November, 03 2019, 11:00pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Peri Dias, Latin America Comms Manager, +591 7899-2202, peri.dias@350.org
As Brazil Tries to Recover From Huge Oil Spill, ExxonMobil and Chevron Bid to Dig Even More Into the Country's Oil Reserve
Despite the devastating impacts on coastal communities, marine ecosystems, and the climate, major fossil fuel corporations keep attempting to expand oil drilling in Brazil - and profiting from it.
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Despite the devastating impacts on coastal communities, marine ecosystems, and the climate, major fossil fuel corporations keep attempting to expand oil drilling in Brazil - and profiting from it.
- Recent auctions of oil-drilling was postponed due to a lack of bidders because of concerns over environmental harm - yet ExxonMobil and Chevron indicate they will participate in the next round of auctions to be conducted by the Brazilian government on the 6th of November.
- Brazil is still recovering from a huge oil spill in the sea that happened about two months ago, which origin is still uncertain. The Brazilian government announced it is investigating the suspect that a Greek ship which was carrying oil bought in Venezuela let part of it leak in the sea while navigating in the Atlantic Ocean, but this is not yet confirmed. More than 240 beaches in nine states of Brazil have been affected. A vast amount of fishes, mangroves and coral reefs are being contaminated. Tens of thousands of families which depend on fishing and tourism fear their livelihoods are at risk.
- This comes as the Trump administration is expected to drop out of the Paris Accord, as the Keystone XL spills over 383,000 gallons of crude oil in North Dakota, and as the People of New York v. ExxonMobil trial nears its closing later this week.
- Specialists in prevention and damage reduction of oil spills say the Brazilian government took insufficient and tardy measures to contain the spread of the spill and that official agencies which should protect marine life and local populations are not working properly. Inhabitants of the regions affected are furious at the negligence toward their welfare.
As coastal communities from the Northeast of Brazil suffer the consequences of a huge oil spill, which is being considered one of the biggest environmental disasters in the history of the country, Exxonmobil and Chevron are about to engage in a new auction of huge offshore oil blocks in Brazil, on November 6th.
Experts predict that this oil auction might become the world's "priciest" ever. Oil corporations hope that the new blocks will generate from 6 to 15 billion barrels of crude oil, twice as much as Norway's reserves, ignoring the current trends for oil demand and the evaporating social license for the industry. Polluting mega-corporations like Exxon are particularly interested in this auction because the presence of large reserves of oil in the regions to be explored has already been proven.
Meanwhile, more than 60,000 artisanal fishermen and fisherwomen across the Northeast coast of Brazil are struggling to sell their catch because of the contamination of the marine life in the region by a thick, toxic oil. Most of these families depend on the fishery as their primary source of food and livelihood.
"The disaster we are witnessing could not better illustrate the complete neglect of these fossil fuel companies with the risks and damage that their activities cause to the lives of the poorest communities and the environment. In respect of the victims and due to governmental inability to contain the current spill, we demand the cancellation of the oil auction," said Nicole Oliveira, 350.org's Managing Director for Latin America.
The Northeast of Brazil is a region well-known for its paradisiac beaches and for being a hotspot of marine biodiversity, but it is also one of the poorest areas in the country.
In the first weeks of the spill, the Brazilian government tried to publicly deny the environmental and social crisis. Even after the scale became clear, the government did not put in place all of the institutional and financial resources it could have to contain the spread of the problem, according to several specialists interviewed by major Brazilian media outlets. Experts say that the effects on marine life and fishery might last for decades.
Touched by the images of animals such as marine turtles dying because of the oil and by the inaction of the authorities, hundreds of volunteers gathered by their own initiative to clean the beaches, even though they did not have the adequate protection equipment to perform this job. Because of the contact with the toxic substance, a number of them are now vulnerable to health problems such as vomiting, allergies or even a higher probability of cancer, in the case of prolonged exposure.
This dramatic situation generated a picture that shocked many in Brazil, on October 25: covered by a plastic sack, used as an improvised protection, a young boy who was trying to help in the cleaning of the beach where his mother works selling food for tourists leaves the sea with arms and hands covered by oil and a facial expression of tiredness and desolation.
