environmental
damage - and impunity for abuses of the environment and human rights
ends, and until the Nigerian government garners sufficient political
will and the means to deal with the oil company activities that cause
widespread damage to human rights."
Note to editors:
On 1 July 2009 Mr Peter Voser will take over as the new Chief
Executive of Royal Dutch Shell. As the new Chief Executive he inherits
the legacy Shell's failures and poor practice in the Niger Delta. This
legacy is - in significant part - the result of Shell's failure to
effectively prevent and address environmental damage and pollution
caused by its operations. Amnesty International has sent Mr. Voser a
copy of its report, and called on him to make cleaning up Shell's
operations in the Niger Delta a top priority. As a first step - Amnesty
International has joined colleagues from the Niger Delta to ask Mr
Voser to 'come clean' on Shell's impact on human rights by disclosing
critical information and making a public commitment to assessing the
social and human rights impact of Shell's operations.
Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all. Our supporters are outraged by human rights abuses but inspired by hope for a better world - so we work to improve human rights through campaigning and international solidarity. We have more than 2.2 million members and subscribers in more than 150 countries and regions and we coordinate this support to act for justice on a wide range of issues.
"We will organize to win and defend the agenda that resonated with voters: free childcare, fast and free buses, freezing the rent and building affordable homes, and more," says Our Time for an Affordable NYC.
On the heels of over 1 million New Yorkers voting for Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's affordability agenda, his allies have launched an organization that aims to keep the movement behind the democratic socialist's successful campaign active during his term.
"We will organize to win and defend the agenda that resonated with voters: free childcare, fast and free buses, freezing the rent and building affordable homes, and more," says the website of the new 501(c)(4), Our Time for an Affordable NYC.
"We'll be door-knocking, phone-banking, communicating, and organizing at the neighborhood, city, and state level," the site explains. "To get it done, we'll collaborate with community organizations, movement groups, and unions that have been doing this work and share a commitment to the affordability agenda."
While Our Time embraces Mamdani's messages and policies, it is distinct from the mayor-elect and his campaign, and "was legally incorporated last week before his victory over former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo," the New York Times reported Thursday. The newspaper noted Mamdani's comments about the group during a press conference earlier this week.
"I will always celebrate anyone who is looking to build on the incredible, amazing grassroots enthusiasm of our campaign," he said. "This work was not simply to win an election but transform our city, and that means it has to continue."
Mamdani "also encouraged supporters to join the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, his political home," according to City & State New York. Our Time's leadership has ties to the NYC-DSA, which played a key role in mobilizing support for Mamdani during the campaign.
Our Time's site names five people leading the organization: executive director Jeremy Freeman, field manager Magdalena Morańda, senior adviser Susan Kang, and board members David Turner and Batul Hassan.
"Our goal is to channel the energy of a volunteer base towards winning the affordability agenda, and doing so at this scale is unprecedented in New York City history," Freeman told the Times. "In developing the organization, we're looking carefully at past examples both positive and negative, and we'll certainly be sure to avoid the pitfalls of any similar efforts by past administrations, and we'll be as transparent as possible in our practices."
The group's creation has prompted comparisons to Our Revolution, which launched after the 2016 presidential run of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), one of Mamdani's most prominent supporters.
Some political observers have also framed it as what former Democratic President Barack Obama should have done after winning his first term. The American Prospect's executive editor, David Dayen, said that "this is the opposite of what Obama did to his volunteer base after 2008."
There's also the cautionary tale of former NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio's Campaign for One New York, which shut down in 2016 amid alarm over its finances, including donations from entities that had business before or labor contracts with City Hall.
Our Time is "a fully independent organization," and it is "not asking for dues or formal membership," the group's site says. "We are accepting donations from individuals, foundations, and other philanthropic organizations. All donations greater than $1,000 will be disclosed publicly on our website."
Freeman told the Times that the group will not be accepting money from corporations or firms with business before the city.
"Our victory was historic, but the campaign for an affordable New York City is just beginning," Our Time's site says. "Even as billionaires have made their opposition clear, more than 100,000 volunteers helped win this election, and they want to keep going. Our Time can be a vehicle for continued engagement—a way for folks to plug in and stay active while they find a long-term political home."
The group is coming together as Mamdani supporters, skeptics, and critics all wonder how much of his popular platform he'll actually be able to accomplish after the state assemblyman is sworn in as mayor next January.
Time on Tuesday published a detailed look at the barriers Mamdani will face in his mission to deliver a rent freeze, more affordable housing, city-run grocery stores, fare-free buses, no-cost childcare, a higher minimum wage, and taxes targeting the 1%.
