To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Like every authoritarian before him, Trump is working to co-opt news sources and control what the public sees and hears. Too many corporate outlets are bending the knee—but not Common Dreams. We will never be intimidated, and we will never compromise the core values that define our community: social justice, universal human rights, equality, and peace. Because we are funded by ordinary people like you, our editorial freedom is guaranteed.
While progress among Amazon countries is laudable, we also need countries from outside the region to take a stand against environmental crimes, illegally sourced natural resources, and illicit financial flows stemming from environmental destruction.
On August 22, leaders from the eight Amazon countries gathered to take stock of current efforts to protect the world’s largest rainforest and river basin. The meeting came at a time when the Amazon faces unprecedented threats from illegal logging and mining, unchecked expansion of ranching and farming into protected areas, uncontrolled megafires, and rising levels of crime and violence. 2024 was the fifth worst year on record for deforestation in the Amazon region, with over 4.3 million acres of forest lost. Meanwhile, illegal gold mining in the Amazon has doubled since 2018, expanding into increasingly remote and ecologically sensitive areas and threatening the safety and well-being of local communities.
In the balance hangs the future of one of the most special and biodiverse places on Earth. The Amazon is home to a staggering 3 million species, including flagship species such as jaguars, pink river dolphins, and some of the largest eagles in the world. Beyond its incredible biodiversity, the Amazon rainforest plays a key role in our global defense against climate change, absorbing one-fourth of the carbon dioxide absorbed by all the land on Earth.
The Amazon is also critically important as a home to an estimated 40 million people (roughly the population of Canada), including an estimated 400 Indigenous groups speaking 300 languages. Amazon residents are facing complex threats including rising levels of violence and insecurity, mercury contamination from illegal mining, extreme weather events such as droughts and wildfires, limited state presence, and insufficient economic opportunity. Many of these challenges stem from the rising role of environmental crime in the region, which threatens local livelihoods, contaminates food and water sources, and empowers criminal organizations operating with increasing levels of violence and sophistication.
As leaders gathered at the Fifth Presidential Summit of Amazon Countries in Bogota, Colombia, it was clear to many of us attending that the stakes were high. On balance, the results of the summit were positive. Those of us working to combat environmental crimes were pleased to see countries formally commit to crucial issues, including:
While these commitments mark progress, much more is needed. Some of the commitments are quite vague, particularly around illegal mercury use. With over 200 tons of illegal mercury trafficked into the Amazon region over the past five years, and emerging accounts of Amazon children who cannot speak or walk due to exposure to this toxic substance, countries need to commit to far more than “advancing the development of initiatives that allow addressing” this deadly harm.
Yet the region will have a hard time addressing these challenges without cooperation from the countries that serve as the destination for products and profits deriving from the Amazon’s destruction. Our work at the FACT Coalition has shown how the profits from environmental crimes in the Amazon flow to financial hubs outside of the region, notably the United States.
Take gold, for example. Our research has shown that the United States is a major destination for both illegally sourced gold and the illicit funds associated with its sale. Other global financial and trade centers play similarly important roles. The United Kingdom is among the world’s largest gold centers and is home to influential standards-setting bodies such as the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA), and Switzerland is a global hub for gold refining. Could the Amazon region reasonably be expected to address illicit gold trading without engagement from these multibillion dollar markets?
The US should also resume recently-cancelled funding for international projects related to combating environmental crimes.
This is an important reminder that the devastating, rapidly growing environmental crimes threatening the Amazon with illicit extraction of natural resources do not occur in a vacuum. Illegally sourced natural resources from the Amazon region often enter global markets—and the illicit wealth they produce ends up far from the banks of the Amazon river, secreted away in shell companies, real estate, and other opaque structures.
While progress among Amazon countries is laudable, we also need countries from outside the region to take a stand against environmental crimes, illegally sourced natural resources, and illicit financial flows stemming from environmental destruction. They can do this by closing loopholes in their trade and financial systems, prosecuting environmental criminals, and cracking down on shell and front companies, the preferred financial getaway vehicle for environmental criminals.
Specifically, the US should address corporate and financial opacity in its own markets by implementing key reforms. This should include:
The US should also resume recently-cancelled funding for international projects related to combating environmental crimes. This should include support for formalization efforts for local workers, such as artisanal gold miners, helping to connect them with environmentally friendly techniques and responsible consumer markets.
