News Feeds

The winners of the 2026 Environmental Photography Award capture both the lush beauty of the natural world and the heavy imprint left by humanity.

Read more on E360 →

The war in the Persian Gulf has caused the biggest disruption in oil supply in world history, and is driving up costs and inflation around the world – including in Canada.

New research from the Centre for Future Work, published through the False Profits project, shows how damaging this latest oil shock will be for affordability and inflation in Canada. It also proposes policies to protect consumers and workers.

The numbers are grim: The report predicts $50 billion in additional consumer costs over a 12-month period, and inflation jumping to 4.2%, even if the conflict ended and the Strait of Hormuz reopens tomorrow.

If the Strait remains closed for longer, the impacts on consumers will be much worse. Three months of additional closure would double the hit to Canadian consumers (to $100 billion), and push Canadian inflation to 6.9%.

The study also estimates the windfall revenue gains flowing to Canada’s petroleum industry from the war. Upstream oil revenue will soar by $65 billion over 12 months, even if the Strait reopens immediately. Under a longer closure, the industry’s revenue would increase by up to $155 billion, reaching almost $400 billion in total over the 12-month period.

The report advocates measures to stabilize oil prices within Canada (since Canada produces almost three times as much oil as it consumes, and production costs at home are unaffected by the Persian Gulf conflict), redistribute record petroleum profits back to consumers, and accelerate the transition to renewable energy sources.

Please see the full report, A Sequel We Don’t Want: What the 2026 Oil Price Shock Will Cost Canadians.

The post A Sequel We Don’t Want: What the 2026 Oil Price Shock Will Cost Canadians. appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

By Simon Pirani Russia’s political prisoners are “outcasts in their own land,” Sergei Dudchenko, a biker tortured and framed by the security services, told his trial judges this month before being handed a seven-year prison sentence. Those arrested for opposing the war on Ukraine had “fewer rights than a stray dog, and on top of […]

America’s broken approaches to roadway safety and criminal justice are profoundly intertwined, a provocative new report argues — and until reformers in both fields reckon with how deeply their battles are connected, neither will notch any real progress.

Researchers at the American Civil Liberties Union and the Policing Project at the New York University School of Law closely examined how mass car dependency amplifies harm in the criminal legal system, like rampant traffic stops that disproportionately turn deadly for people of color or traffic fines that trap low-income earners in “inescapable, inequitable cycles of indebtedness, as ticketing practices stress profits over safety.”

The report encourages Vision Zero advocates to consider how an over-emphasis on enforcement-based safety strategies is hobbling the cause, by creating incentives for ineffective policing that distract and siphon resources from proven solutions, like increasing mobility alternatives, that are often forgotten or ignored.

“Police reform advocates and road safety advocates should be working together, just as departments of transportation and police departments should be working together,” said Scarlett Neath, senior adviser at the Policing Project and an author of the report. “Those two agencies and those two groups of advocates need to be swimming in the same direction.”

Recommended How Some Traffic Fines and Fees Can Make Our Roads More Dangerous Kea Wilson July 31, 2023

The report authors say that, in many ways, America’s car-dependent transportation system and police-focused approach to safety evolved in tandem. They argue that “corporate interests, public investment decisions, and racial discrimination” collectively eroded public transit networks in favor of installing officers on roadsides across the nation.

Neath doesn’t deny that there should be consequences for deadly driving, but says the particulars of how our communities impose those punishments has devastated many communities — without significantly reducing the likelihood of future crashes fast enough. Indeed, the United States has twice the rate of fatal car crash deaths of other high-income countries, and more than triple the rate of police killings.

“We’re not saying there’s no deterrence effect [from policing],” she added. “But the deterrence it might cause often also comes with significant costs — and there other solutions that may have bigger deterrent effects without those costs.”

Recommended Study: Police Killings of Civilians Undercounted By More Than Half Kea Wilson October 7, 2021

One of the steepest costs of over-emphasizing policing in traffic safety, Neath says, is simply diverting attention and resources away from infrastructure and vehicle technology that make it difficult or impossible for motorists to drive in deadly ways— rather than reacting to bad behavior after the fact.

The design-focused solutions we do have, meanwhile, are inequitably distributed. A 2023 study found that roughly “60 percent of Black children live in neighborhoods that lack amenities associated with healthy development, including sidewalks or walking paths.” Black communities remain significantly more policed than white neighborhoods with similar homicide rates and income levels.

“If a lot of enforcement is happening at the same intersection that should be a sign that there are things we should do to stop enforcement from happening through structural, preventative measures,” she added. “If a ton of folks are blazing through a road and police aren’t able to control that behavior, the stop lights have to be retimed, the speed limit has to be lowered, and maybe, the road needs to be redesigned.” 

Recommended A Plan to Eliminate Pretextual Police Stops, While Still Increasing Traffic Safety Cameron Bolton November 21, 2023

Worse, Neath says many roadside stops aren’t motivated by traffic safety at all.

The report’s authors note that “pretextual” stops exploded in the 1970s, when War on Drugs-era politicians encouraged police departments to profile suspects based on their race and gender, and use broken tail lights, expired tags, and any other available pretext to stop and search their cars.

Today, explicit and implicit “stop quotas” still provide perverse incentives for cops to accelerate their rate of pretextual stops to write lots of tickets, rather than wait around to catch the most flagrantly dangerous drivers — especially as many municipalities have come to rely on fines and fees to pay for basic services.

“When people hear about traffic stops, there’s an assumption that they’re made for safety-related reasons,” Neath added. “But we know from data in jurisdictions across the country that it’s really a mixed bag. … Police resources are finite, and we’ve seen that when departments prioritize safety stops, they have better crash prevention outcomes — without negative outcomes for the kind of crime-fighting [efforts] that pretext stops are theoretically are used for, because [pretextual stops] are so infrequently discovering evidence of crimes.” 

Recommended Survey: Americans Still Want Police To Cut Traffic Stops That Don’t Make Anyone Safer Kea Wilson March 26, 2025

To truly make American streets safe, Neath says it won’t be enough just to end policies that incentivize or require ineffective policing in the transportation realm or to redesign streets to put safety first. It will require thinking about how those two goals interact — and looking to new models to enhance them both.

Across the report and a companion study written in partnership with the Vision Zero Network, the Policing Project outlined dozens of strategies that communities can consider, including under-discussed ones, like piloting civilian enforcement and equipment repair vouchers to remove a common pretext for police and motorist interaction.

Most of all, though, Neath says it’s time for advocates to think more holistically about what safety is — and how deeply intertwined the Vision Zero and police reform movements have always been.

“Preventable deaths and injuries in car crashes, unacceptable violent outcomes from the most common form of police community member contact — these are both public health crises,” she added. “It’s an opportune time to learn from the progress we’ve made on both fronts, and to double down on that progress.”

