News Feeds

Rich Wilson is CEO of the Iswe Foundation and co-founder of the Global Citizens’ Assembly.

The numbers are stark. According to the 2026 Global Report on Food Crises, 266 million people across 47 countries experienced high levels of acute food insecurity last year, nearly double the figure recorded a decade ago. 

Meanwhile, disruptions to oil, gas and fertiliser flows through the Strait of Hormuz drove a 46% month-on-month spike in urea prices early this year, sending agricultural price indices up 8% and raising the spectre of a global affordability crisis.

This is not a blip. It is a new baseline. The EAT-Lancet Commission concluded that food systems now account for roughly 30% of total greenhouse gas emissions and are the largest single contributor to the climate crisis. The science has been clear for years. 

Now some of the solutions to the problem are becoming socially acceptable too. 

• Jul 3, 2026 Finance Billions unlocked as Green Climate Fund agrees to spend more and save less The board of the UN’s flagship climate fund allows management to invest more of its money in projects in developing nations and keep less in reserve Read more
• Jul 1, 2026 Energy Can giant batteries unlock Africa’s green industrial future? Battery energy storage systems (BESS) could drive clean tech manufacturing in Africa but shortfalls in finance and data are still limiting deployment at scale Read more

Earlier this year, people from more than 60 countries and territories, selected not by vested interest, but by lottery, spent seven weeks examining the evidence on food and climate for the latest Global Citizens’ Assembly. They heard from scientists, farmers and industry. They worked through 42 hours of structured deliberation, engaging with some difficult trade-offs. 

They were not asked to endorse a predetermined conclusion. They were asked an open question: what changes, if any, should we make to how we grow, share and eat food, so that everyone has enough to nourish themselves while tackling the causes and impacts of climate change?

Phase down industrial animal farming

Their answer was unambiguous. They voted to protect forests. They voted to phase down industrial animal food production. They voted for supply chain reform and corporate accountability, explicitly rejecting the idea that the burden of change should fall on individual consumers. All 22 of their Calls to Action passed with over 85% support, a super-majority of randomly selected people from every region of the world, in agreement. 

Consider what the assembly was actually being asked to decide. Industrial animal food production is the primary driver of tropical deforestation. Protecting more land as forest and ecosystem means less land available for the expansion of industrial production. That is a real trade-off, with real consequences for real livelihoods. Politicians have spent years avoiding it. 

Food systems are the missing ingredient from the COP30 menu 

These randomly selected people looked at the evidence, deliberated across time zones and cultures, and chose the forests, with 64% in strong support and a further 20% in favour. People from livestock farming communities voted for change. Not because they were told to. Because deliberation led them there.

We estimate there have now been more than 7,000 citizen participation initiatives worldwide in the last decade. They have been organised because, as our 2025 report: People in the Lead demonstrated, people are now consistently and significantly ahead of politicians on issues ranging from climate to AI governance.

The people know best

What the research consistently shows is that ordinary people, given proper evidence and time, produce recommendations that are more effective and more aligned with public values than what emerges from elected legislatures. The gap in global governance is no longer primarily between science and the public. It is between citizens and their political leaders.

That gap matters for more than procedural reasons. When policy treats people as passive recipients rather than active participants, it leaves out the very actors whose behaviour, trust and consent the transition depends on. Institutions that speak only to other institutions, and negotiate only with state actors and industry lobbies, are missing out on the trust and energy of the people they are supposed to serve.

Governments, left to their own devices, are not moving fast enough to prove that argument wrong. At COP30 in Belém last November, countries failed to agree on a fossil fuel phaseout roadmap, and even full implementation of every submitted national climate plan still leaves the world on course for 2.3 to 2.8C of warming. 

Thousands march in a COP30 protest calling for climate justice and protection of the Amazon among other things in Belem, Brazil on November 15, 2025. Photo: Artyc Studio Thousands march in a COP30 protest calling for climate justice and protection of the Amazon among other things in Belem, Brazil on November 15, 2025. Photo: Artyc Studio Citizens’ track at COP

But the Brazilian presidency grasped something important. Among the conference’s more significant outcomes was the formal launch of a Citizens’ Track within the UNFCCC process, a mechanism for connecting the global participation field to intergovernmental climate negotiations. Türkiye and Australia, who together hold the COP31 presidency in Antalya this November, now have the opportunity to strengthen and institutionalise what Brazil began.

In Guatemala, Indigenous women build climate resilience with old and new farming methods

The question before us is no longer whether citizens can contribute to solving these problems. Across the world, in local food networks, in community assemblies and in participatory planning processes, they already are, quietly generating more ambitious and more legitimate solutions than those emerging from formal diplomatic channels.

What is required now is the political courage to connect people to power. Not to consult citizens and file the results. Not to invite them to observe while the real decisions are made elsewhere. But to recognise the public as partners in perhaps the most consequential governance challenge of our time.

The post As food shocks spread, citizens are showing more leadership than governments  appeared first on Climate Home News.

Over 4,000 workers in Ontario’s social services organized with OPSEU are either on strike or locked out in a province-wide fight for better wages, backpay...

The post Despite what Doug Ford thinks, social services are Worth Fighting For first appeared on Spring.

ROYALGACOR berupaya menghadirkan sistem yang mudah dipahami tanpa mengurangi kelengkapan fitur yang tersedia. Pengguna dapat menemukan berbagai menu secara lebih terstruktur sehingga proses pencarian informasi maupun penggunaan layanan menjadi lebih efisien.

Pendekatan seperti ini memberikan manfaat yang cukup besar. Waktu yang dibutuhkan untuk memahami cara kerja platform menjadi lebih singkat, sementara risiko terjadinya kesalahan saat mengakses berbagai fitur juga dapat diminimalkan.

Stabilitas Sistem Mendukung Pengalaman Pengguna

Selain kemudahan penggunaan, stabilitas layanan merupakan faktor yang tidak kalah penting. Platform digital yang mampu menjaga performa secara konsisten cenderung memperoleh tingkat kepuasan pengguna yang lebih tinggi.

ROYALGACOR berupaya menghadirkan sistem yang tetap responsif ketika diakses melalui berbagai perangkat. Optimalisasi ini memungkinkan pengguna memperoleh pengalaman yang relatif stabil baik menggunakan komputer maupun perangkat seluler.

Meski demikian, performa sebuah layanan tetap dipengaruhi oleh berbagai faktor eksternal, seperti kualitas jaringan internet, kapasitas perangkat yang digunakan, hingga kondisi lalu lintas data pada waktu tertentu. Oleh karena itu, pengalaman setiap pengguna dapat berbeda meskipun mengakses platform yang sama.

Layanan Pelanggan yang Responsif

Dalam dunia layanan digital, dukungan pelanggan memiliki peran yang sangat penting. Tidak semua kendala dapat diselesaikan secara mandiri, sehingga keberadaan tim bantuan menjadi salah satu indikator kualitas pelayanan.

ROYALGACOR menyediakan layanan pelanggan yang ditujukan untuk membantu pengguna memperoleh informasi maupun solusi ketika menghadapi kendala tertentu. Respons yang cepat dapat membantu mengurangi waktu tunggu sekaligus meningkatkan rasa percaya terhadap layanan yang digunakan.

