News Feeds

Equipo de Facilitadores Este es un equipo interino, formado por 19 personas, que actualmente está llevando a cabo el proceso de para permitir el tejido de alternativas. El equipo como colectivo o como individuos no posee ningún poder centralizado.

Facilitation Team This is an interim team, formed by 19 persons currently, that is currently holding the process to enable the weaving of alternatives. The team as a collective or as individuals doesn't hold any centralised power. ---------- Ananeza “AnggingalternativesalternativesalternativesalternativesAlternatives

Today Republicans failed to move their disastrous Farm Bill, the Agricultural Act of 2026, out of the Senate Agriculture Committee. A fierce movement of advocates built enough pressure to keep poison pills, like the Save Our Bacon Act, out of the Committee’s debate on the bill.

Instead of serving everyday people, this Farm Bill was designed to funnel more taxpayer dollars to corporate factory farm expansion, maintain devastating nutrition assistance cuts, and weaken fundamental conservation investments. The bill:

• Fails to address the devastating impacts of the H.R. 1 cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), leaving millions of people vulnerable to food insecurity and hunger.
• Expands support for dirty factory farm gas projects and factory farm infrastructure through the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) despite documented project failures and loan defaults.
• Guts the budget authority for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program and cuts $500 million from the Conservation Stewardship program, two of the nation’s most oversubscribed conservation programs, stripping critical funding without ensuring sustainable farmers will have access to replacement conservation support.
• Ignores the devastating impact of the Monsanto Co. v. Durnell Supreme Court decision, which effectively handed pesticide corporations a liability shield and closed the courthouse doors for tens of thousands of sick and suffering Americans.

In a shocking moment of bipartisanship, seventeen members of the Senate Agriculture Committee voted to include an amendment authorizing Mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling for beef.

In response, Food & Water Watch’s Food Policy Director Rebecca Wolf issued the following statement:

“A Farm Bill that fails to protect farmers from corporate consolidation, invest in real climate solutions and ensure healthy, affordable food for all is not a solution – it’s just more of the same. Senate Democrats were smart to reject this deeply flawed Republican bill. They must continue to do so in September.

“After years of skyrocketing food prices, family farm decimation and worsening climate impacts, Congress should use this opportunity to create a new Farm Bill that builds a resilient food system – not double-down on the same corporate model that created these problems in the first place. We need a fair Farm Bill, not one that continues to prioritize agribusiness profits over farmers, workers, consumers and the planet.”

A child hunger crisis is unfolding in plain sight: it’s very likely that more than 1.5 million children nationwide have lost food assistance in the wake of unprecedented SNAP cuts in last year’s Republican reconciliation law. While the farm bill considered by the Senate Agriculture Committee today would take a step in the right direction in addressing some of the fallout from the SNAP cuts enacted last year, it doesn’t do enough for people losing the help they need to afford groceries, and it makes even deeper future cuts to SNAP. Protecting families in the short term shouldn’t take food off families’ plates in the future. Congress must improve this proposal and pass bipartisan legislation this year that addresses the current crisis without making deeper SNAP cuts down the road.

The stakes are high: more than 4.5 million people across the country have already lost food assistance since the reconciliation law’s cuts were enacted last July. That’s the steepest decline in SNAP participation in nearly three decades. The SNAP cuts are already causing children far more harm than most expected, despite Republican claims during last year’s debate that they would be protected. Across the U.S., these cuts are taking away food assistance from eligible families. And without SNAP, these families are skipping meals and choosing between buying groceries and paying for other essentials like rent.

A main culprit of this crisis is the provision — set to take effect in about a year in all but a handful of states — that requires most states to pay between 5 and 15 percent of SNAP costs for the first time in the program’s history, shifting billions of dollars of costs onto states. The too-hasty implementation and dramatic financial implications are leading states to create access barriers to basic food assistance in an effort to lower their error rate. Notably, wrongly turning away an eligible household does not count as an error, while providing somewhat more or less in benefits to a family eligible for SNAP does.

Without a delay to this cost shift, states will have to make hard budgeting decisions in their upcoming legislative sessions, which start in January. States that are unable or unwilling to pay their share of SNAP costs will have to drop out of the program entirely, ending SNAP for children, seniors, parents, workers, veterans, and people with disabilities alike.

States on a bipartisan basis have said they need more time to bring down their error rates — and some have acknowledged that ending SNAP in their state is a potential option.

States on a bipartisan basis have said they need more time to bring down their error rates — and some have acknowledged that ending SNAP in their state is a potential option.

The impact of this massive cost shift has already caused millions of people to lose the food assistance they need to feed their families. Even more people will lose SNAP once states must begin paying billions of dollars in benefit costs for the first time. Without federal action, SNAP may soon no longer exist as a nationwide program available to people in all 50 states.

The farm bill proposed by Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Boozman includes a one-year delay in the cost shift, to October 1, 2028. While the original proposal failed to give states more time to lower their costs by reducing errors, the committee adopted an amendment to give states an additional year to see error rate reductions resulting from their intensive work to lower their error rates and reduce their costs, an additional step in the right direction.

The amendment also provides additional funding for emergency food providers, a positive development and a recognition that the Republican reconciliation law is driving up emergency food needs. But more funding for emergency food is not a substitute for ensuring that SNAP is available and accessible for the families who need it.

Here’s how the proposal falls short of what people across the U.S. need to afford groceries, despite its improvements.

First, it would cut SNAP deeper in future years to pay for the one-year cost shift delay, even as Republicans press for billions of dollars in additional farm relief without offsetting savings. It actually raises the amount some states will have to pay in SNAP benefits in the future, increasing the risk that some states will opt out of participating in SNAP. Addressing this unfolding crisis shouldn’t lead to even deeper food assistance cuts in the future.

Second, it provides only a one-year delay in a provision where too-hasty implementation is causing millions of children to lose food assistance. A longer pause that gives states more time to lower their error rates and prepare for the new costs would let states reassess their steps to lower error rates and undo unwarranted access barriers that are taking food assistance away from eligible people who need it. Congress already gave some states a two-year delay in paying the cost shift — those with the highest error rates — and the Boozman farm bill preserves that preferential treatment. All states need more than just one additional year to responsibly reduce their errors and budget for these new costs.

Third, the proposal fails to delay the imminent 50 percent cut to federal funding for SNAP administrative costs, which takes effect in less than two months on October 1. Some states have already failed to backfill for this federal funding cut, which will force them to try to improve their SNAP programs’ accuracy with fewer resources. That will raise the risk of more staffing shortages, backlogs, and people waiting months without benefits. Delaying this cut to administrative funding is critical to restoring food assistance for eligible families who are losing food assistance solely because they can’t get through on overloaded phone lines, and because understaffed states can’t keep up with additional red tape. It’s also important for accomplishing what policymakers say they want: improved program administration and fewer payment errors.

When Congress returns this fall, policymakers must work on a bipartisan basis to advance legislation that addresses the unfolding crisis without making deeper cuts to food assistance in later years. Recognizing the current hunger crisis and the need to delay the cost shift for all states is an important first step, but Congress can do better. Children and families deserve more.

This article What D.C.’s election defense under occupation can teach us was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

As we approach the one-year anniversary of the National Guard’s occupation of Washington, D.C., it’s worth pausing to learn what D.C. resistance has to teach us — especially heading into the midterms.

Many of us are carrying real fear about how far Trump might go to interfere with this election. Our fear isn’t unwarranted. But it doesn’t have to be ungrounded, either. Yes, he will say outrageous things. Yes, the heads of the Department of Justice and FBI are trying to keep power for their boss and intimidate voter rights groups. Yes, if Trump could stop elections he would. 

But an authoritarian who has to sabotage an election is doing it from a place of weakness. Trump is not Narendra Modi, who steadily gained popularity (until a grassroots “cockroach” movement turned the tables). Trump is in political freefall with cratering poll numbers and is lashing out; his only path to retain power is undermining the will of voters.

Much of his weakness now has to do with how our movements have harnessed backfire. Trump’s use of ICE is limited by the fierce national resistance to his paramilitary. Backlash against the voter suppression of Callais brought Black voters in Alabama and other states to the polls in force. Trump’s power of controlling narrative isn’t as strong as it used to be. Even Fox News avoided re-airing his recent rant about the 2020 election. Admittedly we have more to do, but he is overreaching — his seizure of ballots in Fulton County in January to boost his Big Lie only woke up more people in the election protection space to the threat he posed. 

#newsletter-block_d8c687347d79a9372019a397973704fd { background: #ececec; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_d8c687347d79a9372019a397973704fd #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

So rather than let our fears run wild, we can ground them in what’s already happened and how people responded. That’s the idea behind my “Election Defense Scenarios” book. It’s an attempt to lay out the scenarios of election sabotage — from National Guard at the polls to disinformation, Department of Justice threats and last-minute rule changes. In many cases, we don’t have to imagine what might happen — we can look to very recent history.

D.C. is one of the clearest examples we have. The city faced a wide array of threats and prepared for the June 16 primary without letting fear set the terms. Here’s what they did.

D.C.’s challenges

Some of the challenges were the ordinary kind that come with any election reform. D.C.’s primary was the first election in the city’s history to use ranked-choice voting, after voters approved Initiative 83 in 2024. That meant there had to be a real voter education lift — organizers needed to teach people how ranking works. And there were the usual worries about longer lines as poll workers and voters adjusted to a new system. 

But bigger issues loomed. By election time, D.C. had been living with a federalized National Guard presence for nearly a year, including a month-long federal takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department the previous summer. Ahead of the July 4 “America 250” celebrations, federal officials announced a “summer surge” that added roughly 2,500 more troops, bringing the total in the city to over 5,000.

The threat of the National Guard loomed large. At an estimated cost of over $1 billion per year for Trump’s domestic deployments, the National Guard has harassed citizens and decreased trust in the military. During the 2020 election, organizers say, National Guard troops had been deployed following Black Lives Matter protests and reportedly told people in line they had to get out of line to enforce the city’s curfew — an incident that went undocumented because no one had thought to film it in the moment.

Surprisingly, National Guards were deployed from Democratic-led states, including Michigan (and immediately after the election, Minnesota and Hawaii). At least Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has since removed its troops. 

Previous Coverage

Here is a proven formula for protecting the vote while keeping the peace

Using National Guards to interfere with elections was repeatedly threatened. As the Brennan Center reported, “It is illegal to deploy federal troops or armed federal law enforcement to any polling place.” Yet, Trump said, “We’re going to have sheriffs, and we’re going to have law enforcement” at polling locations.

Alongside the troops came fears of political interference — a worry sharpened by D.C.’s unusual constitutional position. Congress controls D.C.’s budget and has repeatedly attempted to gut the city’s local governance. When President Trump was asked what he’d do if Ward 4 Councilmember Janeese Lewis George — a self-described democratic socialist whose campaign was frequently compared to Zohran Mamdani’s — won the mayoral primary, he answered, “I wouldn’t like it — and maybe we take back Washington, run it on the federal basis. We won’t put up with it.” Organizers couldn’t dismiss the threat as bluster. It had legal teeth: Congress and the president hold unique levers over the city.

Each location has different conditions and scenarios. But no matter where you are, we can still learn a lot from what D.C. did to make their election a success.

