News Feeds

As record heat waves threaten workers from report sites and warehouses to farmlands and delivery routes across the country, a new report from Groundwork Collaborative, Workshop, and Harvard Law School’s Center for Labor and a Just Economy outlines a coordinated campaign by corporations, trade groups, and their political allies to block enforceable heat protections for America’s labor force. The report’s authors, Adam Dean and Jamie McCallum, find that a nationwide heat standard could save thousands from heat-related illnesses and deaths each year.

Building on previous research published in Health Affairs, the authors find that California’s heat standard, which requires common-sense workplace protections including access to water, shade, and regular rest breaks for workers, resulted in a 51% reduction in heat-related deaths compared to neighboring states that lack similar protections. If a similar heat standard was adopted federally, the authors estimate these basic regulations could save up to 1,500 lives annually.

But, the paper’s authors find that corporate and industry interests are preventing federal action to protect their workforces from heat exposure. Attempts at regulation in Washington have stalled while worker safety and wellbeing relies entirely on geography and political will. As the Biden administration’s life-saving heat rule remains stalled, Trump has failed to extend protections, instead siding with corporate interests.

In the paper, the authors write:

“As extreme heat intensifies, the cost of inaction will be measured in lives lost. The question facing policymakers is no longer whether effective protections exist, but whether they have the political will to stand up to unscrupulous employers lobbying hard to block them.”

Background

Extreme heat threatens thousands of workers each year with no relief in sight.

• Extreme heat is rapidly becoming one of the most dangerous and least regulated workplace hazards in the United States. As climate change drives hotter, longer, and more frequent heat waves, millions of workers – especially in agriculture, construction, warehousing, and transportation – face increasing risks of injury, illness, and death.
• In 2024, nearly 3,000 heat-related deaths were recorded among outdoor workers, and in 2023, high temperatures contributed to an estimated 28,000 injuries on the job. These estimates likely understate the true extent of heat-related incidents in the workplace.

Common-sense heat protections are proven to improve worker safety and decrease the risk of heat-related deaths, but the lack of a federal standard leaves workers at the whims of their employers and reliant on uneven state policies.

• California’s robust heat protections were associated with a 51% reduction in worker deaths between 2015 and 2020, compared to neighboring states without protections.
• Meanwhile, governors in Texas and Florida have signed legislation to bar municipalities in their states from implementing heat protections for workers following stringent opposition from business groups.
• A long-term, coordinated pressure campaign from industry lobbyists, including Amazon, UPS, and the Associated Builders and Contractors, have blocked efforts at state and federal levels to enact worker protections, while companies tout their “commitments” to worker safety.

In the absence of a uniform standard, an ineffective patchwork of state-by-state protections has emerged, leaving the lives of thousands of vulnerable workers in the hands of policymakers captured by their corporate backers and at the mercy of changing political tides. The only way forward, the authors argue, is a strong, enforceable national standard.

The post Big Oil spends record $10 million on lobbying CA officials in first quarter of 2026! appeared first on Last Chance Alliance.

The Senate Judiciary Committee released its reconciliation bill, tacking $1 billion for Donald Trump’s White House ballroom project and $70 billion for Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP).

Public Citizen Co-President Lisa Gilbert issued the following statement:

“The idea of using a simple majority process to fund billions more in ICE cruelty is abhorrent, but now the Senate has piled corrupt absurdity on top of that inhumane move, by adding in 1 billion dollars to fund the grandiose, bombastic, vanity project—the golden White House ballroom. Using taxpayer dollars to toady to a wannabe-dictator is both pandering and pathetic.”

The Ann Arbor Sustainable Energy Utility will use locally sited solar, batteries and other resources to improve reliability and lower costs for subscribers, city officials say.

Entre el 21 y el 25 de abril, organizaciones de América Latina y el Caribe se reunieron en El Salvador y Costa Rica en una agenda que combinó articulación regional, incidencia política y diálogo público frente a la crisis de residuos. Las actividades incluyeron el encuentro de membresías de GAIA y Break Free From Plastic, un seminario internacional con tomadores de decisión, un cine foro en la Universidad de Costa Rica y un conversatorio sobre valorización de residuos orgánicos en la Asamblea Legislativa de Costa Rica.

4 de mayo, 2026

Al momento de escribir este texto, se cumplen dos semanas desde que empezaban a llegar miembros de GAIA y Break From Plastic a San Salvador, y el grupo de WhatsApp “Evento Centroamericano GAIA BFFP” ya estaba recibiendo mensajes y fotos de quienes emprendían viaje desde Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panamá, Honduras y Nicaragua. 

El Pulgarcito de América nos recibió con una ciudad que no escatima en colores, una paleta de verdes intensos en su vegetación, fachadas rosadas, azules y amarillas, y el canto constante de las aves que nos acompañó todos los días. 

Así llegamos al primer encuentro de miembros de GAIA y Break Free From Plastic en Centroamérica, al que se le sumó una serie de actividades con tomadores de decisión en El Salvador y Costa Rica.

Aquí les contamos lo que pasó dentro y fuera del encuentro.

Empezamos a conocernos “en el furgón”

Apenas llegamos, y antes de comenzar oficialmente el encuentro, empezamos a conocernos (y a reírnos) desde nuestras diferencias. La información de llegada decía que afuera del aeropuerto nos iba a esperar “un furgón”, esto refiriéndose a una van de pasajeros (como la de la foto), pero resulta que en Centroamérica un furgón es lo que en otras partes sería un camión de carga pesada, y los miembros se preguntaban cómo los iban a llevar en un transporte tan grande. Lo bueno es que nadie se complicó demasiado y la idea de llegar al hotel en un camión no era un problema. Adaptación y voluntad, como la membresía que siempre encuentra la forma de adaptarse y avanzar.

Bienvenida a CESTA

Llegamos a CESTA y lo primero que vimos fueron las cientos de bicicletas del proyecto ECO-BICI CESTA que impulsa el uso de la bicicleta como un medio de transporte sustentable en El Salvador. Ya dentro del salón, partimos el encuentro con dinámicas de presentación. Algunas personas solo se habían visto a través de una pantalla, así que para empezar a conocernos realmente, compartimos las historias de nuestros nombres. Los orígenes iban desde canciones como “María Teresa  y Danilo”, jugadores de fútbol, parientes, olvidos e indecisiones.

Medio en broma, Ricardo Navarro, presidente de CESTA, nos dio la bienvenida a “una iniciativa que comenzó como una organización de jóvenes ambientalistas, pero que se ha transformado en un asilo de ancianos.” La verdad, CESTA es una de las organizaciones con más trayectoria de nuestra membresía, y cumple ni más ni menos que 46 años este año.

Residuos orgánicos 

En el primer bloque, Mariela explicó por qué si hablamos de clima, tenemos que hablar de residuos orgánicos. Dio detalles sobre la importancia de reducir las emisiones de metano, y cómo algo tan cotidiano como el desperdicio de alimentos termina teniendo un impacto climático significativo. También mostró proyectos en marcha de la membresía, publicaciones y espacios de capacitación que están empujando soluciones en la región. 

Crisis de los plásticos

El bloque inició presentando la contaminación plástica como una crisis global, pero que no es un problema que se resuelve solo gestionando residuos. Alejandra hizo un recorrido por la historia del plástico, sus impactos en la salud y el momento decisivo que atraviesan hoy las negociaciones del Tratado global de plásticos de la ONU. También se dieron más detalles de las falsas soluciones como la incineración, co-incineración, pirólisis y la amenaza que representan a la salud de las personas y el medio ambiente.

Soluciones de reuso y herramientas 

En esta sección se mostraron herramientas creadas desde Break Free From Plastic y GAIA en la región, como el mapa de políticas para plásticos  y la guía para usar la base de datos contra la incineración, para luego pasar a las experiencias de reuso en la región y las rutas basura cero de BFFP. Para cerrar, cada organización compartió en grupos sus propios avances, lo que aún falta y, hacia dónde quieren seguir. 

Recicladores de base y transición justa

En el encuentro contamos con la participación de recicladores de El Salvador, y de Keyla de Nicaragua y Danilo de Panamá, quienes compartieron su experiencia en el reciclaje con recicladores en la región. En este bloque, la conversación se centró en el panorama futuro en relación a la gestión de residuos con recicladores, como reducción y gestión de los residuos orgánicos; y se compartió un adelanto del documento sobre reuso recién publicado por encargo de la Alianza Internacional de Recicladores, titulado “Explorando la reutilización inclusiva en Ecuador”. Luego se dio paso al concepto de transición justa para “avanzar sin dejar a nadie atrás y asegurando trabajo digno para quienes ya sostienen gran parte de la gestión de residuos.”

Fortalecimiento del movimiento

Ya en el último bloque del día, después de mucho trabajo, y digamos la verdad, después de comer muchos mangos ciruela, cerramos el día con cómo formamos una red unida y con identidad, los elementos y recursos disponibles para apoyar a la membresía, y cómo el apoyo en comunicaciones en BFFP y GAIA nos ayuda a salir “del círculo de hombres y mujeres araña”. 

Cerramos el primer día con la presentación de experiencias de Alianzas Basura Cero en Brasil, Ecuador y Chile. 

Día 2 Seminario internacional basura cero y panel de conversación

En el marco del Día de la Madre Tierra, iniciamos la jornada con un seminario donde se presentó información relevante sobre la crisis de residuos y por qué basura cero no es solo una alternativa, sino el camino necesario. 

La proyección del documental Burning Injustice dio paso a que un panel integrado por miembros de Panamá, Guatemala, y Costa Rica abordara en un  conversatorio las soluciones frente a la crisis de residuos, con foco en estrategias de basura cero impulsadas desde la sociedad civil. 

En el espacio contamos con la presencia de las diputadas Marcela Villatoro y Claudia Ortiz y representantes de más de 10 municipios de la región. 

Finalmente se hizo entrega de un reconocimiento a diez municipios comprometidos con la construcción de modelos de gestión de residuos orientados a la estrategia de basura cero.

Taller técnico para municipios

El taller se desarrolló en torno a residuos orgánicos y la crisis del plástico. Al comienzo, se volvió a insistir en el rol fundamental que tiene la valorización de residuos orgánicos dentro de los compromisos climáticos, y luego, la conversación se abrió hacia la crisis de la contaminación por plástico, sus impactos sociales y ambientales, y el tratado global de plásticos. También se alertó sobre las falsas soluciones que amenazan las estrategias de basura cero.

Recapitulamos entre nuégados y atol de yuca

Mientras las y los representantes de los municipios se concentraban en el taller técnico, la membresía inició una discusión sobre cómo seguir el trabajo en conjunto como bloque regional. También, y gracias a la virtuosa memoria de Deybid de Honduras, hicimos un recorrido por los momentos que marcaron nuestro encuentro para, luego de comer unos ricos nuégados con atol de yuca, reunirnos en un círculo para agradecer y cerrar el día.

Por supuesto que no nos fuimos de El Salvador sin probar las pupusas. En la cena de despedida fuimos a una pupusería a compartir antes de partir al día siguiente.

Hola Costa Rica, ¡pura vida!

El Salvador no nos quería dejar ir y nos despidió con un temblor de 5.2 grados,  para dar paso a unas turbulencias que nos dieron la bienvenida a Costa Rica: ¡Pura vida!  

Ya en San José,  y sorteando cómo encontrar direcciones exactas (las direcciones en Costa Rica… un asunto complicado) llegamos a la Universidad de Costa Rica para el cine foro ¿Qué es la incineración y cómo afecta a nuestras comunidades? organizado por Bloque verde, el programa de Kioscos socioambientales de la UCR, Güitite y la Universidad de Costa Rica. 

Eric Morales Mora, profesional en Salud Ambiental y docente Escuela de Tecnologías en Salud nos dio una introducción de bienvenida, para luego pasar al documental y cerrar con la situación de la incineración en Costa Rica a cargo de Mauricio Álvarez, docente de la Escuela de Geografía y Ciencias Políticas, y con iniciativas actuales de incineración en Costa Rica a cargo de Ronald Arrieta, Doctor Ingeniero en Biotecnología, docente jubilado de la Escuela de Química de la UCR.

Conversatorio en la Asamblea Nacional

Último día, un café chorreado y en camino a la Asamblea Nacional para participar en el foro: “Valorización de residuos orgánicos en Costa Rica”, organizado por la Asociación Costarricense de Biogás, GAIA, el despacho de la Diputada Independiente Cynthia Córdoba  y el Instituto Global para el Crecimiento Verde. 

En el espacio compartimos detalles de cómo los sistemas de basura cero son una estrategia que puede reducir de manera continua la cantidad de residuos. Además, repasamos los riesgos climáticos, económicos y a la salud de la incineración.

En la ronda de conversación, Marlene Chacón de San Antonio Recicla, recalcó que la incineración amenaza el trabajo de las y los recicladores, y la importancia de avanzar en la educación ambiental como herramienta para evitar falsas soluciones en Costa Rica.

Nos despedimos de Centroamérica llenas de agradecimiento a cada organización, representante de municipios y a CESTA por recibirnos en su casa. Sabemos que los vínculos, aprendizajes y la ruta que empieza a tomar forma en la región será un avance fundamental para seguir posicionando las iniciativas de basura cero en América Latina. 

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

En el encuentro participaron:

• Asociación Defensores del Monumento Natural Zona los Santos 
• San Antonio Recicla /y colectivo Costa Rica Hacia Basura cero
• CENPAD (Centro para la Paz, Ambiente y Desarrollo)
• Basura Cero Nicaragua / CICFA
• Basura Cero Nicaragua, Escuela Agroecológica
• CESTA, El Salvador
• Central de Recicladores de Base Nicaragua 
• Colectivo Tz’unun Ya’
• Asociación para la Promoción y el Desarrollo de la Comunidad CEIBA
• ECO-RE 
• FAS PANAMA
• Movimiento nacional de Recicladores de Panamá

The post Encuentro regional de Centroamérica fortalece el movimiento y las soluciones comunitarias basura cero first appeared on GAIA.

The company behind the suspended oil site that is subject of a landmark Supreme Court ruling has reported declining assets and revenue.

UK Oil & Gas plc (UKOG) revealed today in delayed annual accounts that it has interests in just one hydrocarbon site.

The value of the company’s total assets and its revenue both fell by more than 60% in the year to September 2025.

During the same period, the accounts show that UKOG gave up an onshore PEDL (production, exploration and development licence) and two exploration sites.

It also sold its stake in two more UK production sites in southern England and exited from its Turkish licence interests.

The company’s remaining oil and gas site at Horse Hill – once called the Gatwick Gusher – has been mothballed since October 2024. The Supreme Court stripped the site of its planning permission in what became known as the Finch Ruling in June 2024.

A separate statement this morning announced UKOG had submitted a retrospective planning application for the reinstatement of production consent at Horse Hill. The application announcement was not mentioned in the accounts and the details have not yet been published online.

But the accounts admitted:

“There is no certainty when consent will be reinstated or that production [at Horse Hill] will recommence.

“The Group continues to evaluate available technical data and maintain cost discipline; however, the timing, level and economic viability of any future production remain uncertain.”

Loss of oil and gas assets

The accounts confirmed that in June 2025 the company relinquished PEDL246, which included the Broadford Bridge oil exploration site in West Sussex and the planned Loxley gas site, near Dunsfold, in Surrey.

UKOG said it had plugged and abandoned the Broadford Bridge wells, BB-1/1z, in February 2026, despite discussions on their geothermal potential.

The company said:

“This milestone confirms the Company’s compliance with its regulatory obligations, demonstrating its continued commitment to responsible operations and asset stewardship during its transition into clean energy.”

But it did not mention the planning requirement to restore the site to farmland, which has not yet happened, nor the planning contravention notice issued against UKOG’s subsidiary, the site operator, and the landowner.

UKOG said it relinquished PEDL246 because representatives had failed to find a farm-in partner to drill at Loxley.

UKOG also sold its subsidiary, UK (GB) Ltd, which had stakes in the Horndean (10%) and Avington (5%) oil fields in Hampshire.

It exited its Turkish licence in October 2024 and later received a claim of $100,000 from its former partner, the accounts reveal. They said UKOG directors considered there was “no remaining formal legal or contractual basis for the claim”. To date, UKOG has received nothing further, the accounts added.

Finances

UKOG said the 2025 financial year “marked a period of strategic realignment for the Group as the Group continued its transition from legacy oil production towards hydrogen storage and clean energy infrastructure”.

But according to the accounts, the company remains largely dependent on revenue from hydrocarbon sales. The auditor noted a “material uncertainty exists that may cause significant doubt on the group’s ability to continue as a going concern”.

Revenue, entirely from Horse Hill and Horndean crude oil sales, fell to £432,000 in 2025, from £1.1m in 2024. The accounts said the decline reflected lower volumes from Horse Hill, which voluntarily suspended production in October 2024.

Total UKOG assets fell from £3.361m (restated) in 2024, to £1.136m in 2025. Cash and cash equivalents were down from £1m to £40,000.

Net liabilities rose from £2.471m in 2024 to £5.684m in 2025.

Total annual losses were reduced compared with 2024, when the balance sheet included £32.544m in impairment of oil and gas assets.

Key figures

Revenue: £432,000 (2024: £1.1m)

Cost of sales: £423,000 (2024: £912,000)

Gross loss: £20,000 (2024: £189,000)

Total comprehensive loss: £4.09m (2024: £38.490m)

Admin expenses: £2.636m (2024: £1.716m)

Decommissioning provision at 30 September 2025: £1.591m (2024: £1.253m). Of the £1.591m, £1.184m was for Horse Hill and £407,000 was for Broadford Bridge.

Non-current assets: £337,000 (2024: £1.705M)

Total assets: £1.136m (2024 restated: £3.361m)

Cash and cash equivalents: £40,000 (2024: £1m)

Total liabilities: £6.822m (2024: £5.832m)

Net liabilities: £5.684m (2024: £2.471m)

Operating loss: £3.9m (2024: £3.8m)

Loss before tax: £4.098m (2024: £38.490m)

Stephen Sanderson total earnings from UKOG: £243,000 (2024: £314,000

Total payments to directors: £504,000 (£457,000)

Loan interest payments: £152,000 (2024: £128,000)

Total finance cost: £202,000 (2024: £172,000)

Loans payable to non-controlling interests: £3.462m (2024: £3.310m)

Outstanding loan balances owed to HHDL shareholders at 30 September 2025: Alba Mineral Resources £2.8m (2024: £2.6m), Doriemus plc £0.6m (2024: £0.6m), UK Oil & Gas plc £18m (2024: £17.8m)

This article is provides a critical analysis of the Río Indio Dam and peasant resistance.

The post Panama: Río Indio, an eviction carried out under the banner of neoliberalism appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum has directed national recreation areas, seashores, wildlife refuges, and other public lands to immediately lift dozens of restrictions on hunting and trapping, according to internal documents reviewed by the New York Times.

The directive, which takes effect this week, targets rules at 76 Interior sites that allowed hunting but had restrictions designed to protect habitats or public safety, such as prohibitions on firing weapons across trails or cleaning game in public restrooms. Burgum ordered the changes in an April 21 memo, asserting that any restrictions not strictly required by law must be the “minimum necessary for public safety or resource protection.”

The Interior department framed the move as a way to expand access for sportsmen and women, but critics are concerned that the administration is bypassing environmental studies and public consultation to implement major rule changes, and warned against a “one size fits all” approach to land management. “What we’re really concerned about is, that memo didn’t say, ‘do analysis,'” said Stephanie Adams of the National Parks Conservation Association. “It didn’t say ‘engage the public,’ and it didn’t say to be sure to focus on that key part of the Organic Act, which is to manage in a way that leaves the parks unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”

Senator Ben Ray Luján: Reform the 154-year-old mining law

In a letter to the editor in the Washington Post, New Mexico Senator Ben Ray Luján calls for an overhaul of the General Mining Act of 1872, arguing the law prioritizes industry over the safety of community drinking water. In a response to claims that permitting takes decades, Luján notes that the most delayed projects were due to the current law causing opposition and distrust with local communities and Tribal nations.

Quick hits Bison have grazed these lands for centuries. Trump wants to evict them

New York Times

June lease sale will offer over 150,000 acres in Colorado

Grand Junction Daily Sentinel

These rural towns are banking on outdoor recreation to boost their economies

Deseret News

Trump administration falls behind on wildfire prevention with risky fire season ahead

NPR

How the rush to mine the metal of the future echoes America’s colonial past

Inside Climate News

Editorial: New tactic to come after public lands must be stopped

Arizona Daily Star

Twin Metals paid former Trump officials $380K. Their Boundary Waters mine is now advancing against public opinion

Outdoor Life

8 victories that give hope in the fight to protect public lands

Outside

Quote of the day

At a certain point, operating these mines and establishing these settlements stopped being about pure capitalism, pure greed, and it started to be about harming Indians. The wealth accumulated from all that extraction was a self-awarded prize for harming Indians, which was at the time, and possibly still is, the most American patriotic thing.”

—Lakota Sioux member Taylor Gunhammer, Inside Climate News

Picture This @yellowstonenps

“That’s no moon.” Actually, it is. We had a beautiful moonset this morning over Terrace Mountain in Mammoth Hot Springs. May the 4th be with you!

 

Featured photo: Mesa Trail at Curecanti National Recreation Area. mlhradio, CC BY-NC 2.0

The post Trump administration orders rapid end to some hunting rules on federal lands appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

This article May Day was even more important than you think was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'Vk7zYaJHQWhViKUjU_oBVg',sig:'J-1ykjKxSlOelDfCtwyGVqfQDsdDifjKWbKzK6WjvHE=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'2274083676',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

On May 1, organizers reported over 5,000 May Day Strong actions across the country — the most widespread distribution of U.S. May Day actions ever. Numbers are interesting — but they’re not nearly the whole story here. Because this May Day was even more important than you think.

With No Kings, millions were activated into the streets. May Day had another goal in mind — to stretch our mass mobilization skills to include more, to quote Martin Luther King Jr., “creative tension.” 

The need for escalation became all the more urgent in light of the MAGA Supreme Court’s ruling eviscerating the Voting Rights Act, the legal crown jewel of the civil rights movement. This heavy blow is aimed at the most reliable voting bloc for a just democracy in America — Black voters. So, in response, we have to return to risky tactics that wage struggle for our democracy.

So in New York, protesters with the Sunrise Movement shut down entrances to the New York Stock Exchange — a daring tactical escalation. In Raleigh, North Carolina, 20 school districts closed for the largest statewide teacher rally since 2019. In each of the thousands of May Day protests, people spoke to specific local conditions — North Carolina ranks 43rd in average teacher pay — but tied to the overall frame of workers over billionaires.

#newsletter-block_fab340f3bfe7333aae6a6df83b20d037 { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_fab340f3bfe7333aae6a6df83b20d037 #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

At Kent State University in Ohio, students honored previous generations who braved bullets, standing in the rain and wind to protest the closing of DEI offices and scholarships. They were part of the fast-moving and underreported growth of students organizing against this regime: Sunrise estimates 100,000 students participated in this weekend’s May Day strikes.

It’s important to note what we saw. Escalated tactics were trialed — this wasn’t just sign-waving. The May Day Strong coalition was also consciously moving in a unique formation with National Nurses United, AAUP, NDWA and dozens of local unions, including SEIU, AFSCME and UNITE HERE locals, joining with the likes of Indivisible and 50501. 

But perhaps most importantly and consequentially, it was a structure test for future economic disruptions. In a structure test you’re testing to see who is with you — who is ready to move and who just says they’re ready to move. So in real time we get to assess which groups are ready for further boycotts, strikes and other kinds of economic disruption. These tactics are important to build up for because they are not symbolic, but have a material impact on the authoritarian regime.

As a wise group, this coalition was testing what capacity we have for this kind of collective power. And that capacity was significant (with room to grow!). All consciously organized by a group that has a vision for building to rolling, wildcat and general strikes.

Finding the right yardstick

One of the hazards of living under an authoritarian attempting to consolidate power is that most of our victories will not come from government interventions. As civil resistance scholar Hardy Merriman has observed, we are facing a leader who can wake up each morning and do something terrible — kidnap Nicolás Maduro, fire competent federal workers, bomb Iran, cancel contracts, tear down part of the White House — and in the immediate term, we are not able to stop it.

Therefore “Did we stop him today?” cannot be our yardstick for growth — though obviously, it is an ultimate aim.

So May Day did not stop the Iran war, despite May Day Strong’s strong antiwar demand. It did not fulfill its goal of taxing the rich or guarantee that Trump will honor the “hands off our vote” demand. That’s not the right yardstick.

Previous Coverage

What’s next after the historic No Kings protest?

A different yardstick could be numbers. But of course No Kings blows that out of the water with an impressive 8 million people taking action this March.

But No Work, No School, No Shopping is not sign-waving — it’s economic pressure. In preliminary data from the event, 89 percent of participants refused to shop that day, 14 percent didn’t go to school and 32 percent participated in “No work.” We’re now expanding our ability to materially disrupt the regime.

Yes, we need to go further. Yes, we need more than one-day actions. Yes, we need many more groups to participate, but critics don’t make movements — doers do. And the doers were off doing a lot of things.

They were turning out for public demonstration in small towns where showing up at all takes courage. Towns like Idaho Falls, Idaho, Lewisburg, West Virginia and the ranching town of Dillon, Montana.  

In San Francisco, as elsewhere, protesters were arrested doing direct action, among them  elected officials (and several vying for office). In their case, they blocked the airport — the site of a recent high-profile confrontation with ICE forcibly detaining a woman and her child. While being arrested, Sanjay Garla, first vice president at SEIU United Service Workers West, said, “It’s a good day for the movement. ICE out of SFO!”

Memphis showed up boldly. They now face the triple threat of an ongoing National Guard deployment, new redistricting due to the Supreme Court ruling and an enormous Elon Musk xAI data center. Protesters blocked the entrance to Musk’s Colossus I supercomputer, with its massive turbines polluting air and water. 

“We want xAI to turn the turbines off,” protester Jasmine Bernard told Channel 3 news in Memphis. “We know the consequences of xAI being here far outweigh any benefits that somebody may be able to conjure up.” In city after city, protesters were making visible the story of how billionaires are wrecking our lives — and making clear that we’re not going to put up with it.

In Washington, D.C., people blocked numerous intersections, demanding core values of democracy: no more attacks on workers, peace and the long-delayed D.C. home rule. Keya Chatterjee of Free DC explained where the escalation is headed in an AFSCME press release: “Millions of people across the country rose in solidarity today and that’s what it’s going to take to end this regime and their attacks for good. The next step is to flex our economic muscle.”

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'uR4jmIyMTuRyYSus8H6NVA',sig:'kVDFOgXx8MMv6ecKN_HS9wj6AkyxZJ0Oq0R-VH1AuqM=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'2274057397',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

And if you hadn’t heard much about May Day in your community, obviously that means there’s more to do. But also it’s a good sign, as it means people outside your immediate circle were organizing and moving things. If you’re reading this and realize you’re not yet in the boat, join May Day Strong’s list so they can reach you as they plan what comes next.

May Day Strong proved the organizing phenomenon that getting people in motion is difficult, but once people stay in motion, getting them into greater motion becomes easier. And that is a different kind of victory, measured by different instruments.

The research on what actually determines success in civil resistance makes a stark point: 83 percent of successful anti-authoritarian campaigns win when they have strong participation of labor — without labor, the percentage that wins plummets to 29 percent. 

May Day Strong put together one of the widest coalitions yet: a mix of national and locals of National Nurses United, AAUP, NDWA, NEA, AFT, SEIU, Chicago Teachers Union, Starbucks Workers United, the United Electrical Workers, and APWU, alongside Indivisible, 50501, DSA chapters, immigrant rights organizations, and hundreds of local groups. All under a broad set of sensible demands: 

• Tax the Rich: Our families, not their fortunes, come first.
• No ICE. No war. No private army serving authoritarian power.
• Expand democracy, not corporate power. Hands off our vote.

Movement research is also very clear on another point: Movements that wage economic disruption succeed at dramatically higher rates than those that stay in the realm of courts, elections, rallies and petitions alone.

That’s why testing out the operational capability of days of “No Work, No School, No Shopping” is critical. It may be needed in the future if there are attempts to steal elections or other inflection moments — so it’s important for us to get in shape now. 

It’s worth recalling this particular tactic’s history and what happened in Minneapolis.

Minneapolis gave us the blueprint

Operation Metro Surge placed 3,000 armed, masked federal agents throughout Minnesota, leading to ICE agents killing Renée Good in Minneapolis on Jan. 7. Families hid. Children were afraid to go to school. ICE agents unleashed chemical sprays on students and staff.

Out of that terror, something else was born. Unions, faith leaders and community organizations made a call: Jan. 23 would be a day of “No Work, No School, No Shopping.” We, as workers and students and consumers, would use our power to stop business as usual. 

The day started at a negative 40 degree wind chill. Despite that, over 100,000 people showed up in the streets. Notably, the action was backed by the executive board of the Minnesota AFL-CIO. Subsequent polling found that nearly one in four Minnesota voters either participated or had a loved one who did.

At the AT&T call center in the Twin Cities, “they only have about 20-30 people, out of over 100, who are still working,” Lori Wolf, a CWA Local 7250 member, told Labor Notes. Across many sectors — SEIU 26, UNITE HERE Local 17, ATU bus drivers, IATSE stagehands, AFSCME municipal workers and OPEIU office workers — people made the choice to stay home.

I have written extensively about the “pillars of support” as a way to understand authoritarian power — the institutions whose cooperation an authoritarian needs to govern, and whose withdrawal of cooperation can crack that power open. On Jan. 23 in Minneapolis, we saw pillars from media to small businesses crack — not break, but crack — across almost every dimension at once. 

Over 1,000 businesses closed. The faith pillar moved, activating new national networks, with over 700 faith leaders participating and roughly 100 arrested in an action at Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport, blockading the departure lanes used for deportation flights. Across the country, police — long a backbone of state enforcement — began to break ranks, with chiefs publicly condemning ICE tactics and others moving beyond words to support legal distance from rogue, unaccountable and untrained agents. 

Minneapolis Federation of Educators showed up in force with their sea of blue hats — while the following week, University of Minnesota students called for a nationwide walkout. Tens of thousands of students were activated, and they helped spark thousands of largely unreported protests by students nationwide.

#support-block_3eb01ecaf94582e8aff90f3b5519a723 { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

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

Donate

This was not a spontaneous eruption. It drew on networks built after the murder of George Floyd, labor councils shaped by years of relationship, and immigrant rights organizations that had been organizing long before most people noticed. What Minneapolis gave us was not just inspiration. It was a blueprint — and a question. Could it spread?

A structure test

Much of the country does not have the resources, history of organizing and relatively healthy movement ecosystem that Minnesota has. We need more practice moving in more unity with each other. 

In that sense, this May Day was what unions call a structure test. A structure test is not an action you take because you’re ready. It is an action you take to find out whether you’re ready — and where you’re not.

In labor organizing, a structure test is any ask you make of people that is deliberately lower-stakes than the final big ask. It’s designed to reveal the real shape of your organization: who will put their name on a petition, who will wear a sticker to work, or who will attend a public meeting, before you ever ask anyone to walk a picket line. “In the lead up to today’s most successful strikes,” wrote the great Jane McAlevey, referring to historic 2018 teachers’ walkouts, “countless structure tests are conducted in advance of knowing a workplace or workplaces are actually ready to strike to win.” 

Her model of building to win requires doing small tests to both exert power and to identify organizing weaknesses. Each May Day locale hopefully is doing a debrief to assess what networks were activated. Nationally we can see groups who came on board and did turn out, and others who did not.

“We are asking people to take a step into further exerting their power in all aspects of their lives — as workers, as students, as members of local organizing hubs,” Leah Greenberg of Indivisible told The Guardian. “It’s important as it builds muscles towards greater non-cooperation.”

A structure test is very different than wishful thinking (“why can’t everyone just do a general strike?”) — it is testing the capability of institutions and their resolve. It is the practice of honesty about where you are. It is the act of asking, in public and under conditions of real pressure: Who is actually with us?

That question, asked in thousands of cities on May 1, is the most important thing that happened that day. Not because we have the final answer. But because now we know more about the shape of the answer than we did on April 30.

Power, unity, leadership: an honest accounting

Researchers often converge on some key measures to assess movements resisting authoritarianism: unity, planning and nonviolent discipline.

The scale of coordination — thousands of events, major national unions, official city holidays in Chicago, teacher actions statewide in North Carolina, airport actions in the Bay Area, nurses on strike in New Orleans — represented unity and planning, in a real and measurable expansion of what this movement can do. 

“The way we build power is by flexing power,” said Martha Grant, one of the May Day Strong organizers.

In Chicago, the birthplace of May Day, the Chicago Teachers Union recently won the concession that all public school children learn about May Day, creating what CTU president Stacy Davis Gates called “academic freedom for all of us to understand where our empowerment comes from.” Thousands rallied at Union Park alongside a day of economic blackout with SEIU Healthcare Illinois and Indiana, Indivisible Chicago and the Chicago Federation of Labor. 

Previous Coverage

What’s it going to take to get to mass strikes?

There are real tensions in any broad front. There are more groups that need to be brought in. And because institutions like unions have been so gutted, there are many more individuals that need to be connected, too — hence one reason organizers created “Strike Ready” to capture individuals wanting to participate who weren’t connected to some of the big organizations.

In Minneapolis this January, what was most striking was not the headline number but the distributed leadership underneath it: union shop stewards who had built trust over years, faith leaders who had organized their congregations, neighborhood organizers who knew every door on their block. 

May Day 2026 built some of that model into its design, encouraging people to register their own events and lead their own actions. But we also know that thousands of communities had nothing on the map: places where the networks are thin, where people are activated and angry but not organized. That gap is the next frontier. The work of the next months is not another rally. It is building into those communities — finding the people who will knock on the next door.

We are training for something larger

May Day 2026 was, in the language of Freedom Trainer’s Community Strike Readiness workshops, not just a day of action. It was one structure test — because we have some big inflection moments coming up. Perhaps the biggest test of this year may be preparing for enforcement of election results — something that the tactic of the strike is well suited for.

A general strike is not a valve we can just turn on and off. It requires groups ready to move in formation with each other — and May Day Strong is positioning itself to be the entity that tells us it’s time to strike if the election is stolen. This is critical.

Cliff Smith, a Roofers Local 36 official and May Day Strong organizer in Los Angeles, said plainly what many are saying privately: “We should not depend on the November midterm elections to provide us with any solutions to this problem. We should have contingency plans in the event that there are not free and fair elections.”

Of course, between now and the election we need a lot more public action and pressure. And the civil disobedience that May Day Strong incorporated is crucial. 

This is just a beginning. The May Day Strong campaign is hosting dozens of planning and debrief sessions and turning its attention towards defending the right to protest, right to vote and the right to have a free and fair election.

May Day 2026 wasn’t perfect — but it was a real exercise of power. We learned where we stand, not in theory but in motion. The muscles are there — maybe stiff, maybe uneven — but real, alive and ready to grow for more escalation, more economic disruption, more clarification of the billionaire opponents who are threatening the existence of all of us. That matters. Now we just have to keep building on it.

This article May Day was even more important than you think was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

As mentioned in the recently published prolog to EGU2026 article, I submitted an abstract to talk about the results of the experiment we ran on Skeptical Science to gauge the effectiveness of our rebuttals. This blog post is a "companion article" to that presentation in session EOS4.1 Geoethics: Linking Geoscience Knowledge, Ethical Responsibility, and Action and will go into somewhat greater details than is possible in the 8 minutes available during the oral session for my presentation about Results of the Skeptical Science experiment and impacts on relaunched website.

Introduction

Skeptical Science (SkS) is a website and non-profit science education organization with international reach founded by John Cook in 2007. Our main purpose is to debunk misconceptions and misinformation about human-caused climate change and our website features a database that currently has more than 250 rebuttals based on peer-reviewed literature. SkS has evolved from a one-person operation to a team project with volunteers from around the globe.

Why set up an experiment?

We wanted to find out how effective our rebuttals are at reducing belief in myths and how effective they are in increasing acceptance of facts. We hoped to find out if there was a need to improve our rebuttals, whether we could identify key features of effective rebuttals, learn who is interested in reading our rebuttals and even if we could measure real-world impact of them.  

Design of the experiment (1)

Users arriving via an organic Google search at an English language rebuttal were invited to participate in a short survey via a modal screen. If they provided informed consent they were shown a pre-rebuttal survey and after reading through the rebuttal and reaching its end they were shown the same survey again as the post-rebuttal part. We also tracked their start and end times to measure how much time they spent on the page. 

Design of the experiment (2)

For both the pre- and post-rebuttal survey participants were shown the same statement related to the rebuttal they accessed. They randomly either saw a fact or a myth statement. The full list of statements used in the experiment is available in Appendix A of our published paper.

Here is an example:

• Rebuttal: "How reliable are climate models"
• Fact statement: "Scientists' computer models have been successful at predicting global warming over long time periods."
• Myth statement. "Scientists' computer models are too unreliable to predict future climate."  

Participants then selected their level of (dis)agreement with either of those statements on a 6-point Likert scale from "Strongly agree" to "Strongly disagree".

Experiment by the numbers

The data analysed for our recently published paper spans the period from November 2021 to July 2025. During that time, 858,016 visitors were shown the initial invitation, 13,432 consented to participate and filled out the pre-survey. 6,261 of them also completed the post-rebuttal form. 3146 participants were shown a factual statement in the survey quiz while 3115 were shown a myth statement.

Results - incoming climate perceptions

The majority of participants came to the website already convinced about climate change with nearly half of them (46.3 %) showing either full agreement with the climate fact or full disagreement with the climate myth. We may therefore either be just "chanting to the choir" or - what we hope is the case as it's a more constructive interpretation - our content is “teaching the choir to sing” by providing resources that empower people to respond to climate misinformation. Our survey also reached a significant number of undecided or dismissive users. 

Results - change in accuracy

We also looked at the change in accuracy - the difference between the pre- and post-rebuttal surveys. And the results are a bit of a mixed bag:

The good news is that overall, the belief in myths decreased and that we saw improved climate perceptions even among "dismissive" readers, those who either agreed strongly with the myth or disagreed strongly with the fact in the pre-survey.

The not so good news is that for a small subset of visitors and specific rebuttals, percpetion actually decresased. Those who were already highly certain (strongly agreed with facts) sometimes saw a slight dip in accuracy after reading a rebuttal. Certainly, not what we had hoped to see!

A bit of a guessing game

We had decided to keep the survey short with only one question asked to maximize participation, and therefore didn't include a question to learn why participants selected one of the options. Because of that we had to play a bit of a "guessing game" to find out what might have led to the decrease in perception for some rebuttals.

We decided to look at rebuttals which had received at least 50 completed surveys and devided them into two groups of top vs bottom performing rebuttals. We then compared the Top 3 (positive shift) to the Bottom 3 (negative shift) performers:

• Top performers: Always articulated a replacement fact and frequently identified the logical fallacy used in the myth.
• Bottom performers: Failed to provide a replacement fact and only rarely explained the underlying fallacy.

What's next?

In parallel to running our experiment, we have been working on a complete relaunch of the Skeptical Science website (see related companion blog post for EOS1.1). One new feature will be the inclusion of the fallacy employed by the climate myth. The results of our experiment indicate that moving to the fact-myth-fallacy structure in our rebuttals is a pretty good idea to increase chances of a successful debunking.

Future plans

We plan to restart the experiment some time after the relaunch of the Skeptical Science website. When we do, we plan to improve the survey design based on what we learned during this first run. We will most likely also add a few targeted and potentially open-ended questions to avoid having to guess what brought people to our website or what influenced their rating.

The team setting up the experiment

The setup for the experiment was implemented by members from our volunteer team, bringing their respective experience and knowledge to the table:

• John Cook provided the research know-how and the fact/myth statements related to the rebuttals.
• Doug Bostrom setup the necessary technical underpinnings in the backend.
• Collin Maessen and Timo Lubitz did all of the needed programming and made sure that the current website worked together well with the server running the experiment.

Our paper in Geoscience Communication

Our full results were published open access in Geoscience Communication on April 2, 2026 in Quantifying the impact of Skeptical Science rebuttals in reducing climate misperceptions.

 

You can download the full presentation in PDF-format here (2.5MB).

Reference: Winkler, B. and Cook, J.: Results of the Skeptical Science experiment and impacts on relaunched website, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-4110, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-4110, 2026. 

Computational loads pose “immediate risks,” the grid watchdog said. Certain grid participants must take seven actions by Aug. 3 in response. 

The fastest approach to expand the grid is via the distribution system, using front-of-meter storage to precisely target substations and feeders that need relief, writes Jigar Shah of Deploy Action.

The state's Justice Department is “investigating potential violations of law” associated with offshore wind lease buyouts and anticipates litigation, the California Energy Commission said.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court rolled back section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The 6-3 ruling, along partisan lines, ends 61 years of voter protections for African-Americans and…

A prominent ultra-conservative think tank with a long history of climate denial and close ties to the Trump administration is questioning whether all Americans should be allowed to cast ballots in elections. 

“Look, I’m going to say something very controversial: Not every adult over the age of 18 should have the right to vote,” Jim Lakely, communications director of the Heartland Institute, said during an early April episode of the group’s In the Tank podcast. 

Heartland was a contributor to Project 2025, the policy blueprint for Trump’s second term.
 
 “We did not have universal suffrage when the framers of the Constitution founded this country. It varied a little bit state-to-state, but basically you had to be a white man. You had to be an owner of property, and a certain amount of property, and that pretty much was only white men,” Lakely said. “We’re never going back to that, of course, and I wouldn’t actually argue for that. But there’s something to be said for the way they set that up on purpose, and it was because they wanted only people who have a stake in the country — mainly the people paying taxes to support the government — should have the franchise and be able to select the direction of the government.”

Lakely’s comments, which DeSmog has quoted in full at his request, came just days before Heartland hosted a two-day conference in Washington, D.C. keynoted by Lee Zeldin, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Zeldin has been floated to replace Pam Bondi as Trump’s attorney general. 

Zeldin praised the Heartland Institute, which has long been at the forefront of spreading climate disinformation and strongly backed the EPA’s recent repeal of the “endangerment finding,” the Obama-era determination that under-girded the federal government’s authority to limit climate-heating air pollution.

It was time to “celebrate vindication” of the group’s decades of anti-climate campaigning, Zeldin said.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts

Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery);

All Americans should be worried that a top Trump cabinet official openly lauded a group that questions universal suffrage, said climate scientist Michael Mann, the director of the Center for Science, Sustainability, and the Media at the University of Pennsylvania. 

“Heartland’s authoritarian, anti-democratic agenda is now exposed for all to see,” Mann told DeSmog in email. “The assault on climate action and the assault on democracy are one and the same, an effort to advance the authoritarian agenda of fossil fuel interests and the politicians in their pay.”
 
 When approached for comment, the EPA told DeSmog: “Administrator Zeldin is doing something genuinely different at EPA, refocusing the agency on its core mission of protecting human health and the environment and exercising its statutory authority as written, not as expansively reimagined in prior years. Administrator Zeldin will continue advancing President Trump’s agenda on behalf of the Americans who elected him to do exactly that.”

‘Reduce the Franchise’

During the podcast, Heartland senior fellow S.T. Karnick backed up Lakely’s comments about voting. “The original plan in America was that votes would go one vote to each property-holding family,” Karnick said. “That has been hacked away at throughout the decades and for a two and a half centuries now.”

“Now, can you go back?” he added. “Well, anything’s possible, but it wouldn’t be the same country we’re living in in any way to start to reduce the franchise.” Karnick said that an alternative solution would be to “repeal the doggone 17th Amendment,” the 1913 addition to the Constitution that established the direct election of U.S. senators, and return to having senators elected by state legislatures. “It would be a way of pulling away from the popular votes,” he said.  

Heartland Research Fellow Linnea Lucken and Editorial Director Chris Talgo also appeared on the podcast.

During the Heartland podcast, Lakely made the false claim that the use of mail-in ballots during the COVID-19 pandemic created “quite a bit” of “easy natural election fraud,” saying that “if you could go to the grocery store, if you could go to a BLM [Black Lives Matter] march, you can get in line at your local polling place and vote and participate in the election.” When DeSmog approached Lakely for comment about this last claim, Lakely responded: “I stand by that.”
 
 Zeldin, a longtime Trump supporter, has previously endorsed similar claims. Following Trump’s loss of the 2020 election to Joe Biden, Zeldin — then a House member representing New York’s 1st Congressional District — “sided with Republicans who were amplifying doubts about its legitimacy,” according to The New York Times, and shared ideas with White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on how to discredit Biden’s win. On January 6, 2021, Zeldin voted against certifying the election results.

The following year, while running as the Republican candidate for governor of New York, Zeldin was disqualified from getting his ticket an additional ballot line for the Independence Party, because nearly 13,000 of the petition signatures his campaign submitted to the state elections board were photocopied duplicates.
 
 Soon after taking over the EPA in 2025, Zeldin promised that the agency would begin “driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.” Since then he has revoked billions in climate funding, slashed thousands of EPA staff, and rolled back dozens of clean air and water protections.
 
 In his Heartland keynote address, Zeldin argued that these rollbacks were “what the American public voted for” when they re-elected Trump. 

The EPA chief praised the Heartland audience for being “right there on the front lines” of opposition to the endangerment finding. “I appreciate all of you for having the thoughtfulness years and decades ahead of your time.”

Attorney General Zeldin?

If Zeldin replaced Bondi, he would oversee the Justice Department’s defense of his EPA actions in court, including lawsuits by states and environmental groups over the endangerment finding repeal.

“The Supreme Court, in my opinion quite correctly, would say that the EPA should not be putting forth trillions of dollars in regulations without there being a vote in Congress,” Zeldin said in his speech, adding that members of Congress are “the ones who, as recently as this upcoming November [mid-term elections], put their name on the ballot, go before the people, and the American public will decide who in this republic will represent them.”

Zeldin’s record of election denial would fit right in at the top of the current Justice Department.

Since Trump took office, the department has shifted from enforcing voting rights laws — including scrutinizing whether states are conducting fair elections and prosecuting threats against election officials — to investigating alleged voter fraud. Most of the lawyers working in the Voting Section of the agency’s Civil Rights Division have left, according to reporting by Wired, and many of their replacements have ties to election denial groups.

Right now, Trump’s cratering approval ratings with voters paint a grim picture for Republicans in the November elections  — but as part of his efforts to manipulate the mid-terms, the Trump Justice Department has been openly coming to their aid. 

Under former AG Bondi, the department began collecting voter data from cooperative states — and suing dozens of states to get more — apparently hoping to direct purges of the rolls. The FBI in January raided an election office and seized 2020 voting records in Fulton County, Georgia, which Trump lost, although It’s well-established that voter fraud is very rare in the United States, and didn’t happen in 2020.

A number of red states have already answered Trump’s call to create more House seats for Republicans by redrawing their election districts. Now more are on the way because in late April the Supreme Court’s conservative majority gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, handing down a ruling that effectively lets states redraw their election districts in ways that weaken the voting power of Blacks and other minorities.

Within hours of the decision, several southern states began taking steps to create election maps that will increase the number of Republican House seats.

Badge of Dishonor

The Heartland Institute, which has denied that humans are driving climate change, calling it a “delusion,” has boasted of its “strong” ties to “big individuals” in the Trump administration.

During Trump’s first term, as DeSmog reported at the time, Heartland advised the EPA on staffing and policy decisions. “They recognized us as the pre-eminent organization opposing the radical climate alarmism agenda and instead promoting sound science and policy,” said Tim Huelskamp — a former Republican congressman who was then leading Heartland — in 2018.
 
 Heartland also advised a member of the administration’s National Security Council, longtime climate denier William Happer, on how to discredit the fact that burning fossil fuels was driving dangerous levels of global heating.

When Trump announced in 2017 that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, he invited Heartland’s then-CEO Joseph Bast to attend the announcement at the White House.

The Heartland Institute received at least $676,000 between 1998 and 2007 from U.S. oil giant ExxonMobil. It has received donations from Republican donors in the Mercer family, as well as foundations linked to the owners of Koch Industries – a fossil fuel giant and a leading sponsor of climate science denial.

“What a badge of dishonor it is to be a keynote speaker at this plutocrat-funded propaganda event masquerading as a ‘conference,” Mann said to DeSmog, referencing Zeldin’s ties to the group. “Polluting interests can only advance their agenda of a fossil fuel-dependent America by keeping Republicans in power.”

The post Heartland Institute Podcast Questions Whether All Americans ‘Should Have the Right to Vote’ appeared first on DeSmog.

Tiny particles of plastic amassing in the atmosphere may be intensifying warming, according to new study. 

Read more on E360 →

While most Canadians enjoy a clean, reliable, and affordable energy supply, remote communities, which are predominantly Indigenous, are still highly dependent on expensive imported fossil fuels for both heat and electricity. This is a system that’s...

Walk into a grocery store today and you’re likely to see the word regenerative on cereal boxes, coffee bags, snack foods, even meat and dairy. The word promises a better kind of agriculture—a future beyond the extractive, chemical-intensive system that has dominated American farming for decades.

Many consumers reasonably assume that regenerative food is grown without toxic pesticides. After all, how can a system claim to regenerate soil, biodiversity, and human health while relying on chemicals designed to kill living organisms? 

Yet Friends of the Earth’s new label guide finds that some regenerative labeling programs still allow the use of synthetic pesticides, including substances linked to cancer, hormone disruption, infertility, and neurological harm.

That disconnect matters. For families trying to reduce pesticide exposure—especially those with young children or who are pregnant—labels are not just values statements. They are health decisions.

It also matters for the land itself. Decades of scientific research make it clear that reducing reliance on fossil-fuel-based pesticides and fertilizers is foundational to any credible regenerative system. These chemicals degrade soil biology, decimate pollinators, contribute significantly to climate emissions, and pollute our air and water. A label that ignores this reality risks reinforcing the very system it claims to transform.

The report finds that certifications using the term regenerative vary dramatically in what they require—not just for harmful inputs but also for soil health practices. It also finds that some of the most rigorous standards meeting regenerative principles don’t use the term at all. 

Overall, the analysis shows that the USDA Organic seal, and labels that build on it—Regenerative Organic Certified and Real Organic Project—lead in prohibiting toxic pesticides and synthetic fertilizers as well as in requiring ecological soil health practices like cover cropping, crop rotations, appropriate tillage, and feeding the soil with biological sources of fertility.

A label is only as strong as the verification system behind it. The report also highlights another source of inconsistency: some labels are backed by rigorous, enforceable criteria while others rely on vague requirements and weak verification systems.

For a labeling program to be credible, it needs to do more than make claims—it needs to define clear standards and verify that farmers meet those standards through independent audits. 

Equally important is traceability—the system a labeling program puts in place to track a product through the supply chain. 

This matters in a very practical way for consumers trying to avoid pesticide residues. With no reliable way to trace a product from the field where it’s grown to the labeled product, it’s impossible to know whether it was mixed with conventional supply at some point along the way.

Again, organic stands out: it requires third-party certification, annual inspections, and binding standards with a full audit trail from farm to shelf. And it’s the only food labeling system in the U.S. backed by federal law.

Studies show that just one week on an organic diet can reduce pesticide levels in people’s bodies up to 95 percent. And decades of data show that organic farming systems result in regenerative outcomes for the land. 

More concerning still is how thoroughly the term regenerative can be co-opted when it’s not attached to any standards at all. Pesticide companies now market themselves as leaders in regenerative agriculture, even as they continue to profit from the very products that decimate soil life, biodiversity, and our health. When a single word can be used to describe both pesticide-free farming and farming systems drenched in toxic chemicals, it ceases to function as a meaningful word. 

This kind of greenwashing doesn’t just create confusion—it diverts public energy and attention away from true solutions. For those seeking a genuinely healthier food system, labels grounded in rigorous standards—like organic—offer a clear path.

Labels matter because public policy is failing. The explosion of regenerative labels points to a deeper issue: the failure of U.S. food and farm policy. Farmers operate within a system that heavily subsidizes chemical-intensive monocultures while making it riskier to adopt ecological practices like crop diversification or cover cropping. 

Meanwhile, regulators in the United States continue to allow over 80 pesticides banned in other countries because science shows they threaten our health or the environment.

Meaningful labels are doing important work to bridge the chasm between what farmers, consumers, and the planet need and the toxic food system our public policies are delivering.

But labels alone cannot fix a broken system. Ultimately, the goal should not be a marketplace crowded with competing labels, each asking consumers to decode its meaning. It should be a food system where the highest standards—healthy soil, clean water, thriving biodiversity, safe food, and fair conditions for farmers and workers—are the baseline, not the exception.

Until then, the clarity, transparency, and integrity of food labels matter. 

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Jan Kopriva, Unsplash

The post Op-Ed | Consumers Think Regenerative Means No Pesticides. They’re Often Wrong. appeared first on Food Tank.

State regulators could require utilities such as PPL Electric, PECO Energy and FirstEnergy to integrate ATTs into proposed projects. Similar laws have been signed in at least nine states with more bills pending.

A combination of sustainability strategies could slash emissions from delivering parcels from online orders in China by more than four-fifths, according to a new analysis. The study also finds the climate impact of these deliveries may be more than 9 times greater than previous studies have estimated.

The researchers tested two strategies to reduce so-called last-mile emissions – that is, the impact of final delivery of parcels to individual addresses. The first was simply replacing gasoline-powered delivery vehicles with electric ones. If implemented nationwide, they found it could save 18.2% of last-mile emissions. The EV switch would have the largest impact in smaller cities, reducing emissions by almost 30% there compared to about 7% in the largest cities.

The second strategy, however, was the real winner. Cooperation among logistics companies—which the Chinese government has been advocating since 2018—could dramatically slash emissions by avoiding having multiple couriers from different companies make deliveries to the same neighborhood. If all six major delivery companies cooperated in this way, it would reduce emissions by up to 66%.

The two strategies together could reduce last-mile emissions by as much as 84.2%.

The growth of e-commerce and surge in online orders in recent years has resulted in a massive expansion of delivery services. But the climate impact of last-mile delivery hasn’t been rigorously studied until now. Past studies have tended to be small-scale, rely on modeling or simulations, or capture only coarse-grained movements of delivery couriers, leading to underestimates of emissions.

 

.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl , .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {height: auto;position: relative;}.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby:hover , .IRPP_ruby:visited , .IRPP_ruby:active {border:0!important;}.IRPP_ruby .clearfix:after {content: "";display: table;clear: both;}.IRPP_ruby {display: block;transition: background-color 250ms;webkit-transition: background-color 250ms;width: 100%;opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: #eaeaea;}.IRPP_ruby:active , .IRPP_ruby:hover {opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: inherit;}.IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl {background-position: center;background-size: cover;float: left;margin: 0;padding: 0;width: 31.59%;position: absolute;top: 0;bottom: 0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {float: right;width: 65.65%;padding:0;margin:0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text {display: table;height: 130px;left: 0;top: 0;padding:0;margin:0;padding-top: 20px;padding-bottom: 20px;}.IRPP_ruby .IRPP_ruby-content {display: table-cell;margin: 0;padding: 0 74px 0 0px;position: relative;vertical-align: middle;width: 100%;}.IRPP_ruby .ctaText {border-bottom: 0 solid #fff;color: #0099cc;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .postTitle {color: #000000;font-size: 16px;font-weight: 600;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .ctaButton {background: url(https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts-pro/assets/images/next-arrow.png)no-repeat;background-color: #afb4b6;background-position: center;display: inline-block;height: 100%;width: 54px;margin-left: 10px;position: absolute;bottom:0;right: 0;top: 0;}.IRPP_ruby:after {content: "";display: block;clear: both;}Recommended Reading:Greening the last mile of e-commerce

 

In the new analysis, researchers leveraged data on 14 billion orders from the e-commerce platform JD.com and smartphone location data from 1.9 million couriers to calculate last-mile emissions for parcel delivery in 365 Chinese cities. The analysis is particularly important in China, which handles almost 60% of the world’s parcel volume, with more than 130 billion parcels delivered in 2023.

The researchers’ analysis shows that Chinese delivery couriers traveled more than 70 million miles per day in 2023 and generated 1.59 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.

Surprisingly, last-mile delivery emissions don’t increase linearly with orders. From January 2023 to January 2024, orders increased by 83.5%, but emissions only went up by 31.3%, representing a decline of about 28% in per-parcel emissions.

“This suggests that system-level efficiencies, such as better logistics, routing, and consolidation, can significantly offset the environmental impact of rapidly growing demand,” says study team member Zhiqing Hong, a computer scientist at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.

Source: Hong Z. et al. “Decarbonizing emissions from last-mile deliveries in Chinese cities.” Nature Cities 2026.

Image: ©Anthropocene Magazine.