SOCIALISM IS AS AMERICAN AS APPLE PIE

86 Democrats Join GOP in Voting for ‘Very, Very Stupid’ Resolution Condemning Socialism

WALL ST. DEMS ARE THE NEW GOP

“House Minority Leader Jeffries voting with the GOP in favor of this resolution is showing his ultrawealthy donors exactly who he fights for,” said one progressive leader. “It’s not the people.”


House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) (C) holds a press conference with Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) (L) and House Democratic Conference Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) on October 1, 2025 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Nov 21, 2025

Dozens of US House Democrats who joined the Republican Party on Friday in backing a resolution that denounced “socialism in all its forms” and opposed “the implementation of socialist policies in the United States” did so despite the fact that the GOP has used the term “socialism” liberally to describe a variety of social welfare programs—making the true meaning of the resolution open to interpretation.

“Socialism” is the word President Donald Trump has used for proposals to ensure the federal government provides healthcare to everyone in the US, and he’s among the Republicans who have warned extending Medicare to all Americans would “bankrupt our nation”—despite studies showing that the system would save more than $600 billion per year, and that wealthy countries that ensure all citizens have health coverage have far better health outcomes than the US.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) called the Green New Deal, which would create 3.4 million new green jobs per year, a “socialist scheme.”

During the Great Depression, Social Security—now credited with lifting more Americans out of poverty than any other US government program—was denounced by opponents of President Franklin D. Roosevelt as “socialism,” as was Medicare when it was introduced in 1965.

Republicans and their wealthy donors have warned that New York City’s Democratic mayor-elect, democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani, will wreak havoc on the city with his plans for fare-free buses and a network of city-owned grocery stores, with the president calling him a “100% Communist lunatic.” Fare-free public transit already exists in about 100 thriving cities around the world, including a growing number in the US, and more than a million Americans already benefit from publicly owned grocery stores where prices are 25-30% lower than at private stores—which also continue to run.



Friday’s resolution, introduced by Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.), states its opposition to “socialist ideologues” including Joseph Stalin and Kim Jong Un as well as the “collectivistic system of socialism in all of its forms.”

After the US House vote on Friday, former Democratic Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner said that considering how “the GOP calls every social safety net measure ‘socialism,’ votes like this matter in a policy context.”

They also say a lot, said Turner, about the Democratic leaders—like House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY), House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (Mass.), and House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (Calif.)—who voted for the resolution.

“House Minority Leader Jeffries voting with the GOP in favor of this resolution is showing his ultrawealthy donors exactly who he fights for,” said Turner. “It’s not the people.”

Jeffries waited until the final days of the New York City mayoral campaign to endorse Mamdani, despite the fact that the candidate had won Jeffries’ district in the June primary and captured national attention for his relentless focus on making the city more affordable for New Yorkers.

Drop Site News was among those that noted the House voted as Mamdani was en route to Washington, DC to meet with Trump for the first time. The support for the resolution among top Democrats who have refused to embrace the popular young politician’s meteoric rise was viewed by some as a statement regarding Mamdani’s visit to the White House—during which Trump gave the mayor-elect a comparatively warm welcome.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) said those who supported the “pointless” resolution “feel threatened by democratic socialists like myself who are unbought and willing to take on the billionaire class.”

Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) called the debate over socialism on the House floor “so very, very stupid.”

“A bunch of people with taxpayer-funded salaries, doing a job that is impossible to outsource to the private sector, are condemning the evils of socialism,” said Casten. “Either they are stupid, or that they think you are.”

“We have a mixed economy,” he added. “We benefit from free markets and competition in lots of sectors, and also have a judicial system, border security, national defense, economic security for seniors and those who can’t work that is socially funded. That’s a good thing! Condemning one half of that equation has no more logic—and is no more deserving of finite House floor time—than condemning defensive linemen because they never score touchdowns.”

House Passes Resolution Condemning Socialism Ahead of Mamdani White House Visit

Rashida Tlaib said the vote shows lawmakers “feel threatened” by those “willing to take on the billionaire class.”

By Sharon Zhang , 

Truthout

November 21, 2025

Zohran Mamdani is seen on November 20, 2025 in New York City.BG048 / Bauer-Griffin / GC Images

Did you know that Truthout is a nonprofit and independently funded by readers like you? If you value what we do, please support our work with a donation.

Ahead of a visit by democratic socialist and New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani to the White House on Friday, House lawmakers overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning socialism, with dozens of Democrats joining Republicans in their McCarthyist fervor.

The resolution “denouncing the horrors of socialism” passed 285 to 98 on Friday morning, with 86 Democrats joining 199 Republicans in voting “yes.” Ninety-eight Democrats voted against the measure, while two voted “present.”

“Yes” votes included House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York), who waited until the last minute to give a lukewarm endorsement of Mamdani earlier this month, despite Mamdani being the Democratic nominee.

The visit took place before President Donald Trump is slated to host Mamdani for a meeting at the White House on Friday afternoon. The meeting was a result of Mamdani’s office reaching out to the Trump administration, Mamdani said on Thursday, in hopes of working with the White House to lower costs for working people.

Republican Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (Florida), the sponsor of the bill, named Mamdani in remarks on the House floor.

Related Story

Majority of Americans Support Mamdani’s Affordability Proposals, Poll Finds
Nearly 7 in 10 respondents said they back the mayor-elect’s proposal to raise taxes on corporations and the 1 percent. By Sharon Zhang , Truthout November 12, 2025

“I salute the president for receiving Mr. Mamdani because he won fair and square,” she said. “But let me just tell you something, knowing very well how Fidel [Castro] works and how Hugo Chavez works and how socialism works…. If it would have been the other way around, and Trump would have been the mayor-elect and Mamdani would have been the president of the United States, I assure you that there’s no way that Mamdani is going to receive Trump at the White House. Period.”

“And how do I know that? Because I know exactly how [socialists] operate,” she went on, ignoring the apparent circumstances surrounding the meeting.

At one point, debate on the resolution was derailed because Salazar attacked Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California), who spoke up against the resolution. For minutes, Salazar railed on Waters, saying she was a “friend” of late Cuban President Fidel Castro because Waters visited the country and spoke out against the U.S.’s embargo against Cuba.

Later, after Waters asked for Salazar’s words to be taken down, Salazar withdrew them from Congress’s record — but included the clip of her remarks in a post boasting about them on social media.

Waters criticized the resolution as “absolutely unnecessary,” and decried lawmakers for taking up the measure “instead of legislating and doing the work to tackle real problems that Americans face, like the skyrocketing cost of groceries” and health care crisis.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib later said on social media that the resolution was “pointless.”

“Clearly [House members] feel threatened by dem socialists like myself who are unbought & willing to take on the billionaire class,” she wrote. “To [Democratic Socialists of America] members across the country organizing every day to build more just communities: Thank you!”

The vote comes as the right is seeking to round up and punish left-wing dissidents, with the Trump administration labeling anti-capitalists and anti-fascists as “terrorists.”

Eugene V. Debs, Defender of American Liberty

Eugene V. Debs at Labor Conventionon January 1, 1910.
(Photo by Library of Congress/Corbis/VCG via Getty Images)

Released from jail on this day 130 years ago, the great socialist and labor leader delivered a speech we would do well to remember in these perilous times.


Jeffrey C. Isaac
Nov 22, 2025

Common Dreams

On November 22, 1895, Eugene V. Debs was released from Woodstock Jail, where he had been imprisoned for six months for his leadership of the 1894 Pullman strike. Later that day, before a large crowd of supporters at Battery D in Chicago, he spoke on the topic of “Liberty.”

Debs was a great orator, and “Liberty” is a brilliant speech, powerfully evoking both “the spirit of liberty” heralded by the Declaration of Independence, and the promise of a freedom yet to be redeemed by American workers in thrall to plutocratic government. As Nick Salvatore noted in his classic biography, Eugene V. Debs, Citizen and Socialist, this speech marked an important moment in the evolution of Debs from a radically republican labor activist to the country’s leading socialist.


Debs notes his own situation, “stripped of my constitutional rights as a freeman and shorn of the most sacred prerogatives of American citizenship.” He proceeds to defend the American Railway Union as a necessary and legitimate organization of workers, and the strike as a legitimate means of pursuing justice, which“ threw down no gauntlet to courts or armies—it simply resisted the invasion of the rights of workingmen by corporations.”

An adamant defense of worker rights, the speech’s overriding theme is unmistakably the political theme of “liberty” and indeed democracy. This is clear from Debs’s opening words:
Manifestly the spirit of ‘76 still survives. The fires of liberty and noble aspirations are not yet extinguished. I greet you tonight as lovers of liberty and as despisers of despotism. I comprehend the significance of this demonstration and appreciate the honor that makes it possible for me to be your guest on such an occasion. The vindication and glorification of American principles of government, as proclaimed to the world in the Declaration of Independence, is the high purpose of this convocation.

The entire first half of the speech centers on the theme of “personal liberty; or giving it its full height, depth, and breadth, American liberty, something that Americans have been accustomed to eulogize since the foundation of the Republic.” Paying tribute to the republic’s founding—“For the first time in the records of all the ages, the inalienable rights of man, ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,’ were proclaimed July 4, 1776”—Debs proceeds to wax poetically, for eight long paragraphs, about the enduring resonance of that 1776 proclamation, the indivisibility of liberty, and the “more than satanic crime of stealing the jewel of liberty from the crown of manhood and reducing the victim of the burglary to slavery or to prison.” It is for this crime that he morally indicts the railroad magnates and their federal government allies for breaking the strike and imprisoning its leaders.

Debs insists that it is the labor movement that most embodies “the spirit of ‘76”:
To the unified hosts of American working men fate has committed the charge of rescuing American liberties from the grasp of the vandal horde that have placed them in peril, by seizing the ballot and wielding it to regain the priceless heritage and to preserve and transmit it without scar or blemish to the generations yet to come.

The ballot, Debs notes approvingly, “has been called a weapon that executes a free man’s will as lighting does the will of God.” Debs rhapsodizes in almost religious tones about the power of democratic elections:
There is nothing in our government it cannot remove or amend. It can make and unmake presidents and congresses and courts. It can abolish unjust laws and consign to eternal odium and oblivion unjust judges, strip from them their robes and gowns and send them forth unclean as lepers to bear the burden of merited obloquy as Cain with the mark of a murderer. It can sweep away trusts, syndicates, corporations, monopolies, and every other abnormal development of the money power designed to abridge the liberties of workingmen and enslave them by the degradation incident to poverty and enforced idleness, as cyclones scatter the leaves of the forest. The ballot can do all this and more. It can give our civilization its crowning glory—the cooperative commonwealth.

Debs appreciated the rhetorical and the inspirational power of the dissenting American political tradition that hearkened back to the Revolution and its “spirit of ‘76,” a tradition that included his heroes Jefferson, Paine, Garrison, Phillips, Lincoln, and Anthony. And he firmly believed that civil liberties and regular democratic elections represented forms of genuine if precarious social progress whose defense and expansion offered real opportunities for the furtherance of social and economic justice. He was, in short, a democrat.

He ended his speech with the hope that “American lovers of liberty are setting in operation forces to rescue their constitutional liberties from the grasp of monopoly and its mercenary hirelings.” That hope was not in vain, even if the Pullman strike was suppressed and Debs twice found himself in prison for refusing to be silenced, in 1895 and then in 1918 when imprisoned for his famous “Canton address,” critiquing WWI. The labor movement he helped to lead played a crucial role in advancing many of the policies—from the 8-hour workday to occupational safety and health regulation to “social security” broadly understood—that most Americans today simply take for granted. Debs was indeed one of the 20th century’s true crusaders for civil liberties and democratic inclusion. And his distinctive vision of a democratic socialism established an enduring legacy whose most recent heir is New York City’s mayor-elect, Zohran Mamdani, who indeed quoted Debs in his victory speech.At a time when the Trump administration is attacking liberty on a daily basis, targeting everyone on the left as a “radical lunatic” and “enemy from within,” and seeking to destroy the very possibility of political dissent and opposition, Debs’s paean to “Liberty” on November 22, 1895—and his commitment to its active promotion—has never been more relevant.





Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Jeffrey C. Isaac
Jeffrey C. Isaac is James H. Rudy Professor of Political Science at Indiana University, Bloomington. His books include: "Democracy in Dark Times"(1998); "The Poverty of Progressivism: The Future of American Democracy in a Time of Liberal Decline" (2003), and "Arendt, Camus, and Modern Rebellion" (1994).
Full Bio >

 Why We Must Replace the Global Economic System Built by the 1%

This is not rocket science and the global majority, the 99%, have the answers and are already putting them into practice.


Jenny Ricks

Deepak Xavier
Nov 22, 2025

Inequality.org


This year’s G20 Leaders Summit is taking place in Johannesburg, a short distance from Constitution Hill, a former prison complex that once held Nelson Mandela and other South African democracy fighters. As the world’s most powerful leaders meet behind closed doors, this former apartheid prison turned museum will publicly write another page in the history of global economic emancipation.

Movements, workers, activists, thinkers, creatives, artists, and communities from across South Africa, Africa, Asia, and Latin America are gathering for a three-day People’s Summit for Economic Justice — a counter to the G20 — to build the power of the 99 percent. The Constitution Hill’s Old Fort, Women’s Jail, and former men’s prison cells are hosting radical conversations, art, music, and action for the Global Majority to tell their own story, share struggles and solutions, and show that another world isn’t just possible — it’s already being built by communities writing their own future.

RECOMMENDED...



Richest 0.1% Overwhelmingly Guilty of the ‘Climate Plunder’ Wrecking Planet Earth



$70 Trillion in Inherited Wealth Shows Global ‘Inequality Emergency’ Spiraling Out of Control

The G20 member countries account for over 85 percent of the global GDP. Over this forum’s two and half decades of existence, the G20 has failed to use its combined economic weight to steer global financial, trade, development, and fiscal policies to address global economic and environmental challenges. Instead, it has served the interest of the 1 percent: elites, corporations, and billionaires.

As a result, a handful of billionaires and super rich people globally have amassed far more wealth than they need, abusing the power they possess. They are wrecking democracies across the world as they make rules in their favor at the expense of the 99 percent and the planet.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa appointed an “Extraordinary Committee” of independent experts that published the first-ever G20 global inequality report earlier this month. The report shows that the richest 1 percent has captured 41 percent of all new wealth since 2000, while the bottom half of humanity received just 1 percent. The report notes that one in four people globally now face food insecurity even as the wealth of billionaires reaches levels equivalent to up to 16 percent of global GDP. Those words will not mean much to those on the frontlines of inequality without action, without redistribution.

The International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and other bodies have also acknowledged that extreme inequalities are thwarting the pace and sustainability of economic growth, eroding social cohesion and trust, and undermining democratic institutions and political stability that is fueling conflict and social unrest. However, they are still part of the problem, not the solution.

Enraged young people from Morocco to Madagascar, Kathmandu to Lima continue to lead street protests worldwide demanding accountability and challenging economic systems because they are not working for them. They are frustrated by poor service delivery, abuse of power concentrated in the hands of a few, unfulfilled promises, economic systems that continue to squeeze the little they earn, unemployment, unjust debt and climate breakdown.

They are drawing a red line against the failed systems and saying loud and clear, “Enough is enough.”

This is a time bomb and a bigger explosion threatens the planet and everyone on it, regardless how fat their bank account is. But we have solutions. This is not rocket science and the global majority, the 99%, have the answers and are already putting them into practice.

Wealth taxes are a progressive solution to address extreme inequalities — far better than the consumption taxes that many governments in the Global South are imposing on their people to service unjust debt and compensate for unpaid taxes by the super-rich. Taxing the super-rich can generate significant recurring revenue and restore public trust. Tax revenues from the super-rich are enough to fund essential services, such as education, healthcare, and social safety nets, which are key drivers of long-term inequality reduction.

Participants in the People’s Summit are also demanding that rich polluters pay for just transitions to clean energy. They are calling for redistributing health care to guarantee reproductive justice and bodily autonomy. And they are demanding protection of civic space and cultural rights by defending the freedom to speak, organize, and create.

The 2025 G20 Leaders Summit taking place not far from the We the 99 Peoples Summit has an opportunity to right the wrongs of the past by listening to the global majority that are gathered at Constitution Hill. Global leaders, including the G20, must stop turning for solutions to the same elites who created and continue to fuel the inequality crisis. Instead, they need to listen to the voices of the 99% – the people who have endured inequality and survived against all odds.

The 99% hold the answers. And the answer is clear: replace the system built by the 1% with a system designed for and by the 99%.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.


Jenny Ricks
Jenny Ricks is the Global Convenor of the Fight Inequality Alliance.
Full Bio >

Deepak Xavier
Deepak Xavier is Global Convener for Fight Inequality Alliance, a co-convener for the We The 99 People’s Summit for Economic Justice.
Full Bio >

‘We Must Overturn Citizens United,’ Says Sanders as Analysis Details Billionaire Takeover of US Politics

“If democracy is to survive, billionaires cannot be allowed to buy elections,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders.


Billionaire Miriam Adelson was pictured arriving at the inauguration of US President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025.
(Photo by Saul Loeb-Pool/Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
Nov 21, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

A yearlong investigation published Friday by the Washington Post examines how a small number of billionaires, now richer than ever, have exploited openings provided by the US Supreme Court, lawmakers, and sleepwalking regulatory agencies to flood the American political system with cash and advance their ideological—and financial—interests.

