December, 05 2013, 01:13pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Tristan Tremschnig, Communications Coordinator Indonesia Forests, Greenpeace International, mob: +31 6 43 78 7393 email: tristan.tremschnig@greenpeace.org
Palm Oil Giant Wilmar Caves to Public Pressure, Commits To End Forests Destruction
Wilmar International, the world's largest palm oil trader today announced a No Deforestation Policy in response to pressure from Greenpeace, NGOs and consumers around the world. The policy has the potential to be a landmark win for the world's forests and the people that depend on them for their livelihoods.
Bustar Maitar, head of the Indonesia forest campaign at Greenpeace International said:
JAKARTA
Wilmar International, the world's largest palm oil trader today announced a No Deforestation Policy in response to pressure from Greenpeace, NGOs and consumers around the world. The policy has the potential to be a landmark win for the world's forests and the people that depend on them for their livelihoods.
Bustar Maitar, head of the Indonesia forest campaign at Greenpeace International said:
"Wilmar has responded to years of pressure from Greenpeace, other NGOs, and a growing movement of consumers around the world demanding clean palm oil and an end to forest destruction. Wilmar's commitment to No Deforestation has the potential to transform the controversial palm oil industry."
"Wilmar's policy shows that the sector has a massive problem, and while this policy is great news for forests and tigers, its success will be judged by Wilmar's actions to implement and enforce it. Our challenge to Wilmar is this: will it now immediately stop buying from companies such as the Ganda Group, which is closely linked to Wilmar and is involved in ongoing forest clearance, illegal peatland development and social conflict?"
Over the last seven years, Greenpeace has repeatedly exposed Wilmar's role in gross acts of forest destruction; sourcing from national parks, destroying prime tiger habitat, sourcing from suppliers linked to orang-utan 'graveyards' or this year's forest fire crisis in Sumatra, to name a few.
"For years companies, including Wilmar, have been hiding behind so called sustainability bodies such as the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. Greenpeace will be closely monitoring how Wilmar will put these words into action, and will welcome Wilmar's immediate end to all trade with companies involved in deforestation. The gauntlet is thrown to other palm oil traders such as Cargill, Musim Mas and Sime Darby to release similar policies," added Bustar.
The palm oil sector is the greatest single cause of deforestation in Indonesia. Ministry of Forestry maps show that Indonesia is losing some 620,000ha of rainforest every year between 2009-2011 (an area greater than the size of Brunei). Palm oil's expansion into New Guinea and Africa is already threatening forests, sparking controversy and conflict with local communities.
Wilmar International accounts for more than a third of global trade of palm oil.
Greenpeace is a global, independent campaigning organization that uses peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.
+31 20 718 2000LATEST NEWS
Pentagon Fails 8th Consecutive Audit Days After Bipartisan Vote to Hand It $900 Billion
"Congress cannot continue funneling hundreds of billions of dollars to a completely unaccountable agency while American families can’t afford food or healthcare," said one House Democrat.
Dec 23, 2025
Two days after the US Senate voted on a bipartisan basis to authorize just over $900 billion in military spending for the coming fiscal year, the chief recipient of that taxpayer money—the Department of Defense—announced it failed an audit of its books for the eighth consecutive year.
The now-predictable audit result was announced Friday by the Pentagon's Office of Inspector General (OIG) after an examination of the agency's roughly $4.6 trillion in assets. The OIG said it identified 26 "material weaknesses"—major flaws in internal controls over financial reports—in the Pentagon's accounting.
Auditors also uncovered "five instances of noncompliance with laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements," OIG said.
The Military Times reported that "among the shortcomings were omissions in the Joint Strike Fighter Program, the Pentagon’s multifaceted effort to develop an affordable strike aircraft for the Air Force, Marine Corps, Navy, and allied nations."
"Auditors determined the Pentagon failed to report assets in the program’s Global Spares Pool, and did not accurately record the property," the outlet noted.
Jules W. Hurst III, the Pentagon's chief financial officer, said in response to the findings that the department is "committed to resolving its critical issues and achieving an unmodified audit opinion by 2028.
The Pentagon remains the only US federal agency that has yet to pass an independent, department-wide audit, as required by law. But its repeated failures to return a clean audit haven't deterred Congress from adding to its coffers each year.
With the passage of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which President Donald Trump signed into law last week, Congress has backed over $1 trillion in military spending this year.
"Congress cannot continue funneling hundreds of billions of dollars to a completely unaccountable agency while American families can’t afford food or healthcare," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who voted against the NDAA.
Keep ReadingShow Less
University of Oklahoma Removes Teacher Over Failing Grade for Student's Bible-Based Gender Essay
"So if a geology student at the University of Oklahoma says in class the earth is 6,000 years young because that’s what they believe, a geology teacher can’t say squat?" asked one critic.
Dec 23, 2025
A decision from the University of Oklahoma on Monday left some asking whether the research university can still be seen as having "academic standards" after an instructor was removed from teaching duties for giving a failing grade to a student who focused on her own religious beliefs about gender in a paper for a psychology course.
The university released a statement saying the graduate teaching assistant in the course, Mel Curth, had been "arbitrary" in the grading of a paper by student Samantha Fulnecky, who wrote an assigned essay about an article the class read about gender, peer relations, sterotyping, and mental health for the course.
Fulnecky's paper cited the Bible and focused heavily on her beliefs that "God made male and female and made us differently from each other on purpose and for a purpose."