Di sisi lain, efektivitas layanan pelanggan juga bergantung pada kompleksitas permasalahan yang dihadapi. Pertanyaan yang bersifat umum biasanya dapat diselesaikan lebih cepat dibandingkan kasus yang memerlukan proses verifikasi tambahan.

Fitur yang Terus Mengikuti Perkembangan

Perubahan kebutuhan pengguna mendorong platform untuk terus melakukan pembaruan. Inovasi tidak selalu berarti menghadirkan fitur baru dalam jumlah banyak, melainkan juga menyempurnakan sistem yang sudah ada agar semakin relevan dengan kebutuhan saat ini.

ROYALGACOR menunjukkan upaya pengembangan melalui penyempurnaan berbagai aspek layanan, mulai dari peningkatan kenyamanan penggunaan hingga optimalisasi performa sistem. Langkah semacam ini penting karena ekspektasi pengguna terhadap layanan digital terus meningkat dari waktu ke waktu.

Meskipun demikian, setiap pembaruan juga memiliki tantangan tersendiri. Adaptasi pengguna terhadap perubahan antarmuka maupun fitur baru memerlukan waktu, sehingga proses pengembangan perlu dilakukan secara bertahap agar tetap memberikan pengalaman yang positif.

Keamanan Menjadi Fondasi Kepercayaan

Keamanan merupakan salah satu aspek yang tidak dapat dipisahkan dari layanan digital modern. Pengguna semakin sadar akan pentingnya perlindungan data sehingga mereka cenderung memilih platform yang memberikan perhatian terhadap aspek keamanan.

ROYALGACOR berupaya membangun lingkungan layanan yang lebih aman melalui pengelolaan sistem yang mendukung perlindungan aktivitas pengguna. Selain itu, kesadaran pengguna juga memiliki peran penting dalam menjaga keamanan akun, misalnya dengan menggunakan kata sandi yang kuat dan tidak membagikan informasi pribadi kepada pihak lain.

Kolaborasi antara sistem keamanan platform dan kebiasaan pengguna yang bijak menjadi kombinasi yang mampu menciptakan pengalaman digital yang lebih nyaman.

Peluang Pengembangan di Masa Mendatang

Persaingan layanan digital akan terus mengalami perubahan seiring berkembangnya teknologi. Platform yang mampu beradaptasi dengan cepat biasanya memiliki peluang lebih besar untuk mempertahankan loyalitas pengguna.

ROYALGACOR memiliki kesempatan untuk terus meningkatkan kualitas layanannya melalui inovasi yang berorientasi pada kebutuhan pengguna. Pengembangan teknologi, peningkatan performa sistem, serta penyempurnaan pengalaman pengguna menjadi beberapa aspek yang berpotensi memberikan nilai tambah di masa depan.

Namun demikian, keberhasilan pengembangan tidak hanya ditentukan oleh inovasi teknologi. Kemampuan memahami masukan pengguna dan menerapkannya dalam proses penyempurnaan layanan juga menjadi faktor yang tidak kalah penting.

Penutup

Keunggulan sebuah platform digital tidak hanya tercermin dari banyaknya fitur yang ditawarkan, melainkan juga dari bagaimana seluruh layanan tersebut mampu bekerja secara selaras dalam memberikan pengalaman yang nyaman, efisien, dan mudah diakses. ROYALGACOR menunjukkan upaya untuk menghadirkan layanan yang berfokus pada kemudahan penggunaan, stabilitas sistem, dukungan pelanggan, serta pengembangan yang berkelanjutan.

Pada akhirnya, penilaian terhadap kualitas sebuah layanan tetap bergantung pada pengalaman masing-masing pengguna. Dengan memahami berbagai aspek yang memengaruhi kinerja platform, pengguna dapat menilai secara lebih objektif apakah layanan yang tersedia telah sesuai dengan kebutuhan dan harapan mereka dalam memanfaatkan layanan digital.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) will have nearly $6 billion more to spend on emissions-reduction and climate adaptation projects in developing countries, after its board agreed to a management proposal to reduce the proportion of money it has to keep in reserve.

At a meeting in Tajikistan this week, the government representatives who make up the fund’s board endorsed the proposal to revise its financial rules so that it no longer has to set aside one dollar for every dollar it spends.

Instead, the buffer amount will be decided based on a new, looser methodology. The GCF’s chief financial officer, Darren Tan, told board members that the old rules had led to too much cash building up in the fund’s reserves and “constrained the resources that we could deploy”.

The fund has a portfolio of 360 projects to which it has allocated $20.5 billion, but it has struggled to collect all the pledges made by donors as the US has failed to deliver billions and other wealthy nations are now making cuts to their funding for climate work in developing countries.

• Jul 2, 2026 Finance World Bank’s climate work can endure without finance target, experts say Even though the global lender has ditched a headline goal for its financing with climate benefits, it has decided to continue its climate action plan in the face of US pressure Read more
• Jul 1, 2026 Energy Can giant batteries unlock Africa’s green industrial future? Battery energy storage systems (BESS) could drive clean tech manufacturing in Africa but shortfalls in finance and data are still limiting deployment at scale Read more
• Jun 30, 2026 News Ocean summit stays silent on new wave of offshore oil and gas expansion At this month’s Our Ocean Conference in Mombasa, campaigners warned that ocean protection requires governments to halt new offshore fossil fuel projects Read more

The new system has been independently validated and is supported by the GCF’s trustee, the World Bank. Tan said the approach is still prudent enough that the fund will remain “financially resilient even under adverse conditions”.

The change “allows the fund to do more with the same resources”, Tan concluded, adding that “this translates directly into greater climate impact”. The shift leaves the fund with $5.65 billion to put into projects instead of around $1 billion under the previous rules.

The reforms follow wider moves to get funders of climate action to do more with their money. In 2023 and 2024, the World Bank lowered its equity-to-loans ratio from 20% to 19% and then 18%, freeing up around $7 billion a year for it to invest.

At their meeting in Dushanbe, GCF board members broadly welcomed the proposal, although several complained they had not been given enough time to consider reforms of such importance.

“No brainer”

While developed countries were all supportive, developing nations’ responses were more mixed. Some called for the new system to be implemented immediately but others urged a slower roll-out and raised concerns that the changes would lead the fund to give out more loans and fewer grants.

Canada’s representative said the approach is “considered standard practice across the climate finance architecture”, the UK said it “seems sensible”, France called it a “no-brainer” and New Zealand said it would “grow the funding pie”.

GCF board meeting participants pose in Dushanbe (Photo: GCF)

Germany’s Annette Windmeisser said it “responds to the COP29 decision to triple outflows from the mutilateral climate funds”. This goal was agreed after a push from small island and least developed countries but – with funding from wealthy governments faltering – the GCF is looking at controversial options like borrowing from banks to meet it.

Japan’s Kazuho Taguchi hinted at similar motivations for supporting these reforms. “Efficient use of limited public resources” is essential, he said, because “it is unrealistic to expect public finance from developed countries alone to meet the full scale of need”.

Bigger share for loans?

Some developing countries strongly supported the reforms too, including Gambia representing the least developed nations, Costa Rica and Uruguay.

