A2. Green Unionism

To the apocalypse! And beyond! Possible futures in and beyond UN climate modeling …

Coastal Erosion at Atherington by Chris Richardson Wikimedia

By Paul Atkin

The new modeling now being used by the UN Panel on Climate Change to map possible futures has shifted its methods. I’m going to attempt to get behind the jargon to spell out what the projections indicate, but also to highlight some flaws in the process.

Key differences are

The old “no action” baseline projection of what would happen if nothing was done about climate breakdown at all has been dropped on the grounds that some action is being taken and will continue to be: so the points of comparison now are between the consequences of sticking with the current level of action, and advancing or retreating from it.

The overall effect is to remove the highest, most damaging scenarios, as fossil fuel use is peaking – despite Trump – and they can no longer be considered the most dominant future fuel source. This reflects the partial success of actions to date.

The inevitable claims by Trump and his acolytes that the removal of projections based on what would happen if the “drill baby drill” polices they advocate were universally applied that this proves climate breakdown itself is “a hoax” are beyond surreal. To spell this out. If the world were to act with blithe insouciance and just double down on fossil fuels in the way that Trump wants to do to secure “US Global Energy Dominance” based on them, the worst case scenario would be back with a vengance. In fact, if “every last drop” of fossil fuels on the planet were to be burnt, as they advocate, that would drive a rise in temperature of 16C.

On the contrary, this drop in the worst case scenario is a sign that the world is not being completely bullied into its own self destruction. As there is now $2 trillion a year investment in renewable energy (double the current level of investment in FFs) so most new energy even in the US, and even in Texas, is now being provided by renewables; as they are now too cheap to be replaced by coal. But, $1Trillion is still being invested in Fossil Fuels annually. This is because the rate of profit on the investment is four to five times greater than for investment in renewables; so the search for returns is risking all our futures.

Nevertheless, dropping the worst case scenario has come in for criticism, as it replicates at international level what the Trump administration is trying to do to the still legally mandated US National Climate Assessment. In so doing, it implies that the worst outcomes are not possible – which it would be rash to assume – and therefore that taking action has less urgency – which is dead wrong.

This is particularly the case as the lowest scenarios have been revised upwards, reflecting the rapidity with which the climate is heating – and implicitly highlighting the inadequacy of the measures taken so far to stop it.

The headline from this is that 1.5C will be overshot. Although the IPCC only counts a threshold being passed after ten years on average, we are evidently already there, or thereabouts. 1.4C this year. Possibly 1.7C next. Again, this has been seized on by climate deniers to argue that “the battle” that they didn’t want us to engage in in the first place “has been lost”; so we’d best just give up and adapt to a new normal.

The problem with that is that a new normal of unchecked climate breakdown is not a slightly balmier set of stable conditions, in which Yorkshire becomes like Tuscany, but a state of spiralling crisis, weather whiplash between extreme droughts and torrential rain, failed harvests and hunger; and the more we put off action the worst it will get. The UN has noted that even a temporary overshoot will do “irreparable damage”. Battles are only lost if we give up, and every tenth of a degree is a front line.

The deeper point about “overshoot” is that we’ve been overshooting since we passed the 350 CO2 ppm mark in 1986, so everything we are now doing is about damage limitation. We care now at 430ppm, and rising.

The possible futures they spell out are clear and make it clear that what happens next depends on what we do, and don’t do, now.

Possible futures

The new assessment puts forward seven scenarios ranging from high to low emissions trajectories. In these scenarios the range of possible heating is between 1.6C and 3.3C by the end of the century.

• The high scenario envisages emissions of 55 billion tonnes a year, significantly up from the 38 billion tonnes now. This gets us to 3.3C by 2100.
• The medium scenario, based on existing policies, projects 34 million tonnes a year, a minimal reduction. This gets to 2C by 2050, 2.9C by 2100 and 3C by 2150.
• The low scenario based on accelerated action cuts emissions to 9 billion tonnes but temperatures still rise to 1.8C by 2050 and fall back to 1.5C by 2100.
• The old baseline warning of the likely consequences of no action – the policy favoured by Trump, Reform, and now the Conservative Party (which has banned anyone who takes climate change seriously as a possible Parliamentary candidate) – was a possible rise of 4.6 – 4.9C by century’s end, and more beyond. Meltdown, basically. If these forces win in enough places, that is back on the table.
• As “there are no good outcomes above 1.5C” we are in for a lot of trouble at least for the rest of this century. This is why it is so mind bogglingly idiotic for the BBC to post a story entitled “what will you tell your grandchildren about the summer of 2026?”, as if what we have just experienced is a one off, a weird anomaly after which we get back to normal, not a warning of Summers to come, during which we may well reminisce fondly about how relatively cool it was just to have 35C heatwaves.

All these projections are essentially technical. And that the changes already in train will develop with an orderly predictable Fabian gradualism that we can slowly adapt to. tPlaying down the potential for sudden catastrophic shifts as we reach tipping points – the mass deaths of coral – the Amazon becoming a carbon source not a carbon sink – accelerating methane release from melting permafrost – gives a false impression that everything is under control. The point about tipping points is that that seems to be the case, until it isn’t. A report just out indicates that “Warming-induced” emissions of greenhouse gases from natural sources – including permafrost, wetlands and wildfires – could amplify global temperature rise by a further 20-30% for example.

We have to bear in mind that the rise in greenhouse gases driven by human industrial and agriculture activity now is 40 times faster than during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum 50 m years ago and over 100 times faster than during the warming at the end of the last ice age. Those who say that the Earth’s climate has always changed for natural reasons are right, but wrong to ignore the way our actions are giving it such a ferocious acceleration in such a short space of time. In the case of the PETM it took about 3,000 years for global temperatures to increase by 5-8C. On average, that works out at between .0017 and .0027 C a year. At the moment the temperature is increasing on average by .35C a year. So this is almost unbelievably fast, and so must our response be.

And we should bear in mind that the last time the Earth had a 430ppm concentration of CO2 was during the Pliocene, three million years ago, when temperatures were 3-4C higher than the pre industrial average and sea levels were 5 – 25 metres higher.

This is the East coast at a 5 metre rise, the low end of that projection. Peterborough and Cambridge are on the Wash.

And the Thames Estuary would start around Wapping. At 25 metres it would start at Windsor. Current IPCC projections are for a 1 metre rise by 2100, with an outside chance of 2 metres, but the rate is rising and it keeps going after that.

A recent report from the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (the Insurance Industry essentially) and Exeter University applied a planetary solvency model on the basis that the existing technical models underestimate the risks and the knock on negative impacts that are already being felt and are accelerating.

Their projection is that by 2070 – 2090 the impacts will be so severe that world GDP will halve and 4 billion people will die. While fact check websites poo poo this, this is actuaries making this projection based on insurance industry risk projections, so shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. And if it is even the most remote possibility, it should concentrate minds and give us more of a sense of proportion…and urgency.

Social and geopolitical factors

And here’s the core of the problem. All of these projections seem to be based on presumptions that all other factors are equal, and that existing social economic and political structures stay essentially the same, when there is actually no way that they can; if only because of the impact of climate consequences that are already baked in.

They rest on UN projections that the global population will rise from 8.23 billion now to 9.6 billion by 2050, peak at just over 10 billion around 2080, then slowly decline from then on. By the end of the century, the projection is that people will be, on average, 10 -25% poorer than they are now.

But, there is no average person, no average state. Projections of climate impacts vary – with the Canadian government projecting rises of 3-5C by 2100, with 10C in the Arctic, the threat of mass deaths from wet bulb temperature events at a global average of a 2C rise primarily in Northern India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Eastern Asia, the Arabian Gulf and the African Sahel Zone. Lets not forget that the medium scenario gets us to 2C in 2050 – 24 years from now.

Further, the existing state of affairs is not socially or economically static. It is characterised by rapid shifts in wealth and power within states and between them. The ever growing concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands in the West under neoliberalism, the increased global weight of the BRICS in general (with a combined economy now greater than the G7) and China in particular, with its colossal exports of renewable products and technology. Part of this is an attempt by the Western ruling classes to sustain their bloated lifestyles by keeping the global South as poor as possible to keep kits carbon footprint down. The UK government decision under Starmer to cut ODA, including climate finance to pay for the first installment of increased war spending expresses this perfectly.

These questions will be resolved in political struggle within and between states. The most decisive of these now is to defeat the attempt by the United States to sabotage international cooperation, to shore up its slipping global imperial dominance by preparing itself and its allies for an apocalyptic war, to roll back the deployment of renewable energy and transport, to secure “global energy dominance” through its own abundance of fossil fuel reserves, control of those of other states, and enforced dependence on its exports by those without. Part of this is an attempt to sustain the bloated lifestyles of the western ruling class by keeping the global south as poor as possible. The UK’s cut of ODA, including climate finance, to pay for the first installment of increased war spending expresses this perfectly.