"Women naturally want to do womanly things because God created us with those womanly desires in our hearts. The same goes for men," she wrote in the essay, adding that "society pushing the lie that there are multiple genders and everyone should be whatever they want to be is demonic and severely harms American youth."
Curth, who is transgender, gave Fulnecky a zero for the essay and emphasized in her response that she was "not deducting points because you have certain beliefs," but because the paper "does not answer the questions for the assignment, contradicts itself, heavily uses personal ideology over empirical evidence in a scientific class, and is at times offensive."
"Using your own personal beliefs to argue against the findings of not only this article, but the findings of countless articles across psychology, biology, sociology, etc. is not best practice," Curth wrote.
Another instructor concurred with Curth on the grade, telling Fulnecky that "everyone has different ways in which they see the world, but in an academic course such as this you are being asked to support your ideas with empirical evidence and higher-level reasoning."
On Monday, the university suggested Curth's explanation for the grade was not satisfactory.
"What is there to say other than that the University of Oklahoma has no academic standards?" asked journalist Peter Sterne in response to the university's statement.
One civil rights advocate, Brian Tashman, added that the school's decision opens up numerous questions about how academic papers that focus on a student's religious beliefs will be graded in the future.
"So if a geology student at the University of Oklahoma says in class the earth is 6,000 years young because that’s what they believe, a geology teacher can’t say squat?" asked Tashman. "What if their religion teaches the earth is flat? Or that all of mankind’s problems can be traced back to Xenu?"
Curth had initially been placed on administrative leave earlier this month when Fulnecky filed a religious discrimination complaint with the school.
Fulnecky's allegations drew the attention of the school's chapter of Turning Point USA, the right-wing group that advocates for conservative political views on college and high school campuses. The group is closely aligned with the Trump administration. Vice President JD Vance spoke at Turning Point's AmericaFest last weekend—and used the appearance to tell young conservatives that their movement should not root out antisemitism with "purity tests"—and the assassination of its founder, Charlie Kirk, earlier this year, was followed by the White House's efforts to crack down on what it called left-wing extremism, with President Donald Trump directly blaming the "radical left" for Kirk's killing before a suspect was identified.
While Fulnecky garnered support from the Turning Point chapter, hundreds of her fellow students rallied in support of Curth in recent weeks, chanting, "Protect Our Professors!" at a recent protest.
A lawyer for Curth said Monday that she is "considering all of her legal remedies, including appealing this decision by the university."
“Ms. Curth continues to deny that she engaged in any arbitrary behavior regarding the student’s work," Brittany M. Stewart told the Washington Post.
The university did not release its findings of the religious discrimination investigation it opened into Fulnecky's case.
The school's decision to remove Curth from teaching duties, said author Hemant Mehta, "is what academic cowardice looks like."
Keep ReadingShow Less
State AGs Sue Vought Over 'Unlawful' Scheme to Bankrupt Consumer Protection Bureau
"By refusing to fund the CFPB, even when legal and appropriate funding mechanisms are available, the Trump administration has sharpened its message that it does not care about affordability."
Dec 23, 2025
A coalition of attorneys general from across the US sued White House budget chief Russell Vought on Monday over his effort to completely starve the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of funding, a ploy that—if successful—would eliminate a key path of recourse for Americans harmed by corporate abuses.
The lawsuit was filed in a federal court in Portland, Oregon by the top law enforcement officials of 20 states—including New York, California, Maine, and Hawaii—and the District of Columbia. The suit notes that Vought, in his capacity as acting director of the consumer bureau, "has worked tirelessly to terminate the CFPB’s operations by any means necessary—denying plaintiffs access to CFPB resources to which they are statutorily entitled."
The attorneys general specifically challenge Vought's "unlawful" refusal to request CFPB funding from the Federal Reserve. Under the law that established the consumer bureau, the agency receives funding from the Fed rather than congressional appropriations.
Vought has advanced a tortured definition of "earnings" to argue the Fed lacks funds from which the CFPB can draw, leaving him with no choice but to allow the agency he and his far-right allies have long opposed to languish.
The new lawsuit argues that Vought's position violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the US Constitution. If allowed to stand, Vought's refusal to seek CFPB funds would "make it all but certain that the CFPB will run out of funding completely in January 2026."
California Attorney General Bonta said in a statement Monday that the Trump administration’s "latest effort to destroy the CFPB means that hundreds of thousands of consumer complaints will fall on deaf ears."
"By refusing to fund the CFPB, even when legal and appropriate funding mechanisms are available, the Trump administration has sharpened its message that it does not care about affordability, that it does not care to be on the side of families and working Americans," said Bonta.
The CFPB has been a target of big banks and other powerful corporations since its creation in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. The agency's success—it has returned more than $21 billion to consumers since 2011—has only intensified efforts by corporate-friendly lawmakers and right-wing bureaucrats to gut it.
Since taking control of the CFPB earlier this year, Vought has effectively shut down bureau operations and signaled a lax approach to enforcement.
US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), an architect of the CFPB, applauded the state attorneys general for taking legal action against Vought.
“The Trump administration’s latest illegal attempt to shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will hurt families in every state across the country—and now states are fighting back," said Warren. "Today’s new lawsuit underscores how illegally starving the agency of funding would turn off the consumer complaint database that has helped millions of Americans at the end of their rope after getting scammed."
"If courts uphold the law," she added, "they’ll reject this attempt to sideline the financial cop on the beat that has returned more than $21 billion directly to Americans cheated by big banks or giant corporations.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular