October, 26 2021, 11:59am EDT

COP26: Just transition, or just greenwashing?
As climate change threatens people and the planet, COP26 poses a crucial opportunity to solidify commitments that will protect life in all its forms. While heads of state preemptively congratulate themselves on the success that this year's climate talks will be, millions of people, especially across the Global South, are suffering the impacts of the climate crisis, global vaccine apartheid, and ever-growing inequality.
GLASGOW
As climate change threatens people and the planet, COP26 poses a crucial opportunity to solidify commitments that will protect life in all its forms. While heads of state preemptively congratulate themselves on the success that this year's climate talks will be, millions of people, especially across the Global South, are suffering the impacts of the climate crisis, global vaccine apartheid, and ever-growing inequality.
What's the cause for celebration among the corporate elite and heads of state? The growing popularity of 'net zero' pledges, which are the fossil fuel industry's latest marketing attempt to convince the public that they can realize 'carbon neutrality.' In reality, these schemes are just Big Polluters' 'get out of jail free card' to avoid truly cutting emissions to zero or answering for decades of deception about their role in fueling the climate crisis. Later this week, CEOs of Exxon, Chevron, BP America, and Shell will be called in front of the U.S. Congress to answer for decades of deception.
"Big Oil not only lied to the American public about the reality and dangers of the climate crisis, they continue to churn out propaganda that downplays their central role in the greatest existential threat to humanity of our time," says Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA), chair of the Oversight Environmental Subcommittee, hosting this week's Congressional hearings. "The fossil fuel industry's 'net zero' campaign is just one more way Big Oil is trying to deny responsibility for their central role in climate disruption, as extreme weather, flash floods, fires and record breaking temperatures wreak havoc for life on earth. Thursday's hearing is the fossil fuel industry's Big Tobacco moment and just as it was for Big Tobacco, Big Oil must know they're no longer going to be able to lie and get away with it."
But these polluters will continue to parade a 'net zero' agenda at COP26, as revealed in Still a Big Con: How Big Polluters are using 'net zero' to block meaningful action at COP26, new research out today from Corporate Accountability, Corporate Europe Observatory, Global Forest Coalition, and Friends of the Earth International. In the lead-up to this year's negotiations, all boasting 'net zero' pledges, BP and Shell have each met with UK officials more than 50 times; Microsoft continues to hold contracts with Exxon while sponsoring COP26; and BlackRock, still heavily invested in coal, is both lobbying the EU and advising it on climate finance.
"Big Polluters have pulled out all the stops promoting their flakey 'net zero' plans on the road to COP26, from schmoozing decision-makers and sponsoring conferences to rubbing shoulders with the Queen of England." says Pascoe Sabido, researcher with Corporate Europe Observatory. "But look behind their vague ambitions and you see a chilling future of climate chaos and continued planetary destruction. These climate criminals should have no seat at the table while they continue to try and burn it down. Why has the UNFCCC not kicked them out already?"
While polluters are playing their cards via governments and greenwashing gambits, this year's Conference of the Parties is no game of Monopoly. Billions of lives are at stake, no matter how much Big Polluters stand to profit from continued delay of climate policy that can protect people and the planet.
Leonela Yasuni Moncayo, youth activist with UDAPT (Union of Affected Peoples by Chevron/Texaco), speaks from her firsthand experience in Ecuador. "The Amazon, my community and I, our skin shows the destruction and disease that big polluting companies have left in their wake. My present and future cannot depend on the will of corporations. They have shown that they will stop at nothing to make a profit, even when our rivers fill with oil, our lungs with gases, our bodies with cancer, our plants with poison and the air with smoke."
Without drastic action by governments at the UNFCCC and at home, the corporations that brought us this crisis will retain access to those decision-making spaces at COP, where rules for real solutions, as well as dangerous distractions like carbon markets, could get finalized. It's impossible to write strong climate policies with polluters in the room--but there is already a strong international precedent for protecting policy from industry influence.
"The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) provides tools that can protect policymaking from interference by the tobacco industry--which prioritizes profits over the health of the public and of the planet," explains Dr. Adriana Blanco Marquizo, Head of the Secretariat of the WHO FCTC. "Some features of the WHO FCTC that make it a strong protector of public health--such as articles on liability and conflicts with commercial and other vested interests--may also help to protect climate policy from industries that pose a danger to people and the planet."