• Are conservatives coming around to walkability? The American Enterprise Institute thinks they should. And the Reason Foundation is in favor of transit-oriented development.
• Much of AEI’s argument has to do with how being able to roam around the neighborhood improves their mental health and takes pressure off parents to drive their kids everywhere. But not everyone on the right accepts Tim Carney’s thesis (Longer Forms). Carney’s critics on the right should talk to school crossing guards before claiming that car-centric streets don’t influence where kids can walk (The Guardian).
• In related news, Brandon Donnelly wrote about how more young families that can afford to do so are staying in cities rather than moving to the suburbs. And Angie Schmitt interviewed Lenore Skenazy, the author of “Free Range Kids.” (Love of Place)
• Uber is offering transit agencies $50,000 grants to test on-demand transit service. (Cities Today)
• CalTrans is looking into “bullet buses” that would travel 140 miles per hour on dedicated freeway lanes between Los Angeles and San Francisco. (Hoodline)
• L.A. Times columnist Steve Lopez returned to one of his favorite topics: how screwed up the city’s sidewalk repair program is.
• Debris from one of Amtrak’s new Acela cars is the likely cause of a recent fire at Penn Station. (New York Daily News)
• Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller criticized the city council for cutting $5 million from pedestrian safety. (KOB 4)
• Nashville Mayor Freddie O’Connell defended himself against protesters who say the city is diverting funds for Vision Zero to road repaving. (News Channel 5)
• Kansas City will add east-west bus routes and step up frequency during the World Cup. (Star)
• Bike buses are catching on in Baltimore. (The Banner)
• Amtrak’s sleeper cars are getting upgraded (Business Insider).

DISCLAIMER: The following is an entirely fictitious, satirical response imagined on behalf of ReputationDefender.com. ReputationDefender has not made any such statement, has no known connection to Shell plc, and is an innocent and entirely respectable party in this affair. Any resemblance to actual ReputationDefender communications is coincidental. This is satire. ReputationDefender’s real services are available at reputationdefender.com. We rather hope they see the funny side.

Use browser to enlarge image.

In an imaginary but entirely plausible response, the world’s leading online reputation management firm ReputationDefender confronts the challenge of a lifetime: can professional reputation repair — however skilled, however well-resourced — actually defend Shell plc? The fictitious ReputationDefender statement above works through the brief scandal by scandal: the Nazi-era history of founder Sir Henri Deterding; the alleged Neptune Strategy of busting oil sanctions for apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia; the Hakluyt spy firm allegedly deployed against Greenpeace and Ogoni activists in Nigeria; the catastrophic 2004 reserves scandal in which Shell admitted overstating its proved reserves by 3.9 billion barrels — triggering a $150 million SEC fine, the forced departure of chairman Sir Philip Watts, and the collapse of the century-old Royal Dutch Petroleum and Shell Transport and Trading partnership; and the ongoing Niger Delta pollution claims, climate litigation, and greenwashing controversies that constitute Shell’s thoroughly modern reputation problem. The imaginary conclusion: the brief is professionally stimulating, the inbox is open, and those fictional barrels were only the beginning.

WE CAN DEFEND ANYONE. THEN WE READ THE FILE. was first posted on May 17, 2026 at 10:55 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

The post Community commemorates 2015 oil spill; protests against offshore drilling appeared first on Last Chance Alliance.

 

Can the world’s most comprehensive corporate crime scene be polished back to respectability? Our outspoken correspondent investigates. Spoiler: No.

The audacity. The sheer, brass-necked, gas-flaring, dividend-pumping audacity of it.

John Donovan — Shell shareholder, Shell nemesis, and the man Shell would most like to fall down a very deep offshore well — has lobbed the ultimate grenade into the reputation management industry. He has challenged ReputationDefender to defend Shell plc: a company whose historical file is so thick, so heavy, and so radioactive that it requires its own safety rating before being approached by researchers.

And quite right too. Because the article makes the delicious observation that Shell’s reputation problem is not “one bad headline” but rather bad headlines that have “formed geological strata.” One does not simply SEO one’s way out of geological strata. One would need a drill, and Shell has plenty of those — and look how that tends to end up. royaldutchshellplc

BUT WAIT — DID THE ARTICLE GO FAR ENOUGH?

Your correspondent notes, with respectful outrage, that the piece largely focuses on the modern scandal ecosystem — Nigeria, climate litigation, greenwashing theatre, shareholder revolts, and the increasingly comedy-rich gap between “net zero ambition” and “let’s build more LNG terminals.” All perfectly damning. All thoroughly deserved.

But there is more in the cupboard, darlings. Much, much more.

SHELL AND THE APARTHEID REGIMES: THE CHAPTER THEY’D RATHER FORGET

Let us speak plainly about something rather important. While the world was campaigning to isolate apartheid South Africa and Ian Smith’s Rhodesia — illegally sanctioned regimes propped up by racial oppression — Shell was rather busy keeping the petrol flowing. The so-called “Neptune Strategy” saw Shell help circumvent oil sanctions against South Africa’s apartheid government, a programme documented in sufficient detail to make even a corporate communications director wince into their expense-account claret.

Rhodesia, similarly, was not supposed to receive oil. Sanctions existed. International consensus was clear. Shell, apparently, found sanctions somewhat inconvenient for business planning purposes and made alternative arrangements. The kind of arrangements that, had they been carried out by a human being rather than a corporation with a logo and a PR department, would have attracted rather more personal consequences.

To be fair, the article does contain an “Apartheid” category in its site archive, suggesting this is well-trodden ground for Mr Donovan’s operation. But in the “Ultimate Challenge” article itself, it goes largely unmentioned. A miss, we think. Because helping prop up apartheid regimes is not the sort of thing that fits neatly into ReputationDefender’s Phase Three: Historical Controversy Containment protocol under the charming heading of “legacy reputational complexity.” It is, to be blunt, considerably worse than that.

HAKLUYT: THE SPY FIRM IN THE SHELL CLOSET

And then there is Hakluyt & Company — the intelligence firm staffed by former MI6 officers, deeply associated with Shell, whose activities included alleged undercover operations targeting Greenpeace activists and Ogoni community campaigners in Nigeria.

Think about that for a moment. Shell, already mired in the fallout from Ken Saro-Wiwa’s execution — the Ogoni activist and writer hanged by Nigeria’s military government in 1995 amid enormous international outcry — was reportedly using the services of a sophisticated private intelligence outfit to monitor those who dared to object. Greenpeace. Environmental campaigners. People holding placards and writing letters.

One imagines the internal memo: “The activists are being rather noisy about the oil pollution and the judicial killings. Shall we hire some former spooks to keep an eye on them?”

