Swiss MPs seek probe into lavish Trump gifts after tariff deal
By AFP
November 27, 2025
Two Swiss lawmakers have asked the country’s attorney general to probe the legality of gifts reportedly given to US President Donald Trump by Swiss business leaders days before the two nations cut a breakthrough tariff deal.
A delegation went to Washington earlier this month to try to persuade Trump to lower his 39-percent duties on Swiss goods — among the highest in his global tariff blitz.
A Rolex table clock and an engraved gold bar later appeared on the president’s desk.
When Washington and Bern struck a deal slashing tariffs on Swiss goods to 15 percent 10 days later, criticism of what has been dubbed “gold bar diplomacy” resurfaced.
“We believe that the events in question deserve judicial clarification,” said Green MPs Raphael Mahaim and Greta Gysin in a criminal complaint to the attorney general.
“This concerns the credibility of our institutions, respect for the rule of law, and Switzerland’s international reputation,” they added in the letter dated November 26.
They called on prosecutors to investigate whether the gifts may have violated Swiss anti-bribery laws or constituted “undue advantage under Swiss criminal law”.
The value of the gifts is unknown, and “public information regarding the final destination of the gifts given to the American president is incomplete,” they added.
Rolex CEO Jean-Frederic Dufour and head of precious metals trader MKS PAMP, Marwan Shakarchi, were among the business leaders at the meeting.
Businesses hailed the deal as averting potential disaster for the export-driven Swiss economy, while others — notably Green MPs — have questioned whether such gifts give the appearance of influence-peddling.
Showing posts sorted by date for query GRETA. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query GRETA. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Thursday, November 27, 2025
Wednesday, November 26, 2025
Out in the Open
— Remarks on the Trump Election —
Powerful though they may be, irrational popular tendencies are not irresistible forces. They contain their own contradictions. Clinging to some absolute authority is not necessarily a sign of faith in authority; it may be a desperate attempt to overcome one’s increasing doubts (the convulsive tightening of a slipping grip). People who join gangs or reactionary groups, or who get caught up in religious cults or patriotic hysteria, are also seeking a sense of liberation, connection, purpose, participation, empowerment. As Wilhelm Reich showed, fascism gives a particularly vigorous and dramatic expression to these basic aspirations, which is why it often has a deeper appeal than the vacillations, compromises, and hypocrisies of liberalism and leftism. In the long run the only way to defeat reaction is to present more forthright expressions of these aspirations, and more authentic opportunities to fulfill them. When basic issues are forced into the open, irrationalities that flourished under the cover of psychological repression tend to be weakened, like disease germs exposed to sunlight and fresh air.
The Donald Trump campaign has exposed some very ugly aspects of American society. They’re not pretty to look at, but it’s probably better that they’re out there in the open where we can all see them and no one can deny them. It has also revealed some genuine grievances that had been ignored, and it’s good that those too are now out in the open.
The downsides of Trump’s victory are numerous and all too obvious. But I’d like to point out a few possible upsides.
In Beyond Voting I noted that the Trump campaign was accelerating the self-destruction of the Republican Party. I was assuming that he would probably lose and that there would then be a bitter civil war over who was to blame, making it difficult for them to regroup and write it off as a one-time fluke. But I think his victory will be even worse for the Republicans.
This may seem like an odd thing to say, considering that the Republicans now have the Presidency as well as both houses of Congress. But I think it’s going to be like the proverbial dog chasing a car: what happens if the dog actually catches the car?
As long as power was split between a Democratic Presidency and a Republican Congress, each side could blame the other for the lack of positive accomplishments. But now that the Republicans have got a monopoly, there will be no more excuses.
Imagine that you’re a Republican politician. You’ve been reelected — so far, so good. But the people who voted for you and your colleagues and your new Leader did so under the impression that you were going to bring about some dramatic improvements in their lives. What happens when you actually have to deliver some of the things you promised?
During the last six years you’ve staged dozens of meaningless votes to repeal Obamacare, saying that you wanted to replace it with some superior Republican plan. Now is the moment of truth. If you don’t repeal it, you’ll have millions of people screaming at your betrayal. If you do repeal it, where is that wonderful plan that you somehow were never able to come up with? That plan is of course nonexistent, nothing but the usual simple-minded rhetoric about free markets leading to lower prices. Do you think that the 22 million newly insured people, many of whom voted for you, will be pleased to be deprived of their Obamacare insurance and to find themselves back in their previous situation? It is very unpopular (as well as very complicated) to undo benefits that people are already used to possessing.
Moreover, note that Obamacare is essentially a Republican plan (“Romneycare”), slightly tweaked by Obama — a feeble patchwork attempt to respond to America’s severe healthcare crisis. Such a clumsy program is understandably not very popular. But Social Security and Medicare (which Paul Ryan now wants to dismantle) are by far the most popular social programs in America, and have been for decades. As Eisenhower famously noted, “Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.” Apparently their number is no longer negligible in your party. Are you ready to go over the cliff with them?
Some of your base are still vehemently anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage — but most of the country isn’t. Are you going to try to undo reproductive rights or marriage equality nationwide? If not, are you going to go back to the chaos of “leaving it to the states”?
Speaking of logistical nightmares, what about your famous Mexican wall? Are you really going to commit to such a silly project, which would accomplish nothing and cost hundreds of billions of dollars? And incidentally, after you’ve given the rich a lot more tax breaks and funneled much of the rest of the budget into the already bloated Pentagon, where is the funding for such projects going to come from?
The same goes for the major infrastructure improvements Trump has promised. This is one of his few sensible proposals – it would rev up the economy and create millions of jobs, which would in turn generate lots more tax revenue down the line. But getting it kickstarted will require deficit financing, which goes totally against the austerity policies that have been preached as gospel by your party for decades. Revived economy or party orthodoxy — which will it be?
Racism has been one of the key foundations of your party ever since Nixon inaugurated the “Southern strategy” fifty years ago, but it’s usually been discreet and deniable. Now that connection is out in the open. Many of Trump’s most fervent supporters are already celebrating his victory by harassing people of color in his name. How are you going to dissociate yourselves from that?