As evidenced by the strength of the WHO FCTC, negotiating international policies without industry interference can save lives. Further, in place of any empty 'net zero' scheme brought forward by the likes of BP and Microsoft, there are real solutions that governments can deploy. People most directly impacted by these intersecting crises are closest to the solutions, as on the African continent.
"Africans are clear: we must set the agenda for African policymaking, not corporate shills," says Aderonke Ige, Associate Director at Corporate Accountability and Public Participation Africa. "It is we who experience vaccine apartheid and climate disaster. 'Net zero' is a death sentence for Africans. COVID-19 remains a mortal threat. Not only do we demand life--we demand to be in leadership on real solutions to addressing these crises."
It's time for governments around the world to reject dangerous 'net zero' distractions--and boldly advance a plan for real zero, real solutions, and a just, livable future.
Speakers included:
- Pascoe Sabido, researcher at Corporate Europe Observatory, on key takeaways from original findings about polluter influence at COP26.
- Dr. Adriana Blanco Marquizo, Head of the Secretariat of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, on legal precedent from tobacco control policy and potential applications in international climate policy.
- Representative Ro Khanna of California (D-17), spoke about the upcoming House Oversight Committee hearings on Big Oil's historic disinformation campaign, and the importance of fossil fuel accountability efforts.
- Leonela Yasuni Moncayo, 11 year old youth plaintiff in the case of gas flaring in the Ecuadorian Amazon against the Ecuadorian state, and member of UDAPT (Union of Affected Peoples by Chevron/Texaco) on the urgent need for action to address historic harms and protect a livable future.
- Aderonke Ige, Associate Director, Corporate Accountability and Public Participation Africa, on the need for real solutions over corporate greenwash.
The event was moderated by Scott Tully, a member of Glasgow Calls Out Polluters (GCOP), a grassroots group organizing for climate justice at COP26.
Speakers are available for additional questions or comments upon request.
Corporate Accountability stops transnational corporations from devastating democracy, trampling human rights, and destroying our planet.
(617) 695-2525LATEST NEWS
Amazon Won't Display Tariff Costs After Trump Whines to Bezos
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said all companies should be "displaying how much tariffs contribute to the total price of products."
Apr 29, 2025
Amazon said Tuesday that it would not display tariff costs next to products on its website after U.S. President Donald Trump called the e-commerce giant's billionaire founder, Jeff Bezos, to complain about the reported plan.
Citing an unnamed person familiar with Amazon's supposed plan, Punchbowl Newsreported that "the shopping site will display how much of an item's cost is derived from tariffs—right next to the product's total listed price."
Many Amazon products come from China. While U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed Sunday that "there is a path" to a tariff deal with the Chinese government, Trump has recently caused global economic alarm by hitting the country with a 145% tax and imposing a 10% minimum for other nations.
According toCNN, which spoke with two senior White House officials on Tuesday, Trump's call to Bezos "came shortly after one of the senior officials phoned the president to inform him of the story" from Punchbowl.
"Of course he was pissed," one officials said of Trump. "Why should a multibillion-dollar company pass off costs to consumers?"
Asked about how the call with Bezos went, Trump told reporters: "Great. Jeff Bezos was very nice. He was terrific. He solved the problem very quickly, and he did the right thing, and he's a good guy."
Earlier Tuesday, during a briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called Amazon's reported plan "a hostile and political act," and said that "this is another reason why Americans should buy American."
Leavitt also asked why Amazon didn't have such displays during the Biden administration and held up a printed version of a 2021 Reutersreport about the company's "compliance with the Chinese government edict" to stop allowing customer ratings and reviews in China, allegedly prompted by negative feedback left on a collection President Xi Jinping's speeches and writings.
Asked whether Bezos is "still a Trump supporter," Leavitt said that she "will not speak to" the president's relationship with him.
As CNBCdetailed Tuesday:
Less than two hours after the press briefing, an Amazon spokesperson told CNBC that the company was only ever considering listing tariff charges on some products for Amazon Haul, its budget-focused shopping section.
"The team that runs our ultra low cost Amazon Haul store has considered listing import charges on certain products," the spokesperson said. "This was never a consideration for the main Amazon site and nothing has been implemented on any Amazon properties."
But in a follow-up statement an hour after that one, the spokesperson clarified that the plan to show tariff surcharges was "never approved" and is "not going to happen."
In response to Bloomberg also reporting on Amazon's claim that tariff displays were never under consideration for the company's main site, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick wrote on social media Tuesday, "Good move."
Before Amazon publicly killed any plans for showing consumers the costs from Trump's import taxes, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the chamber's floor Tuesday that companies should be "displaying how much tariffs contribute to the total price of products."
"I urge more companies, particularly national retailers that compete with Amazon, to adopt this practice. If Amazon has the courage to display why prices are going up because of tariffs, so should all of our other national retailers who compete with them. And I am calling on them to do it now," he said.
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) on Tuesday framed the whole incident as an example of how "Trump has created a government by and for the billionaires," declaring: "If anyone ever doubted that Trump, and Musk, and Bezos, and the billionaires are all [on] one team, just look at what happened at Amazon today. Bezos immediately caved and walked back a plan to tell Americans how much Trump's tariffs are costing them."
Casar also claimed Bezos wants "big tax cuts and sweatheart deals," and pointed to Amazon's Prime Video paying $40 million to license a documentary about the life of First Lady Melania Trump. In addition to the film agreement, Bezos has come under fire for Amazon's $1 million donation to the president's inauguration fund.
As the owner of
The Washington Post, Bezos—the world's second-richest person, after Trump adviser Elon Musk—also faced intense criticism for blocking the newspaper's planned endorsement of the president's 2024 Democratic challenger, Kamala Harris, and demanding its opinion page advocate for "personal liberties and free markets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Medicare for All, Says Sanders, Would Show American People 'Government Is Listening to Them'
"The goal of the current administration and their billionaire buddies is to pile on endless cuts," said one nurse and union leader. "Even on our hardest days, we won't stop fighting for Medicare for All."
Apr 29, 2025
On Tuesday, Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Debbie Dingell of Michigan reintroduced the Medicare for All Act, re-upping the legislative quest to enact a single-payer healthcare system even as the bill faces little chance of advancing in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives or Senate.
Hundreds of nurses, healthcare providers, and workers from across the country joined the lawmakers for a press conference focused on the bill's reintroduction in front of the Capitol on Tuesday.
"We have the radical idea of putting healthcare dollars into healthcare, not into profiteering or bureaucracy," said Sanders during the press conference. "A simple healthcare system, which is what we are talking about, substantially reduces administrative costs, but it would also make life a lot easier, not just for patients, but for nurses" and other healthcare providers, he continued.
"So let us stand together," Sanders told the crowd. "Let us do what the American people want and let us transform this country. And when we pass Medicare for All, it's not only about improving healthcare for all our people—it's doing something else. It's telling the American people that, finally, the American government is listening to them."
Under Medicare for All, the government would pay for all healthcare services, including dental, vision, prescription drugs, and other care.
"It is a travesty when 85 million people are uninsured or underinsured and millions more are drowning in medical debt in the richest nation on Earth," said Jayapal in a statement on Tuesday.
In 2020, a study in the peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet found that a single-payer program like Medicare for All would save Americans more than $450 billion and would likely prevent 68,000 deaths every year. That same year, the Congressional Budget Office found that a single-payer system that resembles Medicare for All would yield some $650 billion in savings in 2030.
Members of National Nurses United (NNU), the nation's largest union of registered nurses, were also at the press conference on Tuesday.
In a statement, the group highlighted that the bill comes at a critical time, given GOP-led threats to programs like Medicaid.
"The goal of the current administration and their billionaire buddies is to pile on endless cuts and attacks so that we become too demoralized and overwhelmed to move forward," said Bonnie Castillo, registered nurse and executive director of NNU. "Even on our hardest days, we won't stop fighting for Medicare for All."
Per Sanders' office, the legislation has 104 co-sponsors in the House and 16 in the Senate, which is an increase from the previous Congress.
A poll from Gallup released in 2023 found that 7 in 10 Democrats support a government-run healthcare system. The poll also found that across the political spectrum, 57% of respondents believe the government should ensure all people have healthcare coverage.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Advocates Warn GOP Just Unveiled 'Most Dangerous Higher Ed Bill in US History'
"This is the boldest attempt we've seen in recent history to segregate higher education along racial and class lines," said the Debt Collective.
Apr 29, 2025
At a markup session held by a U.S. House committee on the Republican Party's recently unveiled higher education reform bill Tuesday, one Democratic lawmaker had a succinct description for the legislation.
"This bill is a dream-killer," said Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) of the so-called Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan, which was introduced by Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) as part of an effort to find $330 billion in education programs to offset President Donald Trump's tax plan.
Tasked with helping to make $4.5 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans possible, Walberg on Monday proposed changes to the Pell Grant program, which has provided financial aid to more than 80 million low-income students since it began in 1972. The bill would allocate more funding to the program but would also reduce the number of students who are eligible for the grants, changing the definition of a "full-time" student to one enrolled in at least 30 semester hours each academic year—up from 12 hours. Students would be cut off from the financial assistance entirely if they are enrolled less than six hours per semester.
David Baime, senior vice president for government relations for the American Association of Community Colleges, suggested the legislation doesn't account for the realities faced by many students who benefit from Pell Grants.
"These students are almost always working a substantial number of hours each week and often have family responsibilities. Pell Grants help them meet the cost of tuition and required fees," Baime toldInside Higher Ed. "We commend the committee for identifying substantial additional resources to help finance Pell, but it should not come at the cost of undermining the ability of low-income working students to enroll at a community college."
The draft bill would also end subsidized loans, which don't accrue interest when a student is still in college and gives borrowers a six-month grace period after graduation, starting in July 2026. More than 30 million borrowers currently have subsidized loans.
The proposal would also reduce the number of student loan repayment options from those offered by the Biden administration to just two, with borrowers given the option for a fixed monthly amount paid over a certain period of time or an income-based plan.
At the markup session on Tuesday, Bonamici pointed to her own experience of paying for college and law school "through a combination of grants and loans and work study and food stamps," and noted that her Republican colleagues on the committee also "graduated from college."
"And more than half of them have gone on to earn advanced degrees," said the congresswoman. "And yet those same individuals who benefited so much from accessing higher education are supporting a bill that will prevent others from doing so."
“In a time when higher ed is being attacked, this bill is another assault,” @RepBonamici calls out committee leaders for wanting to gut financial aid.
“With this bill, they will be taking that opportunity [of higher ed] away from others. This bill is a dream killer.” pic.twitter.com/UjTYvnOEKv
— Student Borrower Protection Center (@theSBPC) April 29, 2025
Democrats on the committee also spoke out against provisions that would cap loans a student can take out for graduate programs at $100,000; the Grad PLUS program has allowed students to borrow up to the cost of attendance.
The Parent PLUS program, which has been found to provide crucial help to Black families accessing higher education, would also be restricted.
"Black students, brown students, first-generation college students, first-generation Americans, will not have access to college," said Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.).
“We cannot take away access to loans, and not replace it with anything else, not make the system better. We know the outcome here—Black, brown, and poor students will not figure it out. Instead, only elite students from the 1% will continue to access education.”@RepSummerLee🙇 pic.twitter.com/oGbRH154Ed
— Student Borrower Protection Center (@theSBPC) April 29, 2025
As the Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) warned last week, eliminating the Grad PLUS program without also lowering the cost of graduate programs would "subject millions of future borrowers to an unregulated and predatory private student loan market, while doing little to reduce overall student debt and the need to borrow."
Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director for SBPC, told The Hill that the draft bill is "an attack on students and working families with student loan debt."
"We've seen an array of really problematic proposals that are on the table for congressional Republicans," Canchola Bañez said. "Many of these would cause massive spikes for families with monthly student loan payments."
With the proposal, which Republicans hope to pass through reconciliation with a simple majority, the party would be "restructuring higher education for the worse," said the Debt Collective.
"It's the most dangerous higher ed bill in U.S. history," said the student loan borrowers union. "It strips the Department of Education of virtually every authority to cancel student debt. Eliminates every repayment program. Abolishes subsidized loans."
"This is the boldest attempt we've seen in recent history to segregate higher education along racial and class lines," the group added. "We have to push back."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular