

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.
Adam Zuckerman, 510.281.9020 x309, adam@amazonwatch.org
Kevin Koenig, 415.726.4607, kevin@amazonwatch.org
Tomorrow, Ecuadorian state oil company Petroamazonas will produce the first barrel of commercial crude from the ITT (Ishpingo, Tambococha, Tiputini) fields that lie beneath Yasuni National Park, an area that some scientists have called the most biodiverse rainforest on Earth. Much of the oil will likely be processed in California, which refined 60% of Ecuador's oil exports in 2015.
Part of a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, Yasuni has more species of trees in a single hectare than all of the US and Canada combined and has more species per hectare of birds, amphibians, mammals, shrubs, and insects than anywhere else in the world.
Yasuni is also home to Ecuador's last indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation. The nomadic Tagaeri-Taromenane are now virtually surrounded with active or planned oil drilling on all sides of their traditional territory, threatening their very existence.
The production at the Tiputini C well site is the first of approximately 276 planned wells, ten drilling platforms, and multiple related pipelines and production facilities. Recently, Ecuador nearly doubled its estimates of the ITT block's reserves, although even this amount is equal to merely seventeen days of global oil consumption.
"This is the worst imaginable place to be drilling for oil. The world can simply not afford to lose a place like Yasuni," said Kevin Koenig, Ecuador Program Director at Amazon Watch. "At a time when scientists affirm we need to keep more than eighty per cent of all crude reserves in the ground to avoid catastrophic climate change, this is the last place on Earth they should be drilling. Many species in Yasuni survived the last ice age. Whether they survive the oil age remains to be seen."
The drilling comes after President Rafael Correa abandoned an innovative proposal to keep the oil from the three ITT fields permanently in the ground in exchange for international contributions totaling half its projected forgone revenue. The initiative, known as Yasuni-ITT, failed to raise the necessary funds as northern Annex 1 countries balked at contributing to keeping fossil fuels in the ground - a strategy that is now a scientific imperative if the world is to meet its declared goal of avoiding a 2degC rise in temperature. Ecuador also failed to convince donor countries by opening up new Amazonian areas for drilling. This "leakage" of any net CO2 emissions reduction along with inadequate political and financial guarantees sunk the initiative.
But the proposal was widely popular with Ecuadorians, with polling at one point showing 93% of the population in favor of keeping the ITT oil in the ground. Yasunidos, a national grassroots collective, collected over 600,000 signatures to force a nationwide vote on Yasuni drilling plans. But, in a process tainted by allegations of fraud and corruption, the government threw out more than half of the signatures, leaving Yasunidos short of the referendum threshold. Outrage and protests ensued and were met with violent repression.
"We are saddened that Correa has blocked the dream of creating the post-petroleum Ecuador that we want and need," said Esperanza Martinez, President of Accion Ecologica and a founder of the Oilwatch Network. We have done everything we can to save Yasuni and we will continue to do so to keep oil drilling from expanding inside the Park and force a referendum vote on further drilling."
Petroamazonas has pledged to use "state of the art" roadless technology to drill, but aerial photographs have shown the company building a secret oil access road into Yasuni National Park. The state-run company has been responsible for a series of spills in recent years, including one in 2014 that turned the Aguarico River black with crude and affected indigenous communities all the way to the Peruvian border. Oil spills are rampant in Ecuador's Amazon. Between 2000 and 2010, Ecuador's Ministry of the Environment reported an oil spill nearly every week. Civil society puts the number at two to three times that many.
The Ecuadorian government has also turned a blind eye to its own constitution, which affords special protection to the Tagaeri-Taromenane, declaring extractive activities "shall be forbidden" in territories of isolated indigenous peoples and constitute ethnocide. Both groups are also subject of "precautionary measures" handed down by the Inter-American Human Rights Commission of the Organization of American States which oblige the state to protect people facing imminent risk. When shopping the Yasuni proposal to prospective donors, the government claimed both nomadic Waorani clans were present in the area above the ITT fields, but newer government maps purport to show that they have conveniently migrated.
California refineries, the largest purchasers of crude from the Ecuadorian Amazon, would be at least partially responsible for the ensuing environmental destruction, rights violations, and possible ethnocide if they continue to process oil from the Amazon.