It’s great to see Amazon countries committing to new measures to combat environmental crime. But they shouldn’t have to do it alone—especially when partnership from global allies could make all the difference.
"The Supreme Court has sensibly rejected two efforts by industry to halt critical safeguards," an advocate said.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday rejected two industry-backed petitions to issue injunctions on new Biden administration rules for methane and mercury in a rare, if temporary, victory for the environment at the nation's top court, which normally rules in favor of industry interests.
The two cases deal with rules issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—one to limit methane gas emitted by oil and gas companies, and the other to limit mercury emissions at coal-fired power plants.
Friday's rulings, which emerged from the court's emergency or "shadow" docket, mean the rules remain in place for now and the emergency applications to block them have failed. However, the cases remain active in lower courts, still to be heard in full, and could eventually return to the Supreme Court.
The justices didn't detail their reasoning and there were no noted dissents in either case. The court didn't yet act on a separate petition to block an EPA rule on power plants' carbon dioxide emissions.
"The Supreme Court has sensibly rejected two efforts by industry to halt critical safeguards," David Doniger, a lawyer at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told NBC News. "The court should do the same with the effort to block EPA's power plant carbon pollution standards."
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to pause new EPA rules on mercury and methane emissions, allowing stricter limits on toxic pollution from coal plants and methane from oil and gas. A rare win for environmental regulation amid ongoing challenges. #ClimateAction #EPA #CleanAir pic.twitter.com/j4heO0sqFq
— SustainableSphere (@Sphere__X) October 4, 2024
The EPA finalized the methane rule in March, saying it will cut emissions of the gas by up to 80% over 14 years. Methane is a climate "super pollutant"—a greenhouse gas far worse than carbon dioxide in the short run, as it traps heat far more effectively. Methane leaks are common in natural gas production.
A group of more than a dozen Republican-controlled states, led by Oklahoma's attorney general, and fossil fuel industry interests filed suit and then asked for an injunction at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit while the case was ongoing. The D.C. circuit court rejected the emergency bid in July, leading the group to bring it to the Supreme Court. The group called the rule an "authoritarian national command from the EPA" in a court filing.
The EPA announced the mercury rule—which also deals with other toxic metals—in April as part of a broader package of regulations. Mercury is a neurotoxin especially dangerous to children. Coal has higher mercury concentrations than other fossil fuels. The rule requires coal-fired power plants to reduce toxic metal emissions by 67%, with slightly different rules set for those fired by lignite coal.
A group of similar legal challengers, also led by Oklahoma's attorney general, went through the same effort at the D.C. circuit as with the methane rule—with what for them was the same negative result.
Whether the rules will hold up in court over the long term remains unclear. Right-wing justices hold a 6-3 advantage on the Supreme Court and have an issued numerous significant pro-industry, anti-environment rulings in recent years, cutting away at the power of the EPA.
"EPA must tackle carbon emissions from existing gas-fired power plants—soon to be the largest source of power sector carbon emissions," one campaigner said.
President Joe Biden's Environmental Protection Agency announced a final quartet of rules on Thursday to limit climate-warming emissions from existing coal and new gas-powered plants, as well as reduce mercury, wastewater, and coal ash pollution from coal facilities.
While several environmental groups and climate advocates praised the new rules, others pointed out that they still exclude emissions from existing gas-powered plants, which are currently the nation's leading source of electricity. A rule on these plants has been pushed into the future, likely until after the November election, which means they may not be regulated for years if pro-fossil fuel Republican Donald Trump retakes the White House.
"We don't have time for this half-assed BS, EPA!" Genevieve Guenther, founding director of End Climate Silence, wrote on social media. "Later is too late."
"As critical as these carbon rules are, the agency's job is not yet done."
The carbon dioxide rule is the first federal rule to limit climate pollution from currently running coal plants, according to The Associated Press. It mandates that coal plants that intend to operate past 2039 and new gas-powered plants must cut their carbon dioxide emissions by 90% by that date. The EPA calculates that this would cut CO2 emissions by 1.38 billion metric tons by 2047, which is equal to taking 328 million gas-powered cars off the road or cancelling power sector emissions for almost a year. By the same date, it would cost the industry $19 billion to comply, but generate a net $370 billion in economic benefits due to reduced costs from healthcare and extreme weather. It would also prevent as many as 1,200 early deaths and 1,900 new asthma cases in 2035 alone.