Others urged caution. Georgia’s Nino Tandilashvili said the “outside world… want more projects from us” but also “financial sustainability of this fund”.

Botswana’s Balisi Gopolang echoed this and Ghana’s Antwi Boasiako-Amoah said the fund’s models should be tested against performance and the changes should be implemented slowly and piloted first.

Boasiako-Amoah also said he was concerned that the new methodology would be used to increase the proportion of the fund’s money that is loaned out to developing countries rather than distributed as grants. As the money is intended to be returned, loans are less financially risky to the GCF than grants.

Ghana’s Antwi Boasiako-Amoah and Canada’s Andrew Hurst talk at the board meeting in Dushanbe (Photo: GCF)

The board’s decision approving the reform incorporated this concern by noting that the “risk appetite or financial instrument mix” of board spending decisions should not be influenced by the new policy.

Liane Schalatek, who monitored the meeting for the Heinrich Böll Foundation, told Climate Home News that the reforms give the GCF “some breathing room” for the next year or two, after the Trump administration reneged on US pledges and the UK halved the contribution it had promised for 2024-2027.

But, Schalatek added, “it does not solve the fundamental question of whether developed countries are willing to stick to their obligations under the Paris Agreement and the [UN climate regime] that still requires them to provide substantial inputs into the GCF for the next replenishment period from 2028-2031.”

The post Billions unlocked as Green Climate Fund agrees to spend more and save less appeared first on Climate Home News.

Submission by Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice for the Belem Technology Implementation Programme

We are pleased to make this submission on the topics for the global dialogue to be held under the Belem Technology Implementation Programme (BTIP) in 2027, as mandated by the Belem decision on the Technology Implementation Programme adopted at CMA.7. 

We believe these dialogues should serve not only as a platform for information exchange and learning but also provide a space for exchanging views and identifying actionable solutions for addressing political and systemic barriers related to technology transfer, including intellectual property rights (IPR), trade restrictions and financial accessibility for developing countries. At the same time, any solutions identified through these dialogues should not come attached with more conditionalities for developing countries. 

We stress that discussions should focus on both adaptation and mitigation related technology needs of developing countries so that they can be supported in a comprehensive manner in the implementation of their climate actions. 

We would also like to reject the discussion of any technological solutions that may be considered to have mitigation potential but are unproven in terms of their actual impact. We reject particularly any kind of speculative technologies that would need to be implemented at a large scale and involve a modification of atmospheric systems such as engineered Carbon Dioxide Removal, Carbon Capture and Storage and Utilization (CCUS) and Direct Air Capture. Studies have shown that a majority of such projects have failed to achieve any kind of substantial amount of emissions reduction.  

DCJ prioritizes the following four topics for dialogue:

1. Strengthening implementation of climate related environmentally sound technology priorities in developing countries through provision of financing: Under this topic, discussions could focus on ways by which implementation of technologies as identified by developing countries can be enhanced, especially through a stronger linkage between the Operating Entities of UNFCCC’s Financial Mechanisms (like the Green Climate Fund, Global Environment Facility, Adaptation Fund) and its Technology Mechanism. Developed countries have a legal obligation under the UNFCCC to provide support to developing countries for the technology development and transfer. They also have a legal obligation under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement to provide means of implementation to developing countries, which includes finance, technology development and transfer, and capacity building as key pillars. Discussions under this topic could focus on tracking how much support has actually been provided by developed countries for financing the technology needs identified in developing countries’ Technology Needs and Assessment (TNAs), Technology Action Plans, Nationally Determined Contributions, National Adaptation Plans, and other relevant documents. Such a discussion would allow an understanding of the key barriers and enablers faced by developing countries while accessing funding to implement their technology needs. 

2. Addressing identified financial barriers and enablers for technology development and transfer in developing countries: Developing countries often face various barriers for accelerating their technology development and innovation. These include financial and economic, regulatory and legal barriers, and gaps in the capacities of developing countries to build required technology capabilities, including endogenous development of technologies. Development of climate related technologies like renewable energy requires high upfront investment which needs access to large sums of capital. The cost of access to such finance for developing countries is often very high which makes it difficult for them to undertake such projects to advance their climate action. Further, developing countries are often required to adhere to regulatory standards that are designed according to the conditions that exist in developed countries, which makes it much more difficult for them to adhere to those standards. Additionally, technology transfer from developed countries can also be accompanied by conditionalities which constrains the ability of developing countries to pursue their technology requirements as per their needs. Discussions under this topic could focus on these issues, identify actionable solutions that international financial institutions and developed countries can undertake so that such the barriers therein can be addressed. Thereby allowing developing countries to access predictable finance in a manner that does not add to their debt. 

3. Addressing trade barriers to and enablers for technology development and transfer, including intellectual property rights (IPR) and policies:  Developing countries pay huge sums of money in the form of royalties for accessing technology from developed countries. In 2023, developing countries have paid an estimated USD 98.7 billion in Intellectual Property Royalties, and received only USD 16.6 billion, which amounts to a deficit of 589%. The amount developing countries have paid to developed countries is one third of the USD 300 billion goal set under the New Collective Quantified Goal on Finance (NCQG). Discussions under this topic could focus on identifying ways by which payment of such royalties and barriers related to IPR and associated policies can be removed or reduced to ease developing countries’ access to crucial climate related environmentally sound technologies. Discussions could also focus on enhancing the use of flexibilities related to IPR as provided under Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights for the transfer and development of such technology, as proposed by the Africa Group in the WTO.  

4. Strengthening international cooperation for technology transfer and development: Discussions under this topic could focus on ways by which international cooperation can be enhanced for increasing access to technology by developing countries. Some areas that could be discussed include the creation of a global technology and voluntary patent pools of climate related technologies, cooperative IPR arrangements like cross licensing, technology standards agreement and other forms of technology sharing. Discussions could particularly focus on the barriers and enablers for the creation of such cooperative arrangements. 

The post Submission by DCJ regarding the Belém Technology Implementation Programme appeared first on Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice.

While the U.S. celebrates its 250th anniversary, political attention is drifting away from climate change just as warming accelerates and Earth's life-support systems approach collapse. From disappearing federal climate data to record-breaking heat, denial is giving way to something more dangerous: collective delusion.

Industrial agriculture relies on more than tractors and diesel. From synthetic fertilizers to depleted soils, the modern food system is deeply tied to fossil fuels, leaving farmers, ecosystems and food security increasingly vulnerable. Amid the polycrisis, we must rebuild food systems by valuing the natural world and supporting human communities.

A new proposal would shrink the public’s right to comment on the rulebooks that govern grazing, logging, and permits across the national forests. Comment now.

A new global rainforest fund, unveiled by Brazil at COP30, will likely struggle to meet its initial funding target this year, after the UK failed to announce an expected pledge during London Climate Action Week and other donors have been slow to come on board.

The Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) was launched on the sidelines of last November’s UN climate summit as an innovative mechanism to fund rainforest protection. Instead of relying on grants, it seeks to raise public and private money, invest it in financial markets, and then pay rainforest countries a share of the returns.