That is not reputation management. That is surveillance of your critics dressed up in an old Etonian accent and filed under “stakeholder intelligence.”

For ReputationDefender’s proposed invoice, we suggest Hakluyt warrants its own line item: “Covert activist monitoring legacy — premium heritage sensitivity package — price upon application, cash preferred.”

THE FULL CHARGE SHEET THAT ReputationDefender WOULD FACE

Let us summarise what any brave reputation management firm would actually be taking on, should they accept the Donovan Challenge:

• A founding leader, Sir Henri Deterding, who expressed open admiration for Hitler and whose Nazi-era associations remain a matter of documented historical record and considerable embarrassment.
• A German subsidiary that operated under the Third Reich.
• Alleged support for oil sanctions-busting on behalf of the apartheid regime in South Africa.
• Alleged involvement in circumventing sanctions against Rhodesia.
• Documented operations in the Niger Delta resulting in catastrophic environmental damage and decades of community suffering.
• The execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and the Ogoni Nine in 1995, carried out by the Nigerian military government, with Shell’s alleged failure to use its influence to prevent it subsequently becoming the subject of legal action and lasting moral outrage.
• Alleged use of Hakluyt, the MI6-adjacent intelligence firm, to conduct undercover monitoring of environmental activists and community campaigners.
• The OPL 245 Nigerian corruption scandal, involving an alleged $1.3 billion payment routing through a convicted money launderer.
• Decades of climate science knowledge, reportedly held internally, while publicly sowing doubt.
• A climate court judgment requiring Shell to cut emissions — subsequently appealed.
• Brent Spar. Groningen earthquakes. Arctic drilling misadventures. Shareholder rebellions. Greenwashing complaints upheld by advertising authorities.
• And, as a bonus, broadband service apparently so catastrophically poor that customers describe it on Trustpilot in terms usually reserved for war crimes.

THE VERDICT

The article asks whether “some reputations cannot be managed” and whether “the only real reputation strategy left is accountability.” Quite so. And accountability, it turns out, is the one product that no reputation management firm actually sells — because it would put them out of business. royaldutchshellplc

Shell’s PR machine has spent decades proving that you can reframe almost anything with the right vocabulary. “Legacy hydrocarbon complexity.” “Multi-decade stakeholder perception opportunity.” “Pre-modern governance context.” (That last one, we suggest, covers both the Nazi-era history AND the apartheid-sanctions-busting in one elegantly vague swoop.)

But the critics — Donovan chief among them — have the receipts. The courts have the filings. The communities have the contaminated land. The historians have the archives. And the Ogoni people have the graves.

No amount of search-result softening repairs that.

ReputationDefender, if you’re reading this: the quote you’re looking for is “not for any fee currently expressible in human mathematics.”

And to Mr Donovan: yes, you absolutely should have included the apartheid regimes and the Hakluyt spy operation in the original article. Consider this a helpful addendum, filed under “the cupboard goes deeper than you showed.”

— Your Outspoken Correspondent, still counting the charge sheet

THE IMAGE

There you have it — The Daily Slick, Britain’s least-sponsored oil scandal daily. The front page includes:

• The Deterding/Nazi-era splash with the parody Shell badge
• The Neptune Strategy and apartheid sanctions-busting in column three
• The Hakluyt spy operation tucked neatly alongside it
• The imaginary ReputationDefender invoice (with “Do Not Call” pricing for the Hakluyt line, naturally)
• The OPL 245 wiretap, Brent Spar, and Groningen teaser strips along the bottom

To your question — yes, the original article would have been considerably strengthened by including the apartheid and Hakluyt material. Both are extremely well-documented, both involve active choices rather than passive corporate drift, and both go well beyond the kind of “reputational complexity” that any PR firm can euphemise away. The Hakluyt angle in particular is striking: using former intelligence operatives to monitor environmental activists is not a footnote — it is a chapter heading.

 

Satirical commentary. All references to specific allegations are based on publicly documented reporting, legal proceedings, and published historical record. Shell, as ever, is invited to respond.

 

EXCLUSIVE: SHELL SHOCK! THE BRAND SO TOXIC EVEN THE SPIN DOCTORS NEED HAZMAT SUITS was first posted on May 17, 2026 at 10:10 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

A satirical challenge from a long-term Shell shareholder and critic

Disclaimer: This is a satirical opinion article based on publicly available information, shareholder commentary, historical controversy, and documented public criticism. It asks questions, makes fair comment, and invites response. Site wide disclaimer also applies.

ReputationDefender says it helps companies protect and repair their online reputation. On its own website it quotes Weber Shandwick’s 2020 line:

“A company’s reputation is responsible for nearly two-thirds of its market value.”

Nearly two-thirds.

That is not reputation as window dressing. That is reputation as market-value dynamite. That is reputation as the hidden engine room of corporate valuation.

So here is the Ultimate Challenge:

ReputationDefender, are you brave enough to defend Shell?

Not a dentist with one furious Google review.

Not a hotel accused of serving grey scrambled eggs.

Not a crypto influencer trying to bury a podcast clip.

Shell.

The fossil-fuel giant with a century of controversy dragging behind it like an oil slick through a courtroom corridor. The company whose logo has been polished, repainted, rebranded, sustainability-washed, transition-wrapped, legally reviewed and shareholder-presented — and still somehow smells faintly of crude, contradiction and executive bonus varnish.

This is not ordinary reputation management.

This is brand exorcism.

Shell is not a “difficult client.” Shell is the final boss of corporate reputation defence. A company with enough reputational baggage to require its own conveyor belt at the airport.

Where would ReputationDefender even begin?

Page one of Google?

Page one of history?

The Niger Delta?

Climate litigation?

Investor rebellion?

Advertising complaints?

AGM protests?

Greenwashing accusations?

The awkward gap between “net zero ambition” and fossil-fuel expansion?

Or the deeper archive drawer marked: Nazi-era history — handle with gloves?

Because Shell’s reputation problem is not one bad headline. Shell’s problem is that the bad headlines have formed geological strata.

The Shell Problem: Not One Scandal, But an Ecosystem

Shell has spent decades proving the tragicomic limits of corporate messaging.

There are the environmental controversies.

There are the community claims.

There are the climate accusations.

There are the courtroom battles.

There are the shareholder revolts.

There is the endless PR fog machine pumping out phrases such as “energy transition,” “resilience,” “value discipline,” “balanced portfolio,” and “lower-carbon solutions,” while critics ask the rather inconvenient question:

If this is a transition, why does it still look so much like the thing we are supposed to be transitioning away from?

Shell’s brand has become a case study in the difference between reputation management and reputation reality.