The good news on this is that we could be reaching tipping points in this energy shift. The cost of renewable technology, wind, solar, batteries, has dropped so far and so fats that they are now cheaper than FF alternatives just about everywhere. More than half of countries have passed peak FF use and China is plateauing, with solar now producing more energy there than coal for the first time and other GS countries having a viable sustainable path to development which also liberates them from FF dependence and everything that goes with it. Its possible we could move not only away from unipolarity but through multi polarity to no polarity as a result. And because electric energy is so much more efficient that FFs, every unit of additional RE displaces 3 units of FF energy. And the total amount of extractive mining needed for all the resources needed for the transition up to 2050 is equivalent to the amount needed just for coal, just in 2024. Once the initial bottleneck of grid upgrades is dealt with, costs will drop even further. Quids in.

The post To the apocalypse! And beyond! Possible futures in and beyond UN climate modeling … first appeared on Greener Jobs Alliance.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact

Milagros R. Elia

Program Manager, Climate and Clean Energy Advocacy

Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments

milagros@envirn.org

914.455.1165

 

Nurses Mark National Truck Driver Appreciation Week With Call for Cleaner Trucks as a Public Health Priority

[USA] — As National Truck Driver Appreciation Week begins, the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments (ANHE) is joining organizations across the country in honoring the professional truck drivers who keep our economy and our health care system moving — and calling on trucking industry leaders and manufacturers to invest in a cleaner future for the people behind the wheel and the communities along their routes.

Truck drivers perform one of the country’s most essential jobs, delivering the food, medicine, and equipment communities and hospitals rely on every day. They also spend their working lives exposed to diesel exhaust, a pollutant classified as carcinogenic. Nurses see the downstream effects of that exposure firsthand: asthma attacks, cardiovascular strain, and respiratory illness that hit hardest in communities along heavily trafficked freight corridors.

In response to National Truck Driver Appreciation Week, the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments Executive Director Katie Huffling, DNP, RN, CNM, FAAN issued the following statement: 

“Truck drivers deserve more than our gratitude, they deserve working conditions that support their health and allow them to return home safely to their families. Investing in cleaner trucks is a meaningful way to honor these essential workers while protecting children, older adults, and families in communities located near highways, warehouses, and freight corridors.”

“Nurses care for patients whose asthma, heart disease, and respiratory conditions are worsened by transportation pollution. The trucking industry and vehicle manufacturers have both the ability and the responsibility to reduce these preventable health harms. Delaying clean truck progress prolongs harmful exposures and shifts the health burden onto drivers, patients, families, and already overburdened communities.”

###

The Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments is the only national nursing organization focused solely on the intersection of health and the environment. The mission of the Alliance is to support nurses in promoting planetary health and equity globally by educating and leading the nursing profession, advancing research, incorporating planet-safe practice, and influencing policy. http://enviRN.org

The post Nurses Mark National Truck Driver Appreciation Week With Call for Cleaner Trucks as a Public Health Priority appeared first on ANHE.

During National Truck Driver Appreciation Week, the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments joins people across the country in recognizing the professional truck drivers who keep our communities, economy, and health care system moving.

Truck drivers perform essential work every day. The food on grocery store shelves, medications in pharmacies, and equipment and supplies used in hospitals and clinics reach their destinations because professional drivers transport them. Their work supports nearly every part of daily life, often requiring long hours on the road and extended periods away from their families. As nurses, we believe that appreciation should be demonstrated through meaningful investments in their health, safety, and working conditions, and in the health of the communities along the routes they travel.

For generations, diesel exhaust has been treated as an unavoidable part of working in and around the trucking industry. Professional drivers may spend thousands of hours each year inside or near diesel-powered vehicles, freight facilities, warehouses, ports, and distribution centers. This occupational exposure is compounded by long hours, demanding schedules, and limited opportunities to avoid polluted air.

Diesel exhaust is classified as carcinogenic to humans. It also contains fine particulate matter and other pollutants associated with respiratory and cardiovascular harm. Nurses witness the human consequences of air pollution in clinics, hospitals, schools, and communities from children struggling to breathe during an asthma attack to adults experiencing worsening heart and lung disease.

The risks extend beyond the people behind the wheel. Communities located near highways, ports, warehouses, and heavily traveled freight corridors often face disproportionate exposure to transportation pollution. Many of these communities are already affected by cumulative environmental hazards, inadequate access to health care, and other social and economic conditions that increase their vulnerability to illness.

The good news is that we have the technology to begin changing this reality. The transition to cleaner, zero-emission trucks can reduce harmful tailpipe pollution, improve air quality, and protect the health of drivers, freight workers, and nearby communities. Clean air is a fundamental condition for protecting health and preventing disease. 

Transition to clean technologies also presents an opportunity to strengthen the trucking industry. Investments in cleaner vehicles, charging infrastructure, workforce development, and dependable supply chains can help create an industry prepared to compete in a rapidly changing global market. Drivers must be included in this process so that the technologies placed into service are safe, practical, reliable, and responsive to the conditions they encounter on the road.

Achieving a cleaner freight system will require leadership across the entire trucking sector. Truck manufacturers must fulfill their clean-vehicle commitments and make cleaner trucks available at the scale and pace necessary to reduce pollution. Fleet operators must prepare for the transition while ensuring that workers have appropriate training, workplace protections, and a meaningful voice in implementation.

Industry associations also have an important responsibility. The American Trucking Associations should help its members prepare for a healthier and more competitive future instead of opposing policies intended to accelerate clean-truck deployment. Efforts to weaken or delay protections such as California’s Advanced Clean Trucks framework risk prolonging harmful exposures for drivers and communities while creating uncertainty for businesses already investing in cleaner technology.

Accountability does not mean placing the burden of this transition on individual drivers or small operators. Policymakers and industry leaders must ensure that funding, infrastructure, technical assistance, and workforce protections are available so the transition is practical and equitable. The people who keep goods moving should benefit directly from cleaner vehicles and healthier workplaces.

National Truck Driver Appreciation Week is an important opportunity to celebrate the skill, dedication, and sacrifice of professional drivers. But appreciation cannot end when the week does. Truck drivers keep America moving throughout the year. They deserve an industry that values their health as much as their productivity and recognizes clean air as an essential workplace protection. Communities along freight routes deserve relief from pollution that has affected their health for far too long.

Nurses have a role in advancing this vision. We can educate patients and decision-makers about the health consequences of diesel pollution, support evidence-based clean-truck protections, advocate for equitable infrastructure investments, and elevate the experiences of drivers and communities most affected by freight-related pollution.

Investing in cleaner trucks is an investment in disease prevention, healthier workers, more resilient communities, and a stronger transportation system. It is also one of the most meaningful ways to recognize the people whose work connects our hospitals, businesses, and homes.

This week, we thank America’s truck drivers. For the years ahead, let us invest in their health—and ours.

 

The post Thanking Truck Drivers Means Investing in Their Health—and Ours appeared first on ANHE.

By Jeremy Brecher,
Senior Strategic Advisor, LNS Co-Founder

Listen to the audio version >>

What does the global Greentech revolution mean for the American people? It could open new vistas of a Greentech New Deal. But as long as the US opposes rather than joining the Greentech revolution, it portends not only climate catastrophe, but economic catastrophe as well.

Collage (Art: alonesbe, Envato | Photo Credit of Trump: Gage Skidmore, Wikipedia Commons, CC BY-SA 2.0)

As we have seen throughout this series, the Greentech revolution is transforming energy production and use worldwide. Along with its other advantages, fossil free energy has become radically cheaper than fossil fuel energy. More than 90% of utility-scale renewable projects commissioned in 2025 delivered power below the cost of the cheapest new fossil-fuel plant built in their market. Natural gas energy is currently 3–4 times more expensive than solar and wind. Meanwhile, fossil fuels are increasingly vulnerable to disruptions like the Ukraine and Iran wars, which destabilize whole economies with shortages and higher prices for energy, food, and other necessities of life.

Donald Trump and the US government are doing everything possible to shut down fossil free energy and to expand our dependence on fossil fuels. That is already having a devastating effect on American workers and communities, and it is likely to get far worse in the future. We are being marooned on what two energy experts call a fossil fuel “energy island” as the rest of the world turns to an “electric world order.”