The facility has so far raised $6.8 billion but needs to mobilise at least $10 billion by the end of 2026, under conditions set by Norway to unlock its pledge. If the fund falls short of this goal, the Norwegian contribution of up to $3 billion in loans over 10 years will not be disbursed.

At a gathering of ministers from rainforest-rich countries at London’s Kew Botanic Gardens last Tuesday in searing heat, UK climate minister Katie White praised the TFFF and said she had held a “robust conversation in government over the last few weeks” about the importance of forests and climate action.

She had argued, she said, that “this is not a nice to have – this is absolutely vital for our security and our prosperity”. She told the small crowd of visiting ministers, officials and forest campaigners at Kew that the TFFF was an “innovative and impactful development”.

Minister Katie White addresses a Forest and Climate Leadership high-level summit at Kew Gardens in London on June 23, 2026 (Photo: Joshua Bratt/FCLP)

But despite climate campaigners’ hopes, the British minister did not follow Norway, Germany, France, Brazil, Indonesia and Luxembourg in pledging to the fund, whose aim is to use returns on the capital it invests in bond markets to financially reward countries who keep their tropical forests standing.

Ed Davey, UK lead for the World Resources Institute who was in the room for White’s speech, told Climate Home News afterwards that as the UK was involved in inventing the idea and the British public care about rainforests, it is “incredibly important” that the government invests in the TFFF “as soon as possible”.

“The TFFF is at a very important stage of its gestation, and if a few other critically important sovereign governments don’t come on board quite soon, there is a risk that the idea will lose momentum,” he said.

• Sep 23, 2025 News Explainer: Can a new climate fund help save the world’s rainforests? Led by Brazil, the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) is set to be launched at COP30. Here we take a look at how the fund aims to harness investment to fight deforestation Read more
• Jun 26, 2026 News French court rules Total must revise climate plan to account for all emissions Oil and gas giant TotalEnergies has been given six months by a court to publish a more robust climate plan Read more
• Jun 29, 2026 Comment We need no-go mining zones for the energy transition to be just: Here’s how it could work As rising demand for critical minerals is compounding threats to fragile ecosystems, NGOs have mapped out areas that should be off-limits to mining Read more

Anders Haug Larsen, advocacy director for the Rainforest Foundation Norway, was also disappointed at the lack of a British pledge during London Climate Action Week (LCAW).

The UK government’s money and its power to mobilise private sector investment are crucial to the TFFF’s success, he said, adding that “saving tropical rainforest is a key component in solving climate change and preserving life on this planet”.

Political divisions?

British newspaper The Times later reported that White’s boss – energy and climate minister Ed Miliband – had been poised to announce a £400-million ($528m) investment pledge to the TFFF but had been opposed by UK finance minister Rachel Reeves.

According to The Times, Reeves was concerned an announcement would be unpopular, as the government was being criticised by its former defence minister for not spending enough on the military, and had pushed for the announcement to be shelved.

Climate Home News understands, however, that the UK Treasury had given the climate ministry approval to tell Brazil and Norway it would invest in the TFFF, but the administrative procedures needed to make the pledge had not been completed in time to announce a contribution during LCAW.

Rachel Reeves (left), Keir Starmer (centre) and Ed Milliband (right) tour a beverage company facility on October 4, 2024 (Photo: Simon Dawson/Number 10)

The UK has been cutting the amount it spends on foreign aid, including on climate projects, in order to deliver what its foreign minister called “the biggest increase in defence spending since the Cold War”.

Projects affected include rainforest protection schemes like the Congo Basin Forest Action Programme, which has had its budget slashed by nearly 80%.

Despite these moves to shrink overseas assistance, defence secretary John Healey resigned a few weeks ago, calling for even more spending for his department.

Last Monday, the first day of LCAW, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced he would soon resign following bad local election results, with his fellow Labour parliamentarian Andy Burnham highly likely to replace him by the end of July. Reeves is looks set to be replaced as finance minister, with Miliband reportedly a leading candidate to succeed her.

Norwegian test looms

If the UK does not invest in the TFFF by the end of the year, along with other government donors, the initiative’s chances of reversing the destruction of tropical forests will be diminished, experts say.

With the US under Donald Trump unlikely to pledge and the two biggest European Union nations France and Germany already having done so, forest campaigners were hoping that the UK could fill some of the roughly $3.2 billion in new pledges needed to meet the minimum goal set by Norway.

Asked by Climate Home News if France would increase its $0.6 billion pledge, its minister for international partnerships Eleonore Caroit said last week, “I don’t have any specific information of any increase.” She added that France supports the TFFF but is also “focusing on other similar projects to achieve the same results”.

The Brazilian finance ministry has courted investments into the fund from Japan, South Korea and China. Last Friday, Brazilian finance minister Dario Durigan met Chinese finance minister Lan Fo’an and afterwards told Valor Econômico that he had raised the possibility of an investment in the TFFF.

“I think today, for the first time, China gave a stronger, firmer indication that it understands the TFFF model and is comfortable with it,” Durigan was quoted as saying. “There has been a positive signal,” he added. “Now we will work with his team to turn that into concrete commitments.”

Larsen of the Rainforest Foundation Norway said there is also hope that Middle Eastern countries, more European nations and the European Union could contribute. The UAE has expressed interest in the fund, and has provided technical assistance for its development.

Consolidating the fund

João Paulo de Resende, TFFF leader at Brazil’s Ministry of Finance, told Climate Home News that Brazil’s priority for 2026, as co-chairs of the fund with Norway, is to consolidate its governing structure. This includes developing an operations manual, a Facility charter and a secretariat hosted at the World Bank.

“The transition from a Brazil-led proposal to a shared international platform is already well underway and is reflected in the initiative’s governance structure and growing coalition of supporters,” he said, adding that the focus is now on building “collective leadership” that can last in the long term.

One the financing side, he said Brazil will “continue engaging bilaterally with sponsor countries” to help reach the $10 billion target by the end of 2026.

Following a recent investor retreat in Rotterdam attended by government officials and private investors, a group of 12 financial institutions – including UK-based Ashmore Group and Dutch firm Robeco – endorsed the fund as an “opportunity to support the protection of up to a billion hectares of tropical forests”.

They added that the fund’s seed capital from governments is “building momentum” and that the TFFF has put in place a “robust institutional governance” that can deliver results in the long term.

Economic value for standing forests

Details of how the TFFF will work are being finalised in an attempt to encourage investment.

Earlier this month, it was announced that its investment arm (the Tropical Forest Investment Fund – TFIF) would be based in Luxembourg. The European financial hub said it will provide €50 million ($57m) to the TFIF through its Climate and Energy Fund between 2026 and 2030, after which it will “maintain a long-term annual contribution”.

The Norwegian government has tasked a veteran of its sovereign wealth fund, Knut N. Kjaer, with reviewing the TFFF’s financial model.

At Kew Gardens last week, the head of the Brazilian forest service Garo Batmanian said the TFFF and other measures are needed so that standing forests are economically valued and therefore protected.

“There is no chainsaw-wielding maniac out there cutting down trees out of pleasure,” he said. “He’s cutting down trees because he thinks he can get more money using the land for something else, so it’s not only about stopping deforestation but also promoting that the standing forest has value.”