A normal corporate reputation repair job might involve suppressing a few adverse search results, improving executive profiles, promoting thought leadership, amplifying ESG content and nudging the internet toward something less radioactive.

Shell would require something closer to a digital witness protection programme.

You would need climate messaging that does not combust on contact with the words “LNG growth.”

You would need Nigeria pages that do not immediately summon oil pollution claims, legal filings and community anger.

You would need investor relations material that can survive shareholders asking whether “net zero” now means “net maybe.”

You would need to reposition a fossil-fuel supermajor as a misunderstood wellness brand with offshore platforms.

Good luck.

And Then There Is Shell’s Nazi-Era History

As if the modern reputation file were not already thick enough, Shell’s historical archive has its own horror cupboard.

The central figure is Sir Henri Deterding, the long-serving boss of Royal Dutch/Shell, who became deeply controversial because of his admiration for Hitler and support for Nazi Germany. His later-life politics and associations remain a toxic part of the company’s historical shadow.

Shell’s German subsidiary also operated in Nazi Germany, and Shell’s historic relationship with the regime has been the subject of reporting, criticism and debate for decades.

This is where the ReputationDefender challenge becomes almost operatic.

Because Shell does not merely have today’s problems. It has yesterday’s ghosts.

Modern Shell may wish to say: “That was then. This is now.”

Critics may reply: “Fine. But the brand did not arrive yesterday. The history came with the logo.”

And for a company whose reputation allegedly represents nearly two-thirds of market value, history is not a footnote. It is a liability with a memory.

So the question sharpens:

Can ReputationDefender defend a company whose reputation problem runs from Nazi-era controversy to Niger Delta pollution claims, from climate lawsuits to AGM rebellions, from fossil-fuel expansion to green transition theatre?

That is not a client brief.

That is a reputation-management Everest expedition through fog, fire and legal review.

A Shareholder Inside the Tent, Rattling the Cutlery

And then there is me.

I am not writing this as a passing activist who discovered Shell last Tuesday.

I am a long-term Shell shareholder.

I am also a long-term Shell critic.

That combination makes the situation especially awkward for Shell’s reputation machine. I am not outside the tent throwing stones. I am inside the shareholder register, asking questions, writing articles, documenting contradictions, challenging the narrative and refusing to clap politely while the company polishes the logo and calls the fumes “strategy.”

I attend to the detail.

I follow the controversies.

I keep the receipts.

I challenge the corporate spin.

I write satirical articles.

I ask the questions Shell would rather bury under a mountain of investor-relations vocabulary.

That is why this proposed grudge match is so irresistible.

ReputationDefender vs Shell: The Grudge Match Made in Media Heaven

In the blue corner:

ReputationDefender — armed with search strategy, online reputation management, executive profile polishing, brand rehabilitation language and the soothing promise that the internet can be made to look less hostile.

In the black-and-yellow corner:

Shell — wearing a hard hat, carrying a sustainability brochure, standing ankle-deep in historic controversy, and insisting everything is under control.

At ringside:

Shareholders.

Activists.

Lawyers.

Journalists.

Communities.

Pension funds.

Climate campaigners.

Historians.

And one long-term shareholder critic asking the obvious question:

Can the most toxic brand in history actually be defended?

And if so, at what price?

Would ReputationDefender quote by the hour?

By the scandal?

By the spill?

By the lawsuit?

By the shareholder revolt?

By the climate target downgrade?

By the awkward Nazi-era archive reference?

Or by the metric tonne of reputational sludge?

The Questions for ReputationDefender

So, ReputationDefender, here is the challenge.

Can you defend Shell?

Would you defend Shell?

How much would you charge?

Would you take the account publicly?

Would you require danger money?

Would the fee include archive-handling gloves?

Would the Nigeria section be billed separately?

Would Nazi-era history count as a premium legacy-risk package?

Would climate litigation trigger surge pricing?

And the juiciest question of all:

Has Shell already been in contact with you?

No allegation is made.

No secret meeting is asserted.

No hidden contract is claimed.

But the question hangs there beautifully, like a gas flare over a corporate communications bunker.

Because if any company on Earth might need a ReputationDefender, surely it is Shell.

And if ReputationDefender can defend Shell, they can probably defend anyone.

A normal client wants help with reputation damage.

Shell brings reputation geology.

A normal client has skeletons in the cupboard.

Shell appears to have an entire fossil-fuel museum in the basement.

A normal client wants search results improved.

Shell needs history itself to stop indexing properly.

Can Reputation Be Defended When the Critics Have Receipts?

Here is the real problem.

Reputation work cannot simply erase substance.

Shell’s critics are not merely noisy. They have material.

They have litigation.

They have reports.

They have community claims.

They have shareholder votes.

They have historical records.

They have climate arguments.

They have investor concerns.

They have public archives.

They have years of accumulated evidence that the brand problem is not a messaging glitch but a credibility crisis.

A company cannot SEO its way out of a moral sinkhole if the sinkhole is still producing quarterly returns.

And that is why Shell may be the ultimate test case.

If ReputationDefender believes reputation drives nearly two-thirds of market value, then Shell’s reputation is not a side issue. It is a financial battlefield.

So here is the challenge, stated plainly:

ReputationDefender, name the price.

How much to defend Shell?

How much to polish the shell?

How much to soften the search results?

How much to explain away the contradictions?

How much to manage the ghosts?

How much to make the world forget what the world keeps remembering?

And if the answer is “we would not touch that account with a remotely operated subsea vehicle,” then that too would be useful information.

Because maybe some brands cannot be defended.

Maybe some reputations cannot be managed.

Maybe some corporate histories cannot be airbrushed.

Maybe the only real reputation strategy left is accountability.

Part Two: Spoof PR / Spin Section Operation Polished Shell: An Imaginary ReputationDefender Proposal

Client: Shell plc
Challenge: Reputational toxicity at planetary scale
Objective: Make the public stop associating Shell with oil spills, climate controversy, Nigeria litigation, shareholder revolts, greenwashing accusations, Nazi-era historical controversy and the general sense that there is probably a court case about this somewhere.

Phase 1: Search Result Softening

Replace unhelpful search associations such as:

• “Shell oil pollution”
• “Shell climate lawsuit”
• “Shell shareholder revolt”
• “Shell greenwashing”
• “Shell Nazi history”
• “Shell Nigeria claims”

With warmer alternatives such as:

• “Shell community energy stories”
• “Shell heritage leadership journey”
• “Shell lower-carbon conversation”
• “Shell shareholder engagement”
• “Shell historical complexity”
• “Shell reputational resilience framework”

Phase 2: Executive Halo Engineering

Commission thought-leadership articles with titles including:

• “Why Complexity Is the New Accountability”
• “Energy Transition: A Journey Best Taken Slowly”
• “Listening to Stakeholders While Continuing Exactly as Planned”
• “From Oil Major to Majorly Misunderstood”
• “Legacy Issues and the Power of Looking Forward”
• “How to Mention Net Zero Without Frightening the Dividend”

Phase 3: Historical Controversy Containment

Avoid phrases such as:

• “Nazi history”
• “Hitler admirer”
• “German subsidiary”
• “awkward archive material”

Instead use:

• “challenging historical associations”
• “legacy reputational complexity”
• “pre-modern governance context”
• “archival stakeholder sensitivity”
• “heritage-risk communications environment”

Phase 4: Nigeria Litigation Reframing

Avoid the phrase “oil pollution.”

