environmental

Lula approved the controversial bill easing environmental licensing rules, but struck down or altered 63 articles.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has signed into law a bill easing environmental licensing rules, but bowed to pressure from activist groups as he vetoed key provisions that would have made it easier for companies to secure environmental permits.

Lula approved on Friday what detractors have dubbed the “devastation bill”, but struck down or altered 63 of its nearly 400 articles, his office’s executive secretary, Miriam Belchior, told reporters.

The president had faced mounting pressure from environmental groups to intervene in the bill, which was backed by Brazil’s powerful agribusiness sector and focused on rolling back strict licensing rules that had kept the destruction of the Amazon rainforest in check.

A previous version of the bill adopted by lawmakers last month would have meant that for some permits, all that would have been required is a simple declaration of the company’s environmental commitment.

Lula’s revisions, however, reinstated the current strict licensing rules for strategic projects.

Belchior said the new proposal sought to preserve the integrity of the licensing process, ensure legal certainty, and protect the rights of Indigenous and Quilombola communities.

She added that Lula will introduce a “Special Environmental Licence” designed to fast-track strategic projects while filling the legal gaps created by the vetoes.

“We maintained what we consider to be significant advances in streamlining the environmental licensing process,” she said.

Nongovernmental organisation SOS Atlantic Forest, which garnered more than a million signatures calling for a veto of the law, hailed Lula’s move as “a victory” for environmental protection.

Lula’s environmental vetoes

Of the provisions struck down by Lula, 26 were vetoed outright, while another 37 will either be replaced with alternative text or modified in a new bill that will be sent to Congress for ratification under a constitutional urgency procedure.

Securing support for the amendments is far from guaranteed for the leftist leader. Brazil’s conservative-dominated Congress has repeatedly defeated key government proposals, including overturning previous presidential vetoes.

Lawmakers aligned with embattled ex-president Jair Bolsonaro are also blocking legislative activity amid an escalating political standoff, as they call for the former president’s charges around an alleged failed coup attempt in 2022 to be dropped.

Speaking at a Friday news conference in the capital, Brasilia, Environment Minister Marina Silva maintained a positive tone, telling reporters that Lula’s vetoes would ensure that “the economy does not compete with ecology, but rather they are part of the same equation”.

“We hope to be able to streamline licensing processes without compromising their quality, which is essential for environmental protection at a time of climate crisis, biodiversity loss and desertification,” said Silva.

Silva said a previous version of the bill, approved by Congress last month, threatened the country’s pledge to eliminate deforestation by 2030 and described it as a “death blow” to Brazil’s licensing framework.

But, she said, Lula’s revised version meant Brazil’s “targets to reach zero deforestation” and its goal to “cut CO2 emissions by between 59 percent and 67 percent remain fully on track”.

Lula’s environmental credentials are under close scrutiny in advance of the annual UN climate summit in November in the Amazon city of Belem.

The California Supreme Court sided with environmental groups in a Thursday ruling, saying that state lawyers were wrong in their claim that the Public Utilities Commission’s decision to slash rooftop solar incentives could not be challenged.

The unanimous decision sends the case brought by the three groups back to the appeals court.

The groups argue the utilities commission violated state law in 2022 when it cut the value of the credits that panel owners receive for sending their unused power to the electric grid by as much as 80%. The rules apply to Californians installing the panels after April 14, 2023.

The Supreme Court justices said the appeals court erred in January 2024 when it ruled against the environmental groups. In that decision, the appeals court said that courts must defer to how the commission interpreted the law because it had more expertise in utility matters.

“This deferential standard of review leaves no basis for faulting the Commission’s work,” the appeals court had concluded then in its opinion.

The environmental groups argued the appeals court ignored a 1998 law that said the commission’s decisions should be held to the same standard of court review as those by other state agencies.

“The California Supreme Court has ruled in our favor that the CPUC is not above the law,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, senior vice president at the Environmental Working Group, after Thursday’s decision was published. The other groups filing the case are the Center for Biological Diversity and The Protect Our Communities Foundation.

The utilities commission did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the ruling.

More than 2 million solar systems sit on the roofs of homes, businesses and schools in California — more than any other state. Environmentalists say that number must increase if the state is to meet its goal, set by a 2018 law, of using only carbon-free energy by 2045.

The utilities commission has said that the credits given to the rooftop panel owners on their electric bill have become so valuable that they were resulting in “a cost shift” of billions of dollars to those who do not own the panels. This has raised electric bills, especially hurting low-income electric customers, the commission says.

The credits for energy sent by the rooftop systems to the grid had been valued at the retail rate for electricity, which has risen fast as the commission has voted in recent years to approve rate increases the utilities have requested.

The state’s three big for-profit electric utilities — Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric — have sided with commission in the case.

The utilities have long complained that electric bills have been rising because owners of the rooftop solar panels are not paying their fair share of the fixed costs required to maintain the electric grid.

For decades, the utilities have worked to reduce the energy credits aimed at incentivizing Californians to invest in the solar panel systems. The rooftop systems have cut into the utilities’ sale of electricity.

Aug. 6 (UPI) — A federal judge in Florida on Wednesday heard arguments from two groups seeking an injunction to halt the operation and further construction of an immigration detention center in the Everglades called “Alligator Alcrataz.”

District Judge Kathleen Williams conducted a hearing in Miami on a lawsuit by environmental groups and the Miccosukee Tribe, claiming the state and federal government bypassed mandatory ecological reviews required under the National Environmental Policy Act during construction.

They also said the detention facility, which now houses 1,000 detainees with plans for up to 5,000, was built in less than two weeks without public notice or comment, and didn’t comply with other statutes, including the Endangered Species Act.

The detention center, which is about 75 miles west of Miami and 44 miles southwest of Naple, is amid swampland that includes alligators, pythons, snakes and other predators.

Randy Kautz, an expert in Florida wildlife, said 120 to 230 endangered panthers are in the “core area” and increased human activity will harm reproduction.

“There has been a stable reproducing population of panthers in this area in this range at least over the last 30 years,” he said in court. “Panthers have succeeded and resided here.”

Panthers were tracked in the 1,000 acres near the detention facility, which was built on a rarely used airstrip off U.S. 41 in Ochopee in Miami-Dade County near Collier County. The so-called Alligator Alley, which is part of Interstate 75, runs 80 miles across the state through the Everglades.

Attorneys say the work is exempt from the National Environmental Policy Act because it was initially funded, constructed and managed by the state. But Florida state Rep. Anna Eskamani testified the Department of Homeland Security wants the facility.

More than 40,000 people opposed the detention center in a petition on the website of the Friends of the Everglades, a nonprofit, which is one of the parties in the lawsuit.

“We are very concerned about potential impacts of runoff” and “large, new industrial-style lights that are visible from 15 miles away, even though having a dark sky designation,” Eve Samples, the executive director of the group, told the court.

“Driving out there myself many times, the increased traffic is visible. I saw two dead gators last time I visited, so definitely a difference in the area.”

The detention facility neighbors land leased to the Miccosukee Indian Tribe with villages, a school, hunting areas and sacred sites.

Civil rights groups filed a second lawsuit alleging that detainees’ constitutional rights are being violated. A hearing in that case is scheduled for Aug. 18.

WTVJ-TV reported limited access to showers, spoiled food, extreme heat and mosquitoes. They also allege they are being barred from meeting lawyers with some held without any charges.

President Donald Trump toured the facility on July 1 with Gov. Ron DeSantis and Homeland Security Secretry Kristi Noem before the opening two days later.

The first deportation flights departed from the airstrip on July 25.

Legislators in Congress and the state, who initially were denied access, were allowed to visit on July 12 but couldn’t speak to the detainees and access to the property was limited.

“Rural immigrant detention camps — 750 people in cages like animals — is un-American, and it should be shut down,” state Sen. Carlo Guillermo Smith said.

State and federal officials defend the conditions.

“All detainees are provided with proper meals, medical treatment, and have opportunities to communicate with their family members and lawyers,” Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin told NBC News last month. “Ensuring the safety, security, and well-being of individuals in our custody is a top priority.”

DeSantis has said the airport site, called the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Facility, won’t have any effect on the surrounding environment.

DeSantis and Noem have touted the location because it is in a relatively remote area and surrounded by swampland.

DeSantis utilized an emergency order in 2023 in response to Cuban and Haitian migrants arriving in the Florida Keys by boat, with the state offering to pay $20 million for the land.

Florida will seek reimbursement from the federal government for the $450 million yearly cost of running the facility, a senior Department of Homeland Security official told the Miami Herald.

County officials approve the use of the airstrip for immigrants.

The airstrip was envisioned to become an airport with construction to begin in 1968. Work was halted in 1970 because of environmental concerns, but not before one runway was finished. The runway was used for training flights.

The land later became Big Cyprus National Preserve, which encompasses 1,139 square miles. The preserve is north of Everglades National Park, which covers 2,356 square miles.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Environmental groups filed a federal lawsuit Friday to block a migrant detention center being built on an airstrip in the heart of the Florida Everglades.

The lawsuit seeks to halt the project until it undergoes a stringent environmental review as required by federal law. There is also supposed to be a chance for public comment, according to the lawsuit filed in Miami federal court.

The center dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz” by Gov. Ron DeSantis is set to begin processing people who entered the U.S. illegally as soon as next week, the governor said Friday on “Fox and Friends.”

The state is plowing ahead with building a compound of heavy-duty tents, trailers and other temporary buildings at the Miami-Dade County-owned airfield in the Big Cypress National Preserve, about 45 miles west of downtown Miami.

The lawsuit names several federal and state agencies as defendants.

Payne and Anderson write for the Associated Press.

June 24 (UPI) — The European Union is set to amend its current ethical supply chain rules after its ambassadors endorsed a simplification bill from the Council of the EU.

“Today we delivered on our promise to simplify EU laws,” said EU Minister of Poland Adam Szlapka in a press release Monday. “We are taking a decisive step towards our common goal to create a more favorable business environment to help our companies grow, innovate, and create quality jobs.”

The bill would impact current environmental laws with the intention of shrinking the regulatory pressures on businesses in order to juice up the EU’s economy.

Two such green rules are the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. These currently insist that all the companies that do business in the EU and have at least 1,000 employees report their environmental effects. The bill would increase the employee threshold that forces a company to comply up to 5,000 employees.

Currently, the CSRD and CSDDD also require companies that make at least approximately $522 million in net turnover to monitor their supply chains for environmental and human rights violations. The bill would raise that starting bar to about $1.7 billion.

The release said the regulations were being loosened based on the concept that larger companies “are best equipped to absorb the costs and burdens of due diligence processes.”

The bill would also limit the obligation required for companies to adopt a transition plan to deal with climate change. It would give the EU Council authority to advise companies on how to create and execute such plans.

The Council could then give companies up to two years to implement those plans in order to “further reduce burdens and provide companies with sufficient time for adequate preparations.”

If adopted, less than 1,000 companies would be affected by the CSRD, down from the nearly 50,000 companies that currently must comply.

However, should Omnibus pass, there could be legal challenges. The nonprofit ClientEarth Europe environmental organization posted to X Tuesday that “The Omnibus is fueling legal uncertainty and might breach the law too.”

“A new legal analysis warns of the risk of future legal challenges if the Omnibus is passed into law,” the post continued. “The agreement reached by the EU Council last night heightens these risks by further undermining the [CSDDD].

Reporting from Washington — President Trump stepped up his attack on federal environmental protections Tuesday, issuing an order directing his administration to begin the long process of rolling back sweeping clean water rules that were enacted by his predecessor.

The order directing the Environmental Protection Agency to set about dismantling the Waters of the United States rule takes aim at one of President Obama’s signature environmental legacies, a far-reaching anti-pollution effort that expanded the authority of regulators over the nation’s waterways and wetlands.

The contentious rule had been fought for years by farmers, ranchers, real estate developers and others, who complained it invited heavy-handed bureaucrats to burden their businesses with onerous restrictions and fines for minor violations.

Obama’s EPA argued that such claims were exaggerated and misrepresented the realities of the enforcement process of a rule that promised to create substantially cleaner waterways, and with them healthier habitats for threatened species of wildlife.

The directive to undo the clean water initiative is expected to be closely followed by another aimed at unraveling the Obama administration’s ambitious plan to fight climate change by curbing power plant emissions.

“It is such a horrible, horrible rule,” Trump said as he signed the directive Tuesday aimed at the water rules. “It has such a nice name, but everything about it is bad.” He declared the rule, championed by environmental groups to give the EPA broad authority over nearly two-thirds of the waterways in the nation, “one of the worst examples of federal regulation” and “a massive power grab.”

While the executive orders are a clear sign of the new administration’s distaste for some of the highest profile federal environmental rules, they also reflect the challenge it faces in erasing them. Both the climate and the clean water rules were enacted only after a long and tedious process of public hearings, scientific analysis and bureaucratic review. That entire process must be revisited before they can be weakened. It could take years.

And environmental groups will be mobilized to fight every step of the way. “These wetland protections help ensure that over 100 million Americans have access to clean and safe drinking water,” California billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer said in a statement. “Access to safe drinking water is a human right, and Trump’s order is a direct violation of this right.”

The executive orders are compounded by the administration’s release of a budget blueprint that includes deep cuts at the EPA. Even if the process of changing the environmental rules is slow, the Trump administration will aim to hasten their demise by hollowing out the agencies charged with enforcing them.

At the same time, it is working with Congress to immediately kill some environmental protections under an obscure authority that applies to regulations enacted within the final months of the previous administration. A rule intended to limit water pollution from coal mining has already been killed by Congress, which is now weighing whether to jettison rules that force gas drilling operations on federal land to capture more of the toxic methane they emit.

Trump vowed Tuesday that he would continue to undermine the Obama-era environmental protections wherever he sees the opportunity, arguing they have cost jobs. “So many jobs we have delayed for so many years,” Trump said. “It is unfair to everybody.”