"Raising taxes would require approval from the Democratic-controlled state Legislature and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul," Time noted. "Hochul endorsed Mamdani but expressed fears that significant tax hikes would force wealthy residents out of the city, ultimately opposing his proposed tax increases."
After Mamdani's Tuesday victory, longtime labor organizers Peter Olney and Rand Wilson wrote in an op-ed that during his four-year term, "every Republican and corporate Democrat will do everything possible to ensure he fails, to discredit his socialist platform."
"Any success he achieves as mayor will be due to the strength of the movement that prevailed in the primary and continued to grow for his election in November," they stressed. "If that movement stays mobilized, continues to grow, and delivers for New York’s working class, it will be an inspiring political model that our labor movement should support and attempt to replicate in other US metropolitan areas."
"Under Gov. Hochul’s leadership, New Yorkers’ voices were silenced to appease President Trump’s fossil fuel priorities," said one critic.
Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul came under fire Friday after her administration approved a previously rejected fracked gas pipeline over the objection of climate and conservation campaigners.
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) announced approval of permits including a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the proposed Northeast Supply Enhancement (NESE) pipeline. Commonly known as the Williams Pipeline, the expansion project involves the construction of a 23.5-mile fracked gas conduit beneath the Raritan Bay and Lower New York Bay. The pipeline would carry hydraulically fractured gas from Pennsylvania across New Jersey and into New York.
“As governor, a top priority is making sure the lights and heat stay on for all New Yorkers as we face potential energy shortages downstate as soon as next summer,” Hochul said in a statement. “We need to govern in reality.”
DEC assured that it is "committed to closely monitoring the project’s construction and adherence to all permit conditions to ensure the full protection of New York’s waterways."
This, after the agency twice denied water quality certification for the same pipeline for failing to demonstrate compliance with state quality standards.
In 2020, the DEC under then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is also a Democrat, denied certification for the project after finding that the proposed pipeline was likely to harm water quality by stirring up sediment and other contaminants that “would disturb sensitive habitats, including shellfish beds.”
The advocacy group New York Communities for Change noted in a fact sheet that the project "would jack up already-high utility bills" and be a "super-polluter" that would "generate about 8 million tons of additional climate-heating and asthma-inducing air pollution each year."
"The pollution would also foul our water, including stirring up toxic waste during the construction process," the group added. "The project would especially hurt people on the Rockaways, a majority African American community, where it would terminate."
BREAKING: Hochul just did Trump’s bidding by approving the massive Williams fracked gas pipeline.Hochul’s dirty deal with Trump will jack up our utility bills, pollute our air & water, and cook the climate.Join us at 3:30 outside her office 919 3rd Avenue to protest TODAY.
— New York Communities for Change (@nychange.bsky.social) November 7, 2025 at 9:22 AM
However, Williams Companies, the group behind the project, filed a new application this year amid pressure from President Donald Trump for Hochul to green-light construction.
“Today’s decision by New York is a complete reversal of their two previous determinations to reject this pipeline project over threats to the state’s water resources," Mark Izeman, senior attorney for environmental health at the Natural Resources Defense Counsel, said in a statement Friday.
"The pipeline proposal is exactly the same, and state and federal law is the same, so there is no legal or scientific basis for taking a 180 degree turn from the state’s past denials," Izeman continued. "If built, the pipeline would tear up 23 miles of the New York-New Jersey Harbor floor; destroy marine habitats; and dredge up mercury, copper, PCBs, and other toxins."
The project "would also harm sensitive shellfish beds and fishing areas, and undercut billions of dollars New York has invested to improve water quality in the harbor," he added.
Earthjustice New York policy advocate Liz Moran said that “it is shameful that Gov. Hochul and her Department of Environmental Conservation made a decision that fails to protect New Yorkers and our precious waterways."
"We are reviewing the certificate and evaluating our options," Moran added. "The certificate application hasn’t changed since being previously rejected by the DEC, water quality standards haven’t changed—only the political context has changed, and that’s not a basis to completely reverse course.”
Sane Energy Project director Kim Fraczek also condemned the approval, asserting that "under Gov. Hochul’s leadership, New Yorkers’ voices were silenced to appease President Trump’s fossil fuel priorities."
"Hochul has made it abundantly clear that she will abdicate her responsibility as governor, violate New York’s signature climate law, dismiss the environmental and affordability struggles facing New Yorkers, and bend the knee to Trump for political expediency," Fraczek added.