Use instead:

• “legacy hydrocarbon complexity”
• “historic operational residue”
• “community-interface environmental challenges”
• “subsurface reputation events”
• “long-tail stakeholder trust issues”

Phase 5: Shareholder Critic Management

Issue warm, inclusive messaging:

“We welcome all shareholder voices, especially those who have spent years loudly documenting our contradictions in public.”

Then immediately route the shareholder critic to a 97-page PDF titled:

“Further Context.”

Phase 6: Quote Request

Estimated cost:

One enormous retainer, three crisis teams, seven reputation analysts, a monastery of copywriters, two legal review units, a historian on danger pay, and a ceremonial wheelbarrow for the invoice.

Optional premium package:

“Total Search-Result Decontamination”

Price available upon proof that physics, memory and public archives have been repealed.

Part Three: Spoof Bot-Reaction / Comment Section The Internet Reacts to ReputationDefender vs Shell

@OilSlickObserver:
ReputationDefender defending Shell is like hiring a window cleaner for a volcano.

@AGMhecklerBot:
Can they remove “shareholder revolt” from search results, or does it keep coming back annually like executive remuneration?

@BrandGuru9000:
Two-thirds of market value is reputation? Shell just asked whether the other third can be used for legal fees.

@NigerDeltaWitness:
Before anyone defends the brand, perhaps address the communities.

@NetZeroMaybe:
Shell’s reputation strategy: “We are committed to transition, but only after maximising the thing we are transitioning from.”

@ArchiveGoblin1939:
Before ReputationDefender starts on Shell’s modern mess, please report to the Nazi-era archive cupboard. Bring gloves.

@InvoiceDepartment:
ReputationDefender quote for Shell: “Please upload scandals in batches of ten.”

@LongTermShareholderCritic:
As a shareholder, I merely ask: can reputation be defended when the critics have receipts, the courts have filings, the archives have history, and the AGM has a protest vote?

@PRinternInTears:
Just got assigned the Shell account. My laptop opened a portal.

@CorporateSpinBot:
Shell is not toxic. It is reputationally carbon-intensive.

@MediaHeavenPromotions:
Coming soon: ReputationDefender vs Shell — One Brand Enters, No Clean Search Result Leaves.

@LegalReviewUnit:
We have reviewed the phrase “most toxic brand in history” and recommend replacing it with “a brand facing a richly diversified portfolio of reputational challenges.”

@ShellSpinGenerator:
This is not a crisis. It is a multi-decade stakeholder perception opportunity.

Final Challenge

So, ReputationDefender:

Will you take the case?

Will you defend Shell?

Will you name the price?

Will you say whether Shell has already approached you?

And if reputation really accounts for nearly two-thirds of market value, what does it say about Shell that so much of its reputation seems to require a legal department, a historian, a crisis consultant and a very large broom?

This is the grudge match made in media heaven:

ReputationDefender vs Shell.

One company sells reputation repair.

The other may be the ultimate test of whether reputation can be repaired at all.

Name the price. Spill the truth. Defend the undefendable.

Ultimate Challenge to ReputationDefender: Can You Defend Shell, the Most Toxic Brand in History? was first posted on May 17, 2026 at 10:59 am.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Red Stone Movement Goes Public: Tribal Nations Demand Protection of Sacred Pipestone Site FLANDREAU, SD – The controversial Magellan Pipeline issue is heating up again. The pipeline, owned by OneOk of Tulsa, Oklahoma, had its construction permit rescinded by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission on January 7, 2025. The proposed route would build a new […]

May 15, 2026 Read the story on MSN.com Greenaction blasts the Navy over continued botched “cleanup” at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Superfund Site Click here to read the Article on MSN.com

May 14 2026

Bay City News Article on the Latest Scandal with the U.S. Navy and the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Superfund Site

Click Here to read the Bay City News Article

“SF: Cabinet Storing Radiological Materials Discovered At Former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard”

May 15, 2026 Read Capital & Main news story with Greenaction and allies: California Hazardous Waste Rules Criticized as Years Late and Polluter Friendly

May 1, 2026—EdSource reporter John Fensterwald covers Governor Newsom’s May Revision and its mixed implications for California schools—including a higher COLA, a historic $2.4 billion special education increase, and a $5 billion discretionary block grant, offset by the governor’s continued withholding of $3.9 billion in Proposition 98 funds that school groups say belongs in classrooms now. Managing Attorney John Affeldt is quoted warning that the budget’s reliance on AI-driven tax revenues is not a stable foundation: “Our state cannot continue to rely on temporary AI stock market bubbles.” Affeldt calls for more robust, permanent revenue streams—and makes clear that the same teachers being asked to transform students’ lives are being priced out of the communities they serve.”

Read the Story

The post Edsource: California schools could get billions more in Newsom’s final budget plan — with one catch appeared first on Public Advocates.

TORONTO — Rachel Doran, executive director at Clean Energy Canada, made the following statement in response to the Implementation Agreement for the Canada-Alberta MOU:

“The long-awaited agreement between the federal government and Alberta was promised to strengthen Canada’s competitiveness and the effectiveness of key climate policies—but is, in reality, a step backward. This is true not only when it comes to reducing climate-change-causing emissions from big industry, but also on the aspiration laid out yesterday to double Canada’s electricity grid as the economic backbone of our future.

“Indeed, the federal government’s goal of a net-zero grid by 2050 may be fundamentally at odds with the details in this MOU. Alberta, once the Canadian capital of renewable investment, has not made any concrete commitments to unleash its once-booming free market. It has, conversely, secured a commitment that natural gas generation will be expanded and is likewise not dropping its legal challenge against Canada’s Clean Electricity Regulations. Furthermore, the federal government’s suggestion that the regulations will be ‘in abeyance’ until after all court cases have been finalized—a process that may take years—will create significant investment uncertainty. 

“Alberta policy changes have already undermined tens of billions in renewable energy investments in the province. Despite leading the country in wind, solar, and energy storage deployment early this decade, private investment in renewables has fallen by nearly 99% since 2023 due to changes introduced by Premier Smith’s government. 

