News Feeds

Twenty years after a global proposal to limit oil extraction, Richard Heinberg revisits its relevance in this interview and argues that equitable rationing may be key to reducing conflict and managing resource decline.

Dr. Katharine Wilkinson is an author, strategist, and teacher, working to heal the planet we call home. She addresses the question of “What Could Possibly Go Right?”

The convenient myth of civic nationalism has allowed Holyrood to ignore the rising threat of Reform for too long, argues Coll McCail

The post Elections 2026: Soul searching for Scottish political identity appeared first on Red Pepper.

Paltry sales as shoppers shun cage eggs Channel News brendan 1st May 2026 Teaser Media

Anderson Bean: Could you start by introducing yourself and your role in the Guilford County Schools?

Carla Harris: I am a high school science educator. I have been teaching for the past 10 years, all in North Carolina. I am also a member of the North Carolina Association of Educators (NCAE), and I do a lot of organizing work with them.

AB: How would you describe the current state of public education in North Carolina for both teachers and students?

CH: One word that comes to mind is abysmal. The last study I saw ranked North Carolina 50th in public school funding out of all the states, so it’s pretty difficult right now. In 2008 North Carolina was 25th in teacher pay, today it is 43rd, $14,000 less than the national average. North Carolina is also currently the only state that has not passed a state budget.

You have a lot of people in this profession who really love what we do, but it’s getting really hard for people to stay. Within the past 20 years, the General Assembly has been chipping away at the public school system in many different ways. For example, they eliminated master’s pay starting in 2014, so educators with advanced degrees now earn the same as colleagues without them. For anyone entering the system after 2021, there are no longer state-provided health benefits in retirement, which discourages people from joining the profession. North Carolina has also eliminated traditional tenure and weakened due process protections for teachers. At the same time, the pay scale is structured so that salaries increase early on but then flatten out for much of a teacher’s career, with little to no meaningful raises between, roughly, years fifteen and twenty-four.

My own health insurance costs doubled this past year. Classified staff—bus drivers, custodians, and cafeteria workers—until recently weren’t even making $15 an hour. That leads to shortages, vacancies, and burnout across the board.

Conditions inside schools are also very difficult. Because of low state funding, maintenance is not always addressed in a timely way. In my school, there are several places where every time it rains, ceiling tiles have to be replaced within a couple of days. There are ongoing leaks. In a neighboring county, schools couldn’t open on time one year because of mold in multiple buildings after air conditioning was cut over the summer to save money.

Resources are scarce. Most teachers buy their own basic supplies, tissues, pencils, hand sanitizer, things that used to be provided by the school.

Health insurance has also worsened. Costs have gone up while coverage has gone down. Starting teacher salaries are so low that, when you factor in the hours worked, they fall below a living wage, which makes it even harder to bring new people into the profession.

Most schools only have a nurse one to two days a week, with nurses split across multiple buildings. That makes it difficult for them to really know students and their health needs. Mental health services are even harder to access.

These problems are tied to broader policy decisions. Legislators have chosen to maintain one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the country, with plans to reduce it to zero by 2030. At the same time, funding is being diverted away from public schools. Over the past few years, there has been a sharp increase in private school vouchers, also known as Opportunity Scholarships. This year alone, over $500 million in taxpayer dollars has gone to these vouchers, effectively siphoning money away from public schools. And the majority of recipients are already from wealthier families.

AB: What is NCAE organizing for May Day, and what are the main goals of the action?

CH: To coincide with the nationwide call to action on May Day this year, NCAE has organized a day of action under the slogan “Kids Over Corporations.” They are inviting all school employees, along with the broader community, to come to the Capitol in Raleigh. The goal is not only to stand in solidarity with one another, but also to get legislators’ attention and begin shifting policy back in our direction.

School employees are being asked to call out of work that day. The central demands are for increased funding for public education by redirecting money away from corporate tax cuts and private school vouchers.

It has been made clear that this is not a strike, but a one-day action that can serve as a step toward larger actions in the future. A longer-term goal of NCAE is to become a formalized union and win collective bargaining rights, and this action is part of building toward that.

To coincide with the nationwide call to action on May Day this year, NCAE has organized a day of action under the slogan “Kids Over Corporations.”…School employees are being asked to call out of work that day. The central demands are for increased funding for public education by redirecting money away from corporate tax cuts and private school vouchers.

So far, over fifteen school districts have been forced to close for the day. This happens when enough workers put in absences that there are not enough substitutes to cover positions, which forces districts to convert the day into an optional teacher workday. We expect that number to grow, and there are also educators participating from districts that have not officially closed.

These decisions are made at the county level. Some districts have made the day an optional teacher workday, while others have required employees to use annual leave. These kinds of responses reflect attempts to limit collective worker action.

AB: How does this year’s May Day action compare to the 2018 “Red for Ed” mobilizations in North Carolina? What feels continuous, what’s different, and how does this moment compare to being part of the broader national wave back then?

CH: North Carolina had similar actions in 2018 and 2019. In 2018, there was a national teacher strike wave across multiple states, including Arizona and West Virginia. That created a lot of momentum, and people here were ready to take action because they could see what was possible when educators organized collectively.

Now, we are building on the lessons learned from those experiences. In both moments, there has been a strong emphasis on grassroots organizing—attending local meetings, connecting with educators across districts, and collectively developing strategy. It’s often a year-long process to build toward actions like this.

This year, one of the key strategies has been organizing coordinated absences. In some districts, educators formally entered their absences into the system, while in others, workers signed commitment forms indicating they would do so if necessary. In my district alone, there were nearly 800 commitments, which was enough for the school board to act before everyone even formally submitted their absences. The collective action itself was enough to force a response.

While the numbers may be smaller so far than in 2018, we are seeing broader connections with other organizations this time. There has been collaboration with immigrant rights groups, voting rights groups, and other community organizations. There have been art builds to create banners and materials, as well as coordinated actions like banner drops and rallies. There is also a larger coalition coming together for events around May Day.

So while 2018 was defined by a powerful national wave of teacher strikes, this moment is characterized more by coalition-building and deeper connections across movements.

While [the 2018 “Red for Ed” mobilizations in North Carolina were] defined by a powerful national wave of teacher strikes, this moment is characterized more by coalition-building and deeper connections across movements.

AB: GCAE has also been active in the Triad labor movement, including solidarity with UAW struggles. Can you talk about the importance of cross-union solidarity in the region? [The Piedmont Triad is a metropolitan region in the north-central part of North Carolina that make up three cities: Greensboro, Winston Salem and High Point. – EDS]

CH: GCAE, as a local chapter of the statewide union, has supported UAW organizing efforts. That connection is very real, UAW workers manufacture our school buses, and their children attend our schools. It highlights how interconnected working-class struggles really are.

We’re all working under the same system, and we recognize that the system is not working for us. Organizing around public schools is a powerful way for people to connect because over 80 percent of working-class families send their children to public schools. Most people have some connection to a public school, which creates natural links between different struggles. Schools become a central place where broader working-class solidarity can grow.

AB: How are the struggles of other school workers, like bus drivers, cafeteria staff, and support personnel, intersecting with those of teachers right now?