If Trump and his fossil fuelers succeed in defeating the Greentech revolution in the US, the result is likely to be a growing affordability crisis; devastation for the most fossil-fuel dependent industries like autos, coal, iron, and gas; a general decline of the fossil-fuel intensive US economy; disinvestment; a loss of international competitiveness; and macroeconomic effects like inflation and recession or both.

These trends can sometimes be seen in the day-to-day operation of markets, like the decline of the US and European auto industries or the worldwide shift to renewables after the closing of the Strait of Hormuz. But paradoxically, they can also be concealed by short-term fluctuations. For example, the sharp rise in the cost of oil after the closing of the Strait of Hormuz produced a boom in oil company profits. Similarly, the rising demand for electricity for data centers created a boom for natural gas generators. Such developments might appear to refute the argument that the fossil fuel-based US economy is increasingly uncompetitive and in danger of becoming a stranded asset. However, amid all the price gyrations, nothing seems to refute the fundamental underlying fact: Fossil fuel energy is and will remain more expensive and less secure than fossil free energy. I have seen nothing that indicates otherwise.

The long-term decline of the fossil fuel-based economy is manifested in many ways. In this commentary I will examine two impacts on Americans of our country’s failure to join the Greentech revolution:

• It makes prices higher for Americans
• It makes US-produced goods and services more costly and therefore less competitive at home and abroad

Crashing autos

Electric Car at Charging Station | Photo credit: sofiiashunkina, Envato

The headline example of eschewing the Greentech revolution is the US auto industry. For decades, the industry – supported by US government policies — failed to invest in EVs and concentrated instead on its highly profitable gas-guzzling cars and trucks. Briefly under the Biden administration the federal government invested in EV charging infrastructure and a $7,500 consumer tax credit. Electric vehicle sales grew 60%.

Then Trump abandoned pro-EV policies and subsidized fossil fueled vehicles with a panoply of strategies. EV sales plummeted. The industry began shutting down its EVs factories. In 2025 Stellantis wrote down $26 billion in EV-related losses; Ford reported a $19 billion loss. The auto journalist Martin Padgett told the New York Times, “We pulled a U-turn while the rest of the world was pushing forward.”

Fossil fuel dependence is costly for American car owners. Here’s what gas dependence means in dollars and cents for auto drivers: In January 2026, before the disruptions caused by the Iran war, the cost to drive 100 miles in an electric car was $5.77; in a gas car it was $11.23. By summer — after the closing of the Straight of Hormuz — to drive 100 miles in the electric car cost almost the same as before, $5.89, but in the gas car it cost $16.69 –three times as much as the EV.

Its failure to develop EVs and its addiction to gas guzzlers has made the US auto industry non-competitive domestically.  In 1965, US companies produced more than 90% of new cars purchased in the US; today, barely a third are built by the Big Three.

The failure of the US auto industry to adopt Greentech is at least equally significant internationally. A quarter of all vehicles sold globally in 2025 were battery powered. (That figure is projected to reach 29% in 2026 due to high gas prices caused by the Iran war.) Bloomberg analysts predict that by next decade fewer than half of cars sold globally will be gas-powered. China, which provides 30% of the global car market, has seen sales of internal combustion vehicles plummet by nearly two-thirds since 2017. China now makes 75 percent of all EVs sold worldwide; the United States makes around 5 percent. Susan Helper, a professor at Case Western Reserve University who was chief economist at the Commerce Department under President Barack Obama, told the New York Times that in the worst-case scenario the US auto industry will become a “shrinking island of ICE (internal combustion engines),” churning out outlandishly large trucks and not much else. At which point, the Times noted, the obsolescence of the mighty U.S. automobile industry” would be “all but guaranteed.”

About three million Americans work for automobile and parts manufacturers and dealers. About 24 million jobs depend on spending by car manufacturers, their employees, or car owners.

Vehicle and parts makers shed about 21,000 U.S. jobs in the last year, despite Trump administration tariffs designed to force them to manufacture domestically.

The fossil fuel island

Wind farm Shanxi, China, November 4, 2015. Photo credit: Hahaheditor12667, Wikipedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0

The global shift from gas guzzlers to EVs is part of a more general long-term shift from fossil fuels to fossil free energy which is rendering the US a fossil fuel island. Two energy experts summarized the current phase of this process:

“Global clean energy investment reached a record $2.2 trillion in 2025, twice the flow into fossil fuels. In 2024, 91 percent of newly commissioned utility-scale renewable projects produced electricity more cheaply than the cheapest new fossil fuel alternative, and battery storage costs have fallen 93 percent since 2010, allowing utilities to use batteries to store solar and wind power even when the weather is uncooperative. In 2025, fossil fuel electricity generation fell in both China and India.

“Before the Iran war, this green transition was also spreading beyond wealthy markets. In 2024, Chinese solar exports to developing economies surpassed shipments to advanced economies. Pakistan imported approximately 17 gigawatts of Chinese solar modules that year, equivalent to almost half of its grid-connected capacity. In Indonesia, Thailand, and Mexico, the cheapest Chinese-made EVs have reached price parity with the cheapest internal combustion options.”

In July, China announced binding targets to increase wind and solar power generation by more than 50% over the next five years.

How the Greentech transition will develop in the future is of course a matter for speculation, but BloombergNEF’s (BNEF) New Energy Outlook2026 provides one plausible projection:

• Solar will become the world’s single largest source of electricity in the next six years, due to a major supply glut, technology advances, and falling prices.
• If countries continue on their current path of rapidly deploying economically competitive clean technologies, they stand to cut their reliance on imported fossil fuels and ultimately strengthen their energy security.
• Many countries that depend on fossil fuels are now able to reduce their economic exposure to energy commodity imports by adopting low-carbon technologies.

Energy investor Rob Carlson recently drew the implications for the US economy: Continuing to burn fossil fuels is a “self-imposed financial penalty” which will “ultimately degrade the country’s long-term global competitiveness.” The same applies to any nation or polity that “chooses to continue burning fossil fuels in any application in which electricity could instead be provided more competitively with renewables.”

The replacement of fossil fuel energy by Greentech has been greatly accelerated by the war in the Persian Gulf region. According to a June 30 report by NPR, “The Iran war and high oil and gas prices have supercharged the adoption of renewables and EVs worldwide. Global investors say these technologies make financial sense and increase energy security.” As fossil fuel prices soared, countries are “turning to these technologies that are basically impervious to whatever happens in the Strait of Hormuz. Solar batteries and EVs have gotten a lot cheaper.” Chinese battery exports rose 69% in March compared to 2025; their solar exports in March are up 84% compared to 2025.

The NPR report concluded,

“It doesn’t look good for oil long term. With all these new EVs, that means a lot less people filling up their cars with gas around the world. Before the war in Iran, the International Energy Agency was expecting global oil demand to rise this year. But the disruptions caused by the Strait of Hormuz led them to downgrade expectations to a decline in oil demand this year. In some ways, the U.S. is becoming an outlier in the global energy transition.”

In the face of the Iran war energy shortages some countries have been turning to coal. But analysis by the thinktank Ember found that even a worst-case return to coal would raise global coal-fired generation by no more than 1.8 percent in 2026 relative to a no-crisis baseline; indeed, global coal generation could still fall this year.

Currently there is little reason to expect the Straight of Hormuz to be reopened any time soon, or for fossil fuel prices to return to their levels before the Iran war. And there are plenty of reasons to expect further disruptions with further fossil fuel gyrations in the future.

The US trend towards ever greater fossil fuel dependence and the consequent rise of its energy prices is being further aggravated by the expansion of gas, oil, and even coal to provide energy for hyperscale data centers. That is likely to further increase the isolation of the US as a high-cost fossil fuel island.

If the US becomes ever more a fossil fuel island in a Greentech world, the consequences are likely to be dire. Bill Hare, chief executive of the thinktank Climate Analytics, said, “Any investment in new fossil fuels now is a fool’s gamble, while joining the race to renewables can only bring benefits – not just jobs and cheaper energy at stable prices, but energy independence and access where it’s needed most.”

Is the US doomed to be a fossil fuel island? Our next series of commentaries will lay out an alternative: The Green New Deal 2.0.

Get “Strike!” via EmailGet “Strike!” via Substack DONATE ONLINE

The post America’s Future: Fossil Fuel Island in a Greentech World? first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Date & Time:  Tuesday, September 22, 2026 | 07:00 PM EDT 

Click to Register

Description

The future of the Republic and more will be at stake when voters go to the polls in November.

Can Trump, who this month celebrated the neo-Nazi AFD’s victory in East Germany, and his allies sufficiently rig the elections to reinforce their power & privilege, further undermine constitutional democracy, and continue their unprecedented economic corruptions?

Will Democrats, divided as they are, win control of one or both houses of Congress, hold those who have ruled illegally and brutally accountable?