The Post analysis reveals that the nation’s top 20 billionaire donors pumped close to $5 billion combined into the US political system between 2015 and 2024, attempting to exert influence over both state-level and national elections.

In 2024, the newspaper found, over 80% of federal campaign spending by the 100 richest Americans flowed to Republicans, who delivered once again for rich benefactors by enacting yet another round of highly regressive tax cuts this past summer.

Topping the list of billionaire donors is Miriam Adelson and her late husband Sheldon, who have spent $621 million on federal races and $37 million on state races over the past decade, mostly backing Republican campaigns—including that of President Donald Trump.

Others on the list include former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, shipping magnates Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, hedge fund manager Ken Griffin, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, and investor George Soros.

“In three landmark decisions, starting with 2010’s Citizens United vs. FEC, federal courts gutted post-Watergate campaign finance restrictions, clearing the way for donors to contribute unlimited money to elections,” the Post observed. “As a result, US politicians are more dependent on the largesse of the billionaire class than ever before, giving one-four-hundredth of 1% of Americans extraordinary influence over which politicians and policies succeed.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) called Citizens United, which spawned the super PACs that many billionaires now use as vehicles for unrestrained election spending, “the original sin.”

“Five Supreme Court Republican appointees, many helped onto the Court by right-wing billionaires, open the floodgates for unlimited political spending,” Whitehouse wrote in a social media post on Friday. “Then they refuse to police anonymous political spending they know is corrupting. This is the result.”






Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has long decried the corrupting influence of billionaire and corporate money on American politics, said the Post investigation underscores why “we must overturn Citizens United and move to the public funding of elections.”

“A majority of Americans agree: If democracy is to survive, billionaires cannot be allowed to buy elections,” Sanders added.


As part of its probe, the Post conducted a survey aimed at determining how the US public feels about billionaires using a fraction of their immense fortunes—now at a record $8 trillion—to sway elections.

The survey of 2,500 Americans, conducted in September, found that 58% have a negative view of billionaires spending more money on elections. Forty-three percent of Americans, including 62% of Democrats and 21% of Republicans, believe billionaires have a negative impact on society overall.

“I don’t believe there is an ethical way for billionaires to even exist in this country,” Leah Welde, a 29-year-old Democrat and graduate school student in Philadelphia, told the Post. “To be sitting on that amount of money while citizens in this country are unhoused, hungry, and without medical care is abhorrent. I believe in spreading wealth.”

Elites wield huge influence over deepening polarisation –– now we can tell how much

Just a handful of influential voices may be enough to drive dramatic societal rifts, according to new research from Aalto University. The study gives unprecedented insight into the social media mechanics of the partisan divide.

Aalto University

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

The figure compares alignment across "issue pairings", CLIMATE, IMMIGRATION, ECONOMY, SOCIAL and EDUCATION between the 2019 and 2023 elections in Finland. It shows almost maximum alignment was reached amongst elites in online Twitter debate preceding the 2023 election. 

view more 

Credit: Ali Salloum / Aalto University

Just a handful of influential voices may be enough to drive dramatic societal rifts, according to new research from Aalto University. The study gives unprecedented insight into the social media mechanics of the partisan divide.

Political systems become polarised when internal unity within groups strengthens and the divide between them deepens. As polarisation intensifies, societal tensions can grow, making it difficult to find compromises. The intensity of polarisation has been measured in research, but until now its structural roots in social media have remained obscure.

Now, researchers from Aalto University used network theory to develop a method for measuring the impact of individuals on societal division. While the method can be applied to any case around which social media data can be gathered, the initial study utilised Twitter data collected before Finland’s 2019 and 2023 parliamentary elections. The results reveal how a relatively small elite can have a disproportionately large influence on shaping polarizing environments.

‘We know that size, or the activity level of a group or groups, don’t necessarily correlate with how divided society is on a particular issue,’ explains network scientist Ali Salloum, a doctoral researcher, and lead author of the study. ‘The method we came up with identifies the elite and the mass entirely through an algorithm –– quantifying how much each contributes to the overall divide.’

The team analysed 12 weeks of Twitter (now X) data preceding both elections, as the platform offers one of the clearest views into Finland’s digital polarisation dynamics. Based on core-periphery theory, hierarchical groups were identified, with participants classified algorithmically as elite or mass. Established community detection techniques were then used to map the location of elites on the political spectrum.

‘Not all thought leaders –– the so-called elite –– are politicians. But even without knowing exactly who they are, we can infer their status from the network’s structure. You don’t end up at the centre by accident,’ Salloum says.

According to the researchers, an elite cluster may include only a few hundred individuals, yet account for a striking share of overall polarisation. The study, recently published in Network Science, is the first to demonstrate this imbalance quantitatively.

The road to deadlock

Another key finding is that the algorithmically identified elite has become increasingly aligned in its views. Alignment refers to the likelihood that a person’s stance on one issue correlates with their opinions on other topics –– for example, in matters of climate or immigration policy.

‘In democracies, it’s healthy –– even desirable –– to disagree sharply on individual issues. But when alignment becomes complete, society splits into just two camps that disagree on absolutely everything –– there’s nothing left in common with the other side,’ says Mikko Kivelä, Professor of Computer Science at Aalto University and co-author of the study.

When hatred and suspicion towards those with different worldviews overshadow the importance of the best argument in political issues, or when interactions between people from different backgrounds dwindle, societal, and even individual well-being can significantly regress. 

In the Finnish case study, it was revealed that by 2023 alignment had almost reached its zenith among elites. For example, a progressive stance on climate almost certainly meant a correspondingly progressive view on immigration, and vice versa, while conservative social views almost always paired with conservative opinions on economics. In other words, over four years, thought-leaders had become intractably siloed –– a red flag for a functioning democracy.

‘One of the most serious consequences of polarisation and alignment –– beyond the threat of political violence –– is political gridlock. Legislation slows down and weakens, poor-quality decisions are made, or no decisions are made at all,’ says Salloum. 

Political pressure needed to restore access to data

Unfortunately, polarisation data can no longer be studied through X, as owner Elon Musk has restricted researchers’ access to user data. Despite this, the researchers hope to apply the method to other nations and contexts.

‘I have no reason not to assume this is a global phenomenon,’ says Salloum, for whom the next step is to study US and European data from Bluesky. However, ongoing research depends on having access to data, a point that frustrates Salloum.

‘We have seen for decades how important ‘information influence’ data like this is. It gives huge insights into mis- and dis-information, and the state of our democracies generally. Yet, one of the biggest platforms shuts down its APIs and suddenly there’s no access,’ he says. 

‘It’s especially frustrating when we already know what’s inside the black box, and the value of all that data that the platforms control. By law, researchers should have access, but it’s not being followed. In my opinion, we don’t have enough political pressure directed at keeping these platforms transparent and open,’ he concludes.

The figure shows the disproportionate contribution of right and left-wing elites to polarising debate across climate, immigration, economics, social and education in the lead up to Finnish national elections in 2019. 

The figure shows the disproportionate contribution of right and left-wing elites to polarising debate across climate, immigration, economics, social and education in the lead up to Finnish national elections in 2023.

Credit

Ali Salloum / Aalto University.

---

Journal

Network Science

DOI

10.1017/nws.2025.10010 

Article Title

Anatomy of elite and mass polarization in social networks

Article Publication Date

20-Nov-2025

COP30

Climate Talks End With ‘Empty Deal’ That Fails on Forests, Finance, and Fossil Fuels

“COP30 provides a stark reminder that the answers to the climate crisis do not lie inside the climate talks—they lie with the people and movements leading the way toward a just, equitable, fossil-free future,” one campaigner said.


COP30 President Andre Correa do Lago (C) gestures next to his advisers after the plenary session was interrupted following Colombia’s intervention at the COP30 UN Climate Change Conference in Belém, Para state, Brazil, on November 22, 2025.
(Photo by Pablo Porciuncula/ AFP via Getty Images)

Olivia Rosane
Nov 22, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


The United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, concluded on Saturday in Belém, Brazil with a deal that does not even include the words “fossil fuels”—the burning of which scientists agree is the primary cause of the climate crisis.

Environmental and human rights advocates expressed disappointment in the final Global Mutirão decision, which they say failed to deliver road maps to transition away from oil, gas, and coal and to halt deforestation—another important driver of the rise in global temperatures since the preindustrial era.

“This is an empty deal,” said Nikki Reisch, the Center for International Environmental Law’s (CIEL) director of climate and energy program. “COP30 provides a stark reminder that the answers to the climate crisis do not lie inside the climate talks—they lie with the people and movements leading the way toward a just, equitable, fossil-free future. The science is settled and the law is clear: We must keep fossil fuels in the ground and make polluters pay.”

COP30 was notable in that it was the first international climate conference to which the US did not send a formal delegation, following President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement. Yet, even without a Trump administration presence, observers were disappointed in the power of fossil fuel-producing countries to derail ambition. The final document also failed to heed the warning of a fire that broke out in the final days of the talks, which many saw as a symbol for the rapid heating of the Earth.

“Rich polluting countries that caused this crisis have blocked the breakthrough that we needed at COP30.”

“The venue bursting into flames couldn’t be a more apt metaphor for COP30’s catastrophic failure to take concrete action to implement a funded and fair fossil fuel phaseout,” said Jean Su, energy justice director at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement. “Even without the Trump administration there to bully and cajole, petrostates once again shut down meaningful progress at this COP. These negotiations keep hitting a wall because wealthy nations profiting off polluting fossil fuels fail to offer the needed financial support to developing countries and any meaningful commitment to move first.”

The talks on a final deal nearly broke down between Friday and Saturday as a coalition of more than 80 countries who favored more ambitious language faced off against fossil fuel-producing nations like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and India.

During the dispute, Colombia’s delegate said the deal “falls far short of reflecting the magnitude of the challenges that parties—especially the most vulnerable—are confronting on the ground,” according to BBC News.

Finally, a deal was struck around 1:35 pm local time, The Guardian reported. The deal circumvented the fossil fuel debate by affirming the “United Arab Emirates Consensus,” referring to when nations agreed to transition away from fossil fuels at COP28 in the UAE. In addition, COP President André Corrêa do Lago said that stronger language on the fossil fuel transition could be negotiated at an interim COP in six months.

On deforestation, the deal similarly restated the COP26 pledge to halt tree felling by 2030 without making any new plans or commitments.

Climate justice advocates were also disappointed in the finance commitments from Global North to Global South countries. While wealthier countries pledged to triple adaptation funds to $120 billion per year, many saw the amount as insufficient, and the funds were promised by 2035, not 2030 as poorer countries had wanted.

“We must reflect on what was possible, and what is now missing: the road maps to end forest destruction, and fossil fuels, and an ongoing lack of finance,” Greenpeace Brazil executive director Carolina Pasquali told The Guardian. “More than 80 countries supported a transition away from fossil fuels, but they were blocked from agreeing on this change by countries that refused to support this necessary and urgent step. More than 90 countries supported improved protection of forests. That too did not make it into the final agreement. Unfortunately, the text failed to deliver the scale of change needed.”

Climate campaigners did see hope in the final agreement’s strong language on human rights and its commitment to a just transition through the Belém Action Mechanism, which aims to coordinate global cooperation toward protecting workers and shifting to clean energy.

“It’s a big win to have the Belém Action Mechanism established with the strongest-ever COP language around Indigenous and worker rights and biodiversity protection,” Su said. “The BAM agreement is in stark contrast to this COP’s total flameout on implementing a funded and fair fossil fuel phaseout.”

Oxfam Brasil executive director Viviana Santiago struck a similar note, saying: “COP30 offered a spark of hope but far more heartbreak, as the ambition of global leaders continues to fall short of what is needed for a livable planet. People from the Global South arrived in Belém with hope, seeking real progress on adaptation and finance, but rich nations refused to provide crucial adaptation finance. This failure leaves the communities at the frontlines of the climate crisis exposed to the worst impacts and with few options for their survival.”

“The climate movement will be leaving Belém angry at the lack of progress, but with a clear plan to channel that anger into action.”

Romain Ioualalen, global policy lead at Oil Change International, said: “Rich polluting countries that caused this crisis have blocked the breakthrough that we needed at COP30. The EU, UK, Australia, and other wealthy nations are to blame for COP’s failure to adopt a road map on fossil fuels by refusing to commit to phase out first or put real public money on the table for the crisis they have caused. Still, amid this flawed outcome, there are glimmers of real progress. The Belém Action Mechanism is a major win made possible by movements and Global South countries that puts people’s needs and rights at the center of climate action.”

Indigenous leaders applauded language that recognized their land rights and traditional knowledge as climate solutions and recognized people of African descent for the first time. However, they still argued the COP process could do more to enable the full participation of Indigenous communities.

“Despite being referred to as an Indigenous COP and despite the historic achievement in the Just Transition Programme, it became clear that Indigenous Peoples continue to be excluded from the negotiations, and in many cases, we were not given the floor in negotiation rooms. Nor have most of our proposals been incorporated,” said Emil Gualinga of the Kichwa Peoples of Sarayaku, Ecuador. “The militarization of the COP shows that Indigenous Peoples are viewed as threats, and the same happens in our territories: Militarization occurs when Indigenous Peoples defend their rights in the face of oil, mining, and other extractive projects.”

Many campaigners saw hope in the alliances that emerged beyond the purview of the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process, from a group of 24 countries who have agreed to collaborate on a plan to transition off fossil fuels in line with the Paris goals of limiting temperature increases to 1.5°C to the Indigenous and civil society activists who marched against fossil fuels in Belém.

“The barricade that rich countries built against progress and justice in the COP30 process stands in stark contrast to the momentum building outside the climate talks,” Ioualalen said. “Countries and people from around the world loudly are demanding a fair and funded phaseout, and that is not going to stop. We didn’t win the full justice outcome we need in Belém, but we have new arenas to keep fighting.”

In April 2026, Colombia and the Netherlands will cohost the First International Conference on Fossil Fuel Phaseout. At the same time, 18 countries have signed on in support of a treaty to phase out fossil fuels.

“However big polluters may try to insulate themselves from responsibility or edit out the science, it does not place them above the law,” Reisch said. “That’s why governments committed to tackling the crisis at its source are uniting to move forward outside the UNFCCC—under the leadership of Colombia and Pacific Island states—to phase out fossil fuels rapidly, equitably, and in line with 1.5°C. The international conference on fossil fuel phaseout in Colombia next April is the first stop on the path to a livable future. A Fossil Fuel Treaty is the road map the world needs and leaders failed to deliver in Belém.”

These efforts must contend with the influence not only of fossil fuel-producing nations, but also the fossil fuel industry itself, which sent a record 1,602 lobbyists to COP30.

“COP30 witnessed a record number of lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry and carbon capture sector,” said CIEL fossil economy director Lili Fuhr. “With 531 Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) lobbyists—surpassing the delegations of 62 nations—and over 1,600 fossil fuel lobbyists making up 1 in every 25 attendees, these industries deeply infiltrated the talks, pushing dangerous distractions like CCS and geoengineering. Yet, this unprecedented corporate capture has met fiercer resistance than ever with people and progressive governments—with science and law on their side—demanding a climate process that protects people and planet over profit.”

Indeed, Jamie Henn of Make Polluters Pay told Common Dreams that the polluting nations and industries overplayed their hand, arguing that Big Oil and “petro states, including the United States, did their best to kill progress at COP30, stripping the final agreement of any mention of fossil fuels. But their opposition may have backfired: More countries than ever are now committed to pursuing a phaseout road map and this April’s conference in Colombia on a potential ‘Fossil Fuel Treaty’ has been thrust into the spotlight, with support from Brazil, the European Union, and others.”

Henn continued: “The COP negotiations are a consensus process, which means it’s nearly impossible to get strong language on fossil fuels past blockers like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the US, who skipped these talks, but clearly opposed any meaningful action. But you can’t block reality: The transition from fossils to clean energy is accelerating every day.”


“From Indigenous protests to the thunderous rain on the roof of the conference every afternoon, this COP in the heart of the Amazon was forced to confront realities that these negotiations so often try to ignore,” he concluded. “I think the climate movement will be leaving Belém angry at the lack of progress, but with a clear plan to channel that anger into action. Climate has always been a fight against fossil fuels, and that battle is now fully underway.”

Boos, blowups and last-minute pause as a chaotic COP30 closes out

By AFP
November 22, 2025


Andre Correa do Lago suspended the talks to consider Colombia's procedural objection. — © AFP Pablo PORCIUNCULA

Issam AHMED

Jabs about greedy children, boos for the Vatican, and a suspension of proceedings lasting more than an hour: the COP30 finale unfolded with the same chaotic energy that defined the summit, exposing the rifts that came close to derailing a deal.

Andre Correa do Lago, the dapper Brazilian diplomat who presided over the two-week affair in Belem, opened the final plenary hours late after nations worked through the night to find a text they could all live with.

Bleary-eyed delegates took their seats, eager to see the marathon talks finally come to an end.

The summit in this rough-around-the-edges Amazonian city had already been interrupted twice by Indigenous protesters last week — once when they broke in, another time when they blocked delegates from entering — before a fierce blaze on Thursday triggered a panicked evacuation.

A round of cheers broke out when Correa do Lago brought down his gavel and announced the adoption of the “Mutirao” text — a Portuguese word of Indigenous origin meaning “collective action” that was also the summit’s slogan.

Early in the session, a representative from the Holy See earned loud boos from NGOs after taking the mic to read out the Vatican’s definition of gender along strict biological lines — a side story at this COP after several governments, from Iran to Argentina, sought to clarify their positions in the gender and climate action plan.