This story was edited to add comments by João Paulo de Resende

The post Tropical forest protection fund at risk after UK stalls on pledge appeared first on Climate Home News.

Can Iranians really only choose between repressive state or colonialist invasion? Alain Alameddine speaks to Iranian independent feminist collective Tanide

The post Iran: a third way between oppression and aggression appeared first on Red Pepper.

Off the eastern coast of Italy, large numbers of bottlenose dolphins are looking to fishing trawlers as a source of food, a sign that dolphins may be struggling to feed themselves in waters depleted by overfishing.

Read more on E360 →

hambachforest.org – Are you ready to take your online slots experience to the next level? If so, then Tangandewa Link is where the magic happens. With an array of thrilling games and a user-friendly platform, this site has become a favorite among slot enthusiasts. But how do you navigate through all the options available and find the best online slot account on Tangandewa Link? Fear not! We’ll guide you through essential tips for choosing wisely and highlight what makes this platform stand out from the rest. Get ready to unlock secrets that will enhance your gaming journey!

How to Choose the Best Online Slot Account on Tangandewa Link Site

Choosing the right online slot account on Tangandewa Link can be game-changing. Start by exploring different accounts and their offerings. Look for platforms that feature a wide variety of slots, including classic favorites and innovative new games.

Next, consider the bonuses available when signing up. Many accounts offer enticing welcome packages or free spins that can give you an edge from the start. Compare these promotions across various accounts to find one that suits your playing style.

Don’t forget to check user reviews and ratings too. Real players often share valuable insights about their experiences, helping you assess reliability and customer support options.

Ensure that payment methods are convenient for you. A good online slot account should provide multiple deposit and withdrawal options for seamless transactions while keeping your financial data secure.

Top Features and Benefits of Tangandewa Link Site for Online Slots

Tangandewa Link Site stands out in the crowded online slots market. One of its key features is an extensive library of games. Players can choose from classic slots to modern video offerings, ensuring there’s something for everyone.

Another benefit is user-friendly navigation. The site design allows you to find your favorite games quickly, enhancing the overall gaming experience.

Security is a top priority at Tangandewa Link as well. With advanced encryption technology, players can enjoy peace of mind while placing their bets and sharing personal information.

Additionally, generous bonuses and promotions are regularly offered. These incentives not only boost your bankroll but also provide exciting opportunities to explore new games without financial risk.

Responsive customer support ensures any issues are promptly addressed, allowing players to focus more on fun rather than frustration during their gaming sessions.

Enjoying a Safe and Rewarding Online Slot Experience with Tangandewa Link Site

When it comes to enjoying online slots, safety and rewards are paramount. tangandewa link Site takes these aspects seriously. The platform employs advanced security measures to protect your personal information and financial transactions. You can play with peace of mind knowing that your data is safe.

Moreover, Tangandewa Link offers generous bonuses and promotions that enhance your gaming experience. These incentives not only increase your chances of winning but also add excitement to every spin. Players can find a variety of slot games tailored to different preferences, ensuring there’s something for everyone.

Customer support on Tangandewa Link Site is exceptional as well. Should any issues arise, assistance is readily available through multiple channels. This level of service fosters trust and reliability among users.

Choosing the right online slot account can significantly impact your gaming journey. With its robust features and commitment to user satisfaction, Tangandewa Link emerges as an excellent choice for both new players and seasoned gamblers looking for a rewarding experience in the world of online slots.

The post The Secret to Having Official Tangandewa Link Online Slot Account appeared first on HAMBACHFOREST.

SUWA members are invited to our annual Summer Gathering on Thursday, August 27. We couldn’t do this work without your support and look forward to thanking you in person! If you plan to join us, please RSVP below.

Click here to RSVP

Not sure if your membership is current? Email Membership Coordinator Kelly Burnham at membership@suwa.org or call 801-428-3972. Not yet a member? Join today for just $35 and become part of the nationwide movement to Protect Wild Utah!

SUWA’s Summer Gathering
Thursday, August 27
6:30-8:30 pm
Red Butte Garden
300 Wakara Way, Salt Lake City This is a family-friendy event featuring:

● Hors d’oeuvres and non-alcoholic refreshments provided by Brown Brothers Catering
(Vegan and GF options available)
● Remarks by SUWA Executive Director Scott Braden
● A take-home botanical craft for kids and adults alike
● A beautiful garden setting

To help us with the preparations and make sure you’re on the guest list, RSVP here or email Kelly at membership@suwa.org no later than Thursday, August 20. Feel free to call Kelly at 801-428-3972 with any questions.

The post Members Only: Join Us for SUWA’s Summer Gathering on August 27! appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

Fifty years ago, America celebrated its bicentennial with a coast-to-coast displays of bunting, flags, community ceremonies, and constant talk about “hope” and “unity.” Now as we face our semi-quincentennial, the…

At 5:45 am on a small island in lower Green Bay, Wisconsin, the sun has barely crested the horizon, but the air is warm and humid. Tom Prestby, Wisconsin Conservation Manager with Audubon Great...

Several critical water bills that we are tracking at Restore the Delta were heard in the Legislature this week – here are some key updates. 

SB 872 Passes Through Committee

SB 872, a bill that would dedicate $300 million annually to address two major threats to California’s water supply, aging levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and sinking canals in the State Water Project (SWP), passed the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee with unanimous approval. 

We’re excited by the bill’s passage out of committee. Thank you to Senator McNerney for advancing legislation that prioritizes safeguarding California’s water supplies, protecting critical infrastructure, and preparing the state’s water system for future challenges. SB 872 will next be heard in the Committee on Appropriations. 

AB 2215 is Pulled from Committee

In another positive development for the Delta, AB 2215 has been pulled from committee and is no longer advancing this legislative session. We thank our supporters and coalition partners for their work to stop the extension of water rights for the Delta Conveyance Project. We also appreciate the Senate Natural Resources and Water for carefully examining the bill’s implications and holding firm on amendments that returned it to the appropriate regulatory pathway. This outcome reinforces that the Department of Water Resources and the State Water Contractors must follow the same established regulatory processes as all other water rights holders.

AB 2218 Passes Through Committee

AB 2218, a bill that seeks to address inequities in California water policy inflicted on California Native tribes, passed the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. AB 2218 will next be heard in the Committee on Appropriations.

As California faces growing climate-driven challenges, policymakers and communities increasingly recognize that equitable and sustainable water management must incorporate Tribal rights, traditional ecological knowledge, and Tribal governance. AB 2218 directs state agencies to strengthen consultation with Tribes during water rights investigations and develop policies that address water related harms resulting from state-sanctioned termination, removal, and assimilation of California Native American tribes.

AB 2026 Advances

Unfortunately, one problematic bill did advance through committee. AB 2026 is not the narrow groundwater recharge measure its supporters describe. Instead, it creates broad new pathways to divert already-over allocated surface water, weakens public and environmental review, and shifts risk onto rivers, Delta communities, salmon, Tribes, and existing water users. 

Restore the Delta supports responsible groundwater recharge, but AB 2026 is the wrong approach. We will continue to monitor the bill’s progress and advocate for groundwater recharge policies that are guided by science and administered through the State Water Board’s established regulatory framework, not through broad statutory shortcuts that bypass water-rights, fish and wildlife protections, and the public interest.