"We Californians will not be complicit in the ethnocide of isolated indigenous peoples and the destruction of the rainforest," said Adam Zuckerman, Amazon Watch's Amazon Crude Campaign Manager. "We will demand that our refineries stop processing Amazon crude."
Amazon Watch is a nonprofit organization founded in 1996 to protect the rainforest and advance the rights of indigenous peoples in the Amazon Basin. We partner with indigenous and environmental organizations in campaigns for human rights, corporate accountability and the preservation of the Amazon's ecological systems.
"ICE is attempting to infiltrate the Social Security Administration too—using field offices to further round up and detain people, and scaring people out of getting the benefits they need."
Leaders at the Social Security Administration are reportedly instructing agency employees to provide Immigration and Customs Enforcement with information about in-person beneficiary appointments.
Wired reported Friday that the instructions were "recently communicated verbally to workers at certain SSA offices." The outlet quoted an unnamed employee with direct knowledge of the orders who said that "if ICE comes in and asks if someone has an upcoming appointment, we will let them know the date and time."
Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for Social Security benefits, though they do contribute tens of billions of dollars per year to the program through payroll taxes. Noncitizens can qualify for Social Security, but Wired noted that they are "required to appear in person to review continued eligibility of benefits."
"Social Security numbers are issued to US citizens but also to foreign students and people legally allowed to live and work in the country," the outlet observed. "In some cases, when a child or dependent is a citizen and the family member responsible for them is not, that person might need to accompany the child or dependent to an office visit."
The revelation that SSA workers are being told to hand over appointment details to ICE came amid an ongoing congressional fight over proposed reforms to the immigration agency that has resulted in a funding lapse at the Department of Homeland Security, which has a data-sharing agreement with the Social Security Administration.
“You're seeing SSA becoming an extension of Homeland Security,” Leland Dudek, the former acting commissioner for the Social Security Administration, told Wired.
SSA is currently led by Frank Bisignano, a former financial services CEO who backed the Elon Musk-led assault on government agencies via the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.
Indications that ICE has Social Security field offices in its crosshairs as part of the Trump administration's large-scale, lawless mass deportation campaign sparked outrage. In a joint statement, Reps. John Larson (D-Conn.) and Richard Neal (D-Mass.) said that "under this administration, ICE has been transformed into Donald Trump’s secret police force—accountable to nobody."
"They are killing Americans in our streets, sending masked agents to snatch mothers from their children, and illegally blocking members of Congress from even visiting their facilities," Larson and Neal said Friday. "Today, we were informed that ICE is attempting to infiltrate the Social Security Administration too—using field offices to further round up and detain people, and scaring people out of getting the benefits they need."
"It was bad enough that Donald Trump and Kristi Noem have already used Social Security as a means to get immigrants to ‘self-deport.’ We led the effort to stop them and passed legislation to prevent them from continuing that policy," the Democrats added. "Now, Congress needs to act to end ICE’s reign of terror in our communities and block this cruel and inhumane plan.”
"The only beneficiaries will be polluting industries, many of which are among President Trump’s largest donors,” the lawmakers wrote.
A group of 31 Democratic senators has launched an investigation into a new Trump administration policy that they say allows the Environmental Protection Agency to "disregard" the health impacts of air pollution when passing regulations.
Plans for the policy were first reported on last month by the New York Times, which revealed that the EPA was planning to stop tallying the financial value of health benefits caused by limiting fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone when regulating polluting industries and instead focus exclusively on the costs these regulations pose to industry.
On December 11, the Times reported that the policy change was being justified based on the claim that the exact benefits of curbing these emissions were “uncertain."
"Historically, the EPA’s analytical practices often provided the public with false precision and confidence regarding the monetized impacts of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone," said an email written by an EPA supervisor to his employees on December 11. “To rectify this error, the EPA is no longer monetizing benefits from PM2.5 and ozone.”
The group of senators, led by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), rebuked this idea in a letter sent Thursday to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.
"EPA’s new policy is irrational. Even where health benefits are 'uncertain,' what is certain is that they are not zero," they said. "It will lead to perverse outcomes in which EPA will reject actions that would impose relatively minor costs on polluting industries while resulting in massive benefits to public health—including in saved lives."
"It is contrary to Congress’s intent and directive as spelled out in the Clean Air Act. It is legally flawed," they continued. "The only beneficiaries will be polluting industries, many of which are among President [Donald] Trump’s largest donors."