Come election day, what can we and our movements do to defend and restore the rule of law, economic security, racial justice, and peace?

Our webinar is designed to help frame priorities, including actions as well as policy commitments, that state and community-based movement leaders should be thinking about as we approach November’s elections.

The post WEBINAR: Building and Defending Democracy in November’s Elections first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

U.S. President Donald Trump has opened another front in his trade war against Canada, suggesting that Canada is taking advantage of the U.S. through its currency. Both currencies are called the dollar, but Canada’s trades for less than the U.S. currency, and Trump argues this creates an unfair advantage.

More than 25 countries in the world have a currency called “the dollar”. Apparently, according to Donald Trump, 24 of them must be taking advantage of America because their dollars are different from his.

Canada has had a flexible exchange rate since 1970 (and also had a flexible rate between 1950 and 1962). It was one of the first industrial countries to abandon fixed exchange rates as the Bretton Woods financial system was dismantled in the early 1970s. The exchange rate is determined by numerous factors, including financial capital flows, comparative interest rates, comparative inflation, and investor expectations. The present exchange rate (about 72 cents U.S.) is well within the range of its historical fluctuations, and is in fact slightly stronger than when Trump took office for the second time in January 2025.

Of course, the fact that America’s dollar is used (for now, anyway) as a global reserve currency, hence allowing the US to run trade deficits every year for 50 years, is a unique privilege, not a sign of victimisation. America consumes far more than it produces, year after year. But inflows of capital from other countries, and holdings of U.S. dollars by foreign investors and institutions, allow the U.S. to maintain this ongoing trade deficit.

The world (including Canada) supplies the US with trillions of dollars of purchasing power every year, allowing this permanent trade deficit to continue. We explained this relationship in our research report, Who’s Subsidizing Whom? Over the past decade, new purchases of U.S. debt (mostly from the federal government) have almost perfectly offset the cumulative U.S. bilateral trade deficit with Canada over that same period. In short, it is Canada subsidizing America (with transfers of money), not the other way around.

Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford commented on Trump’s arguments about the currency on Global News’ national television broadcast.

The post Trump Launches New Attack Against Canada’s Currency appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 

September 10, 2026

CONTACT: Katie Valentine, kvalentine@cacampaign.org, (770) 861-0397

Latino Leaders and Elected Officials Demand a Fully Funded, Fully Functional FEMA as Philadelphia Families Struggle to Recover from Historic Summer Flooding

Community Press Conference Marks Hispanic Heritage Month With a Call for Federal Action 

View the full press conference here: LINK 

 

PHILADELPHIA, PA — As Hispanic Heritage Month begins, Latino families across Philadelphia are still recovering from a historic summer of severe storms, waiting on federal aid that has been slow to arrive and hard to access. 

Today, community members, healthcare professionals, and elected officials gathered at Philadelphia City Hall with a clear message for Congress: stop shortchanging FEMA and build an agency that is fully funded, fully functional, and built to serve every family equitably.

The press conference comes after a summer that brought repeated severe weather events to Philadelphia, including flash flooding, destructive storms, and a microburst that caused widespread building and property damage and displacement of residents across the city. The flooding events threatened to contaminate drinking water and raised the risk of mold-related respiratory risks in homes impacted by water damage even after floodwaters receded. 

Across the Northeast, heavy rainstorms have increased by 60 to 70% since the 1960s, the largest increase of any region in the United States, and Philadelphia’s own Office of Sustainability says that the science confirms these trends are accelerating and will not reverse on their own.

“As Philadelphia marks the five-year anniversary of Hurricane Ida and is now experiencing a summer of record-breaking flash flood warnings, we are reminded that where it rains, it can flood, and every neighborhood must be prepared,” said Joseph Sullivan, Program Manager for Flood Resilience and Compliance Strategy, City of Philadelphia’s Office of Sustainability. “The City’s Flood Management Program brings together key departments to help residents understand their flood risk and access resources to prepare and recover. Critical programs like FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) help enhance Philadelphia’s flood resilience efforts. Through Philadelphia’s collaborative work to reduce flood risk, residents can now receive a 15 percent discount on eligible federal flood insurance policies, making this important protection more affordable.” 

“As we honor Hispanic Heritage Month, we must make sure every Philadelphia resident knows how to prepare for flooding and, when disaster strikes, can access FEMA assistance without fear or unnecessary barriers,” said Rep. Danilo Burgos. “Flooding doesn’t discriminate, and neither should our disaster response. Protecting our neighbors means making sure no family is left behind when they need help the most.”

“Our region’s Latino communities suffered the same flooding our non-Latino communities suffered this summer,” said Rep. Greg Scott. “And yet they’re struggling to get the post-disaster support that others have managed to access. A person shouldn’t suffer more or longer because resources aren’t offered in their preferred language or their neighborhood has been deprioritized. It’s time for the federal government to fully fund FEMA, provide necessary paperwork in widely-used languages, and ensure that all of our residents have equal access to aid.”

“The impacts of disaster are not experienced equally, and the response cannot be either,” said Azucena Villalobos, MSN, CRNP, FNP-BC. “We need funding that’s accessible, not just available: Spanish-speaking responders, trusted community organizations involved in the response, more community health workers embedded in community health centers who can help navigate climate-related health risks, multilingual emergency alerts that actually reach people, and resilient neighborhood centers offering cooling, clean water, and emergency support.”

###

 

About the Climate Action Campaign

Climate Action Campaign (CAC) is a vibrant coalition driving ambitious, durable, equitable federal action to tackle the climate crisis. By cutting carbon pollution and accelerating the transition to clean energy, we will improve public health and create a more resilient economy and a more sustainable future for all.

About The Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments

The Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments is the only national nursing organization focused solely on the intersection of health and the environment. The mission of the Alliance is to support nurses in promoting planetary health and equity globally by educating and leading the nursing profession, advancing research, incorporating planet-safe practice, and influencing policy. http://enviRN.org 

The post Press Release! Latino Leaders and Elected Officials Demand a Fully Funded, Fully Functional FEMA as Philadelphia Families Struggle to Recover from Historic Summer Flooding appeared first on ANHE.

The federal government has announced it will extend the current holiday on the federal excise tax on gasoline and diesel fuel for another 4 months, until January 31, 2027. New research from the Centre for Future Work confirms that extension will not solve the underlying problem of oil-fueled inflation that is hurting all Canadians, not just drivers.

The tax holiday first came into effect on April 20, and was originally set to end on Labour Day. It was intended to offset some of the impact of rising oil prices (resulting from the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz) on Canadian consumers.

While the tax holiday may be appreciated by drivers, it has not addressed the underlying inflationary shock arising from this latest global oil price shock. In fact, Canadian gasoline and diesel prices are higher now than they were before the tax holiday came into effect (and have been higher through most of the 18 weeks since it began). The full value of the tax holiday (to fuel consumers) has thus been more than offset by continued increases in the cost of petroleum products.

New national income data released last week by Statistics Canada confirms Canadian consumers are paying billions of dollars extra for petroleum products despite the cushion from the excise tax holiday. There are also signs that the price shock is spreading into other products beyond petroleum, including air travel, other transportation, and food. This raises the spectre of another spike in broader inflation, sparked by petroleum prices. Statistics Canada data also confirms the petroleum industry in Canada has received record profits as a result of the current oil price shock.

The Centre for Future Work has published a new briefing paper analyzing the latest Statistics Canada data on consumer costs, average prices, and petroleum profits. Highlights include:

• There was a large increase in consumer expenses for petroleum products, despite the tax holiday. This includes $3 billion in extra consumer costs for motor vehicle fuels in just three months April through June).
• There is a growing gap (called the ‘crack spread’) between prices of gasoline and diesel, and underlying prices for crude oil. This has exacerbated the impact of the oil price shock on Canadian consumers.
• There are some early signs of spillover from higher petroleum prices into other prices, and hence into broader inflation – enhancing the risk of future interest rate increases.
• The price shock has produced a dramatic increase in profitability for the Canadian petroleum industry, a direct result of the extra costs paid by consumers. Combined after-tax profit in the upstream and downstream sectors reached $23 billion in the second-quarter, more than double their profits in the first quarter.
• But just 5% of additional profits, and 2% of additional revenues, have been reinvested by the industry in new capital spending.

The paper concludes with several policy recommendations regarding how Canada can better protect itself against repeated cycles of oil-fired inflation, affordability crises, and higher interest rates.

Please see the full briefing paper, Another Band-aid: Extending Gas Tax Holiday Won’t Fix Fossil Fuel Inflation, by Jim Stanford.

The post Extending Gas Tax Holiday Won’t Fix Fossil Fuel Inflation appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

By Jeremy Brecher,
Senior Strategic Advisor, LNS Co-Founder

Listen to the audio version >>

The threats presented by hyperscale data centers are galvanizing resistance in hundreds of communities around the country. How are those movements developing? What is their significance? And how might they help shape a “Greentech New Deal” to address our climate, affordability, and democracy crises? 

Anti-data-center sentiment in rural Kansas neighborhood, May 24, 2026, Photo credit: Catboy69, Wikipedia Commons, CC BY 4.0.

Artificial Intelligence (AI), and data centers in particular, are generating an unprecedented resistance – in Texas they call it the Texas Data Center Rebellion. Robinson Meyer of the climate news website Heatmap recently told the New York Times,

“Every quarter, we poll about 4,000 Americans and we ask: Would you support or oppose a data center being built near where you live? We asked that question in August of last year, and Americans were very split. They were about 43 percent in support and 42 percent against. We asked again in the spring, and this time, 21 percent of Americans said they would support a data center being built near where they live, and 71 percent said they would oppose it. So it is a staggering shift, basically, in how Americans feel about this industry and about this form of land use in their communities.”

In the latest poll from Heatmap three-quarters of Americans now say that they would oppose a new data center being built near where they live. Just 4% say they would “strongly support” a data center proposed in their area. 

A June poll from Data for Progress finds that a majority of voters (63%), including 67% of Democrats, 66% of Independents, and 58% of Republicans, support pausing the construction of all US AI data centers nationwide for at least one year. Most voters think AI will increase unemployment in the U.S. and support regulations to give workers decision-making authority over how AI is used in the workplace.

Data centers are meeting unprecedented local resistance. According to a recent report, data center opponents blocked or delayed at least 75 projects around the country worth about $130 billion just from January through March 2026. Active opposition groups have grown from 396 at the end of 2025 to 833 by the end of March 2026. 

According to Brad Johnson of Hill Heat, “a strong pattern has emerged of hyperscale data centers causing popular revolt at the ballot box. 

“After the city council of Festus, Mo. voted in favor of a $6 billion hyperscale proposal, voters promptly kicked out all four incumbents on the ballot in an April election. On the same day in April, voters in the Milwaukee suburb of Port Washington WI. showed their irritation with a massive $15 billion hyperscale facility by overwhelmingly approving a ballot measure to restrict future hyperscale projects from receiving tax-increment financing. 

“In May, supervisors in Meridian, Mich. voted to put a six-month pause on data center proposals. Meanwhile, in the Grand Rapids suburb of Lowell Township, township board members refused to adopt a data center moratorium, with the majority of the council opting to court a $1 billion proposal from Microsoft instead. Now, recall petitions are circulating against the board members who voted against a moratorium, with the chair of the effort accusing Lowell board members of ‘representing Microsoft more than the people who elected them.’”

Some, even on the left, have portrayed the Data Center Resistance as affluent NIMBY-ism. Data scientist Geoff Holtzman analyzed a dataset of current and proposed data center projects alongside US census data and came to these startling conclusions:

1. The poorest neighborhoods resisted data centers at nearly five times the rate of the wealthiest (19.0% vs. 3.8%).

“The highest rate of resistance comes from neighborhoods with a median income of between $8 thousand and $72 thousand. The lowest rate of resistance is in neighborhoods where the average household makes between $133 thousand and $250 thousand per year.”

2. Recently proposed data centers that faced pushback were canceled or suspended at more than five times the rate of data centers that didn’t (28.2% vs. 5.2%).
3. Cancellation rates are highest in lower-income areas, a fact fully explained by their higher rates of pushback.

“The odds of cancellation are six times higher in neighborhoods that fight than in neighborhoods that don’t. Increased cancellation in low-income areas is fully explained by high rates of pushback in these neighborhoods, so continued proposals in these areas may stoke outrage, drive resistance, and increase cancellation rates.”

The Moratorium Cometh

According to a new review of public records conducted by Heatmap Pro, more than 500 counties or municipalities now actively restrict or block new data centers. These constraints, such as steep setback requirements, impossible noise limits, or outright bans on permit approvals, all but forbid the construction of data centers. The overwhelming majority of these restrictions have been enacted since the beginning of 2026. Nearly 190 have been passed since June 1.

Earlier this year the New York state legislature passed a one-year moratorium on new data centers. The law would block data center permits for “hyperscale” facilities, which it defines as those with a peak load of more than 20 megawatts. Soon thereafter, New York governor Kathy Hochul imposed the nation’s first-ever statewide freeze on new “hyperscale” data centers that can use 50 megawatts or more of power. A recent report found that bipartisan proposals for moratoriums on constructing data centers were introduced in 14 states from January through March.

Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have proposed a national data center moratorium that would temporarily ban the construction of data centers in the U.S. to “buy time to create strong, federal guardrails for AI.” Sen. Ed Markey and others have made other proposals for reigning in data centers. More surprisingly, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, recently called for a nationwide halt to data center construction.

Efforts to constrain data center impacts have taken a variety of forms besides moratoriums. Michigan, Oregon, and Minnesota passed laws in the last 18 months designed to protect their pre-existing requirements that electric utilities use only emissions-free energy sources by 2040. Minnesota and Oregon ordered regulators to ensure that the energy that supplies data centers is in line with their emissions-reduction goals, while Michigan required hyperscale data centers to use 90% clean energy within six years to receive its lucrative sales tax exemption. Ohio, Illinois, and Arizona paused subsidies and tax incentives for data center developers.

The Data Center Rebellion and the Greentech New Deal

Servers, Photo credit: Victorgrigas, Wikipedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0.

However ludicrous the more extreme claims made for AI’s impact, that impact is too great to ignore. The continued growth of AI and data centers at current rates threatens to derail the Greentech revolution. Unrestrained they will lead to aggravated climate change, local ecological devastation, unaffordable electricity, and a substantial growth and centralization of oligarchical power. It’s hard to see who they will benefit except a handful of the world’s richest men. 

Just as there is little precedent for the explosive proliferation of hyperscale data centers, so there is little precedent for the data center rebellion. David Wallace-Wells and Robinson Meyer discussed in the New York Times whether the gathering coalition of Americans against data centers “could be the next Occupy Wall Street movement or Tea Party.” Perhaps the closest we have to a historical precedent is the anti-toxics movement that followed the exposure of toxic chemical dumps under low-income neighborhoods at Love Canal and the nationwide explosion of protest that followed as hundreds of communities around the country discovered that they too were exposed to toxic dumps. They created a nationwide movement against toxic dumps and won the landmark Superfund law which established unprecedented accountability for corporate polluters.

The local anti-data center movements are about as close as you can come to true grassroots rebellion. While many organizations are providing support, they are not the result of an organizing campaign or national call. Close examination shows that they are being created by people talking with their neighbors, banding together in their neighborhoods, packing meetings, confronting politicians, and throwing out officials who don’t take a stand against local data centers. Red and blue communities are joining together across party and ideological lines. Participants are overwhelmingly non-affluent – working class if you will. While there is little common ideology, there is certainly a widespread ethos based on the idea that wealthy, powerful elite forces are threatening the livelihoods and wellbeing of ordinary people and that people must force government to put a halt to such threats. 

The outcome of any such movement is unpredictable. It could, like the Tea Party, be captured by rightwing populist elites. It could, like Occupy Wall Street, dissipate in the face of repression and lack of clear direction while leaving a transformed political landscape behind. It could, like the post-Love Canal anti-toxics movement, impose significant limits on corporate depredations through local campaigns and federal legislation. Or it could become part of a far deeper transformation of the political, economic, and social landscape.  

One constructive outcome might be for the Data Center Rebellion to converge with an emerging Greentech New Deal. For the past eight years, the Green New Deal has provided a highly popular vision and program that would protect the climate in ways that would create good jobs for working people, end poverty, and alleviate injustice. 

The original Green New Deal called for “a new national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal.” The Green New Deal aimed to save the climate by meeting scientific targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases. It would seek to end the epidemic of poverty by mitigating deeply entrenched racial, regional, and gender-based inequalities in income and wealth and distributing federal aid and other investment equitably to historically impoverished and marginalized communities. And it would provide good jobs constructing a just and climate-safe economy. A poll soon after it was initially proposed in 2018 found that 40% of registered voters “strongly support” and 41% “somewhat support” the concepts behind the Green New Deal. Another poll five years later in 2024 found that “the Green New Deal is still incredibly popular.” 