Your party was already heading toward a civil war between its mutually contradictory components (financial elite, Tea Party, neocons, libertarians, religious reactionaries, and the few remaining moderates). To those general divisions are now added the antagonisms between the new Leader and those who oppose him. Bush at least had sense enough to know that he was an incompetent figurehead, and gladly let Cheney and Rove run things. Trump thinks he’s a genius, and anyone who doesn’t agree will be added to his already very large enemies list.
He’s also a very loose cannon, which is why the Republican establishment feared him in the first place. He has proposed things like Congressional term limits which Republican politicians emphatically do not want, while on the other hand he is now reportedly considering not repealing Obamacare, perhaps because he has become aware of how complex and risky such an action might be. Who knows what other things he’ll come up with or backtrack on?
And this whole show is so public. Obama’s smooth, genial persona enabled him to get away with war crimes, massive deportations, and all sorts of corporate compromises (not a single criminal banker prosecuted) with few people paying attention and fewer still protesting. This will not be the case with President Ubu and his Clown Car administration. The whole world will be watching, and every detail will be scrutinized and debated. It’s going to look as ugly as it is in reality, and you’re going to be forever tarred by the association. You’re no longer in the Republican Party, you’re in the Trump Party. You bought it, you own it.
If I’m that imagined Republican politician, I don’t think I feel very confident about the future of my party.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is facing its own reckoning.
Democratic apologists are trying to focus the blame on one or another particular factor: the electoral college, voter suppression, third-party campaigns, the Comey announcement, etc. But this election shouldn’t have been close enough for any of those things to matter. The Democrats were running against the most glaringly unqualified candidate in American history. It should have been a landslide.
With Bernie Sanders it probably would have been. (A post-election national poll shows him beating Trump 56-44.) He was by far the most popular candidate in the country, while Hillary Clinton’s approval rating was almost as negative as Trump’s. Polls consistently showed Bernie beating Trump and all the other Republican candidates by wide margins, while Hillary was struggling against them all and even losing to some of them. Moreover, Bernie’s popularity cut across party lines, appealing not just to Democrats but to independents and even large numbers of Republicans. While Hillary was courting Wall Street and celebrity donors, he was attracting crowds that were ten times as large as any she ever managed, including thousands of the kind of enthusiastic young people who would have traveled across the country to work their hearts out for him (as they did to a lesser extent for Obama in 2008). While Hillary was constantly on the defensive, Bernie would have taken the offensive and turned the momentum in a progressive direction all over the country. He would easily have won the three Rust Belt states that cost Hillary the election, he probably would also have won some of the other swing states she lost, and his coattails would have flipped enough additional down-ballot races to regain the Senate and perhaps even put the House into play.
But the Democratic Party establishment preferred to risk losing with a loyal machine candidate rather than to risk winning with an independent radical whose movement might have challenged their cushy positions. Despite the fact that Hillary had a ton of baggage (some actually bad and much that could easily be made to look bad) and that she was a perfect embodiment of the glib, self-satisfied insider-elite and a longtime advocate of the neoliberal policies that had ravaged the country (especially in the Rust Belt), they pulled out all the stops to impose her as “inevitable,” while smugly dismissing Sanders as “unrealistic.”
In reality, the supposedly unrealistic solutions that Sanders called for were supported by large majorities of the population. Under pressure, Hillary belatedly adopted watered-down versions of some of those solutions, but few people believed she was sincere enough to really fight for them like Sanders would have. Her campaign mostly amounted to business as usual: “Defend the status quo! You have to vote for me because my opponent is even worse!”
It didn’t work. Interviews with Trump voters reveal that although many of them were indeed racist, many others were not (a large portion of them had previously voted for Obama). But they were enraged at the national political establishment that had abandoned them and they wanted somebody to “shake it up” and “clean it out.” Bernie spoke to those feelings, Hillary did not. Since Bernie wasn’t on the ballot, they decided to send a big “fuck you” message by voting for the other supposed “outsider,” who had at least claimed that he would do just that. Many others did not go that far, but they sent a similar message by staying home. Many others, of course, did vote for Hillary, including most of the Bernie supporters; but the enthusiasm was not there.
The Democratic Party establishment bears the ultimate blame for this miserable outcome. Millions of people know this and they are now trying to figure out what to do about it: how to break up the party machine, how to wean the party from its corporate dependence and transform it so that it can help address the challenges we face. I wish them well, but it won’t be easy to get rid of such an entrenched and corrupt bureaucracy — particularly since many elements of that bureaucracy will now be posing as heroes resisting the Trump administration. It will be difficult for this party to retain any credibility if it does not at least rally to a Sanders-type progressive program. That kind of program is far from a sufficient solution to the global crises we face, but it could at least claim to be a step in the right direction. Anything less will be a farce.
Meanwhile, with the Republicans’ monopoly control over the government, even those who normally focus on electoral politics must realize that for some time to come the main struggle will be outside the parties and outside the government. It will be grassroots participatory actions or nothing.
New movements of protest and resistance will develop during the coming weeks and months, responding to this bizarre and still very unpredictable new situation. At this point it’s hard to say what forms such movements will take, except to note that just about everyone seems to recognize that our number-one priority will be defending blacks, Latinos, Muslims, LGBTQs, and others most directly threatened by the new regime.
But we will also need to defend ourselves. The first step in resisting this regime is to avoid getting too caught up with it — obsessively following the latest news about it and impulsively reacting to each new outrage. That kind of compulsive media consumption was part of what led to this situation in the first place. Let’s treat this clown show with the contempt it deserves and not forget the fundamental things that still apply — picking our battles, but also continuing to nourish the personal relations and creative activities that make life worthwhile in the first place. Otherwise, what will we be defending?
Ultimately, as soon as we can recover our bearings, we’ll have to go back on the offensive. We were already going to have to face severe global crises during the coming decades. Maybe this disaster will shock us into coming together and addressing those crises sooner and more wholeheartedly than we would have otherwise, with fewer illusions about the capacity of the existing system to save us.
BUREAU OF PUBLIC SECRETS
November 16, 2016
French translation of this text
Spanish translation of this text
Portuguese translation of this text
Trump’s Spectacular Comeback
The second Trump election was surprisingly similar to the first one. When I look through the above piece that I wrote eight years ago, it seems to me that virtually everything I said there still applies.