Research published in 2023 in the journal Science found that between 1999 and 2020, PM2.5 pollution from coal-fired power plants killed roughly 460,000 people in the United States, making it more than twice as deadly as other kinds of fine particulate emissions.
While this is a staggering loss of life, the senators pointed out that the EPA has also been able to put a dollar value on the loss by noting quantifiable results of increased illness and death—heightened healthcare costs, missed school days, and lost labor productivity, among others.
Pointing to EPA estimates from 2024, they said that by disregarding human health effects, the agency risks costing Americans “between $22 and $46 billion in avoided morbidities and premature deaths in the year 2032."
Comparatively, they said, “the total compliance cost to industry, meanwhile, [would] be $590 million—between one and two one-hundredths of the estimated health benefit value."
They said the plan ran counter to the Clean Air Act's directive to “protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare,” and to statements made by Zeldin during his confirmation hearing, where he said "the end state of all the conversations that we might have, any regulations that might get passed, any laws that might get passed by Congress” is to “have the cleanest, healthiest air, [and] drinking water.”
The senators requested all documents related to the decision, including any information about cost-benefit modeling and communications with industry representatives.
"That EPA may no longer monetize health benefits when setting new clean air standards does not mean that those health benefits don’t exist," the senators said. "It just means that [EPA] will ignore them and reject safer standards, in favor of protecting corporate interests."
"An unmistakable majority wants a party that will fight harder against the corporations and rich people they see as responsible for keeping them down," wrote the New Republic's editorial director.
Democratic voters overwhelmingly want a leader who will fight the superrich and corporate America, and they believe Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the person to do it, according to a poll released this week.
While Democrats are often portrayed as squabbling and directionless, the poll conducted last month by the New Republic with Embold Research demonstrated a remarkable unity among the more than 2,400 Democratic voters it surveyed.
This was true with respect to policy: More than 9 in 10 want to raise taxes on corporations and on the wealthiest Americans, while more than three-quarters want to break up tech monopolies and believe the government should conduct stronger oversight of business.
But it was also reflected in sentiments that a more confrontational governing philosophy should prevail and general agreement that the party in its current form is not doing enough to take on its enemies.
Three-quarters said they wanted Democrats to "be more aggressive in calling out Republicans," while nearly 7 in 10 said it was appropriate to describe their party as "weak."
This appears to have translated to support for a more muscular view of government. Where the label once helped to sink Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) two runs for president, nearly three-quarters of Democrats now say they are either unconcerned with the label of "socialist" or view it as an asset.
Meanwhile, 46% said they want to see a "progressive" at the top of the Democratic ticket in 2028, higher than the number who said they wanted a "liberal" or a "moderate."
It's an environment that appears to be fertile ground for Ocasio-Cortez, who pitched her vision for a "working-class-centered politics" at this week's Munich summit in what many suspected was a soft-launch of her presidential candidacy in 2028.
With 85% favorability, Bronx congresswoman had the highest approval rating of any Democratic figure in the country among the voters surveyed.
It's a higher mark than either of the figures who head-to-head polls have shown to be presumptive favorites for the nomination: Former Vice President Kamala Harris and California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Early polls show AOC lagging considerably behind these top two. However, there are signs in the New Republic's poll that may give her supporters cause for hope.
While Harris is also well-liked, 66% of Democrats surveyed said they believe she's "had her shot" at the presidency and should not run again after losing to President Donald Trump in 2024.
Newsom does not have a similar electoral history holding him back and is riding high from the passage of Proposition 50, which will allow Democrats to add potentially five more US House seats this November.
But his policy approach may prove an ill fit at a time when Democrats overwhelmingly say their party is "too timid" about taxing the rich and corporations and taking on tech oligarchs.
As labor unions in California have pushed for a popular proposal to introduce a billionaire's tax, Newsom has made himself the chiseled face of the resistance to this idea, joining with right-wing Silicon Valley barons in an aggressive campaign to kill it.
While polls can tell us little two years out about what voters will do in 2028, New Republic editorial director Emily Cooke said her magazine's survey shows an unmistakable pattern.
"It’s impossible to come away from these results without concluding that economic populism is a winning message for loyal Democrats," she wrote. "This was true across those who identify as liberals, moderates, or progressives: An unmistakable majority wants a party that will fight harder against the corporations and rich people they see as responsible for keeping them down."