But the drama did not end there.

After a COP defined by a bitter struggle between dozens of nations including the European Union pushing for a “roadmap” to transition away from fossil fuels, and oil producers and emerging economies firmly resisting it, the session saw an unusual procedural clash.

Daniela Duran of Colombia declared that her country had raised a point of order in a side text that was gaveled through, and was now formally objecting.

Rather than brush her aside, Correa do Lago suspended the talks — an uncommon move that underscored Brazil’s determination to show it was handling concerns seriously.

Observers suggested the pause likely reflected Colombia’s deep frustration: the country had been at the forefront of efforts to include a “roadmap,” and was displeased with how the talks concluded.

Diplomats huddled as the suspension dragged on for more than an hour before the plenary finally resumed.

“As many of you, I have not slept, and probably this has not helped, as well as my advanced age,” said Correa do Lago, in his mid-sixties, apologizing as he blamed an honest mistake for missing Colombia’s point of order.

Still, Russia — aligned with Brazil in the BASIC coalition — chose to voice its displeasure, objecting to the objections.

“Refrain from behaving like children who want to get your hands on all the sweets!” scolded Russia’s Sergei Kononuchenko, speaking in Spanish as he accused Colombia and others of trying to “stuff the sweets down your throat until you make yourself sick,” prompting a sharp rebuke from Argentina.

Infrastructure woes had plagued the summit from the start — leaking ceilings, broken air conditioners, toilets running out of water and more.

In a fitting coda, a torrential downpour in the final session — “the wonderful noise of an Amazon rain,” in Correa do Lago’s words — left parts of the carpet soaked.

Fury as ‘Shamefully Weak’ COP30 Draft Drops All Mention of Fossil Fuels

“We can’t have a deal that fails to deliver what science and the law require on finance, fossil fuels, or forests and call that progress.”


COP30 President Andre Correa do Lago listens to an adviser upon arrival for a plenary session in Belém, Brazil on November 21, 2025.
(Photo by Pablo Porciuncula/AFP via Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
Nov 21, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Climate advocates voiced alarm and outrage Friday after every mention of fossil fuels was dropped from the latest draft text to emerge from the COP30 summit, high-stakes talks that have been swarmed by a record number of oil and gas lobbyists seeking to derail any progress toward a clean energy transition.

Dozens of nations—including Spain, Vanuatu, the Marshall Islands, Chile, and Germany—are demanding that any final agreement include “a roadmap for implementing a just, orderly, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels” to fulfill world leaders’ previous commitment at COP28.

But a draft document released by COP30 host Brazil on Friday, formally the last day of talks, omits any such roadmap and does not even contain the term “fossil fuels.”

Monique Barbut, France’s environment minister, said Friday that “at this point, even if we don’t have the roadmap, but at least a mention of the fossil fuels, I think we would accept it.”

“But as it stands now, we have nothing left,” Barbut added.

While draft texts are not necessarily a definitive measure of the state of negotiations, the omission was seen as further evidence that United Nations climate talks have been captured by petrostates such as Saudi Arabia and fossil fuel industry influence-peddlers. At COP30, fossil fuel lobbyists outnumber the delegations of every country except Brazil.

The Donald Trump-led United States, the world’s largest oil producer, did not send an official delegation to the summit.

“This is outrageous,” Bronwen Tucker, public finance lead at Oil Change International, said in response to the new draft text. “The presidency has presented a shamefully weak text that fails to mention fossil fuels, fails to deliver accountability towards rich countries’ finance obligations, and only makes vague promises on adaptation.”

“A large group of countries have been vocal in their support for a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels, but rich parties are still refusing to deliver the debt-free public finance on fair terms that is key to make it happen,” Tucker added. “Until they stop blocking efforts to address the systemic barriers developing countries face to phasing out fossil fuels, any roadmap will be a dead-end.”

“We’re walking a fine line here between survival and climate catastrophe.”

The updated text was released as negotiators raced to strike a consensus deal in the final hours of the summit, which appears likely to head into overtime. Talks were delayed for hours on Thursday after a fire broke out at the summit, an incident that activists viewed as a “potent metaphor” for world leaders’ failure to combat the climate crisis as it wreaks havoc across the globe.

“We’re walking a fine line here between survival and climate catastrophe, and in these final hours I am hoping we can take something back to our communities that indicates that the world considers our homes worth fighting for,” said Fenton Lutunatabua, Pacific team lead at the climate group 350.

Nikki Reisch, director of the Climate and Energy Program at the Center for International Environmental Law, said Friday that the toothless draft text lays bare the need to overhaul the COP process and mitigate the influence of the fossil fuel industry—the primary driver of the climate emergency.

“The world is being sold a bill of lies here at this ‘COP of truth,’” said Reisch. “We can’t have a deal that fails to deliver what science and the law require on finance, fossil fuels, or forests and call that progress. The weakness of the text underscores why the climate talks are sorely in need of reform to allow a majority vote when a handful of countries block consensus.”

Who Will Prevail at COP30? Climate Firefighters or Climate Arsonists?

Can the coalition supporting a fossil fuel phaseout successfully put their road map back into the text, or will petrostrates like Saudi Arabia, backed up by the Trump administration, kill the deal?


A worker runs carrying a fire extinguisher toward a pavilion after a fire broke out during the COP30 UN Climate Change Conference in Belém, Para state, Brazil on November 20, 2025.
(Photo by Pablo Porciuncula/AFP via Getty Images)

Jamie Henn
Nov 21, 2025

Common Dreams

Sometimes the metaphors are just too on the nose: On Thursday, the venue for the COP30 climate talks here in Belém, Brazil literally caught fire as delegates continued to wrestle with how to stop the climate from burning. I was just down the hallway from the blaze and was caught up in the confusion as people started running from the flames and out of the huge tented structure. Thankfully, volunteers and Brazilian firefighters responded before anyone was seriously injured and the fire was put out soon after it began.

If only the rest of the talks could move so quickly. When it comes to the larger climate fires still raging across the planet, some countries seem content to pretend it isn’t happening, while others are teaming up with the fossil fuel industry to gleefully pour more fuel on the flames.


‘Potent Metaphor’: Fire Forces Evacuation of UN Climate Conference


Thursday night, the presidency released a new draft text that removed any mention of a road map to eliminate fossil fuels, something more than 80 countries, including the host country of Brazil, have pledged their support behind. It’s the equivalent of pointing at the flames and smoke filling the conference venue and saying, “What could that possibly be? We certainly don’t want to say the word fire.”

The pushback to the latest text was swift. Later on Thursday night, 29 countries sent a letter to the Brazilian COP presidency threatening to block any agreement that didn’t include the fossil fuel phaseout road map. Then this morning, Colombia hosted a packed press conference with Panama, the Netherlands, Vanuatu, the Marshall Islands, and others to demand COP produce the road map and a just transition plan.

Whether or not countries can agree to a road map to phase out fossil fuels here in Belém, that’s clearly the journey we’re on.

“Not even Orwell could come up with something as absurd as this: something where the truth is edited out because it offends polluters,” said Panama’s lead negotiator Juan Carlos Monterrey to widespread applause.

Colombia also announced that this March it will host the first ever global conference on the phaseout of fossil fuels. The conference is closely connected with the push for a new Fossil Fuel Treaty that would help end the production and distribution of fossil fuels, an effort that 18 countries and thousands of cities, states, and organizations have now endorsed.

We’ll see over the next 24 hours whether the coalition supporting a fossil fuel phaseout, the climate firefighters, can successfully put their road map back into the text, or whether the arsonists, petrostrates like Saudi Arabia, backed up by the Trump administration, can kill the deal.

Having been to a dozen COPs and watched many of these last minute fights, my guess is that we get some weak, compromised language. There will be two ways to look at that outcome, both of them true: On the one hand, it will be an empty promise and pathetic abdication of responsibility, on the other, another step forward in the fight to end fossil fuels, a fight that we’ve always known would take years and a massive global movement to win.

No matter what comes out of the text, I’ve been inspired to see that movement gaining momentum again. The last few years have been tough for the global climate movement. The Covid-19 pandemic squashed much of the energy created by the Global Climate Strikes in 2019. Over the last year, much of civil society has been focused (rightfully) on the genocide in Gaza or the rise of right-wing authoritarianism around the world. With the last three COPs taking place in Egypt, UAE, and Azerbaijan, there’s been little space for demonstrations, let alone mass protests.

And yet, there are green shoots popping up everywhere you look. Last week at COP30, Indigenous leaders marched on the conference center to ensure that their voices and concerns were being heard within the process. Over the weekend, over 70,000 people took the streets of Belém to demand climate justice. Inside the conference venue, there have been dozens of actions, including a big Make Polluters Pay demonstration we helped organize (I got to play a Big Oil CEO and roll around in a sea of dirty money). Back in the US, we saw over 500 events for the Sun Day clean energy day of action this September and millions of people take part in the No Kings demonstrations last month.

Meanwhile, in the real economy, clean energy continues to set records nearly every day. According to the energy think tank Ember, there was no fossil fuel growth in 2025 as clean energy production surged around the world. Whether or not countries can agree to a road map to phase out fossil fuels here in Belém, that’s clearly the journey we’re on.

The question is can we move fast enough. When the COP30 venue caught fire yesterday, I saw people sprinting for the exits while firefighters rushed into action to put out the blaze. We all need that same sense of urgency when it comes to the climate fight ahead. As Greta Thunberg often said, “Act is if your house is on fire.” Maybe seeing the negotiations go up in literal flames will get countries at COP30 to finally take her message to heart.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Jamie Henn
Jamie Henn is the director of Fossil Free Media and a co-founder of 350.org.
Full Bio >

Declaration of the Peoples’ Summit Towards COP30

By People's Summit Towards COP30

Published 21 November, 2025

We, the Peoples’ Summit, gathered in Belém do Pará, in the Brazilian Amazon, from 12 to 16 November 2025, declare to the peoples of the world what we have accumulated in struggles, debates, studies, exchanges of experiences, cultural activities and testimonies, over several months of preparation and during these days gathered here.

Our process brought together more than 70,000 people who make up local, national, and international movements of indigenous and traditional peoples, peasants, indigenous peoples, quilombolas, fishermen, extractivists (traditional peoples who live from sustainable forest extraction), shellfish gatherers, urban workers, trade unionists, homeless people, babassu coconut breakers, terreiro peoples, women, the LGBTQIAPN+ community, young people, Afro-descendants, the elderly, and peoples from the forest, the countryside, the peripheries, the seas, rivers, lakes, and mangroves. We have taken on the task of building a just and democratic world, with buen vivir/bem viver/good living for all. We are unity in diversity.

The advance of the extreme right, fascism and wars around the world exacerbates the climate crisis and the exploitation of nature and of peoples. The countries of the global North, transnational corporations, and the ruling classes bear the main responsibility for these crises. We salute the resistance and stand in solidarity with all peoples who are being cruelly attacked and threatened by the forces of the US empire, Israel and their allies in Europe. For more than 80 years, the Palestinian people have been victims of genocide perpetrated by the Zionist state of Israel, which has bombed the Gaza Strip, forcibly displaced millions of people and killed tens of thousands of innocent people, mostly children, women and the elderly. We totally repudiate the genocide perpetrated against Palestine. We offer our support and solidarity to the people who bravely resist, and to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

At the same time, in the Caribbean Sea, the United States is intensifying its imperial presence. It is doing so by expanding joint operations, agreements and military bases, in collusion with the extreme right, under the pretext of combating drug trafficking and terrorism, as with the recently announced “Southern Spear” operation. Imperialism continues to threaten the sovereignty of peoples, criminalising social movements and legitimising interventions that have historically served private interests in the region. We stand in solidarity with the resistance of peoples under imperialist or resource-grabbing attacks in Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, Ecuador, Panama, El Salvador, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique, Nigeria, Sudan, and with the emancipatory popular projects of the peoples of the Sahel, Nepal and around the world.

There is no life without nature. There is no life without the ethics and the work of care. That is why feminism is central to our political project. We place the work of reproducing life at the centre, which is what radically differentiates us from those who want to preserve the logic and dynamics of an economic system that prioritises profit and the private accumulation of wealth.

Our worldview is guided by popular internationalism, with exchanges of knowledge and wisdom that build bonds of solidarity, struggle and cooperation among our peoples. True solutions are strengthened by this exchange of experiences, developed in our territories and by many hands. We are committed to stimulating, convening and strengthening these processes. Therefore, we welcome the announcement of the construction of the International Movement of People Affected by Dams, Socio-Environmental Crimes and the Climate Crisis.

We began our People’s Summit by navigating the rivers of the Amazon, which, with their waters, nourish the entire body. Like blood, they sustain life and feed a sea of encounters and hopes. We also recognise the presence of enchanted beings and other fundamental beings in the worldview of indigenous and traditional peoples, whose spiritual strength guides paths, protects territories and inspires struggles for life, memory and a world of good living.

After more than two years of collective construction and holding the People’s Summit, we affirm:

1. The capitalist mode of production is the main cause of the growing climate crisis. The main environmental problems of our time are a consequence of the relations of production, circulation, and disposal of goods, under the logic and domination of financial capital and large capitalist corporations.
2. Peripheral communities are the most affected by extreme weather events and environmental racism. On the one hand, they face a lack of infrastructure and adaptation policies. On the other hand, they face a lack of justice and reparations, especially for women, young people, impoverished people, and people of colour.
3. Transnational corporations, in collusion with governments in the global North, are at the centre of power in the capitalist, racist and patriarchal system, being the actors that most cause and benefit from the multiple crises we face. The mining, energy, arms, agribusiness and Big Tech industries are primarily responsible for the climate catastrophe we are experiencing.
4. We oppose any false solutions to the climate crisis, including in climate finance, that perpetuate harmful practices, create unpredictable risks, and divert attention from transformative solutions based on climate justice and the justice of peoples in all biomes and ecosystems. We warn that the TFFF, being a financialised programme, is not an adequate response. All financial projects must be subject to criteria of transparency, democratic access, participation and real benefit for affected populations.
5. The failure of the current model of multilateralism is evident. Environmental crimes and extreme weather events that cause death and destruction are becoming increasingly common. This demonstrates the failure of countless global conferences and meetings that promised to solve these problems but never addressed their structural causes.
6. The energy transition is being implemented under capitalist logic. Despite the expansion of renewable sources, there has been no reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The expansion of energy production sources has also become a new space for capital accumulation.
7. Finally, we affirm that the privatisation, commodification and financialisation of common goods and public services are directly contrary to the interests of the people. In this context, laws, state institutions and the vast majority of governments have been captured, shaped and subordinated to the pursuit of maximum profit by financial capital and transnational corporations. Public policies are needed to advance the recovery of states and tackle privatisation.

In the face of these challenges, we propose:

1. Confronting false market solutions. Air, forests, water, land, minerals, and energy sources cannot remain private property or be appropriated, because they are common goods of the people.
2. We demand the participation and leadership of peoples in the construction of climate solutions, recognising ancestral knowledge. The multidiversity of cultures and worldviews carries ancestral wisdom and knowledge that states must recognise as references for solutions to the multiple crises afflicting humanity and Mother Nature.
3. We demand the demarcation and protection of the lands and territories of indigenous peoples and other local peoples and communities, as they are the ones who guarantee the survival of the forest. We demand that governments implement zero deforestation, end criminal burning, and adopt state policies for ecological restoration and recovery of areas degraded and affected by the climate crisis.
4. We demand the implementation of popular agrarian reform and the promotion of agroecology to guarantee food sovereignty and combat land concentration. Peoples produce healthy food to feed the people, in order to eliminate hunger in the world, based on cooperation and access to techniques and technologies under popular control. This is an example of a real solution to confront the climate crisis. There is no climate justice without land back in the hands of peoples.
5. We demand the fight against environmental racism and the construction of fair cities and living peripheries through the implementation of environmental policies and solutions. Housing, sanitation, water access and use, solid waste treatment, afforestation, and access to land and land regularisation programmes must consider integration with nature. We want investment in quality public and collective transport policies with zero fares. These are real alternatives for tackling the climate crisis in peripheral territories around the world, which must be implemented with adequate funding for climate adaptation.
6. We advocate direct consultation, participation, and popular management of climate policies in cities to confront real estate corporations that have advanced the commodification of urban life. The city of climate and energy transition should be a city without segregation that embraces diversity. Finally, climate financing should be conditional on protocols that aim at housing permanence and, ultimately, fair compensation for people and communities with guaranteed land and housing, both in the countryside and in cities.
7. We demand an end to wars, we demand demilitarisation. That all financial resources allocated to wars and the war industry be redirected to the transformation of this world. That military spending be directed towards the repair and recovery of regions affected by climate disasters. That all necessary measures be taken to prevent and pressure Israel, holding it accountable for the genocide committed against the Palestinian people.
8. We demand fair and full compensation for the losses and damages imposed on peoples by destructive investment projects, dams, mining, fossil fuel extraction, and climate disasters. We also demand that those guilty of economic and socio-environmental crimes that affect millions of communities and families around the world be tried and punished.
9. The work of reproducing life must be made visible, valued, understood for what it is – work – and shared by society as a whole and with the state. This work is essential for the continuity of human and non-human life on the planet. It also guarantees the autonomy of women, who cannot be held individually responsible for care, but whose contributions must be taken into account: our work sustains the economy. We want a world with feminist justice, autonomy and participation of women.
10. We demand a just, sovereign and popular transition that guarantees the rights of all workers, as well as the right to decent working conditions, freedom of association, collective bargaining and social protection. We consider energy to be a common good and advocate for the overcoming of poverty and energy dependence. Neither the energy model nor the transition itself can violate the sovereignty of any country in the world.
11. We demand an end to the exploitation of fossil fuels and call on governments to develop mechanisms to ensure the non-proliferation of fossil fuels, aiming for a just, popular and inclusive energy transition with sovereignty, protection and reparation for territories, particularly in the Amazon and other sensitive regions that are essential for life on the planet.
12. We fight for public financing and taxation of corporations and the wealthiest individuals. The costs of environmental degradation and losses imposed on populations must be paid by the sectors that benefit most from this model. This includes financial funds, banks, and corporations in agribusiness, hydrobusiness, aquaculture and industrial fishing, energy, and mining. These actors must also bear the necessary investments for a just transition focused on the needs of the people.
13. We demand that international climate financing not go through institutions that deepen inequality between North and South, such as the IMF and the World Bank. It must be structured in a fair, transparent, and democratic manner. It is not the peoples and countries of the global South that should continue to pay debts to the dominant powers. It is these countries and their corporations that need to begin to pay off the socio-environmental debt accumulated through centuries of imperialist, colonialist and racist practices, through the appropriation of common goods and through the violence imposed on millions of people who have been killed and enslaved.
14. We denounce the ongoing criminalisation of movements, the persecution, murder and disappearance of our leaders who fight in defence of their territories, as well as political prisoners and Palestinian prisoners who fight for national liberation. We demand the expansion of protection for human and socio-environmental rights defenders in the global climate agenda, within the framework of the Escazú Agreement and other regional regulations. When a defender protects the territory and nature, they protect not only an individual, but an entire people, benefiting the entire global community.
15. We call for the strengthening of international instruments that defend the rights of peoples, their customary rights and the integrity of ecosystems. We need a legally binding international instrument on human rights and transnational corporations, which is built on the concrete reality of the struggles of communities affected by violations, demanding rights for peoples and rules for corporations. We also affirm that the Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP) should be one of the pillars of climate governance. The full implementation of peasants’ rights returns people to their territories, directly contributing to their food security, soil care and the cooling of the planet.