CH: There’s a misconception that this action is just about teachers. NCAE represents all public school workers, so when we are asking for more funding, we are asking for better pay and improved conditions across the board.

When school funding increases, salaries can go up for everyone, and conditions improve for all school employees.

We’ve seen this in recent struggles. In Guilford County, school nutrition staff organized a two-day walkout in 2023 to demand higher wages. That action led to raises, though there were still concerns about how those increases were structured.

Even before that walkout, GCAE spent over two years organizing to raise classified staff wages to $15 an hour. That campaign shows how long it can take to win even modest gains. When we push for larger changes now, we understand that this is a long-term fight.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: Anthony Crider; modified by Tempest.

The post Kids Over Corporations appeared first on Tempest.

The CSIPM participated in a consultation organized by the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS) on Empowering Family Farmers, in preparation for the Global Thematic Event that will be held during the 54th CFS Plenary Session in October 2026.

In a collective contribution, the CSIPM highlighted that the event is a key opportunity to reflect on and advance policies that strengthen family farmers, small-scale food producers, fishers, pastoralists, Indigenous Peoples, women and youth, as well as peasant and Indigenous agriculture rooted in agroecology. It also stressed that the discussion should build on commitments governments have already made within the CFS and under the United Nations Decade of Family Farming.

The CSIPM called for a critical review of policies from recent decades to better understand how they have contributed to deepening dependence on external inputs, capital, and new technologies (including digital ones); reinforcing the agro-industrial model; weakening resilience, and increasing vulnerability. It also underscored the need to recognize the structural challenges faced by family farmers, including criminalization and limited access to finance and markets.

Among the priorities that the CFS event should address, the CSIPM highlighted agrarian reform, particularly in connection with the ICARRD+20, held in Colombia; the implementation of the UN Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and on the Rights of Peasants (UNDROP); access to markets; criminalization and violence against people defending their territories; and the dependency and concentration of power that new technologies and the digitalization of agriculture may generate, among others.

The CSIPM’s initial analysis provides a clear picture of the challenges facing family farmers, based on experiences shared by different constituencies, and underscores the importance of ensuring inclusive and meaningful participation in food governance, so that policies are developed together with those who produce food and feed their communities.

Read the CSIPM contribution

• More information on the CFS Global Thematic Event
• Towards smallholder-oriented public policies. CSIPM independent report (2019)

The post Keys to strengthening policies for family farmers appeared first on CSIPM.

FIFA’s World Cup is coming up fast, and cities across America are making big plans to get soccer fans to the stadiums … and sometimes, making headlines for their astronomical transit prices. But is it a smart way for agencies to cash in on fútbol fever, a necessary evil to recoup the costs of mega-events, or simply price-gouging visitors who are doing cities a favor by choosing shared modes?

We appreciate the latest podcast from Transit Tangents, which breaks down four host cities’ approach to shared transportation during the biggest sporting event in the world, including the infrastructure they built (or didn’t) to accommodate it. And that includes one $35-million station platform extension that’s drawing a lot of scrutiny.

Now Hiring: Director of Rural Justice The Central California Environmental Justice Network (CCEJN) is seeking a passionate and experienced leader to serve as its next Director of Rural Justice in Fresno. This full-time leadership role focuses on advancing environmental justice across the San Joaquin Valley—supporting efforts around clean water, pesticide reform, and farmworker rights. The […]

Ride the bus — and get your steps in.

Transit agencies don’t do enough to remind policy makers, and even their own customers, of the connection between good public transportation and good public health, argues a new report that asserts that better messaging can strengthen the agencies’ funding and impact.

There is obviously already a consensus around transit’s physical and mental health benefits, but report, prepared for the Transportation Research Board, calls for agencies to communicate it better.

“Transit agencies [should] acknowledge the health benefits and use it to help get resources,” said Andrew Dannenberg, an affiliate professor at the University of Washington. “It’d be great if they’re saying, ‘Take transit, it’s good for your health,’ when they’re talking to legislators trying to get funding to build, maintain, and expand transit.”

The authors identified seven healthy outcomes directly linked to public transit — such as basic physical activity, cleaner air, fewer crashes and expanding social networks — but Danneberg emphasized that transit officials shouldn’t merely recite the list, but create messaging.

For instance, he said, “A quarter of people reach their recommended daily physical activity just by walking to and from transit. That is not a trivial amount.”

Case studies demonstrate the success of good health messaging in transit funding. In Boston a decade ago, a health assessment that identified the negative consequences that service cuts would have on community health and economic well-being led to those cuts as well as fare hikes to be pared back.

“The [assessment] fed directly into the decision-makers’ process towards coming up with a solution for the budget gap,” the report said. “By presenting monetized impacts in a succinct report, it appears the results were able to gain traction, and broaden the discourse to include consideration of health impacts.”

Transit funding is so often on the chopping block to close year-over-year budgets, but policy makers must be compelled to see the long-term budgetary implications of good transit towards people’s health. A case study from rural New Mexico recalled how a bus service saved Dona Ana County more than $600,000 annually by reducing hypertension and connecting people to preventative care. And two studies in Portland found that people living near transit have lower health-care costs — not a small finding in a nation that spent $5.3 trillion, or roughly $16,000 per person, on health care in 2024.

Yet health-care savings created by transit aren’t often plowed back into transit.

“The cost that you might save in health by having people more physically active are good for society overall,” says Dannenberg. “But they don’t translate into, ‘Good, now we got extra money that we can put into the transit systems.’”

Thus, some recommendations: First, transit agencies need to know their impact on community health. As the report notes, health benefits are complex, making it challenging at times to quantify. However, the report identifies research partnerships as key to doing so. For example, Boston’s health impact assessment was conducted by its regional planning agency in collaboration with researchers from Harvard and Boston University.

Second, communicating transit’s health benefits is just as important. The dense nature of scientific research tends to limit its audience to specialists. But the Boston example demonstrates that making findings generalizable also helps transit’s case. Broadening their audience, as well as who benefits from transit (hint: everyone!), is a key pivot.

“Benefits can also be realized by people who do not use transit,” the report stresses. “This is an important distinction when communicating the value of public transportation to decision-makers and the public.”

It’s unfair to expect transit officials — who are often in a desperate struggle for funding and must spend almost all of their time simply running their systems — to create health messaging. Instead, groups like the American Public Transportation Association must reframe transit for everyone’s well being, Dannenberg said.

“If you look at what’s on [the APTA] website about why transit’s good for you, health is kind of buried in there,” Dannenberg said. “But why not make that one of the stronger messages?”

New updates from FracTracker’s community air monitoring initiatives, including sensor deployments, air sampling, and ongoing work with frontline communities in the Ohio River Valley.

The post Campaign Update: Progress on FracTracker’s Community Air Monitoring Projects appeared first on FracTracker Alliance.