"The Brazilian government has not been able to properly address the consequences of this spillage, and there is no reason to believe that it will be prepared to avoid and mitigate any future accidents. Despite these facts that are as clear as an oil stain on a pristine beach, companies such as ExxonMobil and Chevron are happily joining this new auction, literally at the same time that families covered in oil demand more protection," stated Nicole Oliveira.
Three weeks ago, fossil fuel companies such as ExxonMobil and Chevron participated in another auction of oil blocks in Brazil, which included the right of exploring oil in an area that, in case of spillage, could destroy the National Marine Park of Abrolhos, one of the most biodiverse sea areas of the southern hemisphere. Due to the pressure of environmental and local organizations, including 350.org, these companies did not dare to put a proposal for the blocks closer to the marine sanctuary and it was saved, at least for now.
Claudia Cristina Ferreira dos Santos is a local social justice activist from Bahia, one of the states affected by the spill, and coordinates a recently created mobilization group called SOS Abrolhos, which gathers more than 250 members of the communities affected or under risk of suffering harms because of the oil spill. They collected signatures to avoid the auction of the oil blocks near Abrolhos, in September, and now are pressuring Congress representatives to demand the end of the auctions.
"Many fishermen and fisherwomen are not eligible to receive the small compensations that the government will pay for the communities that had to stop fishing because of the spill. They simply do not know anymore how they are going to make a living," Claudia Cristina Ferreira dos Santos said.
"It makes me outraged to hear from the government and the companies that the oil drill will bring development to our region. We see the impacts of this activity to the families and ask ourselves 'is this development?'. In a region of paradisiac beaches, why don't they invest in boosting tourism and improving education to our children and workers, so that we can benefit from nature, instead of destroying it and harming those who live here?" said Claudia Cristina Ferreira dos Santos.
From November 5th to 6th, 350.org and a number of local civil society organizations will hold protests in Rio de Janeiro, where the auction will happen, to oppose to oil extraction, demand respect for the rights of communities and draw attention to the global climate crisis.
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.
LATEST NEWS
'Antithesis of the Rule of Law': ICC Judges Sue Trump Over Sanctions
"These judges are being punished for discharging their judicial duties independently by rendering decisions with which the Trump administration disagrees."
Jun 25, 2026
Three judges at the International Criminal Court on Thursday sued the Trump administration over sanctions placed on them by a 2025 executive order.
The three plaintiffs—Judges Kimberly Prost of Canada, Solomy Bossa of Uganda, and Reine Alapini-Gansou of Benin—have served on ICC panels related to alleged crimes committed by either the American or Israeli militaries, and are among the eight ICC judges who have so far been hit with sanctions by the US State Department.
The ICC drew ire of US President Donald Trump for issuing an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and opening a case into alleged war crimes by US troops in Afghanistan.
The judges' lawsuit contends that Trump's executive order establishing the sanctions was manifestly unlawful and in direct violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which prohibits the government from making arbitrary and capricious policy changes.
The suit also claims that the US sanctions, which were invoked under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, are illegal because their work at the ICC does not pose an "emergency" to the country's national security.
Andrew Loewenstein, attorney at Foley Hoag and lead counsel in the lawsuit, said the sanctions were designed to intimidate the ICC into dropping investigations related to the US and Israel.
"This sanctions regime is the antithesis of the rule of law,” Loewenstein said. "By targeting their financial and other personal interests, the sanctions are designed to exert extra-judicial pressure on Judges Prost, Bossa, and Alapini-Gansou and their colleagues on the ICC bench, with the objective of punishing them for past judicial decisions and coercing them into prioritizing their private interests over deciding cases on the basis of the law and facts."
Loewenstein also noted that "the sanctions obstruct the ability of victims and witnesses of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, as well as their lawyers, from being able to present evidence or argument in the judges’ courtrooms or otherwise participate in proceedings before them."
James Goldston, executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative and a co-counsel representing Judge Prost in the complaint, described the Trump administration's sanctions as "an unprecedented attack on judicial independence and the rule of law."