Quotes from Restore the Delta and partners:

Cintia Cortez, Policy Program Manager, Restore the Delta:

“This week, the California Legislature made progress on timely investments to protect Delta residents and water supply, and addressing inequities inflicted upon California Native tribes, while standing firm against interference in the water rights process. We urge the legislature to stand with community and Tribal interests and move away from policies that perpetuate ongoing inequities in California water management.” 

Barry Nelson, Senior Policy Advisor, Golden State Salmon Association:

“Supporters of AB 2026 claim that it is designed to recharge groundwater and protect the environment. The truth is the bill is cynically written to allow enormous increases in pumping during the juvenile salmon migration season even when river conditions are dry. The bill could cause serious additional damage to salmon runs and the fishing industry that is struggling to recover after the mismanagement of our rivers during the last drought. The State Water Board must set science-based standards to require river flows needed to protect the environment and salmon jobs. That will allow us to properly identify the rare times when there is excess water in the system.” 

Chris Shutes, Executive Director, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance:

“We are very pleased that the author pulled AB 2215. The State Water Project now has to continue normal public process and environmental review to get the right to divert more water from the Delta. We are grateful to Senate committee staff for pushing back on the potential precedent of overriding the water rights process through legislation. We are also grateful to all those who visited so many offices to educate senate staff about this very bad bill.”

###

United states (and a province) flex for climate progress Jonathan Lawson Thu, 07/02/2026 - 1:51 pm

CALGARY — Chris Severson-Baker, executive director of the Pembina Institute, made the following statement in response to the announcement by the Government of Alberta and Government of Canada on a new West Coast pipeline:“After months of speculation,...

In Old Town Berea, one of the town’s oldest structures has been home to just about everything. Built in 1912 as a jail, it later became the city hall, then a church, a wood shop, a jewelry store, and a candle shop.

Shuttered after that for 5-6 years, following months of renovation, the doors are now open again. This time as Golden Hour Salon.

“This building has been part of so many people’s journeys in life,” owner Amber Spurlock said. “I’m really glad she’s part of mine too.”

A stylist of 20 years, Amber took a leap to purchase the building in 2025. Most of her time as a hairdresser was spent at a salon owned by Nancy Coffey, a longtime family friend and mentor.

“I always thought about what it might look like to have something of my own,” she said.

As Nancy looked to retire from owning a shop, the timing felt right. After connecting with Mountain Association for financing to purchase and overhaul the building, it began to fall into place.

Turning the old building into the salon of her dreams wasn’t simple. Because it’s on the Historic Registry, everything had to be done carefully. That meant reworking plumbing, updating electrical systems, and installing proper ventilation, all without losing the building’s character.

“Everything right down to the screws and the toilet handle is period accurate, thanks to Matt.”

Matt Cox, Amber’s boyfriend, spent months helping bring the space back to life. He said it took a lot of late nights and essential support from their friends and family to help hand paint signs and other tasks. All the small details like an old wooden phone, custom-made brass door plates and vintage porcelain lights from a Knoxville warehouse make the space what it is now.

“We wanted the building to honor its history and the history of the community,” Amber said. “Because so much of what I do is about community, meeting people and building relationships.”

Being in the heart of Old Town Berea also means being part of the town’s tourism efforts. Outside the salon, Amber does a themed bench to give visitors a photo opportunity. This spring, they hosted a car show featuring Matt’s Mayberry Sheriff vehicle. People often poke their heads in to see the space and talk with the stylists. Four stylists work in the building, including Nancy who now is able to work under Amber’s business, a “full-circle” moment for both.

When asked her advice for fellow entrepreneurs on a recent podcast, after laughing and saying, “get you a praying friend,” Amber said, “Find someone who supports you. If it wasn’t for Mountain Association, I couldn’t have done any of this. They 100% gave me my journey.”

Amber & Matt

Regina Becknell, Senior Lender, said, “Bringing new life to these historic buildings is vital to a small town like Berea. Entrepreneurs like Amber, with a vision and a solid plan, make this kind of meaningful investment in the community possible. We’re honored to have supported her with Golden Hour.”

The post Berea’s Old Jail Transforms into Golden Hour Salon appeared first on Mountain Association.

This article will focus broadly on “the Resistance” (the movements and constellation of forces that have grown up in opposition to the Trump administration and its authoritarian efforts), its political dynamics, and the role and posture of the revolutionary Left.

I start here because this new reality defines and delimits the nature of the class struggle in the United States.

Among other things, the second Trump administration (Trump II) represents the most significant one-sided class attack by the U.S. state and capital since the global economic crisis in 2008. Whatever its populist veneer, this is a government of and by the billionaires. To provide just one glaring example, as Thomas Hummel argued last summer in reflecting on the first six months of the administration, Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” carried “the largest transfer of wealth from the very poorest to the very richest in the country’s history, while at the same time it allocates $75 billion to ICE, in effect massively expanding what has effectively become a state gestapo.”

Now approaching eighteen months of Trump II, the attacks on Medicaid and food subsidies for the poorest of working class people in the United States have not yet been fully felt. The impact on the broader working class is being widely felt and continues apace, escalated by Trump’s trade and imperial policies. Last year’s decimation of the unionized federal work force is the single largest union busting operation for decades. Most significantly, the fascistic and racist violence directed at immigrant workers is the greatest qualitative escalation of an assault on this part of the working class since the mid-1990s, if not earlier.

All of this needs to be placed in the broader crisis of late neoliberalism. For capital, the challenges of re-establishing systemic profitability in a global system marked by sluggish growth, at best, and built on unsustainable and contradictory fiscal and monetary policy, has provided an opening to the far right. The results internationally have been a spectacular, dangerous, and reciprocally impactful reworking of the global imperialist system.

In the United States we are witnessing the demolition of the post–World War II state and political order. As a result, some of the most acute fights over the last few years, and therefore some of the biggest social movements, have been about basic democratic rights—the right to organize, assemble, and protest (for example, the Palestine movement and campus repression generally), the right to basic bodily autonomy and freedom (trans health care), the right to representation and equal protection under the law (attacks on voting rights and so-called DEI, fights against racial profiling and warrantless invasions by ICE). These are foundational class questions.

As Tempest argued in an editorial in February 2025,

We should understand struggles against identity-based oppression as struggles against capital’s socio-material relations…

Donald Trump’s recent barrage of executive orders—which have targeted workers, immigrants, queer and trans folks, women, and those who are racially oppressed—give lie to the fact that struggles against oppression can either be tabled in favor of class-wide demands or somehow fought indirectly.

In addition, an even cursory assessment of recent “workplace” struggles— for example the nurses’ strike in New York City, the educators’ strike in San Francisco, the meat packing strike in the Midwest, or ongoing oil workers bargaining nationally—shows these to be fundamentally conditioned by the dynamic of Trump II and the post-2008 fallout. This is also true of the political developments and struggles within key unions such as UAW and the Teamsters.

