Head of Brazil's gas giant Petrobras criticized for 'drill, baby, drill!' comment about the Amazon
Magda Chambriard made the remarks Tuesday during the Offshore Technology Conference, in Houston. In a video obtained by the Brazilian newspaper Valor Economico and published Friday, Chambriard is seen addressing Clécio Luís, governor of the Amazonian state of Amapa, who was in the audience.
'We do believe we will have very good surprises once we have the (environmental) license to drill. So what one wants to say to Amapa is, 'Let's drill, baby, drill!'' Her comments prompted a round of applause, including from Luís.
Petrobras did not immediately respond to an email request for comment. The company confirmed the authenticity of the video, according to Valor Economico.
U.S. President Donald Trump has long used the phrase 'Drill, baby, drill!' in expressing support for increased oil exploration and production.
'The 'let's drill, baby' rhetoric may comfort industry leaders and short-sighted policymakers, but history will remember them as the ones who buried the 1.5 C goal,' said Natalie Unterstell, president of Talanoa, a climate policy think tank, referring to the internationally adopted aim to keep warming under 1.5 C since pre-industrial times.
Climate change is caused by the release of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. Oil, from exploration to its various uses, is a central driver of climate change.
Chambriard was appointed by Brazil's leftist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, whose environmental record in the Amazon is mixed. While he has curbed deforestation and championed the Amazonian city of Belem as the host of the U.N.'s COP30 climate summit in November, he also supports Petrobras's push to drill for offshore oil at the ecologically sensitive mouth of the Amazon River and other big projects that bring environmental impact to the world´s largest tropical forest.
Exploratory offshore drilling near the Amazon, whose reserves are unknown, is expected to draw scrutiny during the COP30 summit. A central push of the annual climate talks has been to reduce the use of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal.
___
The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
11 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Defends 'Weak Dollar,' Economic Analysts Respond
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump defended the weakening U.S. dollar during a conversation with reporters Friday. "Well, you know, I'm a person that likes a strong dollar, but a weak dollar makes you a hell of a lot more money," Trump said in a media Q&A. Newsweek spoke with financial experts about the matter. Why It Matters While the U.S. dollar gained ground Friday, it still set for a weekly drop amid ongoing tariff negotiations and The Fed's bank meeting scheduled for next week. This week marks the greatest drop in a month, with the dollar index standing at 97.448. That shows a 1 percent weekly decline, while the euro stayed at $1.1754, close to its four-year high of $1.183. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media as he departs the White House on July 15, 2025 in Washington, DC. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media as he departs the White House on July 15, 2025 in Washington, To Know During Trump's conversation with reporters, he defended the declining value of the U.S. dollar, arguing that there were actually some benefits to the currency losing value. "When we have a strong dollar, one thing happens," Trump said. "It sounds good, but you don't do any tourism.... You can't sell anything. It is good for inflation. That's about it." Trump went on to say the U.S. has wiped out inflation. "I will never say I like a low currency, but you remember the battles I China, with Japan... They always wanted a weak currency. They're trying to get a weak currency now." However, economists have warned that the weakening U.S. dollar is likely to spark a price hike on everyday items while also forcing U.S. travelers to pay more when abroad. "A weaker dollar does have certain benefits—particularly for multinational corporations and U.S. exporters. It makes American goods more competitive abroad and can boost earnings when foreign profits are converted back into dollars," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. "But let's be clear: the U.S. is a consumer-driven, import-heavy economy. A weaker dollar makes imports more expensive, which can drive inflation. So while there are benefits on the corporate side, it also hurts households by increasing the cost of everyday goods." Thompson also said Trump's comments on inflation were incorrect, as consumers are still facing price increases in many areas. "He's dead wrong," Thompson said. "We're still seeing elevated prices in areas like energy, particularly piped gas, and in household essentials. Food costs continue to climb, especially meat, and many families are seeing higher utility bills. Disinflation doesn't mean prices are falling—it just means they're rising more slowly, but they're still rising." In June, the consumer price index for all urban consumers climbed 0.3 percent, seasonally adjusted. Meanwhile, food was up 3 percent year-over-year, not seasonally adjusted. So far this year, the dollar has dropped more than 10 percent in value relative to foreign currencies from many of America's trading partners. Thompson said the U.S. dollar's weakness stems from a mix of concerns over U.S. fiscal policy. "Continued deficit spending and ballooning debt levels have led to questions about long-term economic stability. Since the dollar is the world's reserve currency, its strength is tied to global trust in our economy," Thompson said. Trump's ongoing tariff negotiations have also signaled alarm amongst some economists, who say that the heightened tariffs could be passed along by importers via higher prices. What People Are Saying Peter Schiff, chief economist and global strategist at wrote on X: "Trump said he wants a strong dollar but he also wants a weaker dollar. He says a strong dollar makes you feel better, but a weak dollar makes you richer. He also claimed he crushed inflation. His policies are highly inflationary. Trump's weak dollar dream will be a nightmare." Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "A weaker dollar can have some benefits, namely in the form of cheaper exports which can boost demand for our goods and services internationally. However, the cons can easily outweigh the pros. A weaker dollar equates to higher prices on many items for American consumers, particularly on imports." Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "Despite no rate cuts yet this year, the dollar has weakened due to shifting interest rate expectations and a broader macroeconomic backdrop. Historically, higher U.S. interest rates attract capital, strengthening the dollar—but even with relatively high rates, the dollar is off to one of its worst starts in decades." What Happens Next For everyday Americans, the declining U.S. dollar could continue to impact their wallets after years of inflationary pressures, experts say. "Inflationary pressures have already left a sizable dent in many Americans' wallets in the years since the pandemic. Further weakening of the dollar could just prolong this effect," Beene said.
New York Times
11 minutes ago
- New York Times
What does Trump's college sports executive order mean? Breaking down the impact
'President Donald J. Trump Saves College Sports.' If only it was that simple. The 176th executive order President Trump signed in the past seven months was announced Thursday with an audaciously headlined statement from the White House. We don't know how this will play out long term. But these are the key facts surrounding the executive order and the questions that need to be answered. Advertisement The NCAA has been under attack on numerous legal fronts for more than a decade, particularly when it comes to paying athletes. Its policy for decades was strict amateurism — any compensation athletes received beyond their scholarships would render them ineligible. The model began cracking through a series of antitrust cases brought by former athletes, most notably Alston vs. NCAA in 2021. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that schools must be allowed to provide additional academic awards. By then, states began passing legislation allowing athletes to earn money from their name, image and likeness — i.e. endorsement deals — in direct opposition to the NCAA's longstanding ban. On July 1, 2021, the NCAA relented and began allowing NIL payments, which touched off another antitrust case, House v. NCAA. A class of former athletes sued for back pay for missing out on NIL opportunities. The defendants agreed to a $2.8 billion settlement, part of which allows schools to pay athletes directly for the first time, up to $20.5 million. A judge approved the settlement on June 6, 2025. But the lack of an organized NIL system has led to chaos, with boosters exploiting the lack of enforcement. And with other legal challenges forcing the NCAA to eliminate its longstanding rules about transfers, athletes now routinely hop from one school to another in search of their next payday. Desperate for regulation, college sports leaders have been lobbying Congress for help in the form of a federal law for years, but not until recently has there been any significant movement on a bill. The order essentially makes recommendations for how college athletic departments should operate and directs several government agencies to weigh in on issues that will shape the future of college sports. It also delivers the NCAA and conferences much of what it has been lobbying for on Capitol Hill. Advertisement However, the order's ability to turn ideas into action is questionable. The order: Considering how much it falls in line with what college sports leaders have been asking for, it would be difficult to call it athlete-friendly. Yes, it tries to protect non-revenue programs and force schools to fund a wide-range of teams for athletes to participate in college sports, but limiting compensation by regulating NIL compensation and banning pay-for-play has been at the root of problems for decades. 'Looks like an NCAA press release,' said Marc Edelman, professor of sports law at Baruch College and antitrust expert who has been a critic of NCAA policies. Several ideas for student-athlete compensation have emerged over the years to help relegate the market, from collective bargaining agreements to defining student-athletes as university employees. Though how much athletes actually want those things is hard to say; with more than 190,000 athletes competing in Division I sports, gauging consensus is tricky. In the short term: no. In the long term: maybe. The biggest possible downside of the executive order is it could create more uncertainty for college sports, creating policies that may or may not hold. 'It very much depends on how this gets enforced moving forward, and whether it gets enforced moving forward,' said Sam Ehrlich, assistant professor at Boise State's college of business and economics. 'Maybe this could just end up being just a statement that goes absolutely nowhere.' It's not so much what an executive order can do as what it can't. It can't make a law, it can't provide an antitrust exemption and it can't override state laws. Congress can do that. And that's what college sports needs. Advertisement Any policies that come from an executive order can either be challenged in court and reversed by the next administration, which means college sports continues to operate under a blanket of uncertainty when it comes to defining the relationship between schools and athletes. That's exactly what college sports leaders are trying to stop. The executive branch does not have the authority to provide straightforward solutions to college sports' problems, most importantly some form of antitrust exemption. That has to come from Congress, and right now will require bipartisan support. The president's involvement could prioritize the issues in a way that motivates lawmakers to build on recent momentum in the Republican-controlled House, where a college sports bill made it out of committee for the first time earlier this week. Or maybe pervasive political divisiveness makes Democrats recoil from the idea of giving the president a symbolic victory. While the complicated problems facing college sports now are not quite a matter of life and death, it remains to be seen if presidential involvement makes finding solutions easier or harder. The SCORE Act is a House bill that would provide the NCAA and conferences some antitrust protection, pre-empt state laws related to NIL compensation and bolster the terms of the House settlement. The SCORE Act made it through two Republican-led House committees on partisan lines earlier this week. No college sports bill has ever gotten so far. When Congress returns for the fall session, the bill could go to the House floor for a vote and it will probably pass. That's meaningful and a positive sign for many in college sports after years of inaction by lawmakers. The bill also has little support from Democrats in the House and stands very little chance of making it through the Senate, where seven Democrats would have to vote with Republicans to get the 60 necessary to pass. Advertisement The debate over college sports legislation on Capitol Hill is akin to a labor dispute. Republicans, who currently control both chambers and the White House, are focused on ways to shield the NCAA and college sports conferences from litigation and state laws that make it impossible for them to effectively govern national competition. Democrats are demanding greater protections for the workers (the athletes) and are hesitant to provide the antitrust protections college sports leaders have been lobbying for. The NCAA and conferences want a law that would prevent college athletes from being deemed employees. Democrats want that option left open, along with athletes' rights to organize and maybe even join unions. The president's EO is the most significant and direct entry by the executive branch into college athletics since Teddy Roosevelt's calls for safety reforms in football led to the creation of the NCAA in 1906. Lyndon Johnson's executive order signed in 1967, led to the passage of the federal Title IX gender discrimination law, which has been credited with paving the way for an explosion of opportunities for women in college sports. The NCAA as a governing body is ceding power to conferences and the newly formed College Sports Commission. However, it played a pivotal role in lobbying for federal legislation and has been much better received by lawmakers since former Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker took over as NCAA president two years ago. The NCAA's future will ultimately be determined by college sports stakeholders, not politicians. The White House's announcement hailed Trump's long-held interest in college athletics, including preserving Olympic and women's sports amid the changing landscape. Until now, Trump's engagement with higher education has been adversarial, threatening federal funding and litigation against schools for Title IX violations or allegations of antisemitism and discrimination through the promotion of diversity at universities. Advertisement Trump came away from a meeting with former Alabama football coach Nick Saban in May motivated to get involved. The formation of a presidential commission led by Saban and billionaire oil businessman Cody Campbell, a former Texas Tech football player and current board chair, was considered then put on hold as lawmakers worked on legislative solutions.
Associated Press
11 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Democrats and advocates criticize Trump's executive order on homelessness
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Leading Democrats and advocates for the homeless are criticizing an executive order President Donald Trump signed this week aimed at removing homeless people from the streets, possibly by committing them for mental health or drug treatment without their consent. Trump directed some of his Cabinet heads to prioritize funding to cities that crack down on open drug use and street camping, with the goal of making people feel safer. It's not compassionate to do nothing, the order states. 'Shifting these individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment is the most proven way to restore public order,' the order reads. Homelessness has become a bigger problem in recent years as the cost of housing increased, especially in states such as California where there aren't enough homes to meet demand. At the same time, drug addiction and overdoses have soared with the availability of cheap and potent fentanyl. The president's order might be aimed at liberal cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York, which Trump views as too lax about conditions on their streets. But many of the concepts have already been proposed or tested in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic mayors have worked for years to get people off the streets and into treatment. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier for cities to clear encampments even if the people living in them have nowhere else to go. Still, advocates say Trump's new order is vague, punitive and won't effectively end homelessness. Newsom has directed cities to clean up homeless encampments and he's funneled more money into programs to treat addiction and mental health disorders. His office said Friday that Trump's order relies on harmful stereotypes and focuses more on 'creating distracting headlines and settling old scores.' 'But, his imitation (even poorly executed) is the highest form of flattery,' spokesperson Tara Gallegos said in a statement, referring to the president calling for strategies already in use in California. San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie has also emphasized the importance of clean and orderly streets in banning homeless people from living in RVs and urging people to accept the city's offers of shelter. In Silicon Valley, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan recently pushed a policy change that makes a person eligible for jail if they reject three offers of shelter. Trump's executive order tasks Attorney General Pam Bondi and the secretaries for health, housing and transportation to prioritize grants to states and local governments that enforce bans on open drug use and street camping. Devon Kurtz, the public safety policy director at the Cicero Institute, a conservative policy group that has advocated for several of the provisions of the executive order, said the organization is 'delighted' by the order. He acknowledged that California has already been moving to ban encampments since the Supreme Court's decision. But he said Trump's order adds teeth to that shift, Kurtz said. 'It's a clear message to these communities that were still sort of uncomfortable because it was such a big change in policy,' Kurtz said. But Steve Berg, chief policy officer at the National Alliance to End Homelessness, called parts of the order vague. He said the U.S. abandoned forced institutionalization decades ago because it was too expensive and raised moral and legal concerns. 'What is problematic about this executive order is not so much that law enforcement is involved — it's what it calls on law enforcement to do, which is to forcibly lock people up,' Berg said. 'That's not the right approach to dealing with homelessness.' The mayor of California's most populous city, Los Angeles, is at odds with the Newsom and Trump administrations on homelessness. Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat, opposes punishing sweeps and says the city has reduced street homelessness by working with homeless people to get them into shelter or housing. 'Moving people from one street to the next or from the street to jail and back again will not solve this problem,' she said in a statement. ___ Kramon reported from Atlanta. She is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