"These judges are being punished for discharging their judicial duties independently by rendering decisions with which the Trump administration disagrees," Goldston added. "This is an effort to pressure them to render future decisions more to the administration's liking."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Trump's Name Written All Over It': Supreme Court Sides With Monsanto Over Roundup Cancer Victims
"People who were exposed, workers who were never warned, consumers who trusted a label—they now have fewer tools to use to fight back. And the corporations responsible for that harm have more protection than ever."
Jun 25, 2026
Public health advocates, legal experts, and members of Congress were among those outraged on Thursday by the US Supreme Court's ruling in favor of Monsanto—and, effectively, against thousands of people who argue that its weedkiller Roundup caused their cancer.
Jay Feldman, executive director of the organization Beyond Pesticides, blasted the 7-2 decision as "a tragic setback for public and environmental health, allowing companies that produce toxic pesticides to evade the most basic of responsibilities, warning consumers that their products may cause cancer and other deadly diseases."
"In an age of deregulation, the ability of farmers, farmworkers, and consumers to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for hazard warnings is the keystone to minimum protection of public health, as demand in the market for the safest possible products grows daily," Feldman said in a statement.
The closely watched case stems from a state-level lawsuit and a resulting verdict in favor of John Durnell, a Missouri man who argued that Monsanto's glyphosate-based Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a blood cancer, which is in remission after multiple rounds of chemotherapy. A jury agreed the herbicide's label should have had a cancer warning.
The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans over a decade ago, but the US Environmental Protection Agency and Bayer still insist it is safe. In a majority opinion penned by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the country's high court agreed with the company's argument that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts Durnell's failure-to-warn claim under state law.
In a dissent joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that "the majority reads into FIFRA a labeling requirement that does not exist, and it reads out of FIFRA the statute's ongoing prohibition on misbranding. This interpretation cannot be squared with the text of FIFRA or our precedents. Ultimately, the effect of the majority's interpretation is both remarkable and regrettable, for it unjustifiably closes the courthouse doors to state tort plaintiffs like Durnell."
Bayer—which bought Monsanto in 2018—similarly noted in a Thursday statement that the ruling "should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles," which the company also said that it will keep trying to resolve by seeking final approval of its proposed $7.25 billion class settlement.
"This case was never just about Bayer," Environmental Working Group president and co-founder Ken Cook emphasized Thursday. "It was about whether states retain the authority to provide stronger protections for their residents when federal regulations fall short, and whether ordinary Americans can hold powerful corporations accountable when their pesticides cause harm."
Despite returning to office with a promise to "Make America Healthy Again" alongside Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump's administration "didn't sit on the sidelines—it lobbied the Supreme Court to strip Americans of their right to sue. And its tactics worked," Cook pointed out. "When a president uses the vast power of the federal government to protect a pesticide company from accountability—instead of the people he swore to serve—our system is no longer working for ordinary Americans."
"The ultimate losers are the American people," Cook concluded. "People who were exposed, workers who were never warned, consumers who trusted a label—they now have fewer tools to use to fight back. And the corporations responsible for that harm have more protection than ever."
Federal lawmakers who have fought against GOP efforts to pass a legislative "liability shield" for pesticide companies, including Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) joined Cook in ripping the ruling, as did Earthjustice senior attorney Patti Goldman, who said that it "allows Monsanto and other chemical companies to avoid responsibility when their labels leave people unprotected from serious harm."
As Farm Action president Angela Huffman also warned that the ruling "sets a dangerous precedent for other corporations seeking similar immunity," Sarah Starman, senior food and agriculture Campaigner at Friends of the Earth, took aim at the Supreme Court for issuing a decision that "sells out farmers, gardeners, and rural communities to multibillion-dollar pesticide corporations."
Food & Water Watch legal director Tarah Heinzen, also condemned the decision, declaring that "once again, the Supreme Court has sided with big business over people and the environment."