Here is a repost of our May Day episode from 2021. In it, we talk about the history of May Day from pagan rituals to the Haymarket Affair to International…

When Doug Burgum appeared before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee as President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Interior department last year, he was extended the traditional benefit of the doubt, with senators chummily reminiscing about North Dakota, lobbing softballs, and avoiding tough questions on the way to voting to confirm Burgum as Interior secretary. If Burgum got the idea that this is how all hearings would go, he was mistaken. A year later, as the Interior secretary who has overseen a multi-pronged effort to dismantle the agency and sell off or sell out our national public lands, Burgum seemed totally unprepared to handle difficult questions from members of Congress, not to mention the decidedly different vibe of a budget hearing where elected representatives demanded accountability for how their constituents’ resources are being stewarded and tax dollars are being spent.

In appearances before three congressional committees so far, Burgum struggled to defend President Trump’s proposed Interior department budget and explain the administration’s chaotic, destructive, and unpopular agenda for America’s public lands. Below are five of the most head-scratching exchanges between Burgum and lawmakers—along with some useful information Secretary Burgum might want to bookmark for his next Hill appearance.

Burgum can’t provide details on the $10 billion request for ‘beautification’ in Washington, D.C.

President Trump’s budget proposal includes a $10 billion request for a new Presidential Capital Stewardship Program which would “carry out priority construction and rehabilitation projects in the Washington, D.C. area.” According to the Interior department’s own website, the deferred maintenance backlog for Washington, D.C. is just over $2 billion. When asked by Senator Angus King of Maine what the extra $8 billion is for, Burgum’s bumbling explanation was that “D.C. is like a state. It’s not just, like, the National Mall. It’s for the greater capital region. That’s a region.” But again, according to the Interior department, adding in the deferred maintenance backlog for the entire states of Maryland and Virginia—far beyond the D.C. area— would bring the total to $4 billion, still leaving more than half of Burgum’s $10 billion request unaccounted for. Meanwhile, last year’s budget for the entire National Park Service was just $4.6 billion.

During the Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, Senator Jeff Merkeley of Oregon also asked about the $10 billion request for the Presidential Capital Stewardship Program and if Burgum could provide a specific list of what the funds would be used for, as required by law. Burgum said he would “get you all the information you need according to law” but stopped short of agreeing to provide a detailed list. “As long as we don’t have the details, it’s a slush fund,” Merkeley responded. “You can call it something else if you want.”

Burgum learns about batteries and fossil fuel subsidies

Burgum struggled to hold his own against the expertise of Senator King—a former energy executive—on energy issues. In response to questions from King about the Trump administration’s actions to block renewable energy projects, Burgum fell back on a well-worn intermittency argument. “We have no ability to dispatch wind and solar,” Burgum claimed, and followed up with, “There are times in North Dakota when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.” But King pointed out, “That’s where batteries and storage come in.” Burgum argued that worldwide battery storage would only provide one hour’s worth of energy. However, in the United States where Burgum is Interior secretary, battery storage has been increasing rapidly, with a new record set in 2025 for energy storage installations, and is expected to reach at least 600 gigawatt hours of installed energy storage by 2030. This is the equivalent of 300 Hoover Dams, according to the Department of Energy, which offers other comparisons Burgum may find helpful. In California, 44 percent of evening peak energy is now being delivered via batteries.

Burgum also complained that he doesn’t understand “why we had to have massive taxpayer subsidies to produce” renewable energy. King pointed out that the U.S. currently pays $30 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry. The International Monetary Fund put this figure at $3 billion in explicit subsidies in 2022 alone, with an additional $754 billion in implicit subsidies. A 2025 analysis found that even without taxpayer subsidies, renewable energy sources are still the most cost-effective source of energy.

Burgum defends 24 percent of National Park Service staff coincidentally choosing to quit at the exact same time

Senator Patty Murray of Washington pressed Burgum about unacceptable cuts to on-the-ground staff at national parks in Washington and a budget that proposes to eliminate even more park staff. Arguing with the characterization that staff had been “forced out,” Burgum insisted, “There’s been no forcing of anything. These are all voluntary.” Murray wasn’t buying it: “However you want to put it, a quarter of them left over the last 15 months.” According to the National Parks Conservation Association, 4,000 staff, nearly 25 percent of the National Park Service workforce, left their jobs since January 2025 as a result of “pressured resignations and early retirements” along with hiring freezes that prevented vacancies from being filled. That’s an awful lot of people who somehow all voluntarily left their jobs at the same time.

Burgum, who voted to condemn the Rice’s whale to extinction, worries about the impact of wind turbine installation on whale populations

In response to questions from Representative Chellie Pingree of Maine, Burgum complained about the impacts to whales and other marine life from pounding pylons into the sea floor to install offshore wind turbines. Pingree immediately pointed out the disconnect between Burgum’s sudden whale-based arguments against offshore wind and his vote to remove Endangered Species Act protections for the endangered Rice’s whale in order to clear the way for more offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico: “If you’re going to be talking about pounding and those kinds of things, then we can’t have offshore drilling, and you want to re-permit the entire East Coast for offshore drilling. If you want to talk about danger to marine mammals and danger to fisheries, my next question is going to be about what happened with Deepwater Horizon, and you want to reduce the permitting standards there. There’s just a lot of hypocrisy in your arguments.”

Burgum denies erasure of history on national park signs

Burgum awkwardly tried to dodge a question from Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii about the removal of exhibits about slavery at the President’s House site in Philadelphia and other actions to erase history from national park sites across the country.

“Some of these examples that are floating around in the media saying some of these things have been removed, they haven’t been removed. In the case of Philadelphia, there’s a weird injunction where we can’t put the new signage up. And what is on the new signage, which is not hiding any points of our history, is available for anyone to read.”

Burgum referred Hirono to the President’s House Site website, where images of new panels—including information about slavery—are indeed available to view online. New physical panels at the site itself, however, are not yet in place, depriving visitors of the opportunity to learn from these interpretive materials in context during their time at the site.

Hirono also asked Burgum about the removal of signs referring to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Burgum responded, “I don’t believe that any of that information has been removed.” However, signage related to slavery and the internment of Japanese Americans, was removed from signs at Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge in New York City following an executive order signed by President Trump in March 2025 ordering the removal of materials that contain “improper partisan ideology.”

The post Highlight reel: The five most bewildering moments from Doug Burgum’s congressional hearings appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

In this issue:

Earth Month / Forest Defense team news / Our new team: Just Transition / Make Polluters Pay town hall / Arts Team news / Book Club / Neighborhood Teams / Some extra cheer!

Happy April – it’s Earth Month! April is a busy month of events, celebrations, opportunities to take action, and regrettably–a lot of corporate greenwashing. (A reminder to call out greenwashing when you see it! Ads from the largest local and global emitters and earth-destroyers, including NW Natural, Zenith, Amazon, and Google are certainly not genuine and deserve public shaming!)

Earth Day started as a protest in 1970 with tens of thousands in the streets demanding clean air and water. Thanks for helping to keep the roots of this holiday alive by joining us in the streets at No Kings last weekend! Read on for many ways you can take action with us this Earth Month, and keep an eye on the 350PDX Calendar. 