Since the original proposal for a Green New Deal, the “Greentech revolution” has transformed the cost and viability of fossil free energy. Today a “Greentech New Deal” can be driven forward by an entirely different economic environment – one in which the transition to fossil free energy is not a costly and painful duty, but rather a “free lunch” that the American people can use to make a happier, healthier, and more just society and world. Indeed as I have shown elsewhere, that Greentech revolution is driving forward at local and state levels despite opposition from Trump, MAGA, and the fossil fuel industry.

While a convergence of the Data Center Rebellion and the Greentech New Deal is far from inevitable, we can envision some steps that might help lead in that direction:

• Continue and expand the local struggles against data centers. Those struggles have put the issue squarely in the public eye, shown that communities are not powerless, and already blocked a remarkable number of data center proposals. They can take heart from the local struggles to shut down coal-fired power plants which have led to retirement commitments for over 70% of coal plants since 2010.
• Continue and expand the burgeoning coalitions promoting data center bans and moratoriums at city, state, and national levels. Force politicians and elected officials to impose such policies with no ifs, and, or buts.
• Encourage the broad array of forces that backed the Green New Deal, and continue to implement it at local and state levels, to use their considerable power and resources to champion the struggle against data centers. 
• Steadily broaden the Data Center Rebellion’s implicit– and often articulated – goal of replacing oligarchic with democratic control of the economy.
• Demand that the “precautionary principle” – that new innovations not be permitted until they are proven harmless — be applied both to data centers and to fossil fuel infrastructure.
• Prioritize the blocking of fossil fuels for data centers. 
• Present the Greentech New Deal as an alternative to the billionaire plan to dominate our communities, our economy, and our lives. 
• Promote the Greentech New Deal as at once the solution to the climate, the jobs, and the affordability crises. 

A handful of hyperscalers are trying to shape the future through AI and the data centers on which they depend. But the future may also be shaped in part by the unprecedented popular mobilization against data centers.

Get “Strike!” via EmailGet “Strike!” via Substack DONATE ONLINE

The post The Data Center Rebellion first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Read and subscribe to our monthly newsletter and support our work.

The post Latest Newsletter first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Sanchioni Butler is a veteran labor organizer, policy advocate, coalition builder, and leadership development professional with more than three decades of experience advancing workers’ rights, workplace democracy, racial and economic justice, and community empowerment.

Sanchioni began her career at Ford Motor Company in 1988 and later became an organizer and International Representative with the United Auto Workers. She organized workers and supported campaigns across Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina, Mississippi, and other parts of the South. Her international collaborations with trade unionists in South Africa, Brazil, France, and Japan strengthened her commitment to advancing worker and human rights globally.

After retiring from the UAW in 2018, Sanchioni expanded her work in public policy, political engagement, education, and community organizing. Her professional roles have included Senior Organizer with Jobs to Move America, Political Campaign Coordinator for the Mississippi AFL-CIO, and American Rescue Plan Coordinator for the Mississippi Association of Educators.

Sanchioni is the Founder and Principal Consultant of Impact Strategies and Consulting LLC, where she provides strategic planning, leadership development, team building, workforce advocacy, coalition building, organizational support, and youth engagement services. She also remains active in labor and civil-rights leadership through the Central Mississippi Central Labor Council and the NAACP Jackson Branch.

A skilled facilitator, trainer, and strategist, Sanchioni is committed to preparing emerging leaders and strengthening partnerships among labor, community, education, faith, and social justice organizations. Her work is grounded in the belief that lasting change occurs when people have the knowledge, confidence, and opportunity to advocate for themselves and their communities.

The post September 2026 LNS Spotlight: Sanchioni Butler first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Joe Uehlein’s tour for his new book Three Roads: Labor, Music, Ecology rolls on. Joe says,

The book tells the story of how LNS was founded, while also tracing my life’s trajectory from growing up along the banks of the Great Lake Erie and all the intrigue of a life in the labor movement, and my dedication to worker rights and environmental justice.

At many of the early stops I was introduced by LNS ED, Joshua Dedmond, and ably assisted by LNS Development Director, Yasmin Gabriel. We’ve played Detroit, Denver, San Francisco, Berkeley, Champaign-Urbana, IL, and Chicago.

Upcoming confirmed dates include Amherst, MA, Boston, MA, Portland, ME, Seattle, WA, Portland, OR, Homestead, PA, Takoma Park, MD/Washington, DC.

For information contact Joe at joeuehlein@mac.com; 202-256-7848

The post LNS Prez Joe Uehlein Book-and-Music Tour Coming to Boston September 16 first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

By Joe Uehlein

Global warming causes climate change. Climate Change is here. Many wrongly talk about what we are experiencing now as the new normal; it is not. Think of this year as the least extreme. It will get worse every year until we stop burning fossil fuels. Not reduce, but stop burning fossil fuels; and reduce meat consumption.

If we plot out the last 10,000 years, which is when society really began to develop, carbon in the atmosphere remained stable at 280ppm. Since 1850, almost overnight, we’ve gone to 430ppm. That’s “parts per million” and that’s how scientists measure carbon concentrations in the atmosphere. The warming rate has doubled since 2015.

Our most marginalized communities are living on the front lines of climate change and in the places with the fewest resources to prepare and recover. We need climate justice. The communities need a seat at the table. And we need climate action. They go hand in hand.

A massive heat dome is sent temperatures to 126 degrees across the western US this summer. 100 million Americans were breathing toxic smoke. This isn’t weather. It’s climate catastrophe, and it was a choice. Fossil fuel executives made it. Politicians protect it. Working people are paying for it with their pocketbooks and their health. Scientists are now warning that Earth is on track to cross a climate point of no return and become uninhabitable.

Even with the incredible build-out of renewable energy over the past 20 years, carbon emissions continue to skyrocket, and the planet continues to warm. Carbon (CO2) levels in the atmosphere are now at 430 ppm (parts per million), higher than ever before in human history. Research reveals that the US accounted for 50% of the worlds increase in emissions last year.

My conviction at starting LNS was that labor is blocking action on global warming and climate change, and without labor on our side we will lose. So we dedicated ourselves 20 years ago to working with unions and allied organizations to help them better understand their self interest in the fight to end global warming and climate change, and we work with enviro and climate justice/change orgs to help them better understand and work with unions.

We need power. Unions have power. Even in their reduced state, unions have economic power, and considerable power in the electoral arena. Most importantly, the American labor movement is the most powerful counterbalance to corporate power and control.

Our core, bedrock principle in the labor movement is worker solidarity. We are now challenged to bring this core principle to everyone, everywhere, and nurture human solidarity.

The post Prez Uehlein on What We’re Really Facing first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

By LNS Executive Director Joshua Dedmond

On July 28th, representatives from the Labor Network for Sustainability (LNS), alongside comrades from sister organizations including the Just Transition Alliance, The Chisholm Legacy Project, and Taproot Earth, joined the picket line in Jackson, Mississippi. The delegation stood in direct solidarity with striking transit workers represented by Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 1208.

ATU Local 1208 represents 80 bus operators, mechanics, cleaners, and customer service representatives operating Jackson’s public transit system, JTRAN. This picket line mobilization took place alongside a joint planning meeting focused on aligning Labor and Environmental Justice (EJ) strategies across the region.

Following a resilient 39-day strike, ATU Local 1208—led by Local President Charles Tornes Jr.—officially ratified a new contract with private contractor MV Transportation. The agreement secured immediate wage increases, protected essential working conditions, and fully restored regular bus service routes across the city.

In a state with a 4 percent union density rate and strict “right-to-work” laws, the victory of ATU Local 1208 demonstrates the transformative power of organized labor and community-wide solidarity. LNS and its environmental justice partners remain committed to uplifting ATU Local 1208 and continuing the shared struggle for transit equity, climate resilience, and worker dignity across the South.

The post Climate Justice Leaders Support Striking Transit Workers first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

A recent article by Sasha Abramsky in TruthOut tells how “Fired Federal Employees Are Bringing Climate Change Info Back to the People.”

Soon after Donald Trump was inaugurated President, the government’s premier educational website on climate change, Climate.gov, was shut down and most of the staff that produced it were fired by Elon Musk’s so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE). But now fired NOAA employees have resurrected it as Climate.us to bring climate information back to the people. Advised by a distinguished group of climate scientists, it is already receiving nearly a million hits a month.

Abramsky reports that their work has proven to be “an inspiration” for ex-government employees in a number of other agencies and branches of government. For example, former Environmental Protection Agency workers are preparing to resurrect climate-related EPA pages that have been taken down; Public Environmental Data Partners is rescuing specialist environmental monitoring tools; and the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative is saving specialized environmental justice screening tools.

