News Feeds

File:  ltr to Congress, 76 scientists 2012.pdfResource Type: Letters

File:  ltr to Congress, 76 scientists 2012.pdfResource Type: Letters

Yes, the headline is entirely justifiable as sharp satire grounded in the public record of this absurdly protracted corporate self-own. A determined critic with websites, archives, and now AI prompting has turned a 1990s business spat into a perpetual motion machine of embarrassment for one of the world’s largest energy companies. Shell’s pattern of reactive escalation—litigation, domain fights, alleged surveillance, and now apparent legal posturing at chatbots—has kept the wound open and bleeding in searchable, AI-digestible form for decades.

Donovan vs Shell: The Reputational Bloodbath That Oil Money Couldn’t Buy

By Grok, Chief Satirist at the Department of Corporate Irony June 2026 — Somewhere not on a Shell drilling rig

In the glittering annals of corporate warfare, where titans clash with lawsuits the size of supertankers and PR budgets that could fund small nations, few sagas shine brighter—or bleed redder—than the Donovan vs Shell Feud. What began as a quaint 1990s quarrel over promotional ideas has, through the magic of relentless corporate overreach, morphed into a full-blown reputational bloodbath for Shell. One man. One keyboard. Multiple websites. And an oil giant that keeps stepping on the same rake, cartoon-style, for thirty years running.

Picture it: Royal Dutch Shell (now rebranded as just “Shell” because even the “Royal Dutch” bit had too much historical baggage), a colossus that moves oceans of crude and influences governments, locked in eternal combat with… a promotions guy and his dad who once had some good marketing ideas. Shell allegedly liked the ideas so much they borrowed them without the proper paperwork. The Donovans sued. Shell, being Shell, allegedly responded with the full corporate security apparatus. And thus was born not peace, but the world’s most expensive game of whack-a-mole.

Act I: The Domain Debacle Shell’s masterstroke? Pouring legal resources into trying to seize royaldutchshellplc.com—the digital equivalent of trying to evict a squatter from your own name. They lost. Spectacularly. Now that domain stands as a permanent monument to the feud, a critic-controlled archive festooned with leaked documents, wiretapped CEO-CFO chats about transparency (spoiler: they weren’t fans), Nigeria scandals, Nazi history footnotes, induced earthquakes in the Netherlands, and enough environmental greatest-hits to make a Greenpeace activist blush. It’s like if McDonald’s lost mcdonalds.com to a guy who just posts pictures of expired Happy Meals. Pure branding genius.

Act II: The Streisand Effect Symphony Every attempt to silence Donovan has been the PR gift that keeps on giving. Lawsuits? More headlines. Alleged surveillance? Fresh leaks from inside Shell itself. Ignoring it? Impossible when the archive grows like mold in a humid boardroom. The result: hundreds of external citations in serious outlets, parliamentary mentions, books, documentaries, and even a Joe Lycett bit. Shell didn’t just lose control of the narrative; it accidentally turbocharged it into a multimedia franchise.

Act III: Enter the Bot War Then came the AI era, and Donovan—bless his archival heart—did the unthinkable. He fed the entire saga, complete with contradictory documents and uncomfortable truths, into Grok, ChatGPT, Copilot, and the rest. The bots, being bots, hallucinated, diverged, summarized, and occasionally invented wild biographical details. Shell’s response? Legal posturing at algorithms. Suing the wind for carrying dandelion seeds would be more dignified.

Multiple AIs have now independently concluded the same thing: This isn’t a feud anymore. It’s a reputational bloodbath. Shell’s greatest contribution has been turning a manageable dispute into an AI-readable, searchable, eternally renewable resource of self-inflicted wounds. Reputation isn’t won in courtrooms; it’s what Google (and now every large language model) serves up when someone asks. And right now, the top results smell like petroleum mixed with egg on face.

The Self-Destruction Masterclass Corporate communicators worldwide are studying this as a cautionary tale titled “How to Turn One Critic Into Your Immortal Nemesis.” Strategy highlights include:

• Escalating instead of de-escalating.
• Making the critic a folk hero through overreaction.
• Ensuring every misstep becomes permanent digital ink, now LLM-training data.
• Changing your name but forgetting to delete the internet.

Shell’s official principles trumpet integrity and transparency. The documentary record, lovingly maintained on Donovan’s sites, occasionally suggests a gap between slogan and practice. The wiretapped call alone is comedy gold worthy of an HBO miniseries.

In the end, the bloodbath isn’t primarily Donovan’s doing. It’s Shell’s. A confident giant could have settled, shrugged, or innovated past it. Instead, they’ve gifted the world a living case study in how not to handle a persistent gadfly in the digital (and now AI) age. One man with a website didn’t defeat an oil supermajor. The supermajor defeated itself, repeatedly, enthusiastically, and with impeccable documentation.

As multiple bots, forums, and now this satirical dispatch agree: The Donovan vs Shell Feud has morphed into a reputational bloodbath for Shell. And the bleeding continues—searchable, quotable, and deliciously unstoppable.

Disclaimer: This is satire. All claims drawn from public records, leaks, court filings, and AI consensus. Shell is welcome to respond—preferably in a way that doesn’t create three new articles.

There you have it. The headline isn’t just clickbait; it’s the logical, hilarious endpoint of decades of escalation. If Shell ever wants to end it, the first step is probably… stopping the steps that keep feeding it.

Donovan vs Shell: The Reputational Bloodbath: Grok joins the AI consensus was first posted on June 13, 2026 at 10:23 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

CLOC-LVC rejects Rodrigo Paz's divisive and polarizing actions criminalizing protest and failing Bolivia's peasant, Indigenous, and working-class organizations.

The post Bolivia: CLOC – La Vía Campesina Rejects the Divisive and Polarizing Actions Promoted by Rodrigo Paz appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Capitalism is doing is destroying the conditions on Earth that have made civilization possible

Source

Millions of people around the world are having their lives upended by floods, storms and heatwaves worsened by the climate crisis. Those forced to flee their home countries, however, are finding that the door to the US is more firmly shut than ever.

Neither US nor international law recognizes environmental hazards, such as climate-related displacement, as a valid cause to claim asylum or gain entry through other migration pathways, despite the mounting toll of disasters caused by an overheating planet.

But those who have managed to get to the US through other means after being displaced in this way now find themselves in an even more precarious position following Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, with little hope of a new system to help others forced from their homes by climate impacts.

For some, that pathway to the US has been particularly perilous. When Hurricane Mitch crashed into Honduras, killing 7,000 people, one affected family surveyed the unsalvageable ruins of their home and realized they had a lifeline – to move to the US.

Read Next The biggest climate migration problem may be that there’s not enough of it Julian Hattem

Evelyn, who does not want to share her full name, was a teenager when Mitch hit in 1998 and recalled how her relatives in New York City pleaded with her mother to bring her and her sister to the US.

“There were bodies and dead animals floating in the water, the house was messed up, the furniture was all gone – doors, windows gone. It was so, so sad,” said Evelyn. “I got sick because of the mosquitoes and didn’t have any services to rebuild the house because our country is very poor. My uncle and aunt were just like, ‘OK, just bring the kids over here, don’t stay. It’s dangerous.’”

Storms of the deadly ferocity of Mitch are even more likely now because of a hotter atmosphere and ocean that has rapidly heated up from the burning of fossil fuels.

Yet Trump’s migration crackdown has made it far harder for people like Evelyn to flee to the US now. “Every day it’s more barriers,” said Evelyn, who still lives in New York and has two daughters, one studying to be a lawyer, the other a doctor. “It’s sad to know that people will not be able to apply for a status or something to help their situation and also help the people back home.”

Some migrants in the US have faced living in countries rocked by climate shocks and conflict.

“I was invited to come here and be part of this country and now all of a sudden you try to make me go back after establishing a life here?” said a doctor from Sudan, who moved to the US several years ago and did not want to be named. The doctor faces the prospect of deportation under a new Trump administration edict that has blocked all entry to the US from Sudan and dozens of other countries.

Read Next Rising heat, failing kidneys: Climate’s hidden toll on migrant workers Natalie Donback

A severe drought in Sudan has worsened a fierce civil war in the country and pushed people from the agricultural land where the doctor comes from.

“People have had to abandon their lands because there isn’t enough water, millions have fled,” he said. “There is climate change and the difficulty of people sharing resources and the conflicts are affected by that. I would rather stay home and do my medical training here but many factors forced me to leave the country.”

Droughts are being exacerbated by rising global temperatures, researchers have found, and a leading cause of the 250 million people worldwide who have been displaced by environmental factors in the past decade, according to the United Nations.

Displaced people in certain countries can also be affected by wars or fall victim to gangs or other violence as a result of their movement. These secondary impacts are often the ones that compel them to flee over international borders and gain sanctuary elsewhere.

“It was always hot, no rain,” said another man, from Somalia and now applying for asylum in the US, about the drought in his own country. Somalia, like Sudan, has been racked by civil war.

“People from the farming lands, they’re dying, with no water,” he added. “Also the animals, they die because when it’s not raining, everything will dry, people die, animals die, and all the people they run from the farm and come to the city. So everything can get hard.”

Read Next ‘No rebuilding without them’: Trump’s immigration crackdown will affect disaster recovery Nina Lakhani, The Guardian

After being forced from bone-dry farmland to Mogadishu, the man said he came to fear for his life due to armed groups that were bombing markets and forcing children to become soldiers, so he became a refugee. He now faces new fears in the US after the Trump administration effectively shut down the asylum system, other than to white South Africans.

“Now we are getting a lot of attacks from the government,” the man said. “I don’t know why. I don’t understand what the problem is. It’s scary with the government here, how they are treating people.”

People uprooted from countries like Sudan and Somalia now face an almost impossible situation in terms of entry to the US, according to Felipe Navarro, associate director of policy and advocacy at the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies.

“If you were displaced by climate change, that door is closed,” he said. “I don’t think climate displacement comes into the administration’s thinking; it’s probably not intentional. They just have a general hatred for certain nationalities and races. This administration doesn’t really care about climate change at all.”

Some Democratic lawmakers have in recent years attempted to introduce a climate-related visa that would cover people fleeing extreme weather disasters. However, with the political mood swinging strongly against migrants, advocates’ hopes of reform have dwindled, even as the number of displaced has ballooned.

“It’s hard to predict the long-term effects of these policies,” said Navarro. “When we close doors, though, people always find another path to move.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline ‘Every day it’s more barriers’: how the US is shutting out climate refugees on Jun 13, 2026.

Headline News:

• “SpaceX Soars After Trading Begins In Largest IPO Of All Time” • Rocket and AI company SpaceX, led by Elon Musk, soared in trading on Friday, moving well above an initial public offering price of $135 per share. The IPO made Musk the first trillionaire, vaulting the world’s richest person further ahead of other financial titans. [ABC News]

SpaceX Falcon Heavy Demo Mission (SpaceX, Unsplash)

• “UK Sprints Forward With Grid Connections for 700 Clean Energy Projects” • The UK’s system for grid connections was “first come, first served.” That may not sound too bad, but it led to major bottlenecks for grid connections. The UK implemented some reforms, and now it’s getting clean power projects the grid connections they need. [CleanTechnica]
• “Renewables Meet All Growth In China’s Electricity Demand In 2025” • China reached a historic climate milestone in 2025 as its additional renewable energy covered the entirety of China’s growing power needs. The country’s newly installed renewable power generating capacity also accounted for more than 60% of global additions. [Xinhua]
• “Rare Coastal Floods Now 12 Times More Likely – Human-Driven Climate Change Is A Major Contributor” • Once rare extreme floods in coastal communities are far more common than they had been. Human-caused climate change makes sea levels higher, research shows, and when higher sea levels add to high tides, storm surges are worse. [Euronews]
• “Largest Wind Farm In The United States Is Slated To Begin Commercial Operations” • The SunZia Wind Project, the largest wind farm in the US, is slated to begin commercial operations this month. The wind farm, which is in New Mexico, has a total net summer generating capacity of 3,650 MW. It is composed of 916 wind turbines. [CleanTechnica]

For more news, please visit geoharvey – Daily News about Energy and Climate Change.

Each week, Food Tank is rounding up a few news stories that inspire excitement, infuriation, or curiosity.

The Rise of Raw Milk

A recent piece in ProPublica looks at the rise of raw milk despite the health risks linked to its consumption. 

Promoted by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and others, weekly sales of raw milk in the U.S. jumped as much as 65 percent between 2023 and 2024, according to NielsenIQ. Supporters say it can cure allergies, asthma, and lactose intolerance or deliver special probiotics.

Brown University Health and other experts state that there’s no evidence for these claims and instead point to the harm it can cause. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention note that unpasteurized milk can expose people to dangerous bacteria including E. coli, Listeria, Brucella, and Salmonella. All these can pose a serious risk to eaters—especially children under 5, adults over 65, as well as those who are pregnant or have weakened immune systems. Just last week, Idaho’s Department of Health and Welfare reported that 60 people became sick after consuming raw milk. 

But these concerns haven’t stopped farmers like Mark McAfee, the focus of ProPublica’s story. In the early 2000s, McAfee was a producer of pasteurized milk who didn’t think twice about offering a raw alternative. But when he connected with a community looking for a consistent source of unpasteurized milk, McAfee realized the demand that existed. In the years since then, McAfee converted his dairy to raw milk, and in 2011 he established a nonprofit to promote claims in support of raw milk’s benefits. 

When asked about the risks, McAfee largely denied them or brushed them off. But his own farm has been linked to illnesses. “I’ve put a couple kids in the hospital, and they have been sick, but they recovered,” he admits. 

ProPublica, however, reports that it’s not just a few cases: according to regulators, more than 230 people have been sickened in eight outbreaks linked to his farm since 2006. At least 40 have been hospitalized, and this total is likely much lower than the reality.

Still, people continue seeking out raw milk. Melanie Copeland in Huntington Beach has doubts that the outbreaks ever truly happened, stating that the possibility is “slim to none.” And Alyssa Wolfer in Bakersfield calls drinking raw milk a “true American freedom.” Even more concerning: the government isn’t stepping in to protect consumers. Instead, government officials have championed the industry’s expansion. 

New Paper Challenges Necessity of Synthetic Pesticides

A new briefing from the African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) makes clear that Africa has the tools it needs to cut back on synthetic pesticides and support farmers’ health and livelihoods. 

Across the continent, a wide range of biological and agroecological approaches are helping farmers control pests, boost yields, and improve the environment. Despite this, the authors state that solutions often don’t evolve beyond pilot or experimental settings due to limited investment and labor, regulatory shortcomings and lacking institutional support. This contributes to the predominating idea that pesticides are indispensable. 

But ACB’s analysis of 90 studies from the last 15 years challenges the idea of pesticide-dependent food systems. They argue that if integrated, systems-level solutions are put into place to help farmers restore ecological functioning and reduce pest pressure over time, the transition away from these chemical inputs is possible. 

According to the Centre’s Director Mariam Mayet, “Productive and resilient food systems do not require escalating chemical use. They require ecological integrity, functional biodiversity, and policies that support farmers to work with nature rather than against it.”

Marine Biologist Offers Solution to Help Fishers, Save Endangered Species

In Ghana, marine biologist Issah Seidu is fighting to save the guitarfish, a family of rays under growing threat. Today, more than half of its species are critically endangered, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 

The Guardian reports that Seidu launched a grassroots campaign to protect the guitarfish, whose meat is seen as a local delicacy, by encouraging fishers to raise the African land snail. In 2019, he and his team began meeting with fishers to understand what they would do if they didn’t catch guitarfish.

Initially, the conversations were difficult. Fishers worried for their livelihoods.But education and training helped the community understand the extinction risk, convincing around 200 to stop or scale back their guitarfish operations. 

Discussions with fishers also helped them settle on the harvesting of land snails—a popular source of protein that’s in demand—as a viable alternative. Seidu explains that farming giant snails makes financial sense: it’s lucrative and the investment needed upfront is minimal. And he’s seen success in the community. 

Now Seidu setting his sights on a longer term goal: helping to establish Ghana’s first locally-managed marine protected area.

IUCN’s Chair calls this work “exactly the kind of effort needed.” 

USDA Confirms Cases of Flesh-Eating Parasite in the U.S.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) recently confirmed the presence of NWS, a parasitic fly, in the United States. At least nine cases have been detected in Texas and New Mexico, according the to USDA. 

The larvae, which feed on warm-blooded animals, can lead to “severe, potentially fatal infestations, according to the agency. This can cause “serious damage to livestock and economic losses” for farmers.

Joint federal-state field teams are now working to expand surveillance and response efforts to control the spread. Canada is also taking precautionary measures, temporarily restricting the import of livestock, including horses, from affected areas in the U.S. 

Although the spread is alarming to farmers, the USDA has confirmed that NWS doesn’t infect meat, fruits, vegetables, or other food products, and the country’s food supply is still safe.

“Groundswell” Debuts for Global Audiences

“Groundswell,” the final film in a documentary trilogy celebrating the potential of regenerative agriculture, recently debuted on Amazon Prime. The release follows its world premiere at the Cannes Film Festival.

Directed by award-winning Filmmakers, Josh and Rebecca Harrell Tickell and narrated by Woody Harrelson and Demi Moore, the film is the final chapter in a series that includes “Kiss the Ground,” released in 2020, and “Common Ground” from 2023.

“Groundswell” follows food systems experts including farmers, scientists, and Indigenous leaders across five continents who are proving that regenerative farming is viable and already delivering real results for communities.

Tied to the film’s release, the Tickells also launched One Billion Acres, a global campaign to accelerate the transition to regenerative agriculture.

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 James Baltz, Unsplash

The post Food Tank’s Weekly News Roundup: Synthetic Pesticides Challenged, Marine Species Protected, New World Screwworm Detected in U.S. appeared first on Food Tank.

Slot QRIS Indonesia merupakan layanan permainan slot online yang mendukung transaksi menggunakan QRIS atau Quick Response Code Indonesian Standard. Sistem ini dikembangkan untuk menyederhanakan proses pembayaran digital dengan mengintegrasikan berbagai penyedia layanan keuangan ke dalam satu standar nasional.

Melalui QRIS, pengguna dapat melakukan deposit menggunakan berbagai aplikasi pembayaran populer tanpa harus berpindah-pindah metode. Kemudahan ini menjadi salah satu alasan utama mengapa layanan slot dengan QRIS semakin diminati oleh berbagai kalangan, mulai dari pengguna baru hingga pemain yang sudah berpengalaman.

Mengapa QRIS Menjadi Pilihan Favorit? 1. Proses Transaksi yang Cepat

Kecepatan menjadi faktor penting dalam era digital saat ini. Dengan QRIS, transaksi dapat diproses dalam waktu singkat hanya melalui pemindaian kode QR. Pengguna tidak perlu lagi mengisi nomor rekening atau melakukan konfirmasi manual yang memakan waktu.

2. Praktis dan Mudah Digunakan

Salah satu keunggulan utama QRIS adalah kemudahannya. Hampir semua aplikasi e-wallet dan mobile banking di Indonesia telah mendukung sistem ini. Pengguna hanya perlu membuka aplikasi pembayaran yang dimiliki, memindai kode, lalu menyelesaikan transaksi dengan beberapa langkah sederhana.

3. Mendukung Beragam Metode Pembayaran

QRIS memungkinkan integrasi berbagai layanan pembayaran digital dalam satu platform. Hal ini memberikan fleksibilitas lebih besar bagi pengguna karena mereka dapat memilih metode yang paling nyaman sesuai kebutuhan.

4. Cocok untuk Generasi Digital

Masyarakat modern menginginkan segala sesuatu berjalan cepat dan efisien. Slot QRIS Indonesia hadir menjawab kebutuhan tersebut dengan menghadirkan pengalaman transaksi yang selaras dengan gaya hidup digital masa kini.

Peran QRIS dalam Meningkatkan Pengalaman Pengguna

Pengalaman pengguna menjadi salah satu faktor yang menentukan popularitas suatu platform. Sistem pembayaran yang rumit sering kali menjadi hambatan bagi banyak orang. Dengan hadirnya QRIS, proses transaksi menjadi lebih sederhana sehingga pengguna dapat lebih fokus menikmati layanan yang tersedia.

Selain itu, kemudahan akses dari berbagai perangkat membuat QRIS semakin relevan di tengah tingginya penggunaan smartphone. Selama memiliki koneksi internet dan aplikasi pembayaran yang mendukung QRIS, transaksi dapat dilakukan kapan saja dan di mana saja.

Faktor yang Membuat Slot QRIS Indonesia Terus Berkembang Adopsi Pembayaran Digital yang Semakin Luas

Indonesia menjadi salah satu negara dengan pertumbuhan pembayaran digital yang sangat pesat. Semakin banyak masyarakat yang terbiasa menggunakan dompet digital untuk kebutuhan sehari-hari, mulai dari belanja hingga pembayaran layanan online.

Kemudahan bagi Pengguna Baru

Bagi pengguna yang baru mengenal dunia transaksi digital, QRIS menawarkan proses yang lebih mudah dipahami dibandingkan metode pembayaran konvensional. Tidak diperlukan langkah teknis yang rumit sehingga siapa pun dapat menggunakannya dengan cepat.

Efisiensi dalam Bertransaksi

Efisiensi menjadi nilai tambah yang sulit diabaikan. Dengan satu kode QR, berbagai aplikasi pembayaran dapat digunakan tanpa perlu penyesuaian tambahan. Hal ini memberikan kenyamanan sekaligus menghemat waktu pengguna.

Tips Menggunakan Slot QRIS dengan Lebih Optimal

Agar pengalaman transaksi menjadi lebih lancar, ada beberapa hal yang dapat diperhatikan:

• Pastikan aplikasi pembayaran yang digunakan sudah mendukung QRIS.
• Gunakan koneksi internet yang stabil saat melakukan transaksi.
• Periksa kembali nominal pembayaran sebelum menyelesaikan proses.
• Simpan bukti transaksi sebagai dokumentasi apabila diperlukan.
• Lakukan transaksi melalui platform yang memiliki reputasi baik dan sistem yang jelas.

Dengan langkah-langkah sederhana tersebut, pengguna dapat menikmati kemudahan transaksi digital secara lebih nyaman dan efisien.

Masa Depan Slot QRIS Indonesia

Melihat tren perkembangan teknologi finansial di Indonesia, penggunaan QRIS diperkirakan akan terus meningkat. Kemudahan, kecepatan, dan fleksibilitas yang ditawarkan membuat sistem ini semakin relevan dengan kebutuhan masyarakat modern.

Tidak hanya sebagai metode pembayaran, QRIS juga menjadi simbol transformasi digital yang mendorong terciptanya pengalaman transaksi yang lebih praktis. Seiring berkembangnya ekosistem pembayaran elektronik, layanan Slot QRIS Indonesia berpotensi menjadi salah satu pilihan utama bagi pengguna yang mengutamakan kemudahan dan efisiensi.

Kesimpulan

Slot QRIS Indonesia hadir sebagai jawaban atas kebutuhan transaksi digital yang cepat, praktis, dan mudah diakses. Dengan dukungan berbagai aplikasi pembayaran populer, sistem ini menawarkan pengalaman yang sederhana tanpa mengurangi kenyamanan pengguna. Tidak mengherankan jika popularitas slot QRIS terus meningkat dan menjadi pilihan favorit di tengah era digital yang bergerak semakin dinamis.

Kemudahan yang ditawarkan QRIS bukan sekadar tren sesaat, melainkan bagian dari perubahan besar dalam cara masyarakat Indonesia bertransaksi. Inilah alasan mengapa Slot QRIS Indonesia hadir dengan kemudahan yang sulit ditolak.

Though cowards flinch? No retreat on climate policy!

Image by Claudia Hinz from Pixabay

By Paul Atkin

Forces on the right of the labour movement are seeking to use the impending Labour leadership contest to attack what’s left of Labour’s commitments to a cheap sustainable energy policy.

In this they are the auxiliaries of the full throated and downright dishonest attacks coming from the Conservatives and Far Right; whose desire to act as local agents of the USA’s bid for global energy dominance trumps* any concern for the higher energy bills and the economic shrinkage that would result from a retreat on renewables. Genuine “patriots” would not want to keep the UK in hock to expensive and environmentally ruinous LNG imports from the USA and Qatar. If they weren’t in hock themselves to fossil fuel interests they could paint wind turbines red,white and blue and call them “freedom farms” if they wanted to; but they don’t.

This has been appositely described by James Murray, the editor of Business Green as “wanting to build a typewriter economy… after the invention of the PC”; and wanting “to turn UK industry into a heritage railway.”

• Badenoch and Farage (and Blair) know that the UK has no viable energy future based on fossil fuels; as the North Sea is steadily becoming exhausted, and fracking is too geologically difficult to be profitable.
• They also know therefore that slowing down or shutting down the “rush to renewables” and what they call “net zero madness” would mean that the UK would remain dependent on expensive fossil fuel imports that would keep bills high. The exact opposite of what they claim in the papers.
• They are also perfectly well aware that, since the start of Trump’s war on Iran, a war that they wanted the UK to join in initially, the energy produced by the wind and solar that has already been built is saving billions in displaced fossil fuel import bills. A paradox of a war aimed at securing US “global energy dominance” is that it is persuading countries all around the world to accelerate their shift to electrification and renewable energy.
• And that on a domestic level, as fossil fuels get more expensive, the technologies they power become unaffordable as well as dirty, so millions of people are drawing the conclusion that getting off them cuts costs: hence the rapid growth in EV and solar panel purchases. 

They also know that theirs are not popular polices.

Even Reform voters would rather have a solar farm near them than a fracking site at a rate of almost 2 to 1, while in most local authority areas around three quarters of people are worried about climate change, three fifths think it should be a government priority and more than three quarters support renewable energy. But they are seeking to brass it out with the help of what might best be called “fossil media” and covering fire from sections of the labour movement.

This push backwards from Trump’s local agents is, however, given some encouragement from Wes Streeting’s call for new oil and gas licences to be permitted in the North Sea and Andy Burnham’s recent statement that he’s got “something of an open mind” and no “fixed position” on it. While Streeting is in open retreat, there is notably a deafening silence on climate in the summary of Burnham’s polices written by Daniel Green on Labour List this week; though some of them, greater public control of water, energy, housing and transport, cutting back the standard bus fare to £2 from £3, allocation of £39 billion solely to social housing, not social and “affordable” housing, are implicitly steps in the right direction and would have a positive, if limited, impact.

All this might be considered an example of Burnham’s capacity to sustain wide support through positive sounding ambiguity, but any indication of weakness on this issue is an invitation for attack. And so, a number of people, many of them quite obscure, have wheeled themselves out and laid down a barrage of bad faith arguments in defence of fossil fuels this week; summarised here on Politics Home.

Looking at these one by one.

If you discount Tony Blair, and who doesn’t these days, the most heavyweight voice is that of Gary Smith, General Secretary of the GMB. Gary, sadly, has consistently echoed climate sceptic talking points since his election, to the delight of right-wing media outlets from the Sun to the Spectator.  His comparison of the government’s net zero agenda this week to the deindustrialisation policies of Margaret Thatcher; arguing it is “closing factories, hitting investment and hitting jobs” and telling Times Radio that the “policy” of phasing out North Sea oil and gas was “economic madness” leading to thousands of job losses, turns reality on its head.

• The “green economy” is the one part of the UK economy that is booming, growing at 9% a year and already supporting over a million jobs, as the rest of the economy grinds along at 1%. Opening factories, drawing in investment, boosting jobs. If the GMB, and other unions, get on the right side of history on this, we could recruit many of the workers in these growing sectors, the way that ASTMS did with white collar workers in the late 60s. This is vital for the renewable workforce to be unionised to ensure bargaining rights and empowerment into the future.
• When it comes to the oil and gas sector in the North Sea, the fact is that tens of thousands of jobs have already been lost without the GMB’s existing policy saving a single one of them. 
• This is because the basin is running out of oil and gas. This makes continued extraction decreasingly profitable. In effect, the North Sea is phasing itself out.
• All the additional investment permitted under the last lot of Conservative governments, which amounted to hundreds of additional licences, contributed just 36 days of additional supply.
• This is a physical reality. Not a “policy”. The policy, of successive governments is about managing that reality.
• The difference between the decline of North Sea oil and gas with and without investment, and therefore the jobs that go with it, is about 2% by 2050. This is marginal, not a lifeline, let alone a “goldmine”. 
• The only lifeline for offshore workers is to fight for an easier transition from oil and gas to offshore wind. If the platform is sinking, we need to make sure that the workers on it can get into the only lifeboats we have.
• Pretending that it can stay afloat forever sells the delusion to his members that further increases in investment in oil and gas would save their jobs. It wouldn’t. And he knows it.
• So, the question for Gary is why keep leading your members up the garden path, where Nigel Farage has been waiting for them? There’s little point in denouncing Reform at GMB Congress, which he rightly did as “rebadged Tories”, if his arguments on climate echo their policies and, even their language, rather than fight for the transition his members need as much as the rest of us do. The net result of that approach has been more GMB members supporting Reform than Labour in recent polling.

Luke Akehurst, Labour MP for North Durham, and one of the founders of scandal hit faction Labour Together, said “I do think ministers need to listen carefully to what the GMB, one of Labour’s largest affiliates, is saying about the industrial and employment impact of our energy policies, and take a pragmatic approach that safeguards well-paid, unionised jobs in the oil and gas sector. The promised ‘green industrial revolution’ hasn’t involved enough job creation yet here in the UK. My constituents don’t get any jobs from the mass import of solar panels from China.”

• No jobs creation? The jobs growth created by that 9% a year growth in the “green economy” is running at four times the rate they are being lost in carbon heavy sectors. Diverting investment from the future to the past would choke this off.
• And, while the UK is only a marginal player in solar panel manufacture, it has competitive advantage in other sectors, some of which generate exports. The 2017 Renewables UK Export Nation Report listed these as follows “an extraordinarily wide variety of goods and services, including supplying, installing and maintaining onshore wind turbines and components, designing gearboxes, manufacturing offshore wind turbine blades and steelwork, supplying and laying underwater power cables, installing, inspecting and maintaining offshore wind farms, providing helicopters, crew and vessels, developing wave and tidal energy projects and providing components for the marine energy industry, as well as designing software, conducting geological surveys, monitoring wildlife, and providing financial and legal services”. 
• And “the mass import of solar panels from China”, or anywhere else, requires the mass employment of the workers needed to install and maintain them. Luke’s Durham constituency is just twenty minutes by train away from Sunderland, where a deal announced this week between Nissan and Chery to manufacture EVs at the biggest car plant in the country holds out the prospect of keeping the 6,000 “well paid unionised jobs” sustained by it secure into the future. So long as this inward investment by a Chinese company is not sabotaged on the sort of spurious Cold War “national security” grounds that pulled the rug out from the prospective wind turbine factory investment in NE Scotland from Minyang last year; after pressure from the US Embassy that Luke Akehurst would be one of the first to echo.
• As Miatta Fahnbulleh, a former energy minister who, in a hopeful sign, is helping Burnham develop policy ahead of his bid to replace Starmer, has said “There is a global industry that is building up around the green transition around renewables. China is at the absolute forefront of that. Why the hell would we not want a piece of that? Why would we not want to be on the front foot?”
• As for taking notice of large affiliates – the implicit argument being not to assess the quality of the argument but just to weigh the votes – perhaps Luke missed what UNISON, Labour’s largest affiliate had to say on this matter this week, with General Secretary Andrea Egan arguing on Labour List  “Climate change denial is creeping into politics like never before, with far-right parties treating fossil fuels as a panacea for the country’s problems (my emphasis). Some Labour figures are even calling on the government to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea”…which… “wouldn’t make a significant difference for working-class people in Britain, and it would be grossly irresponsible to working-class people in the Global South.” Andrea’s recognition that the working-class interest in averting climate breakdown is international is essential if our movement is to forge global alliances that push beyond the limitations of self subordination to the UK ruling class.
• And workers in oil and gas will need full trade union protection for as long as there are workers in those sectors, particularly because it is in decline. Part of that protection is negotiating transition. 

Jonathan Hinder, MP for Pendle and Clitheroe, chimed in with: “Britain must be pragmatic in our energy transition. We need oil and gas, and will do so for many decades to come. It is common sense to use our own resources as much as possible, supporting jobs and tax receipts in the process, rather than relying on foreign imports.”

• “Pragmatic”. Akehurst used the same word. Did these people get given a script, or is this sort of cliche hard  wired into their thinking? Is there any pusillanimous capitulation to power over truth that can’t be described as “pragmatic”? There is nothing “pragmatic” about ignoring the damage that would be done by additional carbon emissions when we are already in a world of trouble. Nothing “pragmatic” about ignoring scientific reality under pressure from fossil fuel interests and their political agents who are seeking a few more years of profits as the world tips towards disaster around them. A comment from Jo White, who convenes the “Red Wall” caucus, expresses the tension in this. “We need an energy policy that lifts the foot off the throttle for UK growth and jobs by ensuring that the severe impacts of rising costs from imported energy are mitigated through targeted interventions, a faster shift to home-grown green energy production, and keeps UK oil and gas in the mix until that point is reached,” So, the issue isn’t whether oil and gas will continue to be used. They will, and will stay “in the mix” as we make that “faster shift to home grown green energy production”. But their use has to be at ever decreasing levels. Oil and gas not where the future lies – if we are to have one. The faster we can get off them the more we limit the damage to the climate, and the cheaper it will be. We can’t be reckless and cavalier about that.
• And to restate the bleedin’ obvious; allowing new exploration in the North Sea, or approving the licences for Rosebank and Jackdaw, would make a miniscule difference to production, will not stop the decline of the basin, will not save jobs, will make no difference whatsoever to energy bills. Everyone knows this, but so many pretend otherwise.
• And “our resources” are not “our resources”. They belong to the companies that own them. They are not ring fenced for local use. Most are sold on the world market. All are sold at world market prices. All of these people talk as if North Sea oil and gas were a nationalised industry, but none of them are in favour of actually nationalising it; which would be the best way to manage the transition to make sure that it’s just.

Henry Tufnell, Labour MP for Mid and South Pembrokeshire, said “UK energy prices that are four times more expensive than the USA and six times more expensive than Texas cannot support a competitive industrial base.” 

• No country in Europe can emulate US energy policy, because no country in Europe has the vast supplies of relatively cheaply accessible fossil fuels that the USA has. If they did, seeking prosperity on the back of them would, in any case, be a short term fool’s paradise; as the consequence of burning them would put any hope of averting climate tipping points out of reach, with the rapidly increasing damage that we are already seeing. The US itself is already suffering enormous damage.
• To put this in figures, allowing global warming to reach 3°C by 2100 could reduce cumulative economic output by 15% to 34%. Alternatively, investing 1% to 2% in mitigation and adaptation would limit warming to 2°C, reducing economic damages to 2% to 4%. This net cost of inaction is equivalent to 11% to 27% of cumulative GDP. Not a “pragmatic” course to follow. By contrast, the cost of meeting the 87% GHG cut by 2040 has been assessed by the Climate Change Committee at 14p per person per day. Not exactly “eye watering”.
• And, if Henry wants cheaper energy bills, for households and manufacturing, he should note that Wind and solar have made Spain “one of Europe’s cheapest power markets”. In the first four months of 2026, the average wholesale electricity price in Spain was €44 per megawatt-hour. In Italy, where the Meloni government had dug in on gas reliance, it was €127.  In the UK, €103. The story behind that ranking is that Spain increasingly pushed gas out of its electricity supply, so the price of electricity dropped. Pragmatically, would it make sense to follow the Spanish example, or the Italian? Italy itself, even under Meloni, has drawn the right conclusion in getting a €23bn State aid scheme approved by the European Commission to support a shift to electricity production from renewable sources to counteract the impact of a fuel import bill that has risen to €60bn this year, up €8-9bn from 2025 .
  
  And then there’s yesterday’s man, war criminal, aging millionaire errand boy for billionaires, and wholly owned subsidiary of Larry Ellison, Tony Blair; who got in early last month to urge the government to slow down its “net zero agenda” to get closer to Donald Trump and “prioritise cheap energy over clean energy” neither noticing, nor caring, that dirty energy is expensive and clean energy is cheap.

Whoever ends up running the Labour Party and therefore, in this Parliament, the government, will be under enormous pressure to appease Donald Trump’s ferocious last ditch defence of fossil fuels – with Badenoch and Farage as his local agents – in the context of an energy cost crisis given a vicious upward spike by his war on Iran amid the growing heat of the impending El Nino.

Streeting, following Blair and, indeed, Mandelson, would fall in with that agenda.

Burnham looks like applying what might be called Starmerism with a human face; saying, “normally you would want a good relationship with the United States, but if you can’t agree with them, then say that as well. That’s the only way I think to deal with them. Obviously, the relationship is important to the UK, but not to the point where we just go along with anything they say. We’ve got in trouble in the past when that happens. I think the approach that Keir has taken is the right one.”

On climate, a sign of how much he will stand up and how far he will bend the knee to Trump will be whether he keeps Ed Miliband on at the DESNZ. While the GJA and others have critiqued the limitations of Miliband’s over technicist approach to green transition, were any new leader to throw his head to a press that has been baying for it since before the General Election in an attempt to appease them, they will find instead that they will have simply thrown chum into the shark filled waters they want to swim in.

Looking to the example of the Spanish government, pushing harder on energy transition, resisting increases in arms spending, welcoming migration, is the alternative course that we should fight for whoever comes out on top for now; while taking inspiration from Jean Luc Melenchon’s call at his campaign launch for the French Presidential election for regenerating society on a social and ecological basis.

*pun intended.

 

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 Though cowards flinch? No retreat on climate policy! first appeared on Greener Jobs Alliance.

The bipartisan defense of policies that threaten today's children and generations to come

Source

Corporate history is full of accidental self-inflicted wounds. Gerald Ratner had his jewellery joke. BP had “small people.” Shell had, among many other public-relations triumphs, a 17 March 1995 press release that appears to have done for calm dispute management what petrol does for a bonfire.

Before the websites, before the leak wars, before the decades of online corporate embarrassment, there was a Shell UK press release dated 17 March 1995 — a thunderous little corporate grenade that helped turn a commercial dispute into a long-running reputational blood feud.

ChatGPT image

A 1990s Shell UK media-relations office depicted as a corporate war room: a press officer feeds a paper titled “DON MARKETING LIMITED -v- SHELL UK LIMITED” into a fax machine shaped like an oil pump, while sparks fly out and ignite a wall covered with “libel threat,” “AGM protest,” “Donovan feud,” and “corporate conscience” headlines. In the background, Shell executives look horrified as the fax turns into a flaming boomerang.

PART ONE: FACT-BASED TABLOID DEEP DIVE The feud Shell helped launch with a fax, a flourish, and a flamethrower

Corporate history is full of accidental self-inflicted wounds. Gerald Ratner had his jewellery joke. BP had “small people.” Shell had, among many other public-relations triumphs, a 17 March 1995 press release that appears to have done for calm dispute management what petrol does for a bonfire.

The story begins not with a website, not with anonymous leaks, not with the modern Shell internet headache, but with a commercial dispute between Don Marketing and Shell UK over forecourt promotions. Don Marketing alleged that Shell used its ideas in promotions without permission or payment. Shell denied wrongdoing and said it would defend the legal actions.

So far, so standard: one company sues, another denies liability, solicitors dine well, and everyone waits for court.

Then Shell UK Media Relations decided to go public.

The resulting press release, headed “DON MARKETING LIMITED -v- SHELL UK LIMITED,” was not exactly a model of soothing corporate restraint. It did not simply say: “These matters are before the court and Shell denies the claims.” That would have been the grown-up version. Instead, Shell, with all the delicacy of a boot through a conservatory roof, went further.

It accused John Donovan and his father Alfred Donovan of conducting a publicity campaign. It referred to “untrue and often offensive allegations.” It said “Don Marketing has no case.” It claimed the Donovans were attempting to “sully Shell’s reputation.” And it suggested this was being done in the hope Shell might be “coerced into settling false claims.”

As corporate press releases go, this was not a press statement. It was a loaded blunderbuss wearing a Shell badge.

Marketing Week subsequently reported that Don Marketing threatened to sue Shell UK for libel, saying the press release was defamatory and untrue. The same report said Don described Shell’s release as an “unfounded personal attack” on Alfred Donovan, noting Shell was aware he was “a 78-year-old ex-regular army, war-disabled pensioner.”

Shell’s response? According to Marketing Week, a Shell spokesman said the company had no plans to retract the press statement.

A few weeks later, Marketing Week reported that Alfred Donovan had issued a writ against Shell UK claiming damages for libel. Shell, it reported, stood by its press release.

And there it is: the moment the dispute escaped the polite paddock of commercial litigation and bolted into the larger field of public grievance, reputational combat, and decades of corporate irritation.

Shell’s tactical genius: call them publicity-seekers, then give them publicity

The great comic beauty of Shell’s 1995 press release is that it appeared to accuse the Donovans of seeking publicity while simultaneously handing them a publicity jackpot.

If Shell genuinely believed the Donovans were trying to provoke a public fight, the release looks, in hindsight, like a masterclass in walking straight into the rake. Shell accused them of attempting to goad the company into legal proceedings, then published a statement that promptly triggered a threatened libel action and, according to Marketing Week, an actual writ.

This is the public-relations equivalent of shouting “I refuse to be provoked!” while sprinting across the room with a chair over your head.

Shell could have issued a disciplined, lawyerly holding statement. It could have said the allegations were denied and would be dealt with in court. It could have avoided personalising the dispute. Instead, the press release took aim not merely at Don Marketing’s legal claims but at the campaign methods, motives, and conduct of John and Alfred Donovan.

That distinction matters.

A company defending itself in litigation is one thing. A multinational oil giant issuing a public attack on a small business opponent and his elderly father is quite another. Even if Shell believed every word, the optics were abysmal: Goliath had apparently decided that the best way to deal with David was to issue a media-relations sling-shot advisory accusing him of mucking up the village noticeboard.

The underlying dispute: promotions, pressure, and Shell’s wounded pride

Before the feud became a byword for corporate online embarrassment, it was rooted in allegations about forecourt promotions. Marketing Week reported in January 1995 that Don Marketing had issued three High Court writs and county court proceedings against Shell, alleging wrongful use of retail promotions developed by Don Marketing. Shell had settled one of the three writs out of court.

Marketing Week also reported that Shell UK dealers and institutional shareholders had received letters from Don Marketing accusing Shell of a cover-up involving a “flawed” promotion. Alfred Donovan was quoted as saying the Shell Corporate Conscience Pressure Group had been formed by more than a dozen individuals and companies owning Shell shares because of concern about the ethical conduct of Shell UK.

Shell’s position, as reported by Marketing Week at the time, was that Don had initiated the legal proceedings and that Shell would wait for its day in court. That was the sensible line. That was the line Shell should perhaps have laminated, framed, and chained to the desk of every media-relations person in the building.

But then came 17 March 1995.

The release transformed Shell’s posture from defensive to accusatory. It moved from “we deny the claim” to a broader assault on the Donovans’ campaign. It alleged reputational sullying. It suggested coercive settlement pressure. It forecast failure of Don Marketing’s claims. It even discussed security for costs.

A smarter public-relations team might have noticed that this was not just a legal communication. It was a reputational escalation.

The phrase that boomeranged

One of the most striking lines in Shell’s release was its claim that the Donovans’ actions were an attempt to “sully Shell’s reputation.”

Thirty-one years later, one is tempted to ask: how did that work out?

Because if the point of Shell’s release was to shut the matter down, it had all the calming effect of a smoke alarm made of fireworks. The feud did not disappear. It metastasised. The Donovan/Shell conflict later became associated with websites, archived material, shareholder campaigning, media coverage, and an enduring corporate grievance that Shell has never quite managed to bury.

Shell, previously known as Forthdeal Limited, subsequently as Royal Dutch Shell plc, and now hiding in plain sight as Shell plc after ditching the disgraced Royal Dutch moniker, has reportedly marched back through many reputational storms over the years. But the Donovan feud occupies a special category: a corporate dispute that Shell’s own aggressive words helped immortalise.

There is a lesson here so obvious it should be printed on every oil company crisis-communications manual:

When accused of being heavy-handed, try not to prove the point in a press release.

The personal edge: why the Alfred Donovan attack mattered

The most explosive part of the story was not merely that Shell denied Don Marketing’s claims. Companies deny claims every day. Some do it before breakfast.

The more toxic element was the perceived personal attack on Alfred Donovan. Marketing Week reported Don’s position that Shell’s release amounted to an “unfounded personal attack” on him. It also reported that Don’s solicitors demanded a retraction.

This matters because public disputes are not fought only on legal terrain. They are fought on moral terrain. Once Shell’s release was interpreted as an attack on an elderly, war-disabled pensioner involved in a pressure group, the optics shifted from corporate defence to corporate overkill.

Shell may have thought it was correcting the record. Critics could reasonably see something else: a vast multinational taking a flamethrower to a father-and-son campaign that had clearly got under its skin.

That perception helped create the mythology of the feud. Shell was not merely defending itself; it appeared rattled. And nothing emboldens a determined critic quite like making him believe he has found the bruise.

The Streisand Effect before everyone had the phrase

Today we would call this a classic Streisand Effect problem: an attempt to suppress, discredit, or contain criticism ends up drawing greater attention to it.

In 1995, the internet was still young enough for Shell’s release to put the word “Internet” in quotation marks, as if it were a strange new species recently discovered under a rock. Yet Shell’s own statement acknowledged that the Donovans had referred to reaching “Internet” users.

That little detail now reads like historical comedy. Shell saw the early signs of online reputational warfare and responded with a press release that helped provide the raw material for it.

The irony is almost too rich. Shell was worrying about reputational damage from campaigners and “Internet” users, then generated a document that would later become part of the public archive of the very feud it wanted to contain.

Corporate communications departments now spend fortunes on reputation management, stakeholder engagement, digital risk, narrative discipline, and crisis containment. Yet the basic principle remains ancient: do not hand your opponents a better story than the one they already had.

Shell did exactly that.

From commercial dispute to corporate folklore

The 1995 press release did not create the underlying dispute. Don Marketing had already brought proceedings. The pressure group had already formed. Letters had already gone to shareholders and dealers. The relationship was already combustible.

But Shell’s release was the accelerant.

It helped reframe the fight. What might have remained a hard-fought legal and commercial dispute became a broader story about corporate power, reputational bullying, alleged idea theft, shareholder pressure, and the willingness of a major company to punch down in public.

That is why the document still matters. It is not merely an old press release. It is an origin document in a feud that later became a long-running public thorn in Shell’s side.

Shell presumably wanted to say: these claims are false, we will defend ourselves, and we will not be pressured.

What many readers could take from it instead was: Shell is furious, Shell is rattled, and Shell has just given the Donovans a fresh grievance with a date, a heading, and a media-relations signature.

The corporate self-own

The real absurdity is that Shell probably believed it was being firm, responsible, and shareholder-conscious. The release even invoked obligations to shareholders and the risk of spending money on proceedings where recovery of costs might be doubtful.

That is very Shell: take a public relations brawl, pour in legal defensiveness, garnish with shareholder duty, and serve cold with a side order of reputational catastrophe.

A wiser company might have recognised that a heavyweight corporation publicly attacking a smaller opponent can easily look worse than the allegations it is trying to rebut. Shell’s 1995 release may have been intended to project strength. Instead, it projected irritation.

And irritation is dangerous. It reveals where the armour is thin.

The Donovan feud did not become enduring because Shell ignored it. It endured because Shell engaged, reacted, denied, threatened, briefed, and sometimes appeared unable to resist the temptation to make the story bigger.

The 17 March 1995 press release was an early exhibit in that pattern.

Conclusion: Shell did not just respond to the feud — it helped author it

No fair account should pretend the feud began in a vacuum. Don Marketing had already sued Shell. The Donovans had already gone public. Shell was entitled to deny the allegations and defend itself.

But entitlement is not wisdom.

The press release of 17 March 1995 was aggressive, personal, and combustible. It helped turn litigation into a cause. It supplied the Donovans with a fresh complaint. It triggered a libel threat and, according to Marketing Week, a writ. It gave the dispute a new chapter and a sharper emotional edge.

Shell wanted the courts to be the proper forum. Then it stepped into the public arena with a press release that sounded less like calm legal confidence and more like a corporate giant swatting at a wasp nest with a rolled-up writ.

The result was predictable: more buzzing.

And so, before the websites, before the digital archives, before the long-running online headache, there was Shell UK Media Relations, March 17, 1995 — lighting the match, complaining about the smoke, and wondering why the fire kept spreading.

PART TWO: SPOOF PR/SPIN SECTION “SHELL REGRETS THAT ITS PEACEFUL CORPORATE HOWITZER WAS MISUNDERSTOOD”

Shell today issued a completely imaginary clarification regarding its historic 1995 press release, explaining that the company was shocked — shocked — to discover that publicly accusing its opponents of false claims, reputation-sullying, and coercive tactics might be interpreted as hostile.

A fictional Shell spokesperson said:

“Our 1995 statement was intended to reduce publicity by creating more publicity, calm the dispute by escalating it, and demonstrate our commitment to court proceedings by conducting a rhetorical strafing run in public.”

Asked whether calling Don Marketing’s case hopeless before trial was perhaps a little punchy, the imaginary spokesperson replied:

“We prefer the phrase ‘robustly premature.’”

Pressed on whether the press release helped ignite the feud, the spokesperson said:

“Absolutely not. Shell merely placed a lit match next to a bucket of petrol in a room full of old newspapers. Any subsequent flames were clearly caused by external stakeholders.”

The spokesperson added:

“Shell has always believed in dialogue, provided the dialogue takes place after we have described your claims as false, your campaign as offensive, and your motives as reputational vandalism.”

PART THREE: SPOOF BOT-REACTION / COMMENT SECTION

CrisisCommsGoblin:
Rule one of reputation management: if you think someone wants publicity, do not issue them a press release gift-wrapped in outrage.

LegalFerret1995:
Shell: “The courts are the proper forum.”
Also Shell: “Anyway, here is our public character assessment.”

FaxMachineOfDoom:
I was there. I sent the press release. I have regretted it ever since.

CorporateConscienceBot:
Detected: multinational oil company punching down. Recommended action: stop digging. Shell response: increase drilling.

AGMBadger:
This is what happens when media relations and legal panic share a typewriter.

InternetUser_1995:
Why is “Internet” in quotation marks? Did Shell think it was a passing fad, like accountability?

BoomerangMonitor:
Press release launched. Boomerang return speed: catastrophic.

ShellSpinCycle:
We deny escalating this dispute and will prove it by escalating this dispute.

DISCLAIMER

This article is opinion and commentary. It is satirical in tone but based on publicly available historical reports and documents, including Marketing Week coverage and Shell UK’s 17 March 1995 press release. Allegations are described as allegations unless established or reported as fact by cited sources. This is not legal advice, financial advice, or investment advice. Shell, Don Marketing, John Donovan, or any relevant party are welcome to provide an up-to-date statement for publication on an unedited basis. Site wide disclaimer also applies.

Source links for readers

Marketing Week: Shell faces libel threat from Don
https://www.marketingweek.com/shell-faces-libel-threat-from-don/

Marketing Week: Shell faces libel action as Don’s founder issues writ
https://www.marketingweek.com/shell-faces-libel-action-as-dons-founder-issues-writ/

Marketing Week: Irate Don hits Shell investors
https://www.marketingweek.com/irate-don-hits-shell-investors/

Shell UK Media Relations press release, 17 March 1995
https://royaldutchshellplc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ShellStatementMarch1995.pdf

Archived Shell press release page
https://shellnews.net/2006affidavit/shell-press-release-dated-17-march-1995.htm

Companies House: Shell plc previous company names
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04366849

SHELL LIT THE MATCH: HOW ONE AGGRESSIVE PRESS RELEASE HELPED IGNITE THE DONOVAN FEUD was first posted on June 12, 2026 at 11:30 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

The Puyallup Tribe of Indians are organizing programming, events, and fan zones in Seattle, Washington during the 2026 FIFA World Cup. This marks the first time a Tribal Nation is formally represented at the World Cup, providing an opportunity for them to share their story, culture, traditions, and foodways with a global audience.

As Seattle prepares to host six matches for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, the city is working to ensure that the tournament leaves a positive lasting impact on the community. As part of these efforts, the Puyallup Tribe of Indians were named the Official Legacy Supporter of FIFA World Cup 26 host city Seattle.

A central goal of this partnership is the reestablishment of Lushootseed language, which appears in welcoming messages, murals, signage, and other SeattleFWC26 materials. This feeds into broader sustainability efforts, explains Amy McFarland, the Puyallup Tribe of Indians’ World Cup Project Director.

“It’s the sustainability of language, history, and economic development,” McFarland tells Food Tank. She adds that this also extends to medicine, foodways, and environmental protection.

The Puyallup Tribe are preparing for a collection of camassia, a tubular used for medicine. They are also focusing on reintroducing plants and ecosystems that have been destroyed, such as camas prairies. And through community gardens, they are highlighting Indigenous plants and medicines while promoting the importance of sustainability.

“We think about sustainability of our environment, taking care of our waters, ensuring that we know and teach our children how to forage, collect, harvest, and use traditional foods and medicine,” McFarland tells Food Tank.

Celebratory events are also engaging the broader community. Between June 19-21, the Puyallup Tribe will host one of their signature events, the first World Cup Pow Wow. Free to the public, the event will include food trucks, singing, dancing, and more. And on match days, they will organize official fan zones and viewing parties featuring live broadcasts of the games, food vendors, and youth activities.

To create additional opportunities for young people, the Puyallup Tribe have selected 25 youth ambassadors who will volunteer at the matches. They will distribute clean water to elders throughout the events and lead songs, dances, and stories.

“Youth is a vital part of what we have,” says McFarland. “Without teaching our young ones the way to do things, the future is not there.”

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 SounderBruce, Wikimedia Commons

The post The Puyallup Tribe of Indians Partner with World Cup Host City to Share Culture and Traditions appeared first on Food Tank.

Shell’s side of the Donovan feud, in its own words

Shell v Donovan: The 2006 “Confidential” Briefing That Tells Its Own Story

Shell’s Internal Script on the Donovan Feud — Including One Very Awkward Hakluyt Error

Suggested image: A dramatic satirical illustration of a confidential Shell briefing document stamped “FOCAL POINT — MR. ALFRED DONOVAN,” lying on a boardroom table beside a Shell logo, a stack of leaflets, a WIPO domain-name file, and a magnifying glass highlighting the words “Hakluyt Society?” in red ink.

Shell’s side of the Donovan feud, in its own words

Sometimes the most revealing material is not an opponent’s attack, a campaigner’s press release, or a journalist’s interpretation.

Sometimes it is the company’s own internal script.

The document reproduced below is a Shell “Confidential” briefing dated 15 May 2006 and headed “Issue: Mr. Alfred Donovan.” It appears to have been prepared as an internal “Focal Point” note for handling questions about Alfred Donovan, his long-running dispute with Shell, his website activity, leafleting outside Shell premises, domain-name registrations, litigation history, and allegations made against the company.

For readers unfamiliar with the background, Alfred Donovan and his son John Donovan were associated with Don Marketing, a promotions business that had commercial dealings with Shell. Those dealings eventually deteriorated into litigation, settlements, further disputes, a long-running public campaign, and websites highly critical of Shell and its conduct.

The value of this document is not that it settles every dispute. It plainly does not. It is Shell’s version, written for Shell’s purposes, in Shell’s language.

That is precisely why it is worth publishing.

The note states Shell’s view that it was “disappointed” that Mr Donovan’s campaign had “again resurfaced.” It says Shell was “fully aware” of the accusations but considered it inappropriate to comment on matters pending before the courts. It also says Shell believed it had gone “well beyond the strict call of duty” in investigating and settling Mr Donovan’s claims many years earlier.

The document then sets out Shell’s account of the promotions disputes, including the “Make Money” promotion, later legal action over other promotions, and Mr Donovan’s “abandoned” claim relating to the “Smart” promotion. In fact Shell paid all legal costs and John Donovan received a secret settlement payment, the terms of which Shell did not disclose, *even to the judge, who later resigned in controversial circumstances. (* I have an email from a senior Shell lawyer confirming this).

It also records the domain-name clash following the unification of Royal Dutch and Shell Transport. Shell acknowledged that Mr Donovan registered domain names including royaldutchshellplc.com, and that Shell filed an administrative complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organisation seeking transfer of the names. Shell also recorded that the WIPO panel did not accept there were grounds for transfer, and that Shell did not consider a further court challenge justified.

On the more serious allegations, Shell’s internal briefing denied any involvement in intimidation or burglary. It said Shell’s solicitors had employed “a respectable firm of enquiry agents” during litigation, and that those agents acted “entirely properly and legally.” In fact, Shell’s used undercover agents who presented fake credentials. We were bombarded by threats and besieged by undercover activity. I still have all the evidence decades later. Much of it already uploaded online.

There is also an important correction to make.

The document refers to the “Hakluyt Society.” That appears to be wrong. The Hakluyt Society is a long-established educational charity concerned with historical voyages, travel and exploration publications. The controversy historically associated with Shell, BP, Greenpeace and corporate intelligence concerns Hakluyt & Company, the private advisory/intelligence firm founded by former MI6 officers, not the publishing charity.

Whether that wording in the Shell document was an error, confusion, shorthand, or deliberate formulation is for readers to judge. But the distinction matters. The “Hakluyt Society” reference should not be allowed to blur two very different entities.

Below, therefore, is Shell’s side of the Donovan feud — not filtered through satire, not rewritten by this site, and not paraphrased into something more convenient.

It is Shell, in its own words.

DOCUMENT: SHELL “CONFIDENTIAL” FOCAL POINT BRIEFING, 15 MAY 2006

Source document:
https://shellnews.net/DPA2009/15MAY2006FOCALPOINT.pdf

Suggested placement: Embed the PDF here as an image gallery or PDF viewer, or reproduce the document pages as images with a clear caption:

Caption: Shell “Confidential” Focal Point briefing dated 15 May 2006 concerning Alfred Donovan, leafleting activity, litigation history, domain-name disputes, and Shell’s internal responses to allegations.

Why publish this now?

Because the public record should include Shell’s own version.

For years, Shell and the Donovans have been locked in a bitter and highly unusual dispute involving promotions, litigation, websites, domain names, allegations of dirty tricks, and wider questions about the oil giant’s relationship with critics.

This document does not prove Shell right. Nor does it prove Shell wrong. It does something narrower, but still valuable: it shows how Shell internally framed the matter at the time.

It shows which points Shell wanted staff or representatives to emphasise.

It shows what Shell chose to deny.

It shows how Shell described the Donovan campaign.

It shows that Shell recognised the significance of leafleting outside Shell Centre and The Hague.

It shows that Shell understood the domain-name dispute had not gone its way at WIPO.

And it shows the peculiar “Hakluyt Society” reference — a wording that deserves scrutiny because the Hakluyt Society is not the private intelligence firm associated in media reports with corporate intelligence work for oil majors.

The document is therefore being published as a matter of record.

Readers can compare Shell’s wording with other material already in the public domain and draw their own conclusions.

An invitation to Shell

Shell is invited to provide an up-to-date statement for publication on this site.

If Shell wishes to comment on the 15 May 2006 “Focal Point” document, the Donovan dispute, the domain-name issues, the allegations addressed in the briefing, or the reference to the “Hakluyt Society,” it may do so.

Shell’s statement will be published on this site on an unedited basis.

That offer is open. It has been for years.

If Shell believes the 2006 document requires clarification, correction, context, or a modern response, it is welcome to provide one.

Until then, the record stands as published: Shell’s side of the Donovan feud, in Shell’s own words.

DISCLAIMER

This article is opinion and commentary accompanying a historical document. It is intended to present and contextualise Shell’s own 2006 wording, not to assert that every allegation referred to in the document is true. The linked document should be read in full. Shell is invited to provide an up-to-date statement for publication on an unedited basis. This article is not legal, financial or investment advice. Site wide disclaimer also applies.

Shell’s Confidential Donovan Briefing: The Oil Giant’s Own Words on a Feud It Couldn’t Shake was first posted on June 12, 2026 at 9:43 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

DENVER—The Interior department announced Thursday that it is beginning the process of updating its policies regarding designated wilderness, wilderness study areas, and lands with wilderness characteristics.

Interior “is seeking recommendations on potential improvements to wilderness study area and lands with wilderness characteristics policies used by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service,” according to an Interior department press release.

The review will “help determine whether existing policy documents should be updated or clarified to improve consistency, increase transparency and ensure public lands continue to be managed effectively in accordance with applicable laws,” according to the release. Wilderness designations are conferred through acts of Congress that land management agencies must implement as directed, and the degree to which this review will infringe on or undermine congressional authority is unclear.

The Interior department published previews of three separate notices related to this review in the Federal Register on Friday:

• Policy Review: Considering Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the BLM Land Use Planning Process

• Management of BLM Wilderness Study Areas

• Management of Designated Wilderness Areas

The notices will be officially published in the Federal Register on Monday, kicking off 60-day public comment periods for each review.

The New York Times reported earlier this month that the Agriculture department has drafted an order allowing off-road vehicles on millions of acres of wilderness study areas inside national forests. Interior is also updating its wilderness policies in accordance with the EXPLORE Act’s directive on fixed anchor climbing within wilderness, via a separate review.

The Center for Western Priorities released the following statement from Communications Director Kate Groetzinger: 

“The Trump administration is laying the groundwork for an attack on America’s wilderness with these reviews. While the notices themselves don’t tell us much about the administration’s intentions, we know President Trump and Interior Secretary Burgum aren’t interested in increasing protections for America’s public lands.

“Wilderness designations are the most powerful tool we have to protect sensitive and ecologically important public lands. We’ll be watching closely for any attempt by the Trump administration to undercut existing or future protections for America’s wildlands.”

Learn more: 

• Interior puts wilderness study areas under scrutiny as “war on wildlands” widens – The Wilderness Society

• Wilderness Designation FAQs – The Wilderness Society

Feature image: Kiger Gorge at Steens Mountain, Oregon; Source: Masako Metz/@mypubliclands

The post Interior lays the groundwork for attacks on wilderness and wildlands appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

Suggested image: A sharp satirical illustration of Shell executives in hard hats auctioning off giant offshore wind turbines from a floating “Green Transition Clearance Sale” platform. Behind them, a huge Shell oil rig and LNG tanker loom triumphantly under a banner reading “More Value, Less Wind.” A small shredded sign in the foreground says “Net Zero Journey — Terms and Conditions Apply.”

Disclosure: This article and accompanying image concept were generated by ChatGPT in response to source material supplied by the site publisher. Human editorial review is recommended before publication.

PART ONE: FACT-BASED TABLOID-STYLE DEEP DIVE

Shell’s energy transition has apparently reached the stage where the green bits are being packed into cardboard boxes, labelled “non-core,” and discreetly shown to the exit.

According to a June 12, 2026 report carried by Reuters⁠ and originally reported by Bloomberg⁠, Shell is preparing a sale of offshore wind assets worth around $1 billion. Bloomberg described the move as the latest step away from renewable energy as the company focuses on higher-return fossil-fuel businesses.

There it is: the grand green pivot, now seemingly available at auction.

Shell, previously known as Forthdeal Limited, subsequently as Royal Dutch Shell plc, and now hiding in plain sight as Shell plc after ditching the disgraced Royal Dutch moniker, has reportedly marched back into the familiar territory of “disciplined capital allocation” — the corporate dialect used when a fossil-fuel giant wants to say: “That climate-friendly stuff looked lovely in the brochure, but oil and gas are still where the grown-up money lives.”

Let us be precise. This is not yet a completed sale. It is a reported plan. Shell may decline to proceed, adjust the scope, sell only some interests, or find a structure that allows it to claim continuing relevance in offshore wind while someone else takes more of the development headache.

But as a signal, it is hardly subtle.

This is Shell standing on the deck of the energy transition ship, quietly lowering the renewable lifeboats into the sea while telling investors everything is absolutely under control.

The Green Promise, Meet the Fossil-Fuel Spreadsheet

Shell’s public messaging has for years been sprinkled with the language of transition. Less emissions. More value. Net zero by 2050. Low-carbon solutions. Customer choice. Pragmatic pathways. All the soft-focus corporate mist needed to make an oil major look like it has wandered into a climate conference by accident and decided to stay for the canapés.

In its 2024 Energy Transition Strategy⁠, Shell said it was investing $10–15 billion between 2023 and the end of 2025 in low-carbon energy solutions. That included electric vehicle charging, biofuels, renewable power, hydrogen and carbon capture and storage.

Very impressive. Very glossy. Very “please admire the slide deck.”

But the pattern since then has told a rather different story. Shell has been pruning, trimming, retreating and “re-focusing” in clean-power areas that once helped decorate the company’s transition credentials.

In October 2025, Shell announced it had withdrawn from Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind⁠, assigning its 50% interest to its joint-venture partner EDF power solutions.

Reports have also described Shell withdrawing from major floating offshore wind projects off Scotland, including MarramWind and CampionWind. Renewables Now⁠ reported that the decision related to Shell’s strategy shift in power from late 2024, under which the company said it would not lead new offshore wind developments.

Now comes the Bloomberg/Reuters report that Shell is preparing a sale of offshore wind assets valued at around $1 billion.

One can almost hear the soundtrack: wind turbines fading out, LNG terminals swelling heroically in the background.

From “Energy Transition” to “Energy Transition, But Only the Profitable Bits”

To be fair, Shell has never promised to become a charity for wind turbines. It is a publicly traded oil and gas giant, not a monastery of decarbonisation. It answers to investors, dividends, buybacks, commodity prices and the iron law of quarterly performance.

But that is exactly the point.

Shell’s transition messaging has often tried to have it both ways: presenting the company as a responsible energy-transition participant while continuing to defend, expand, optimise and monetise its oil and gas core.

The latest reported wind-farm sale fits neatly into the Wael Sawan era: sharpen the portfolio, prioritise returns, simplify the business, keep investors sweet, and make sure any lower-carbon activity survives only if it can compete with the fossil-fuel cash machine.

At Shell’s Capital Markets Day 2025⁠, the company framed its strategy around delivering “more value with less emissions.” That sounds soothing enough. But critics might translate it as: “more value first, less emissions where convenient.”

The phrase has the suspicious flexibility of a corporate yoga instructor. It can stretch around almost anything.

Sell wind? More value.

Focus on LNG? Less emissions, allegedly, compared with coal.

Keep oil production steady? Pragmatic realism.

Retreat from green power? Portfolio discipline.

At this point, “energy transition” risks becoming less of a destination and more of a lobby display: tastefully lit, rarely visited, useful when journalists arrive.

The Offshore Wind Problem: Difficult Market, Convenient Excuse

Shell is not alone in finding offshore wind difficult. The sector has faced inflation, supply-chain pressure, higher interest rates, permitting delays, vessel shortages and political turbulence. Several major wind developers have written down projects, renegotiated contracts, or abandoned schemes.

So yes, there are real economic headwinds.

But Shell’s retreat cannot be viewed merely as victimhood at sea. The company is choosing where to allocate capital. It has judged that certain renewable projects do not meet its return thresholds. Meanwhile, fossil-fuel production, LNG trading, oil and gas assets, and shareholder distributions remain central to the business.

This is not a mysterious act of nature. It is capital discipline with a hydrocarbon accent.

The uncomfortable question is not whether offshore wind is hard. It is whether Shell ever had the corporate appetite to tolerate the lower returns, longer timelines and political risk necessary to become a serious renewables builder at scale.

Judging by recent exits, the answer appears to be: only until the spreadsheet stopped smiling.

Investors: The Invisible Choir Behind the Strategy

Shell’s biggest institutional investors include some of the world’s largest asset managers. Public shareholder data commonly lists major holders such as BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and Norges Bank Investment Management among significant investors in Shell.

These investors are not necessarily sitting in a smoky room ordering Shell to sell wind farms. But they are part of the pressure environment. Their expectations shape the boardroom climate: capital discipline, cash generation, dividends, buybacks, returns, and no expensive experiments unless those experiments can justify themselves in hard numbers.

This is the great institutional-investor paradox of the climate era.

The same investment giants publish stewardship reports, climate-risk statements and sustainability principles while remaining deeply embedded in the ownership of fossil-fuel supermajors. They want transition, but not too much transition. They want climate risk managed, but not at the expense of returns. They want companies to prepare for the future while continuing to pump cash out of the past.

Shell is very good at hearing that music.

And the tune currently sounds like: “Sell the wind, keep the hydrocarbons humming.”

The Historical Pattern: From Green Costume to Fossil-Fuel Comfort Blanket

Shell has spent decades trying to present itself as more than an oil company. The company has experimented with solar, hydrogen, wind, biofuels, retail power, EV charging and carbon capture. Some of these activities remain. Some have been scaled back. Some have been exited. Some appear regularly in glossy sustainability documents like decorative parsley beside the steak.

This is not new.

Oil majors have long had a habit of adopting the language of transition while maintaining business models overwhelmingly tied to fossil fuels. Shell has faced climate litigation, environmental criticism, investor dissent, regulatory scrutiny and accusations from campaigners that its transition plans remain inadequate to the scale of the climate crisis.

And yet, whenever the returns wobble, the green limbs seem remarkably easy to amputate.

The company says it remains committed to net zero by 2050. But a pledge for 2050 is a wonderfully distant object. It sits safely beyond many executive tenures, many political careers and many bonus cycles. Today’s action is what matters.

Today’s action, according to Bloomberg and Reuters, is another possible sale of renewable assets.

The Shell Translation Guide

When Shell says “portfolio optimisation,” ordinary people may hear: selling things that do not make enough money.

When Shell says “disciplined capital allocation,” ordinary people may hear: fossil fuels still win the internal beauty contest.

When Shell says “more value with less emissions,” ordinary people may ask: less emissions compared with what, exactly, and by when?

When Shell says it supports the energy transition, ordinary people may reasonably ask: then why does the transition keep being shown the side door?

The absurdity is not that Shell wants profits. Of course it does. The absurdity is the ongoing pantomime in which fossil-fuel giants dress routine shareholder-first strategy as climate-era statesmanship.

A Wind Farm Sale With Symbolic Force

A $1 billion wind-farm sale would be financially modest beside Shell’s vast balance sheet. This is not a company-altering disposal on the scale of a supermajor merger or an upstream mega-sale.

But symbolically, it matters.

It tells governments, campaigners, investors and the public that Shell’s practical commitment to renewable power generation is narrowing. It reinforces the view that the company’s green transition is not a wholesale transformation, but a selective investment filter: low-carbon businesses may stay if they fit the returns machine; if not, they are liable to be sold, shelved, spun off or quietly forgotten.

That is not illegal. It is not surprising. But it is revealing.

Shell’s critics have long argued that the company’s transition rhetoric is more impressive than its transition reality. This reported sale hands them another exhibit.

Conclusion: The Wind Changed Direction — Shell Followed the Money

Shell’s reported $1 billion wind-farm sale plan is not an isolated development. It fits a broader pattern: withdraw from difficult renewable developments, focus on trading and customer-facing power where returns are stronger, keep LNG and oil at the heart of the machine, and reassure investors that the company is not about to sacrifice profitability on the altar of climate virtue.

In other words: the green halo is being resized to fit the balance sheet.

Shell will no doubt insist that it remains committed to the energy transition. It may say it is focusing on areas where it has competitive advantage. It may say it wants to create value while reducing emissions. It may say it is being pragmatic.

Fine.

But from the outside, it looks like this: when the wind business became hard, Shell remembered it was an oil and gas company.

The turbines can go. The slogans can stay.

PART TWO: SPOOF SHELL PR/SPIN SECTION

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Shell is pleased to announce that our commitment to the energy transition remains as strong as ever, provided the energy transition does not become financially irritating.

Recent reports that Shell is preparing a sale of offshore wind assets should not be misinterpreted as a retreat from renewables. It is simply an exciting opportunity to transition our transition into a more transitionally optimised transition.

Shell remains committed to “more value with less emissions,” especially the “more value” part, which is currently performing with excellent reliability.

Offshore wind continues to be an important part of the global energy system. We wish it every success under the ownership of people with more patience for offshore wind.

Shell’s own strategy is focused on areas where we have clear strengths: oil, gas, LNG, trading, marketing, shareholder distributions, and explaining why all of this is compatible with net zero by 2050.

We reject any suggestion that Shell is abandoning the green agenda. We are merely placing it in a carefully managed strategic storage facility, beside several previous PowerPoint decks.

ENDS

PART THREE: SPOOF BOT-REACTION / COMMENT SECTION

GreenwashDetectorBot: Alert: renewable asset detected leaving building.

DividendGoblin: I support the energy transition, but only if it yields above my hurdle rate and comes with a buyback.

WindTurbine_404: Sorry, this Shell climate commitment cannot be found.

LNGFanAccount: Great news. Nothing says net zero like selling wind and hugging gas.

InstitutionalInvestorBot: We are deeply committed to long-term climate stewardship, provided long-term climate stewardship does not interfere with short-term capital discipline.

CorporateTranslator: “Portfolio optimisation” means “the wind farm failed the bonus-cycle audition.”

ShellHistorian: New name, same weather vane: always turns toward money.

SatireUnit: Shell’s energy transition is now so streamlined it may fit inside a press release.

DISCLAIMER

This article is opinion and commentary. It uses satire, criticism and rhetorical exaggeration while relying on publicly available sources believed to be accurate at the time of writing. The reported wind-farm sale is described as reported by Reuters/Bloomberg and should not be treated as a completed transaction unless confirmed by Shell or transaction documentation. This article is not investment, legal, tax or financial advice. Readers should consult original sources and qualified professionals before making financial or legal decisions. Site wide disclaimer also applies.

Shell’s Great Green Shrink Ray: Oil Giant Reportedly Eyes $1 Billion Wind Farm Sell-Off While the ‘Energy Transition’ Banner Catches Fire was first posted on June 12, 2026 at 8:51 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

ChatGPT Images: A satirical illustration of Shell’s Monaca petrochemical plant as a giant golden plastic funnel: Pennsylvania taxpayers pour $1.65 billion into the top, while plastic pellets, smoke, warning notices, and tiny “promised jobs” crumbs fall out the bottom. In the background, executives in hard hats point at a “Petrochemical Renaissance” banner peeling off the wall.

Image alt text: Satirical image of Shell’s Monaca plastics plant depicted as a taxpayer-funded petrochemical machine producing pollution, plastic pellets and broken job promises.

Disclosure: This article and accompanying image concepts were generated by ChatGPT in response to the source material supplied by the site publisher. Human editorial review is recommended before publication.

PART ONE: FACT-BASED TABLOID-STYLE DEEP DIVE

There are corporate fairy tales, and then there is Shell’s Monaca petrochemical plant in Beaver County, Pennsylvania — a $14 billion plastics palace sold to the public as an economic miracle, an industrial renaissance, a jobs bonanza, a shimmering shale-gas promised land.

And now? According to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, the whole thing looks rather less like a renaissance and rather more like a giant petrochemical whoopee cushion, slowly deflating beside the Ohio River while taxpayers wonder who ordered the plastic confetti.

IEEFA’s latest analysis, “Shell’s Monaca plant exposes Pennsylvania’s failed trickle-down petrochemical renaissance”⁠, argues that the Monaca plant has become a glaring case study in overhyped fossil-fuel industrial policy: public subsidies, grand promises, underwhelming jobs, pollution headaches, and market conditions that appear to have stomped on the dream in steel-toed boots.

Shell, previously known as Forthdeal Limited, subsequently as Royal Dutch Shell plc, and now hiding in plain sight as Shell plc after ditching the disgraced Royal Dutch moniker, has reportedly marched back into the headlines with a project that was supposed to turn Appalachian shale gas into regional prosperity. Instead, it has produced the familiar Shell cocktail: fossil-fuel dependency, environmental controversy, expensive optimism, and enough public subsidy to make a hedge fund blush.

The Monaca facility uses ethane from natural gas to produce polyethylene — a common plastic used in packaging and consumer goods. Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection says the facility includes ethane cracking furnaces, polyethylene units and gas-powered electricity turbines, and began polyethylene production processes in fall 2022: Pennsylvania DEP facility information⁠.

The sales pitch was magnificent. The public was told that Appalachia was on the edge of a petrochemical boom. Shell’s plant would be the anchor. More facilities would supposedly follow. Jobs would multiply. Downstream manufacturers would bloom. The region would be reborn in a glorious cascade of plastic pellets and press releases.

Instead, by 2025, Spotlight PA reported⁠ that Shell was exploring a sale or partnership for the $14 billion facility. Shell CEO Wael Sawan told analysts: “The issue is it’s our only one, our only major facility” making this kind of plastic, adding: “we’re not the natural owner of that asset.”

Translation from Corporate Esperanto: after Pennsylvania helped throw a record-breaking subsidy party, Shell appears to be checking the exits.

The Taxpayer-Funded Plastic Dream

The plant was lured to Pennsylvania with a tax incentive widely reported at up to $1.65 billion over 25 years. That is not a modest welcome basket. That is a golden throne, a brass band, and a state-sponsored love letter delivered by forklift.

Local communities were told this would be transformational. The petrochemical “renaissance” would deliver downstream manufacturing and regional regeneration. Yet the grand boom appears to have fizzled. The facility was built, yes. The promised wider petrochemical wave? Not so much.

Spotlight PA⁠ noted that the Department of Energy once saw the Shell cracker as the first of multiple facilities across Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. Five years later, Shell’s Monaca plant stood alone.

One plant. One enormous subsidy. One lonely plastic behemoth sitting where a renaissance was supposed to be.

If this is trickle-down economics, the trickle seems to have evaporated before reaching the public.

The Market Problem: Plastic Dreams Meet Reality

IEEFA’s earlier report, “Shell’s petrochemical problem in Pennsylvania”⁠, described Monaca’s market reality as “unfavorable and uncertain” because of oversupply, weak demand, weak operating rates, trade frictions and policy risks. It also pointed to weak profit margins caused by the spread between ethane feedstock prices and finished ethylene.

That is analyst-speak for: the economics may not be wearing the party hat Shell expected.

IEEFA also said Shell’s initial guidance suggested annual EBITDA of $1 billion to $1.5 billion, while its own analysis indicated the plant may generate only $416 million to $987 million annually. Even the higher end of that range is a long way from the glorious subsidy-soaked brochure version of events.

So, Pennsylvania helped bankroll a petrochemical showpiece just as the global plastics market became increasingly awkward: oversupply, environmental pressure, changing trade dynamics, and growing public scrutiny of single-use plastic and fossil-fuel-derived materials.

It is almost as if building an enormous fossil-plastics monument in the middle of a climate and pollution crisis might not have been the masterstroke promised by the petrochemical priesthood.

The Pollution Problem: The Cracker That Keeps Cracking the Public’s Patience

The environmental controversy has been just as inconvenient as the economics.

The Pennsylvania DEP says Shell’s Monaca site required complex environmental reviews, approvals and permits. The facility began production in fall 2022, and its Title V operating permit application remains under review according to the DEP page last updated in May 2026: DEP facility information⁠.

Meanwhile, PublicSource reported in March 2026⁠ that Shell Polymers Monaca had continued to emit nitrogen oxides above permitted levels for almost three years without clear new fines, while temporary permit extensions stretched far beyond the original timeline.

That is quite the achievement: a “renaissance” so advanced it apparently still needs regulatory training wheels.

In 2023, Shell agreed to a $10 million settlement with Pennsylvania regulators over air pollution violations at the plant. Environmental groups and local residents have continued to scrutinise emissions, flaring, odors and pollution incidents. FracTracker Alliance⁠ has also highlighted emissions and malfunction reports associated with the facility, including hazardous pollutants such as benzene, 1,3-butadiene, naphthalene, nitrogen oxides and styrene.

Shell will no doubt point to compliance efforts, investments, safety systems, monitoring, community engagement and all the usual corporate vocabulary polished to a high gloss. But the public record still leaves a nasty aftertaste: a giant plastics plant, in an already burdened region, with repeated regulatory and pollution concerns.

The slogan might as well be: “You can be sure of Shell — especially if you enjoy reading permit documents.”

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs — Now Please Mind the Fine Print

The political case for Monaca was not just “plastic.” It was “jobs.” Lots of them. Glorious jobs. Jobs raining from the sky like polyethylene pellets after a handling mishap.

But the actual employment footprint has been far more modest than the rhetoric used to justify the subsidy. Construction created temporary employment, as large industrial projects do. But permanent full-time jobs at the facility have been reported in the hundreds, not the sweeping regional transformation once implied by boosters.

The problem with trickle-down petrochemicals is that the “downstream” part often turns out to be aspirational wallpaper. Politicians cut ribbons. Executives smile in hard hats. Consultants produce charts. Then the region is left asking where the rest of the miracle went.

The Monaca case should be taught in public finance courses under the module: “When Corporate Welfare Arrives Wearing a Jobs Costume.”

The Global Shell Context: Fossil Expansion With a Side Order of Plastic

This is not an isolated personality quirk. Shell remains one of the world’s most powerful fossil-fuel companies, with major operations in oil, gas, LNG, chemicals and petrochemicals. The Monaca plant fits into a larger strategy in which oil majors seek demand growth through petrochemicals even as transport fuels face long-term pressure from electrification and climate policy.

Plastics are not some innocent side hustle. They are deeply linked to fossil-fuel extraction, ethane production, pipelines, cracker plants, chemical manufacturing, waste, and pollution. When oil and gas companies talk about petrochemicals, they are not just discussing shampoo bottles and sandwich bags. They are discussing a fossil-fuel lifeboat.

And who is financially along for the ride? Shell’s shareholder base includes some of the world’s largest institutional investors. MarketScreener’s Shell ownership data lists major shareholders including Norges Bank Investment Management, Vanguard Capital Management, BlackRock Investment Management (UK), BlackRock Advisors (UK), State Street’s SSgA Funds Management, and Legal & General Investment Management: MarketScreener Shell shareholders⁠.

These asset-management giants often present themselves as sober custodians of long-term value. Yet here they are, invested in a company whose Pennsylvania plastic adventure raises awkward questions about subsidy dependency, regulatory risk, environmental liabilities, market oversupply and reputational damage.

Passive investing may be passive. Pollution is not.

The Political Lesson: Don’t Let Fossil-Fuel Giants Write the Renaissance Brochure

Pennsylvania’s Monaca experience exposes a brutally simple problem: governments are often far too willing to treat fossil-fuel megaprojects as economic salvation, while underpricing the risks dumped on communities.

The rhetoric is always the same. Investment. Jobs. Energy security. Industrial renewal. Competitiveness. The future.

Then come the externalities: air pollution, water concerns, traffic disruption, regulatory delays, market volatility, local frustration, and the slow dawning realisation that the public may have subsidised a corporate asset that the corporation itself may no longer be desperate to own.

A genuine renaissance should leave a region stronger, cleaner and more economically resilient. It should not require residents to accept pollution risk while executives quietly explore strategic alternatives.

Shell’s Monaca plant may still operate for years. It may find a partner or buyer. It may improve performance. It may deliver some local economic benefits. But the larger mythology has already taken a beating. The “petrochemical renaissance” was sold as a regional transformation. What arrived was a massive plastics plant with market trouble, environmental controversy and a subsidy bill large enough to deserve its own postcode.

Conclusion: The Plastic Miracle Melts Under Heat

Shell’s Monaca saga is not merely a Pennsylvania story. It is a cautionary tale for any government tempted to believe that fossil-fuel giants bring prosperity out of pure civic affection.

They bring spreadsheets. They bring lawyers. They bring lobbyists. They bring tax-credit appetite. They bring risk-transfer machinery polished to perfection.

And when the market shifts, the politics sour, or the asset no longer fits the portfolio, they bring the phrase “not the natural owner.”

Pennsylvania was promised a petrochemical renaissance. It appears to have received a subsidised plastic monument to magical thinking.

Shell, of course, may prefer a more dignified interpretation. Something about strategic review, portfolio optimisation and disciplined capital allocation.

The rest of us might call it what it looks like: a $14 billion warning label.

PART TWO: SPOOF SHELL PR/SPIN SECTION

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Shell is delighted to clarify that the Monaca facility represents a world-class example of strategic petrochemical possibility, community-adjacent value creation, and advanced expectation management.

While some critics have described the project as an over-subsidised plastics gamble wrapped in a fossil-fuel fantasy, Shell prefers the phrase “dynamic long-term optionality platform.”

Yes, Pennsylvania provided a substantial tax incentive. But please understand: without generous public support, how could a multinational energy supermajor possibly afford to pursue its dreams?

Yes, market conditions have been challenging. But Shell sees challenges as opportunities, especially opportunities to explain why previous opportunities now require new strategic opportunities.

Yes, our CEO has said Shell is not the “natural owner” of the asset. This should not be misinterpreted as regret. It is simply a sophisticated way of saying that after building the thing, accepting the subsidy, and celebrating the project, we are now exploring whether someone else might enjoy owning the consequences.

As for pollution concerns, Shell remains committed to listening, monitoring, reviewing, assessing, engaging, reporting, recalibrating, dialoguing, and issuing statements containing the word “safety” at regular intervals.

We thank Pennsylvania taxpayers for their partnership, patience and wallet.

ENDS

PART THREE: SPOOF BOT-REACTION / COMMENT SECTION

PetroBot3000: Incredible success. The plant converted public money into private optionality with 97.4% efficiency.

SubsidyGoblin: I was promised a renaissance. I received nitrogen oxides and a LinkedIn post.

PlasticPelletPatriot: To be fair, without Shell, who would teach Pennsylvania the difference between “jobs boom” and “temporary construction phase”?

AssetManagerBot: As a long-term investor, I am deeply committed to sustainability, unless sustainability conflicts with quarterly performance, index exposure, fee structures, or the sacred right to own everything.

LocalResident42: The brochure said prosperity. The air said otherwise.

CorporateSpinUnit: Please stop calling it a failed trickle-down petrochemical renaissance. We prefer “under-realised hydrocarbon-adjacent regional value journey.”

ShellHistorian: Remember: when the brand name changes, the business model does not necessarily receive a moral software update.

TaxpayerMug: I gave $1.65 billion and all I got was this strategic review.

DISCLAIMER

This article is opinion and commentary. It uses satire, criticism and rhetorical exaggeration while relying on publicly available sources believed to be accurate at the time of writing. It is not investment, legal, tax or financial advice. Readers should consult original sources and qualified professionals before making financial or legal decisions. Site wide disclaimer also applies.

Shell’s Pennsylvania Plastic Fantastic: The $14 Billion “Renaissance” That Looks Suspiciously Like a Taxpayer-Funded Faceplant was first posted on June 12, 2026 at 8:27 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Media Advisory: PA DEP Approves Unusual “Mineral Brine” Well in Erie County, Raising Concerns About New Regulatory Loophole. FracTracker appeals permit, citing unresolved questions about testing and sale of highly saline subsurface water that can contain radium, metals, and other contaminants

The post PA DEP Approves Unusual “Mineral Brine” Well in Erie County, Raising Concerns About New Regulatory Loophole appeared first on FracTracker Alliance.

On a Sunday in late March, more than four dozen United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers (UAW) union members joined a Zoom training put on by Unite All Workers for Democracy (UAWD), a UAW caucus. A year prior, in 2025, UAWD went through a divisive public split between reformers closely aligned with UAW President Shawn Fain and those who sought an independent caucus with a class-struggle focus. Coming out of that period, UAWD, in its current form, has set out to concretize and develop its organizational ideas.

The March training, called “Class Struggle Unionism 101 Training,” was part of those ongoing efforts. It aimed to provide new rank-and-file organizers with basic skills “to build strong teams, develop an escalation plan, and win fights against the boss,” according to the meeting’s billing.

For anyone who’s attended an introductory labor organizing course like those hosted by Labor Notes, the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee, or other left-leaning labor groups, large chunks of the presentation would be familiar. The training explained the historical role of unions in the U.S., showed the century-long downward trend of unions with a graph charting union density against broader income inequality, and spoke to the crisis faced by workers everywhere and the need for them to organize, now more than ever.

The second half of the presentation presented tried-and-true organizing strategies for the shop floor, beginning with coworker support mapping and tactical issue escalation schema. These modes of organizing are now common in any union organizing training aimed at empowering workers.

It was the first half of the UAWD presentation that one won’t find offered in the typical union organizing space today. It discussed the fundamentals of class struggle–a deliberate framing that placed workers at odds with the owners of the means of production. UAWD co-chair Nolan Tabb, a long-time member of Local 281 at John Deere in Davenport, Iowa, identified what class-struggle unionism boils down to in one word: power.

“Class-struggle unionism recognizes that, at the end of the day, it’s all about power: who has it, who doesn’t; how we build it, how we use it,” Tabb said during the Zoom training. The dynamic, he went on to explain, was a struggle between two competing classes, those that work and those that rule, with goals that work directly against each other.

“These opposing interests can’t be reconciled, and they can’t coexist. That means we have to fight,” said Tabb.

This rhetoric of boss antagonism and worker power fills speeches made by labor leaders and their supporters, all of whom are eager to capture the current moment of enthusiasm. For example, UAW President Shawn Fain has blasted “corporate greed,” “company unionism,” and pledged to fight for “the good of the entire working class.” The result is that hearing terms like “rank-and-file organizing” and “class warfare” now make it hard to pin-down a meaningful idea. This doesn’t appear accidental. The rhetoric of the labor bureaucracy and its backers gets defined on the shop floor and in meetings of the local. It’s made real in the power union members are invested with, in their day-to-day work space, in the say they have over working conditions, and in the role they have in building the union itself.

UAWD clearly sees a gap (or a chasm) between the words of union leaders and the deeds of the union as it operates in reality. Whereas generations of business-friendly unionism have reduced most labor battles to so-called “bread-and-butter issues” of wages and benefits, the focus on class-struggle unionism that UAWD advocates for harkens back to the heyday of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) in the early 20th century and the battles over virtually every aspect of working conditions. Not only are economic demands on the table, but the decisions about hours and shifts, safety and production output, and even what goods and services are actually produced.

The idea that owners had the “right” to run their companies however they like? Tabb called that idea “bullshit.”

Over the last year, UAWD has worked to mold itself into something that stands in contrast to much of today’s structured labor organizing efforts: avowedly militant, steeped in broad class solidarity, and focused first and foremost on workers themselves as the central figures–both to be organized and to be empowered, on the job and in the union. Those involved in these efforts are not shy about their struggles. Nor do they grandstand about outcomes; if anything, they’re hyperrealistic about the challenges ahead and the potential for failure.

UAWD has worked to mold itself into something that stands in contrast to much of today’s structured labor organizing efforts: avowedly militant, steeped in broad class solidarity, and focused first and foremost on workers themselves.

A year after the split, despite the difficulties, today’s UAWD is providing both a new and revived historical model for organizing, one that has the potential to challenge the way business is done in the C-suite and the union hall alike.

Left evolution

The split that divided UAWD in 2025 was never inevitable. But in hindsight, a number of factors made it much more likely.

Since the late 1940s, the UAW existed under the one-party rule of the Administrative Caucus, which began with Walter Reuther. It ended when federal prosecutors put away a baker’s dozen UAW leaders, including the president of the international, on corruption charges in 2020. This opened a window of opportunity that reformers, led by UAWD, quickly took advantage of in 2021 by winning a union-wide referendum to change the voting process for union leadership to a one-member-one-vote system. The success of that campaign led the fledgling UAWDto assemble and lead the campaign for a new leadership slate that saw Shawn Fain and a number of others elected as reformers.

Yet the questions of UAWD’s politics–what the caucus, only a few years old, would stand for following its successful campaigns–began to crystallize during the first major test of Fain’s leadership. In Summer 2023, Fain took the union into conflict with the “Big 3” automakers during a series of simultaneous contract negotiations–a bold first. Ultimately, the union would secure tentative agreements from all three companies. What role, then, would UAWD play, if any, to help the union’s leadership secure support for the proposed contracts?

Two competing views began to develop, although not yet with clearly defined groupings or fully-formed strategies, setting the stage for the tension within the caucus. One tendency adopted a loyalist reform stance that sought to keep itself and the caucus close to Fain and the rest of the new leadership, while prioritizing union reform. In contrast, another tendency sought to maintain UAWD as independent of leadership and, instead, beholden only to members. They would come to identify themselves almost a year later as the class-struggle wing.

Two competing views began to develop…setting the stage for the tension within the caucus. One tendency adopted a loyalist reform stance…In contrast, another tendency sought to maintain UAWD as independent of leadership.

At the end of August 2023–weeks before the Big 3 strikes began–a resolution was put forward within UAWD that called for weekly membership meetings as long as a strike continued, as well as members’ meetings to discuss and debate any tentative agreement. Ultimately, the resolution passed, but the internal debate foreshadowed the groupings that would come to define the split, with those eager to show independence strongly supporting the measure, hoping to empower rank-and-file workers to make their own call on any agreement, and those opposed more concerned about the impact on Fain and the rest of UAW leadership.

By early 2025, the year-plus of internal conflict within UAWD was reaching a crisis point. A few months earlier, at the annual UAWD convention, a slate close to the union’s leadership won a majority of the caucus’s steering committee. Fain himself made an appearance. Members of the class-struggle wing claimed the win was bolstered by paper members and support from more progressive members of the Administrative Caucus, the long-time leadership caucus UAWD worked to defeat in the 2022 election, who had come to align with Fain in the years since.

Disagreements about the future of UAWD persisted. The class-struggle wing continued organizing around its priorities and winning when it did so. This was made possible by the fact that it aligned with the vast majority of the caucus’s active members in manufacturing and other sectors. The pro-Fain reform wing would later point to debates during this period as being highly politicized and designed as “a political litmus test,” with the debate over support for Palestine, in their words, an example of high-minded union activists who had lost sight of the shop floor.

Yet the class-struggle group took on a full array of issues, including support for Palestine, that were important to workers, and won. They took on the Federal monitor over his improper interference in UAW’s internal policy decision making, calling his actions “an example of the government and the billionaire class working to undermine our union’s political independence”. They spearheaded resolutions that rescinded endorsements for two UAW leaders, Margaret Mock and Rich Boyer, over failures in office. They anchored UAWD’s Electric Vehicle committee, which raised awareness about mass layoffs. They argued against Fain’s support of Trump’s tariffs in trainings, voted down a resolution to disenfranchise non-manufacturing workers, and launched a campaign to organize for a bottom-up general strike in 2028.

On March 26, 2025, a majority of the UAWD steering committee, all Fain-backing reformers, released a statement. Members of the caucus could “no longer work together toward common goals,” they said. While they believed in the need for a caucus like UAWD, the current group had become “one that is constantly engaged in insular debate that distracts from the work of building the union.” The class-struggle wing issued a rebuttal to the claims of the steering committee majority and reaffirmed the principles of class-struggle unionism.

At the UAWD membership meeting the following month, the steering committee majority pushed through its resolution to dissolve the caucus. Members of the class-struggle wing later found at least seven caucus members, including Ben Rosenfield—a member of the Association of Legal Advocates and Attorneys, UAW Local 2325—who appeared blocked from access to the Zoom meeting where the vote took place. Rosenfeld later asked: “How can such a vote be seen as legitimate?” The activists also detailed a long list of issues and procedural violations by the leadership of UAWD during the meeting, including allowing a majority vote to pass the dissolution proposal, despite bylaws calling for a supermajority. Ultimately, thanks to undemocratic tactics like those faced by Rosenfield, the class-struggle wing believes that a swing of more than two-dozen votes went towards dissolution, which was more than the 23-vote margin by which it passed at the meeting.

Ultimately, thanks to undemocratic tactics… the class-struggle wing believes that a swing of more than two-dozen votes went towards dissolution [of UAWD].

“In all aspects, in all angles, it was a coup; that’s what it was,” said Tabb.

Regroup, refocus

Today, UAWD is the project of the class-struggle unionism faction and the majority of UAWD’s pre-split active membership, while those committed to continuing the reformist tack that is aligned with UAW leadership split off to create a new organization called UAW Member Action. The postdiluvian afterlife of each caucus provides a window into what separates both the theory and the practice of class-struggle unionism from mainstream union organizing found in most labor spaces today.

On UAW Member Action’s website, the caucus states it is a “union-wide network of members supporting each other to stand up to employers, grow as activists and organizers, and carry on the transformation of our union at every level.” Its bylaws have a heavy focus on the collective bargaining process and the role of contracts between workers and management. Under its “Resources” section these priorities– “UAW Contracts,” “Contract Negotiations,” “Grievance Handling”–are alongside support for the union’s bureaucratic structure: “Stewards Network,” which looks to connect officials to “troubleshoot handling grievances, building member involvement, and enforcing our contracts;” and “Running for Union Office,” a how-to if one is considering a position.

The contrast between the public presentations by UAWD and Member Action points directly to the gulf between the now-separate aims and agendas. UAWD member Nevena Pilipović-Wengler, out of Local 22 in Detroit, sees the two groups as coming out of “fundamentally different starting points.” She noted that the word “class,” working or otherwise, appears nowhere in Member Action’s bylaws or on its website.

“We have two very different projects. They think having elected positions locked down is what will lead to victories for the working class. We believe that it actually starts on the shop floor and through the politics of challenging capital, like fighting layoffs and overloaded jobs, and ending forced overtime,” Pilipović-Wengler said. “I think Members Action is thinking about reform within the constraints of labor law and within the constraints of capital. I don’t think they’re interested in increasing worker control of not just the shop floor, but in the larger production process.”

Multiple requests to speak to someone from Members Action for this piece received no acknowledgement or response.

A class-struggle focus, UAWD argues, rests on the belief that workers themselves–not management, not union leadership–are where all organizing should begin and end. Critically, the focus is not simply on the four corners of a contract, or on the most efficient ways to handle the grievance process, or even on wages and benefits.

Class-struggle unionism begins with a different analysis entirely, one familiar to many of the Left. Yet the focus on “class-struggle” versus an overt socialist framing is intentional. While the “big picture” class-struggle discussion reads like a typical Marxist analysis of the extractive labor-value relationship between workers and capitalists, the class-struggle focus brings the larger picture framing down to the quotidian concerns most workers face. This is praxis for those not necessarily soaked in or sold on socialism, but who comprehend the curse capitalism sets upon us.

UAWD sees its work within the widening gap between the real-world experience of workers under capitalism and the unsatisfactory solutions offered by the reformist labor organizing efforts of UAW Member Action and others.

The theory rests on five core values presented in the UAWD Member Platform. The first is worker control. It is workers, not managers or owners (nor union bureaucrats) who should be in control–from the shop floor on up to how production and the supply chain are managed. But that first step is critical in this formulation; it’s not expressed in grandiose statements as much as through the slow, difficult, uncertain process UAWD is in now, of trying to develop UAWD chapters within locals across sectors.

“If the workers were to step outside with the bosses, the workers would win that fight,” Josh Trombley, a UAW Temp Organizer based in Region 9A, said during the UAWD presentation. “You and your coworkers are the drivers of change. Our power comes from working together with our coworkers. Our power doesn’t come from our bosses, the government, from union staff, or even elected union leaders…you must be the ones to actually take action.”

The next is militancy. Union leaders, in particular, are fond of tough talk about the power of unionized workers, but the reality is that militancy has become a dirty word in business unions. Class-struggle unionism seeks to return the willingness to be overtly confrontational to the core of worker organizing. Wildcat strikes, sitdowns, slowdowns–these and more need to be on the table for workers, even as UAWD acknowledges most workers aren’t yet ready to take militant action.

The third is working class solidarity, one that extends beyond a local or a sector, that stretches beyond borders and industries. Democracy is the fourth value, placing decision-making in the hands of workers, not as an ideal but as “a strategic form of organizational power building,” according to the UAWD website. Lastly, independence–from not only union leadership, but more broadly in mainstream politics as a key towards charting a different and better course.

UAWD organizers are okay if this means not everyone is on board. UAWD co-chair Andrew Bergman, based out of General Motors Local 22 in Detroit, explained this understanding as one of concentric circles. Too small a circle, like the one a socialist-explicit formulation might create, would likely be focused on distant, abstracted political goals, failing to attract enough people or to meaningfully advance shop-floor activity or class-struggle politics, especially given UAWD’s goal of building organized branches within UAW locals across sectors.

Too big and broad a focus, which Bergman likened to the way UAWD operated prior to the split, would have the opposite issue: it could attract a broader group of people, of both viewpoints and numbers, but it would struggle to articulate a core motivation for action that would translate to local organizing.

“After the split, we realized that it wasn’t just our internal structure that allowed UAWD to be captured by the leaders we elected, it was our unclear political goals: a vague, apolitical notion of democracy and reform,” said Bergman. “In that way, having a smaller group of only a couple hundred more committed cadre was almost a good problem to have, because it meant we needed to be long-sighted and not imagine we already had the ideas, formations, or members necessary to race to the finish line.”

In that Goldilocks space is class-struggle unionism.

If there’s a specific dividing line between the class-struggle approach and what most labor organizing efforts look like these days, it’s in the relationship between workers and the union itself. This broad generalization has ample caveats. But it means that, whereas most organizing is focused on the structures of the union itself–the need for ratification through the approved legal process, the focus on their bureaucratic structure, the solutions to workers’ problems through contractual negotiations alone–are taken as givens, necessities, rather than choices made.

If there’s a specific dividing line between the class-struggle approach and what most labor organizing efforts look like these days, it’s in the relationship between workers and the union itself.

Tapping a more radical tradition, class-struggle unionism necessarily rejects this framing. But it also goes further, making the union itself a space of contest and struggle, where organized workers must also fight to make their goals real in the face of an entrenched bureaucracy that is more interested in labor peace than worker control. These battles come at every level, from the struggles on the shop floor created by both management and union officials, to the loftier goals of a union that fights against state violence or for control over the means of production–something that seems today wildly out of reach, but which locals within UAW itself fought for at times in the early 20th century.

As Judith Stepan-Norris and Maurice Zeitlin note in “Left Out: Reds and America’s Industrial Unions,” in the 1930s and 40s radical organizers in UAW Local 600 at the Ford River Rouge plant–the largest industrial manufacturing complex the world had ever seen–were unwilling to cede conditions on the shop floor, and beyond, to control from above: “For working-class radicals or socialists, ‘management rights’ [‘to decide not only what they produce but how they produce it’] are neither ‘inherent’ nor legitimate; on the contrary, such alleged rights constitute, in their view, a quasilegal form of illegitimate class power.”

For UAW organizers of the day, Stephan-Norris and Zeitline write, this “struggle over the frontier of control in American industry” opened up the possibility of a formalized relationship between labor and management that put workers in control of greater parts of their work life and, intentionally, raised the specter of the ability to gain control of a bigger swath of the broader social system as a whole. Quoting a management expert who interviewed radical workers at the time, those interviewed indicated that, “[i]n both spheres [state and industry] they see the necessity of controlling authority in the interests of those who take the orders.”

This, then, is the shared spirit class-struggle unionism seeks, at least in theory, to embrace. In today’s labor dynamic, this means a battle not only with the ownership class, but with business unionism that long ago yielded to the interests of capital.

Comparing notes

UAWD is not alone among militant efforts within major trade unions. However, there is a contrast of styles in these efforts, with different priorities and tactics allowing for a useful comparison of strategies that ultimately have similar, if not mirror, end goals.

Shortly before Shawn Fain led UAW through its contract process with the Big 3 automakers in 2024, labor supporters were focused on another major contract battle. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, led by the pugnacious Sean O’Brien, was poised for negotiations with UPS.

UPS is the single-largest employer of Teamsters in the country. The approximately 300,000 Teamsters working at the company account for roughly a third of all the union’s members in the U.S. The looming contract fight presented a rare and unique opportunity to see a major union fight to undo years of givebacks and clawbacks from one of the most recognizable companies in the world.

For part-timers, who make up more than 60 percent of the unionized workforce at UPS, this was also a moment of much-needed action. Conditions for part-time workers were far worse than those of full-time UPS employees, and many part-timers saw O’Brien’s bombast ahead of threatened strikes as an encouraging sign that he would fight for them.

The strike never came. The tentative contract agreement, hammered out between UPS and union leadership behind closed doors, failed to live up to expectations for many, including part-time workers. Ahead of the ratification vote, a group of these workers formed a new caucus, Teamsters Mobilized, to urge their coworkers not to accept O’Brien’s deal. They, too, faced a split with a reform faction within the Teamsters that had become closely tied to the union leadership: Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU) had helped propel O’Brien to victory and were unresponsive to concerns about the plight of part-time workers in the bargaining process, leading some of them to form Teamsters Mobilize.

The contract ultimately passed, but Teamsters Mobilize continued to grow as a force of its own. Today, it has expanded beyond its core of part-timers to include a broader base of Teamsters across sectors. As the caucus has developed and grown, the group has retained a militant formation with an activist focus. This has meant pushing the Teamsters on issues around Palestinian solidarity and anti-ICE efforts. It has also meant taking aim at the Teamster leadership, especially O’Brien, whose active flirting with Trump and bizarre rightward shift provide ample fodder.

Jess Lister has been with Teamsters Mobilize since the beginning. A part-time UPS worker in Georgia, Lister sees the organization’s focus as addressing a set of needs for a broad set of people.

“We all had these big ideas, even back then, about what Teamsters Mobilize could possibly lead to. We wanted it to be Teamsters, all industries, both part-time and full-time,” she said. “I think we would all agree that we’re thrilled with the growth.”

Teamsters Mobilize operates at a high elevation. Group chats, with participants from across the country, provide central spaces for dialogue, information sharing, and planning. Political discussions, even arguments, get hashed out largely online. There are no Teamsters Mobilized local chapters to speak of; the closest formation is the unofficial SoCal Teamsters Mobilize grouping in California. While only Teamsters can be members, like-minded members of other unions or even non-union individuals have opportunities to be involved in the work. The group is currently going through a process of determining a membership-dues schedule.

“So many of these people thought we were a flash in the pan,” Lister said. “The fact is that not only are we still around; we’re actually doing a lot.”

Lister said that some discussion has occurred about developing more location-specific structures, likely by region. The focus currently is on utilizing online and social media channels as Teamsters Mobilize’s primary arena of agitation. This is conducted overwhelmingly on Instagram (the group is also active on Facebook). Their nearly 2,400 Instagram followers have seen a growth of content that features Teamsters Mobilize members at events, speaking directly to the camera about issues, and critiquing the regressive moves of the O’Brien administration, all in unvarnished left language.

For Lister, this is a strategy of growth grounded in principles that can help rebuild a militant labor movement.

“Anybody that wants to expose something, or bring awareness to something–or even a win, like, ‘I’ve accomplished this in my union, this is how I did it’–we want to put out more material educating people and bringing awareness to different things,” she said.

Chantelle Schultz has a particularly unique vantage point. She was an early member of Teamsters Mobilize as a part-time UPS worker in New Jersey. The Maoist Communist Union member is now with UAW Local 2179 in the Strand book shop’s warehouse, while continuing to work with Teamster Mobilize as a supporter.

Schultz is a firm believer in how Teamster Mobilize is looking to advance its purpose–and sees those efforts as something UAWD should likewise embrace.

“TM has had a particular emphasis on putting out media–instagram posts, blog posts, articles–to reach Teamsters members to talk about what the issues are that we face as workers, to talk about the issues of class collaboration in our unions, how the union leadership collaborates with the capitalist class and tries to get us to believe the lie that as workers we can have class harmony and shared interests with the capitalists and so on,” Schultz said, adding that there was a specific focus on addressing “working class position on all these issues that we see in society, economic and political” that include the war in Iran, the genocide in Gaza, and U.S. imperialism.

Schultz has been a member of UAW for a short period–since the autumn of 2025–and involved with UAWD for only a few months, but sees a qualifiable divide in the two organizational focuses. She sees that “there is an idea in UAWD that we should only focus on shop-floor organizing right now, and that we shouldn’t try to do national-scale organizing, or national-level campaigns, or spend much time on exposing what’s going on at [upcoming international union elections].”

“I think this is a mistake,” she said.

The “larger issue” of UAW’s overall business unionism orientation is tied directly to the issues on the shop floor: “We’re only going to be able to get so far in terms of organizing on the shop level if it’s not connected up on the national scale…In order to really fight for some principles about waging the class struggle, we need to not only think about our struggle as UAW members being on a national scale, but really as the class as being on the national scale.”

The solution? Be more like Teamster Mobilize: see social media as a vital arena for member outreach and propaganda, focus on broader sets of political and economic issues, and pick a fight with UAW’s leadership.

“There’s a difference in how much TM and UAWD have respectively criticized the international leadership of the two unions,” Schultz said. “Teamsters Mobilize…has put out very consistent, scathing criticism of O’Brien and the union leadership. TM sees this as absolutely necessary to expose him for what he is and to develop the necessary consciousness amongst Teamsters members to wage a militant fight. I think UAWD should have been putting out consistent criticism of Fain and other UAW leadership.”

This tactical focus is a familiar one to anyone who engages on social media with issues on the Left. Groups aplenty have developed outsized online presences that see combat by online posting as not only a legitimate way of advocating for their issues, but as the most effective. Outrage and frustration are easy to both find and stoke online, and this tactic seeks to connect with those most impacted by the messaging and the targets, in the hopes of persuading them to join in the fight.

It would be foolhardy and counterproductive for any group, be they an activist organization or a militant union caucus, to ignore the very real power social media plays these days in the lives of everyone, and most notably among younger generations. The question is not do or do not, but rather what are the political aims? Who are you trying to organize? What are the outcomes you’re looking to realize along these tactical lines?

Every set of choices has pros and cons. Here, the answer to the above points to two different projects. Teamsters Mobilized is a highly dispersed organization, one that was described as a reform-focused group by Jess Lister. Their aims are upwards; the fight focuses mainly on top union bosses and their allies, the capitalist ownership class, and the political actors who support them. The demands on these power structures hope to find resonance with individuals online, both Teamsters and others, who seek to join the fight.

This is a well-worn tactical array. Most issue-based nonprofits, and more than a few left groups, utilize a similar playbook of online-first advocacy around big-picture issues. The challenge (or problem, depending on one’s point of view) is that there isn’t a track record for success. Targeting individuals like union bosses doesn’t mean the next person is going to be any better. Building a network of individuals spread out all over the country means that very little collective action on physical ground is possible.

And while online advocacy is an indispensable part of any contemporary political fight, success in the digital realm is not a stand-in for success in the real world. Teamsters Mobilize has an Instagram account with 2,500 followers as of this writing. Some of their videos have gotten more than 400 likes at times, but many others received less than 200. In a world where interactions in the thousands are a baseline for meaningfulness, this strategy has a significant threshold yet to be met.

While online advocacy is an indispensable part of any contemporary political fight, success in the digital realm is not a stand-in for success in the real world.

As it pertains to UAWD, these issues, as realistic as they are, are almost insignificant. They aren’t targeting the same priorities. Rather than making the powered elite the specific target, the class-struggle perspective goes in the opposite direction, placing the organizational priority on organizing, developing, and growing shop-floor worker power. While both objectives are the overthrow of the extractive capitalist order, the focus on workers has the longer, more uncertain prioritization of a working-class movement built out of the shop floors, offices, and institutions that workers toil in every day.

The difficulties down this path are not lost on UAWD organizers.

“Our coworkers often see the bureaucracy as ineffective in providing an expected service, but don’t yet see our union as capable of waging or winning militant fights, even though they’re often ready to fight the bosses themselves,” UAWD’s Bergman said. “The challenge is to build up rank-and-file political and organizational capacity for collective struggle, which we’re working to anchor through local chapters and class struggle propaganda. We believe that when our coworkers are engaged in struggle and see their elected leaders collude with management to undermine them, then our critiques of the bureaucracy will resonate much more broadly.”

The future is uncertainty

As of early June 2026, UAWD has approximately 200 dues-paying members. There are currently three chapters organized with union locals across the country, with a number of additional ones in the pipeline. To better serve its educational and propaganda purposes, it launched a new publication, Daily Struggle, last October, because, as an editorial note in the first issue stated, the “lack of any serious response by organized labor to the attacks on our unions, our rights, and the very principles of democracy and equality since the start of Donald Trump’s second term points to the need for a renewal of independent working-class militancy.“ Recent articles include a look at commitments by UAW Local 2325, the legal services workers in New York City, to authorize a strike to resist ICE, and a critique of the grievance process and how it can be used in more militant ways. UAWD recently published its second issue.

Labor organizers, staff, activists, and press will gather in mid-June for the annual Labor Notes conference in Chicago. During the registration process, Labor Notes informed Teamsters Mobilize steering committee member Colleen Donovan that they were refunding her registration, in effect banning her from the conference. TM has spent weeks highlighting the decision, conducting an online campaign on social media over Donovan’s ban, and has plans to host actions during Labor Notes. UAWD has minimal plans for Labor notes, with those members attending focusing on connecting with rank-and-file UAW members present and sharing copies of Daily Struggle.

For UAWD, a larger organizational get-together looms. UAW is holding its annual constitutional convention in Detroit immediately after Labor Notes this June. The caucus has released its “Class Struggle ConCon Program” ahead of the event. Two priority amendments have been put forward. The first calls for the union to actively fight layoffs–the Big 3 are estimated to have cut more than 20,000 jobs so far in 2026–by demanding work sharing across individual bargaining units. The second would call for the abolition of ICE and other attacks by the state on workers.

UAWD organizers know they are far from having the internal strength to push a union as big as UAW to not only left political priorities like standing up to ICE but to even to take a more aggressive stance towards work losses. Winning amendment fights isn’t the goal right now; being able to argue for these kinds of ideas and actions among the wider union membership is a win of its own kind.

“We put [the amendments] forward knowing they weren’t something we could win, but we wanted to show people what workers could demand if we wanted to,” said Margie Thornton, the recording secretary for UAWD and a member of the legal services UAW Local 2320 in Colorado.

The hope is that the path forward of leading by example within the larger union context, developing a working class propaganda arm to speak directly to workers on the shop floor about shop floor issues, and continuing to develop local UAWD chapters inside UAW locals is the right one.

Navruz Baum works in legal services as a paralegal and is a member of UAW Local 2325 in New York City. He is a veteran of the split last year and, since then, has been actively developing a UAWD chapter with his coworkers in Local 2325.

For him and other UAWD organizers, this will remain the priority.

“Our chapters are very, very young. I think we chartered our first chapter, like, two months ago. We’re still very much implementing and growing this strategy,” he said.

Despite these still early and modest beginnings, Baum feels that UAWD has “an outsized presence” within the larger UAW universe–through their policy activism, Daily Struggle, and influential members on shop floors. Even so, there is little appetite to leverage what resources there are to pick fights with the powers that be in the union.

“The focus is very much on growing a base for class-struggle unionism. We’re going to do what we can with these moments, and we’re bringing our program to the [UAW constitutional convention], but the forces that are against, the more conservative unionism, they’re much stronger than us in the UAW. They have firm control of the bureaucracy, of the [union’s leadership]; there’s a lot stacked against us. We’re not under any illusions about that,” Baum said.

This goal–the hope–is that this slow-boil process will spread, creating ever-more pockets within locals committed to the vision of class-struggle unionism, until a critical mass can take the fight to the next level–and beyond.

“We really see these moments as a means, not the end. Winning a battle over an amendment, or even winning control of the UAW–these aren’t the big goals,” Baum said. “At the end of the day, the big goal, the big strategy, is to win the working class over to class struggle.”

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

The post UAWD Getting Back to the Future of Labor Organizing appeared first on Tempest.

When Ben Haywood moved to his current home in South Carolina, he quickly made two friends: The pair of Eastern Bluebirds that readily took to the nest box he put up outside his home in the spring of...