The Democratic Party did not seem to learn anything from their first loss to Trump. They managed to narrowly defeat him in 2020 (not too hard a task, considering that the country was in economic chaos and hundreds of thousands of people had needlessly died due to Trump’s clueless nonresponse to the Covid crisis) and we heard a lot about how Biden was “the most progressive president since FDR.” But the Biden programs that were held up for praise were a hodgepodge of patchwork tweaks that few voters were even aware of.
One thing that would have caught everyone’s attention would have been a long-overdue hefty minimum-wage increase. Such an increase is supported by large majorities everywhere in the country, including in red states. But the Democrats not only failed to pass such a raise, they never even brought it to a vote (which would have forced the Republican politicians to face the anger of their constituents if they were on record as voting against it). Such a simple and obvious action would have displeased the Democrats’ wealthy donors, so it was considered “unrealistic” and taken off the table on day one of Biden’s administration.
That’s just one example. Similar things could be said about many other issues the Democrats failed to deal with, or dealt with ineptly. As Bernie Sanders put it:
It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them. . . . Will the big money interests and well-paid consultants who control the Democratic Party learn any real lessons from this disastrous campaign? Will they understand the pain and political alienation that tens of millions of Americans are experiencing? Do they have any ideas as to how we can take on the increasingly powerful Oligarchy, which has so much economic power? Probably not.
The one significant new factor, the ongoing genocide in Gaza, may or may not have had a decisive effect on the election results, but it definitely had a dampening effect on the morale of the campaign. It’s hard to be wholeheartedly enthusiastic when your own party fails to so much as call for a ceasefire, let alone when it continues to actively funnel billions of dollars of additional armaments to a government that is cold-bloodedly murdering tens of thousands of civilians and destroying the homes and infrastructure of two million more.
Many other factors have been evoked to account for the loss — the widespread misogyny that makes it more difficult for people to imagine a woman president (especially a black woman); the fact that due to post-Covid inflation it was a very anti-incumbent year in elections all over the world; the fact that Biden’s pathetic Attorney General, Merrick Garland, waited nearly two years before appointing a special council to investigate Trump’s complicity in the January 6 assault on the Capitol; the fact that the world’s richest man spent $44 billion to buy the world’s most extensive political discussion platform and remodeled it to favor Trump; the fact that many people seem to be psychologically predisposed to rally to authoritarian leaders (the phenomenon that Wilhelm Reich examined in The Mass Psychology of Fascism). Others have noted various flaws in the Democratic campaign, and there certainly were many. Without going into detail, it can be said that Kamala Harris’s campaign, like Hillary Clinton’s, mostly amounted to business as usual: “Defend the status quo! You have to vote for me because my opponent is even worse!”
But over and beyond all that, there has been an understandable astonishment that so many people could even dream of voting for such a repugnant and despicable person, regardless of how disappointed they may have been with the Democrats.
It seems to me that the main reason is pretty simple and obvious. Fox News and several other billionaire-financed mass media operations have been churning out reactionary propaganda 24/7 for decades with scarcely any meaningful competition. It’s hardly surprising that millions of people have been conditioned to hate liberals and liberal ideas, let alone radical ones. As the Nazis found, if you keep repeating the same lies over and over again, pounding the same messages into people’s heads day after day, a significant portion of them will end up believing them — especially if those messages cater to their frustrations and resentments, such as that some selected scapegoat is the cause of all their problems and that some magnificent leader will take care of everything for them.
More precisely, it’s not so much that they necessarily believe all those lies as that the constant repetition ends up obliterating any critical sense whatsoever, any sense of objective reality that might contradict their conditioned mindset. It doesn’t even have to always be the same lies; it may be more effective to saturate the public with ever-shifting lies. The point is to stir up constant turbulence, anxiety, fear, outrage, with no fixed ideology or program, so that the Leader becomes the only “reliable” reference point for his followers. Trump is such a pathological liar that he often lies even when there’s no reason to. He was on record for more than 30,000 documented lies during his first administration, and he hasn’t slowed down since then. Yet when his lies are pointed out, most of his supporters simply ignore them or shrug them off as “fake news.” Attempting to respond rationally to this kind of mass irrationality is itself irrational. Trump is not very bright, but he’s managed to learn one key lesson from one of his main models: “It matters little if our opponents mock us or insult us, if they represent us as clowns or criminals; the essential thing is that they talk about us, preoccupy themselves with us” (Hitler).
This crude, old-fashioned style of propagandistic bombardment still works, but it’s now something of an exception. As modern society has become increasingly “spectacularized,” the forms of conditioning have become more complex, more subtle, and more all-pervading:
Spectacular domination has succeeded in raising an entire generation molded to its laws. . . . The spectacle makes sure that people are unaware of what is happening, or at least that they quickly forget whatever they may have become aware of. . . . The flow of images carries everything before it, and it is always someone else who controls this simplified digest of the perceptible world, who decides where the flow will lead, who programs the rhythm of what is shown into an endless series of arbitrary surprises that leaves no time for reflection, isolating whatever is presented from its context, its past, its intentions, and its consequences. (Guy Debord, Comments on the Society of the Spectacle)
In the digital era this development has become increasingly evident, but it is usually understood only superficially — as if for some obscure reason people had simply become increasingly addicted to media. The “spectacle” as Debord uses the term is not just a matter of images on television or computers; it’s a way of understanding the social system in which we find ourselves:
The spectacle is not a collection of images; it is a social relation between people that is mediated by images. . . . The spectacle presents itself as a vast inaccessible reality that can never be questioned. The passive acceptance it demands is already effectively imposed by its monopoly of appearances, its manner of appearing without allowing any reply. . . . The spectacle is able to subject human beings to itself because the economy has already totally subjugated them. It is nothing other than the economy developing for itself. . . . The spectacle is the stage at which the commodity has succeeded in totally occupying social life. Commodification is not only visible, we no longer see anything else; the world we see is the world of the commodity. (The Society of the Spectacle)
It’s not just the Trump voters; we’re all living in this same commodified and spectacularized world. A world in which everything has been reduced to dollars and cents; in which we are alienated from our activities, from our environment, and from each other; in which real life is replaced by mass-produced fantasies and illusions; in which phony divisions are publicized and real divisions are disguised.
