Two weeks before Brazil hosts the COP30 summit in the Amazon city of Belém, its state-run oil firm Petrobras has been granted a licence to explore for oil in an offshore block in the mouth of the Amazon River, a move criticised by campaigners as undermining the country’s climate leadership.
After five years of discussions, Brazil’s government approved an environmental permit for Petrobras to drill an exploratory oil well in block FZA-M-59 in the Foz do Amazonas Basin, in Amapá state.
The offshore site is 540 kilometres from the mouth of the Amazon River, near the border with Guyana. As Climate Home News previously reported, almost 20% – 5.3 billion barrels of oil equivalent – of global oil reserves identified between 2022 and 2024 are located in the Amazon, primarily along South America’s northern coast between Guyana and Suriname.
-
At pre-COP in Brazil, climate finance roadmap to $1.3 trillion remains hazy
Ahead of COP30, Azerbaijan and Brazil provide scant details about a keenly awaited report on how to scale up finance for developing countries -
Global South campaigners question inclusivity of COP30 as some stay home
Civil society groups hoped to send large numbers to the UN climate talks in Brazil, but developing-country activists say it’s too expensive and they have received limited badges -
COP30 president hints Brazil may be open to a cover decision in Belém
André Corrêa do Lago tells Climate Home News the COP30 talks could conclude with an additional text on key outcomes if countries want it – something Brazil has so far resisted
The licence for block FZA-M-59 was earlier denied in 2023, when experts at environmental agency Ibama concluded that Petrobras had failed to present a solid impact mitigation and emergency response plan. But after the company made adjustments, it said on Monday it had been given permission to proceed.
The company said the drilling is expected to start right away and last around five months, adding that no oil will be produced for now.
Observatório do Clima, a coalition of Brazilian climate groups, said it is planning to challenge the decision in court and “denounce the illegalities and technical failures in the licensing process” in a bid to render the licence null and void.
Suely Araújo, the network’s coordinator of public policies, described the issuance of the license as “a double sabotage”.
“On the one hand, the Brazilian government acts against humanity by stimulating further fossil expansion, contradicting science and betting on more global warming. On the other hand, it hinders COP30 itself, whose most important delivery needs to be the implementation of the determination to phase out fossil fuels,” she said.
Ilan Zugman, Latin America and Caribbean Director at climate campaign 350.org, said that “authorising new oil licenses in the Amazon is not just a historic mistake – it’s doubling down on a model that has already failed”, adding that it produces profits for a few but can bring violence for locals.
“Brazil must take real climate leadership and break the cycle of extraction that has led us to the current climate crisis,” he said.
Brazilian energy ministry defends decision
Announcing the decision to grant the licence, Brazil’s Minister of Mines and Energy Alexandre Silveira said the oil in the Equatorial Margin region “represents the future of our energy sovereignty”.
He said Brazil had made “a firm and technical defence” to ensure that exploitation “is done with full environmental responsibility, within the highest international standards, and with concrete benefits for Brazilians and Brazilians”.
The Amazon rainforest emerges as the new global oil frontier
The ministry said in a press release that the FZA-M-59 block “has the potential to open a new exploratory frontier”, with the activity expected to generate more than 300,000 direct and indirect jobs, strengthen the local economy and boost royalty revenues.
Silveira also argued that Brazil’s oil “is one of the most sustainable in the world, with one of the smallest carbon footprints per barrel produced”, ahead of countries such as Canada, the UK and Russia.
ICJ warns on state support for fossil fuels
Campaigners said that the decision goes against recent rulings by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which reinforce countries’ commitments to protect the climate.
In a landmark advisory opinion issue in July, the ICJ mentioned granting fossil fuel exploration licenses as one example of state policies that could constitute “an internationally wrongful act”.
The International Energy Agency, meanwhile, has said that no new fossil fuel projects are needed if global emissions are to fall to net zero by 2050 in line with limiting warming to 1.5C, as governments said they would aim to do under the Paris Agreement.
Carlos Nobre, co-chair of the Amazon Scientific Panel, warned that ignoring such advice could see global warming hit 2C, threatening to push the Amazon rainforest across an irreversible tipping point.
“Beyond eliminating all deforestation, degradation and fires in the Amazon, it is urgent to reduce all fossil fuel emissions. There is no justification for any new oil exploration. On the contrary, rapidly phasing out existing fossil fuel operations is essential,” he said.
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Brazil’s president, backs oil exploration in the country – already the world’s eighth-largest producer – arguing that the profits could be used to finance the transition to clean energy. “I dream of a day when we no longer need fossil fuels, but that day is still far away. Humanity will depend on them for a long time,” he said in a speech back in February in Pará, the state that will host COP30.
After the licence was approved, Clara Junger, campaign coordinator for Brazil at the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, refuted Lula’s perspective. “This decision undermines commitments to the energy transition and puts communities, ecosystems, and the planet at risk. Contrary to official claims, oil revenues contribute almost nothing to the transition – only 0.06%,” she said in a statement.
Banks pour billions into Amazon oil and gas
Back in 2023, at COP28 in Dubai, countries agreed to “transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems”. Earlier this year, Brazil’s Environment Minister Marina Silva suggested COP30 could result in a roadmap to guide a “planned and just transition” to end fossil fuels, although there has been little advance since.
Livia Duarte, a congresswoman from Pará State, said a global agreement to phase out fossil fuels is needed, especially in the Amazon. “Corporate profit should never take precedence over life on the planet. Granting a license in Block FZA-M-59, in the Amazon River estuary basin, is a dangerous choice for Brazil,” she added.
On Tuesday, new data published in the Banks vs. the Amazon scorecard, showed that Brazilian and international banks have extended an additional $2 billion in direct financing for Amazon oil and gas projects – including to Petrobras – since the beginning of 2024.