The effect of the rule would be to force coal plants to either cease operations or find a way to remove their emissions with carbon, capture, and storage technology, according to the AP.
"The EPA's new rulemaking once again claims that carbon capture is an effective means of reducing climate pollution, even though it has never worked in the real world," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. "The Biden administration must take aggressive actions outside of this rulemaking to rein in fossil fuels—primarily by using existing federal authority to halt new drilling and fracking, and stop new fossil fuel infrastructure like power plants, pipelines, and export terminals. Pretending that carbon capture can dramatically reduce climate pollution is nothing but a dangerous fantasy."
The New York Times reported that the rules "could deliver a death blow" to coal, which has already declined from producing 52% of U.S. electricity in 1990 to 16.2% in 2023.
"EPA's new carbon standards for coal-fired power plants, coupled with parallel rulemakings cracking down on mercury and air toxics, coal ash, and toxic power plant wastewater discharge, rightly force the hand of all coal plants that remain: clean up or make an exit plan," Julie McNamara, a senior analyst and deputy policy director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' (UCS) Climate and Energy Program, said in a statement.
Sunrise Movement communications director Stevie O'Hanlon called the regulations a "game-changer."
"These regulations are the kind of bold action that young people have been fighting for," O'Hanlon added. "President Biden must continue moving us toward ending the fossil fuel era: It's what science demands and what young people want to see from him."
The Biden administration has promised to eliminate power sector emissions by 2035; the new regulations, along with the Inflation Reduction Act, put the U.S. on course to slash those emissions by 75% by that date, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"The age of unbridled climate pollution from power plants is over," NRDC president and CEO Manish Bapna said in a statement. "These standards cut carbon emissions, at last, from the single largest industrial source. They fit hand-in-glove with the clean energy incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act to make sure we cut our carbon footprint. They will reduce other dangerous pollutants that foul the air we breathe and threaten our health."
"Congressional Republicans are already parroting the oil and gas lobby's talking points criticizing the rules."
Beyond fossil fuel control, the other three rules would strengthen toxic metals standards by 67% and mercury standards by 70%, cut coal wastewater pollution by more than 660 million pounds per year, and establish for the first time regulations on the disposal of coal ash in certain areas.
"The suite of power plant rules announced by EPA Administrator Regan represents a significant step forward in the fight for ambitious climate action and environmental justice," Chitra Kumar, the managing director of UCS' Climate and Energy Program, said in a statement. "Together, these rules help address a long-standing legacy of public health and environmental harms stemming from coal-fired power plants that scientific studies show have disproportionately hurt communities of color and low-income communities."
However, the groups also said the administration must move to regulate existing gas plants.
UCS' McNamara said that "as critical as these carbon rules are, the agency's job is not yet done."
"EPA must tackle carbon emissions from existing gas-fired power plants—soon to be the largest source of power sector carbon emissions—and it must look beyond carbon to reckon with the full suite of health-harming pollution these plants disproportionately and inequitably force on the communities that surround them," McNamara added. "When all the heavy costs of fossil fuel-fired power plants are tallied, it's unequivocally clear that clean energy presents the just and necessary path ahead."
NRDC's Bapna agreed, saying, "Existing gas-fired power plants are massive carbon emitters. They kick out other dangerous pollution that most hurts low-income communities and people of color. The EPA must cut all of that pollution—and soon—in a way that confronts the climate crisis and protects frontline communities."
At the same time, climate campaigners are already mobilizing to defend the new rules from Republican lawmakers who want to reverse them. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said she would introduce a Congressional Review Act resolution to "overturn the EPA's job-killing regulations announced today."
"Congressional Republicans are already parroting the oil and gas lobby's talking points criticizing the rules," Sunrise's O'Hanlon said. "They're making clear whose side they are on. They'd rather please the oil and gas CEOs who back their campaign than save tens of thousands of lives."
"The regulations are clear eyed about the science: To stop the climate crisis and save lives, we must move off fossil fuels," O'Hanlon continued. "Biden can keep building trust with young people by declaring a climate emergency and rejecting new fossil fuel projects in the coming months."