Finally, we believe that it is time to unite our forces and face our common enemy. If the organisation is strong, the struggle is strong. For this reason, our main political task is to organise the peoples of all countries and continents. Let us root our internationalism in each territory and make each territory a trench in the international struggle. It is time to move forward in a more organised, independent and unified way, to increase our awareness, strength and combativeness. This is the way to resist and win.

“Peoples of the world: Unite”

Researchers warn of the need for Brazil to turn promises into practical actions at COP30

In an article published in a scientific journal, the group emphasizes that Brazil must align its domestic policies with international commitments.

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

COP30 negotiations room: article is signed by eight researchers, including three from FAPESP’s ARIES RIDC 

view more 

Credit: Rafa Neddermeyer/COP30

Amid the discussions at COP30, which is being held for the first time in the Amazon, in Belém in the state of Pará, Brazil, a group of Brazilian researchers is warning of the urgent need for Brazil to lead the way in turning promises into practical actions to combat global warming. As host of the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference, they argue that the country must align its domestic policies with international commitments, emphasizing forest conservation and climate justice.

The scientists emphasize the need to “reverse anti-environmental policies, enforce laws to combat deforestation, and strengthen sustainable development actors to turn promises into concrete actions through legislative reforms, the restoration of environmental licensing, and the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights.” The article was published on October 28 in the scientific journal International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics.

Eight researchers signed the article, including three from ARIES (the Antimicrobial Resistance Institute of São Paulo), a Research, Innovation, and Dissemination Center (RIDC) funded by FAPESP and based at the Federal University of São Paulo (UNIFESP). The other signatories are from the University of São Paulo (USP), the Federal University of Alagoas (UFAL), and the Sergio Arouca National School of Public Health (ENSP-FIOCRUZ).

“Brazil has to take advantage of all this international visibility to really put into action what it has committed to do, seeking to limit global warming. And even though it’s a global event, COP is an opportunity for us to bring national proposals, such as the Belém Health Action Plan,” biologist Daniela Debone, the article’s first author, told Agência FAPESP. Debone is a postdoctoral researcher at ARIES and is supported by a FAPESP scholarship. 

Brazil presented the action plan with the aim of strengthening the health sector’s adaptation and resilience in the face of climate change. The plan aims to achieve this goal by advancing integrated surveillance and monitoring systems and promoting evidence-based policies and innovation. It is part of the program for the thematic days of COP30, which included health on November 12 and 13.

The theme is one of the approaches of ARIES, which aims to produce research to understand the mechanisms and evolution of antimicrobial resistance, stimulating innovative mitigation measures and promoting changes in public health policies through a One Health approach. The core team consists of researchers from three São Paulo universities, as well as national and international experts from over 20 educational and research institutions.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is also linked to climate change and is considered by the United Nations to be one of the main threats to global public health.

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that climate change will be linked to around 250,000 deaths per year between 2030 and 2050 due to malnutrition, infectious diseases, and heat stress. On the other hand, AMR could be responsible for 10 million deaths per year during the same period, in addition to costing health systems USD 1 trillion more, according to the World Bank.

“We scientists have to translate research knowledge and findings for society, contributing to public policy. In this sense, we’re warning that we need to move beyond discourse. We’re relying on a critical mass generated by Brazilian science, which is very important, including researchers at the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], such as Professor Paulo Artaxo. We can show ways and give concrete examples of how to move towards more sustainable practices,” says Professor Simone Miraglia, from ARIES and head of the Laboratory of Economics, Health, and Environmental Pollution (LESPA) at UNIFESP. Miraglia and Artaxo also co-authored the paper.

An idea based on reality

According to Debone, the proposal for the article emerged in May when she started participating in a series of events organized by the UNIFESP Commission for COP30. 

That same month, the Brazilian Senate approved Bill 2,159/2021, also known as the General Environmental Licensing Law, which was subsequently passed by the Chamber of Deputies and, in August, sanctioned by the Executive Branch with 63 vetoes.

Viewed by some sectors as a way to weaken and undermine licensing rules and by others as a way to streamline the process of approving construction projects, the law is cited in the article. The researchers argue that it could “further aggravate land conflicts, sustain the misleading narrative of ‘green capitalism,’ and undermine the rights of traditional and indigenous peoples,” who are considered responsible for conserving the forest.

Additionally, the scientists point to the construction of a highway in Belém that cleared hectares of forest, the reconstruction of the 408-kilometer central section of the BR-319 highway between the state capitals of Manaus and Porto Velho that affects areas of the Amazon, and discussions about the timeline framework which impact the demarcation of indigenous lands, as anti-environmental measures.

This timeframe is a legal thesis that states indigenous peoples are only entitled to lands they occupied or were disputing on October 5, 1988, the date the Constitution was promulgated. This thesis was established by Law 14,701/2023, which was approved by the National Congress, despite the Federal Supreme Court’s (STF) previous stance.

The Executive vetoed the thesis and other articles, but deputies and senators rejected the vetoes and kept the text in its entirety. The law is under review again by the STF, which has not set a deadline for deciding whether it is unconstitutional.

Conversely, the scientists cite Brazil’s reduction in deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions as progress. Between August 2024 and July 2025, the deforestation rate in the Legal Amazon, an area covering nine Brazilian states where the Amazon biome occurs, reached the third-lowest level since 1988, at 5,796 km² – an 11% reduction.

Due to the decline in deforestation, Brazil recorded its lowest level of greenhouse gas emissions since 2009 in 2024, with a decrease of nearly 17% – 2.145 billion tons of CO₂ equivalent (GtCO₂e).

The Ministry of the Environment, which is involved in the COP discussions, did not comment when contacted through its press office.

“Climate change has been debated for a long time. Now everyone is waiting for feasible actions that will actually be carried out. I hope that this COP will serve as a turning point from a global perspective. That we’ll begin to see actions that change greenhouse gas emissions and the other factors causing these changes,” says Ronan Adler Tavella, a postdoctoral researcher at ARIES and author of the article, as well as a FAPESP scholarship recipient. 

Actual scenario

When it comes to addressing the climate emergency, the group points out that global temperatures have already risen by up to 1.6 °C compared to pre-industrial levels, with continental areas recording increases of up to 2.1 °C, “highlighting the acceleration of climate impacts and the critical need for immediate action.”

They write, “Brazil’s stated vision of a prosperous Amazonian bioeconomy, in which the standing forest is worth more than the felled forest, will only gain credibility if the country decisively breaks with the destructive models of the past.”

Tavella highlights a recent study he and Debone led, published in Anthropocene Science, to assess the short- and long-term effects of the extreme rains that devastated several municipalities in the state of Rio Grande do Sul in May 2024.

