

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.

Nathália Clark, 350.org Brazil and Latin America Communications Coordinator nathalia@350.org
Two months after the speedy ratification of the Paris Agreement, last Wednesday (19th) the Brazilian Senate moved exactly on the opposite direction and passed a bill that provides the "modernization of the coal power park", stimulating the building of new coal-fired power stations from 2023 and assuring a captive market for the remarkably low-quality Brazilian coal.
The coal stimulus program was outlined in one specific article of an Executive Act (Medida Provisoria), which was converted into law by the Congress. The act was originally meant to regulate privatizations in the electricity sector, but the coal lobby, strong in the Southern states, has managed to smuggle the pro-coal Article into the branching text.
More than 60 Brazilian NGOs are asking for a presidential veto to the bill. After the approval on the Senate, President Michel Temer has 15 days to approve or reject the new legislation. In case of a veto, the Congress has 30 days to deliberate on it.
During the plenary session, only three senators raised their voices against the measure: the Government leader Aloysio Nunes and two members of the opposition, Joao Capiberibe and Randolfe Rodrigues. The latter two emphasised that the incentive to new coal goes against the Brazilian commitments to the Paris Agreement.
"This article goes against everything Brazil has done to limit CO2 emissions, and puts Brazil in the opposite direction from where the rest of the world is heading. While China, the world's biggest emitter, has been taking measures to reduce the use of coal, in Brazil today we created a program to build more coal power plants", said Rodrigues.
On Thursday, representatives of the Parliamentary Front in Defense of the Coal and the Brazilian Association of Coal attended en masse the Senate session.
"By ratifying the Paris Agreement, the Brazilian government has committed to reduce the country's emissions of greenhouse gases, so it should be signaling a paradigm shift in its development model. Brazil has all the conditions to eliminate our dependency on fossil fuels. We should be heading to a complete restructure of the energy matrix, redirecting investments to projects that promote the efficient use of energy and the expansion of renewable sources such as wind, solar and biomass, accelerating the transition to a low carbon economy with free, just and sustainable energy sources", reinforces Nicole Figueiredo de Oliveira, Director of 350.org Brazil and Latin America.
Carlos Rittl, executive secretary of the Climate Observatory network, which includes more than 40 organizations, emphasises the fact that the approval of this proposal by the Congress is a negative sign for the credibility of Brazil in the climate negotiations.
"The same Parliament that did the right thing by ratifying the Paris Agreement in record time now creates a huge embarrassment for the government on the climate conference in Marrakesh", said Rittl. "Legislators who approved this program seem to live in a parallel reality, stimulating a power of the 19th century in the country that has more advantages in adopting energy of the 21st century."
Coal power has been traditionally minor in Brazil's energy mix. Today it accounts for only 6% of the energy produced, but it makes up for 14% of all emissions from burning of fossil fuels. Since 2014, however, coal has been making a comeback, seizing on the government's anguish about energy security after a series of long droughts that depleted hydroelectric reservoirs - and on a strong lobby in Congress. In 2014, new coal energy was auctioned for the first time in years, and this year a new 600-megawatt plant passed through the first phase of the environmental licensing process.
The recession has also participated on changing the outlook for coal, as it has reduced Brazil's need for energy and the money available for building new plants. Earlier this month, Brazil's giant development bank, BNDES, said it would no longer subsidize new coal - shifting funds to solar instead.
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
"Eliminating protections from small streams and wetlands will mean more pollution downstream—in our drinking water, at our beaches, and in our rivers," said one advocate.
Environmental justice campaigners on Monday said the Trump administration's latest rollback of wetland protections was "a gift to developers and polluters at the expense of communities" and demanded permanent protections for waterways.
“Clean water protections shouldn’t change with each administration,” said Betsy Southerland, former director of the Office of Science and Technology in the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Water. “Every family deserves the same right to safe water, no matter where they live or who’s in office.”
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin proposed changes to the rule known as "Waters of the United States" (WOTUS), which has been the subject of debate and legal challenges in recent decades. Under the Trump administration, as in President Donald Trump's first term, the EPA will focus on regulating permanent bodies of water like oceans, lakes, rivers, and streams.
The administration would more closely follow a 2023 Supreme Court decision, Sackett v. EPA, which the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found this year would remove federal protections from 60-95% of wetlands across the nation.
The Zeldin rule would eliminate protections for most wetlands without visible surface water, going even further than Sackett v. EPA in codifying a narrower definition of wetlands that should be protected, said the Environmental Protection Network (EPN). The rule comes after pressure from industry groups that have bristled over past requirements to protect all waterways.
Wetlands provide critical wildlife habitats, replenish groundwater, control flooding, and protect clean water by filtering pollution.
The Biden administration required the Clean Water Act to protect “traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, interstate waters, as well as upstream water resources that significantly affect those waters," but was constrained by the Sackett ruling in 2023.
“This proposed rule is unnecessary and damaging, and ignores the scientific reality of what is happening to our nation’s water supply."
Tarah Heinzen, legal director for Food and Water Watch, said the new rule "weakens the bedrock Clean Water Act, making it easier to fill, drain, and pollute sensitive waterways from coast to coast."
“Clean water is under attack in America, as polluting profiteers plunder our waters—Trump’s EPA is openly aiding and abetting this destruction," said Heinzen. “This rule flies in the face of science and commonsense. Eliminating protections from small streams and wetlands will mean more pollution downstream—in our drinking water, at our beaches, and in our rivers."
The "critical functions" of wetlands, she added, "will only become more important as worsening climate change makes extreme weather more frequent. EPA must reverse course."
Leda Huta, vice president of government relations for American Rivers, added that the change to WOTUS will "likely make things worse for flood-prone communities and industries dependent on clean, reliable water."
“This proposed rule is unnecessary and damaging, and ignores the scientific reality of what is happening to our nation’s water supply,” said Huta. "The EPA is taking a big swipe at the Clean Water Act, our greatest tool for ensuring clean water nationwide.”
The proposal was applauded by the National Association of Manufacturers, whose president, Jay Timmins, said companies' "ability to invest and build across the country" has been "undermined" by the Obama and Biden administration's broader interpretation of WOTUS.
But Southerland said Zeldin's proposal "ignores decades of science showing that wetlands and intermittent streams are essential to maintaining the health of our rivers, lakes, and drinking water supplies."
“This is one of the most significant setbacks to clean water protections in half a century,” she said. "It’s a direct assault on the clean water Americans rely on.”
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said the group was evaluating the legality of the proposal and would "not hesitate to go to court to protect the cherished rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands that all Americans need and depend on.”
"The proposal avoids specifying the exact scale of the deregulation it proposes, but it clearly would result in a serious reduction in legal protections for waters across the United States," said Caputo. "Many waters that have been protected by the Clean Water Act for over 50 years would lose those protections under this proposal."
"Sadly, we have a president who prefers the Saudi model—an autocracy run by a trillionaire family—to democracy," said US Sen. Bernie Sanders.
US President Donald Trump said Monday that he intends to authorize the sale of F-35 fighter jets to the autocratic kingdom of Saudi Arabia as the country's leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, heads to the United States for the first time since the horrific 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
"We will be selling F-35s," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office ahead of bin Salman's arrival.
The Saudis, Trump added, "want to buy them, they’ve been a great ally."
The Saudi crown prince, commonly known as MBS, is set to meet with Trump in the White House on Tuesday, heightening concerns among experts and watchdogs about a potential security pact and corrupt business deals with the kingdom. The New York Times reported Monday that the Trump Organization, formally run by the president's two eldest sons, is "in talks that could bring a Trump-branded property to one of Saudi Arabia’s largest government-owned real estate developments."
"The prince is overseeing a $63 billion project that is set to transform the historic Saudi town of Diriyah into a luxury destination with hotels, retail shops and office space," the Times noted. "Saudi officials toured the Diriyah development with Mr. Trump during the president’s official state visit in May, with the goal of piquing his interest in the project."
Robert Weissman, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said Tuesday that "we're seeing the complete merger of Trump’s business interests with US diplomacy and military policy."
"Trump's apparent authorization of F-35 sales to Saudi Arabia comes amidst reports of new Trump family business deals with the Saudi government and its affiliates," said Weissman. "These deals seem poised to direct tens of millions into the Trump family coffers in exchange for little more than permitting the family name to be attached to development projects."
The F-35 program, which is expected to cost US taxpayers trillions of dollars in the coming years, is widely seen as a boondoggle that primarily benefits massive defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, the producer of the jets.
