A2. Green Unionism

The post Environmental Health & Antiracism: Change Makers, Place, and Crossroads for Health Equity appeared first on ANHE.

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

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

Muzammal is a Muslim Kashmiri-Pakistani immigrant to the United States whose work is rooted in a deep commitment to socio-economic justice and development, with a focus on building working class power. Muzammal grew up as a refugee in Pakistan during the United States’s war on terror and the Pakistani Army’s dictatorship rule.

Muzammal holds an undergraduate degree in Economics, an MPhil in Economics, and a second master’s in Labor and Global Workers’ Rights—fields that inform both professional work and personal philosophy.

After a decade-long movement organizing in Karachi, Pakistan, Muzammal has recently worked with the Asian American Community Fund of Pennsylvania and the Asian Pacific Islander Political Alliance, where they led initiatives that uplifted Asian American communities across Pennsylvania. Muzammal is currently working as Executive Director of the Philadelphia Area Jobs With Justice, a coalition of unions, community organizations, students, and faith groups where they launched Power School 2026, an annual, free, week-long, in-person advanced and comprehensive organizer training program which also provides Spanish interpretation and scholarships to participants.

Fluent in eight languages and well-versed in the diverse cultures of South Asia, Muzammal brings a rich global perspective to the labor movement. Their extensive experience spans community and labor organizing in both South Asia and the United States. Muzammal finds joy in sloganeering, dancing, fashion, cooking and Muay Thai.

The post October LNS Spotlight: Muzammal Afzal first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Worried that Trump and MAGA may steal the upcoming mid-term elections? LNS co-sponsored a September 22 webinar on “Building and Defending Democracy in November’s Elections” that addresses the fightback to block attempts to interfere with free and fair elections. This webinar was designed to help frame priorities, including actions as well as policy commitments, that state and community-based movement leaders should be thinking about as we approach November’s elections. It features LNS co-founder and senior strategic advisor Jeremy Brecher.

To watch the webinar: https://cpdcs.org/watch-building-and-defending-democracy-in-novembers-election/

LNS has also just published Brecher’s commentary “ Election Protection vs. MAGA Tyranny.” Here’s an excerpt:

Trump, MAGA, and their supporters want to ensure that the upcoming mid-term elections are not free and fair, but rather a vehicle to perpetuate their power. Their goal is permanent and uncontested power – an equivalent to Hitler’s Thousand-Year Reich. Trump/Republican attempts to prevent free and fair elections have been going on for years, and have escalated since his inauguration. Successful recent actions have included the gutting of the Voting Rights Act and extreme gerrymandering. Key methods include intimidation, confusion, induced hopelessness, physical obstruction, and legal obstruction. There is a wide swath of groups organized to defend a free and fair election against authoritarian subversion. They represent not one or the other political party, but rather nonpartisan social self-defense. I have described them elsewhere as a “Movement-Based Opposition.” Many of these groups are initially focusing on training. For example, Indivisible and the ACLU are collaborating on a series of “Hands Off Our Vote” online webinars. The Freedom Trainers network of nonviolence trainers has run in-depth trainings for thousands and makes available an 83-page handbook presenting possible scenarios and how to deal with them. The May Day Strong coalition has held 750 “Solidarity Schools” and actions from late August through mid-September nationwide, bringing together labor organizers and community members. The Voter Advocate Network is building a nationwide network of trained and certified voter advocates. According to Deepak Bhargava of the Freedom Together Foundation, “Over one million people have been trained in organizing and nonviolence over the last year.”

The commentary lays out the details for six “lines of defense” for unions and communities to ensure free and fair elections:

1. Make clear to people why they need to vote against Trump and MAGA.
2. Encourage an overwhelming turnout to oppose Trump and MAGA.
3. Forestall interference with elections.
4. Contest intimidation through rapid response.
5. Foil electoral coups.
6. Lay the groundwork for democratization.

To read the full commentary: https://www.labor4sustainability.org/strike/election-protection-vs-maga-tyranny/

To hear the webinar: Building and Defending Democracy in November’s Elections

The post Unions and Communities Fight for Free and Fair Elections first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

LNS president Joe Uehlein’s book-and-music tour continues with dates around the country. Here is the schedule for the entire tour:

The post “With the Sincerity of a Prophet”: Uehlein Tour Rolls On first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Joe in Amherst

By John Harrity

John is the former President of the CT State Council of Machinists and a long-time member of the LNS Board.

On Monday, September 14, I attended the Amherst stop of Joe Uehlein’s cross-country book tour, in support of his newly published Three Roads: Labor, Music, Ecology. Joe tells the story of a life-long love of the union movement, songs, and nature fostered first as a boy outside of Cleveland. Both his parents were dedicated trade unionists. Free time was spent listening to or singing the songs of working-class artists like Woody Gurthrie and Leadbelly, while the lakes provided good fishing until the fish started floating belly-up due to the runoff from the steel mills that kept everyone working.

Joe does not simply tell his tale; he sings it too. The stages, and stories, of his life roll out through plenty of great labor music. Joe is a skilled guitarist with a strong voice. There’s a union song appropriate to every step in his journey, and Joe sings out the truth in these verses with the passion and conviction they deserve.

Joe’s life is guided by principles propelled forward by genuine courage. He spent many years in the South as a union organizer, a sometimes-harrowing occupation. With a family to raise he came off the road, ending up highly placed in the AFL-CIO, as head of the Industrial Department. But when he became fully aware of the dangers to the world from climate change, and the AFL-CIO’s obstinate denial of the problem, Joe left a cushy job behind to found the Labor Network for Sustainability. As Joe conveys to the audience with the sincerity of a prophet, the Labor Network for Sustainability works every day to raise awareness in the labor movement about the absolute necessity of confronting the climate crisis.

The audience in Amherst was visibly moved by Joe’s engaging presentation. Many of the fifty-or-so in attendance lined up to buy signed copies of the book. The presentation took place at UMass, sponsored by the UMass Labor Center and the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), and many faculty and staff members were in attendance. Not all of them were familiar with LNS before Joe’s talk, but they had all gained a healthy respect for the group after hearing Joe Uehlein.

The post “A Life-Long Love of the Union Movement” first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

By Joshua Dedmond, Labor Network for Sustainability Executive Director

The Black Climate Leadership Summit, co-hosted by Taproot Noire (a global Black climate network rooted in Taproot Earth) and SOL Nation as part of the Queen City Climate Convergence on September 16–17 in Charlotte, North Carolina, brought together Black-identifying frontline and environmental justice leaders, organizers, and advocates from across the globe. The gathering focused on building the trust, deep relationships, shared power, and principles for collaboration needed to advance a unified, Black-led Just Transition Strategy rooted in land sovereignty and human connection that centers Black liberation.

Joshua Dedmond, Executive Director of the Labor Network for Sustainability, participated in the summit. This enriching gathering provided LNS with a vital platform to connect labor movement entities and labor-climate strategies directly with other Black-led formations and movement spaces. Throughout the summit, participants engaged in facilitated wisdom circles, strategy workshops, skill-building sessions, and panels that illuminated collaborative pathways toward economic and climate justice.

Special gratitude goes to LNS Board member Colette Pichón Battle and her dedicated krewe at Taproot Earth for hosting, as well as Tiffany Fant and the SOL Nation team for warmly welcoming Black climate leaders to Charlotte.

The post Queen City Climate Convergence first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Photo collage: Background photo by Tedder, Wikipedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0.

By Tyler Turner

(Tyler Turner is president of the Office and Professional Employees International Union which represents 90,000 workers in industries ranging from tech and healthcare to higher education and non-profits.)

Opposition to datacenters grows on both sides of the political aisle as developers plan to invest $8tn to build them in the coming years. The bet is massive – roughly a quarter of our country’s entire GDP – but AI CEOs think it will pay off because they believe this technology will allow businesses across industries to rake in profits by cutting out their largest expense: labor. If all goes according to their plan, AI data centers will enable corporations to redistribute workers’ salaries to themselves.

This is why I have been so concerned to see the North American Building Trades Unions (NABTU) sign agreements with corporations such as Blackrock, Meta and OpenAI to collaborate on this massive data center expansion. While I applaud the NABTU’s success at securing well-paying temporary jobs for their members, these deals ignore the fact that all workers, including construction workers, are part of a class whose replacement is the explicit purpose of AI, and that data centers themselves produce a minuscule number of long-term jobs. With these deals, union members will build the factories of computerized labor that put millions of other workers out of jobs – potentially even themselves.

Until strong regulations are enacted that ensure our livelihoods, community and planet are permanently protected, unions should focus on passing the Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act, introduced in Congress by Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and support statewide moratoriums like the one recently signed by the New York governor, Kathy Hochul. Once we have achieved a moratorium, the labor movement must unite around a set of demands to ensure workers across industries receive our fair share of AI’s potential benefits.

The AI revolution means nothing but loss for the average person if its benefits are concentrated among the already-wealthy. In a survey of the Office and Professional Employees International Union’s membership last year, we found members are already being adversely impacted by AI in myriad ways ranging from layoffs to surveillance to being punished for errors created by AI models.

We should not allow corporations to balloon our energy consumption while wildfires, superstorms and extreme heat ravage our country. If unions worked together rather than pitting our members against each other, we would not be begging billionaires for temporary jobs that will poison us and our children.

At the end of the day, our data fuels their algorithms, our taxes fund their development, and our communities host their hardware. The least we should demand is our fair share.

Excerpted from an article in the September 14th Guardian. For the full article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/sep/14/labor-unions-ai-datacenters

The post Union Prez Sez “Labor Unions Must Unite Against AI Data Centers” first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

UE’s Green Locomotive Project is an innovative model for grassroots union initiative to create good union jobs, address climate change, and clean up pollution in the low-income communities and communities of color which bear the brunt of pollution from rail yards. The project came about through conversation with members who build locomotive engines that currently run on diesel fuel. These members know their own jobs have been tied to fossil fuels but also understand the threat of climate change. They see opportunities for a different path in the future, one that creates good union jobs and improves air quality, particularly in and around rail yards where these idling engines pollute the air. The technology already exists to run cleaner and more energy-efficient engines on our rail lines; zero-emissions technology is available for use in rail yards. The Green Locomotive Project builds the worker and community power necessary to compel the railroads to upgrade their locomotive stock and adopt green technology, and to ensure that new technologies lead to jobs at existing union factories.

Here are initiatives the Green Locomotive Project has taken so far this year just in California:

• The Barstow International Gateway (BIG) is a heavily subsidized, $1.5 billion rail expansion project being pursued by the Class-I railroad BNSF. Together with EarthJustice and other allies, the GLP mobilized 50 workers and residents to speak out at a Barstow city planning commission hearing to demand clean technology on the BIG. GLP is also supporting a local leader who is holding weekly community gatherings and mobilizing residents to Barstow City Council meetings.
• The Alameda Corridor, which serves the dual ports of LA and Long Beach, is a prime candidate for electrification. To make it happen, the GLP partnered with the Moving Forward Network and Californians for Electric Rail to form the Communities for Electric Rail Only (CERO) Coalition. In March, CERO secured the CA Air Resources Board’s commitment to work with them on electrifying the Alameda Corridor. Air quality is a major issue for railyard workers and nearby communities. The GLP is advocating to add stronger emissions reduction measures to the Clean Air Action Plan for the ports of LA and Long Beach and supporting our allies’ push for AB 1777, which would grant CA Air Resources Board (CARB) the power to create Indirect Source Rules for railyards. It is also monitoring the progress of In-Use Locomotive Rule II, which would ban the use of outdated, heavy-polluting locomotives in CA.

For more on UE’s Green Locomotive Project, visit https://www.ueunion.org/green-locomotive-project

The post UE’s Green Locomotive Project Steaming Ahead first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

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

In a new commentary, LNS co-founder and senior strategic advisor Jeremy Brecher warns, “As long as the US opposes rather than joining the Greentech revolution, it portends not only climate catastrophe, but economic catastrophe as well.”

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

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

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

To read in full: “America’s Future: Fossil Fuel Island in a Greentech World?”

The post Will the US be a “Fossil Fuel Island” in a Greentech World? first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Centre for Future Work Economist and Director Jim Stanford was recently invited to give testimony to the Senate’s National Finance committee, regarding the state of Canada’s macroeconomy in the wake of Donald Trump’s trade war and other geopolitical uncertainty. Stanford emphasized the continuing resilience of the national economy, which has avoided recession and recently chalked up decent growth and job-creation numbers – despite the damage done by U.S. tariffs to our exports and business investment. He warned Senators that diversifying the destination for Canadian exports is not an adequate response to current risks: Canada must also focus on diversifying the composition of exports, using pro-active measures to add value to Canadian resources through processing and manufacturing (rather than depending mostly on exports of unprocessed resources, which now account for over 50% of total Canadian merchandise exports). He also stressed that the challenge of the trade war does not justify jettisoning core labour, social, and environmental criteria in economic development policies. Stanford specifically criticized the federal government’s intention (in its Bill C-39) to codify ministerial powers to ban strikes in the federal sector of the economy, on vague and subjective grounds of ‘national interest’.

Stanford’s opening remarks to the Senate committee are posted below. They draw on more extensive analysis contained in several recent public presentations; see Stanford’s presentation slides here for more detail.

Opening Remarks Senate Standing Committee on National Finance Hearings on Canadian Economic Outlook, Sep. 29, 2026 By Jim Stanford, Economist and Director Centre for Future Work

Thank you very much, Senators, for the opportunity to meet and share my views on Canada’s economic and fiscal situation as you prepare for the upcoming federal budget.

The Centre for Future Work is a labour economics research institute, founded in Canada in 2020. We conduct research on the full range of economic issues facing working people: including the future of jobs, wages and income distribution, skills and training, sector and industry policies, globalization, the role of government, public services, and more. The Centre also develops timely and practical policy proposals to help make the world of work better for working people and their families.  The Centre is independent and non-partisan.

Today I will provide some short comments on the current state of Canada’s economy, how it is withstanding the uncertainty caused by the erratic changes in U.S. trade policy, and themes that the federal government should emphasize in its future actions. Then I will welcome your questions and comments.

Recent economic indicators confirm that Canada’s economy is maintaining its stability and momentum despite the disruptions arising from U.S. tariffs and other uncertainty on the international front. Second-quarter growth was both strong and well-balanced. All major cylinders in Canada’s economic engine were firing: with significant growth in consumer spending, government expenditure (on both current services and capital investment), business non-residential investment, residential investment, and exports. Even our exports to the U.S. grew, as well as our exports to other countries. The overall rate of growth (2.3% annualized) would have been much stronger but for a major inventory drawdown during the quarter, as businesses worked down excess inventory accumulated in previous less vibrant quarters. That portends continued strength in future quarters, as firms adjust to renewed growth and readjust their inventories accordingly.

In the labour market, job-creation has been decent if not spectacular, with over 200,000 jobs created in the last 12 months, most of them full-time. Even manufacturing (which has borne the brunt of U.S. trade actions) has seen year-over-year job growth of over 20,000 new positions, which attests to the diversity and resilience of this vital sector. Ironically, the weakest employment numbers are presently arising from the public sector, including education (mostly due to job reductions in colleges, adjusting to the whiplash effects of erratic immigration policies for international students) and public administration (mostly due to headcount reductions in the federal civil service). This public sector downsizing is unnecessary. The public sector is relatively insulated from President Trump’s trade actions, and should be a source of stability as the economy adjusts to the new global environment. The federal government in particular should rethink this downsizing, which will also affect the quality of federal service delivery to Canadians.

One warning sign from the labour market is a noted deceleration of wage growth, which had been quite robust over the previous four years. The initial inflation shock following the COVID pandemic required a pickup in wage growth in Canada, to try to restore real purchasing power for Canadian workers damaged by the temporarily high inflation of 2022 and 2023. That repair job worked: wage growth exceeded inflation significantly from late 2023 until the present, allowing real wages to recover and then some. Real wages are now higher than they were before the pandemic, and this has been essential in helping Canadian address affordability challenges. It is testament to Canada’s labour relations system that real wages, on average, have been more than fully repaired. Strong improvements in minimum wages in most provinces (and the federal jurisdiction), and Canada’s strong collective bargaining system, explain why real wages have performed better here than in many other countries – including the U.S., where real wages are falling.

However, a combination of slower wage growth and a rebound in inflation (resulting from the U.S. war against Iran) are now threatening that success. Hourly nominal wages were up only 2.0% year-over-year in August, the slowest in 5 years – and not enough to keep up with current inflation. Placing continued priority on strong wage gains for Canadian workers will be essential for protecting purchasing power and sustaining consumer spending, which after all accounts for half of total GDP. In this context, I must express alarm regarding the federal government’s intention to codify restrictions on normal collective bargaining rights in its proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code, as part of its current Bill C-39. Codifying the government’s right to interfere arbitrarily in bargaining and suppress constitutional rights (including the right to withhold labour) on the basis of vague and subjective measures of ‘national interest’, is a step in the wrong direction, that would heighten the risk of future deterioration in real wages in Canada.

Canada’s trade performance has also been surprisingly robust despite the impact of swings in U.S. policy. Exports of goods and services in nominal terms have increased to both the U.S. and other countries, partly due to higher prices (especially for oil) and partly increased volumes. Since the end of 2024 (when President Trump won election), Canada’s exports to countries other than the U.S. have grown by 18% (to the second quarter of 2026). Even our exports to the U.S. are up 9%. The share of our total exports going to the U.S. has fallen to 67%. There is a lot going on behind these numbers (including the rise in world petroleum prices following the U.S. war on Iran), but it seems clear that efforts to diversify Canadian trade ties are paying off.

Let me conclude with some high-level thoughts about the broad task facing Canada’s economy in the coming years. The attacks on our economy, and indeed our sovereignty, from south of the border are forcing us to redefine how we orient Canada’s economic and social development. Instead of relying on access to the huge U.S. market as our key advantage in investment location, we must develop a more self-reliant and diversified vision for future investment, innovation, trade, and growth. This means attracting more investment here (from both foreign investors, but also more investment of our own capital, such as the trillions held by Canadian entities, including our pension funds, in the U.S. and other foreign markets). It means strengthening our trade ties with the rest of the world. But it’s not just the quantity of investment and exports that matters: it’s also the composition of those flows, and the quality of the economy – and society – that we build. There is a current temptation, as we gird our national loins to withstand the irrationality of the Trump administration, to double down on anything we can do, and do quickly. This has contributed to a great rush to expand resource extraction and exports.

However, reinforcing Canada’s dependence on extraction and export of unprocessed primary products has its own risks to our economic capability and sovereignty – including well-known vulnerability to global demand and geopolitical swings, as well as (in the case of fossil fuels) environmental risks that are more urgent every year (and which continue to accumulate regardless of the climate denialism of the U.S. government and some others). Our vision should be to build an economy that is not just viable in the face of Trump’s attacks, but retains the core values which motivate Canadians to defend our country as an entity distinct from that south of the border. That means preserving a balance in our economic strategy between getting big things done quickly, and making sure we are doing the right kinds of big things, and doing them properly – including with due attention to sustainability, Indigenous consultation and consent, and basic social and labour values and rights. In that regard, it is more important than ever for Senators to play their full oversight role, to ensure that the federal government’s response to this dangerous moment does not dismiss those values and priorities in a rush to sign deals and accelerate projects.

Thank you again for your attention, and I look forward to your questions or discussion.

The post How Canada is Surviving Trump’s Trade War appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

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

The Democratic Party has been spectacularly ineffective in providing an opposition to Trump’s drive for authoritarian domination. Merely electing Democrats is no solution to the crisis of American democracy. But popular defense of free and fair elections, and a massive electoral repudiation of Trump and MAGA in November, can play an important role in the struggle to democratize the U.S.

With a few honorable exceptions, Democrats have done little to resist Trump’s juggernaut or to present an alternative program to meet the needs of the American people and reverse the damage Trump and his minions have done to them. Far less have they mobilized their constituents to stand up to Trump’s depredations.

In democratic theory, elections give every person equal weight in deciding political outcomes. Of course, we all know that the reality of actually existing democratic systems barely resembles this. The power of money, oligarchical control of parties, institutional skewing of the playing field, disorganization of subordinate groups, and many forms of racial, gender, and other inequality make our so-called “democracies” highly undemocratic.

That doesn’t mean that elections are meaningless. Rather, they are part of the jostling through which various dominant and subordinate groups negotiate their relationships. They are part of the process that Italian theorist Antonio Gramsci characterized as “hegemony” — the way a ruling class maintains power through the active consent of the public, rather than through military force or physical coercion alone. To exercise hegemony, ruling groups must engage in negotiation and compromise with subordinate groups. Elections and the ecological systems surrounding them are part of the way such compromise is negotiated and implemented.

MAGA’s Strategy for Unending Domination

Trump, MAGA, and their supporters want to ensure that the upcoming mid-term elections are not free and fair, but rather a vehicle to perpetuate their power. Their goal is power that is permanent and uncontested – an equivalent to Hitler’s Thousand-Year Reich.

Trump/Republican attempts to prevent free and fair elections have been going on for years and have escalated since his inauguration. Successful recent actions have included the gutting of the Voting Rights Act and extreme gerrymandering. Key methods include intimidation, confusion, induced hopelessness, physical obstruction, and legal obstruction.

A just-released report called “The American Crisis” by a group of progressive scholars lays out what we can expect going forward:

• In the months and weeks preceding Election Day, we anticipate that election administration roles and responsibilities will be seized from states and cities, or attempts will be made to disrupt, sabotage, or seize their administrative powers. That could include the seizing of voter rolls, the threatening of election officials, and the disruption of vote-by-mail systems.
• In the days leading up to Election Day, and on the day itself, we anticipate a substantial increase of voter intimidation and election disruption tactics, with new deployments of military and paramilitary forces across U.S. cities, elections offices, and polling stations. The National Guard occupation of Washington, DC and the “Memphis Safe Task Force” provide proving grounds for these tactics, including street patrols, traffic stops, warrant service, fugitive apprehension, and court-authorized searches of residences. We expect that “state of emergency” declarations by federal and state officials will increase as well, to enable immediate deployments of military and paramilitary forces, and with fewer restrictions on those deployments.We expect these military and paramilitary intimidation tactics to extend to other non-state or subnational actors, like nonprofit and community-based organizations, unions, and universities, who are involved in monitoring and maintaining free and fair elections. We also anticipate a significant increase in disinformation and misinformation campaigns about polling places, hours, and practices, as well as voter intimidation at polling locations by national, non-state, and paramilitary actors.
• On and after Election Day, we anticipate major obstacles to a democratic transition of local, state, and federal seats and offices. At the state and local level, efforts to impede the post-election transfer of power include interference with vote tabulation and election certification by state and local governments through the use of force or police force or by other means, e.g. by proxy through militias or so-called “sovereign sheriffs” groups. At the federal level, efforts to obstruct or delay the swearing-in of newly elected officials include the removal of the Clerk in the House of Representatives or the refusal of the U.S. Vice President and outgoing House Speaker to swear in newly elected Members of Congress.

Current house speaker Mike Johnson told the September Republican Convention, “We cannot and will not allow them to take the majority in Congress. We’re not gonna do it.” The midterm elections will kick off an ongoing struggle that is likely to continue indefinitely – or at least until the next presidential election.

Social Self-Defense Against Election Subversion

The struggle to defend society against Trump and MAGA is likely to be long and difficult. It will require the self-organization and action of tens of millions of people. It is likely ultimately to require forms of resistance like social strikes that make the country impossible for MAGA to govern.

The struggle around the 2026 mid-term elections is only one piece of the struggle against Trump and for democratization – but it is an important one. It is a struggle not primarily between political parties, but for the protection of society against the MAGA attack. It is part of the broad defense of society against fascism – what I have elsewhere described as “Social Self-Defense”:

The protection of that which makes our life together on earth possible. It includes the protection of the human rights of all people; protection of the conditions of our earth and its climate that make our life possible; the constitutional principle that government must be accountable to law; and global cooperation to provide a secure future for people and planet.

Ending Republican control of the House and, if possible, the Senate will put a brake on the U.S.’s wild ride into fascism – especially if the scale of the turnout and the majority are overwhelming. That will show that a post-election coup is futile. It will also be an important marker on the road to a repudiation of Trump and all he stands for – an indication to all that not only is he vulnerable, but that he is doomed.

Recent polls indicate that such a massive repudiation is within reach. In a September New York Times poll,  a majority of voters disapproved of Trump’s handling of every major issue included in the poll: the economy, immigration, tariffs, the war, and the cost of living. Likely voters favored Democratic candidates over Republicans by close to 9 percentage points in their congressional district.

There is a wide swath of groups organized to defend a free and fair election against authoritarian subversion. They represent not one or the other political party, but rather nonpartisan social self-defense. I have described them elsewhere as a “Movement-Based Opposition.”

Many of these groups have initially been focusing on training. For example, Indivisible and the ACLU are collaborating on a series of “Hands Off Our Vote” online webinars. The Freedom Trainers network of nonviolence trainers has run in-depth trainings for thousands, and makes available an 83-page handbook presenting possible scenarios and how to deal with them. The May Day Strong coalition has held 750 “Solidarity Schools” and other actions from late August through mid-September nationwide, bringing together labor organizers and community members. The Voter Protection Advocate Network is building a nationwide cohort of trained and certified voter advocates. According to Deepak Bhargava of the Freedom Together Foundation, “Over one million people have been trained in organizing and nonviolence over the last year.”

Lines of Defense

HANDS OFF THE KENNEDY CENTER!!! Youtube short @tevindavisactor

The strategy for defending free and fair elections resembles the military strategy known as “concentric lines of defense.” That entails layered rings designed to “delay, detect, and respond to threats.” Diverse elements of the movement-based opposition are implementing such a strategy. Drawing on a review of their materials and presentations, here are the overlapping rings:

1. Make clear to people why they need to vote against Trump and MAGA. People need to understand that voting in this election is essential for their current and future self-protection and protection of their rights and wellbeing. Some Democrats are doing this quite forcefully, but much of the party is trying to sleaze by with vague promises about “affordability”; many Democrats are even advocating hyperscale data centers, despite the harm they do and their overwhelming unpopularity. Fortunately, civil society groups and the movement-based opposition can take actions that call out Trump’s depredations without waiting for Democrats to lead. Community-based actions against ICE transformed public opinion not only on ICE but on immigration as a whole; the Tesla Takedowns turned Elon Musk into a public pariah.

Such voter-education-through-action can be done locally and on short notice. For example, on September 18th thousands filled streets in Washington, DC and locked down traffic as they walked in a “Hands Around the Kennedy Center” action protesting Trump’s threats to shut or even tear down the iconic Kennedy Center. Indigenous groups have established the Thunderbird Nest resistance camp in Michigan’s Western Upper Peninsula to protest a planned copper sulfide mine which is backed by a $50 million taxpayer subsidy. May Day Strong is organizing “Corporate Campaigns to Reject Trump’s Attack on the Elections”; when an ICE agent shot a DoorDash driver making a delivery, May Day Strong among others called for people to “delete DoorDash” until the company issues a public statement against ICE targeting delivery drivers and calls for Trump’s occupation agents to leave DC.

Local demonstrations and protests can select locations like supermarkets with tariff-induced price increases; corporations supplying the Iran war and Israel; banks financing AI data centers; ICE facilities; agencies involved in voter suppression; and hospitals and clinics whose budgets have been cut. Such actions need not be large: Two dozen people with signs and leaflets at a local supermarket or Social Security office can reach voters directly and through local news coverage and social media. Such actions can connect the dots between the deprivations people are feeling, the machinations of Trump and MAGA, and the power people have to fight back through the vote.

2. Encourage an overwhelming turnout to oppose Trump and MAGA. This includes conventional get-out-the-vote methods, such as phone banking, door-to-door canvassing, registration drives, encouraging people to check that they are registered, providing transportation, and escorting voters. In the era of voter suppression, it also involves countering all kinds of misinformation that is being used to discourage people from voting, ranging from false information about when, where, and how to vote to threats of violence and arrest at polling places. The organizations listed above can provide information to counter such voter suppression.

3. Forestall interference with elections. Most direct vote suppression takes place on election day itself. To forestall this, election protection efforts are focused on encouraging people to vote early. The No Kings Coalition is organizing a massive “No Kings: Vote Early” day of action October 17. It will include block parties, rallies, and walks to the polls.

Voter suppression can include among other things openly biased poll workers, attempts to discourage or block voter registration, incorrect or unevenly applied requests for voter ID, misinformation about where, when, or how to vote, and similar abuses. The abusers may be election officials or MAGA vigilantes.

Hundreds of thousands of “Nonpartisan poll monitors” are being recruited to prevent vote stealing. These volunteers will observe the voting process on election days. They are trained to assist any voters whose votes are not being allowed or counted; to document any infractions and immediately report them to voting officials; and to immediately contact the Election Protection 866-OUR-VOTE hotline or the Election Protection website 866ourvote.org, both staffed by lawyers and law students, for help and guidance.

4. Contest intimidation through rapid response. Community based rapid response networks are a crucial part of election protection. According to the ACLU/Indivisible Election Protection Training 201:

When something happens that risks someone’s vote or risks impacting the election, the single most effective way we can counter it is by responding fast. Half a dozen people outside their local elections office with a few signs just a few hours after something happens are more powerful than a bigger protest that happens later after the news cycle has moved on. So, whether your goal is to have volunteers ready to redirect voters to a correct polling place if they have been misled, if you’re looking to speak out in support of targeted local election workers, if you’re thinking to shine a spotlight on misinformation or bad behavior, what we want to do is be ready before it’s time to actually respond.

Rapid response networks, utilizing mobile communications and trained volunteers, have been central to the protection of American cities against ICE attacks – think Minneapolis. Many immigrant justice rapid response networks are repurposing their organizations for election protection. Immigrant defenders in Wisconsin, for example, are repurposing the Signal infrastructure they built for ICE to arrange for rides to the polls.

Part of the preparation for rapid response is for local groups to reach out in advance to plan coordination with others in their area. They also need to connect in advance with regional and national networks that can provide support in a crisis.

We can assume that Trump/MAGA will attempt to covertly or overtly disrupt our election protection efforts. Community-based rapid response networks are likely to be the most powerful tool for exposing and defeating their machinations – and for publicizing them as one more example of MAGA’s attempt to destroy democracy.

Election Defense 201 training by Hands Off Our Vote

5. Foil electoral coups. We know from the January 6, 2020 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol that Trump and his supporters are likely to stop at nothing to retain power even if they have met a devastating electoral defeat. In such a case, only an unprecedented national popular resistance is likely to stop them. Indivisible refers to this as a “peaceful nonviolent sustained mobilization,” aka a “national freak-out.” Others call for a general strike and other forms of resistance.

Some kind of “all in” action has been widely advocated as a response to another attempted electoral coup, though advocates have been somewhat reticent about specific plans for such action. We now have a model for such sustained mobilization in the resistance to ICE in American cities, highlighted by the “No Work, No School, No Shopping” days of action in Minneapolis. Cliff Albright of Black Voters Matter told the ACLU/Indivisible Election Protection Training 201,

What do we mean by sustained mobilization? We mean a situation where everyday people are maintaining an in-person presence at a significant or symbolic location to demand action until it is met. Like a multi-day protest at someplace like the state capital. This might be the appropriate response if Trump or his administration refuses to concede power.

This wouldn’t be just like other protest moments. It would be a rapid response thing rather than something that’s pre-planned. It can’t just be a 2-hour march on a Saturday and then everybody goes home. Building momentum over time, more and more folks gathering in whatever location, not leaving until every vote is counted and the winners of the election are seated.

Cliff Albright conceded that “there’s a lot of possible unknowns around this.” Writer Micah Sifry identified some pertinent unanswered questions about this strategy: Who will be making the decision to go “all in”? How will demands be conveyed to the relevant authorities? If the Trump administration refuses to concede, then what? I have discussed at length the possibilities, problems, and strategies for such action in my report Social Strikes: Can General Strikes, Mass Strikes, and People Power Uprisings Provide a Last Defense Against MAGA Tyranny? It addresses in detail such questions as bases of power, organization, decision-making, negotiations, strategy, and tactics for a “people power” response to an attempted Trump coup.

6. Lay the groundwork for democratization. Long before Trump and MAGA, the U.S. and its electoral system were far from fully democratic. Trump’s efforts to establish tyranny have aimed to demolish their remaining democratic elements– with considerable success. Social self-defense requires more than just reestablishing the marginally democratic system that preceded Trump’s juggernaut. It requires accountability for those who have tried to destroy our human, democratic, and environmental rights. It requires structural change that reinforces the democratic aspects of our political system and that eliminates the undemocratic and authoritarian ones. That requires a process of democratization that builds popular power from the grassroots. The election protection movement can provide a propitious starting point for that democratization from below.

Note: If you are not already connected to local election protection efforts, you can go to Ground Control to find volunteer opportunities near you.

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

The post Election Protection vs MAGA Tyranny first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

September 28 , 2026

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact

Milagros R. Elia

Program Manager, Climate and Clean Energy Advocacy

Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments

milagros@envirn.org

914.455.1165

 

Nurses Strongly Oppose final 2026 NHTSA Fuel Economy Rule (CAFE Standards)

[Washington, D.C.]- On September 28, 2026, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule to weaken fuel economy standards for light-duty vehicles for model years 2022-2026 and model years 2027- 2031, making this new 2031 standard less stringent than model year 2024, which automakers have already achieved.

In response to the proposal, the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments’ Executive Director Katie Huffling, DNP, RN, CNM, FAAN issued the following statement:

“Weakening fuel economy standards moves our nation in the wrong direction for public health. Less efficient vehicles mean greater fuel consumption and pollution across the transportation and fuel-production system, adding to the burden faced by communities already experiencing poor air quality and traffic-related pollution. NHTSA itself has previously stated that stronger CAFE standards reduce fuel use, transportation emissions, and air pollution and can benefit communities near heavily trafficked roadways.

“As health professionals, we are especially concerned about children, older adults, people with asthma and cardiovascular disease, and communities living near highways and other major transportation corridors, where additional pollution can compound existing health inequities. Strong fuel economy standards are more than an environmental safeguard, they are an important component of protecting health, reducing preventable illness, and limiting the economic burden that pollution-related disease places on families and our healthcare system.

“Nurses have a responsibility to advocate for policies that prevent harm before it reaches our patients, and we strongly oppose rolling back standards that help advance cleaner transportation, healthier communities, and a more sustainable future.”

###

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

http://enviRN.org

 

The post Press Release! 2026 NHTSA Fuel Economy Rule (CAFE Standards) appeared first on ANHE.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact

Milagros R. Elia

Program Manager, Climate and Clean Energy Advocacy

Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments

milagros@envirn.org

914.455.1165

Nurses Condemn EPA Repeal of Carbon Pollution Standards for Power Plants

(Washington, DC) – On Sept. 14th 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the repeal of the 2024 Power Plant Regulations. The 2024 Power Plant standards were expected to deliver substantial public health benefits by reducing carbon pollution, fine particulate matter, mercury, and other hazardous pollutants. According to EPA projections, the carbon standards alone could have prevented up to 1,200 premature deaths, 870 hospital and emergency department visits, 1,900 new asthma cases, 360,000 episodes of asthma symptoms, and tens of thousands of missed school and workdays in 2035. These protections were also in place to safeguard drinking water, and provide particularly important benefits for children, pregnant people, and communities disproportionately burdened by power plant pollution.

In response to the proposal, the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments Executive Director Katie Huffling, DNP, RN, CNM, FAAN issued the following statement:

“The EPA’s decision to repeal the 2024 Power Plant standards threatens public health, deepens climate-related health risks, and places an unjust burden on already overexposed communities.” Repealing these protections will not make families safer or healthier. It disregards the scientific evidence and will prolong dependence on polluting fossil-fuel infrastructure while shifting the health and financial costs onto children, older adults, pregnant people, people with chronic illnesses, and communities that have endured decades of disproportionate pollution. Nurses call on federal leaders to restore strong, science-based safeguards and accelerate a just transition to clean, reliable energy that protects health.

“The Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments is committed to continue working with nurses, health professionals, community partners, and policymakers to defend science-based environmental protections and advance energy policies that place human health, equity, and a livable climate at their center.”

###

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

 

The post Press Release! Nurses Condemn EPA Repeal of Carbon Pollution Standards for Power Plants appeared first on ANHE.

CIW co-founder Lucas Benitez stands outside of Kroger’s annual shareholder meeting in 2013 CIW co-founder Lucas Benitez in the Cincinnati Enquirer: “Ending modern-day slavery requires more than successful prosecutions. It requires changing the conditions that allow slavery to exist in the first place.”

While the Fair Food Program continues to change the lives of farmworkers across the U.S. and inspire worker-led human rights initiatives around the world, some of the country’s largest food corporations still refuse to bring the FFP’s proven protections into their own supply chains. Despite years of rallies, marches, shareholder resolutions, letters from customers, and mounting evidence of the program’s unparalleled success in preventing abuse, Kroger refuses to join the FFP.

And while the FFP continues to build a growing track record of prevention, Kroger’s own produce supply chain repeatedly makes headlines for the very abuses the Program has so effectively stopped. Three years ago, after the U.S. Department of Labor identified Kroger as a buyer of watermelons harvested by workers trapped in a brutal forced labor operation, CIW senior staff member and farmworker leader Gerardo Reyes Chavez took to the pages of the Cincinnati Enquirer — Kroger’s hometown paper — with a direct appeal: It is finally time, Kroger, to the human rights crisis in your supply chain and join the Fair Food Program.

Three years later — and yet another forced labor prosecution tied to its supply chain — Kroger still has not acted.

Just weeks ago, another key member of the Moreno trafficking operation, Alexander Villatoro Moreno, was sentenced to 70 months in federal prison. Meanwhile, a separate class-action lawsuit filed by farmworkers in North Carolina has brought new allegations of severe labor abuses at another agricultural operation whose produce, according to publicly available information, was purchased by Kroger.

In the wake of these very latest revelations, CIW co-founder Lucas Benitez has turned to the pages of Kroger’s hometown newspaper, the Cincinnati Enquirer, to launch a renewed call for action. His new op-ed, which we share in full below, picks up where Mr. Chavez’s appeal left off three years ago — with even more evidence of the consequences of Kroger’s continued inaction, and an urgent reminder that the solution has been there all along: Join the Fair Food Program.

 

Kroger must do more to prevent forced labor | Opinion Kroger should join the Fair Food Program.

Three years ago, the U.S. Department of Labor identified Cincinnati-based Kroger as a buyer of watermelons harvested by workers trapped in a brutal forced labor operation. At the time, we at the Coalition of Immokalee Workers wrote to Kroger in these pages, urging the grocery giant to join the Fair Food Program, the only human rights enforcement program in agriculture proven to prevent forced labor and other severe abuses before workers are harmed.

Three years later, Kroger still refuses.

Why prevention matters

That refusal matters because just weeks ago, the U.S. Department of Justice announced another conviction in that same forced labor case. Alexander Villatoro Moreno, a key member of the trafficking operation, was extradited from Mexico, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to 70 months in prison.

Federal prosecutors described a familiar pattern. Workers were recruited from Mexico through fraud, saddled with crushing recruitment debts, stripped of their passports, housed in degrading conditions, threatened with arrest and deportation, and warned that their families back home could be harmed if they resisted.

And the Villatoro case is hardly an isolated incident.

Around the same time the Villatoro case was wrapping up, farmworkers in North Carolina filed a class-action lawsuit alleging wage theft, passport confiscation, illegal recruitment fees, threats, and the denial of drinking water, bathrooms, and medical care during episodes of dangerous heat stress. And, yet again, publicly available information indicates that Kroger purchased produce from the company where the plaintiffs say they worked.

That marks the fourth time in just five years that Kroger has been linked to allegations of forced labor or similarly egregious labor abuses in its produce supply chain.

Enough is enough.

Justice is important. But justice that comes only after workers have endured coercion, violence, and exploitation is not enough.

For those of us who have spent decades fighting modern-day slavery in U.S. agriculture, one lesson has become unmistakably clear: If our goal is to end forced labor, prosecutions alone will never get us there. We must prevent these crimes before workers become victims.

A choice Kroger can make

That is precisely what the Fair Food Program was built to do.

Instead of relying on voluntary corporate promises or social audits that repeatedly fail to detect abuse, the Fair Food Program changes the economics that allow exploitation to flourish. Participating buyers use their purchasing power to reward growers who respect workers’ rights and cut off those who do not. Workers receive education about their rights, access to a 24-hour complaint hotline, protection from retaliation, and independent monitoring that identifies problems while they are still small enough to be corrected—not after they have grown into forced labor operations.

Had those protections been in place on the melon farms involved in the Villatoro case, workers would have had safe ways to report abuse, investigators would have intervened early, and the conditions that allowed forced labor to take root could have been dismantled long before federal prosecutors needed to get involved.

A farmworker takes a break to drink water. FFP farms comply with mandatory heat stress protections that include the provision of water, electrolytes, rest breaks, training, and the ability to stop work and seek medical treatment without fear of retaliation

Instead, Kroger continues to rely on the same voluntary social auditing systems that have repeatedly failed to detect forced labor before workers are harmed.

Three years ago, we asked whether having a modern-day slavery case surface every year or two was an acceptable level of risk for Kroger, so long as produce continued arriving on store shelves on time, at the right quality, and at the right price.

Three years later, that question remains unanswered.

Many of Kroger’s competitors have already answered it. Walmart, Whole Foods Market, Trader Joe’s, Giant, Stop & Shop, and The Fresh Market have all joined the Fair Food Program, using their purchasing power to help prevent forced labor rather than merely respond to it after the damage has been done.

Ending modern-day slavery requires more than successful prosecutions. It requires changing the conditions that allow slavery to exist in the first place.

That is the power of the Fair Food Program: the power of prevention.

And it is long past time for Kroger to embrace it.

British Columbia should make long-term care part of its big-project building agenda and commit to a construction timetable for seven deferred public care projects, says a new report from the Centre for Future Work.

The report examines the economic benefits of building public long-term care facilities, and the dangers and costs of relying on for-profit operators. It argues that full accounting of the costs and benefits of long-term care construction needs to include financing charges (which are much lower for public builds), broader economic spin-offs from new construction, and a range of savings resulting from superior health outcomes demonstrated in public facilities.

Projections indicate the province needs 16,000 additional subsidized long-term care beds over the next decade—about 1,600 a year. But over the last six years, B.C. added an average of only about 240 net new beds annually.

Despite that gap, seven public long-term care construction and redevelopment projects were deferred in the province’s 2026 budget. The provincial government continues to list the projects in its long-term capital plan, but without firm timelines for construction.

The report challenges exaggerated stereotypes about the cost of building public long-term care facilities, and called for more transparent and systematic comparisons of cost estimates. Many public projects include services such as child care, hospice spaces and other services, often accessible to the broader community – making simple per-bed comparisons misleading.

Financing is an important cost advantage for public builds. In an illustrative comparison, the higher cost of private borrowing increases cumulative interest costs by 41 per cent, adding $49 million to a $200 million project over 25 years.

Most long-term care in B.C. receives provincial government funding, regardless of whether a facility is publicly owned, non-profit, or for-profit. Those payments help cover building and financing expenses as well as operating costs. Data published by the B.C. Senior’s Advocate indicates that building costs in private facilities (ultimately charged to the public purse) are much higher than non-profit facilities.

Outsourcing new builds to private operators does not make the public cost disappear. Government still pays for those facilities through decades of care funding.

The report calls for a transparent comparison of construction costs across public, non-profit and for-profit facilities. It identifies ways to improve value in future projects, including using public land, sharing sites with other health services, standardizing designs and coordinating procurement.

It recommends that the provincial government quickly complete its review of the deferred projects, and publish a reliable construction timetable by the next provincial budget. It also calls for capital funding and development support for non-profit providers, alongside a longer-term plan to meet projected demand.

Please see the full report, Economic Benefits from Construction of Public Long Term Care Capacity in British Columbia, authored by Jim Stanford, Economist and Director of the Centre for Future Work.

The post The Build-Big Agenda in B.C. Should Include Long-Term Care Homes appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

For workers, the climate crisis is here: TUC Congress 2026 report

Photo: Hert Niks on unsplash

By Tahir Latif GJA Secretary

If the heatwaves, wildfires and the coming El Niño-generated floods in the U.K. have achieved anything, it’s to focus the trade union movement less on a ‘future’ threat to our communities and more on the need to take action right now, without equivocation.  Despite the government’s decisions on Rosebank, Jackdaw and Heathrow still hanging in the balance, there was little of the ‘jobs at all cost’ support for these developments on display; instead, we had some powerful words and a deep commitment from many unions, led by NEU, UCU, UNISON and FBU, on the form immediate action should take.

On the Sunday evening, a climate fringe, The Climate Crisis Is Here: Trade Unions’ Time To Act, hosted by Campaign Against Climate Change Trade Union Group, Greener Jobs Alliance and PCS, included a rousing contribution from Asad Rehman, Chief Executive of Friends of the Earth, while Debra Beale, NEU Joint President, spoke eloquently about the impact of the heatwaves in schools for both teachers and pupils, and the urgent need for investment to upgrade school buildings.

The tone for the week was set by FBU General Secretary Steve Wright, who related the difficulties of meeting the wildfire threat with an inadequate number of workers.  He acknowledged the heroic work of members in dealing with the huge number of calls when resources are stretched thin:

As firefighters, we’re getting quite impatient at politicians talking about the role that firefighters take in these incidents and the craziness across the summer, with no real direction about how they’re going to fix it.

This topic was the central theme of Motion C14, Climate Heat Emergency, heard in the Tuesday morning session.  As well as demands arising specifically from the impacts of the heatwaves, notably a call for a legally enforceable maximum working temperature of 26C, an increase in firefighters and a National Wildfire summit, the motion also reinforced key climate demands such as rights for Green reps, funding for solar panels and implementation of the Green New Deal.

The motion was moved by NEU General Secretary Daniel Kebede, who cut to the heart of the issue, I.e. societal breakdown under neoliberalism: it is, he said, ‘not simply a failure of policy…or a failure of imagination.  It’s the failure of an economic system that has made profit god and treated the living world as sacrifice…an economy organised around extraction, exploitation and endless accumulation.’  FBU’s Dwight Williams underlined the urgent need to reverse 15 years of cuts, provision of proper PPE equipment, better land management and a U.K.-wide wildfire strategy.

On an agenda packed with worthy motions, of particular note here were:

Motion 75, moved by UCU, supporting the Wages not Weapons campaign, and promoting ‘a trade union vision of security based on decent work, quality public services, equality, climate action, democracy and peace’, a welcome and widely supported riposte to the idea that unions should passively ‘chase the money’ if it’s going into weapons manufacture and thereby reinforce the drive to militarism.

Motion C8 (BFAWU) called on the TUC to campaign for ‘the right to food to be enshrined in U.K. law’, ending food poverty and implementing a food and nutrition strategy while ensuring secure unionised jobs to replace unpaid labour.

Motion 55 (ASLEF) and 56 (TSSA) both addressed aspects of the much needed transformation of the rail industry.  Motion 55 won support for ASLEF’s Own Our Trains campaign, which calls for public ownership not only of U.K. rail operations but the rolling stock itself.  Motion 56 demanded guaranteed job protection for workers as they transition to Great British Rail, exactly the base demand that should be at the forefront of the energy unions approach, as well as every other sector of the economy.

In all, if Congress is more about checking the temperature of individual union commitments to action on different subjects than in placing actions on TUC itself, then this was a hugely successful year, showing that the Year of Trade Union Climate Action has had an effect, and that the now very real urgency of meeting the climate crisis is building the kind of cross sectoral action and solidarity that is desperately needed.

Link to TUC Congress 2026 home page, where you’ll find the agenda, motions and all other information:

And a direct link to the YouTube videos of proceedings.  The debate on Motion C14 can be found 1hr 25 mins into the Tuesday morning session. 

← To the apocalypse! And beyond! Possible futures in and beyond UN climate modeling ... Join Us

Get in the loop! Sign up to receive future GJA Newsletters and Blogs here.

SIGN UP Join the debate

Send us your contribution to the debate. We will contact you about using it here on our News & Debate page.

Name

Email

Contribution

Submit

The post For workers, the climate crisis is here: TUC Congress 2026 report first appeared on Greener Jobs Alliance.

BC Ferries recently announced a purchase of four major new vessels from a shipyard in China. This decision has sparked criticism from trade unions and others, who argue the ferries should have been commissioned from domestic shipyards.

New research from the Centre for Future Work confirms that the decision to import the ferries, rather than domestic procurement, imposed a significant foregone economic cost on the province.

Sourcing an equivalent value of shipbuilding from domestic yards would generate $1.5 billion in additional GDP in Canada (85% of that in B.C.), over 10,000 person-years of employment, and would return over $400 million in additional revenue to government coffers (providing a financial basis for public support for future procurement).

The report reviewed the current scale of shipbuilding in B.C. and Canada, highlighting the strong employment growth in the sector over the past 15 years (largely due to a pro-active procurement strategy for Navy and Coast Guard ships from the federal government). It reviewed the role of active industrial policy in supporting shipbuilding in other major producers – including the U.S., China, and Europe.

It also surveyed the current capabilities of B.C.’s shipbuilding sector, identifying gaps that should be addressed in order to ensure the industry can source future ferry procurement from the provincial ferry operator.

The report concluded with several recommendations, including:

1. Establish a Ministerial-level task force to coordinate the development and implementation of a robust provincial shipbuilding strategy.
2. Amend contractual and fiscal arrangements with BC Ferries to require the firm to maximize economic benefits from domestic procurement of future vessels.
3. Commitment to accelerate the electrification of ferries, and development of B.C. technological and industrial expertise in electric vessels.
4. Formation of a consortium of firms to organize and plan the expansion of future shipbuilding capacity in B.C.
5. The provincial government should be prepared to take equity stakes in future ventures.

1. A strong marine sector workforce development strategy to ensure a steady and adequate supply of skilled workers for the shipbuilding and marine sectors.

Please see the full report, The Economic Benefits of Ferry Construction in B.C., by Jim Stanford, Blair Redlin, and David Fairey.

A video reviewing the main findings of the report, recorded during a public launch event, is available on the Centre for Future Work’s YouTube channel.

The report generated numerous media articles, including:

• Newspaper articles in the Vancouver Sun, the Toronto Star, and numerous other outlets.
• Television coverage on CHEK TV and other stations.
• A feature interview on the Jas Johal Show on CKNW Radio.

The post B.C. Missed an Economic Opportunity by Importing New Ferries From China, Rather than Building them Here appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Albertans will vote on October 19 in an unusual ‘referendum on a referendum’, initiated by the Alberta government of Premier Danielle Smith. The referendum asks voters whether they prefer to stay part of Canada, or prefer to initiate a process of negotiation and preparation fo0r a binding referendum on separation some time in the future.

Many economic, business, and civil society leaders have warned of the economic risks and costs of even a significant threat of Alberta independence, let alone outright separation. But working people are especially exposed to those risks, for several reasons: they need employment, they depend disproportionately on federal income supports (like CPP, EI, and the Canada Child Benefit), they depend on unions and labour standards to negotiate their wages, and they are less mobile across borders than investors or high-income households.

The Centre for Future Work has explored the particular risks facing Alberta workers from the separatist movement, in a new report published in conjunction with the Alberta Federation of Labour.

The report challenges several of the myths propagated by the separatist movement – in particular, claims that an independent Alberta would be richer, have lower taxes, and more opportunity to sell products to other countries.

It also reviews several statistical indicators of declining living standards for Alberta workers in recent years. It finds that Alberta workers are quite right to be angry about stagnant wages, falling purchasing power, and growing insecurity in the province – but those problems should not be blamed on a distant federal government. Rather, they result from problems right at home in Alberta, in particular the distorted playing field of labour relations, which has undermined the bargaining power of Alberta workers to negotiate better jobs and wages.

The economic pie in Alberta has been growing: oil and gas production and export set new records every year, and output per worker is the highest in Canada. But labour’s share of that economic pie (in wages, salaries, and benefits) has been shrinking faster than in any other province, and average wages now barely match the Canadian national average.

The report concludes that by defeating the false hopes of separation, workers in Alberta can refocus their rightful anger on the task of reforming Alberta’s labour and economic policies, so that the province’s abundant wealth can be shared more fairly.

Please see the full report, False Promises, Big Dangers: How Separation Would Hurt Alberta Workers, by Jim Stanford, Economist and Director of the Centre for Future Work.

The report generated abundant media coverage, including:

• Newspaper articles in the Calgary Herald and the Lethbridge Herald.
• Interviews on CBC Radio and 880 CHED.
• A feature interview with Ryan Jesperson’s Real Talk video podcast.
• A commentary in The Tyee, targeting the myth that Alberta ‘subsidizes’ the rest of Canada.

The post Workers are Especially Exposed to the Economic Risks of Alberta Separation appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

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

Coastal Erosion at Atherington by Chris Richardson Wikimedia

By Paul Atkin

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

Key differences are

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible futures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social and geopolitical factors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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