 Every day in April: Support 350PDX by ordering the “Third Planet” cocktail   at Radio Room on NE Alberta – a springy beet-infused rum with apple,   ginger, and lemon on the rocks. 50% of the proceeds from each cocktail go   directly to support 350PDX’s climate justice work. How cool is that? We have   more local businesses supporting us this Earth Month, stay tuned for more   announcements about those throughout the month, including chances to win cool prizes.

Portland’s official  Earth Day Celebration is on Saturday, April 25, 11:00am – 3:00pm. Join 350PDX, Making Earth Cool, Sunnyside Environmental School, and SOLVE for the 5th annual vibrant, inclusive, and impactful day to celebrate Earth Day. We will begin with a gathering on the grounds of Sunnyside Environmental School for music, speakers, tabling, action stations, face painting, a costume competition, and lunch, followed by a parade through the Sunnyside neighborhood, featuring the 350PDX giant puppets, marching bands, singing, and dancing. Fill out this form if you’d like to volunteer at the event. You won’t want to miss this!

Forest Defense Team

April 8, 350PDX is co-sponsoring Sierra Club Oregon Chapter’s Public Townhall: The Future of Our Wild Roadless Forests. RSVP here. Join Representative Salinas and several advocacy organizations to learn and celebrate how protecting our forests from new roads supports healthy watersheds, habitat, and many more benefits for generations to come.

March was a big month for increasing youth access to green career opportunities in underserved communities. Seasonal green job opportunities are now posted at Thrive East PDX and we’re circulating a Youth Green Jobs Guide to career counselors at East Portland high schools. Big thanks to 350PDX Forest Defense Team members Carol Pinegar and Ellen Mendoza for volunteering at the March 5 Green Jobs Open House! Over 50 youths had an opportunity to talk with nine employment organizations.

Stop by Costello’s Travel Cafe (2222 NE Broadway) after April 17 to experience the Forest Defense Team’s latest installation of forest photos and prose, creating new pathways for Portlanders to access their personal connection to state forests.

New Team Focused on Just Transition

We’re excited to announce we’re starting something new with our volunteer teams. In April, our current Fossil Fuel Resistance Team and Climate Justice Policy Team will join forces! We’ll meet twice a month, working together on issues that are actively in need of attention, and spend part of the time in small groups to track various issues related to a just and sustainable energy transition.

Our first team meeting will be on Tuesday, April 14, at 6:00pm. We’ll meet at Radio Room (which is running an Earth Month special for us!) at 1101 NE Alberta St.

When: When: 2nd and 4th Tuesdays from 6:00-7:30 pm, alternating between in person and virtual

Topics: CEI Hub, Zenith, data centers, Make Polluters Pay, transportation decarbonization, PCEF, building emissions

Whether you’ve been part of one of these teams in the past or you’re interested in joining for the first time, you are welcome! Email Cherice or Dineen with any questions or to join the team (cherice@350pdx.org, dineen@350pdx.org).

Make Polluters Pay Community Town Hall

Join advocates from the Make Polluters Pay coalition from across the state for a virtual Community Town Hall on April 7 from 6:00–7:15pm. We’ll celebrate the amazing energy of our collective advocacy, reflect on the 2026 legislative session’s failure to pass the Climate Resilience Superfund Act, and look ahead at how we’re building community power to hold big polluters accountable!

WHO: Make Polluters Pay Coalition

WHEN: Tuesday, April 7th from 6:00–7:15pm

WHERE: on Zoom

WHY: To celebrate our action-takers, build community, and continue the work!

Register here

Arts Team

Our March Artbuild, attended by an eager group of climate activists and artists, was one of the highest Artbuild turnouts in years! We screenprinted, repaired puppets, painted a banner, and worked off some of the distress we’ve felt due to recent news. And then, on March 28, a crowd of 50 Arts Team puppeteers marched across the Burnside Bridge for No Kings. At Waterfront Park, we joined our Mourning Mothers puppets’ powerful display of grief over the current state of our world. More photos and video here.

April 12, from 1:00-4:00pm, we’ll have another Artbuild to create the last puppet in our current space (3639 N. Mississippi Ave). Please join us, and please let Donna know if you’ll be there, so we can plan!

And then–help bring our puppets to life at the Earth Day Parade on April 25! The more puppeteers we have, the more puppets that get to march! It’s a fun and important way to make a stand for climate justice. Reach out to Donna Murph1949@aol.com

Donna, Lauren, Dannika, Allison

Book Club

The 350PDX Book Club meets every month on the first Wednesday of the month at 6:30pm. Every other month is in person and the others are virtual. Reach out to books@350PDX.org with any questions or to join our list, and please RSVP so we can inform you of any meeting changes!

Join us on Wednesday, June 3 at 6:30pm for our next non-fiction in-person meeting. We’ll discuss Eight Bears: Mythic Past and Imperiled Future by Gloria Dickie, a global exploration of the eight remaining species of bears―and the dangers they face.

Save the date for our other upcoming meetings:

• Wednesday, May 6 at 6:30pm (Virtual) – Book to be selected in April

• Wednesday, July 1 at 6:30pm (Virtual) – Book to be selected in June

Do you like to talk about books and climate justice? We are seeking volunteers to help facilitate! Contact books@350PDX.org to learn more.

SW Neighborhood Team

The Southwest Neighborhood Team includes neighborhoods on the south and west sides of Portland. We work together to raise awareness of the climate emergency.

Our street corner demonstrations continue weekly in February, every Friday from 3:00-4:00pm. at SW Garden Home & SW Oleson Rd. We gain attention with our climate action signs in a highly visible location. Street parking is available or reach us via bus or bike. We have extra signs to share!

Join our monthly Zoom meeting on Monday, April 20, from 6:30-7:30pm.  We’ll be discussing plans for tabling at Portland Sunday Parkways in May. To get involved, please contact Pat Kaczmarek at patk5@msn.com.

Washington County Team

Our next gathering will be our regular monthly online meetup at 6:30pm on Tuesday, April 14. We are excited to host Robin Straughn, Sustainability & Resiliency Manager for the City of Hillsboro. Robin will walk attendees through the recently approved Climate Action Plan for Hillsboro and answer questions.  We continue to converse with the City of Hillsboro regarding a second Electrification and Sustainability Fair in Hillsboro/Washington County in July.

We always welcome newcomers to our events and to our monthly online meetings (6:30pm on the second Tuesday of the month). For the link, join us here or contact us at 350washco@gmail.com.

Brooklyn Climate Action Team (BCAT)

BCAT brings Brooklyn neighbors together to take on the climate crisis — one hyper-local action at a time.

Averaging 15 neighbors per session, BCAT’s NET Training Study Group builds real momentum. Neighbors gather to work through the program’s training videos and prep for the city’s in-person NET certification. April‘s session filled up quickly, with more neighbors already lined up for the next one.

Go-Bag packing events are returning this spring, tentatively in May. Details on timing and location coming soon — start thinking about what you might need to refresh or build your emergency kit. BCAT is also exploring a volunteer partnership with a local community garden. Are you a resident of the Brooklyn Neighborhood and want to get involved? Reach out at bcat@350pdx.org.

New Milwaukie Neighborhood Team! Join Us!