The results underscore the need to rethink flood management strategies, particularly in urban areas, by incorporating climate projections into planning, bolstering flood control infrastructure, and adopting nature-based solutions to boost resilience. 

“In addition to the rains in May, we saw countless other cases of floods and extreme events around the globe throughout last year. This is a reality that’s been intensifying. And it’ll be a constant concern for the whole world,” the researcher adds.

About São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP)
The São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) is a public institution with the mission of supporting scientific research in all fields of knowledge by awarding scholarships, fellowships and grants to investigators linked with higher education and research institutions in the State of São Paulo, Brazil. FAPESP is aware that the very best research can only be done by working with the best researchers internationally. Therefore, it has established partnerships with funding agencies, higher education, private companies, and research organizations in other countries known for the quality of their research and has been encouraging scientists funded by its grants to further develop their international collaboration. You can learn more about FAPESP at www.fapesp.br/en and visit FAPESP news agency at www.agencia.fapesp.br/en to keep updated with the latest scientific breakthroughs FAPESP helps achieve through its many programs, awards and research centers. You may also subscribe to FAPESP news agency at http://agencia.fapesp.br/subscribe.

---

Journal

International Environmental Agreements Politics Law and Economics

DOI

10.1007/s10784-025-09700-1 

Article Title

Brazil’s climate leadership paradox: hosting COP30 amid domestic environmental rollbacks

Cancel fossil fuel extraction contracts to combat climate change

The world must stop exploring more fossil fuels

University of Barcelona

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

From left to right, Martí Orta, Fatima Eisam-Eldeen and Gorka Muñoa.

view more 

Credit: UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA

The countries participating in the UN Climate Change Conference (COP30), currently taking place in Brazil, must cancel fossil fuel concessions in order to keep the Paris Agreement alive. This is the main message of a paper published in the journal Nature and signed by experts Martí Orta, Gorka Muñoa and Marcel Llavero, from the Faculty of Biology and the Biodiversity Research Institute (IRBio) of the University of Barcelona, and Guillem Rius, from the Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal).

Committing to renewable energy

As the experts point out in Nature magazine, the Paris Agreement requires countries to work to limit global warming to well below 2°C and to make efforts to limit it to 1.5°C, in order to avoid climate tipping points with devastating consequences.

“This latter objective requires drastic action, even if we assume a temporary overshoot 1.5°C and later reduce atmospheric carbon concentrations to lower temperatures, the most optimistic scenario for most climate scientists,” says the team, which also participated in COP29 in 2024, held in Azerbaijan.

To have any chance of achieving the Paris targets, the team urges the nations gathered at COP30 to mobilize massive investments in renewable energy and urgently redefine international legal frameworks so that fossil fuel licences can be revoked.

“The world must stop exploiring more fossil fuels, stop granting licences for new concessions, and cancel most existing oil and gas concessions and coal mines that exist today,” the experts conclude.

A threat to indigenous communities in the Amazon

In a new study published in Energy Research and Social Science, the team warns of the high levels of oil pollution suffered by indigenous communities in the region, as well as the impunity with which transnational companies extract oil in the area. This is one of the most biodiverse areas on the planet and is key to the global fight against climate change.

The study is led by the UB and ISGlobal, in collaboration with the International Institute of Social Studies (ISS) at Erasmus University Rotterdam (Netherlands). It focuses on oil blocks 1AB/192 and 8, in northern Peruvian Amazon and it analyses data on the environmental impacts associated with oil extraction, compiled through indigenous environmental monitoring and records from Peru’s environmental agency between 2008 and 2018

The study documents 1,184 environmental impacts, including oil spills and discharges of polluting production water. Of all recorded impacts, only 17% result in penalties — and even when sanctions are imposed, fines are often reduced or overturned through appeals and lengthy legal proceedings. The conclusions indicate that fines should be proportional to the profits earned by companies, so that operating with low environmental standards is no longer economically advantageous for the industry. The authors also propose revoking licenses in cases of repeat offences. In fact, they go further and question the continuation of global fossil fuel extraction in the current climate emergency, particularly in areas of high ecological and social value.

To curb these abuses, they warn that it is essential to strengthen environmental monitoring, increase resources for public agencies in countries such as Peru, and integrate local indigenous monitoring — which is far more effective and knowledgeable about the territory — into the environmental oversight network.

The world must stop exploiring more fossil fuels and stop granting licences for new concessions. 

Credit

UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA

---

Journal

Nature

DOI

10.1038/d41586-025-03780-4 

Method of Research

Commentary/editorial

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Nations at COP30 must cancel fossil-fuel concessions to keep the Paris agreement in reach

Article Publication Date

18-Nov-2025

30-plus nations oppose COP30 draft over fossil fuel omission: Colombia


By AFP
November 20, 2025


Indigenous people hold signs reading "The answer is us" and "End of fossil fuels, no mining in our territories" during a march on the sidelines of the COP30 UN Climate Change Conference in Belem, Brazil - Copyright AFP/File Mauro PIMENTEL

More than 30 countries have co-signed a letter opposing Brazil’s draft proposal at the UN climate conference because it fails to include a roadmap phasing out fossil fuels, the Colombian delegation told AFP on Thursday.

COP30 is scheduled to end Friday evening, after a dramatic blaze at the venue in Belem brought a premature close to Thursday’s proceedings.

The summit’s leader, Brazilian diplomat Andre Correa do Lago, is under pressure from the nearly 200 countries gathered in the Amazonian city since last week to forge a text capable of achieving consensus, as required under the summit’s rules.

His latest draft, seen Thursday by AFP, makes no mention of fossil fuels — despite President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva having championed the idea as a signature initiative since the summit began.

“We cannot support an outcome that does not include a roadmap for implementing a just, orderly, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels,” said the letter provided to AFP — with signatories from Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Pacific island nations.

France and Belgium confirmed their signatures.

“We must be honest: in its present form, the proposal does not meet the minimum conditions required for a credible COP outcome,” they letter said.

Momentum for phasing out oil, coal, and gas, which are largely responsible for global warming, re-emerged forcefully in Belem at a moment when the issue appeared all but dormant.

But according to a negotiator who wished to remain anonymous, China, India, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Russia rejected it outright.


UN chief calls for ‘ambitious compromise’ at climate talks


By AFP
November 20, 2025


Antonio Guterres -- the former Portuguese prime minister who, more than any secretary-general before him, has made climate his signature issue -- delivered an urgent message - Copyright AFP Pablo PORCIUNCULA

Issam AHMED

With UN climate talks nearing a close in Belem, the world body’s chief on Thursday urged nations to reach an “ambitious compromise” that keeps alive the goal of limiting long-term planetary warming to the critical 1.5C threshold.

Nearly 200 countries have spent the past two weeks hashing out issues at COP30 — from a “roadmap” to transition away from fossil fuels proposed by host Brazil, to concerns over weak emissions-reduction plans, finance for developing countries, and trade barriers.

Antonio Guterres — the former Portuguese prime minister who has made climate his signature issue — delivered an urgent message.

“The world is watching Belem,” he told reporters during a morning news conference, as nations await a new draft negotiating text before the summit officially closes on Friday evening.

“Communities on the frontlines are watching too — counting flooded homes, failed harvests, lost livelihoods, and asking how much more must we suffer?”

“Please engage in good faith,” he urged, to reach an “ambitious compromise,” adding that “1.5 degrees must be your only red line.”

COP30 comes 10 years after nations agreed in Paris to limit human-caused warming to 1.5C — and at least well below 2C — to avert the worst impacts of climate destabilization.

Evidence now indicates the world will almost certainly overshoot the 1.5C goal, though humanity can still influence how long that overshoot lasts.



– ‘Our islands could disappear’ –



Guterres’ plea came after Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva flew into the northern city, which sits on the edge of the Amazon, on Wednesday, in a bold bid to seal an early deal on the summit’s thorniest issues.

While that effort failed, Lula, who has invested political capital into what he has called his “COP of truth,” once more put his “roadmap” to move away from fossil fuels back at the top of the agenda.

The proposal is supported by a coalition of more than 80 countries but opposed by the oil-producing bloc.

Negotiators are also at odds over pressure from the developing world for developed countries to provide more financing to help vulnerable nations adapt to climate change and deploy renewable energy.

The COP29 summit in Baku last year concluded with developed nations agreeing to provide $300 billion a year in climate finance, a figure criticized by developing countries as woefully insufficient.

The EU, where many countries are facing economic headwinds and soaring debt, has led the opposition to demands for more money.

Vulnerable nations warn that failure to deliver meaningful finance that enables decisive action will have existential consequences.

“The discussions and the negotiations that we’re engaging in could mean that the future of my grandchildren can be secured, or that our islands could disappear,” Steven Victor, Palau’s minister for agriculture, fisheries and the environment, said Thursday.