"Today's ruling is a disaster for public health—and it has Trump's name written all over it," said Heinzen. "If one needed any further proof that the president's feigned mission to 'Make America Healthy Again' was a farce, today's decision is all the evidence needed. Trump has been all too willing to endorse Bayer's crusade to pollute with impunity, while the administration doubles down on a failed pesticide regulatory scheme."
"Industrial agriculture is poisoning America," she stressed. "The fight against toxic pesticides does not end here. Congress must pass the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act to safeguard access to justice for all harmed by these toxic chemicals, and a Farm Bill that finally puts public health first. Until then, the Supreme Court has shut the courthouse doors to tens of thousands of sick and suffering Americans."
Kayla Hancock, director of Protect Our Care's Public Health Project, also called out Trump for dispatching US Solicitor General D. John Sauer to argue the case on the side of Bayer and its legal team.
"First Donald Trump signed an executive order plowing the field for increased glyphosate production despite the known health risks to help grow profits for his chemical industry donors," Hancock said. "Then Trump dispatched his [US Department of Justice] lawyers to help Big Chemical secure blanket immunity from at least 100,000 glyphosate-related liability claims."
"Sadly, the Supreme Court agreed to give glyphosate makers a free pass to poison Americans without warning," she added. "Donald Trump always has and always will prioritize big money corporate interests that benefit him, even if it means marginalizing the MAHA movement and concerned moms. And whenever Trump sells out public health to the highest industry bidder, there's no bigger apologist than his phony health secretary, RFK Jr."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'I Don't Think It Was Us,' Trump Says of Iran School Massacre as Cover-Up Fears Grow
"It’s been four months since the deadliest US airstrike against civilians in recent memory, yet we are no closer to getting answers," said Amnesty International USA.
Jun 25, 2026
President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he doesn't believe the US military was responsible for the missile strike that massacred more than 100 schoolchildren in Iran in late February, contradicting the Pentagon's reported conclusions, the findings of outside analysts, and physical evidence from the scene.
"I don't think it was us," Trump told reporters gathered in the Oval Office. The president did not offer a shred of evidence to support his view and said he has not seen the Pentagon's findings, which have reportedly been finalized amid mounting fears of a cover-up attempt.
"It’s horrible what happened, but there were missiles flying all over the place," Trump claimed. The Pentagon's preliminary findings indicate that the US struck the elementary school in Minab, Iran with a Tomahawk missile while attacking "an adjacent Iranian base of which the school building was formerly a part," The New York Times reported in March.
Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters in the Oval Office on Wednesday that "we've taken the investigation very seriously" and that the findings would be released at the "appropriate time."
Watch:
Reporter: Have you seen the report into the Minab school attack, sir?
Trump: I have not seen it. I have to wait for it to be complete. I don’t know that they’re ever going to solve that problem. I don’t know that they’re ever going to say it was one of our missiles. Pete, I… pic.twitter.com/0csB46qL8d
— Acyn (@Acyn) June 24, 2026
Trump's latest remarks came days after he brushed aside persistent concerns about the deadly strike, saying the incident occurred "a long time ago" and that "nobody did that on purpose."
"Mistakes are made," added Trump, who initially tried to blame Iran for the Minab massacre. "War is nasty. But I know it’s under investigation."
Amnesty International USA lamented in a statement Thursday that "it’s been four months since the deadliest US airstrike against civilians in recent memory, yet we are no closer to getting answers from US authorities about why this happened and who was responsible."
"The Pentagon must urgently finish its investigation and publicly release the findings. The investigation must consider the military’s intelligence gathering and assessments, as well as targeting decisions, precautions taken, and its use of artificial intelligence. Where sufficient evidence exists, competent authorities must prosecute any person suspected of criminal responsibility," said Amanda Klasing, the group's national director for government relations and advocacy.
"Anything less," she added, "would amount to a cover-up of a serious breach of international humanitarian law and a betrayal of the victims and survivors of this horrific attack."
NBC News reported earlier this week that "there is growing concern in Congress and the Pentagon that the Trump administration will classify and shield" the results of its investigation from the public.
“Of course they are going to try to classify the report," said Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who sits on committees with jurisdiction over the Pentagon.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