The cross-class “Resistance”

Taken as a whole, the breadth and depth of these attacks and the struggles that follow, also mean that the Resistance has been likewise broad and cross-class. Even more than is generally true in our undemocratic capitalist republic, the opposition to this authoritarian trajectory in all its myriad forms has a mass character. The majority of the population opposes what is unfolding. The recent turnout at the mass No Kings protests is one good indication.

This has inevitably meant that the perspectives and strategies of the different parts of this broad, cross-class movement is being contested. Different parts of the movement reflect different politics and different class interests. Rather than stand on the sidelines of these broad mobilizations because of their liberal character and ties to the Democratic Party, the Left, including revolutionaries,  must be present and fight for our approach as a distinct current.

The recent experience in Minneapolis is instructive. All of these streams of social and class attacks converged in Minnesota, culminating in mass protests that forced Trump to retreat, fire his commander of the Border Patrol, Greg Bovino, sideline Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, and withdraw hundreds of ICE and Border Patrol agents. This uprising against ICE was based on a much more developed infrastructure of resistance forged over the last couple of decades. This was built through the George Floyd uprising against police brutality, union organizing and strikes, immigrant rights struggles, and indigenous-led climate justice campaigns.

And at the turn of the new year in the Twin Cities, the different perspectives and strategies played out, with efforts of the Left to consolidate workers’ assemblies and to continue to build more lasting infrastructure. At the same time, those sections of the resistance most closely aligned with the Democratic Party leadership (the mayor of Minneapolis, the Governor of Minnesota, the leadership of the police and sheriffs offices) sought to demobilize the movements, and prioritized stability and a return to an unsustainable status quo.

Yet whatever challenges exist in Minneapolis, the dynamic was in advance of most of the rest of the United States. In reality, there is a continuum across the country in the development of infrastructures of resistance. Most parts of the country lack the scope of organization that had been previously built in the Twin Cities. And like the rest of the United States, the militant minority and revolutionary Left remain small in the Twin Cities. This hampers the organization and politics of the resistance.

Local character and the fight to build a national resistance

Even granting the national character of Indivisible and the more nascent May Day Strong, the overarching dynamic of the Resistance is the extent to which it is defined by local and regional constellations of forces and organizations. Unfortunately, the Left lacks a counterpart to  national organizations such as the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, Congress of Racial Equality, or Students for a Democratic Society. This is especially lamentable in the lack of any national immigrant rights formation that could have taken the lead in the response to the ICE invasions and abductions.

While it is possible to generalize about certain common approaches within the Resistance generally, the contest over how best to build the Resistance, and therefore what the class struggle will look like in its specificity, depends on the relative balance of power among those organizing on the ground in a given city or region.

It is clear that dynamics in any given place can be highly contingent. Some of this is a result of how acute an attack a given city has faced. The invasions by ICE and the National Guard in Chicago, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Portland, Washington, D.C., Charlotte, Memphis, New Orleans, and beyond, have forced a higher level of organization and political contestation over the response of the movements. The extent to which Burlington, Vermont, has been at the center of important and high-profile struggles around immigration detention has impacted the character of its coalitions. Similarly, the decades of experience of immigrant rights organizing, and the memory of the protests of 2006, in Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Diego, inevitably impacts the dynamics there.

We also should not underestimate the impact of the Palestine solidarity movement on the current organization and politics of the Resistance . Finally, the relative strength of the organized Left and its revolutionary and reformist wings plays a role that is often overlooked.

Unionization and the role of the unions

It is also important to note the role of the trade unions. This is especially true because it has been where the trade union forces are more advanced in organization and politics that they can have a more decisive role in giving political direction and shape to the local Resistance movements. Chicago, and the Chicago Teachers’ Union, offers the best example.

Despite the adverse political conditions nationally—including the composition of Trump’s National Labor Relations Board and the massive attacks on the size of the federal work force—the broader political radicalization has led to an increase in organizing and in overall unionization rates and density. In 2025, 16.5 million workers in the United States were represented by a union—an increase of 463,000 from 2024 and the highest number in 16 years. This represents 11.2% of all wage and salary workers, up from 11.1% in 2024.

This growth was roughly equal in the public (236,000) and private (227,000) sectors. Construction and Health and Social Services accounted for 70 percent of the private sector increases.

Nonetheless, the level of strike activity paints a more ambivalent picture with overall strike numbers either flat or down slightly. As Kim Moody argues, in recent years, “Strikes are, with rare exceptions, limited to when contracts expire and new ones are negotiated. That means labor’s most powerful weapon against capital is limited to a prearranged schedule like the union’s convention or the monthly local membership meeting.”

Thus, despite the uptick in union organizing, the role of the unions and their leaderships varies greatly but is consistently delimited by their structural role as essentially defensive organs of the working class. Especially in the context of the all out attacks of the far right and state, in the absence of significant pressure from broader movement and Left forces, the strategic and tactical conservatism of the union leaderships, and the depth of their historic ties to the Democratic Party coalition, will negatively impact their role in a local Resistance.

Thus, the role of organized labor, and the relative success or weakness historically of the Left in building rank-and-file organization and class struggle and social justice unionism, impacts what roles the unions play, and therefore what is possible in Chicago, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, or San Francisco as opposed to New York City, to give one example.

One of the impacts of this dynamic with the unions is that the calls for a general strike largely exist at the level of agitation, and have not yet manifested themselves in a realistic prospect for an actual general strike led by the trade union movement. This is not to minimize the importance—or breadth—of the actions in Minneapolis in January 2026 and its significance in raising expectations. Rather, it is to recognize the challenges we face if our aim is truly a South Korea–style mass strike (to give but one recent historical example).

Efforts to build national organization

Despite the inevitable local character of the broader resistance efforts, there is an ongoing struggle to forge new national organizations and coalitions and therefore a new Left. The two main organized currents of the national resistance are Indivisible and May Day Strong.

Indivisible was formed by two Democratic Party organizers who explicitly conceived the project to galvanize its base in struggle and then turn it to elections to defeat Trump and Republicans. It has staged the massive No Kings rallies. But, because of its ties to the Democratic Party, it has tended to exclude Palestine solidarity activists and has proved reluctant to even include opposition to the war on Iran. Its strategy is to turn those millions into campaigners for the Democrats in the midterms and 2028 presidential elections.

As we know from bitter experience, the Democrats offer no alternative for the vast majority. The people on those demonstrations are open to much more radical ideas and strategies, however, and should not be written off or left with no alternative but the liberal politics on offer from the front of the march.

May Day Strong was spearheaded by the Chicago Teachers’ Union. It has brought together unions, immigrant rights groups, other social movement organizations, and NGOs in a potential united front of working-class forces.

May Day Strong does include Indivisible and another liberal formation, 5051, and it is limited by the horizons of the left union bureaucracy. Nevertheless, it has taken an initial call by the UAW leadership, and helped put May Day back on the map, encouraged solidarity schools to prepare unions to stage political strikes against Trump, and pushed the slogan “no work, no school, no shopping” for this year’s May Day.10 Recent reports from May Day Strong is that they have decided to back off this slogan nationally out of opposition from the leadership of the National Education Association. Further evidence of the ambivalent role played by the trade union leadership. And in Chicago, the CTU and its May Day coalition are campaigning for the mayor to shut down the schools, and therefore to shut down the city, in a backdoor mass strike.

May Day Strong is the key national vehicle to advance the argument for a general strike to challenge Trump’s increasingly authoritarian regime. Its explicit model is the South Korean strike that blocked a coup and toppled the government. That said, it is not immune from cooptation by the Democrats through the trade union officialdom’s alliance with the party. And it does not exist in all cities and towns.

Despite its limitations, the Left should take up the May Day Strong banner, as it facilitates our ability to highlight the qualitatively new nature of the attacks of the far right and therefore the need for much higher levels of class struggle and strike action. Our challenge is how to forge similar local formations aligned with the national coalition. For the moment, it is our best shot to agitate for mass working-class action to topple the Trump regime and what it represents.

At a much more modest level, and with an eye to both strengthening the revolutionary left pole of the resistance and helping build a more coherent national face to this resistance, for the last year Tempest has been part of building the United Left Platform. The ULP was launched by five revolutionary and independent socialist organizations (International Marxist Humanist Organization, Socialist Horizon, Solidarity, Workers Voice, and Tempest), with a sixth (Speak Out Socialists) subsequently joining.

The driving motivation behind the ULP was two-fold. First, to amplify revolutionary perspectives and strategy in the Resistance. Second, to help build common defense in the context of “the unprecedented authoritarian assaults facing the left, oppressed communities, and the working class as a whole in the U.S.” In addition to some joint propaganda and meetings, the ULP helped launch the Committee to Defend Tom Alter, which has proven to be a vibrant and successful effort to defend one of the many victims of the authoritarian assaults.

Competing perspectives and strategies within “the Resistance”

At the risk of over generalizing, there are four main political tendencies within (and in relationship with) the Resistance. It is worth reiterating that often people have a mix of consciousness and will share aspects of each. This is part of the reason why there is space for political contestation among these trends.

First is the right-wing of the movement, best represented by the national leadership of No Kings and Indivisible. It is inevitably and unwaveringly pro-Democratic Party, and therefore electoralist. These forces often conceive of the fight as one of “rescuing democracy,” with the assumption that the U.S. state pre-Trump is what we are fighting for, a restoration of the post-World War II status quo. This is often (though unfortunately not exclusively) the side of the movement which encourages the use of U.S. flags in the demonstrations, who will discourage the discussion of purportedly “divisive” issues—like imperialism, Palestine, or trans rights—and whose purpose is to get Democrats elected.

As a distinct current within this first tendency, the social democrats share with the liberals a commitment to the Democratic Party and electoralism, though often couched as a strategic or tactical choice.

Second, the popular front wing of the movement, as against the liberals and (usually) the social democrats, conceives of their approach as a Marxist one built on a legacy of the (official Stalinist) Communist Party. They share a perspective of a defense of democracy, not based on a principled defense of popular democratic rights but on the idea that any project of building socialism has to be taken in stages. And that a “democratic” capitalist stage has to be consolidated before a real fight for socialism can be engaged. To this end, these forces actively and explicitly seek to build a cross-class political coalition with a “progressive” section of the bourgeoisie.

In the United States, this has meant building a political coalition with that section of the “progressive” capital that supports the Democratic Party and historically subordinates all other goals to winning elections. In its recent iteration, many of the forces supporting this strategy, including some of the leadership of May Day Strong, acknowledge the importance of independent class activity and strike action, but have historically ended up subordinating this to a pro-Democratic Party electoralism.

The third trend that is identifiable and worth mentioning is one that can be described as “ultraleft.” It often rejects participation in the broader Resistance because of its liberal or social democratic leadership. As a result, it can often focus on more adventurist activism at the expense of building the mass movement. In choosing to focus on a more comfortable or familiar, pre-existing radical milieu, and too often in choosing to conflate radical tactics for socialist strategy, it mistakenly foregoes politically contesting leadership of the class movement as a whole.

While it is understandable for newly radicalizing people to want to take action, and unconditionally reject the politics of the pro-Democratic Party trends, this current often ends up writing off the possibility of both winning other people who are newly radicalizing from our right2The biography of one of the leading organizers of the 1934 Teamsters strike in Minneapolis, Farrell Dobbs, offers a useful reminder of how people’s ideas develop in the course of struggle. Dobbs was a registered Republican, voting for Herbert Hoover in both the 1928 and 1932 elections. He was won from that position, to the politics of revolutionary socialism, in the course of the strike and spent the rest of his life as a leader of the Trotskyist movement. and the tactical importance of legal mass action.

Whatever our criticisms of its leadership, and the reactionary character of some of the liberal politics and tactics—insisting on not having speakers at rallies in some cases and in others platforming Democratic Party officials, refusing to countenance demands around Palestine, wrapping propaganda and demands in the U.S. flag, concessions around national and so-called border security, a refusal to acknowledge the crimes of U.S. imperialism— we should recognize the value of this mass action as a response to the class attacks and Trump II. The Left must use these mass protests as a place to meet, engage, and most importantly, organize people who are looking to take the struggle, in all its limitations, in a better direction.

Tempest is committed to a different, fourth, strategy, a United Front approach, one premised on a consistent and principled engagement with the class struggle on all fronts, including the defense of democratic rights, while rebuilding independent organizations of the working class and oppressed communities.

This is a strategy for forging coalitions for activism and action, and will inevitably mean working with forces to our right, while remaining opposed to electoralism and any subordination to the Democratic Party. It also means fighting for open, democratic organizing spaces where different political currents can freely argue for the best ideas, strategies, and tactics.

Given the relative size and weakness of the revolutionary Left, we see the importance of engaging the class struggle—with these goals in mind, and without hiding our principles—in as broad a political front as possible to best achieve our ends. This means working with other forces that do not necessarily share our politics and approach, in the interest of building our collective organizational capacity and winning discrete fights, all while helping to clarify and win an argument about what will best take the working-class movement forward. In this process we should be focused on helping to organize our class and social forces to build a new political party; one focused not primarily on elections but on giving voice and organizational weight to class and social struggle. This includes working to build both a principled revolutionary socialist organization and, using the United Front approach, to build broader socialist, worker, and popular organizations.

While it is true that the initial formulation of the theory of the United Front— in the early 1920s at a period of mass workers parties and with revolution on the agenda—is quite different from our own, the lessons from the period, and the approach overall, remain very relevant.

The post-2008 political radicalization has taken place in a period of overall weakness of the organized forces of the Left and after decades of largely one-sided neoliberal class war in most Western capitalist countries. The United Front approach is important in this moment precisely because it provides revolutionaries a road map for engaging in the broader class struggle. It gives us a chance to stand side-by-side with those newly participating in these struggles. And this allows us to engage and win activists who, given the weakness and lack of continuity of the organized Left, may have little theoretical, historical, and/or practical organizing experience.

Just as importantly, it also allows us to learn the lessons we collectively need to build stronger and more implanted organizations on the Left. In this, we should not shy from the value and importance of building self-consciously revolutionary organizations such as Tempest, so long as we are winning people based on this broader perspective and its importance in helping build a broad, effective Left and working-class movement and lasting infrastructures of dissent.

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: Myotus; modified by Tempest.

The post Tempest, the United Front approach, and “the Resistance” appeared first on Tempest.