ambition

Sept. 18 (UPI) — Australia aims to reduce carbon emissions by at least 62% by 2035, marking an ambitious goal by one of the highest greenhouse gas emission generators in the world.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced the new emissions plan Thursday during a press conference, stating “it’s the right target to protect our environment, to protect and advance our economy and jobs and to ensure that we act in our national interest and in the interest of this and future generations.”

According to a release from the prime minister’s office, the goal is to reduce between 62% and 70% of carbon emissions based on 2005 levels. It is a drastic reduction from the 43% reduction it set to be achieve by 2030.

The announcement comes on the heels of the publication of a government-commissioned climate risk assessment report on Monday that found more than 1.5 million Australians will be at risk from sea level rise by 2050. It said nearly 600,000 would be affected by coastal flooding by 2030.

The goal adopted by the Albanese administration came as advice from the Climate Change Authority, which said the 62% to 70% range was “Australia’s highest possible ambition” that was achievable.

“Our recommended target will deliver some of the largest emissions cuts anywhere around the world,” the Climate Change Authority said in a statement.

“On a per-capita basis, the target equates to a 76-81% reduction once projected population growth over the coming decade is included. Australians’ average pollution profile would improve faster than our peers, particularly over the 2031-35 period, as we build momentum beyond the 2030 legislated target.”

To achieve the goal, Australia will increase renewable electricity generation across the economy, lower emissions by adopting electric vehicles, establishing a low-carbon liquid fuels industry, accelerating investments in new technologies and promoting landowners to earn money from adopting practices that store carbon, such as planting trees and regenerating forests.

According to an August 2024 report from Climate Analytics, a global climate science and policy institute, Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions per capita are among the highest in the world, double that of China and nine times that of India. It is responsible for 4.5% of global fossil carbon dioxide emissions, it said.

Australia’s climate change and energy minister, Chris Bowen, said the global shift to clean energy has usher in the largest economic transformation since the Industrial Revolution, and presents Australia with “our best-ever economic opportunity.”

“If we get it right, if we make the right investments at the right time, we can grow our economy, create good jobs for Australians. And today, the Albanese government decided to seize that opportunity,” Bowen said during the press conference.

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled Friday that President Trump had no legal right to impose sweeping tariffs but left in place for now his effort to build a protectionist wall around the American economy.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Trump wasn’t legally allowed to declare national emergencies and impose import taxes on almost every country on earth, a ruling that largely upheld a May decision by a specialized federal trade court in New York.

But the 7-4 court did not strike down the tariffs immediately, allowing his administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The president vowed to do just that. “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America,” Trump wrote on his social medial platform.

The ruling complicates Trump’s ambitions to upend decades of American trade policy completely on his own. Trump has alternative laws for imposing import taxes, but they would limit the speed and severity with which he could act. His tariffs — and the erratic way he’s rolled them out — have shaken global markets, alienated U.S. trading partners and allies and raised fears of higher prices and slower economic growth.

But he’s also used the levies to pressure the European Union, Japan and other countries into accepting one-sided trade deals and to bring tens of billions of dollars into the federal Treasury to help pay for the massive tax cuts he signed into law July 4.

“While existing trade deals may not automatically unravel, the administration could lose a pillar of its negotiating strategy, which may embolden foreign governments to resist future demands, delay implementation of prior commitments, or even seek to renegotiate terms,” Ashley Akers, senior counsel at the Holland & Knight law firm and a former Justice Department trial lawyer, said before the appeals court decision.

The government has argued that if the tariffs are struck down, it might have to refund some of the import taxes that it’s collected, delivering a financial blow to the U.S. Treasury.

“It would be 1929 all over again, a GREAT DEPRESSION!” Trump said in a previous post on Truth Social.

Revenue from tariffs totaled $142 billion by July, more than double what it was at the same point the year before. Indeed, the Justice Department warned in a legal filing this month that revoking the tariffs could mean “financial ruin” for the United States.

The ruling involves two sets of import taxes, both of which Trump justified by declaring a national emergency under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA):

— The sweeping tariffs he announced April 2 — “Liberation Day,’’ he called it — when he imposed “reciprocal’’ tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs trade deficits and a “baseline’’ 10% tariff on just about everyone else. The national emergency underlying the tariffs, Trump said, was the long-running gap between what the U.S. sells and what it buys from the rest of the world. The president started to levy modified the tariff rates in August, but goods from countries with which the U.S. runs a surplus also face the taxes.

— The “trafficking tariffs’’ he announced Feb. 1 on imports from Canada, China and Mexico. These were designed to get those countries to do more to stop what he declared a national emergency: the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across their borders into the United States.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose taxes, including tariffs. But over decades, lawmakers have ceded authorities to the president, and Trump has made the most of the power vacuum.

But Trump’s assertion that IEEPA essentially gives him unlimited power to tax imports quickly drew legal challenges — at least seven cases. No president had ever used the law to justify tariffs, though IEEPA had been used frequently to impose export restrictions and other sanctions on U.S. adversaries such as Iran and North Korea.

The plaintiffs argued that the emergency power law does not authorize the use of tariffs.

They also noted that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an “unusual and extraordinary’’ threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits — in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them — for 49 straight years and in good times and bad.

The Trump administration argued that courts approved President Richard Nixon’s emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis that arose from the chaos that followed his decision to end a policy linking the U.S. dollar to the price of gold. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA.

In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York rejected the argument, ruling that Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs “exceed any authority granted to the President’’ under the emergency powers law. In reaching its decision, the trade court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case.

In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA’s requirement that they “deal with’’ the problem they were supposed to address.

The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security.

Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries.

Trump could potentially cite alternative authorities to impose import taxes, though they are more limited. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, for instance, allows the president to tax imports from countries with which the U.S. runs big trade deficits at 15% for 150 days.

Likewise, Section 301 of the same 1974 law allows the president to tax imports from countries found to have engaged in unfair trade practices after an investigation by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Trump used Section 301 authority to launch his first-term trade war with China.

Wiseman and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mark Sherman and Josh Boak contributed to this story.

The United States warships are approaching Venezuelan waters in the southern Caribbean as part of President Donald Trump’s effort to fight drug trafficking, reports said.

The Trump administration has accused Venezuela’s left-wing President Nicolas Maduro of being involved in cocaine trafficking and working with drug cartels. On August 7, the US Departments of State and Justice doubled the reward for information leading to the arrest of Maduro to $50m after accusing him of being “one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world”.

In response, Maduro has urged millions of Venezuelans to join militias, saying, “No empire will touch the sacred soil of Venezuela.”

On Monday, the Venezuelan government announced that it is sending 15,000 troops to its border with Colombia to fight drug trafficking, amid growing pressure from the Trump administration.

So why are the US warships heading to Venezuelan waters, and how is it being seen in Latin American nations, including Venezuela?

Why is the Trump administration sending navy warships to Venezuelan waters?

Multiple news reports say that the Trump administration has dispatched navy warships to the southern Caribbean, saying that these missions are intended to counter threats to US national security posed by organisations in the region that the US has designated as “narco-terrorist organizations.”

The New York Times reported last month that Trump signed a secret directive ordering the Pentagon to use military force against certain Latin American drug cartels that the US has deemed foreign “terrorist” organisations.

On Monday, the Reuters news agency reported that the US ordered additional ships to the southern Caribbean, citing two sources familiar with the deployment.

The sources told Reuters, on the condition of anonymity, that the USS Lake Erie, a guided missile cruiser and the USS Newport News, a nuclear-powered fast attack submarine, will arrive in the region by early next week.

Last week, multiple news agencies reported that three US Aegis-class guided missile destroyers were headed to Venezuelan waters.

According to two individuals briefed on the deployment – who anonymously spoke to Reuters – the USS San Antonio, USS Iwo Jima and USS Fort Lauderdale were headed towards the Venezuelan coast, carrying 4,500 US service members, including 2,200 Marines.

In both the reports, Reuters said that the unnamed sources refrained from disclosing the specific objectives of the deployments but indicated that recent military movements were intended to address threats to US national security posed by designated “narco-terrorist organizations.”

On August 14, the US Fleet Forces Command published a news release saying that sailors and Marines assigned to the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group had departed from Norfolk, Virginia and Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. The news release does not explicitly state details of the mission or specify where the group is being deployed.

The release says, “More than 4,500 Sailors and Marines from the 22nd MEU comprise the force aboard the ARG’s three amphibious ships: flagship USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7), and the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ships USS San Antonio (LPD 17) and USS Fort Lauderdale (LPD 28).”

Reporters asked White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt about the possibility of US boots on the ground in Venezuela on August 19. In response, she said, “President [Donald] Trump has been very clear and consistent. He’s prepared to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into our country and to bring those responsible to justice.”

Leavitt reiterated that the US does not recognise Maduro’s administration as the legitimate government of Venezuela. Maduro won last year’s disputed election. The US and Venezuela have not had a formal diplomatic relationship since 2019.

How is Trump cracking down on drug trafficking?

On his inauguration day on January 21, Trump signed an executive order designating international drug cartels as foreign “terrorist” organisations.

“In certain portions of Mexico, they function as quasi-governmental entities,” the order says. Mexico opposed the order because it created the threat of US military action against the country.

In response, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said that her government will cooperate with the US to fight drug trafficking, but opposed US intervention on Mexico’s territory. “What we insist on is the defence of our sovereignty and our independence,” she said back in January.

Trump also accused Canada and Mexico of failing to prevent fentanyl, a highly addictive synthetic opioid, from entering the US –  although he has not furnished proof for his claims.

After Trump threatened tariffs on Mexican imports, Sheinbaum deployed 10,000 National Guard troops to the US-Mexico border to help regulate immigration.

On February 20, the US State Department designated eight international cartels as foreign terrorist organisations, including Mexico-based Cartel del Golfo, Sinaloa Cartel, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, Carteles Unidos, La Nueva Familia Michoacana and Cartel del Noreste, California-based Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), and Venezuela-based Tren de Aragua.

Later in February, Mexico handed over 29 drug cartel leaders to the US.

What has the US accused Maduro of?

US officials accused both Maduro and Venezuelan Minister of Popular Power for Interior Diosdado Cabello of collaborating with the Cartel de los Soles (“Cartel of the Suns”), a drug trafficking organisation that Washington has designated as a “terrorist” group. Cabello, like Maduro, is part of the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV).

Maduro has rejected the Trump administration’s accusations earlier. The US government has not provided any evidence linking Maduro to drug cartels.

The US announced earlier this month that it had doubled the reward for Maduro’s capture on drug charges to $50m. In a video on August 7, US Attorney General Pam Bondi also accused Maduro of collaborating with the Venezuelan crime syndicate Tren de Aragua and the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico. “He is one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world,” Bondi said about Maduro.

Today, @TheJusticeDept and @StateDept are announcing a $50 MILLION REWARD for information leading to the arrest of Nicolás Maduro. pic.twitter.com/D8LNqjS9yk

— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) August 7, 2025

Earlier this year, the US also raised the reward for the arrest or prosecution of Cabello from $10m to $25m.

During Trump’s first term in 2020, Maduro and his close allies were indicted in Manhattan federal court on federal charges of “narco-terrorism” and conspiracy to import cocaine. Back then, Washington offered a $15mm reward for his arrest. The administration of US President Joe Biden increased this bounty to $25m.

How has the Venezuelan government responded?

On Monday, Cabello announced that Caracas will send 15,000 troops to strengthen security in the border states of Zulia and Tachira, which border Colombia.

“Here, we do fight drug trafficking; here, we do fight drug cartels on all fronts,” the minister said, while also announcing the seizure of 53 tonnes of drugs so far this year.

Cabello stated that the enhanced security measures along the border with Colombia, aimed at “combating criminal groups,” will also include the deployment of aircraft, drones and riverine security, according to local media outlet Noticias Venevision. Cabello urged Colombian authorities to take similar steps to “ensure peace along the entire axis.”

Referring to the deployment of US warships on Venezuelan waters, Maduro said, “From the north, the empire has gone mad and, like a rotten rehash, has renewed its threats to the peace and stability of Venezuela,” Caracas-based news network, Globovision reported.

“We are not fakes nor drug traffickers, and we will defend the dignity of beloved Venezuela,” Defence Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez told a crowd of military recruits over the weekend.

How have Venezuelan opposition leaders responded?

Opposition figure Marina Corina Machado called Maduro the “head of the Cartel of the Sun,” in an X post on Monday. Machado was disqualified weeks before last year’s election.

But opposition leader Henrique Capriles warned against an act of force against Venezuela. “We firmly express our rejection of any act of force against Venezuela, regardless of its origin. The sovereignty of our country is sacred and must be unconditionally respected. The United Nations Charter and International Law clearly establish that no State can attack another, as it would result in the loss of human lives,” he posted on X.

Capriles, who lost to Maduro in the 2013 presidential election, added that regional peace must be defended.

“The government, currently in power, has the duty to open the doors and create the mechanisms necessary to prevent our crisis from worsening further.”

Juan Guaido, the West-backed interim president between 2019 and 2022, supported the actions taken by the United States against Venezuelan cartels. “The Cartel of the Suns and the Tren de Aragua have already been designated as terrorist organizations. Their leader is not hidden in the shadows: his name is Nicolas Maduro, a dictator responsible for this criminal network that drains Venezuela and threatens the entire region,” he posted a statement on X on Monday.

What have other Latin American leaders said?

Mexico’s Sheinbaum said earlier this month that her government does not have any evidence linking Maduro to the Sinaloa Cartel, which is based in her country and is named after the Mexican state of Sinaloa.

On the other hand, the office of the president of Paraguay, Santiago Pena Palacios, posted a statement on X on Friday declaring the “Cartel of the Suns” a foreign terrorist organisation.