Many industries take issue with that interpretation. Tuesday’s order, for example, was met with a swift rebuke from sport fishing and hunting groups. They said the clean water rule has been a boon to the economy, sustaining hundreds of thousands of jobs in their industry.

“Sports men and women will do everything within their power to compel the administration to change course and to use the Clean Water Act to improve, not worsen, the nation’s waterways,” a statement from a half-dozen of the organizations said.

[email protected]

Follow me: @evanhalper

ALSO

Trump is set to tell a joint session of Congress about the ‘mess’ he says he inherited

Russia breaks with Trump in U.N. veto over Syria chemical arms

Trump says he’ll keep his promises. Here are some of his biggest from the campaign

When a landmark state environmental law threatened to halt enrollment at UC Berkeley, legislators stepped in and wrote an exemption. When the Sacramento Kings were about to leave town, lawmakers brushed the environmental rules aside for the team’s new arena. When the law stymied the renovation of the state Capitol, they acted once again.

Lawmakers’ willingness to poke holes in the California Environmental Quality Act for specific projects without overhauling the law in general has led commentators to describe the changes as “Swiss cheese CEQA.”

Now, after years of nibbling at it, Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature are going in with the knives.

Two proposals have advanced rapidly through the Legislature: one to wipe away the law for most urban housing developments, the other to weaken the rules for most everything else. Legal experts say the efforts would be the most profound changes to CEQA in generations. Newsom not only endorsed the bills last month, but also put them on a fast track to approval by proposing their passage as part of the state budget, which bypasses normal committee hearings and means they could become law within weeks.

“This is the biggest opportunity to do something big and bold, and the only impediment is us,” Newsom said when announcing his support for the legislation.

Nearly the entire 55-year history of the California Environmental Quality Act has featured dueling narratives about its effects. On its face the law is simple: It requires proponents to disclose and, if possible, lessen the environmental effects of a project. In practice, this has led to tomes of environmental impact reports, including volumes of soil testing and traffic modeling studies, and sometimes years of disputes in court. Many credit CEQA for helping preserve the state’s scenic vistas and waterways while others decry its ability to thwart housing and infrastructure projects, including the long-delayed and budget-busting high-speed rail.

On the latter point, evidence supports both sides of the argument. One study by UC Berkeley law professors found that fewer than 3% of housing projects in many big cities across the state over a three-year period faced any litigation. But some contend that the threat of a lawsuit is enough to chill development, and examples continue to pile up of CEQA stalling construction of homeless shelters, a food bank and child-care center.

What’s clear is that CEQA has become embedded as a key point of leverage in California’s development process. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass once recalled that when she worked as a community organizer in the 1990s, Westside land-use attorneys who were successful in stopping development in their communities taught her how to use CEQA to block liquor stores in South L.A.

Organized labor learned to use the law to its advantage and became one of its most ardent supporters, alongside environmentalists — major constituencies within Democratic politics in the state. Besides carve-outs for individual projects in recent years, lawmakers have passed CEQA streamlining for certain kinds of housing and other developments. These fast-track measures can be used only if proponents agree to pay higher wages to construction workers or set aside a portion of the project for low-income housing on land considered the least environmentally sensitive.

Labor groups’ argument is simple, said Pete Rodriguez, vice president-Western District of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners: CEQA exemptions save time and money for developers, so some benefit should go to workers.

“When you expedite the process and you let a developer get the TSA pass, for example, to get quicker through the line at the airport, there should be labor standards attached to that as well,” Rodriguez said at a Los Angeles Business Council panel in April.

The two bills now under debate — Assembly Bill 609 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) and Senate Bill 607 by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) — break with that tradition. They propose broad CEQA changes without any labor or other requirements.

Wicks’ bill would exempt most urban housing developments from CEQA. Wiener’s legislation, among other provisions, would in effect lessen the number of projects, housing and otherwise, that would need to complete a full environmental review, narrowing the law’s scope.

“Both are much, much more far-reaching than anything that has been proposed in living memory to deal with CEQA,” said Chris Elmendorf, a UC Davis law professor who tracks state environmental and housing legislation.

The legislation wouldn’t have much of an effect on rebuilding after L.A.’s wildfires, as single-family home construction is exempt and Newsom already waived other parts of the law by executive order.

The environment inside and outside the Legislature has become friendlier to more aggressive proposals. “Abundance,” a recent book co-written by New York Times opinion writer Ezra Klein, makes the case that CEQA and other laws supported by Democrats have hamstrung the ability to build housing and critical infrastructure projects, citing specifically California’s affordability crisis and challenges with high-speed rail, in ways that have stifled the American Dream and the party’s political fortunes.

The idea has become a cause celebre in certain circles. Newsom invited Klein onto his podcast. This spring, Klein met with Wicks and Wiener and other lawmakers, including Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) and Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg), the leaders of the state Assembly and Senate, respectively.

Wicks and Wiener are veteran legislators and former chairs of legislative housing committees who have written much of the prior CEQA streamlining legislation. Even though it took bruising battles to pass previous bills, the resulting production hasn’t come close to resolving the state’s shortage, Wicks said.

“We need housing on a massive scale,” Wicks said.

To opponents of the bills, including dozens of environmental and labor groups, the effort misplaces the source of building woes and instead would restrict one of the few ways community groups can shape development.

Asha Sharma, state policy manager for Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability, said her organization uses CEQA to reduce the polluting effects of projects in neighborhoods already overburdened by environmental problems.

The proposed changes would empower public agencies and developers at the expense of those who would be affected by their decisions, she said.

“What folks aren’t realizing is that along with the environmental regulations comes a lot of public transparency and public engagement,” said Sharma, whose group advocates for low-income Californians in rural areas. “When you’re rolling back CEQA, you’re rolling back that too.”

Because of the hefty push behind the legislation, Sharma expects the bills will be approved in some form. But it remains uncertain how they might change. Newsom, the two lawmakers and legislative leaders are negotiating amendments.

Wicks said her bill will not require developers to reserve part of their projects for low-income housing to receive a CEQA exemption; cities can mandate that on their own, she said. Wicks indicated, however, that labor standards could be part of a final deal, saying she’s “had some conversations in that regard.”

Wiener’s bill was gutted in a legislative fiscal committee last month, with lawmakers saying they wanted to meet infrastructure and affordability needs “without compromising environmental protections.” Afterward, Wiener and McGuire, the Senate leader, released a joint statement declaring their intent to pass a version of the legislation as part of the budget, as the governor had proposed.

Wiener remained committed to the principles in his initial bill.

“What I can say is that I’m highly optimistic that we will pass strong changes to CEQA that will make it easier and faster to deliver all of the good things that make Californians’ lives better and more affordable,” Wiener said.

Should the language in the final deal be anything like what’s been discussed, the changes to CEQA would be substantial, said Ethan Elkind, director of the climate program at UC Berkeley’s Center for Law, Energy & the Environment. Still, he said the law’s effects on housing development were overblown. Many other issues, such as local zoning restrictions, lack of funding and misaligned tax incentives, play a much larger role in limiting construction long before projects can even get to the point where CEQA becomes a concern, he said.

“CEQA is the last resort of a NIMBY,” said Elkind, referring to residents who try to block housing near them. “It’s almost like we’re working backwards here.”

Wicks agreed that the Legislature would have to do more to strip away regulations that make it harder to build housing. But she argued that the CEQA changes would take away a major barrier: the uncertainty developers face from legal threats.

Passing major CEQA reforms would demonstrate lawmakers’ willingness to tackle some of the state’s toughest challenges, she said.

“It sends a signal to the world that we’re ready to build,” Wicks said.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday sharply limited the reach of environmental impact statements in a victory for developers.

The justices said these claims of the potential impact on the environment have been used too often to delay or block new projects.

“A 1970 legislative acorn has grown over the years into a judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development under the guise of just a little more process. A course correction of sorts is appropriate,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, speaking for the court.

He said procedural law has given judges and environmentalists too much authority to hinder or prevent development, he said.

“Fewer projects make it to the finish line. Indeed, fewer projects make it to the starting line. Those that survive often end up costing much more than is anticipated or necessary,” he said. “And that in turn means fewer and more expensive railroads, airports, wind turbines, transmission lines, dams, housing developments, highways, bridges, subways, stadiums, arenas, data centers, and the like. And that also means fewer jobs, as new projects become difficult to finance and build in a timely fashion.”

In a unanimous decision, the high court ruled for the developers of a proposed 88-mile railroad in northeastern Utah which could carry crude oil that would be refined along the Gulf Coast.

In blocking the proposal, judges had cited its potential to spur more drilling for oil in Utah and more pollution along the Gulf Coast.

Farmers demonstrate against changes to legislation that would ease restrictions on pesticide and water use in farming.

French farmers have disrupted highway traffic around Paris and rallied in front of parliament to protest against amendments filed by opposition lawmakers to a bill that would loosen environmental regulations on farming.

Members of France’s leading farming union, the FNSEA, parked about 10 tractors outside the National Assembly on Monday to put pressure on MPs, who began debating the legislation in the afternoon.

The legislation, tabled by far-right MP Laurent Duplomb, proposes simplifying approvals for breeding facilities, loosening restrictions around water use to promote irrigation reservoirs and reauthorising a banned neonicotinoid pesticide used in sugar beet cultivation that environmentalists say is harmful to bees.

