

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.

As COP28 resumes for a second week, negotiators will be faced with answering the call for a commitment to a Fossil Fuel Phase Out in Dubai. Never before have we heard so many voices, coming from so many directions to seize the moment and commit to phasing out oil, coal and gas. And never before have alternative formulations on fossil fuel phase out made it this far into a draft text. But there are still no guarantees on a decision on fossil fuels, so all is in play.
Kaisa Kosonen, Head of the Greenpeace COP28 delegation said: “We are here to make fossil fuels history. By now governments know they can’t leave this summit without an agreement to end fossil fuels, in a fast and fair manner. Now the question is what is the package of solutions, support and cooperation that will get us over the finishing line. It’s clear that developed countries are the ones that need to take the lead here.
The solutions are ready – a fast and fair transition to renewable energy is possible – but it won’t happen fast enough unless we push the fossil fuel industry out of the way. And when it comes to money, just look at who made record profits last year – it’s the fossil fuel industry! There’s enough money in the world to deal with this crisis, but it has to be redirected from problems to solutions, so that polluters are made to pay.”
Yuan Ying, China Chief Representative, Greenpeace East Asia said: “COP28 can’t be called a success if there are no renewable energy targets and a full, fast, fair and funded fossil fuel phase-out. After the hottest decade ever, anything less is dropping the ball.
China is the world’s biggest wind and solar producer. And it has the capacity to respond to climate change on par with wealthy countries, while also sharing many of the same concerns as developing countries. This in-between role actually enables China to unlock those entangled negotiations in week two. The China-US Sunnylands statement provides keys for unlocking solutions here, but we still need to see them in action here in Dubai.”
Ghiwa Nakat, Executive Director, Greenpeace MENA, said: “Nobody wins a trophy at half-time, but this COP certainly got off to a strong and hopeful start. The historic consensus to operationalise the new Loss and Damage Fund could be a real lifesaver for frontline communities if the responsibility of developed countries to lead in resourcing the fund is recognised in the final COP decision.
However, such announcements are not enough if we don’t have a planet to live on. We’ve got to stop fueling more loss and damage. Everything so far has been just a prelude to what we really want to hear – commitment to a just and equitable phaseout of all fossil fuels by mid-century, coupled with key milestones for this critical decade.”
Dr. Camila Jardim, International Politics Specialist, Greenpeace Brasil said: “Brazil arrived at COP28 with important advances in the fight against deforestation and with an interesting proposal for a global financing fund for tropical forests, which escapes the harmful logic of the carbon market. However, the Brazilian government has avoided the most difficult and urgent conversation at this COP: negotiations for a global agreement to eliminate all fossil fuels by 2050, with a significant reduction by 2030. The science is clear: the 1.5º C mission launched by Brazilian diplomacy is completely impossible without an end of fossil fuels.
Brazil needs to stop hiding behind meaningless justifications: no country in the world has the potential that we have in renewable energy, which is the future of global energy geopolitics. We can lead and show the way for other countries, both by demanding financing and technology transfer to developing countries, and by building consensus around the urgency of this agreement and sharing our own experiences and technologies with partners.”
Thandile Chinyavanhu, Climate and Energy campaigner, Greenpeace Africa said: “Africa is making promising steps away from the outdated extractive practices of fossil fuel industries which for decades have locked communities in conflict, human suffering, and ecological death. We must encourage further development driven by innovation rooted in pan-Africanism. To achieve this future, we need our leaders to push back against further attempts at neo-colonial plundering of resources on the continent at the expense of Africans.”
Rolf Skar, National Campaigns Director, Greenpeace USA said: “The US signed on to an agreement on the phase out of fossil fuels at the G7, but here at COP28 they are sitting on the sidelines, apparently content to watch the world burn. The United States is on track to add more than a third of the world’s carbon pollution from new oil and gas production through 2050. They cannot hide behind the smokescreen of a coal phase out while ignoring their biggest problem: massive increases in oil and gas that will plunge our world deeper into climate catastrophe.
“No one is fooled. Americans bearing the brunt of fossil fuel extraction and export – who are disproportionately people of color – need policies that stop treating their communities like sacrifice zones for the oil and gas industry. The international community expects and needs the US to lead by example. There is still time for the US to change course. But no more time at COP28 should be wasted with half-steps and broken promises.”
Hirotaka Koike, Senior Political and External Affairs Officer, Greenpeace East Asia said: “While the world is experiencing the hottest year on record, Japan has been silent on the issue of fossil fuels. As the only country among G7 without a phase out date of coal use, Japan’s silence shows their unwillingness to honor the G7 commitment as a presidency and hide behind other blockers to do the dirty job.
The minister’s arrival should change that if Japan wants to be seen contributing to the global fight to keep 1.5 alive. Japan should take a chance to make it clear that they are on the right side of history by championing a fast, fair, and equitable fossil fuels phase out in the negotiating room.”
Shiva Gounden, Head of Pacific, Greenpeace Australia Pacific said: “AOSIS has been a powerful voice for our Small Island Developing states to keep 1.5℃ alive. They have consistently called on major emitters to address the elephant in the room – fossil fuels. AOSIS has been vocal about the urgent need to phase out all fossil fuels and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, if the world has a fighting chance of nurturing its diversity for our future generations. For our islands, it is a matter of survival. It is not only a technical outcome we are fighting for, but one that is centered on the protection of our lands, oceans and people.”
Maarten de Zeeuw, Climate and Energy Campaigner, Greenpeace Netherlands said: “The EU has its eyes on the ball, to deliver the fossil fuel phase out that’s urgently needed from this summit. But they’ve still got to get their goals clear for this critical decade. Simply stopping the growth of fossil fuel use this decade isn’t enough, when the actual challenge is to get oil, coal and gas use significantly down already by 2030.
To get the energy package over the finishing line here, the EU needs to ensure support will be delivered for those in need, as opportunities today are not equal. We are calling on the EU and other rich countries to show leadership by committing to ending fossil fuel consumption and production fastest and by stepping up to provide financial support for a fair phase-out in poorer countries.”
Rebecca Newsom, Head of Politics at Greenpeace UK said: “The UK’s status as a leader in these global climate talks seriously hangs in the balance. While wildfires and floods wreak havoc across the world, the Prime Minister’s message to delegates in Dubai was that the UK has already done enough. While his negotiators continue to work hard behind the scenes, they still need to speak up more strongly for a full, fast, fair and funded fossil fuel phaseout, and to stop objecting to text proposals that would move talks forward on the substance of future climate finance obligations for developing countries. With Ministers now arriving, there’s still time for the UK to show real leadership in backing an ambitious – and equitable – outcome to end the fossil fuel age and build resilience in response to growing climate impacts. The public, business, investors and a growing coalition of countries are all calling for it – now is the time to act.”
Pedro Zorrilla Miras, Climate and Energy Campaigner, Greenpeace Spain said: “In this first week of COP28, the EU has been one of the frontrunner groups for the fossil fuel phase out, the key step needed to keep 1.5ºC alive and avert the worst catastrophic climate change. Spain has been a key country pushing for this, as shown by the statements by the Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and by the Vice-president Teresa Ribera. Nevertheless, if we want to achieve this historical step, Spain needs to increase the ambition by saying no to abatement technologies and by showing a clear commitment for providing sufficient finance support for developing countries for a just fossil fuel phase out.”
ENDS
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 2000"Fake news is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped," said the speaker of the Iranian Parliament.
As the Iranian government denied President Donald Trump's claim on Monday that "productive" talks are taking place between the US and the Middle Eastern country, which the White House has joined Israel in attacking for close to a month, a top Iranian lawmaker accused the president of attempting to manipulate global markets with his claim.
"No negotiations have been held with the US, and fake news is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped," said Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of the Iranian Parliament, in a post on X.
Ghalibaf's theory appeared to be supported by developments in the financial markets shortly after Trump's seemingly significant announcement Monday morning.
As the market analysis and commentary website The Kobeissi Letter reported, by 7:10 am Eastern—six minutes after Trump appeared to allude to diplomatic strides toward ending his unprovoked war—the S&P 500 surged by more than 240 points, adding more than $2 trillion in market capitalization.
Iran's Foreign Ministry denied Trump's claim 27 minutes later, and by 8:00 AM Eastern the S&P 500 had fallen by 120 points, erasing nearly $1 trillion in market value.
"That's a $3 TRILLION swing market cap in 56 minutes, just in the S&P 500," said The Kobeissi Letter. "What is happening here?"
Ahead of Ghalibaf's remarks, The New Republic also posited that Trump's "news" of productive discussions was "just a ploy at market manipulation."
The quick denial of talks from the Foreign Ministry raised "serious doubts as to whether the president is telling the truth or just saying whatever he can to stop gas prices from rising more and more as Iran locks down the Strait of Hormuz."
Since the US and Israel began its assault on Iran on February 28, Iran has effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of the world's oil supply flows, and sent gas prices soaring to nearly $4 per gallon, up from $2.91 before the war.
The war, which has killed more than 3,200 Iranians and exploded into a larger conflict, with more than 1,000 people killed in Lebanon and at least 60 killed in Iraq, has appeared politically toxic for Trump, who campaigned on "no new wars" and making life more affordable for Americans.
Nearly 80% of people who voted for Trump in 2024 said last week that they hope for a quick end to the war.
Some observers noted that even the president's five-day deadline for negotiations to conclude—after which he suggested the US could launch strikes against Iran's energy infrastructure—appeared to revolve around the week's closing of energy markets on Friday.
"Every week, when markets open, Trump makes these kinds of statements to drive down oil prices," said Iranian academic Seyed Mohammad Marandi. "Even his five-day deadline aligns with the closure of the energy market. But in reality, there are no negotiations underway, nor does Trump have the capability to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Iran's firm threat has once again forced Trump to back down."
On Saturday, Trump had threatened to "obliterate" Iran's power plants if it didn't reopen the Strait of Hormuz by Monday. Iran responded with a threat to target energy infrastructure across the region, including in Israel.
A senior Iranian official told Drop Site News that "no new developments have occurred” diplomatically between the US and Iran.
Iran's conditions for ending the war, the official said, include a simultaneous ceasefire in Iran, Lebanon, and Iraq. The government is also demanding an end to US sanctions on Iran's procurement of defensive weapons and equipment.
“The fact that he publicly responds to [Iran’s position] by posting a tweet," the official said, "is solely intended to manage the financial markets—nothing more."
"The most corrupt presidency ever—and it's not even close," said one critic.
Critics slammed the Trump administration on Monday after it announced a deal to pay almost $1 billion to a French energy company to cancel its plans to construct wind farms across the eastern US.
As reported by The New York Times, French firm TotalEnergies has agreed to forfeit its leases in federal waters off the coasts of New York and North Carolina, and will instead invest the money it received from the Trump administration into oil and gas projects in the US, "including a facility in Texas that would export liquefied natural gas to global markets."
TotalEnergies paid nearly $928 million for the rights to access federal waters during former President Joe Biden's administration.
The Times described the agreement as "an extraordinary transfer of taxpayer dollars to a foreign company for the purposes of boosting the production of fossil fuels, a main driver of climate change, while throttling offshore wind power."
Patrick Pouyanné, the chief executive of TotalEnergies, said that the firm decided to abandon its US wind farm plans due to "practical" considerations, while emphasizing that the firm wasn't giving up on wind power all together.
"When the Trump administration came to power and began setting US energy policy, we said that we’ll have to reconsider, clearly, these offshore wind project developments," explained Pouyanné, adding that "we continue to invest in onshore solar, onshore wind, batteries."
Many critics expressed disbelief that the Trump administration would go to such extraordinary lengths to kill a clean energy project, especially after the president sent oil and gasoline prices soaring earlier this month when he launched an unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
"Let’s call this what it is: a taxpayer-funded bribe to kill homegrown clean energy and hand the money straight to oil and gas executives," wrote climate advocacy organization Evergreen Action in a social media post. "Trump is once again making Americans pay more for energy so his Big Oil donors can rake in even more profits."
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, expressed a similar sentiment.
"$1 billion of our tax dollars to kill a clean energy program that creates jobs, just so Trump's Big Oil donors can make more profit," D'Arrigo wrote. "The most corrupt presidency ever—and it's not even close."
Matt Gertz, senior fellow at press watchdog Media Matters for America, argued that the agreement was a corrupt bargain aimed at hurting the president's political foes, including the Democratic leaders of New York and North Carolina.
"Climate/renewables arguments aside, this is the president's administration paying a foreign company to invest in states where Republicans are in charge rather than ones where Democrats are in charge," Gertz wrote, "using tax dollars to punish people who didn't vote for his party."
US Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) said that the deal to kill the planned wind farms was yet another example of the Trump administration making life in the US less affordable.
"This administration just spent $1 BILLION of your money to make sure wind farms don't get built," Blunt Rochester wrote. "You''ll have them to thank for higher electric bills each month."
Mail-in voting "is relied upon by nearly one million Americans serving in the military abroad and nearly 50 million Americans living in the US," noted one expert.
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in a case in which Republicans are trying to ban states from accepting mail-in ballots after Election Day—a development that opponents warned could disenfranchise many of the roughly 50 million Americans who voted by mail in 2024.
Watson v. Republican National Committee challenges Mississippi's grace period for accepting mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day. While most states require mailed ballots to arrive by that date, 14 states provide extra time ranging from days to weeks. Such grace periods allow the votes of people including US troops stationed overseas, Americans living abroad, disabled people, and others to be counted.
The case is partly driven by President Donald Trump's unfounded assertion that mail-in voting is riddled with fraud. Following Trump's 2020 election loss, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency—created by the president in 2018—called the contest “the most secure in American history.” Trump promptly fired the head of the agency before leaving office.
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider a GOP effort to dramatically restrict mail-in voting Monday, when it hears oral arguments in Watson v. Republican National Committee. www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/...
[image or embed]
— Marc Elias (@marcelias.bsky.social) March 22, 2026 at 8:31 AM
Legal experts observing Monday's oral arguments said that some of the six Republican-appointed justices appeared sympathetic to arguments for restricting mail-in voting.
University of Michigan Law School professor Leah Litman said on Bluesky that Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas "sound like complete MAGA-pilled 'absentee voting/mail in voting is fraudulent' brains" who are "open to invalidating state laws allowing vote counting after Election Day—and perhaps more voting forms."
"They are doing what they often do in these cases with unhinged theories—invent far fetched hypos (could a state allow you to retract your vote, or say your vote is cast when you give your brother a ballot) to distract from what the case is about (is mail-in absentee voting going to be banned)," Litman added.
Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern said on Bluesky that Justice Samuel Alito "strongly implied that vote-by-mail, as practiced in most of the country today, is highly susceptible to fraud," adding that Gorsuch and Thomas "leaned in that direction as well," while Justices Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts "are harder to read."
"SO many questions from the Republican-appointed justices so far having little or nothing to do with the law—they're venting their evident frustrations about modern election laws that broadly authorize mail voting and fretting that they're spoiling elections with distrust and fraud," Stern continued. "Really bad!"
"It's also pretty clear that the Republican-appointed justices do not understand a great deal about how elections are actually administered," he added. "Their questions (and especially hypotheticals) are built on weird, paranoid fantasies that do not align with reality."
Others warned of the high likelihood of voter disenfranchisement should the justices limit mailed ballots.
“Watson v. RNC is a brazen Republican effort to disenfranchise millions of Americans seeking to vote in the midterm elections," said Court Accountability co-founder Lisa Graves. "Mail-in voting has been part of the American election system since the Civil War, and this method of voting is relied upon by nearly one million Americans serving in the military abroad and nearly 50 million Americans living in the US."
“Of course, the hyper-partisan Roberts Court is considering using the power of the nation’s highest court–again–to put its thumb on the scale of justice in ways sought by the Republican Party," Graves continued. "Three Trump appointees on the Supreme Court are poised to join three other Republican appointees to side with the radical ruling of a trio of operatives Trump appointed to the Fifth Circuit."
Last November, the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans struck down a Mississippi law that allowed mailed ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted as long as they arrive within five business days, setting up the Supreme Court showdown.
“Vote-by-mail is a secure and widely used way to participate in our elections," Stand Up America executive director Christina Harvey said Monday. "It’s a lifeline for military and overseas voters, voters with disabilities, elderly voters, and rural voters living far from their polling places. Nearly one-third of the votes cast in the 2024 election were cast by mail, proving just how essential this option has become."
“Watson v. RNC is part of a broader effort to dismantle voting options ahead of this year’s midterms," Harvey continued. "After pushing congressional Republicans to eliminate vote-by-mail and adopting [United States Postal Service] policy changes that could disqualify ballots sent on time, Donald Trump and his allies are asking the Supreme Court to finish the job."
"If the court rules in their favor, they’ll be making it easier for politicians to hold onto power without answering to voters," she added.
Critics allege that disenfranchisement is the point of policies like limiting mail-in voting or requiring voter ID. Republicans have implied—and even admitted outright—that these policies help Republicans win elections. During a 2020 interview, Trump said he opposed expanding mail-in voting, saying such a move would mean the country would "never have a Republican elected... again."
Last year, Trump signed the Orwellian-named “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections” executive order, which critics argued would do just the opposite by making it more difficult for millions of voters to cast their ballots. Among other things, the decree pushes states to require proof of citizenship when voting—a policy that opponents warn disproportionately disenfranchises lower-income individuals, elderly, and adopted people without easy access to their birth certificates and those born at home in rural areas whose birth records were never officially filed.
Congressional Republicans are also pushing the SAVE Act and Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act, the latter of which was described by one analyst as the “most dangerous attack on voting rights ever" proposed in Congress. The SAVE Act—which would require anyone registering to vote in federal elections to provide documentary proof of US citizenship—passed in the House last month.