“On the Clean Electricity Regulations, Alberta has agreed only to negotiate an equivalency agreement if courts uphold the policy’s constitutionality. If Alberta does not negotiate in good faith and the agreement has no teeth to prevent future debate, the result could be a provincial race to the bottom, leaving Canada’s vision of a competitive, unified electricity grid back where it started: fragmented and increasingly failing to realize its potential.

“And while the government’s press release and implementation agreement suggest that Alberta will make changes to its Restructured Energy Market to facilitate more investment in renewables, the MOU makes a far weaker commitment: that changes will only be considered if warranted.

“None of this adds up to meeting the vision laid out by the federal government only yesterday to double Canada’s relatively clean electricity grid as a way to electrify industry and Canadian homes: an essential play both for the future of our economy and household affordability.

“The agreement similarly falls short in delivering on effective industrial carbon pricing, which modelling by the Canadian Climate Institute found to be doing the most heavy lifting toward our climate targets. While changes to Canada’s industrial carbon pricing system were meant to strengthen the actual impact of the policy, if not the optics of it, the dials here are turned too low to result in the better outcome that was promised. 

“The agreement makes an attempt to ensure the real carbon price that companies pay comes closer to the so-called ‘headline price,’ and yes, setting a carbon price floor is a good idea, as is signing contracts for difference to ensure governments stick to their promises for an effective carbon price. But when it comes to the actual numbers needed to empower these changes, the agreement offers too little, too late. 

“An industrial carbon price serves as an incentive for companies to invest in cleaner methods of production. If increasing this price to meaningful levels is pushed down the road, then so will be any related investments. Industrial carbon pricing is tied to over 70 major projects worth more than $57 billion. And this does not just affect Alberta. By striking this deal with one province, the federal government has potentially opened the floodgates for a lowering of ambition across all provincial industrial carbon pricing systems, affecting the incentives for steel mills in Ontario, potash mines in Saskatchewan, and cement plants in B.C.

“Canada is falling out of step with key trading partners in the transition to a global clean energy economy. Whereas the agreement aims for an effective carbon price of $130 by 2040, the European Union carbon price is close to that amount already today. And while the agreement sets tightening rates of 2% or lower, the EU has set rates of over 4% every year. 

“The EU knows where it needs to go, launching a comprehensive set of new measures—including electricity tax cuts and investments in renewables—that cement clean energy as the path to energy security. EV sales are unsurprisingly skyrocketing globally, including here in Canada: March EV sales were up 75% year-over-year. 

“More than 40 countries are currently rationing energy, and it’s no wonder. As International Energy Agency head Fatih Birol put it, ‘the damage is done…. There will be a significant boost to renewables and nuclear power and a further shift towards a more electrified future,’ adding that ‘this will cut into the main markets for oil.’

“In other words, the same forces driving up oil prices today are destroying the fossil fuel demand of tomorrow. This government has suggested that it’s making certain short-term concessions while keeping its eye firmly on building for the future. But the reality is that, once again, Alberta is making promises while the federal government is making commitments. Canadians need policies that strike a better balance.”

The post Response: Lopsided MOU undermines yesterday’s clean electricity strategy appeared first on Clean Energy Canada.

Oh man. Same old clown show, awash with boondoggles, each more cringey than the last. As the mad man-child deconstructs DC and slaps his hideous face and name everywhere - historic buildings, fascist arches, garish statues, possibly imaginary gold phones - others have taken his lead with their own patriotic spinoffs. Cue "Fuck You" upgrades, a Strait to Hell arcade for a video-game war, and a Trump/Epstein "Memorial Reading Room" packed with 3.5 million pages of files, where "the truth is hard to deny."

Trump's narcissistic vandalizing of D.C. - couldn't his KKK dad have just hugged him now and then? - is "something dictators have done throughout history," noted Bernie Sanders of his proposed SERVE Act, or Stop Executive Renaming for Vanity and Ego. Co-sponsored by six Senate Dems, the bill would bar any sitting president from naming federal properties after themselves, an act both "arrogant" and illegal. At this rate many weary Americans would likely argue, "Let the chiseling off begin," but for now the bill sits in legislative limbo and we're stuck with the resulting atrocities; they continue to multiply like locusts, even as he's proposed a $10-billion fund for more "beautification" projects around "the capital of the greatest Nation in the history of the world."

Though he increasingly nods off in public - or per the White House, blinks - he still clutches at a farcical show of dominance he's leaned on in the endless self-glorification campaign that is his execrable life. There are posts quoting fictional "fans": "Remarkable leadership,” "Master of the Deal,” "THE GREATEST PRESIDENT WE HAVE EVER KNOWN." From the guy who's "confused the country for his living room," there's D.C's re-branding: the plaques, name changes, razed East Wing for a billion-dollar "albatross" nobody wants. There are new massive Stalin-esque banners at construction sites proclaiming, “Thank you, PRESIDENT TRUMP”- "like Michael Scott buying himself a World’s Best Boss coffee mug" we paid for - to which unenthused residents added, "Fuck You Cunt."

Snug in a delusional bubble where his approval is def not in the toilet, he feels free to rant, lie, melt down online without consequence. In one manic night, he posts 55 times in three hours: “Arrest Obama the traitor” and “DEMONIC FORCE,” also Hillary, Brennan, Comey, Kelly. Asked how much he thinks about the cost to Americans of his calamitous war, he blurts, “Not even a little bit.” His lackeys follow suit: Ka$h Patel yells, lies, hustles bourbon, pads his stats and takes a "VIP snorkel" in Pearl Harbor around the tomb of 900 U.S. soldiers as Sean Duffy takes his nine offspring on a "patriotic," seven-month Great American Road Trip filmed for YouTube and complete with "head-spinning" corporate sponsorship, both on the taxpayers' now-rapidly-shrinking dime.

Meanwhile, another project nobody asked for - draining and repainting the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, aka "reflective pond," from traditional grey to garish blue - has shockingly veered off course. After boasting his bestest golf course pool painters could easy-peasy do a no-bid, $1.8 million, "smart and beautiful construction" that Dems stupidly opposed - "Dumacrats love sewage" - the cost has soared to $13.1 million, it's now by a contractor he "did not know and have never used before,” staff are worried the job is behind schedule, with "uneven application" leaving bubbles, holes and "mottled shades of blue" in the pool, and a judge has set a May 21 hearing for a lawsuit charging the project wasn't properly vetted, ditto a color "more appropriate to a resort or theme park."