The GOTV machine kept running

Groups with get-out-the-vote chops, like grassroots movement Free DC, ran the playbook for turning out voters. They did things like matching voter files to canvassing tools, texting unregistered residents and working precinct by precinct to make the case for coming out to vote. Free DC in particular leaned into its base-building structure. It gave volunteers the tools to text out surveys asking people when they planned to vote, then follow up with 20 people closest to them whom they’d personally commit to reaching. 

It’s classic deep-organizing infrastructure, repurposed for a high-fear election environment. Because the threats loomed so large, many organizers wondered if turnout would sink. In the end, good organizing plus frustration over being occupied for nearly a year drove the highest primary turnout since 1994.

But turnout operations don’t answer the question: What do you do about troops near the polls?

Build a coalition where none existed

D.C. needed more robust election protection infrastructure than it had before. The DC Election Protection Coalition came together under the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the Advancement Project, alongside Free DC, Harriet’s Wildest Dreams, the Washington Interfaith Network and more than 100 other partner organizations.

They trained hundreds of nonpartisan volunteers, who were divided into two tracks: election protection field attorneys (for people with legal backgrounds) and grassroots poll monitors (for everyone else). Both were stationed outside voting locations across all eight wards to answer questions and help resolve problems as they came up.

Long before Election Day, National Guard troops became one of those problems. The official election protection hotline fielded a report that the National Guard was outside a drop off box in the Foggy Bottom neighborhood. Keya Chatterjee, co-founder of Free DC, decided to go check out the situation. When she arrived, she immediately whipped out her phone, capturing a video of armed Florida National Guards members right outside one of D.C.’s 450-pound, six-foot, double-locked ballot boxes. The Guard members said they had not been told to stay away and showed no knowledge they were apparently infringing on the law.

Keya’s documentation forced a response. After footage was shared with the D.C. Attorney General and Board of Elections, they opened a direct line to the Joint Task Force overseeing Guard operations in the city — and got a written commitment that troops would keep a 50-foot distance from polling locations on Election Day (an affirmation, at least, of what the law says).

This move did several things. Yes, it smoothed the way for a cleaner election. But the video confrontation went viral and helped model handling fear in productive ways. Seeing Keya talk directly to the National Guard showed residents how to stick up for their rights — a behavior a few folks would end up having to do on Election Day. 

Train monitors

Everyone in the coalition wanted to reduce people’s fear. They didn’t always agree on how.

The traditional election protection approach for communicating with the public tends to minimize threats. The instinct is to keep messaging that elections are being run freely and fairly. But D.C. residents are already living the violence of Trump’s occupation.

Federal marshals shot and killed Julian Bailey in northeast D.C. in February. Car pursuits by the U.S. Park Police resulted in at least two deaths, including bystander Nolberto Meza, after the agency loosened restrictions on high-speed chases. And a damning report from Brookings Institution shows that nearly 7 in 1,000 children in D.C. have had a parent snatched away by ICE or other federal agents. In such a context, speaking to people’s lived experience is more reassuring than disguising the ugly truth.

The advice to name the threats maps onto recent messaging research. Following extensive qualitative and quantitative testing, ASO Communications and others found, “speaking about the anti-voter agenda increases self-reported desire among pro-voter Americans to feel concern over this agenda (+5-10 [percent] over the course of the survey), to engage in politics (70 percent are more motivated), and to motivate friends to vote (+5 [percent] over survey). We can frame voting as an act of resistance.” They noted that concrete descriptors about how the regime is keeping people from voting created the greatest engagement.

The DC Election Protection Coalition took up that approach as they trained their monitors.

Free D.C. organizers host a “vote-in” on June 3, casting ballots during early voting ahead of the primary election. (Free DC)

The two approaches weren’t always perfectly in sync. Some election protection trainers taught volunteers to document, document, document if they saw Guard troops acting illegally — take horizontal videos for the widest capturing of information and file a formal incident report. By contrast (even sometimes in the same training!) grassroots groups’ guidance put the emphasis on making sure the voter in front of you got to vote right now — heckle, press, advocate directly for the Guard to leave, rather than only documenting for later.

Those need not be contradictory instincts so much as complementary ones — document for accountability (and video tape!), intervene for the person standing in line. And coalitions built for a genuine crisis rarely resolve every tactical disagreement in advance. What made the coalition work wasn’t perfect unanimity — it was offering space for each group to share its approach knowing we’re moving in the same direction.

Expand the circle

Election protection efforts are too often narrowly built around technical expertise in election work. By building the coalition with grassroots mobilizers at the table, it brought in the expertise of those who knew how to rapidly mobilize. To combat the often fractured disconnect between grassroots election work and traditional election protection, Freedom Trainers and All Voting is Local, as one example, have teamed up to host cross-silo sessions between these groups to strengthen ties.

One of the D.C. coalition’s sharper moves was pulling in local rapid response and mutual aid networks so they were feeding into the same control room as the election protection operation. That meant in addition to information like “which polling place has a printer problem,” groups like Migrant Solidarity Mutual Aid fed into a citywide picture, including neighborhood locations of ICE activity and checkpoints. That meant volunteers had better information about what was going on across the neighborhood that day.

The day of the election 

June 16 brought the ordinary hiccups of any election — printers breaking, standard supply issues — but D.C.’s neighborhood-level organizing infrastructure meant problems got solved fast. In the summer heat, one neighborhood network located a leftover cooler of water and got it to a polling site to help overheated voters and volunteers. In Columbia Heights and the other seven sites approved to stay open past the normal closing time because of long lines, volunteers swarmed with snacks and drinks to help people stay in line as long as it took.

There were also multiple National Guard interactions that went unreported. According to Keya Chatterjee, West End Library did have National Guards come into the poll site. Monitors were already at the site and immediately began telling them to leave and filming the confrontation with armed troops. Monitors repeatedly insisted the military had no legal basis to be there, and after forceful haranguing, the troops left without further incident. 

A decision then had to be made: Do we release this or not? I can’t speak to the exact decision-making, but the reports of the National Guard at polling sites appeared sporadic (not a coordinated threat) and had limited impact because monitors moved fast. It seems voters still voted. 

All this affirms the mantra of “record, record, record.” Even if it ends up not being released to the public, getting the facts on record is critical.

The plans that didn’t happen

Because ranked-choice tabulation can take days if no candidate wins a first-choice majority, organizers built a “patience campaign” in advance — a plan to spend up to a week reminding people that a delayed result is not a stolen one, and that counting ballots correctly takes time.

They also built a second, sharper contingency in case results were seriously contested or tampered with: a template borrowed from their experience organizing on May Day 2026. People were told if things went seriously wrong, to recreate the May Day activity — morning intersection blockades, a midday march to the Capitol, evening gatherings — all under a “no work, no school, no shopping” banner.

It did not have to be activated. But having a real plan for nonviolent noncooperation ready was itself part of what let residents and organizers approach Election Day with confidence instead of dread.

The threat isn’t over — and neither is the lesson

Trump’s “take back Washington” threat hasn’t gone away just because the primary is over. Bills to weaken D.C. home rule continue through Congress, and the National Guard’s presence has been extended through the end of Trump’s current term — to the next presidential inauguration in January 2029. 

D.C. has to take the takeover threat seriously, knowing not all threats will materialize.

As D.C. is marking one year of occupation, Free DC is inviting organizations and elected officials to sign on in opposition to the troops’ presence. The ask uses simple messaging like, “Publicly oppose any effort to prevent the seating of duly elected officials representing D.C. or any other jurisdiction.” And from individuals, Free DC is seeking support asking governors to get their troops out of D.C..

But D.C.’s story matters well beyond D.C. What happens in D.C. affects us all. And heading into the midterms, what happened during the primary is some of the clearest evidence we have for how to prepare for what’s coming.

#support-block_0aa79214b7de6f517bc7b09d58637bb8 { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

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

Donate

Folks working on election protection need to get more comfortable with confrontation. A recent guide on responding to National Guard at polling places somehow left out D.C.’s lessons entirely. They said, yes, document — but there was no mention of confronting the National Guard as D.C. monitors did, telling troops they aren’t legally allowed to be here and insisting that they leave.

On the other hand, those of us coming out of organizing need to learn and respect the rules that already govern election work, and recognize we’re not the first people to think seriously about defending an election. There’s a deep well of experience to draw on, from movements across the U.S. and around the world — which is a lot of why I wrote the “Election Defense Scenarios” booklet with stories from each scenario.

What’s clear throughout is that we can defend our elections. Don’t get bogged down by the noise and while you can take every threat seriously, it doesn’t mean they’re all going to happen — and they may be calculated just to slow you down. So keep on the work, building with people across silos and teaching people to stand up for their rights.

This article What D.C.’s election defense under occupation can teach us was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Originally published in New Politics’ summer 2026 issue

Who Paid the Pipers of Western Marxism?
By: Gabriel Rockhill
Monthly Review Press, 2025

Gabriel Rockhill’s Who Paid the Pipers of Western Marxism? (or Pipers) is a neo-Stalinist hatchet job targeting the German intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who associated with the Frankfurt-based Institute for Social Research before, during, and in some cases after Adolf Hitler’s Nazi dictatorship. The collective work of the Institute, otherwise called the Frankfurt School, is widely known as Critical Theory. In Pipers, Rockhill accuses the dissident Western Marxist tradition, of which Critical Theory has played an important part, of accommodating and even advancing capitalism and Western imperialism during the Cold War.

In line with Monthly Review’s Marxist-Leninist politics, Rockhill leaves no doubt that he intends to defend the so-called Second Camp—the former Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China, or PRC—in Pipers (27–33, 64). To this point, in his review of Pipers, Russell Jacoby asks: “[Rockhill] never mentions North Korea, but why not?”1 Given the author’s explicit allegiances, for him to present simplistic and reductive takes on the Frankfurt School is to be expected. Still, in Pipers, the misinformation is in overdrive.

After all, Rockhill’s tedious and repetitive style reads like a mix of Soviet agitprop, rants by Lyndon LaRouche (as Matt McManus points out), and the “salacious gossip column” that Radhika Desai oddly hails in her promotional blurb.2 Rockhill reproduces the Stalinist-Dengist myth that only the Western ruling classes are imperialist, thus ignoring the continuities linking the Tsarist Empire, the USSR, and post–Soviet Russia on the one hand, and Imperial China and the PRC on the other (33–4, 64, 155). As John Rees explains in his review, Rockhill is thus “keen to set up a mutually reinforcing dualism where there is only ‘really existing socialism’ and ‘CIA funded anti-communism.’”3

Beyond ignoring the myriad atrocities perpetrated by the managers of Soviet and Chinese state capitalism, this binary approach in favor of the Second Camp lends itself to exaggeration and spectacle. It excludes the possibility of Third-Camp socialism, which rejects the hegemony of Washington, Moscow, and Beijing. Indeed, notes Richard Gilman-Opalsky, the author views even “Trotskyists and left-wing communists” as “imperialist tools.”4 As a matter of fact, Rockhill writes about “plenty of evidence” for a “Trotskyism-to-CIA pipeline,” while citing none—in keeping with the Stalinist school of falsification (261).5

In reality, as Charles Reitz emphasizes in his review, the Critical Theorist Herbert Marcuse wrote “33 Theses toward the Military Defeat of Hitler-Fascism” in 1947. “33 Theses” predicts that, in the post–World War II context, the victorious Western powers would become increasingly neo-fascist and aggressively anti-Soviet. As such, writes Reitz, it “does not draw social theory into a camp compatible with U.S. imperialism,” but “quite the contrary.”6 Later, Marcuse penned the militant essay “Repressive Tolerance” (1965), which calls for the “revocation of free speech rights to fascists [and] racists,” in Reitz’s words.7 Unsurprisingly, Rockhill ignores both of these Marcusean essays and only briefly mentions the right-wing threats made against Marcuse’s life following the publication of “Repressive Tolerance” and its author’s outspoken opposition to the Vietnam War (179, 306).