The proposed law is part of a wider trend in numerous European Union states to unwind environmental legislation as farmers grapple with rising costs and households struggle with the cost-of-living crisis.

More than 150 farmers from the Ile-de-France, Grand Est and Provence-Alpes-Cote d’Azur regions gathered peacefully in front of the National Assembly, drinking coffee and eating croissants, after blocking the main roads around the capital.

“This bill to lift the constraints on the farming profession is very important to us,” FNSEA Secretary-General Herve Lapie told the AFP news agency.

“What we are asking for is simply to be able to work in a European environment: a single market, a single set of rules. We’ve been fighting for this for 20 years. For once, there’s a bill along these lines. … We don’t have the patience to wait any longer.”

The FNSEA and its allies say the neonicotinoid pesticide acetamiprid, which has been prohibited in France since 2018 due to environmental and health concerns, should be authorised in France like it is across the EU because it is less toxic to wildlife than other neonicotinoids and stops crops from being ravaged by pests.

Environmental campaigners and some unions representing small-scale and organic farmers say the bill benefits the large-scale agriculture industry at the expense of independent operators.

President Emmanuel Macron’s opponents on the political left have proposed multiple amendments that the protesting farmers said threatened the bill.

“We’re asking the lawmakers, our lawmakers, to be serious and vote for it as it stands,” Julien Thierry, a grain farmer from the Yvelines department outside Paris, told The Associated Press news agency, criticising politicians from the Greens and left-wing France Unbowed (LFI).

Ecologists party MP Delphine Batho said the text of the bill is “Trump-inspired” while LFI MP Aurelie Trouve wrote in an article for the French daily Le Monde that it signified “a political capitulation, one that marks an ecological junction”.

FNSEA chief Arnaud Rousseau said protests would continue until Wednesday with farmers from the Centre-Val de Loire and Hauts-de-France regions expected to join their colleagues.

Protests are also expected in Brussels next week, targeting the EU’s environmental regulations and green policies.

Farmers across France and Europe won concessions last year after railing against cheap foreign competition and what they say are unnecessary regulations.

Kenya’s role in global environmental diplomacy is becoming more important than ever. Now that climate change is having the harshest effect on vulnerable countries, Kenya has had its share of opportunity to make its environmental work a kind of soft power—both to safeguard its ecosystems and to improve its reputation abroad. Although Kenya may not be the most industrialized or the most economically developed country, it somehow has become a respected voice in global environmental talks. This isn’t by accident. It’s the fruit of decades of struggle for conservation, international partnership in promotion of conservation works, and recognition of the fact that environmental policy can also be utilized to fund foreign policies.

Kenya has a reputation for great natural beauty. From the savannah of the Maasai Mara to the Aberdare Forest, the country is a homeland to some of the world’s most iconic wildlife and ecosystems. Kenya isn’t just a safari destination, though; it’s also one of the countries that has genuinely done its best to protect the environment. This goes back decades. When the U.N. decided to build its global environmental headquarters, it settled on Nairobi. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) still lies there — an extraordinary tribute and a prestigious mark of Kenya’s old environmental credibility. What is so special about Kenya is not the biodiversity itself, but the fact that this state considers it to increase its influence and to earn international goodwill. Put differently, besides serving the conventional diplomacy purposes of Kenya, environmental diplomacy also plays a part in the promotion of public diplomacy, namely, as a device for demonstrating the country to other nations as responsible, peaceful, and willing to cooperate on a global scale. Through sustainable development, conservation, and climate justice, by so doing Kenya is not just making a policy statement; it is very deliberately forming views of itself held by other countries and the international institutions.

Over the recent years, this strategy has become more welcomed by the recently elected presidents of Kenya. For instance, President William Ruto has made it obvious that green growth and environmental protection are at the heart of Kenya’s future. He has attended climate conferences such as COP27 and put Kenya in pole position on renewable energy and adaptation to climate change. Already, the country produces more than three-quarters of the electricity from clean sources such as geothermal, wind, and hydropower—a feat very few rich countries can achieve. This clean energy record enables Kenya to talk the talk and walk the walk on its quest to have other countries act on climate. It is in doing this that Kenya will not only enlarge their voice in climate talks but also build confidence from other nations. This is at the heart of its public diplomacy: presenting to the world that it is behaving in good faith and assuming responsibility towards its future and towards the planet’s future. Environmental diplomacy becomes a space for dialogue and trust development and international recognition. It gives Kenya an opportunity to shape policy but still draw investment, tourists, and partnerships.

Simultaneously, Kenya is doing its best to save its environment from the worst consequences of climate change. The country records regular occurrences of drought, floods, and other extreme weather patterns affecting farming, driving people from their homes, and jeopardizing wildlife. In response, Kenya has launched efforts like national tree-planting campaigns, water conservation projects, and climate-smart farming. These actions not only create domestic resilience but also enhance Kenya’s credibility once talks on global standards begin. If a country talks the talk at home, it receives greater respect in the international arena.

One of the most visible examples of Kenya’s environmental diplomacy influencing others was the hosting of the Africa Climate Summit in 2023. Held in Nairobi, the summit gathered several African leaders to harmonize their climate policies and speak as one voice. The issued Nairobi declaration demanded immediate global reforms on climate finance and on the sharing of technologies. Kenya took advantage of this chance to not only determine continental climate action but also use the platform to present itself as a convening power and thought leader on climate policy. Other countries, such as Ethiopia, Rwanda, and South Africa, associated themselves with Kenya, thus showing that environmental diplomacy can lift a country’s regional floor.

Kenya has received massive green investment in the form of partnerships with countries such as Germany and members of the European Union. Among the major green investments is major renewable energy like the Lake Turkana Wind Power Plant. Germany has acknowledged Kenya’s initiative positively; it has provided the latter with technical and financial support to shift towards the use of cleaner energy. Kenya, at the same time, also succeeded in guiding Chinese investment to greener practices. For example, although there are concerns about the environment concerning the Standard Gauge Railway project, Kenya insists on environmental assessments and green standards so that China’s infrastructural deals are more climate aware. Kenya’s relationship with the United States has also been enhanced through cooperation in the environment. The U.S., via USAID and other bodies, has supported initiatives covering such areas as wildlife conservation, clean energy, and even climate-smart agriculture. This environmental partnership has enhanced Kenya’s image as a reliable friend in East Africa; they have opened more diplomatic and economic doors.

Kenya’s environmental credibility makes bridges for it both to the Western countries and also to the Global South. Through the active promotion of climate justice, particularly at times of significant climate confabulations such as COP27, Kenya has become a voice for the rest of the developing countries that suffer the effects of climate on them. This was evident in Kenya’s support for the establishment of a “Loss and Damage” fund that compensates the vulnerable countries—a call that was later adopted. Kenya is also diversifying its external cooperation from the traditional Western powers. It is collaborating with countries like India and Brazil and other emerging economies to jointly develop green economies. This spreads out Kenya’s alternatives, enhances its diplomatic clout, and argues for a more multipolar cooperation in climate leadership. Once more, this fits into its public diplomacy, as that makes Kenya a welcoming and collaborating nation ready to collaborate with many partners towards common environmental interests. Finally, Kenya’s environmental diplomacy is not only about savages from forests but also about wildlife and carbon emission cutting—it is all about the influence.

Kenya has managed to turn around its environmental activities into instruments of foreign policy and public diplomacy. Involving heavy nations such as Germany, China, the U.S., and Africa’s regional partners, Kenya is defining how other governments see climate justice, clean energy, and sustainable development. It is fighting for global reforms, setting the examples, organizing major summits, and appealing for justice on behalf of developing nations. Kenya’s green leadership is not only doing its environment good; it is a calculated policy to shape global discussions, draw other nations to its angle on climate, and gain respect, confidence, and collaboration in the world. In a nutshell, Kenya’s environmental diplomacy is about transforming the international agenda and (not by force but rather by the values, vision, and responsibility) demonstrating that even the midsized African nation can lead the world.

Throughout his 2024 campaign for president, Donald Trump strongly and repeatedly denied any connection to Project 2025, the political platform document authored by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C.

“I have nothing to do with Project 2025,” Trump said during a debate with former Vice President Kamala Harris last September. He said he had not read the document, nor did he intend to.

Yet less than six months into his second stay in the White House, the president and his administration have initiated or completed 42% of Project 2025’s agenda, according to a tracking project that identified more than 300 specific action items in the 922-page document. The Project 2025 Tracker is run by two volunteers who “believe in the importance of transparent, detailed analysis,” according to its website.

Of all the action items, nearly a quarter are related to the environment through agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Forest Service, and the departments of the Interior, Commerce, and Energy. Further, it seems the environment is a high priority for the Trump administration, which has initiated or completed about 70% of Project 2025’s environmental agenda — or roughly two-thirds — according to a Times analysis of the tracked items.

That includes Project 2025 action items like rolling back air and water quality regulations; canceling funds for clean energy projects and environmental justice grants; laying off scientists and researchers in related fields; and withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord, an agreement among nearly 200 countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions driving global warming.

When asked about this overlap, the administration continued to downplay any connection between the president and Project 2025.

“No one cared about Project 2025 when they elected President Trump in November 2024, and they don’t care now,” White House spokesman Taylor Rogers said in an email. “President Trump is implementing the America First agenda he campaigned on to free up wasteful DEI spending for cutting-edge scientific research, roll back radical climate regulations, and restore America’s energy dominance while ensuring Americans have clean air and clean water.”

Project 2025 refers to climate change as an “alarm industry” used to support a radical left ideology and agenda.

“Mischaracterizing the state of our environment generally and the actual harms reasonably attributable to climate change specifically is a favored tool that the Left uses to scare the American public into accepting their ineffective, liberty-crushing regulations, diminished private property rights, and exorbitant costs,” it says in a chapter about the EPA.

The author of that chapter, Mandy Gunasekara, served as the EPA’s chief of staff during Trump’s first administration. In the document, she recommends that the president undertake a number of actions to reform the EPA, including downsizing the agency, eliminating its Office of Environmental Justice and Civil Rights, and instituting a pause and review of grants — all of which Trump has done.

That same chapter also recommends that the president undermine California’s ability to set strict vehicle emission standards, which Trump vowed to do shortly after taking office; the Senate this week voted to revoke California’s rights to enact policy on the issue.

Gunasekara did not respond to a request for comment.

Matthew Sanders, acting deputy director of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford, said these and other Project 2025-mandated moves could have far-reaching ramifications. He noted that 11 other states had chosen to follow California’s emission rules.

“What California does impacts what the rest of the nation does,” Sanders said. “In that sense … decisions about how to effectuate the Clean Air Act mandates are technology-forcing for much of the nation, and isolating California and eliminating its ability to do that will have profound consequences.”

The EPA isn’t the only agency affected by environmental policy changes mirrored in Project 2025.

The Trump administration has also directed the Department of Energy to expand oil and gas leasing in Alaska, eliminate considerations for upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions, and expedite the approval of liquefied natural gas projects, all of which were recommendations outlined in the document.

The Interior Department, which oversees U.S. national parks and public lands, has seen rollbacks of at least a dozen of President Biden’s executive orders that prioritized addressing climate change, as well as the termination of a Biden-era policy to protect 30% of U.S. land and water by 2030, also known as the 30×30 plan.

In April, Trump issued an executive order opening up 112.5 million acres of national forestland to industrial logging, as outlined on page 308 of Project 2025. The president said the move — which will touch all 18 of California’s national forests — is intended to increase domestic timber supplies, reduce wildfire risk and create jobs.

Sanders said actions on public lands are particularly consequential, not only for the extraction of resources but also for protected species and their habitats. The president has already taken Project 2025-mandated steps to lessen protections for marine life and birds, and has called for narrowing protections afforded by the Endangered Species Act.

He also expressed concern about Trump’s Jan. 20 proposal to revise or rescind National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations that require federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their actions — a step recommended on page 60 of Project 2025.

While the president described NEPA and other rules as “burdensome and ideologically motivated regulations” that limit American jobs and stymie economic growth, Sanders said such framing is an oversimplification that can make the environment a scapegoat for other administrative goals.

“When we make these decisions in a thoughtful, careful, deliberate way, we actually can have jobs and economic development and environmental protection,” he said. “ I don’t think that those things are inherently opposed, but the administration, I think, gets some mileage out of suggesting that they are.”

Indeed, the Commerce Department, which houses the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service and other climate-related entities, has also seen changes that follow Project 2025’s playbook. The document describes the agency as “one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as such, is harmful to future U.S. prosperity.”

In recent months, the president has made moves to “break up” NOAA — a directive also found on page 674 of the Project 2025 document — including laying off hundreds of staffers, closing several offices and proposing significant cuts to its research arm.

The administration has similarly taken Project 2025-recommended steps to shift disaster relief responsibilities away from the federal government and onto the states; loosen energy efficiency standards for appliances; and rescind USAID policies that address climate change and help countries transition away from fossil fuels, among others.

These are some of nearly 70 environmental action items identified in the Project 2025 Tracker, of which 47 are already completed or in progress less than 150 days into President Trump’s second term.

Tracking the administration’s progress is a somewhat subjective process, in part because many of the directives have come through executive orders or require multiple steps to complete. Additionally, many goals outlined in Project 2025 are indirect or implied and therefore not included in the tracker, according to Adrienne Cobb, one of its creators.

Cobb told The Times she read through the entire document and extracted only “explicit calls to action, or recommendations where the authors clearly state that something should be done.”

“My goal was for the tracker to reflect the authors’ intentions using their own words wherever possible,” she said. “By focusing on direct language and actionable items, I tried to create a list that’s accurate and accountable to the source material.”

Though the Trump administration continues to deny any connection to Project 2025, the creators of the massive tome were always clear about their presidential intentions.

“This volume — the Conservative Promise — is the opening salvo of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project,” Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts wrote in its forward. “Its 30 chapters lay out hundreds of clear and concrete policy recommendations for White House offices, Cabinet departments, Congress, and agencies, commissions, and boards.”