Roger Downs, conservation director at the Sierra Club’s Atlantic chapter, said, "It is truly a sad day when New York leaders cave to the Trump administration and agree to build pipelines that New Yorkers do not need and cannot afford."
“This decision is an affront to clean water, energy affordability, and a stable climate," Downs added.
Food & Water Watch New York state director Laura Shindell called Hochul's approval "a betrayal of New Yorkers."
“In granting the certification for this pipeline, Gov. Hochul has not only sided with Trump, she’s fast-tracked his agenda," she continued. "Hochul has shown New Yorkers she’d prefer to do Trump’s dirty work rather than protect our waterways from pollution."
"She hasn’t kept her promises to fight against skyrocketing energy bills or the climate crisis," Shindell added. "But New Yorkers will fight Hochul’s dirty pipeline every step of the way—alongside our communities—until it is stopped for good.”
"The administration’s legal maneuver sends a clear and devastating message: that the well-being of America’s most vulnerable is not important," said the president of the Food Research & Action Center.
The Trump administration will not give poor Americans food assistance without a fight.
Instead of following a federal judge’s ruling Thursday that ordered officials to release Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funds to 42 million Americans by the next day, the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked an appeals court to immediately block the ruling on Friday.
The Trump administration has argued that due to the government shutdown, the SNAP program, which provides food assistance to those making 130% of the federal poverty line or less, functionally does not exist.
In an emergency request to the 1st Circuit Court of the United States, the DOJ called the lower court's ruling, "unprecedented" and argued that it makes "a mockery of the separation of powers.”
Furthering what has been widely interpreted as an effort to pressure Democrats to cave on their demands in the government shutdown, the appeal stated that the lapse in SNAP funding was caused by “congressional failure, and... can only be solved by congressional action.”
US District Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island, in his second ruling against the administration's efforts to choke off SNAP benefits, wrote the previous day that the administration's plan to partially fund the program was insufficient. The previous week, McConnell had ruled that the administration had to tap a $5 billion contingency fund to fund the program and make up for the shortfall by drawing from other sources.
The administration agreed to use the contingency fund but offered a plan that fell several billion dollars short of fully funding the program and would have amounted to a 61% benefit cut for the average SNAP recipient, leaving millions without benefits altogether, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
While the administration has sought to pin the blame for funding lapses on Democrats in Congress and has asserted that its hands are tied, McConnell described the administration's maneuvering as a deliberate political stunt.
"This is a problem that could have and should have been avoided," McConnell said. “The defendants failed to consider the practical consequences associated with this decision to only partially fund SNAP... It’s likely that SNAP recipients are hungry as we sit here."
He added that Trump had essentially telegraphed his plan to defy the court order over the weekend, writing on Truth Social that “SNAP payments will be given only when the government opens.”
This, along with messages on the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) website blaming Democrats for the lapse in funding, McConnell suggested, was evidence that “SNAP benefits are being withheld for political reasons.”
“Children are immediately at risk of going hungry,” McConnell said. “This should never happen in America.”
More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the SNAP program, 39% of whom are children. As the CBPP report explained, families with children would likely be those hardest hit under Trump's partial funding proposal.
"Nearly 1.2 million SNAP households with roughly 4.9 million people—roughly 1 in 9 SNAP recipients—will receive zero benefits because their normal benefit amount is less than the planned benefit reduction," it says. "Only one-or two-person households receive a minimum benefit under SNAP rules, leaving some households with three or more members—which are primarily households with children—at risk of receiving nothing."
The USDA has also issued a warning to grocery stores telling them it is illegal for them to offer special discounts to SNAP recipients hurt by the freeze, even though the government is allowed to grant them waivers. On Thursday, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced a bill that would allow grocery stores to voluntarily offer discounts to SNAP recipients whenever their benefits are affected by a government shutdown.
“Donald Trump is the most powerful person in the world,” Wyden said. “Only a monster would use that power to deny help to millions of families that don’t know where their next meal is coming from.”
As the CPBB has noted, contrary to its claims, nothing is stopping the Trump administration from transferring funds from other food assistance programs to fund SNAP fully. It has already done this twice to sustain the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which a court ruled was legal.
"Instead of using the funding that has been readily available to feed people, this administration continues to fight to deny tens of millions from accessing the nutrition they need," said Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center. "For some unfathomable reason, the Trump administration wants to punish the 42 million people, including children, working parents, older adults, people with disabilities, and veterans, who rely on SNAP to put food on the table."
She added that "at a time when food insecurity is rising due to increasing grocery prices, the administration’s legal maneuver sends a clear and devastating message: that the well-being of America’s most vulnerable is not important."