In this review, I will challenge Rockhill’s ahistorical approach, debunk the author’s reductive equation of Critical Theory with “anticommunism,” and contest his claim that Marcuse was a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) asset.

Rockhill’s Distortions

Rockhill ahistorically presents the “actually existing socialist” (AES) regimes as “seek[ing] the uplift of all,” while ignoring the plight of workers, peasants, women, colonial subjects, and sexual and ethno-religious minorities in the USSR and PRC (46). Rockhill announces that he seeks to “rejuvenate class struggle in theory,” yet fails to recognize class struggle within “projects of socialist sovereignty” (54–5). He cites Vladimir Lenin’s criticism of the social sciences’ defense of wage-slavery, but fails to mention Lenin’s own enthusiasm for Taylorism and state capitalism, and the Bolshevik leader’s imposition of bourgeois management onto enterprises that had previously come to be self-managed by workers in the Russian Revolution (73–5). Rockhill suggests that AES “has not been an unmitigated disaster,” but rather is “preferable for the overwhelming majority of people and the planet,” without acknowledging China or the Soviet Union’s vast nuclear stockpiles and carbon emissions, the Chornobyl nuclear disaster, the desiccation of the Aral Sea, the Gulag, the Tiananmen Square massacre, or genocide perpetrated in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Tibet, and Xinjiang (171).

In Orwellian fashion, Rockhill mispresents Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union as anti-fascist, hence glossing over not only the Stalinist betrayal of the Republic and the workers during the Spanish Civil War, but also the Nazi-Soviet Pact that partitioned Poland and launched World War II. Rockhill denounces McCarthyism and the FBI’s targeted assassinations, but not the KGB or the Stalinist Terror. He observes that West German “intelligence services [were] stocked with former Nazis,” but forgets that much of the same was true of the Stasi, the East German secret police (207).8 He objects to “the practice of academically laundering state propaganda” and intellectual “[c]ollaboration with powerful state agencies” in the West, but not, apparently, under AES (34, 38–9, 220).

Orwell considered one’s openness to condemning the USSR to be “the test of intellectual honesty” for fellow leftists.9 Rockhill would have utterly failed his test. After all, the author of Pipers cannot appreciate Jacoby’s point, that, “[h]ad the Frankfurt scholars fled to the ‘really existing socialism’ of the Soviet Union and not the United States, they would have ceased to really exist in Soviet camps” (emphasis added). He never mentions the former Makhnovist Peter Arshinov, whom the Stalinist regime executed in 1937 for ostensibly attempting to resurrect anarchism in the USSR, much less the allegorical fate of the fictional love interest Larissa Antipova in Boris Pasternak’s novel Doctor Zhivago (1957): namely, to perish in the Gulag.10 Nevertheless, Rockhill gleefully highlights the CIA’s opportunistic role in publishing Doctor Zhivago in Russian (138).

Rockhill falsely equates Critical Theory and Western Marxism with “imperial theory” and “imperial Marxism,” respectively, and accuses the Critical Theorists Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno of being “radical recuperators” (47, 145, 178). He renames the Frankfurt School the “Washington School,” given that many of its associates worked for the U.S. government at one time or another. He does so, while barely acknowledging that the Frankfurt School legal scholar Franz Neumann served as a prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials (244–5).

In reality, Rockhill excludes what Adorno identified as the “new categorical imperative imposed by Hitler upon unfree [humanity]”: to “arrange [our] thoughts and actions so that Auschwitz will not repeat itself, so that nothing similar will happen.”11 He guards silence around Marcuse’s equivalent formulation: “[t]he goal of radical change today is the emergence of human beings who are physically and mentally incapable of inventing another Auschwitz.”12 In this vein, Gilman-Opalsky, McManus, and fellow reviewers Doug Greene and Harrison Fluss rightly emphasize that Pipers features “naught but the most fleeting consideration of the historical confrontation” with antisemitism and the Holocaust in the post–World War II context, much less sympathy for the Critical Theorists as leftist and Jewish exiles fleeing Nazi Germany.

Communist Critical Theory

There is plenty of counter-evidence to Pipers’ main claims about the history of the Frankfurt School—especially to Rockhill’s complaint that Critical Theory is irredeemably “anticommunist” and pro-Western imperialism. These charges fail on practical and theoretical grounds.

To begin with, in winter 1926–1927, Institute affiliate Walter Benjamin visited Moscow, where he witnessed the Kremlin “trying to bring about a suspension of militant communism.” Reading Pipers, one would not know either that Benjamin had been contemplating joining the German Communist Party at the time, or that his Latvian partner, Asja Lacis, would be imprisoned in the Gulag.13 Tellingly, Rockhill’s own research reveals that Neumann served as a Soviet spy (codename “Ruff”) during World War II (252–9). This finding seriously undermines Rockhill’s whole argument about Critical Theory’s “anticommunism,” as does Pipers’ revelation that the KGB was interested in recruiting none other than… Marcuse himself! Plus, the FBI files on Adorno and Marcuse that Rockhill shares in the Appendix describe the former as mingling with “Communist[s]” at a 1944 “Musicians’ Congress” in California, and the latter as a dangerous “Extremist” and “Key Activist” of the New Left! (370–89)

Theoretically speaking, Horkheimer’s early writings also disprove Rockhill’s claims. Meditating in his diaries Dawn & Decline, the young Horkheimer declares, “One has to fight for socialism […].” He decries “the horrible exploitation apparatus at work in the partly or wholly colonial territories,” adding that “the mass misery in India, China, Africa boggles the mind.” He expresses loyalty to the Soviet experiment:

It is extremely difficult to say what conditions are like there. I do not claim to know where the country is going; there is undoubtedly much misery […]. Anyone who has the eyes to see will view events in Russia as the continuing painful attempt to overcome this terrible social injustice. At the very least, he will ask with a throbbing heart whether it is still under way.14

Clearly, this is not the “compatible” theory to which Rockhill reduces Critical Theory (183). While there is much for which to criticize Horkheimer and Adorno—including their opportunistic collaboration with the CIA-backed Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF, 183–4), and, above all, Horkheimer’s support for the Vietnam War—a dialectical analysis would give credit to Horkheimer’s revolutionary youth. Likewise, the fragments of Adornian radicalism that persisted until a premature death (provoked partly by student protests) should be acknowledged, from Adorno’s co-editing of The Authoritarian Personality (1950) and writing of Minima Moralia (1951), to his identifying the Vietnam War as the continuation of Auschwitz, calling on a “self-conscious global subject [to] develop and intervene,” and affirming the principle of hope in Negative Dialectics (1969) and “Resignation” (1969).15 It is notable, too, that Edward Said declares in Culture and Imperialism (1994) that Adorno is a “cultural and philological criti[c] whom I revere.”16

Besides Marcuse, Neumann, and Horkheimer and Adorno (at least partly), Benjamin further refutes Rockhill’s allegation about the Frankfurt School being accommodationist. As with the numerous gaps in his coverage of Critical Theory overall, Rockhill does not dwell on the messianic revolutionism expressed in Benjamin’s writings, such as the unfinished Arcades Project or “On the Concept of History” (1940). Instead, he seeks to portray Horkheimer as abandoning his ostensible comrade Benjamin to near-certain death in Nazi-occupied Europe (197–200). Fearing imminent deportation to the Nazis, Benjamin took his life in 1940 in the Catalan border-town of Portbou after failing to cross undetected from France through the Pyrenees mountains. The alleged text of his suicide note, which requests that his “thoughts” be transmitted “to my friend Adorno,” and for “the situation in which I find myself” to be explained to him, goes unmentioned in Pipers—as does Marcuse’s tribute to him at the close of One-Dimensional Man (1964).17

In terms of international politics, it is undeniable that Horkheimer, Adorno, and Marcuse criticized the Second Camp during the Cold War. Still, Rockhill cannot concede that they had good reason to do so as Critical Theorists, given that AES has long shielded itself from criticism by presenting itself as faithfully following Marxist prescriptions. Accordingly, Marcuse presents a brilliant critique of the USSR’s evident betrayal of Marxian theory and adoption of technological rationality in Soviet Marxism (1958), while Adorno condemned Russian fascism in socialist guise and the “murder of countless millions” carried out by AES regimes (186).18

Marcuse: A Revolutionary Intellectual, Not a CIA Agent

Before joining academia in the mid-1950s, Marcuse worked at the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and the State Department—not the CIA. Following his separation from government service, Marcuse became increasingly open about his revolutionary perspectives. The Marxian imperative of transforming the world clearly resonates in Eros and Civilization (1955), a utopian volume that Rockhill mentions only once, briefly—just as he mentions Freud, the book’s object of dialectical criticism, only in passing (15, 326–7). As a movement elder, Marcuse publicly supported his former graduate student Angela Davis during her persecution by the U.S. government and subsequent political imprisonment, and he donated to the Black Panther Party, as Rockhill’s own research shows (311n228). Writing in The Marcusean Mind (2025), Sid Simpson observes that Marcuse “largely ignores the dynamics occurring in the colonies,” though I believe that the thinker’s public opposition to the Vietnam War and the analysis he provides of the political situation in several post-colonies in Counterrevolution and Revolt (1972) may provide mitigating circumstances.19

By contrast with the false version propagated in Pipers, whereby Marcuse only saw the proverbial light late in life (306–9), the thinker was nearly a lifelong radical: as a conscript during World War I, he joined the Social Democratic Party and defended Berlin’s Alexanderplatz from right-wing gangs during the German Revolution. His doctoral dissertation, The German Artist-Novel (1922), links authentic art with revolutionary social change—a theme Marcuse revisits in The Aesthetic Dimension (1978). As the recently deceased junior Critical Theorist Jürgen Habermas would do later, Marcuse broke with his former mentor Martin Heidegger for embracing Nazism. In Reason and Revolution (1941), Marcuse presents a progressive-revolutionary interpretation of G.W.F. Hegel and German Idealism. “Repressive Tolerance” is a call to arms that resonates to this day.

In sum, Marcuse was a revolutionary, anti-fascist intellectual: he was no “agent of empire” (267–71). Although Rockhill links Horkheimer and Adorno to the CCF, he must try a different tack to try to discredit Marcuse. To clarify, although the author of Pipers sometimes equates “OSS/CIA” (246), the OSS (1942–1945) was not the CIA (1947–present). Whereas Rockhill includes evidence of the CIA connections of several of Marcuse’s mentors and contacts while at OSS and State, this does not prove that Marcuse worked for the CIA. Neither does the fact that the Agency distributed some of his books in Eastern Europe during the Cold War (137, 271–88). The comment by Habermas that Rockhill cites about Marcuse returning to post-war Germany as an “officer of the U.S. army” likely refers to his being an OSS intelligence officer rather than an officer of the CIA, which didn’t exist at the time (269).

Most controversially, Rockhill cites the Soviet mouthpiece Pravda, articles published in the late 1960s in the Marxist-Leninist Progressive Labor magazine, and claims made by the journalist Leo Matthias as the basis for the charge that Marcuse was an “Agent of Imperialism” and/or a CIA agent (268–9). Rockhill does not care to mention the antisemitic tropes Matthias employed in thus slandering Marcuse, as highlighted by his friend Günther Anders.20 In fact, historian Tim Müller, one of Rockhill’s main sources, candidly told him in a 2024 YouTube interview that he could “not find anything in the sources that would support” the claim made by Matthias.21 That did not stop Rockhill from repeating it in Pipers.

Conclusion

In closing, Pipers amounts to absurdist theater. It is a warmed-over reprise of the dystopian falsification that underpinned the Stalinist Show Trials. Rockhill defames the Critical Theorists, especially Marcuse, in keeping with this Orwellian tradition of falsification. Lamentably, Pipers plays on antisemitic conspiracy theories about “cultural Marxism” while underplaying the importance that Critical Theory places on identifying and overcoming antisemitism, other forms of racism, and authoritarianism.22 Rockhill expresses disdain toward the Frankfurt School’s “esthetes” and “intellectual free agents,” whose Critical Theory carries on the legacy of the radical Enlightenment through its “generalized critique of domination,” in line with his pushing of obscurantism and lies in defense of state capitalism and the Second Camp (151, 187–8).

Notes

1. Russell Jacoby, “No, Western Marxism Wasn’t a CIA Plot,” Jacobin, April 18, 2026.

2. Matt McManus, “Western Marxism through the Looking Glass,” Damage Magazine, April 8, 2026.

3. John Rees, “Not a Rockhill to die on,” Counterfire, Jan. 2, 2026.

4. Richard Gilman-Opalsky, “‘Who Paid the Pipers of Western Marxism?’” Marx and Philosophy Review of Books, April 2, 2026.

5. Doug Greene and Harrison Fluss, “Theory Betrayed: An Essay on Gabriel Rockhill’s Who Paid the Pipers of Western Marxism? (Part One),” Historical Materialism.

6. Charles Reitz, “When Marxist Intellectuals Collaborated with the CIA,” CounterPunch, 12 Dec. 2025 (emphasis in original).

7. Charles Reitz, Herbert Marcuse as Social Justice Educator: A Critical Introduction (London: Routledge, 2025), 7.

8. Deutsche Welle, “Book Claims Stasi Employed Nazis as Spies,” DW, 31 Oct. 2005.

9. Eric Laursen, The Duty to Stand Aside: Nineteen Eighty-Four and the Wartime Quarrel of George Orwell and Alex Comfort (Chico, CA: AK Press, 2018), 115 (emphasis in original).

10. Alexandre Skirda, Nestor Makhno, Anarchy’s Cossack: The Struggle for Free Soviets in the Ukraine 1917–1921, trans. Paul Sharkey (Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2004), 283.

11. Theodor W. Adorno, Negative Dialectics, trans. E. B. Ashton (London: Routledge, 1973), 365.

12. Herbert Marcuse, Philosophy, Psychoanalysis, and Emancipation: Collected Papers, Vol. 5, eds. Douglas Kellner and Clayton Pierce (London: Routledge), 213.

13. Walter Benjamin, Moscow Diary, trans. Richard Sieburth (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1986), 9n3, 53.

14. Max Horkheimer, Dawn & Decline: Notes, 1926–1931 & 1950–1969, trans. Michael Shaw (New York: Seabury Press, 1978), 36, 66, 72.

15. Theodor W. Adorno, “Progress,” in Benjamin: Philosophy, Aesthetics, History, ed. Gary Smith (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1989), 85.

16. Edward Said, Culture and Imperialism (New York: Vintage Books, 1994), 316.

17. Samantha Rose Hill, “Walter Benjamin’s Last Work,” LA Review of Books, Dec. 9, 2019.

18. Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, “Towards a New Manifesto,” trans. Rodney Livingstone (New York: Verso, 2011), 49.

19. Sid Simpson, “Herbert Marcuse and the Post-Colonial: Missed Connections with Frantz Fanon, Sylvia Winter, and Aimé Cesairé,” in The Marcusean Mind, eds. Eduardo Altheman C. Santos et al. (London: Routledge), 71.

20. Günther Anders, Gut, dass wir einmal die hot potatoes ausgraben, eds. Reinhard Ellensohn and Kerstin Putz (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2022), 127. Thanks to Ulrich Plass for this citation.

21. Gabriel Rockhill, “Marcuse and the U.S. National Security State: Cold War Discourse, with Tim Müller,” YouTube, 13 July 2024.

22. Lars Rensmann, The Politics of Unreason: The Frankfurt School and the Origins of Modern Antisemitism (Albany: State Univ. of New York Press, 2017).

Asamblea del TGA - Indonesia 2026 [ Inglés ] [ Español ] Fecha y lugar * Fechas previstas: 12-17 de abril de 2026 * Visita de campo: 12 de abril * Asamblea: 13-17 de abril * Lugar: Imah Seniman (Bandung, Indonesia) * Socio local: Konfederasi Pergerakan Rakyat Indonesia (KPRI) junto con nuestro tejido del Sudeste Asiático

GTA Assembly - Indonesia 2026 [ English ] [ Spanish ] Date and place * Planned dates: 12–17 April 2026 * Field trip: 12 April * Assembly: 13-17 April * Place: Imah Seniman (Bandung, Indonesia) * Local partner: Konfederasi Pergerakan Rakyat Indonesia (KPRI) together with our Southeast Asia weaver MASSA – Movement for and Solidarity in South-East Asia.GTAGTAGTAGTAalternatives

A few years ago, environmental scientist Elliot Campbell went around asking people why they would, or would not, switch to an electric vehicle. A surprising number of them asked him a question in return: Because building an EV generates emissions, isn’t it better for the planet just to keep my gas car running for as long as possible?

Campbell, a professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz, didn’t know the answer, so he set out to find it. Turns out the old adage that the greenest car is the one in your driveway is a myth. In fact, his study, published today in the journal Science, finds that swapping even a two-year-old gas car for an EV leads to a lifetime emissions savings of roughly 50 percent. 

Not everyone can afford to ditch a nearly new car, of course. It’s simply the most extreme example of the broader point his study revealed: The emissions saved by driving an EV very quickly compensate for the planet-warming gases generated by building it. Campbell said that finding consistently surprises his students, and goes against his own instincts.

“I like to repair things and keep them going,” he said. But, “we found there is a big advantage to retiring the gas vehicles early.”

Campbell designed the study to give internal combustion vehicles every possible advantage. “We really tipped the scales in favor of the gas vehicle,” he said. Most notably, it ignored the emissions that went into making the gas car, treating them instead as a sunk cost. EV still came out ahead, which suggests that climate-conscious drivers should make the switch as soon as it’s feasible. 

“You’re just delaying the benefits longer and longer,” he said, noting that sidelining gas guzzlers off the road can improve air quality as well. This is especially true for cars that were built to less stringent standards, added David Reichmuth, a transportation sustainability expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “The magnitude of the benefits for getting an older gasoline vehicle,” he said, “can be much higher in terms of the air pollution.” 

Reichmuth was not involved with Campbell’s study, but said it aligns with his own work on the issue. His analysis found that EVs reach an emissions break-even point at around 18,000 miles, which the average driver travels in about 18 months. That, however, depends on where a person lives and the source of their electricity.

The benefit is greatest where the grid is greenest. In upstate NY, which generates a lot of hydroelectric power, getting around in an EV is like driving a gas car that gets 219 mpg. But even in the Rockies, where coal and natural gas are the norm, an EV is better than anything getting less than 68 mpg.

Campbell’s study identified few exceptions to the conclusion that replacing a gas car with an electric one significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Even moving away from high-efficiency vehicles and hybrids, like the Toyota Prius, is a climate win in the long-run. One case where it wouldn’t make sense, Campbell and his co-author found, is with plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, which have larger batteries and travel farther on electric power before switching to an internal combustion engine. Another is low mileage situations, such as with a second car that doesn’t get used that often. 

“To me, this is the biggest factor,” said Moaz Uddin, senior electric vehicle policy specialist at the think tank Great Plains Institute, about mileage. He gave the example of a retiree who only drives their Prius a few thousand miles a year. “It’s good that the study considers that.”

The new research finds that in order to repay the carbon debt of making a new EV, it must be driven 4,400 miles if it’s a car and 6,700 miles each year if it’s a truck. That’s already well below the 12,500 miles the average driver travels in a year, and the benefits to making the switch are likely to grow. 

As the United States increasingly relies on renewables, for example, charging an EV becomes even more environmentally appealing. Campbell and his co-author also point to improvements in battery recycling as a way of reducing the emissions involved with making an electric car. 

One hole in this latest study is that it doesn’t consider the cost of going electric. While previous research has shown that EVs come with higher upfront costs but lower operating expenses, it’s a thread that Campbell hopes economists pull on. He would also like to see someone better account for the emissions generated while extracting oil and getting gasoline to the pump, rather than simply the burning. But, for now, he believes the study sends a clear message.

“We’re trying to show that there’s not an environmental motivation for extending the lifetime of a gas vehicle,” he said. “Electric vehicles are a very clear winner.” 

The most direct policy interpretation of the study would be to give people money to scrap gas cars. There have been some efforts to do this, such as the 2009 federal Car Allowance Rebate System, also known as “cash for clunkers.” That gave people $3,500 to $4,500 if they upgraded to more efficient vehicles, and blew through its $3 billion budget in only a month. Reichmuth, though, says that the issue could be tackled earlier in the process.

“The obvious policy implication is don’t sell the gasoline car to begin with,” he said, with the corollary being that EVs need to be as attractive an alternative as possible. “Make sure there are more options, more support, for people to make that initial choice.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Your gas car works fine. Consider an EV anyway, scientists say. on Aug 6, 2026.

Today, Dēmos is releasing its 2026 Policy Agenda, Power Policies: How to Get and Keep People Power in the United States, which centers on nine reforms addressing the intertwined crises of economic inequality and democratic erosion. The agenda not only offers a governing roadmap for advocates looking to radically improve people’s material conditions, but also establishes a clear vision for what comes after power shifts.

At a moment where wealth and political power are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, policies that tackle both the immediate and the structural, long-term causes of this are imperative to reshape Americans’ lives and sustain progress. Dēmos has worked at the intersection of economic justice and democracy reform for more than 25 years, and that knowledge – and ties to frontline organizations across the country – uniquely positioned the organization’s policy experts to create a package of long-term solutions.

"For too long, public debate has centered on short term wins, but the more important question is what happens after power shifts," said Taifa Smith Butler, President of Dēmos. “History shows that periods of political upheaval can also create opportunities for transformative change. Previous generations have used these moments to advance civil rights, expand democracy, and build economic security. This agenda is our contribution to building a bold vision for the future that endures.”

The nine policies outlined in the agenda look at change from two different lenses. First, a recommendation of three populist policies, aimed to swiftly and resolutely improve material conditions in the here and now. Then, the agenda lays out six structural solutions to change the systems that govern political and economic power so that everyday people, especially Black and brown people, have more power, and can keep it. The policies, when moved on collectively, offer a new blueprint for navigating this current landscape and delivers public institutions that are more accountable, a democracy that is more representative, and an economy that delivers mobility and security for all.

“We wanted to be bold in our thinking to address the struggles of everyday people, and craft solutions as large as the problems we aim to address. These policies have the potential to change the material conditions of the multiracial working class, putting money in their pockets and time at their disposal,” said Alix Gould-Werth, Chief of Programs and Strategy at Dēmos. “When circumstances shift in this manner, when we disrupt the avenues by which corporations and the ultra-wealthy have a stranglehold on our resources, the economic and political power of Black and brown communities will grow."