Internally, Pentagon officials have voiced concern that selling F-35s to Saudi Arabia could give China access to the jets' technology.
"How are Americans supposed to think that Trump’s decision on F-35 sales, over internal objections, not to mention over human rights concerns, is unconnected to Trump’s business arrangements with Saudi Arabia?" Weissman asked.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in response to bin Salman's upcoming White House visit that "this is the dictator who had a US columnist murdered for criticizing the Saudi royal family."
"Sadly, we have a president who prefers the Saudi model—an autocracy run by a trillionaire family—to democracy," Sanders added.
"We commend every Democrat and Republican who signed the discharge petition to bring the Protect America's Workforce Act to a vote, but the fight isn't over," said AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler.
Two Republicans in the US House of Representatives on Monday added their names to a discharge petition that will now force a vote on legislation to restore the collective bargaining rights of hundreds of thousands of federal workers targeted by GOP President Donald Trump.
US Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) responded to Trump's legally contentious executive order by introducing the Protect America's Workforce Act in April. They began collecting petition signatures in June. At least 218 members had to sign it to override House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and force a vote on the bill.
Two New York Republicans, Congressmen Nick LaLota and Mike Lawler, signed the petition on Monday. It was previously signed by the sponsors, House Democrats, and GOP Reps. Rob Bresnahan (Pa.) and Don Bacon (Neb.). Their move came on the heels of an end to the longest government shutdown in US history, which left some federal workers furloughed and others working without pay.
"Every American deserves the right to have a voice in the workplace, including those who serve their country every single day. Supporting workers and ensuring good government are not opposing ideas," Lawler said in a statement. "They go hand in hand. Restoring collective bargaining rights strengthens our federal workforce and helps deliver more effective, accountable service to the American people."
"Speaker Johnson has run out of excuses to delay a vote on this legislation to restore federal workers' rights."
Golden, a former Blue Dog Coalition co-chair who recently announced his plans to retire from Congress after this term, thanked the newest signatories for joining the fight for his bill.
"America never voted to eliminate workers’ union rights, and the strong bipartisan support for my bill shows that Congress will not stand idly by while President Trump nullifies federal workers’ collective bargaining agreements and rolls back generations of labor law," Golden said. "I'm grateful to Reps. LaLota and Lawler for bringing this discharge petition over the finish line, and I'm calling on Speaker Mike Johnson to schedule a clean, up-or-down vote on this bill."
Liz Shuler, president of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the country's largest federation of unions, similarly welcomed the latest signatures and set her sights on the House speaker.
"The labor movement fought back against the largest act of union-busting in American history by doing what we do best: organizing," Shuler said in a Monday statement. "Working people built a bipartisan coalition to restore union rights to federal workers in the face of unprecedented attacks on our freedoms. We commend every Democrat and Republican who signed the discharge petition to bring the Protect America’s Workforce Act to a vote, but the fight isn't over."
"Speaker Johnson has run out of excuses to delay a vote on this legislation to restore federal workers' rights," she continued. "It's time to bring the Protect America's Workforce Act to a vote and restore federal workers' right to collectively bargain and have a voice on the job."
Other discharge petitions might be more salacious, but it is HUGE news tonight that two Republicans just got the Protect America’s Workforce Act discharge petition to 218 to restore federal workers’ union rights.Let’s get the job done. ✊
[image or embed]
— Lauren Miller (@laurenmiller.bsky.social) November 17, 2025 at 6:18 PM
Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)—which is the largest federal workers union, representing 820,000 people in the federal and District of Columbia governments—also applauded the development on Monday.
"An independent, apolitical civil service is one of the bedrocks of American democracy," Kelley said in a statement. "Today, lawmakers stood up together to defend that principle and to affirm that federal workers must retain their right to collective bargaining. This is what leadership looks like."
"Federal workers do their jobs every day without regard to politics. Today's action honors that commitment," Kelley asserted.
"AFGE will continue fighting until these essential rights are fully restored, including by fighting to retain Section 1110 of the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act," he vowed, referring to an amendment to the NDAA that restores bargaining rights to hundreds of thousands of civilians working in the US Department of Defense.
While discharge petitions are rarely successful, this one secured the necessary 218 signatures following a similar victory last week, when the newest member of Congress, Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.), signed her name to an effort to force a vote on releasing files related to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.