More winning in Miami, where another lawsuit charges three acres of multi-million-dollar waterfront land were illegally grifted by DeSantis to Trump for $10 for his presidential “library,” actually a gaudy hotel with no books but more vitally two gold statues of, you know. They will presumably join in grotesque kinship with the $300,000, crypto-bro-funded, bronze and gold leaf Don Colossus just unveiled at Doral Miami, "where the Republic is currently moldering." Before "a robotic chorus of evangelical functionaries who (have) transformed themselves into the most theologically humiliated cohort in modern memory," the statue was honored as, not an idolatrous golden calf, insisted Pastor Mark Burns, but "a celebration of life" and symbol of "the hand of God over (Trump’s) life." Definitely not a cult.

Tacky is as tacky doesBluesky screenshot

Despite being heralded as God's second favorite son - one who "understands the Scriptures better than the Pope" - Trump is also widely deemed "an economic serial killer" presiding over an "America First Corporate Graveyard," skyrocketing inflation, national debt, farm bankruptcies, and energy costs, and possibly "the largest single act of grand larceny in American history" with a $10 billion payout by his own DOJ against his own IRS to settle his bullshit lawsuit for their leak of his tax returns, which every other president has released. Still, because grifting chutzpah thy name is, and because there's never enough money to fill the ugly gaping hole where a soul should be, he's still running penny-ante scams. Up next: Trump Mobile, "for the forgotten MAGA man."

Last June, his huckster spawn announced the launch of "a sleek, gold smartphone engineered for performance.” The T1 Phone, "proudly designed and built in the United States,” would be available in August at $499. For almost a year, they urged followers to make $100 "deposits" to "pre-order" the beauties; over half a million did, ponying up about $59 million. Then, the bait and switch. The terms of service quietly changed: The "deposit" provided "a conditional opportunity" to buy if Trump Mobile chose to sell. Pricing, production schedules, shipping costs were "non-binding." "Made in the USA" became "Proudly American Designed." "Delivery" dates got pushed back. Unexplained charges appeared. A reporter who called "Customer Service" got “Omega Auto Care." To date, no fantasy Trump phones have shipped. Cheap Crooks 'R Us.

"Service for the forgotten MAGA man"Image from Bluesky

Also, liars. With even neo-cons now deeming the Iran War potentially more of a debacle than Vietnam, the good folks at Secret Handshake, creators of the Trump/Epstein bestie statues, decided that with the regime hyping war like a video game, they might as well turn it into one. Operation Epic Furious: Strait to Hell , which is also online, features three working, arcade video games set up inside DC's War Memorial; they promise "high-octane, flag-waving, boots-on-the-ground...pure pixelated patriotism," or, per Hegseth, "laser-focused maximum reps annihilation mission crushing (with) sustained unrelenting pressure." Battles - by tweet, not gun - pit US forces against ”Iranian schoolgirl,“ "DEIyatollah,“ low-flow shower heads, the Pope and other "threats to American freedom."

Games open with Trump declaring, “Another big, beautiful day as the best President ever.” Options for the prompt, “Ready to ROCK Iran back to the Stone Ages?” are “Not Yet...” “Yes” and “Hell Yes.” Yells Pete, “Let’s liberate some oil!” Trump can order a Diet Coke or bomb Iran; search for barrels of oil, ideas for Truth Social posts, or endless threats that lead nowhere; he vows to “fight this war and win it by hamburger o’clock.” Melania: “I WAS NEVER ON THE EPSTEIN JET...Did you burn the files yet?” JD, fat-faced: “I love couch.” The only way you can lose is by trying to hold Melania’s hand, which abruptly ends the game; otherwise, it’s impossible to end or win it. Irony never dies: Images have surfaced of bored National Guardsmen - a $1 million a day deployment - playing.

Another piece of protest art brings the truth of "one of the most horrific crimes in American history” to Trump's hometown. "The Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey Epstein Memorial Reading Room,” in New York's Tribeca, is a first-of-its-kind, 5,000-square-foot installation containing all the unsealed Epstein files - 3.5 million pages printed and bound into 3,437 volumes weighing 17,000 pounds, "a physical, undeniable record of corruption, cover-ups, and crime." The pop-up project in the Mriya Gallery was created by the non-profit Primary Facts; it took them about a month to print the files. The exhibit is on view through May 21; admission to groups for a one-hour session is free; organizers are raising funds to cover the New York premiere and bring it to other cities.

The Trumpsonian installation is built around a candlelit tribute to Epstein's more than 1,200 victims and survivors, whose names are all redacted here in closed binders - unlike at the DOJ, where they were badly, only partly redacted, a failure adding insult to injury along with an ongoing, multi-pronged cover-up. The Trump and Epstein Reading Room also includes a timeline documenting the decades-long crimes, legal proceedings and intersections between the two men's lives, all underlining the criminal absurdity of federal claims "there's nothing left to investigate." The vast trove of information, organizers say, is "what 3.5 million pages of evidence looks like." Trump, as deeply complicit as he is narcissistic, "wanted his name on stuff." Now, here it is.

From the TrumpsonianImage from Memorial Reading Room

May 13, 2026,

Moab Times Independent article
“Protest Planned near La Sal over Uranium Mining Concerns”

https://www.moabtimes.com/articles/protest-planned-near-la-sal-over-uranium-mining-concerns/

Like The Price Of Gas? Trump Did That!

It’s the 78th anniversary the Nakba. The Nakba, meaning “catastrophe” in Arabic, refers to the mass displacement, dispossession, and ethnic cleansing of roughly 750,000 Palestinian Arabs during the 1948 Arab-Israeli…

Thursday, May 14, 2026
Press Contact: Sumeet Bal, Director of Communications, 917-647-1952, sbal@publicadvocates.org

California Can’t Lead the World While Leaving Workers Behind

SACRAMENTO, Calif.—California enters this May Revision in a moment of unexpected abundance—and familiar avoidance. 

Tax revenues are more than $16 billion above forecast. The state’s cash position has hit record highs. California dominates the global technology economy, leading the world in IPOs, artificial intelligence, Fortune 500 companies and innovation. But California cannot claim to lead the world while its teachers, nurses and essential workers are being priced out of the communities they sustain. Dominating in technology while losing ground on economic security for working families is not a strong legacy—it is a contradiction that demands solutions. The question this May Revision must answer is not whether California can dominate. It already does. The question is who that dominance works for.

California already knows how to build the things families need—the governor’s commitment to increasing per-pupil funding, investing in our educators, and expanding community schools proves that. When the state chooses to invest directly, boldly and consistently, it changes lives. Community schools are doing that now, in the communities that need it most. 

Housing and transit deserve the same commitment—not threats, not red tape reduction alone, but direct state investment that meets the scale of the crisis. Without substantial and sustained funding for affordable housing, low-income Californians will continue to struggle, regardless of how much development streamlining or local government oversight the state pursues. Meanwhile, the state’s basic protections against rent gouging and arbitrary evictions, the Tenant Protection Act, will expire in 2030 unless a governor with the courage to fight for and strengthen it steps forward. At the same time, without an infusion of state money, our public transit network is in danger of collapse. 

Abundance is not the same as security—AND it is not the same as justice. The working families at the center of our state’s story are experiencing a cost of living crisis that no IPO can solve—and they are waiting to see whether California’s record revenues will reach them, or pass them by once again. The question is made more urgent by federal cuts stripping millions of Californians of healthcare, food assistance, and housing support, and a proposed restructuring of Cap-and-Invest revenues that could cut affordable housing, transit, and clean air programs in half—redirecting dollars from low-wealth communities to fossil fuel companies. Seven years ago, the governor promised to fix the state’s boom-and-bust tax system. The boom is here. The question is whether he will use it for the Californians who built this state—and can no longer afford to live in it.

Education: A Legacy Built, A Problem Unaddressed

“Governor Newsom’s historic community schools investments will cement one of his enduring legacies, just as LCFF defined Jerry Brown’s,” said John Affeldt, Managing Attorney for Education Equity. “The research is showing that California’s community schools have cut chronic absenteeism by 30% compared to similar schools, reduced suspensions by 15% overall and delivered learning gains in English equivalent to 151 extra days of instruction for Black students.”

“But the governor’s May Revise failed to address one of the key equity challenges remaining for him—the state’s unconstitutional discrimination against low-wealth school districts in modernizing facilities. The State’s program for renovating dilapidated schools substantially favors high-wealth communities who are able to raise much more in matching funds, leaving students in poor districts in overheated portables and leaky classrooms amidst black mold and unremediated asbestos. The governor has acknowledged ‘you can’t look in the eyes of these kids,” but today, he chose to look away—and to keep fighting them in court,” added Affeldt, a lead counsel in a Public Advocates’ lawsuit suing the State over the issue.

“As far as moving forward into the future, our state cannot continue to rely on temporary AI stock market bubbles. To his credit, the governor proposed some modest new taxes, but to build a budget that will enable our residents to thrive, California needs more robust permanent revenue streams to support our schools and healthy communities. We cannot ask teachers to transform students’ lives while those same teachers are being priced out of the communities they serve.”

Higher Education: Affordability Crisis Threatens College Access & Completion?

“California’s economy is growing because generations of students had a path to affordable higher education. But too many low-income students are still being left behind as the cost of education and living continue to rise. If we want a future powered by innovation, we need to make sure opportunity isn’t reserved for those who could afford college anyway. We call on the governor and the legislature to strengthen and expand Cal Grant to keep the door to economic mobility open for the students coming after us—and ensures California’s future includes everyone,” said Sbeydeh Viveros-Walton, Director of Higher Education.

“For low-income Black and Latinx students, affordability is the difference between access, completion and attrition,” said Jetaun Stevens, Deputy Director of Higher Education Equity & Senior Staff Attorney. “Housing is the largest cost students face when pursuing higher education, and California’s housing crisis makes higher education out of reach for many low-income students. With 60% of community college students facing housing insecurity and nearly a quarter of community college students facing homelessness, we need greater investment in housing. We call on the governor and legislature to invest in additional projects through the Higher Education Housing Grant program—including reinvesting funds from withdrawn projects—and open up access to part-time community college students. We encourage the governor and legislature to make greater investments in affordable housing and homelessness prevention to improve economic opportunity for all low-income Californians, including supporting the Senate’s proposal to invest $1 billion in Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention Program 7 (HHAP) and an additional $1 billion for HHAP 8.”   

Housing Relief Deferred, Renters Left Behind

We welcome the inclusion of $500 million in HHAP 7 funds—California’s primary homelessness assistance program—in the governor’s proposal, but we are concerned about new requirements to receive that funding. Requiring a local funding match will shut out many jurisdictions. Requiring a Prohousing Designation is even more limiting: only 47 jurisdictions would currently qualify. Further, a Prohousing Designation is substantially based on how friendly a jurisdiction’s development environment is for market-rate developers—a standard which should not impede aid to people experiencing homelessness. Consistent, predictable funding is what moves people from the streets to stability. The Senate’s “Foundation for the Future” budget priorities letter reflects this, committing $1 billion for HHAP 7 and $1 billion more for a subsequent 8th round of funding. The governor should match that commitment—without the barriers.

Governor Newsom’s proposal also fails to address what his administration’s proposed changes to Cap-and-Invest would do to the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities grant program (AHSC), the largest source of affordable housing funding in the state. When asked directly, the governor said it wouldn’t be addressed in his proposal. That is not an answer. Redirecting Cap-and-Invest money away from affordable housing and transit to fossil fuel companies and other polluters is a choice—and it demands a response.  Now is the time, however, for Governor Newsom to propose funding to backfill the affordable housing and transit funding that will be lost if his proposal to redirect AHSC money to polluters moves forward.

The human cost of inaction is not abstract.  More than half of California’s 6.1 million renter households spend more than 30% of their income on rent. Nearly a third spend more than half. Evictions have now surpassed pre-pandemic levels. “Housing is the largest item in a family’s budget and the governor’s housing proposals in his final budget do not address the problem or deliver the help renters desperately need,” said Michelle Pariset, Director of Legislative Affairs. “Governor Newsom will leave office without securing his legacy on rent stabilization and just cause for eviction, as the state’s basic protections against rent gouging and arbitrary evictions are set to expire in 2030. He could have worked with the legislature to remove this sunset on the Tenant Protection Act—permanently shielding renters from gouging and no fault evictions. Instead, renters will face that fight with a new governor and a legislature freshly-drenched in real estate industry campaign spending.”

Transit: When Transit Fails, Working Families Pay

The future of public transit in California hangs in the balance at the same time the rising costs of transportation is hurting low-income families. Citizens in multiple regions are collecting signatures for ballot initiatives to maintain critical service, but the state must do its part. “The governor’s proposed CARB regulations for the Cap-and-Invest program would eliminate over $600 million a year in critical state transit funding—funding for service, lower fares for seniors and students, electric buses, and infrastructure upgrades. These are cuts that the Californians who depend on transit cannot afford,” said Laurel Paget-Seekins, Senior Transportation Policy Advocate. “This governor’s proposal would leave a massive multi-year budget hole for transit and affordable housing at a time when Californians need additional investment to address rising costs of housing and transportation.” 

###

Public Advocates Inc. is a nonprofit law firm and advocacy organization that challenges the systemic causes of poverty and racial discrimination by strengthening community voices in public policy and achieving tangible legal victories advancing education, housing, transportation equity, and climate justice.

The post Press Statement: California Can’t Lead the World While Leaving Workers Behind appeared first on Public Advocates.