Do you live in Milwaukie and want to take action for climate justice with your neighbors? There’s a group currently forming a neighborhood team and they’d love to connect with others in Milwaukie who want to help start the team, or who are interested in joining once it’s formed. To get connected, sign up here.

Some Extra Cheer! 

 A federal court struck down President Trump’s attacks against the Endangered Species Act, restoring key values of the bedrock environmental law to the status it held for decades before the first Trump administration attacked the bedrock environmental law. More here!

 350PDX’s Communications Director’s film “Roost 2020 PDX” premieres at The Portland EcoFilm Festival on April 30. What begins as a traditional natural history documentary about Portland’s crow roost becomes a chronicle of a city navigating a year of immense turmoil and unexpected beauty. More info and trailer here.

Thank you for reading our monthly newsletter. We hope to see you soon!

With gratitude,

Cherice, Dineen, Irene, Jessica, and Noelle

 

The post 2026 April Newsletter! appeared first on 350PDX: Climate Justice.

Going full glam with EWG Verified® JR Culpepper April 30, 2026

.has--background.block-content--type-curated-block-list { padding-top: 3rem; padding-bottom: 3rem; }

Crafting the perfect look for any occasion takes laser-like focus, patience and the right products. The last thing on your mind should be whether a product is safe to use.

When you're getting ready for an important occasion, whether a wedding, prom or graduation, you don't want any stress over what’s in your cosmetics.

This spring, EWG is making sure those worries won’t interrupt your makeup flow state. We’ve put together a list of products to help reach your full glam look. This list includes lipsticks, mascaras, eyeliners, eyeshadows and foundations. 

The best part? Every product below is EWG Verified®. That means it has been reviewed by our scientists and meets our strictest standards for safety and ingredient transparency.

If you’re looking for other ideas or products, check out our Skin Deep database.

Lips CRUNCHI Everluxe® Lip Crayon View details Counter Lined and Primed Lip Defining Pencil View details Maia’s Mineral Galaxy Liquid Lipstick View details Mascara Well People Expressionist Curling Mascara View details Counter Think Big Mascara View details Rejuva Minerals Pur Lash Volumizing Mascara View details Eyeliner Well People Fresh Lines Eye Pencil View details Maia's Mineral Galaxy Mineral Eye Liner View details CRUNCHI Highliner® Pencil View details Eyeshadow CRUNCHI Shadow Bar® Enchanted Neutrals View details Rejuva Minerals Eyeshadow Multi Purpose Powder View details ATTITUDE Oceanly Eyeshadow View details Brows DIME Boost Duo View details Well People Expressionist Brow Pencil View details Foundation Well People Supernatural Complexion Stick Foundation + Concealer, Light Medium Warm View details ATTITUDE Oceanly Foundation, Cream View details Counter Skin Twin Featherweight Foundation View details Highlighter/bronzer ATTITUDE Oceanly Highlighter View details Well People Supernatural Stick Highlighter View details Counter Velvet Cream Bronzer View details Authors EWG Communications Team April 30, 2026

FDA abandons stricter tanning bed standards, leaving teens at risk Anthony Lacey April 30, 2026

Tanning beds can increase the risk of skin cancer, and the Food and Drug Administration has long warned that children and teens should never use them. Yet the agency has quietly killed a rule that would have banned anyone under 18 from using these devices.

The FDA first proposed the rule over a decade ago, along with other restrictions on the use of tanning beds and requiring that they carry warning labels. If finalized, the rule would have brought the federal government in line with dozens of states that have already restricted teens’ access to the beds.

Instead, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s FDA recently issued a notice scrapping the proposal. The agency justified the move by claiming industry groups and others raised “scientific and technical concerns” about the plan. It also asserted that withdrawing the proposal doesn’t prevent it from crafting new tanning bed rules in the future.

That leaves minors without any federal protection from an industry that has long targeted teenage girls. It’s hardly going to “Make America Healthy Again.”

At least 23 states, along with most of Canada, the European Union and Australia have already banned minors from tanning beds due to their serious health risks. The FDA’s decision is a clear case of burying its head in the sand while leaving teens in harm’s way.

What the science says

The science on tanning bed risks isn’t emerging or uncertain.

A large scientific body of evidence links tanning bed use to serious health harms, with cancer often occurring decades after first exposure. The FDA’s withdrawn rule was based on these findings, proposing a plan to protect minors across the country from these harms.  

In 1999, the National Toxicology Program classified tanning beds as known carcinogens. It cited the link between the ultraviolet, or UV, radiation the beds produce and the risk of developing both melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers.

Nearly a decade later, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, placed tanning beds in its highest risk category: a known human carcinogen. This classification is the same given to tobacco and asbestos, based on a 75% increased risk of melanoma for women who start using tanning beds before the age of 30.  

A large body of epidemiological evidence also links use of sunbeds to higher melanoma risk, especially when first use occurs before age 30. 

The IARC review also found that tanning bed usage  increased the risk for other skin cancers including, squamous cell carcinoma, as well as caused serious, lasting eye damage.

Agency avoids action

Despite the evidence, the FDA spent decades avoiding any real action. 

When initially faced with evidence showing rising melanoma rates in young women, the agency proposed in 2013 a warning label. That label advised that tanning beds should not be used by people under the age of 18. But there was no way to enforce it to guarantee the labels were used, and no restriction on minors using the beds.

It was a gesture, not a safeguard.

The ultraviolet A, or UVA, radiation inside a tanning bed is very different from the natural sunlight your body encounters outdoors. 

Tanning beds are deliberately engineered to maximize  UVA radiation, the wavelength responsible for tanning the skin, while minimizing ultraviolet B, or UVB, rays responsible for sunburn. It’s a design choice to keep customers coming back by removing the most immediate, visible consequences of overexposure.

But suppressing the burn doesn’t suppress the damage. UVA radiation penetrates deeper into the skin than UVB and is linked to skin aging, skin immune harm and plays an important role in the development of skin cancer. 

Some proponents of tanning beds point to modest, short-lived increases in the body’s vitamin D levels as a justification for use. But researchers are clear. No brief vitamin D boost is worth the added cancer risk, especially when there are safer alternatives, such as dietary changes. 

Ineffective sunscreen carries its own risks

The tanning bed problem doesn’t stop at the salon door. 

Consumers might think wearing sunscreen while sunbathing protects them from harmful UVA exposure. But many sunscreens primarily block the rays that cause sunburn, UVB, while providing far weaker protection against  UVA. The result is UV exposure that closely resembles a tanning bed.

Researchers calculated that a two-week vacation spent using a sunscreen with poor UVA protection, even with frequent reapplication and no visible sunburn, delivers the same solar exposure as 10 trips to a tanning salon. 

That’s why EWG’s Guide to Sunscreens® places heavy weight on strong UVA protection in the product rankings. And it’s why we’ve worked for decades to urge the FDA to require stronger UVA standards and set a limit on sun protection factor, or SPF,  values for U.S. sunscreen.

The gap between what sunscreens promise with their often high SPF labels and what they actually deliver on UVA is well documented. 

When EWG tested sunscreens in 2021, we found that, on average, UVA protection was just one-quarter of the SPF level advertised on the label. 