The post Fired Federal Workers Want to Let You Know What the Government Won’t Tell You about Climate Change first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

A  new report from the nonpartisan business group E2 found that since Donald Trump was inaugurated, 216 major clean energy generation and manufacturing projects were scrapped, closed, or downsized. That led to the loss of nearly half a million potential jobs. The projects would have generated an estimated $53 billion in wages for workers during construction and more than $31 billion annually after they began operation.

For more: Trump’s clean energy attacks are costing the US jobs | Canary Media

For the full report: “One Year Since the One Big Beautiful Bill: An Economic Impact Analysis Of America’s Clean Economy”

The post Trump’s Attacks on Clean Energy Cost Half-a-Million Jobs first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Image source: Los Angeles skyline viewed from Griffith observatory at sunrise by martinm303, Envato Elements.

An AP/NORDC poll conducted in July asked people tell whether extreme heat has impacted their lives. 90 percent answered that it had.

Fifty percent of respondents said that extreme heat has had either a major or minor impact on their sleeping patterns, while only 44 percent said it has had no impact on their sleep. Fifty-two percent of respondents said extreme heat has impacted their travel or vacation plans, while only 44 percent said it hasn’t.

Two-thirds of Americans, 68 percent, said that their family’s outdoor activities have been impacted by extreme heat, while only 31 percent said their outdoor activities have not been impacted. Meanwhile, 81 percent said extreme heat over the past year has affected their electricity bills, while only 15 percent said they haven’t noticed a difference.

For More: Truthout: “9-in-10 Americans Polled Say Extreme Heat Is Affecting Their Lives”

The post 9 in 10 Americans Say Extreme Heat Is Affecting Their Lives first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Overall, climate protection policies create jobs and improve conditions for workers. But employers can try to take advantage of climate policies in ways that harm workers instead.

The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach handle nearly 40% of containerized imports to the US. Most of its existing technology is mechanical – and highly polluting. California air pollution regulators have proposed that equipment like trucks, cranes, and yard tractors should be electrified to meet the ports’ targets of 100 percent zero-emission operations. But workers and local communities are concerned that employers will take advantage of the need to reduce pollution through electrification as an excuse to automate the ports and eliminate jobs that have been the backbone of the local economy for generations.

A new report from the UCLA Labor Center warns that Southern California regulators’ efforts to electrify the ports create “a real risk of driving terminal operators to pursue port automation under the pretense of meeting environmental standards.” Rich Dines, a former Long Beach harbor commissioner and member of the ILWU longshoreman’s union, who contributed to the report says, “Electrification is an excuse for automation.”

Both ILWU and the Teamsters — who represent truckers moving goods from the ports to inland warehouses — stress they’re not against electrification and other zero-emission technologies in themselves. “We absolutely support green transportation and electric vehicles,” said Peter Finn, Teamsters’ western region vice president. But the companies are trying “to conflate the issues to engage in some PR spin and imply the technology is somehow more environmentally friendly,” Finn said.

The UCLA Labor Center report points the way toward a possible resolution. Industry stakeholders questioned the immediate benefits of increased automation. Terminal operators and labor representatives alike expressed significant doubts about automation’s presumed efficiencies. Instead, they championed a wide range of possible solutions other than automation, including increasing hours of operation, investing in inland ports, better worker-training programs, optimizing existing infrastructure to achieve standardization across terminals, shifting containerized cargo to on-dock rail systems, and the planned Goods Movement Training Campus. The report found that, “unlike automation, these solutions offer a systematic approach to maximizing port productivity and mitigating job loss.”

To learn more:

Politico: “California dockworkers have a new target in their fight against automation”

For the report:

“Automation and the Future of Dockwork at the San Pedro Bay Port Complex”

The post Climate Protection vs. Jobs? first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

An on-the-clock, worker-to-worker education session trains farmworkers on the FFP’s protections, including its heat stress standards The Packer: “By pairing electrolyte access with shade and rest, the upgraded rules give agricultural workers critical defense against chronic heat-related health risks.” Oscar Londoño, co-executive director of WeCount! in Florida Trib: “We think the model pioneered by the Coalition of Immokalee Workers is capable of doing what government can’t do right now, which is guaranteeing life-saving protections for workers.”

Last week, we shared how the Fair Food Program’s new rule mandating the year-round provision of electrolytes across all participating farms is generating a wave of national news. Today, we want to share three more stories that dive deeper into the new rule — highlighting both its urgent importance in protecting farmworkers from the growing dangers of extreme heat and the power of the FFP model to inspire workers in other industries to build enforceable protections of their own.

The stories underscore two distinct aspects of an increasingly stark reality: The dangers facing workers in a rapidly warming world are growing every day, but workers are also increasingly building proven solutions capable of meeting those dangers head-on. And as the Fair Food Program continues to expand, the Worker-driven Social Responsibility model pioneered by the CIW is providing a roadmap toward enforceable protections for workers far beyond the fields where it was born.

This week, we’d like to share a few more news stories that dive deeper into the FFP’s new rule and explore its impact beyond just the fields where it is being implemented. To start, here is the produce industry’s leading outlet, The Packer, providing an overview of the new rule, its reach, and the unique enforcement mechanisms underlying the FFP:

Fair Food Program Rolls Out Year-Round Electrolytes to Protect Farmworkers From Heat Illness By pairing electrolyte access with shade and rest, the upgraded rules give agricultural workers critical defense against chronic heat-related health risks.

Fair Food Program (FFP) has instituted a new rule requiring all participating agricultural growers to provide electrolyte beverages or supplements to workers year-round, effective Aug. 1.

The mandate expands the Coalition of Immokalee Workers’ existing Heat Illness Standards, which already mandate shade, cool drinking water, paid rest breaks, and heat safety training, to combat both acute heat illness and chronic conditions like long-term kidney damage.

“Sweating in the heat pulls electrolytes out of the body faster than water alone can replace them,” Roxana Chicas, associate professor at Emory University’s Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, says. “Making electrolytes available year-round, alongside shade, rest, and water, is a practical way to help keep workers safe from heat illness and to guard against kidney damage. Many growers already work hard to protect their crews in the heat, and this is one straightforward step that growers and workers can build into the daily work routine together,” she adds.

Unlike voluntary government guidelines, FFP standards carry binding market enforcement. Supported by agreements with 14 major retailers, including Walmart, McDonald’s, Whole Foods, and Trader Joe’s, participating buyers must suspend purchases from growers who fail to comply. The Fair Food Standards Council handles independent monitoring and enforcement through farm audits and a 24-hour complaint hotline.

Workers attend an education session as part of the FFP in New Jersey

“The health and safety of our employees is non-negotiable. It is incumbent on all employers to do everything possible to ensure that responsibility,” says Jon Esformes, CEO of Sunripe Certified Brands and a founding member of the FFP’s Working Group. “The formalization of what has been a best practice for some time is a singular action that is one of many to fulfill that responsibility. Here at Sunripe, and the Fair Food Program, we are always honored to lead the way.”

The Fair Food Program protects tens of thousands of farmworkers harvesting dozens of crops across 23 states and three countries, including the United States, Chile, and South Africa.

The importance of those protections becomes even clearer when viewed against the human toll of rising temperatures. More than 550 workers die from heat every year in the United States, according to La Jornada in its own coverage of the FFP’s new electrolyte rule. And for farmworkers — who labor for hours under the sun performing some of the most physically demanding work this country has to offer — the danger is especially acute.

But the FFP demonstrates that those dangers are not inevitable. Workers, growers, and buyers have built a system capable of identifying emerging threats, developing practical solutions, and, critically, ensuring that those solutions are actually implemented in the fields.

And just a few hours east of Immokalee, workers in Homestead’s massive plant nursery industry face many of the same dangers farmworkers confronted when the CIW began organizing more than three decades ago: extreme heat, wage theft, harassment, and retaliation. Inspired by the FFP’s example, those workers are now attempting to build enforceable protections of their own. 

To read about that effort, check out excerpts of The Florida Trib’s article below. To read the full article, click here, and to read more about how the CIW is working with WeCount! to help replicate the FFP’s protections in the plant nursery industry, read our post about that initiative here.

Weakened federal heat protection rules leave Florida workers sweating

…“There’s no way to talk about the ongoing fight for heat protections nationally without talking about what’s happening in Florida, both on side of the problem and more importantly on the side of the solution,” said Oscar Londoño, co-executive director of WeCount!, a human rights group pushing for heat safety protections in the plant nursery industry.

Dozens of American workers die from heat-related illnesses each year and thousands more are injured, according to federal statistics. Those numbers probably undercount heat’s true toll, since toiling under the sun gradually contributes to chronic illnesses such as kidney failure and raises the risk exhausted workers will have accidents like falls or crashes. In Florida, heat kills a worker almost every summer.

With few other options, workers are organizing protests and boycotts to pressure companies into giving them water and breaks, following the example of farmworkers in Immokalee, Florida, who won some of America’s strongest heat protections.

In Homestead, WeCount! is organizing plant nursery workers like Sandra along with plant buyers and community members to demand stronger labor protections as part of a campaign called Planting Justice.

“We think the model pioneered by the Coalition of Immokalee Workers is capable of doing what government can’t do right now, which is guaranteeing life-saving protections for workers,” said Londoño.

A laboratory for change

In the absence of government regulations, Florida has become the national epicenter of workers organizing for heat protections.

Immokalee farmworkers created the most successful model. Starting in the ‘90s, tomato pickers organized protests against abusive employers. In 2001, they launched the Campaign for Fair Food and fanned across the country, visiting churches and college campuses to tell Americans about the dangerous labor conditions under which their food is grown.

The workers drafted a code of conduct that included protections from violence, wage theft and sexual harassment. They demanded Florida tomato growers agree to follow the rules, and they also called on fast food companies and grocery stores to buy tomatoes whenever possible from participating farms. Then they asked Americans to protest and boycott companies, starting with Taco Bell, until they agreed to join the program.

The pressure campaign worked. Nearly all Florida tomato growers agreed to follow the workers’ rules and submit to regular audits and inspections to guarantee compliance. The Fair Food Program (FFP) now covers more than 25,000 farmworkers in 23 states and three countries who grow more than a dozen crops. Fourteen retailers including Walmart, Trader Joe’s and Burger King have agreed to not buy produce from farms that break the rules.

Nely Rodriguez (speaking) and Lupe Gonzalo (to Nely’s right) of the CIW join plant nursery workers with WeCount! at a press conference on the Planting Justice initiative in Miami earlier this year.

Five years ago, the FFP added mandatory heat protections to its code of conduct. Participating farms have to give workers access to cold water, shaded rest areas and 10-minute breaks every two hours on hot days. Starting this month, they must also offer workers electrolyte drinks or supplements such as Gatorade year round.

“While the hope for federal heat rules now wanes, the FFP is strengthening its protections with mandatory, year-round electrolytes even as it expands to more farms across the country,” Coalition for Immokalee Workers co-founder Lucas Benitez said in an emailed statement.

Workers on South Florida tropical plant nurseries hope to follow suit. This year, they launched the Planting Justice campaign, which would build a similar program around houseplants. Organizers are calling on Costa Farms — the country’s biggest plant nursery, headquartered in Homestead, Florida — to become the first grower to join the program. As part of a national letter writing campaign, more than 2,000 people have written to Costa Farms to urge them to join…

That’s all for today, but stay tuned for more updates on the Fair Food Program!

A new report co-published by the Centre for Future Work and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives reviews six new ‘Workforce Alliances’ being established by the federal government as part of its economic strategy responding to Donald Trump’s trade war. The report concludes that the Alliances have potential to improve training, labour supply, and labour standards – but Canadian unions must be ambitious and assertive to ensure that they fulfil this potential.

The report, Hinge Moment for Canada’s Workforce and Industrial Policy, is based on research presented at the recent Canadian Industrial Relations Association conference at Université Laval in Québec.

The federal government is advancing these new Alliances to strengthen the labour side of major new investment and industrial policies. Somewhat reminiscent of the previous tripartite era of sector councils from the 1990s, unions are once again being invited to participate. 

Ottawa has announced six Workforce Alliances, which largely mirror the government’s industry, energy and transportation infrastructure initiatives. On a parallel track, a historic $6 billion funding stream to support Red Seal skilled trades training has also been launched. 

Unions have ample experience with supply-side training programs. Too many have focused solely on meeting the labour supply needs of employers, with limited benefits for workers and no opportunity to build union power. Could this iteration of workforce policy be an opportunity for the labour movement to do better? Does it create an opening to influence industrial policy, labour standards and worker rights? 

At a special panel during the 2026 conference of the Canadian Industrial Relations Association (CIRA) at Université Laval in June, union experts and labour studies academics came together to review the Workforce Alliances and their associated training initiatives, and examine the opportunities for genuine trade union engagement.

The presentations to the CIRA conference are collected in this compendium. The goal is to start a bigger discussion among trade unionists and progressive researchers about a labour strategy that links workforce policy with labour standards and conditionalities across the industries and sectors receiving federal funding, including a larger role for unions in shaping industrial policy. 

Several common themes emerge from the contributions collected here. First, workforce policy cannot be reduced to labour supply measures aimed solely at meeting employers’ skills needs. Second, sectoral institutions and public investments must be linked to stronger labour standards, worker retention and equitable employment outcomes. Finally, the Workforce Alliances raise broader questions about industrial governance and whether unions can use these new institutions to exercise meaningful influence over economic strategy and democratic decision-making. 

Fred Wilson’s introduction traces the evolution of workforce policies from the old sector councils, to industry-led labour market information programs and now back to partial joint governance in the Workforce Alliances. In each case, the primary purpose has been to provide “labour market information,” or LMI, and training programs to meet employer needs. Yet, in this latest version of workforce policy, to meet the government’s promise of “not just jobs, but careers” will require going well beyond the LMI model. Labour’s goals in the new workforce policies must address sector and industry-based standards and industrial policies that create and sustain high-quality, value-added jobs. 

Ken Delaney, the managing director of the Canadian Skilled Trades Employment Coalition (CSTEC), Canada’s longest-standing “sector council” model, speaks to the limits of the former sector councils that were confined by government agendas. CSTEC’s work highlights the promise of workforce programs to address worker transition, equity and inclusion, especially if workers are allowed to maintain EI benefits in training. The organization’s programs also demonstrate how the career-building potential of Red Seal training can be adapted to meet the needs of skilled workers in manufacturing and other sectors. Delaney encourages unions to seize the opportunity in the Workforce Alliances to integrate industrial policy with labour market policy. 

Professor Evelyn Dionne’s study of the construction sector in Quebec warns that sector programs to increase labour force supply and speed up construction can lead to “a downward spiral marked by declining skill levels, lower-quality housing, inefficient green buildings and high turnover.” Dionne calls for project labour agreements (PLAs) to be incorporated into housing and construction projects in order to establish common and high-quality terms and conditions governing all workers and contractors. “By embedding training, equity and labour standards into procurement processes,” she writes, “PLAs can help ensure that accelerated construction does not come at the expense of quality or working conditions.” 

After pressure from within the Liberal caucus, reinforced by advocacy from social policy and feminist advocates, the federal government agreed to establish a Workforce Alliance for the care economy. Laurell Ritchie, a member of the Care Economy Initiative, emphasizes that in the care economy, worker retention is as important as recruitment. Like industrial sectors, meeting workforce goals in the care economy will require sector-based programs and standards, and strong government leadership. The inclusion of the care economy among the Workforce Alliances is itself recognition that industry and workforce policy can be influenced by advocacy from unions and women’s organizations. 

Unifor Research Director Angelo DiCaro’s contribution on the interrelationship between industrial policy and workforce policy underscores the need for the state to act as a “conductor” of a complex orchestra involving multiple public and private players. A weak state role leaves the government as a passive enabler of the private sector, resulting in “industrial improvisation” rather than industrial strategy. For the Workforce Alliances to make a real difference, they must go beyond workforce development—filling vacancies, and sponsoring training—to become well-rounded tables for “peak-level social dialogue” with “a whole-of-supply-chain approach” to labour standards and industrial growth. 

As DiCaro aptly puts it, the Workforce Alliances could be “a vital cog in the wheel of industrial growth and rising workplace standards.” Alternatively, they could become an “unambitious and burdensome exercise, simply facilitating training fund transfers, and entirely delinked from future-facing industrial strategy.” 

Prime Minister Carney has described this as a “hinge moment” for Canada, as Canadians collectively face up to the unprecedented threat posed by Donald Trump and aggression from Washington. It is also a hinge moment for labour. The potential reorientation of Canada’s economy away from deep dependence on U.S. export markets, with a greater role for active industrial policy and public investment, carries both opportunities and risks for unions and the workers they represent. 

The Workforce Alliances are an opportunity for unions to shape this historic economic moment, leveraging workers’ position at the point of production to demand both material progress and democratic power as this pivot unfolds. Canada’s unions must demonstrate that they have the organizational capacity and political leverage to bring a working-class agenda to the Workforce Alliances, and help to shape this new era of industrial policy in favour of workers. 

Please see the full paper here.

The post Workforce Alliances an Opportunity for Canadian Unions to Shape Future Industrial Strategies appeared first on Centre for Future Work.