As the Occupy movement famously noted, the real division in this society is not between Democrats and Republicans, or liberals and conservatives, but between the 1% who actually own and control virtually everything and the other 99% of the population. (That’s just a handy slogan: the actual figures are more like 0.01% and 99.99%. There are an additional two or three percent who have considerable wealth and manage to live in pseudo-luxury, but they are far from exerting any serious power over the system as a whole.) Such a tiny minority would be immediately overwhelmed if they had not managed to bamboozle a large portion of the population into identifying with them, or at least into taking their system for granted; and especially into being manipulated into blaming their problems on each other instead of looking at the system as a whole. In the United States, this tiny minority owns both major political parties and most of the media and is thus able to determine which political options are presented to the masses and which are not. There is of course some wiggle room. People are allowed to put forward alternative ideas, but those ideas are branded as “unrealistic” and largely ignored. The two parties may present significantly different policies, but never anything that would challenge the basic setup. The bottom line is to preserve the existing economic system, in which the vast majority of people are caught in an unending rat race, working to pay for the commodities they need or have been conditioned to desire, while retaining the illusion that their manipulated votes for a few selected representatives every few years amount to “democracy.”
The latest result of this pseudo-democratic spectacle is that after more than a year of nonstop campaign blather, costing billions of dollars and monopolizing people’s attention all over the world, 77 million people in a supposedly modern and literate country have chosen to reelect a sick and desperate little man who has already been convicted of multiple felonies and indicted for many more (including for treason); a vicious man who has openly threatened to take vengeance on virtually anyone who isn’t totally in his camp; a vain man who has surrounded himself by fawning toadies even less likely to restrain him than the ones in his previous administration; a man with such delusions of grandeur that he never admits a mistake — with one notable exception: he has said that during his first term he made the mistake of being too nice.
As I said eight years ago (addressing an imagined Republican politician):
Your party was already heading toward a civil war between its mutually contradictory components (financial elite, tea party, neocons, libertarians, religious reactionaries, and the few remaining moderates). To those general divisions are now added the antagonisms between the new Leader and those who oppose him. Bush at least had sense enough to know that he was an incompetent figurehead, and gladly let Cheney and Rove run things. Trump thinks he’s a genius, and anyone who doesn’t agree will be added to his already very large enemies list. . . . And this whole show is so public. Obama’s smooth, genial persona enabled him to get away with war crimes, massive deportations, and all sorts of corporate compromises (not a single criminal banker prosecuted) with few people paying attention and fewer still protesting. This will not be the case with President Ubu and his Clown Car administration. The whole world will be watching, and every detail will be scrutinized and debated. It’s going to look as ugly as it is in reality, and you’re going to be forever tarred by the association. You’re no longer in the Republican Party, you’re in the Trump Party. You bought it, you own it.
We should not forget how inept and full of contradictions this whole farce is. Scarcely three weeks after the election, some of the billionaires who financed Trump have already expressed strong objections to his erratic policies that might rock the boat economically, and his proposed cabinet appointments are so laughably idiotic that even some Republican congressmen have been taken aback. It’s going to be increasingly difficult to distinguish the latest news from Saturday Night Live.
At the same time, we should bear in mind that some of this clowning may be intentional. His most outrageous nominations may function as lightning rods channeling anger and attention, making the replacement nominees seem more normal and acceptable.
If there’s one consoling thing in this situation, it’s realizing how many of us are together in this. Despite that huge swatch of red on the national election map, the total vote was virtually a tie; it’s only the electoral college and the overconcentration of liberal votes in big cities that makes the geographical result seem so overwhelming. 49%-48% is not a “landslide” or a “mandate”; it’s not even a majority. More of the country is against him than with him, even if many of them didn’t vote (or were prevented from voting, or voted but didn’t have their vote counted). And even those who voted for him don’t all agree with all his policies (several red states simultaneously passed minimum-wage increases and abortion-access laws).
Some of the blue states are already attempting to “Trump-proof” themselves, implementing legal measures to protect immigrants, abortion access, environmental policies, etc. Sooner or later they will come into legal conflict with the federal government. The Democratic politicians will naturally tend to shy away from any overt illegality, but they may be forced into it by popular pressure. We already have sanctuary cities; will we have sanctuary states? California, New York, and the other blue states amount to more than half the nation’s economy, and their taxes have long been effectively subsidizing the red states in the rest of the country. It will be interesting to see how such a political-economic power struggle might play out if it comes to that. More likely, the politicians will waffle and people will take on projects that the state governments won’t — perhaps setting up “underground railroad” type networks to protect immigrants, for example.
There are so many possibilities that I have no idea where this situation will lead, and I doubt if anyone else does. Millions of people have been sharing all sorts of responses to the shock, discussing what went wrong and offering suggestions as to how best to respond, politically or personally. I’ve been impressed and encouraged by how thoughtful and pertinent many of them are. Some may be rather naïve, some may contradict each other, but I’m not too concerned about that. There’s room for all sorts of projects, big or small, and all sorts of tactics, moderate or radical. People will sort out which things work and which don’t.
I think my last three paragraphs remain pertinent:
New movements of protest and resistance will develop during the coming weeks and months, responding to this bizarre and still very unpredictable new situation. At this point it’s hard to say what forms such movements will take, except to note that just about everyone seems to recognize that our number-one priority will be defending blacks, Latinos, Muslims, LGBTQs, and others most directly threatened by the new regime.
But we will also need to defend ourselves. The first step in resisting this regime is to avoid getting too caught up with it — obsessively following the latest news about it and impulsively reacting to each new outrage. That kind of compulsive media consumption was part of what led to this situation in the first place. Let’s treat this clown show with the contempt it deserves and not forget the fundamental things that still apply — picking our battles, but also continuing to nourish the personal relations and creative activities that make life worthwhile in the first place. Otherwise, what will we be defending?
Ultimately, as soon as we can recover our bearings, we’ll have to go back on the offensive. We were already going to have to face severe global crises during the coming decades. Maybe this disaster will shock us into coming together and addressing those crises sooner and more wholeheartedly than we would have otherwise, with fewer illusions about the capacity of the existing system to save us.
The big difference is that it’s now eight years later. Humanity is running out of time, and the genius in charge for the next four years thinks that climate change is a hoax. As Greta Thunberg puts it, “Our civilization is being sacrificed for the opportunity of a very small number of people to continue making enormous amounts of money.” But how are we going to stop them if we continue to accept the inevitability of an economic system that has made possible such an insane power imbalance in the first place?
KEN KNABB
November 26, 2024
French translation of this text
Spanish translation of this text
Hive Mind Strikes Back
— Collaborative Resistance to Trumpian Fascism —
At the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, I noted:
This is the first time in history that such a momentous event has taken place with virtually everyone on earth aware of it at the same time. And it is playing out while much of humanity is obliged to stay at home, where they can hardly avoid reflecting on the situation and sharing their reflections with others. . . . Millions of people are using this pause to investigate and critique the system’s fiascos, and they are doing this at a time when practically everyone else in the world is obsessively focused on the same issues. I think this first ever global discussion about our society is potentially more important than the particular crisis that happened to trigger it. . . . We need to be aware that this is happening, aware that what is going on within us and among us is potentially more promising than all the farcical political dramas we are watching so intently. [Pregnant Pause: Remarks on the Corona Crisis]
Five years later we find ourselves in the middle of another crisis which has impacted us even more dramatically than that earlier one. This new crisis has also provoked widespread debate about our society, but there are two key differences: rather than being a unexpected natural disaster affecting the whole world, it is an intentionally provoked political crisis in a single country (with the rest of the world looking on in puzzlement and horror); and the popular response has been much more active and participatory.
Three weeks after Trump’s second election, I wrote:
The latest result of this pseudo-democratic spectacle is that after more than a year of nonstop campaign blather, costing billions of dollars and monopolizing people’s attention all over the world, 77 million people in a supposedly modern and literate country have chosen to reelect a sick and desperate little man who has already been convicted of multiple felonies and indicted for many more (including for treason); a vicious man who has openly threatened to take vengeance on virtually anyone who isn’t totally in his camp; a vain man who has surrounded himself by fawning toadies even less likely to restrain him than the ones in his previous administration; a man with such delusions of grandeur that he never admits a mistake — with one notable exception: he has said that during his first term he made the mistake of being too nice. [Trump’s Spectacular Comeback]
After some speculations about what might be ahead, I concluded:
There are so many possibilities that I have no idea where this situation will lead, and I doubt if anyone else does. Millions of people have been sharing all sorts of responses to the shock, discussing what went wrong and offering suggestions as to how best to respond, politically or personally. I’ve been impressed and encouraged by how thoughtful and pertinent many of them are. Some may be rather naïve, some may contradict each other, but I’m not too concerned about that. There’s room for all sorts of projects, big or small, and all sorts of tactics, moderate or radical. People will sort out which things work and which don’t.
And so they have been doing.
During the first few weeks I, like just about everyone else, was surprised by how quickly and brazenly the new regime proceeded with illegal, maniacal, and even fascistic actions. Each day we were presented with new outrages and insanities, all happening so fast that it was hard to keep up. But almost immediately there were lots of popular responses, ranging from huge national demonstrations to smaller and more focused actions on all sorts of terrains.
As I followed the events, wondering if I might write something further, I found that virtually every fact I thought about calling attention to had already become common knowledge, and virtually every idea I came up with had already been articulated by others.
But looking at the overall process, I was struck by how these actions were being publicized and discussed in real time by the people taking part in them; and how many of those people were carrying out those actions with little or no outside leadership; and how the multitude of different ideas were being spontaneously sifted and sorted into coherent tactics and projects. As in other social crises, many people’s first impulse was to find public figures who might explain to them what was going on and tell them what needed to be done about it. And they did indeed find and share various sources of ideas and information that they found credible and useful. But as the communications went to and fro, many of them began to take a more active part, coming up with their own ideas and in some cases implementing them. And amid this flux of ideas and actions and interactions, there was a sort of survival of the fittest: certain ideas and tactics emerged that were so clearly appropriate that they were almost immediately recognized and acted on by thousands or even millions of people. Not in lockstep like soldiers, but as flexible groupings of people maintaining their own diverse views and styles while cooperating in joint or parallel projects.
This started me thinking about the notion of “hive mind.” That term was of course originally coined to describe the instinctive collective sense that social insects such as bees and ants seem to have; but by extension it has also come to refer to human networks where people seem to manifest some sort of collective intelligence arising out of shared networks of information and ideas.
Wikipedia (itself a splendid example of shared intelligence) notes that hive mind has several rather different connotations. What I’m talking about here is definitely not “groupmind,” where people are programmed into all thinking alike. It roughly corresponds what Wikipedia calls collaborative intelligence. In contrast to “collective intelligence,” where there is generally a central coordinator, collaborative intelligence is decentralized. Although the process may be rough and seemingly chaotic, the net result of countless individual experiences, interactions, and debates sometimes enables masses of people to arrive at practical conclusions (this works, that doesn’t) without any formal decision-making procedures or top-down directives.
During the last three decades such networks have been enormously extended and speeded up by the development of the Internet and the various forms of social media, where ideas and information can be shared almost instantaneously to millions of people around the world. Among other things, they have facilitated radical social movements such as the Arab Spring and Occupy.
It seems to me that we’ve seen a lot of collaborative intelligence in the various anti-Trump actions during the last twelve months. Below I’ve mentioned just a few examples. Note that in most of these cases the spontaneous self-organization of masses of people has been more important than the coordinating role of national organizations. There are virtually no significant leaders. There may indeed be a few politicians and celebrities who get in the news for speaking out, or a few prominent experts or analysts who people resort to for information or suggestions, but they’re not really leading anyone. People compare and contrast them, choosing those they find the most useful and reliable and ignoring the others. The actual “movers” of most of the actions usually turn out to be loose volunteer groupings of ordinary people serving as little more than contact persons. If you go to their websites, they typically encourage you to seek out other people or groups in your local communities and to take part in those projects that appeal to you. Except for the virtually unanimous agreement to maintain nonviolence, there are no rules and everyone is welcome regardless of their views as long as they’re opposed to the Trump regime (or even merely to some aspects of that regime).