FDA researchers reached the same conclusion in their own sunscreen testing, finding that many U.S. sunscreens lack adequate UVA protection. The agency flagged a particular concern that high SPF numbers often mask weak UVA coverage.

EWG Verified® sunscreens go one step further. These products must undergo additional testing to confirm that their UVA protection exceeds the requirements in both the U.S. and in Europe – not just meet them. They’re also free from EWG’s chemicals of concern, so you know you’re buying a safer and more effective sunscreen for you and your family.

The sun is both a major cause of skin cancer and the body’s primary source of vitamin D, an essential nutrient that forms when skin is exposed to intense sunlight. 

But generating vitamin D needs only a few minutes of sun exposure per week during summer for people with less melanated skin. Major medical associations advise against deliberate, prolonged sun exposure as a strategy for boosting vitamin D levels. The health risks outweigh the returns. 

What you can do

The science on tanning beds, sunscreens and UV risks is clear, even if federal policy is not. 

EWG provides actionable consumer advice to minimize the potential for long-term harm:

• Avoid tanning beds entirely. There is no safe level of use, especially for minors. The risk increases the younger that someone starts using them. 
• Use sunscreen. High SPF numbers don’t always guarantee UVA protection. It’s important to find a sunscreen that works for you.
• Check out EWG’s tools. Search EWG’s Guide to Sunscreens™ and EWG's Healthy Living App to find top-rated products that provide balanced UVA/UVB protection without ingredients of concern.
• Cover up. Wear protective clothing, hats and UV-blocking sunglasses.
• Seek shade. Find or create your shade with an umbrella or canopy.
• Time your outdoor activities. UV radiation is strongest between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Plan your outdoor time around the sun's peak hours when you can. 

Go outside. Have fun. Don’t get burned. A tanning bed isn’t worth the risk. 

Areas of Focus Sunscreen Family Health Women's Health Children’s Health Agency withdraws decade-old plan for protecting minors from skin cancer Authors David Andrews, Ph.D. May 1, 2026

Maine Medical Center registered nurses will hold a press conference on Friday, May 1 in Portland to demand Maine Health cancel its contract with Palantir Technologies. Joined by their allies in the Purge Palantir campaign, nurses will detail why leaders of Maine’s public institutions and health care organizations should refuse collaborations with the surveillance software giant.

In the second part of our series on the borderlands, Aaron and Lilly are joined by Bob Krumenaker, former superintendent of Big Bend National Park and current chair of Keep Big Bend Wild. They discuss the proposal for a border wall through one of America’s national treasures, the bipartisan coalition rallying to stop it, and what’s at stake for the park, communities, and local economy. Plus, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum struggles to defend a 38% cut to the National Park Service maintenance budget while making a $10 billion request for D.C.-based projects.

News

• Fact Check: Burgum claims $10 billion Trump slush fund request is for NPS deferred maintenance only — Center for Western Priorities
• Senate ENR committee tussles with Burgum over permitting  — E&E News
• Trump used Park Service to funnel millions to ballroom construction firm — New York Times
• President’s Budget Proposal Slashes National Park Service Funding Amid Ongoing Attacks on National Parks — National Parks Conservation Association
• Border wall map disappears from government website — Big Bend Sentinel
• Land acquisition expands popular Jeffco park adjacent to Red Rocks — Denver Post

Resources

• Borderlands part 1: The threats to public lands at the border
• Keep Big Bend Wild
• Mission Creep: How Trump is using the border to militarize our public lands — Westwise blog
• Watch this episode on YouTube 

Produced by Aaron Weiss, Lauren Bogard, and Lilly Bock-Brownstein
Feedback: podcast@westernpriorities.org
Music: Purple Planet
Featured image: U.S.-Mexico border within Big Bend National Park, NPS photo

The post Borderlands part 2: The fight against a border wall at Big Bend appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

Your favorite brands might be in the fight against stricter food safety laws JR Culpepper April 30, 2026

More than a dozen states have enacted laws to protect consumers from harmful food chemicals and ultra-processed foods. Your favorite food brands may be tied up in efforts to erase them.

A draft bill known as the “FRESH” and Affordable Foods Act, introduced last week by Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.), would take an unprecedented step in food policy by undoing many state laws aimed at strengthening food safety. States would also lose authority to regulate food chemicals in the future.

If enacted, the bill would make it dramatically easier for the food industry to add new chemicals to the food supply without meaningful review by the Food and Drug Administration – and would make it harder for the public to get information about these substances.

The bill closely mirrors previous proposals advanced by Americans for Ingredient Transparency, or AFIT. This is a front group lobbying for the interests of the largest food manufacturers and trade associations in the country. 

Names you might recognize on AFIT’s website include the Coca Cola Company, General Mills, Hormel Foods, Ken’s, Keurig Dr Pepper, Kraft Heinz, McCormick & Company, Nestlé, Ocean Spray, PepsiCo, Sargento and Tyson Foods. 

While AFIT isn’t officially backing the bill, the clear parallels between its wishlist and the legislation make its involvement appear likely. 

Brand favorites are tied up in the food fight

The companies belonging to AFIT own thousands of popular U.S. food and drink brands, whose products could be sitting on your shelves or in your fridge right now.

Below are just a few brands – many of which are known for promoting healthy or kid-friendly foods – owned by companies who are members of the front group AFIT.

General Mills is known for classic cereal brands like Cheerios. It also owns Cascadian Farm, EPIC protein bars, Larabar, Nature Valley and Yoplait.

Nestlé is the parent company of a range of brands, from Gerber baby and toddler foods to San Pellegrino waters to Orgain protein powders and nutritional supplements.

Keurig Dr Pepper owns the Mott’s brand, which caters to kids and families with its applesauce, juice and other snack lines. It also owns multiple flavored water brands, including Bai and Core Hydration.

PepsiCo is the parent company of multiple brands marketing nutrition supplements and healthier beverage options like Bubly, Poppi and Lifewater. Its products also include Sabra hummus, PopCorners chips, and Quaker oats, bars and cereals.

The complete list of foods owned by member companies of AFIT spans products found in virtually every grocery aisle. It includes a wide range of popular meat and poultry items, cookies and crackers, chips and snacks, energy and sports drinks, canned food, condiments, spices and seasonings, and prepared and frozen meals.

The FRESH Act makes food less safe

The retroactive reach of the FRESH Act – undoing existing state food safety laws – is its most radical feature and the one that has received the least attention. 

California’s Food Safety Act, which bans Red Dye No. 3, brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate and propyl paraben from food sold in the state, would be nullified. 

Similar laws in Arkansas, Texas and Utah banning the same chemicals would be void. Taken together, these state laws represent years of effort, public advocacy and the democratic process, which would all be eliminated overnight by one single federal bill.  

The FRESH Act would also make it easier for companies to add chemicals to food without FDA approval. Food chemicals already approved, including those considered “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, would not receive additional FDA review. 

But GRAS chemicals aren’t necessarily safe chemicals. That’s because nearly 99% percent of the chemicals approved as GRAS since the year 2000 have been greenlighted by industry, not the FDA. 

The FRESH Act would undermine an already weak system for approving new chemicals. It would allow food chemical companies to submit even less information to the FDA on the chemicals they use. 

The bill would also let companies enlist industry-funded expert panels to decide food chemicals are safe, as long as they are added to an FDA database. Experts could also continue to have conflicts of interest as long as they are “managed.” If the FDA doesn’t respond to a request to add a new chemical to the GRAS list in 90 days, it would be added by default.

Under the FRESH Act, even if the FDA does ban a food chemical due to health and safety risks, the chemical of concern would still be allowed in food for two years. Companies may also ask the FDA to hide safety information from the public or delay chemical restrictions indefinitely by requesting hearings.

Everything the bill aims to achieve is a striking contrast to the agenda of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Under his signature “Make America Healthy Again,” Kennedy has called out food dyes, ultra-processed foods and the GRAS loophole as targets for reform. 

What consumers can do now

In the absence of federal action, states have stepped up to protect our health by removing toxic chemicals from our food. The FRESH Act would strip states of that power and place food safety in the hands of chemical companies instead.

Contact your representative and urge them to preserve critical public health protections by rejecting the FRESH Act. This is a direct attack on states rights and food safety. Your call carries weight.

At home, shoppers can check EWG’s Dirty Dozen Guide to Food Chemicals, which highlights top food chemicals to avoid due to health and safety concerns. 

For some extra help, take a look at EWG’s Food Scores, which provides ratings for more than 150,000 foods and drinks based on nutrition, ingredients and processing. Food Scores also flags unhealthy UPF and can help you identify alternatives. 

Or if you’re on the go, EWG’s Healthy Living app puts that information in your pocket while you shop.

The food industry, including some of your favorite brands, is hoping consumers aren’t paying attention to this fight. Let’s prove them wrong.

Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN April 30, 2026

This article Why power analysis is key to fighting ICE was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'N5YdDyLKS0J5qFYhDZlyOw',sig:'JEr8kp-qsdyHH7veEfpV3mFipuFukC3iE4Hc03O2tYA=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'2258577189',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

The ICE campaign to round up millions of immigrants is grounded in tactics designed to inspire public fear and passivity. Dressed in tactical gear and wielding deadly weapons, masked agents strive to project an image of invincible power as they rampage through communities, smashing into cars, breaking down doors and wrestling people into unmarked vehicles.

Nevertheless, many activists have refused to be intimidated, successfully confronting agents on the street to prevent harassment and arrests. Such ad hoc resistance has its limitations, however, since ICE activities often occur out of public view.

In response, activists are using a more systemic approach by targeting businesses that underpin the agency’s ability to function. Because ICE cannot carry out its operations alone, it relies on a network of companies to provide equipment, intelligence, communications, travel, accommodations and everything else huge bureaucracies require.

For example, Palantir has been the target of a campaign because, among other things, it provides surveillance software and database management services to ICE. The Coalition to Stop Avelo targeted Avelo Airlines, forcing it to end its deportation contract with ICE. And boycotts have been launched against Home Depot for allowing immigration raids on its property and Hilton Hotels for accommodating ICE agents.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'IKevCvA4T6FGlO9Pah89HA',sig:'aaDRIb0NxSNN5IXFsEYWGulX0xXKFIYz_KvRV9r7BZk=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'2264645203',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

While a simple internet search can turn up dozens of companies that have been awarded ICE contracts, sometimes finding your opponent’s most vulnerable pillars of support requires doing extensive research. 

Identify targets that are vulnerable to pressure 

In the early 2000s the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, or CIW, did a detailed evaluation of their industry and discovered new targets that drastically changed the direction and effectiveness of their campaign for farmworkers’ rights.

Tomato pickers in the small South Florida town had been struggling since the group was founded in 1993 to increase wages and improve working conditions in the fields. Using short work stoppages, marches and hunger strikes aimed at influencing the growers, they had been able to raise their wages marginally, but the growers remained intransigent. By every measure, the workers were still impoverished.

Discouraged by slow progress, the workers undertook a deep analysis of the food industry. As described by Susan Marquis in her book “I Am Not a Tractor!,” their research revealed a couple of key insights. First, the tomato growers they had been targeting with their protests could not afford to raise the farmworkers’ wages even if they wanted to, because tomato prices were set by the buyers.

The second revelation was that the buyers, unlike the growers, had public-facing brands. The fast food restaurants and grocery stores that were buying tomatoes from the Immokalee growers had brands to protect, and the last thing they wanted was to have their public images tarnished.

Consequently, after targeting the growers for seven years, CIW pivoted, launching a national boycott of Taco Bell. The demand was that the company simply pay an extra penny per pound for their tomatoes, with the extra revenue passed on to the workers. What made Taco Bell especially vulnerable was its ubiquity on college campuses, where student activists could apply additional pressure. 

Previous Coverage

Lessons from the Coalition of Immokalee Workers for low-wage workers

After about four years of organizing and agitating, the fast food giant’s parent company, Yum! Brands signed an agreement with CIW. Next, the workers targeted McDonald’s, a campaign that succeeded after only two years. After that, the dominoes tumbled quickly as Burger King, Whole Foods, Subway and many more companies were forced to the negotiating table. Using extensive research to expose the industry’s power relationships and find the right targets was the key to their success.

As the CIW’s campaign illustrates, when designing a campaign strategy, your immediate opponent and your best target may not always be the same. Even when your opponent has the capacity to acquiesce to your demand, they may be relatively immune from any pressure you can bring to bear. Fortunately, power is more like a web than a monolith, and while your opponent may seem powerful, their power is not intrinsic, but rather derives from other people and institutions they cannot fully control. Targeting one or more of these pillars of support may prove more fruitful than attacking your opponent head on. 

Don’t stop at the obvious

Finding those pillars requires doing a power analysis. Power analysis is all about uncovering connections and asking how various entities interact to create a web of dependencies that can reveal your opponent’s vulnerabilities and sources of power.

Most professional campaigning organizations understand the importance of doing in-depth research on their opponent, but if you’re a member of an ad-hoc group of volunteers fighting, for example, a data center or a detention center in your community, the idea might not occur. You may try to coerce local politicians or regulatory boards to take your side because they seem to have the power to stop the project. But targeting the most obvious entity may not give you the best chance at success.

“Sometimes we’ll just get stuck at the city council or the mayor … because the immediate decisions stop there,” said Lauren Jacobs, executive director of PowerSwitch Action. “But what I think is critical is that we are completely mapping the whole terrain.”

“I think that there is utility that can come from going after your immediate opponent, but … your most obvious opponent might not always be who actually has the power to give you what you want,” said Molly Gott, a senior research analyst at LittleSis, a nonprofit research organization focused on corporate and government accountability. “And there can oftentimes be utility to mapping out a little bit more the other powerful players that are involved and the ways that you can pressure them.”

In 2021 the Defend Black Voters Coalition launched a campaign against Michigan state lawmakers who were pushing to overturn the 2020 election results and suppress Black voting. Although the campaign was eventually suspended after Michiganders passed a ballot initiative that essentially accomplished the campaign’s objectives, the coalition’s process was a great illustration of how a thorough power analysis can uncover layers of indirect connections between people and corporations that may not be obvious at first.