As debates over the country's future continue, Dēmos hopes this agenda will serve as a resource for leaders committed to advancing bold, people-centered policies that build a multiracial democracy that not only survives today's challenges but endures for generations to come.

The full report is available here.

Chevron and the Western States Petroleum Association lead top spending on lobbying 

Sacramento, Calif. — As they made huge profits in the second quarter of 2026, oil and gas corporations spent $6.7 million on California state lobbying and influence, totalling $17.1 million in the first half of the year. Oil and gas giant Chevron led with the highest spending, pouring over $2.5 million into lobbying efforts in the second quarter. The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), the powerful oil industry trade group, trailed closely behind with $2.3 million. 

Top 5 lobbying and influence spenders of Q2:

Company/Trade Association Amount  Chevron $2,550,280 Western States Petroleum Assn (WSPA) $2,280,267 Phillips 66 $379,401 California Resources Corp (CRC) $230,417 Marathon Petroleum $189,712

Chevron, California Resources Corporation, Marathon, Valero, and WSPA all lobbied against SB 1245, the California Fuel Affordability and Stability Act, which would lower gas prices at the pump and boost transparency in oil markets, while stabilizing California’s gasoline supply. Similarly, Marathon, Valero, CRC, WSPA, and Chevron all fought to kill SB 1259, the Refinery Transparency Act, that would require refineries to disclose estimated costs and timelines for closure and remediation.

Bills impacting refinery workers were also severely influenced by the oil industry. AB 605, the Refinery Closure Safe Staffing Act, and AB 2157, the Displaced Oil and Gas Workers Fund bill, both saw lobbying from Chevron, Valero, and WSPA. 

SB 982, which would have allowed the Attorney General to sue fossil fuel companies to recover climate-disaster costs, was killed following lobbying from several oil corporations, including Valero, Marathon, CIPA, CRC, Exxon, Chevron, and WSPA among others. SB 982 drew lobbying from more oil and gas entities than any other bill in Q2 of 2026.

As California’s transportation fuels transition, refinery closures, and affordability remain a priority issue for lawmakers in Sacramento, advocates continue to stress the importance of climate policies the oil industry is trying to kill.  

“With millions to spend year after year on lobbying and misinformation campaigns, it’s obvious that companies like Chevron don’t need any more state-funded handouts,” said Woody Hastings, Phase Out Polluting Fuels Director for The Climate Center. “It’s critical that Governor Newsom and the legislature stop giving billions to polluters through the Cap and Invest program. It’s time to hold polluting corporations accountable and invest in clean transit, clean air, and a healthy California.”

Other payments went to front groups, including Californians for Energy Independence, which received $1.2 million from Chevron (and nearly $3 million for the year), and firms like DDC Public Affairs, The Axis Agency, and Unearth Campaigns LLC. 

The massive lobbying spending comes as oil companies announce their second-quarter profits, with Chevron making over $12 billion — a nominal, all-time quarterly record, and five times its 2025 Q2 profits  — and Valero making $3.7 billion, more than five times its 2025 Q2 profits. ExxonMobil earned more than both Chevron and Valero in Q2, reporting a $14.5 billion profit, more than double its Q2 profits from the previous year. Q2 profits follow the ongoing war on Iran, which has driven months-long price spikes at the pump. Name brand gas stations like Chevron have been named by the Division of Petroleum Market Oversight for overcharging at the pump for the same gasoline sold at unbranded stations. Average gasoline prices in California topped $6 per gallon in May.

“Chevron isn’t spending $2.5 million fighting affordability bills because the oil industry is broke — they are spending millions because they’re scared of accountability and transparency,” said Faraz Rizvi, Policy and Campaign Manager with the Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN). “While our communities breathe toxic pollution from their refineries and pay sky-high prices at the pump, Chevron just posted a $12 billion quarter — five times what they made a year ago. That’s not a coincidence, it’s their business model: gouge us at the pump, kill the bills that hold them accountable, and pocket record profits while our neighbors get sick. Sacramento needs to see this for what it is.”

Additional information on Q2 lobbying activity is available upon request.

###

Methodology: This report analyzes raw data from the California Secretary of State’s Political Reform Division as of Aug. 3, 2026. The analysis includes the lobbyist employers in the “oil and gas” category for the 2025-26 legislative session. The state’s definition of oil and gas lobbyist employers includes, in addition to traditional oil and gas firms, firms that advocate for biomass energy, compressed natural gas, and/or carbon removal. This press release’s numbers match the totals listed by the Secretary of State; however, Clean Energy and Kinder Morgan appear to have understated their Q2 spending, listing lobbying payments but reporting grand total spending at $0.

BAKERSFIELD

We acknowledge that Bakersfield is the traditional home of the Kitanemuk people of the Tejon Tribe. Part of our commitment to decolonizing ourselves, our language, and our organizations is a commitment to learning and better understanding the history of Indigenous Peoples of so-called California, including the history of contact, colonization and the extraction of resources from Indigenous lands which has been part of the continuation of modern colonization.

LOS ANGELES

We acknowledge that Los Angeles County is the traditional home of the Tongva, Chumash, and Tataviam people. Part of our commitment to decolonizing ourselves, our language, and our organizations is a commitment to learning and better understanding the history of Indigenous Peoples of so-called California, including the history of contact, colonization and the extraction of resources from Indigenous lands which has been part of the continuation of modern colonization.

SACRAMENTO

We acknowledge that Sacramento is the traditional home of the Maidu, Miwok and Nisenan people. Part of our commitment to decolonizing ourselves, our language, and our organizations is a commitment to learning and better understanding the history of Indigenous Peoples of so-called California, including the history of contact, colonization and the extraction of resources from Indigenous lands which has been part of the continuation of modern colonization.

SANTA BARBARA

We acknowledge that Santa Barbara is the traditional home of the Chumash people. Part of our commitment to decolonizing ourselves, our language, and our organizations is a commitment to learning and better understanding the history of Indigenous Peoples of so-called California, including the history of contact, colonization and the extraction of resources from Indigenous lands which has been part of the continuation of modern colonization.

The post Big Oil spends $17.1 million lobbying against climate policy in first half of 2026 appeared first on Last Chance Alliance.

Summer reminds us how deeply connected we are to the landscapes we call home. As the hillsides turn golden and our native plants settle into their summer dormancy, they tell the story of Southern...

A day-long conference bringing together residents, advocates, community leaders, and public officials for discussion, training, and organizing to protect communities from dirty and dangerous data centers.

BALTIMORE, MD – With a bipartisan wave of data center opposition sweeping Maryland, two top nonprofits today unveiled plans to host the first statewide conference aimed at confronting the crisis in all its many forms. The daylong gathering on November 7 at the Baltimore Convention Center will feature everyday Marylanders and state and national leaders working to safeguard our water, air, health, climate, and insulate power bills from Big Tech’s alarming infrastructure agenda.

Nearly 80 percent of Marylanders already live in a county or city that has imposed a temporary moratorium on new data center permits, in what is perhaps the biggest and fastest grassroots rebellion in state history. Now leaders of those local fights – combined with top state officials, experts, and activists of every stripe – will bring their expertise to Baltimore to debate new ideas and offer practical next steps.

“With riveting local and national speakers, plus panels covering everything from water pollution to AI to local moratorium victories, journalists and policymakers will be able to hear and interact with everyday Marylanders working to defend their communities at the municipal, county, and state level in Maryland,” said Mike Tidwell, Executive Director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

“For the first time, community leaders, organizers, and advocates from across the state will gather to share what’s working in the fight against dirty and dangerous data centers,” said Lydia Lawrence, Director of Conservation, Nature Forward. “People from urban and rural communities and across the political spectrum are uniting to protect our communities from the harmful impacts of unchecked data center expansion. This conference will send a clear message to elected officials at every level: data center reform can’t wait.” 

WHAT: Maryland’s first statewide conference on the dangers of unfettered data center growth and the practical actions communities can take to fight back

WHEN: Saturday, November 7, 2026, 10 AM – 5 PM. 

WHERE: Baltimore Convention Center, downtown Baltimore, Maryland

WHO: Prominent Maryland political leaders, activists, and everyday Marylanders

ENTRANCE: To obtain a press pass, please contact: kc@chesapeakeclimate.org

HOSTED BY: Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) and Nature Forward. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Visit peopleoverdatacenters.org 

###

Chesapeake Climate Action Network is the first grassroots organization dedicated exclusively to raising awareness about the impacts and solutions associated with global warming in the Chesapeake Bay region. Founded in 2002, CCAN has been at the center of the fight for clean energy and wise climate policy in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, DC.

Throughout its history, Nature Forward, first established in 1897 as the Audubon Society of the District of Columbia, has championed nature for all by playing a pivotal role in conserving our region’s iconic natural places from development, including the C&O Canal, Dyke Marsh, and, most recently, Ten Mile Creek. Past member and board president Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring, is credited with launching the now global environmental movement. Nature Forward’s nature experts provide hundreds of opportunities each year for people of all ages and abilities to enjoy, learn about, and protect the environment.   

The post “People Over Data Centers” Maryland’s First Statewide Conference on Confronting the Data Center Crisis appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

 “Fractionalized” virtual power purchase agreements and renewable energy certificate transactions can help underwrite clean energy projects, particularly in volatile energy markets, an executive involved in the transaction told Utility Dive.

On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission voted along party lines to eliminate the 39 percent national television-ownership cap, a statute that the agency lacks the legal authority to repeal. Free Press and allies plan to appeal this unlawful decision in court.

Congress enshrined the national ownership cap in federal law; it prohibits a single company from owning TV stations that reach more than 39 percent of the national broadcast audience. The FCC does not have the power to get rid of this limit, but Chairman Brendan Carr decided to move ahead. His motivation is to remove a significant legal hurdle to further broadcast consolidation — specifically involving media conglomerates that are friendly to President Donald Trump and his far-right agenda.

In March, the FCC unlawfully granted a waiver of this same rule for broadcast giant Nexstar Media Group’s $6.2 billion purchase of Tegna, allowing it to far exceed the national limit on station ownership. That merger would give Nexstar access to 80 percent of U.S. households over the nation’s broadcast airwaves. Although the companies rushed to close the transaction on the basis of the FCC’s unauthorized waiver, federal courts in California halted the transaction in light of the antitrust lawsuits both from state attorneys general and private parties.

Free Press has argued, alongside allies in press-freedom, labor, civil-liberties and consumer groups, that eliminating the cap would reduce competition, diminish viewpoint diversity, weaken local news and benefit only the nation’s largest station owners.

Free Press Vice President of Policy and General Counsel Matt Wood said:

“After his legally dubious maneuvers to waive the national cap for Nexstar’s takeover of Tegna, Carr is doubling down, seeking to overturn a vital media-ownership limit he has no actual authority to eliminate. His goal is to spur more media consolidation involving companies Donald Trump views as ideological allies and corporate cronies.

“Changing this limit requires congressional action, but Carr doesn’t care. He’ll do whatever it takes to clear the way for Trump-aligned billionaires to swallow up stations wherever and whenever they please. The result would be just one or two dominant broadcasters in every market, deep job cuts for journalists, and an influx of bargain-basement content disguised as local news. This spells disaster for the local communities that broadcasters are supposed to serve.

“Free Press and allies sued the Carr FCC for the unlawful procedural tricks it used to waive this ownership limit in the Nexstar-Tegna merger, and we intend to take the agency to court over today’s unlawful power grab too.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), today reintroduced the Guaranteed Paid Vacation Act — legislation that would guarantee at least two weeks of paid vacation to every full-time worker in America.

Joining Sanders as cosponsors are Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Alex Padilla (D-Calif.). Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.) introduced companion legislation along with 86 members of the House of Representatives.

“It is beyond unacceptable that in the year 2026, the United States remains the only major country on Earth not to guarantee paid vacation time to workers. This legislation would put an end to that international embarrassment,” Sanders said. “We hear a lot of talk about family values in America, but let’s be clear: When a husband, wife, and kids, during the course of an entire year, are unable to spend any time together on vacation, that is not a family value. That is an attack on everything that a family is supposed to stand for. It’s not a radical idea to require companies in America to provide at least two weeks of paid vacation to their workers. What’s radical is that millions of Americans are not only working longer hours for lower wages, but that they do not receive a single paid vacation day. That should not be happening in the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the world.”

“Every worker in America deserves the chance to rest, recharge, and spend time with the people they love without worrying about missing a paycheck,” Magaziner said. “I’m grateful to Senator Sanders for leading this fight in the Senate. It is time that we deliver this basic fairness to hardworking Americans.”

While millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages, the U.S. remains the only major economy in the world to not guarantee some type of paid vacation time to its people. Today in Canada, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Australia and many countries in Europe, workers are guaranteed at least 10 days of paid vacation. In other countries, such as the United Kingdom, Sweden and France, paid vacation benefits are even stronger.

Meanwhile, nearly one in four workers in America — or more than 33 million workers nationwide — receive no paid vacation time at all. At the same time, almost 40% of workers report being on the job at least 45 hours a week and the average full-time worker in the U.S. now reports working 43 hours a week. Moreover, more than nine million Americans work multiple jobs, with more than five million working a second part-time job on top of a full-time job.

If passed, the Guaranteed Paid Vacation Act would ensure that:

• Every worker in America has the right to accrue at least one hour of paid annual leave for every 25 hours worked.
• Full-time workers will earn at least two weeks of paid annual leave per year, to be used for any reason, at their standard rate of pay.
• Workers are protected against discrimination for exercising their right to take annual paid leave.

A recent poll found 79% of Americans support the Guaranteed Paid Vacation Act. The American people’s support for the legal right to paid time off is nearly universal. According to a recent poll conducted by the RAND Corporation, 90% of Americans support legislation that would require employers to offer earned time off.

The Guaranteed Paid Vacation Act is endorsed by United Auto Workers (UAW), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA-CWA), International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM Union), National Education Association (NEA), National Nurses United (NNU), Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR)-SEIU, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation (SMART) Union, United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE), United Mine Workers of America (UMWA), United Steelworkers (USW), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), A Better Balance, National Partnership for Women & Families, United for Respect, Equal Rights Advocates, Family Values @ Work, MomsRising, National Employment Law Project (NELP), Paid Leave for All, Workplace Fairness, The Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) and Indivisible.

Read the text here.

Read a fact sheet here.

Amira Odeh Quiñones is a hydrologist and Caribbean organiser for the 350.org climate campaign group

El Niño, likely to be one of the strongest in modern history, has arrived on Caribbean shores. 

Drought is slowly creeping up on our islands. But unlike the fiery wildfires ravaging parts of Europe, there’s no smoke signalling the damage being done, no sirens to warn of the danger. Only announcements from public health officials to stay indoors and remain hydrated — as if outdoor workers and farming communities have the luxury to heed such advice.

During El Niño, strong atmospheric winds alter rain patterns and trap heat across the Caribbean. But while we have experienced El Niño many times before, it has become very visible in recent years how climate change is making this natural phenomenon worse.

Across the Greater Antilles, temperatures are soaring past 38°C (100°F), with real-feel indexes reaching a gruelling 43°C in parts of Puerto Rico where I live. Cuba has it worse. Widespread power outages mean that methods for cooling down are unavailable for most of the day, leaving millions of vulnerable people at risk of heat stroke when temperatures hit 38°C.

Santa Marta coalition tested as co-chair Colombia turns back to fossil fuels

During the last strong drought a decade ago, I had water only two days a week in my home. Today, there are many families whose taps are about to run completely dry. Water authorities have already begun strict rationing in some municipalities, with more on the list scheduled for rationing if conditions don’t change. 

Water rationing is far more than an inconvenience; it is an immediate health risk. This means thousands of people need to constantly haul heavy buckets up flights of stairs just so they could bathe, cook, stay hydrated – the basics of survival. 

Heat causes health problems

Puerto Rico is home to roughly 300,000 elderly residents. Many live alone, isolated and without support. They risk severe physical injury when carrying heavy water containers, and are wont to suffer from silent heat exhaustion in unventilated rooms.

Furthermore, when water shortages force residents to store water in open household containers, it inadvertently creates breeding grounds for Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. Paired with scorching temperatures that tend to shorten the mosquito breeding cycle, the region is facing explosive outbreaks of dengue fever that endanger our most vulnerable: children and the elderly.

The economic fallout is equally devastating. Dry fields mean millions of dollars in lost crops, forcing small agricultural businesses to collapse, needing urgent government relief to survive. Extreme fuel shortages have already paralyzed Cuba’s agricultural sector, cutting food output by 60% – the El Niño dry spell threatens to decimate it.

At sea, warmer ocean waters fuel massive influxes of sargassum seaweed. Rotting sargassum chokes our beaches, destroying the local tourism industry that so many working families rely on. Tangled seaweed also damages nets and boat engines, slashing fish catches and driving up equipment costs for local fishers.

In the south of Puerto Rico, the coastal town of La Parguera is currently witnessing a historic amount of sargassum on its shores. This has halted most of the boating activity in the area, which is the seaside town’s main tourist draw and economic driver.

All over the Caribbean, from town halls to local group gatherings, the story I hear is always the same: constant headaches, lost work hours, failing health, and a sense that quality of life is silently being stolen. The compounding effects of heatwaves, drought, and marine destruction are exhausting our people, our islands.

Climate change to blame

Climate change makes each El Niño year hotter and more damaging. Higher baseline global temperatures increase the energy and moisture available for extreme weather. Latest projections show that El Niño may push the monthly global average temperature past 2°C of warming for the first time in early 2027. In the Caribbean islands, that will not just be breaking records – it’ll be breaking lives.

Recently, I had the opportunity to share a panel with climate scientists behind what is known as the field of “attribution science” – or the science that compares today’s climate conditions to what the Earth’s climate would be like without human activity, particularly burning fossil fuels. They’re unequivocal: it’s no longer a question of whether extreme weather is caused by climate change, it’s just a question of how much. 

• Aug 5, 2026 Clean Energy Frontier Southeast Asia’s fragile grids threaten billions in clean energy investment Renewables developers need reliable electricity infrastructure and stable policies to help the region meet climate goals and surging demand for power Read more
• Aug 6, 2026 News Quarter of countries still missing UN climate plans 18 months after deadline Egypt, Vietnam, Argentina and the Philippines are among the 45 nations that have breached the Paris Agreement by not submitting a new NDC to the UN Read more
• Aug 6, 2026 News China’s coal power rebounds as record clean energy goes to waste Long-term contracts guarantee coal plants buyers regardless of demand, crowding out renewables, report finds Read more

Attribution science recently got a boost from the U.S.’ top scientific advisory body. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine recognized that researchers’ methods have advanced considerably in recent years, resulting in better assessments on how much extreme weather can be attributed to human-caused climate change. It noted that attribution findings could be relevant in some types of legal cases, including those seeking damages from oil companies for climate impacts.

This crisis, which is already taking a heavy toll on our communities’ survival, needs real, urgent, and structural action that goes beyond aid. With similar droughts now gripping parts of Asia and Africa, we’re falling into the familiar narrative of treating the looming humanitarian crisis as if no one was to blame, as if it is being caused solely by a natural phenomenon we can’t control.

It’s not. The world was already on fire before its regular visitor, El Niño, came. While we need humanitarian action, we need climate action too, in order to permanently put out the flames.

The post When taps run dry in the Caribbean, it’s not enough to blame El Niño appeared first on Climate Home News.

* { box-sizing: border-box; } body { margin: 0; padding: 0; } a[x-apple-data-detectors] { color: inherit !important; text-decoration: inherit !important; } #MessageViewBody a { color: inherit; text-decoration: none; } p { line-height: inherit } .desktop_hide, .desktop_hide table { mso-hide: all; display: none; max-height: 0px; overflow: hidden; } .image_block img+div { display: none; } sup, sub { font-size: 75%; line-height: 0; } @media (max-width: 700px) { .image_block div.fullWidth { max-width: 100% !important; } .stack .column { width: 100%; display: block; } .mobile_hide { min-height: 0; max-height: 0; max-width: 0; display: none; overflow: hidden; font-size: 0; } .desktop_hide, .desktop_hide table { display: table !important; max-height: none !important; } .row-9 .column-1 .block-2.paragraph_block td.pad { padding: 20px 10px !important; } .row-9 .column-1 .block-1.heading_block td.pad { padding: 10px 10px 0 10px !important; } .row-9 .column-1 .block-1.heading_block h2 { font-size: 30px !important; } .row-9 .column-1 .block-3.button_block td.pad { text-align: center !important; padding: 0 10px 10px 10px !important; } .row-9 .column-1 .block-3.button_block span { line-height: 32px !important; } .row-15 .column-1 .block-1.image_block td.pad div { margin: 0 auto !important; } .row-15 .column-1 .block-2.social_block td.pad { text-align: center !important; } .row-9 .row-content { padding: 0 25px 40px 25px !important; } .row-15 .column-1 .col-pad { padding: 30px 25px 10px 25px !important; } .row-15 .column-2 .col-pad { padding: 10px 25px !important; } .row-15 .column-3 .col-pad { padding: 30px 25px !important; } .row-16 .column-1 .col-pad { padding: 25px 0 !important; } .social_block .social-table { display: inline-block !important; } .row-content, .row-9 .column-1 .block-3.button_block td.pad .button { width: 100% !important; } .row-3 .column-2 .block-2.heading_block h2, .row-3 .column-2 .block-1.heading_block h2, .row-5 .column-2 .block-1.heading_block h2, .row-5 .column-2 .block-2.heading_block h2, .row-7 .column-2 .block-1.heading_block h2, .row-7 .column-2 .block-2.heading_block h2, .row-11 .column-2 .block-1.heading_block h2, .row-11 .column-2 .block-2.heading_block h2, .row-13 .column-2 .block-1.heading_block h2, .row-13 .column-2 .block-2.heading_block h2 { text-align: left !important; font-size: 24px !important; } .row-3 .column-2 .block-2.heading_block td.pad, .row-3 .column-2 .block-1.heading_block td.pad, .row-5 .column-2 .block-1.heading_block td.pad, .row-5 .column-2 .block-2.heading_block td.pad, .row-7 .column-2 .block-1.heading_block td.pad, .row-7 .column-2 .block-2.heading_block td.pad, .row-11 .column-2 .block-1.heading_block td.pad, .row-11 .column-2 .block-2.heading_block td.pad, .row-13 .column-2 .block-1.heading_block td.pad, .row-13 .column-2 .block-2.heading_block td.pad { padding: 10px 0 !important; } .row-3 .column-2 .block-3.paragraph_block td.pad>div, .row-5 .column-2 .block-3.paragraph_block td.pad>div, .row-7 .column-2 .block-3.paragraph_block td.pad>div, .row-11 .column-2 .block-3.paragraph_block td.pad>div, .row-13 .column-2 .block-3.paragraph_block td.pad>div { text-align: left !important; font-size: 16px !important; } .row-15 .column-3 .block-1.paragraph_block td.pad, .row-15 .column-2 .block-1.paragraph_block td.pad { padding: 0 0 10px 0 !important; } .row-15 .column-3 .block-2.paragraph_block td.pad, .row-15 .column-2 .block-2.paragraph_block td.pad { padding: 0 !important; } }  

Welcome to the August 2026 Clean Air Council’s monthly newsletter.