The “No Kings” protests. Drawing 5 million people (June 14) and then 7 million (October 18) in more than 2000 towns and cities around the country, these were the largest mass demonstrations in American history. They were initiated or supported by a coalition of more than two hundred national organizations, but the actual gatherings have mostly been organized locally and autonomously. While many other protests have focused on particular issues, these huge rallies have functioned as big-tent gatherings — terrains where diverse people, groups, issues, and perspectives can all jostle together, debate, and share experiences. They also serve to counteract the feelings of isolation and helplessness the regime tries to foster, and the safety in numbers reassures people that they can take part without too much risk. (Hive mind is virtually impossible to surveil or control or co-opt.)
Immigrant support and anti-ICE actions. This issue has involved tense confrontations on many fronts. At the national level, legal actions have challenged the kidnapping and deportation of immigrants (documented or not), including to the torture prison in El Salvador. Despite the conservative leanings of many federal judges (many of whom were appointed by Bush or Trump), they have almost invariably ruled against the Trump regime’s actions, often adding scathing rebukes of the bad faith of the regime’s legal arguments and of its repeated failures to implement court orders. Meanwhile, Democratic state and local governments and various social justice organizations have responded with legal and logistical support; local communities have reached out with all sorts of improvised actions to help and reassure their immigrant friends and neighbors in whatever modest ways they can; and last but not least, thousands of individuals have courageously monitored ICE actions, organized ways to warn people of ICE presence, and even maneuvered to block or slow down ICE vehicles, risking arrest for their supposedly illegal actions (as if kidnapping wasn’t a far more serious crime). See, for example, these two articles: Immigration crackdown inspires uniquely Chicago pushback that’s now a model for other cities and Another Undaunted City: Charlotte defends democracy and decency.
The Gaza protests. The continuing mass murders in Gaza during the last two years have shocked millions of people and shifted a majority of the US population from its previous automatic support of Israel to widespread outrage against it. But note that although large American majorities (including a majority of Jewish Americans and the great majority of Democratic voters) are now opposed to the Gaza genocide, most Democratic politicians have remained subservient to AIPAC (the powerful pro-Israel lobby) — a glaring example of the disconnect between the masses of people and the political establishments that pretend to represent them.
The “Tesla Takedown” protests. These took advantage of the fact that one particular series of outrages — the accessing of public records and trashing of public services by the unelected and unaccountable “Department of Government Efficiency” — could be personalized, since it happened to be led by the richest person in the world. The boycotts and demonstrations at Tesla dealerships in the US and around the world crashed Tesla sales and stock valuation, leading to Elon Musk’s withdrawal from Washington and to his (temporary) split with Trump. Even though Musk is so rich that none of that mattered much to him financially, it felt like the protesters won that battle: It is very unusual to see one’s actions directly impact a billionaire corporation.
The Jimmy Kimmel boycotts. Most boycotts never get off the ground, and when they do it’s usually the result of months of planning and publicity, trying to convince masses of people that, among so many issues clamoring for attention, the particular issue merits their support. But when the Trump regime pressured Disney+/Hulu to drop Jimmy Kimmel’s popular television program, a lot of people were so infuriated that they independently and immediately canceled their subscriptions and let everyone else know about it — which inspired thousands of others to do the same, and so on. In less than a week more than 3 million customers canceled their subscriptions to Disney+/Hulu, those two companies caved, and Kimmel was back on the air with higher ratings than ever. See the Wikipedia article Suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live!
The Epstein Files. This particular issue has upset even many of the MAGAs, since part of the propaganda they have been fed for years was that Democratic politicians were listed in the Epstein Files and supposedly Trump was going to expose them once he got back into office. When the new Trump administration refused to release those files (because Trump himself was intimately associated with Epstein) the MAGAs had a lot of trouble processing it. Noticing this weak spot, anti-Trump people publicized and satirized the issue on every occasion. In mid-November this issue finally broke through the Republican congressional obstruction, and it seems to be dramatically accelerating the collapse of the MAGA coalition.
Nonviolence. Except for a few isolated incidents of vandalism (if you call that violence), all of these movements have been totally nonviolent. In the present context violent actions are so obviously counterproductive that they are almost universally recognized as the work of provocateurs (or possibly of a few thoughtless radicals who have not considered the actual effects of their actions).
Humor. Protests have always included satirical signs and slogans, but rarely to such a degree as now. The guy in Portland who thought of showing up in a frog costume inspired countless others around the country to do likewise — an amusing and effective way to undermine the regime’s claim that anti-Trump protesters are dangerous and violent criminals and that major cities are being destroyed by chaotic insurrections. It must be admitted, however, that Trump’s rants and self-glorifications are so delirious that it’s hard for any satire to keep up. In fact, it’s often difficult to tell which is satire and which is reality.
Self-care. A simple but valuable counsel was widely shared from the very beginning: Pace yourself. Don’t guilt-trip yourself and overdo it and get so OD’d that you end up dropping out. Pick a few doable projects that particularly appeal to you, while continuing to do what you need to do to take care of yourself and your loved ones and to carry on as human a life as possible under the circumstances.
So many other outrages and absurdities could be mentioned, any one of which in previous eras would have monopolized the headlines for weeks and resulted in shamefaced resignations by those responsible. Here, for example, is just the opening paragraph of one of Heather Cox Richardson’s informative daily newsletters:
House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) continues to try to pin the upcoming catastrophic lapse in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding on the Democrats. But with the U.S. Department of Agriculture sitting on $6 billion in funds Congress appropriated for just such an event, the Treasury finding $20 billion to prop up Trump ally Javier Milei in Argentina, Johnson refusing to bring the House into regular session to negotiate an end to the government shutdown, and President Donald J. Trump demanding $230 million in damages from the American taxpayer, bulldozing the East Wing of the White House to build a gold-plated ballroom that will dwarf the existing White House, and traveling to Asia, where South Korean leadership courted him by giving him a gold crown and serving him brownies topped with edible gold, blaming any funding shortfall on Democrats is a hard sell. [October 30, 2025]
It’s been hard to keep up. One of the main issues we face is the fact that we’re forced to face so many different issues. What we’re going through is so vast and confusing and rapidly changing that no one can pretend to grasp it all, let alone present a comprehensive account of it. I’m not proposing “hive mind” as some innovative theoretical concept that will explain everything. It’s simply a vivid and humorous image designed to call people’s attention to what they themselves are already doing.