#newsletter-block_06d5ffc30749b91d8d5e3b8d96b4f39d { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_06d5ffc30749b91d8d5e3b8d96b4f39d #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

We’ll send you a weekly email with the latest articles.

As described by Andrew Willis Garcés in a Training for Change podcast, the coalition realized it would be futile to target the entrenched Republican legislators who were attempting to interfere with Michigan elections. But research revealed several big donors who supported the Republican legislators, and one of those companies — insurance giant Blue Cross Blue Shield — had contracts worth billions of dollars with Michigan cities and counties.

So the campaign targeted Democrat-controlled municipalities across the state, urging them to pass resolutions threatening those business ties if the insurance company didn’t end its support for election-denying legislators. The campaign began to gain momentum as five cities and counties, including Detroit and Wayne County, approved contractor accountability measures before the voter ballot initiative was approved and the campaign ended.

But targeting tertiary targets — Michigan municipalities — to indirectly influence legislators shows how deep research on an opponent can reveal potentially vulnerable connections up and down the power chain.

The nuts and bolts of power analysis

“I know this can be a challenge for groups that don’t have people on staff who are researchers,” Jacobs said. “There’s a lot that we can do via simple Google searches and not stopping on the first page of results. We can dig and find out a lot of stuff that’s in the public domain.”

In addition to deep internet searches, another way to gather information about your opponent is doing what James Mumm calls a “research action.”

“You could be talking to workers, you could be talking to ex-employees of a company,” said Mumm, who is chief of institutional advancement at the People’s Action Institute, a national federation of local groups dedicated to building the power of poor and working people. “If you get a meeting, you could sit down with the target of your campaign and ask them questions.”

Specialized databases can also be useful, Mumm said. For example, Pitchbook provides detailed financial data on corporations, and LexisNexis contains news articles and court cases. But these databases are expensive and may be beyond the reach of all-volunteer groups unless they can find a professional advocacy group that has a subscription and is willing to share.

The questions to explore when doing a power analysis vary based on the type of campaign, but Gott, the LittleSis research analyst, offers some examples: “If we’re thinking about doing a power analysis of a corporation, we look at who are the executives, who’s on the board, how do they get financing, what banks do they work with, who are their investors, who are their customers, who are their shareholders, do they get subsidies, all that kind of stuff.”

When researching powerful people, Gott says the investigation should be similarly wide ranging: “For example, research might include questions such as what boards are they on, what kinds of business and social networks are they a part of, do they have investments, do they belong to a particular country club, what are their political relationships, do they give money to particular elected officials,” she explained.

Mumm suggests a slightly different approach to power research by trying to answer four basic questions about your opponent: what do they want, who do they fear, who has power over them and who do they have power over. The first two questions can help form the campaign’s strategy and test its effectiveness.

“So we’re trying to take what they want away from them and bring what they fear closer,” Mumm said. “And the only way we know if we’re doing either one of those correctly throughout the course of a campaign is we get a reaction from the target. If we get no reaction from a target, then we have made bad guesses and have to do more research.” 

Tracing connections helps answer Mumm’s third research question — who has power over your opponent? You might discover your opponent has financial ties, supply chain dependencies, political affiliations, personal relationships and more — any of which could present promising campaign targets. This is how you can generate secondary and tertiary targets.

Researching the fourth question — who does your main target have power over — can be a great source of intel, according to Mumm, especially in corporate campaigns. That’s because not everyone likes their boss. Employees who are disgruntled or sympathetic to the campaign’s objectives may provide inside information that can shed light on corporate decision making and internal power dynamics. All this information can be compiled to inform a campaign’s targeting strategy.

The information gathering process shouldn’t end after the initial strategy is settled on. Continuing research during a campaign is crucial because power relationships are constantly shifting, especially during long campaigns. Also, as more information about the opponent surfaces, a change in target might be necessary, especially when a campaign gets bogged down.

When a strategy isn’t working, Gott said, “then you go back to the drawing board, maybe do more research, maybe revisit research that you already had.”

Reevaluate your target as needed

A good example of a campaign finding success by shifting to a secondary target occurred during the Riders Against Gender Exclusion, or RAGE, campaign in Philadelphia. In 2010, bus drivers were harassing trans people whose appearance did not match the gender on their passes, and accusing them of using someone else’s pass. RAGE formed to fight the policy.

After some research, the group determined that SEPTA, the Philadelphia transit authority, was the entity that had the power to eliminate the gender markers, so that agency became their target.

“Ultimately we were pretty clear that SEPTA were the ones that could say yes or no to our demands,” said Nico Amador, who was one of the RAGE organizers. “Sometimes as campaigners, we are dealing with a target that really has no direct accountability to us. Voters don’t choose the head of the public transportation system.”

Consequently, after two years of unsuccessfully pressuring SEPTA, the campaign was losing steam. The group took stock and decided to pivot to a less confrontational objective. A new “Ride with Respect” campaign engaged allies to sign cards pledging to intervene if they saw someone being harassed by bus drivers because of a perceived gender mismatch on their bus pass.

Meanwhile, a woman who had attended RAGE meetings decided on her own to initiate conversations with a few Philadelphia City Council members to discuss the gender marker issue. The lobbying resulted in the City Council unanimously passing a non-binding resolution in support of changing the bus pass gender policy. Shortly afterwards, SEPTA discontinued the use of the gender markers on commuter passes.

While it’s likely the RAGE campaign against SEPTA had softened their resistance and set the stage for the policy reversal, it was the City Council that ultimately proved to be the decisive target.

“I think there was maybe an oversight on our part once we had actually built that power and that influence to not notice that the City Council as a secondary target would have been a smart move,” Amador said.

But Amador doesn’t think it was a mistake to initially target SEPTA.

“I think in our case it would have been hard to build legitimacy around the campaign if we had not put pressure on SEPTA directly first,” he said.

#support-block_14bf8a0f8450703d8c247b896b84c226 { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

Waging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Make a donation today!

Donate

Nevertheless, this example demonstrates the importance of constantly reevaluating targeting decisions as power relationships fluctuate during the course of a campaign.

While doing extensive opposition research may seem like a daunting task, especially for poorly resourced groups, there is help. LittleSis provides research assistance and free training programs for activists. It was LittleSis research that aided the successful StopAvelo campaign by identifying some of the airline’s pillars of support, like airports that leased them gates, local governments that provided them subsidies and universities that signed promotional deals with them.

Besides providing toolkits, research guides and their own database of powerful people and institutions, the nonprofit offers an annual four-part webinar called Research Tools for Organizers that covers the basics of power analysis. 

“We talk about intro to power research … understanding the history of it in social movements in the U.S., and then how to research a corporation, how to research nonprofits and how to research billionaires,” Gott explained.

No matter how formidable an opponent appears on the surface, chances are they have social, political or economic connections that render them vulnerable. Power research can help campaigns identify pillars of support, and finding the right target can be the difference between success and failure.

This article Why power analysis is key to fighting ICE was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.