In a statement, green group Stand.earth said that by financing these projects, “banks are fuelling both the climate crisis and the destruction of the Amazon, instead of backing the just energy transition urgently needed”. It called on them to implement Amazon oil and gas financing exclusion policies to protect Indigenous communities and “help avert Amazon’s imminent tipping point”.
The post Ahead of COP30, Brazil grants Petrobras a licence to drill for oil in Amazon region appeared first on Climate Home News.
Ahead of COP30, Brazil grants Petrobras a licence to drill for oil in Amazon region
The case shows that climate change is a fundamental human rights violation—and the victory of Bonaire, a Dutch territory, could open the door for similar lawsuits globally.
From our collaborating partner Living on Earth, public radio’s environmental news magazine, an interview by Paloma Beltran with Greenpeace Netherlands campaigner Eefje de Kroon.
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Climate Change
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
SYDNEY, Saturday 28 February 2026 — Greenpeace International and Greenpeace organisations in the US announce they will seek a new trial and, if necessary, appeal the decision with the North Dakota Supreme Court following a North Dakota District Court judgment today awarding Energy Transfer (ET) USD $345 million.
ET’s SLAPP suit remains a blatant attempt to silence free speech, erase Indigenous leadership of the Standing Rock movement, and punish solidarity with peaceful resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace International will also continue to seek damages for ET’s bullying lawsuits under EU anti-SLAPP legislation in the Netherlands.
Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International Executive Director said: “Energy Transfer’s attempts to silence us are failing. Greenpeace International will continue to resist intimidation tactics. We will not be silenced. We will only get louder, joining our voices to those of our allies all around the world against the corporate polluters and billionaire oligarchs who prioritise profits over people and the planet.
“With hard-won freedoms under threat and the climate crisis accelerating, the stakes of this legal fight couldn’t be higher. Through appeals in the US and Greenpeace International’s groundbreaking anti-SLAPP case in the Netherlands, we are exploring every option to hold Energy Transfer accountable for multiple abusive lawsuits and show all power-hungry bullies that their attacks will only result in a stronger people-powered movement.”
The Court’s final judgment today rejects some of the jury verdict delivered in March 2025, but still awards hundreds of millions of dollars to ET without a sound basis in law. The Greenpeace defendants will continue to press their arguments that the US Constitution does not allow liability here, that ET did not present evidence to support its claims, that the Court admitted inflammatory and irrelevant evidence at trial and excluded other evidence supporting the defense, and that the jury pool in Mandan could not be impartial.[1][2]
ET’s back-to-back lawsuits against Greenpeace International and the US organisations Greenpeace USA (Greenpeace Inc.) and Greenpeace Fund are clear-cut examples of SLAPPs — lawsuits attempting to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy and ultimately silence dissent.[3] Greenpeace International, which is based in the Netherlands, is pursuing justice in Europe, with a suit against ET under Dutch law and the European Union’s new anti-SLAPP directive, a landmark test of the new legislation which could help set a powerful precedent against corporate bullying.[4]
Kate Smolski, Program Director at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “This is part of a worrying trend globally: fossil fuel corporations are increasingly using litigation to attack and silence ordinary people and groups using the law to challenge their polluting operations — and we’re not immune to these tactics here in Australia.
“Rulings like this have a chilling effect on democracy and public interest litigation — we must unite against these silencing tactics as bad for Australians and bad for our democracy. Our movement is stronger than any corporate bully, and grows even stronger when under attack.”
Energy Transfer’s SLAPPs are part of a wave of abusive lawsuits filed by Big Oil companies like Shell, Total, and ENI against Greenpeace entities in recent years.[3] A couple of these cases have been successfully stopped in their tracks. This includes Greenpeace France successfully defeating TotalEnergies’ SLAPP on 28 March 2024, and Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International forcing Shell to back down from its SLAPP on 10 December 2024.
-ENDS-
Images available in Greenpeace Media Library
Notes:
[1] The judgment entered by North Dakota District Court Judge Gion follows a jury verdict finding Greenpeace entities liable for more than US$660 million on March 19, 2025. Judge Gion subsequently threw out several items from the jury’s verdict, reducing the total damages to approximately US$345 million.
[2] Public statements from the independent Trial Monitoring Committee
[3] Energy Transfer’s first lawsuit was filed in federal court in 2017 under the RICO Act – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity. The case was dismissed in 2019, with the judge stating the evidence fell “far short” of what was needed to establish a RICO enterprise. The federal court did not decide on Energy Transfer’s claims based on state law, so Energy Transfer promptly filed a new case in a North Dakota state court with these and other state law claims.
[4] Greenpeace International sent a Notice of Liability to Energy Transfer on 23 July 2024, informing the pipeline giant of Greenpeace International’s intention to bring an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against the company in a Dutch Court. After Energy Transfer declined to accept liability on multiple occasions (September 2024, December 2024), Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive on 11 February 2025 by filing a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer. The case was officially registered in the docket of the Court of Amsterdam on 2 July, 2025. Greenpeace International seeks to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of Energy Transfers’s back-to-back, abusive lawsuits demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace organisations in the US. The next hearing in the Court of Amsterdam is scheduled for 16 April, 2026.
Media contact:
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
The Trump administration’s relentless rollback of public health and environmental protections has allowed widespread toxic exposures to flourish, warn experts who helped implement safeguards now under assault.
In a new report that outlines a dozen high-risk pollutants given new life thanks to weakened, delayed or rescinded regulations, the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group of hundreds of former Environmental Protection Agency staff, warns that the EPA under President Donald Trump has abandoned the agency’s core mission of protecting people and the environment from preventable toxic exposures.
Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
Renewable Energy Concepts Can’t Violate the Laws of Physics
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits