Head of Brazil's gas giant Petrobras criticized for 'drill, baby, drill!' comment about the Amazon
The head of Brazil 's state-run gas and oil giant Petrobras was facing criticism on Friday after a video emerged of her saying 'Drill, baby, drill!' when speaking about controversial oil exploration near the mouth of the Amazon River.
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
The Independent
42 minutes ago
- The Independent
Watch: Trump reacts to news that actors are boycotting his attendance at Kennedy Center
Donald Trump says he is unbothered by actors boycotting his attendance of Les Misérables at the Kennedy Center Wednesday night (11 June). Several 'Les Mis' cast members are expected to sit out the performance fundraiser after news broke that the president would be in the audience. As Trump walked the red carpet with Melania ahead of the show, a reporter asked him how he felt about the actors' protest. 'I couldn't care less, honestly, I couldn't,' Trump said. 'All I do is run the country well.' The president proceeded to list off some of his perceived accomplishments from his second term.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
How can ‘sanction' mean two opposing things?
Sir Keir Starmer said 'he could 'not imagine' the circumstances in which he would sanction a new referendum' on Scottish independence, the Times reported the other day. The Mirror said Amazon 'has agreed to sanction businesses that boost their star ratings with bogus reviews'. So we find sanction being used with completely opposite meanings: 'give permission' and 'enact a penalty to enforce obedience to a law'. The latter sense was extended after the first world war to cover economic or military action against a state as a coercive measure. That is the use we daily find applied to action, or the lack of it, against Russia. The diverging meanings both go back to the Latin noun sanctio, deriving from the verb sancire 'to render sacred', hence 'inviolable'. Such a sanctio came to mean a decree, as in that obscure beast of history, the pragmatic sanction, which looks neither pragmatic or like a sanction. The phrase had a good run for its money, though, labelling a decree attributed to St Louis of France against the Papacy in 1268 and a decree by Charles III of Spain in 1759, granting the crown of the Two Sicilies to his son. I would describe as an anxiety dream the thought of having to write about either. Here, pragmatic meant 'to do with affairs of state', a development of the ancient Greek word that, via Latin, also gives us practical. In English pragmatic acquired the meaning 'practical' only in the mid 19th century, allowing the Americans C.S. Peirce and William James to harness pragmatism to describe a kind of philosophy. As for sanction, it is now also deployed to label the removal or reduction of social benefits. In February this year, 5.5 per cent of claimants were being sanctioned. There is, too, the architect of Dublin's Heuston station (often misprinted as Euston station): Sancton Wood (often misprinted as Sanction Wood).
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
In defence of the Trump playbook
The standard explanation for why charges for plastic bags reduced waste is economic. People were reluctant to pay 10p for a bag and so brought their own instead. This is partly true. But it would still be highly effective if the charge for a bag were merely 1p. That's because charging any amount, however trifling, was sufficient to change the implicit assumptions about normal retail behaviour. Previously, if you went into Boots and bought, say, a toothbrush and a tube of Anusol, the default was for the cashier to put them in a new bag – it would have seemed rude not to do so. Suddenly, however, the imposition of a charge meant that shopkeepers had to ask whether you wanted a bag or not. Often the answer was 'no'; you had one already, or, if you were a chap, your clothing was miraculously equipped with things called 'pockets'. There are many ways in which you can achieve large changes in behaviour without imposing large economic penalties. For instance, I contend that you could significantly reduce intergenerational inequality simply by the imposition of a property tax of 0.1 per cent annually on all homes. The relatively small amount raised could be hypothecated to fund child benefit, or to reduce the income tax burden on the young. For the purposes of comparison, the typical property tax levied by those well-known leftists in the State of Texas is slightly over 1.8 per cent. Bear me out. I am borrowing here from the Donald Trump playbook. This is an under-rated approach to legislation where you impose taxes not for their direct effect, but for their symbolic value. By sending a surprising signal, you can change behaviour by unseating the unthinking assumptions people hold about the future. You don't necessarily have to do anything massive – you simply raise the possibility you might. Most human behaviour runs on implicit deterrents of this kind. By sending a surprising signal, you can change behaviour by unseating the unthinking assumptions people hold Before The Donald, it had become an axiomatic assumption in all businesses that no democratic government of any political stripe would ever deviate from the smug Davos neo-liberal globalist consensus in any shape or form. This artificial certainty meant that for decades you could offshore employment with abandon and treat your native staff fairly shabbily, without fear of any adverse consequences. Today it's different: even if you later reduce many tariffs to near zero and stop randomly abusing Canada, the signal has been sent. I hate to say this, but this approach could work well to solve many other problems. For instance, Britons have been lulled into planning for their future on the assumption that three unwritten rules underpin the tax system. 1) If you actually get up in the morning and do some useful work for which you get paid, you'll be taxed to buggery; 2) If you acquire wealth and then ride the wave of asset-price inflation (i.e. you have more money than you need 'cos you're old), you will be treated very generously; 3) If the asset in question is your own home, you won't be taxed at all, and nor will your good-for-nothing kids when they inherit it all. A large part of the reason why young people cannot afford to buy homes is nothing to do with the use value of a home – it is driven by the as-yet-unshaken belief that residential property has been sanctified as an asset class. It is this belief which possibly accounts for 25 per cent of the price of a home and a similarly large part of oldsters' pathological reluctance to downsize. Residential property is seen as Britain's only tax haven. To unseat this assumption, you don't need to rewrite the whole tax code, or go full Henry George – much as I would personally support this. You just have to make the unthinkable suddenly thinkable.