This month’s newsletter brings you updates from our work all across Pennsylvania, with inside info about environmental laws and ways to get involved. 
 – Thanks, from all of us at Clean Air Council

  NEWS
What PA’s New Methane Standards Mean for Clean Air

On July 24, Gov. Josh Shapiro and the Pennsylvania DEP announced that new methane standards are on the way for Pennsylvania’s oil and gas industry, which will help protect public health, reduce climate pollution, and improve air quality for the more than 1.5 million Pennsylvanians who live near oil and gas infrastructure.

Learn more   GET INVOLVED
Apply for a Public Space Enhancement Mini-Grant!

Feet First Philly, a pedestrian advocacy project of the Clean Air Council, has opened applications for the seventh round of its Public Space Enhancement Mini-Grants, offering $500-$2,500 for projects that improve public spaces and pedestrian safety across Philadelphia. 

Apply   NEWS New Gas Pipeline Proposed in PA to Power Data Centers in MD and VA

Eastern Gas Transmission and Storage’s Project Oak Leaf would add 50+ miles of new pipeline, expand compressor stations across three states, and increase fracked gas transport capacity, all while being presented as an upgrade to existing infrastructure. If that sounds like more than a simple upgrade to you, you’re not alone. Attend an upcoming open house, get informed, and make your voice heard.

Learn more   SUPPORT CLEAN AIR COUNCIL’S SUMMER FUNDRAISING DRIVE

Our Summer Drive is one of our major fundraisers of the year, and we count on the money we raise to make sure we can keep fighting the climate crisis. 

Help us reach our goal of $10,000!     TAKE ACTION Give PGW Feedback on its Plans to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Philadelphia Gas Works is developing plans to reduce climate pollution and meet the city’s goal of carbon neutrality by 2050. The choices it makes could impact our air quality, public health, energy infrastructure, and utility bills for generations. Attend the next virtual community meeting on Aug. 12 at 6:30 p.m. to make your voice heard.

Register   COMMUNITY PARTNER SPOTLIGHT Cobbs Creek Park Ambassadors

From weekly cleanups to community celebrations, the Cobbs Creek Park Ambassadors has grown into a dedicated network of community members caring for Cobbs Creek Park. This year alone, volunteers have completed more than 50 cleanups and removed over 6,000 pounds of trash from local green spaces!

Join us Support Clean Air

About Us

The Council is Philadelphia’s oldest environmental non-profit. We have been fighting for everyone’s right to a healthy environment since 1967.

Contact Us

215-567-4004

members@cleanair.org

Print article Share

China has released a five-year plan dedicated to addressing climate change. 

The 15th five-year plan for a national response to climate change is the latest in a series to outline in-depth climate and energy targets for the 2026-2030 period. 

These include five-year plans for “building a Beautiful China”, developing a “new-type energy system” and developing renewable energy. 

There are also separate “action plans” for the 2026-2030 period, such as for peaking carbon emissions. 

China has pledged to peak its emissions before 2030 and reach carbon neutrality before 2060.

The new plan does not include any major new targets, instead consolidating and reaffirming existing policies.

Nevertheless, it includes significant signals on key policy areas, such as non-carbon dioxide (CO2) greenhouse gases, global climate governance and carbon markets.  

Below, Carbon Brief examines some of the notable elements in the latest five-year plan and what it reveals about China’s policy direction through to 2030.

• What does the climate plan cover?
• What does the plan say about non-CO2 GHGs?
• What does the plan say about global climate governance?

What does the climate plan cover?

The Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE) released the plan in late July, in unison with 18 other government departments. These include the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), China’s top economic planning agency, and the National Energy Administration.

The document covers a range of topics, including CO2 emissions, other greenhouse gases (non-CO2 GHGs), carbon markets, carbon footprints, climate adaptation and international cooperation on climate change. 

For the first time at the five-year plan level, the plan creates a comprehensive target system covering all areas of climate policy, say officials in a MEE Q&A. 

They describe it as “the main policy instrument” for advancing China’s climate action during 2026-2030.

China rarely issues high-level multi-year policies dedicated to “responding to climate change”. In 2014, the NDRC published a plan on the topic running through to 2020, but this was not linked to a five-year plan period. 

Qin Yan, principal analyst at ClearBlue Markets, tells Carbon Brief that the plan  shows that China’s climate governance has reached “an unprecedented strategic level”.

She adds that the plan creates an “all-encompassing target system” to support China’s Paris Agreement climate pledges for 2030 and 2035.

var gform;gform||(document.addEventListener("gform_main_scripts_loaded",function(){gform.scriptsLoaded=!0}),document.addEventListener("gform/theme/scripts_loaded",function(){gform.themeScriptsLoaded=!0}),window.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){gform.domLoaded=!0}),gform={domLoaded:!1,scriptsLoaded:!1,themeScriptsLoaded:!1,isFormEditor:()=>"function"==typeof InitializeEditor,callIfLoaded:function(o){return!(!gform.domLoaded||!gform.scriptsLoaded||!gform.themeScriptsLoaded&&!gform.isFormEditor()||(gform.isFormEditor()&&console.warn("The use of gform.initializeOnLoaded() is deprecated in the form editor context and will be removed in Gravity Forms 3.1."),o(),0))},initializeOnLoaded:function(o){gform.callIfLoaded(o)||(document.addEventListener("gform_main_scripts_loaded",()=>{gform.scriptsLoaded=!0,gform.callIfLoaded(o)}),document.addEventListener("gform/theme/scripts_loaded",()=>{gform.themeScriptsLoaded=!0,gform.callIfLoaded(o)}),window.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",()=>{gform.domLoaded=!0,gform.callIfLoaded(o)}))},hooks:{action:{},filter:{}},addAction:function(o,r,e,t){gform.addHook("action",o,r,e,t)},addFilter:function(o,r,e,t){gform.addHook("filter",o,r,e,t)},doAction:function(o){gform.doHook("action",o,arguments)},applyFilters:function(o){return gform.doHook("filter",o,arguments)},removeAction:function(o,r){gform.removeHook("action",o,r)},removeFilter:function(o,r,e){gform.removeHook("filter",o,r,e)},addHook:function(o,r,e,t,n){null==gform.hooks[o][r]&&(gform.hooks[o][r]=[]);var d=gform.hooks[o][r];null==n&&(n=r+"_"+d.length),gform.hooks[o][r].push({tag:n,callable:e,priority:t=null==t?10:t})},doHook:function(r,o,e){var t;if(e=Array.prototype.slice.call(e,1),null!=gform.hooks[r][o]&&((o=gform.hooks[r][o]).sort(function(o,r){return o.priority-r.priority}),o.forEach(function(o){"function"!=typeof(t=o.callable)&&(t=window[t]),"action"==r?t.apply(null,e):e[0]=t.apply(null,e)})),"filter"==r)return e[0]},removeHook:function(o,r,t,n){var e;null!=gform.hooks[o][r]&&(e=(e=gform.hooks[o][r]).filter(function(o,r,e){return!!(null!=n&&n!=o.tag||null!=t&&t!=o.priority)}),gform.hooks[o][r]=e)}}); #gform_wrapper_6[data-form-index="0"].gform-theme,[data-parent-form="6_0"]{--gf-color-primary: #204ce5;--gf-color-primary-rgb: 32, 76, 229;--gf-color-primary-contrast: #fff;--gf-color-primary-contrast-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-primary-darker: #001AB3;--gf-color-primary-lighter: #527EFF;--gf-color-secondary: #fff;--gf-color-secondary-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-secondary-contrast: #112337;--gf-color-secondary-contrast-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-secondary-darker: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-secondary-lighter: #FFFFFF;--gf-color-out-ctrl-light: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.1);--gf-color-out-ctrl-light-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-out-ctrl-light-darker: rgba(104, 110, 119, 0.35);--gf-color-out-ctrl-light-lighter: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark: #585e6a;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark-rgb: 88, 94, 106;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark-darker: #112337;--gf-color-out-ctrl-dark-lighter: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65);--gf-color-in-ctrl: #fff;--gf-color-in-ctrl-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-in-ctrl-contrast: #112337;--gf-color-in-ctrl-contrast-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-in-ctrl-darker: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-in-ctrl-lighter: #FFFFFF;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary: #204ce5;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-rgb: 32, 76, 229;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-contrast: #fff;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-contrast-rgb: 255, 255, 255;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-darker: #001AB3;--gf-color-in-ctrl-primary-lighter: #527EFF;--gf-color-in-ctrl-light: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.1);--gf-color-in-ctrl-light-rgb: 17, 35, 55;--gf-color-in-ctrl-light-darker: rgba(104, 110, 119, 0.35);--gf-color-in-ctrl-light-lighter: #F5F5F5;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark: #585e6a;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark-rgb: 88, 94, 106;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark-darker: #112337;--gf-color-in-ctrl-dark-lighter: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65);--gf-radius: 3px;--gf-font-size-secondary: 14px;--gf-font-size-tertiary: 13px;--gf-icon-ctrl-number: url("data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg width='8' height='14' viewBox='0 0 8 14' fill='none' xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%3E%3Cpath fill-rule='evenodd' clip-rule='evenodd' d='M4 0C4.26522 5.96046e-08 4.51957 0.105357 4.70711 0.292893L7.70711 3.29289C8.09763 3.68342 8.09763 4.31658 7.70711 4.70711C7.31658 5.09763 6.68342 5.09763 6.29289 4.70711L4 2.41421L1.70711 4.70711C1.31658 5.09763 0.683417 5.09763 0.292893 4.70711C-0.0976311 4.31658 -0.097631 3.68342 0.292893 3.29289L3.29289 0.292893C3.48043 0.105357 3.73478 0 4 0ZM0.292893 9.29289C0.683417 8.90237 1.31658 8.90237 1.70711 9.29289L4 11.5858L6.29289 9.29289C6.68342 8.90237 7.31658 8.90237 7.70711 9.29289C8.09763 9.68342 8.09763 10.3166 7.70711 10.7071L4.70711 13.7071C4.31658 14.0976 3.68342 14.0976 3.29289 13.7071L0.292893 10.7071C-0.0976311 10.3166 -0.0976311 9.68342 0.292893 9.29289Z' fill='rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65)'/%3E%3C/svg%3E");--gf-icon-ctrl-select: url("data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg width='10' height='6' viewBox='0 0 10 6' fill='none' xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%3E%3Cpath fill-rule='evenodd' clip-rule='evenodd' d='M0.292893 0.292893C0.683417 -0.097631 1.31658 -0.097631 1.70711 0.292893L5 3.58579L8.29289 0.292893C8.68342 -0.0976311 9.31658 -0.0976311 9.70711 0.292893C10.0976 0.683417 10.0976 1.31658 9.70711 1.70711L5.70711 5.70711C5.31658 6.09763 4.68342 6.09763 4.29289 5.70711L0.292893 1.70711C-0.0976311 1.31658 -0.0976311 0.683418 0.292893 0.292893Z' fill='rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65)'/%3E%3C/svg%3E");--gf-icon-ctrl-search: url("data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg width='640' height='640' xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%3E%3Cpath d='M256 128c-70.692 0-128 57.308-128 128 0 70.691 57.308 128 128 128 70.691 0 128-57.309 128-128 0-70.692-57.309-128-128-128zM64 256c0-106.039 85.961-192 192-192s192 85.961 192 192c0 41.466-13.146 79.863-35.498 111.248l154.125 154.125c12.496 12.496 12.496 32.758 0 45.254s-32.758 12.496-45.254 0L367.248 412.502C335.862 434.854 297.467 448 256 448c-106.039 0-192-85.962-192-192z' fill='rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.65)'/%3E%3C/svg%3E");--gf-label-space-y-secondary: var(--gf-label-space-y-md-secondary);--gf-ctrl-border-color: #686e77;--gf-ctrl-size: var(--gf-ctrl-size-md);--gf-ctrl-label-color-primary: #112337;--gf-ctrl-label-color-secondary: #112337;--gf-ctrl-choice-size: var(--gf-ctrl-choice-size-md);--gf-ctrl-checkbox-check-size: var(--gf-ctrl-checkbox-check-size-md);--gf-ctrl-radio-check-size: var(--gf-ctrl-radio-check-size-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-font-size: var(--gf-ctrl-btn-font-size-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-padding-x: var(--gf-ctrl-btn-padding-x-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-size: var(--gf-ctrl-btn-size-md);--gf-ctrl-btn-border-color-secondary: #686e77;--gf-ctrl-file-btn-bg-color-hover: #EBEBEB;--gf-field-img-choice-size: var(--gf-field-img-choice-size-md);--gf-field-img-choice-card-space: var(--gf-field-img-choice-card-space-md);--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-size: var(--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-size-md);--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-icon-size: var(--gf-field-img-choice-check-ind-icon-size-md);--gf-field-pg-steps-number-color: rgba(17, 35, 55, 0.8);}

LinkedInThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Free fortnightly newsletter

.preheader p{ margin-top: 0; font-family: 'PT Sans', sans-serif; font-weight: var(--type--3--font-weight--bold); color: var(--button--color); font-size: var(--button--font-size, inherit); } .newsletter-inline{ display: flex; border: solid 1px #333333; padding: 1em; background: #ffffff; } .inline-email{ display:inline-block; margin-right:1em; margin-top:0 !important; margin-bottom:0.5em; } #field_submit{ display:inline-block; margin-top:0 !important; } .gform_wrapper .gfield+.gfield{ margin-top:0 } Email gform.initializeOnLoaded( function() {gformInitSpinner( 6, 'http://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg', false );jQuery('#gform_ajax_frame_6').on('load',function(){var contents = jQuery(this).contents().find('*').html();var is_postback = contents.indexOf('GF_AJAX_POSTBACK') >= 0;if(!is_postback){return;}var form_content = jQuery(this).contents().find('#gform_wrapper_6');var is_confirmation = jQuery(this).contents().find('#gform_confirmation_wrapper_6').length > 0;var is_redirect = contents.indexOf('gformRedirect(){') >= 0;var is_form = form_content.length > 0 && ! is_redirect && ! is_confirmation;var mt = parseInt(jQuery('html').css('margin-top'), 10) + parseInt(jQuery('body').css('margin-top'), 10) + 100;if(is_form){jQuery('#gform_wrapper_6').html(form_content.html());if(form_content.hasClass('gform_validation_error')){jQuery('#gform_wrapper_6').addClass('gform_validation_error');} else {jQuery('#gform_wrapper_6').removeClass('gform_validation_error');}setTimeout( function() { /* delay the scroll by 50 milliseconds to fix a bug in chrome */ jQuery(document).scrollTop(jQuery('#gform_wrapper_6').offset().top - mt); }, 50 );if(window['gformInitDatepicker']) {gformInitDatepicker();}if(window['gformInitPriceFields']) {gformInitPriceFields();}var current_page = jQuery('#gform_source_page_number_6').val();gformInitSpinner( 6, 'http://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg', false );jQuery(document).trigger('gform_page_loaded', [6, current_page]);window['gf_submitting_6'] = false;}else if(!is_redirect){var confirmation_content = jQuery(this).contents().find('.GF_AJAX_POSTBACK').html();if(!confirmation_content){confirmation_content = contents;}jQuery('#gform_wrapper_6').replaceWith(confirmation_content);jQuery(document).scrollTop(jQuery('#gf_6').offset().top - mt);jQuery(document).trigger('gform_confirmation_loaded', [6]);window['gf_submitting_6'] = false;wp.a11y.speak(jQuery('#gform_confirmation_message_6').text());}else{jQuery('#gform_6').append(contents);if(window['gformRedirect']) {gformRedirect();}}jQuery(document).trigger("gform_pre_post_render", [{ formId: "6", currentPage: "current_page", abort: function() { this.preventDefault(); } }]); if (event && event.defaultPrevented) { return; } const gformWrapperDiv = document.getElementById( "gform_wrapper_6" ); if ( gformWrapperDiv ) { const visibilitySpan = document.createElement( "span" ); visibilitySpan.id = "gform_visibility_test_6"; gformWrapperDiv.insertAdjacentElement( "afterend", visibilitySpan ); } const visibilityTestDiv = document.getElementById( "gform_visibility_test_6" ); let postRenderFired = false; function triggerPostRender() { if ( postRenderFired ) { return; } postRenderFired = true; gform.core.triggerPostRenderEvents( 6, current_page ); if ( visibilityTestDiv ) { visibilityTestDiv.parentNode.removeChild( visibilityTestDiv ); } } function debounce( func, wait, immediate ) { var timeout; return function() { var context = this, args = arguments; var later = function() { timeout = null; if ( !immediate ) func.apply( context, args ); }; var callNow = immediate && !timeout; clearTimeout( timeout ); timeout = setTimeout( later, wait ); if ( callNow ) func.apply( context, args ); }; } const debouncedTriggerPostRender = debounce( function() { triggerPostRender(); }, 200 ); if ( visibilityTestDiv && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent === null ) { const observer = new MutationObserver( ( mutations ) => { mutations.forEach( ( mutation ) => { if ( mutation.type === 'attributes' && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent !== null ) { debouncedTriggerPostRender(); observer.disconnect(); } }); }); observer.observe( document.body, { attributes: true, childList: false, subtree: true, attributeFilter: [ 'style', 'class' ], }); } else { triggerPostRender(); } } );} );

In its 2030 pledge, China aimed to peak emissions “before 2030” and reduce carbon intensity – its emissions per unit of GDP – by more than 65% from 2005 levels. 

Last year, president Xi Jinping personally announced China’s 2035 pledge to cut China’s greenhouse gas emissions to 7-10% below peak levels by 2035, while “striving to do better”. 

The five-year plan marks a new phase in China’s climate policy, according to researchers at CIB Research, an economic research body affiliated with the  Industrial Bank, whose largest shareholder is the Fujian provincial government.

Their analysis adds that the plan represents a broad effort to strengthen China’s climate-governance system, implementation mechanisms and underlying capacity. 

Nevertheless, several headline targets and policies in the document simply reiterate already established plans.

These include:

• Cutting carbon intensity by 17% across the five years
• Reducing carbon intensity per product in industries under China’s carbon market by 3%
• Substituting fossil fuels with renewables
• Strengthening climate adaptation
• Supporting the “free flow” of cleantech

What does the plan say about non-CO2 GHGs?

The plan also goes into detail on China’s approach to non-CO2 GHGs. This includes reaffirming a target of an emissions “reduction capacity” from these gases totalling 30m tonnes of CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e) by 2030, although the baseline is unclear.

The target previously appeared in the overarching five-year plan, as well as the plan for building a “Beautiful China”.

The goal refers to emissions reductions, which can be realised through implementing current non-CO2 emissions reduction policies and projects, says Chen Meian, programme director and senior analyst at the Institute for Global Decarbonization Progress (iGDP). 

She adds that it is “relatively achievable”, with sources including increasing the number of coal-mine methane utilisation projects. 

She points to an MEE explanatory note for a draft methodology under the China Certified Emission Reduction (CCER) scheme, China’s voluntary carbon-credit market. Chen says the note suggests that projects using ventilation air methane and coal-mine methane with concentrations below 8% alone could deliver around 20MtCO2e of reduction by 2030. 

The note states that, currently, such projects are estimated to be able to “generate annual emission reductions of approximately 4.5MtCO2e”. 

In addition, Chen says, measures targeting industrial nitrous oxide (N2O) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) could help make up the remainder needed to meet the target.

According to iGDP analysis of biennial reports submitted by China to the UNFCCC, China emitted around 14,000MtCO2e of GHGs in 2021, excluding land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF).

Non-CO2 GHGs accounted for around 2,700MtCO2e, or 19%, of the total, the majority of which was methane, as shown in the figure below.

iGDP analysis of China’s first Biennial Transparency Report and fourth Biennial Update Report.

China’s plans to curb these super-pollutants in the five-year period include coal-mine methane utilisation projects, end-of-pipe destruction technologies for HFCs and guidance on the use of catalysts to reduce N2O emissions.

The plan also calls for the recovery and replacement of sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) in power equipment.

For Chen, the plan’s focus on SF6 control is particularly noteworthy. She says the gas is “finally receiving policy attention” and that proactive action is “timely and will help avoid future emissions growth” as China’s power system expands.

What does the plan say about global climate governance? 

One of the plan’s clearest objectives for international cooperation is for China to play a more active role in global climate governance.

By 2030, it says China should markedly increase its “influence, guiding power, shaping power and moral appeal” in this area. 

It says China’s climate action could also feed into the Global Governance Initiative, a policy initiative aimed at reforming the global governance system.

China will also aim to “build a new narrative on climate governance”, it adds.

Prof Thomas Hale, a professor in public policy at the University of Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government, writes on LinkedIn that the plan “marks a major rhetorical shift” towards China being increasingly willing to “lead and shape” global climate action.

Another clear focal point for international cooperation is in carbon markets. 

The plan calls for China to expand the global influence of its carbon market, such as through international rule-setting, cooperation on standards and by hosting the China Carbon Market Conference.

Qin says China’s more active role in global carbon pricing is already evident in the launch of the open coalition on compliance carbon markets with the EU and Brazil. This coalition is expected to adopt a work plan at the China Carbon Market Conference in September.

Qin also notes that China “could become the world’s largest [carbon] offset buyer” as its energy transition progresses. 

The country would, therefore, “benefit from helping shape global rules under the Article 6 framework [for carbon trading under the Paris Agreement]”, she adds. 

Related Interview: Dr Sun Yixian on his new database tracking Chinese climate ‘leadership’ 09.07.2026 China policy Q&A: What do China’s provincial five-year plans say about climate and energy? 18.06.2026 China policy Analysis: China’s new carbon metric leaves Germany-sized gap in its emissions 26.05.2026 China policy Q&A: China’s leadership calls for ‘strict control’ of fossil fuels 24.04.2026 China policy

The post Q&A: What is in China’s new five-year plan for climate change? appeared first on Carbon Brief.