Whatever you want to call it, the current anti-Trump movement has drawn in millions of people and spontaneously come up with all sorts of good projects and tactics. I don’t care whether they’re moderate or radical, so much as that people are getting involved and doing the best they can. Political awareness and political engagement are spreading to millions of people who used to be relatively unpolitical. It may seem pretty trivial to just sign a few petitions or attend a few rallies while others are getting arrested or deported, but that is more than most people used to do. And once they dip their toe in the water, they may decide to wade in further and start swimming.
One indication of this widespread awareness is that in writing this piece I don’t have to describe or explain very much. Most of the matters I’ve mentioned are already widely known, and in many cases pretty well understood. In fact, most of what I’m saying here is just paraphrasing points that countless others have already made, or at most suggesting a few broader contexts that may help them better understand what they are already doing. That’s what the situationists meant when they said: “Our ideas are in everybody’s mind.”
* * *
Although most people taking part in anti-Trump actions are quite aware of many of the flaws of the Democratic Party, I think it’s safe to say that virtually all of them believe that under the present circumstances it is imperative that the Democrats defeat the Republicans in the coming elections.
I happen to share that view. So do many (though not all) of my situationist, anarchist, and ultraleftist friends, who, like me, are normally very dubious about that party and about electoral politics in general.
I encourage everyone to continue to give the Democratic Party all the criticisms it so richly deserves. Nothing will be gained by whitewashing it. I’m not going to go into all its corruptions and complicities here, or all the sordid nuances of political maneuvering in Congress; they are already being observed and debated by far more people than used to pay attention to such matters. I will just note that while many Democratic Party pundits were cluelessly advocating “moving to the center,” Bernie Sanders and AOC’s “Fighting Oligarchy” tour was attended by huge audiences around the country (many of them in red states) and Zohran Mamdani, supported by more than 100,000 volunteers, was decisively elected as mayor of New York City despite tens of millions of dollars of attack ads by his opponents and the hostility of the Democratic establishment. Those kinds of programs and those kinds of campaigns are the future of the Democratic Party, if it has any future.
In any case, during the coming year millions of people will be fervently focused on (1) primarying some of the worst Democrats and then (2) getting the maximum number of Democrats elected in the fall elections. As those elections approach, there will be more widespread awareness of the Republicans’ ongoing vote-suppression efforts, which have up till now been overshadowed by all their other outrages. They may already have swung the 2024 election to Trump (see Greg Palast’s article Trump Lost, Vote Suppression Won). In any case, the Republicans have even more threatening measures in view, including eliminating mail-in voting and, most importantly, requiring voter IDs that would effectively prevent tens of millions of American citizens from voting. Trump has openly bragged that if the Republicans can pass these new measures, “we’ll never lose the midterms and we will never lose a general election again.”
But those elections are still a year away. Meanwhile, there are plenty of issues that need to be dealt with now, without relying on the politicians. If you want the Democrats to do well in the next elections, the best thing you can do is support popular movements that force them to try to keep up with you. If you focus mostly on candidates and your candidates win, they may or may not follow through with their campaign promises; if your candidates lose, most of your efforts are down the drain. If you focus mostly on raising awareness of issues, that increased awareness will tend to help your candidates, but it will still be there whether your candidates win or lose.
Mass movements that focus more actively on issues are sometimes called “social strikes.” Such movements may function somewhat like a labor strike, but without necessarily involving work stoppages. While workers have the powerful leverage of stopping work, other sectors of the population can also exert significant leverage by other means.
Jeremy Brecher has recently written several informative pieces on social strikes. In Social Strikes vs. MAGA Tyranny he outlines the nature of social strikes and how they might relate to our present situation. In Social Strike for Social Self-Defense he presents four cases where social strikes actually brought down dictatorial regimes. Two them (Philippines 1986 and Serbia 2000) were responses to dictators’ attempts to steal elections. A 2024 social strike in South Korea nixed an attempted presidential coup. A 2019 “people’s impeachment” movement in Puerto Rico forced the resignation of a corrupt governor.
Other such movements have raised more general social issues, including two notable ones in France: the anti-CPE movement (2006) and the Gilets Jaunes movement (Yellow Vests or Yellow Jackets) of 2018-2020. For an overview of tactics and strategies in these and other types of “radical situations,” see chapter 3 of The Joy of Revolution.
Boycotts are one of the basic tactics that spontaneously occur to masses of people in these situations. Sometimes they succeed dramatically, as in the Jimmy Kimmel affair, or at least have a significant impact, as in the Tesla boycott. But in most cases it’s very difficult to carry out large-scale boycotts. Most billionaires are more anonymous than Musk, and in any case their ownership is spread into so many mutually interlinked multinational corporations that we can’t even keep track of them all, let alone boycott them all.
In a world where a few billionaires own or control practically everything, it’s difficult to make any significant change without tackling everything at once.
The most direct way to do that is a general strike. During the October 18 “No Kings” day, Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson called for a national general strike against the Trump regime. That may seem like quite a stretch under the present circumstances, but it’s nice that the idea is being bandied about.
General strikes are rare, but they have happened, including in the United States. (See Jeremy Brecher’s book Strike!) The most significant one in modern times was the May 1968 wildcat general strike in France, when more than 11 million workers occupied most of the factories in the country, despite the opposition of all the political parties (left or right) and all the labor unions. If you are curious about how that happened and how it played out, see René Viénet’s profusely illustrated book Enragés and Situationists in the Occupation Movement: France, May ’68. For a brilliant in-depth analysis, see Guy Debord’s article The Beginning of an Era. To get a little taste of what it felt like, see May 1968 Graffiti.
In my previous piece on Trump I briefly cited Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle and Comments on the Society of the Spectacle. I’m not going to say any more about that connection here. Instead, I encourage you to read a series of short blog articles by Eric Fattor that explain, in much more detail than I did, how those two books illuminate the whole bizarre Trump experience. You can start here and work back, but you will probably find it clearer if you start here and work forward.
* * *
Almost more sickening than Trump’s actions is the fact that such a large percentage of the American population has gone along with them so gleefully. The question is often posed: Are these people evil or are they just stupid? Some of them seem to be both. But I’m inclined to give most of them the benefit of the doubt and see them as people who, due to circumstances beyond their control or understanding, have let themselves be swayed by a constant diet of media manipulation. Especially those living in regions where they’re rarely exposed to any other perspectives.
Unfortunately, whether they’re to blame or not, this type of manipulation can habituate people into becoming pretty nasty. They may start out as justifiably upset about undeniably real problems; but once they’ve been convinced to blame those problems on scapegoats, they may find it increasingly addictive to experience the thrill of vengeance against the imagined crimes of those scapegoats. And once they’ve gone there, it’s hard to turn them around. As Mark Twain is reputed to have said, “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they’ve been fooled.’’ If the MAGAs don’t have the courage to admit that they’ve been bamboozled, they may have a hard time repressing it after Trump is gone — like in Germany after World War II, when large segments of the population were going around pretending that they had always been opposed to Hitler.
As for the billionaires and their highly paid mouthpieces who are orchestrating all this: “I don’t know what word in the English language — I can’t find one that applies to people who are willing to sacrifice the literal existence of organized human life so they can put a few more dollars into their highly overstuffed pockets. The word ‘evil’ doesn’t begin to approach it.” (Noam Chomsky)
Fortunately, there’s a lot more resistance to Trump than there was to Hitler. Partly because Hitler moved more gradually — it was years before the Nazis dared to openly do the sorts of things the Trump regime is already doing. The Nazis took care to hide most of their crimes; Trump posts his and brags about them.
The main reason the Trump regime has gotten so extreme so fast is that they’re in a race against time. The longer they’re in power, the more opposition they arouse. Their only hope is to carry out such rapid multifront attacks that they can destroy things and consolidate their power before sufficient opposition arises to prevent them.
All governments lie a lot of the time, and they usually get away with it. But a point may arrive when the sheer quantity of lies becomes not just unbelievable, but unworkable, and the whole edifice of bullshit falls apart. That is already starting to happen and it’s unlikely that Trump or any of his cronies can stop it, though they can meanwhile continue to cause a terrible amount of damage and suffering.
Because Trump has built a personality cult, not a movement. His mental health has been deteriorating for years (very visibly in the last few months) and he also appears to be in very poor physical condition. Before his term is over, he is likely to become so glaringly incapacitated that even his supporters will be obliged to admit that it’s impossible for him to function. When that happens, the MAGA coalition will splinter into its mutually contradictory tendencies. None of those tendencies have much coherence, and many of the key figures and their agents and accomplices will be terrified about their risk of accountability for the crimes against humanity they have so brazenly perpetrated, and rush to throw each other under the bus. Most of Trump’s cronies have no qualifications beyond being skillful ass-kissers, and the few who do have none of his charisma. The only thing uniting them is their fealty to Trump.
There is one respect in which Trump’s delusions of grandeur may turn out to have a kernel of truth. He may go down in history as the person who brought into the open more glaringly than ever before the utter insanity of a social system in which such an ugly and idiotic farce could occur.
Meanwhile, all of you who have been working against him in such a wonderful variety of ways: Please keep doing what you’re doing!
But don’t stop there.
KEN KNABB
November 25, 2025
Ken Knabb’s “Out in the Open: Remarks on the Trump Election” (2016), “Trump’s Spectacular Comeback” (2024), and “Hive Mind Strikes Back: Collaborative Resistance to Trumpian Fascism” (2025).
No copyright.
Sunday, November 23, 2025
Climate activists dye Venice’s Grand Canal green
By AFP
November 22, 2025
Climate activists poured dye into waters in 10 Italian cities -
By AFP
November 22, 2025
Climate activists poured dye into waters in 10 Italian cities -
Copyright POOL/AFP HENRY NICHOLLS
Climate activists dyed Venice’s Grand Canal green Saturday, as countries at a UN climate conference in Brazil struggled to agree on the crucial issue of phasing out of fossil fuels.
Extinction Rebellion said its activists released an environmentally harmless dye into canals, rivers, lakes and fountains in a total of 10 Italian cities to highlight “the massive effects of climate collapse”.
Greta Thunberg was present at the “Stop Ecocide” protest in Venice, where demonstrators dressed entirely in red with veils over their faces walked slowly through curious crowds of tourists, images showed.
The green dye was also poured into the Po river in Turin, the Reno river in Bologna, the Tara river in Taranto, as well as fountains in Padova and Genoa, the activist group said.
Negotiations at key UN climate talks in Brazil ran into overtime on Saturday with no agreement struck and delegates still locked in a bitter fight over whether to mention fossil fuels in the final text.
At stake at the Belem talks is securing a deal that paves the way for faster cuts to planet-warming emissions that are driving ever more extreme weather.
“The most important global summit to define international political agreements aimed at countering climate and social collapse is drawing to a close, and once again this year, Italy has been among the countries blocking the most ambitious proposals,” said activist Paola as quoted by Extinction Rebellion, whose surname was not provided.
Climate activists dyed Venice’s Grand Canal green Saturday, as countries at a UN climate conference in Brazil struggled to agree on the crucial issue of phasing out of fossil fuels.
Extinction Rebellion said its activists released an environmentally harmless dye into canals, rivers, lakes and fountains in a total of 10 Italian cities to highlight “the massive effects of climate collapse”.
Greta Thunberg was present at the “Stop Ecocide” protest in Venice, where demonstrators dressed entirely in red with veils over their faces walked slowly through curious crowds of tourists, images showed.
The green dye was also poured into the Po river in Turin, the Reno river in Bologna, the Tara river in Taranto, as well as fountains in Padova and Genoa, the activist group said.
Negotiations at key UN climate talks in Brazil ran into overtime on Saturday with no agreement struck and delegates still locked in a bitter fight over whether to mention fossil fuels in the final text.
At stake at the Belem talks is securing a deal that paves the way for faster cuts to planet-warming emissions that are driving ever more extreme weather.
“The most important global summit to define international political agreements aimed at countering climate and social collapse is drawing to a close, and once again this year, Italy has been among the countries blocking the most ambitious proposals,” said activist Paola as quoted by Extinction Rebellion, whose surname was not provided.
Saturday, November 22, 2025
COP30
“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.
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.”
“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
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 >
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
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
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
image:
COP30 negotiations room: article is signed by eight researchers, including three from FAPESP’s ARIES RIDC
view moreCredit: 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
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
image:
From left to right, Martí Orta, Fatima Eisam-Eldeen and Gorka Muñoa.
view moreCredit: 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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)