News Feeds

The following statement was issued by Richard Fiesta, Executive Director of the Alliance, regarding the Trustees’ reports on the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds released today.

The report states that the Social Security Trust Fund is able to pay full benefits and expenses until 2032, while the Medicare Trust Fund is projected to remain solvent until 2033. If Congress does not make any changes, the Social Security Trust Fund will only be able to pay 78% of scheduled benefits to all current and future beneficiaries.

“The new Social Security Trustees Report serves as a warning. Congress must act to increase revenue into the Social Security system. This will prevent current and future beneficiaries from losing roughly $500 a month in Social Security benefits they have earned over a lifetime of work in just six years.

“The wrong response is to continue down President Trump and congressional Republicans’ path: passing tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans that undermine Social Security's finances, and implementing tariffs and policies that harm our economy and put Americans out of work, while laying the groundwork to gut the program through benefit cuts, a higher retirement age, and privatization.

“The right solution is simple, has broad support from the majority of Americans, and would fix Social Security's finances for the next 75 years. Today the wealthiest Americans benefit from a loophole that lets them stop paying Social Security tax after the first $184,500 they earn while the rest of us pay on every dollar we make.

“This loophole is indefensible. Millionaires and billionaires should pay into Social Security at the same rate as everyone else. Closing this loophole would mean a strong, solvent Social Security for the next 75 years.”

“A bankrupt Social Security system is not inevitable, and Americans should reject these scare tactics. However, any politician who refuses to make the wealthy pay their fair share is actively supporting cuts to earned benefits.”

“We also urge Congress and the Administration to strengthen Medicare’s finances by allowing Medicare to negotiate lower prices for more prescription drugs, holding Medicare Advantage insurance corporations accountable, and cracking down on practices that increase corporate profits without improving patient care.”

A fundraising campaign launched by the Bellona Foundation has succeeded in securing the organization’s future and averting bankruptcy.

“I would like to express my deepest gratitude for the support we have received, on behalf of everyone at Bellona,” said Bellona founder Frederic Hauge.

On June 1, Bellona announced that it faced the prospect of bankruptcy unless it could raise at least NOK 8 million within one week. The crisis was triggered by the loss and postponement of key sources of funding, leaving the organization in an acute liquidity crunch. After a week-long fundraising effort, the final total reached an impressive NOK 13 million.

“We received NOK 3 million from 4,370 individual donors. That provided a crucial foundation for businesses, entrepreneurs, and major supporters to contribute an additional NOK 10 million,” said Bellona CEO Sveinung Rotevatn. “Together, these contributions ensure that we can continue our operations.”

Bellona’s board met on Monday evening and concluded that the funds raised were sufficient to meet the foundation’s immediate obligations and allow it to continue operating. Nevertheless, Rotevatn emphasized that significant challenges remain.

“This was an emergency effort to ensure Bellona’s survival. We are enormously grateful for the response. At the same time, Bellona still faces a difficult second half of the year, during which we will substantially reduce costs and work to secure a more sustainable financial footing. We take that responsibility seriously. Bellona must never find itself in this situation again.”

On June 16, Bellona will celebrate its 40th anniversary. Until recently, it seemed uncertain whether the milestone would be marked at all. Now, Frederic Hauge is looking forward to celebrating four decades of the organization he founded in 1986.

“Bellona is my life’s work, and I am deeply relieved that this 40th-anniversary crisis has ended well. The fight for the environment continues, and Bellona will remain at the forefront of developing new solutions and advancing the green transition—as we always have.”

The post Bellona Raises NOK 13 Million, Avoids Bankruptcy appeared first on Bellona.org.

American Battery Technology Co. won its appeal after the agency canceled the grant last year. It will continue plans to build a $115 million commercial-scale lithium refinery alongside its lithium-ion battery recycling efforts.

The top court agreed with the Trump administration that Biden-era rules effectively eliminating non-condensing gas furnaces and water heaters from the market are based on an incomplete legal review.

One nurse’s experience attending ANHE’s Hill Day and witnessing nurse constituents voice their concerns about environmental issues affecting their local communities.

By Amanda Dowe, RN, BSN| Chamberlain College of Nursing

Preparation for the Hill

A few weeks ago, I was blessed with an opportunity to participate in the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environment’s Legislative Hill Day. The day before meetings began ANHE held an intensive Hill Day preparation call and walked us through the importance of nursing advocacy, the impact of climate change on public health, and effective means of influencing legislators through storytelling. We not only reviewed the key legislative asks involving rollbacks of the Endangerment Finding, Toxic Substance Control Act, Clean Car Standards, Per-and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), and cuts to agencies like Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National Weather Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), but we made connections to what we as nurses have seen in our practice or personal lives and how it impacts the health of our communities.

On the Hill

During the virtual Hill Day Meetings, nurse constituents from several states met with their elected representatives staffer and engaged in very focused conversations about how the repeals and rollbacks of the laws above would impact the public’s health. There were fifty three meetings scheduled and although I didn’t attend all, I still gained valuable insight. In the first meeting, a nurse from Connecticut explained how in the industrial town of Waterbury, children are experiencing asthma at alarming rates due to poor air quality. Another nurse asked for tax incentives for solar energy. A home infusion nurse discussed the implications of data centers and how decreased water pressure could present a risk for infection to patients if the nurse is unable to wash their hands. A Texan nurse constituent shared a personal experience of her son and husband using inhalers and how she couldn’t imagine the economic burden of emergency room bills for patients with exacerbation of respiratory conditions caused by poor air quality. On day 2, a New Mexico home health nurse expressed concerns of drought conditions and data centers posing a threat to their already low water supply.

After the Hill

ANHE’s Hill Day was a powerful experience! It was a breath of fresh air to witness nurses from all over the United States, unified with ANHE zoom backgrounds, taking time out of their day to advocate and voice their concerns about repeals and rollbacks of laws that members of their communities aren’t even aware of. The majority of the staffers were very appreciative and had “aha” moments when nurses were able to make relatable connections between climate change and health. But of course, there were some who weren’t impressed by the scientific findings. The one thing we all can agree on is, ANHE’s Legislative Hill Day 2026 proved that nurses have the power to influence policy decisions by reaching out to elected officials, and asking for support of protective policies that impact our environment and our health.

Author’s Reflection

To make changes and improve outcomes, nursing advocacy at the systems level is essential. Many times as nurses we don’t feel autonomous and we always feel as though decisions are being made for us without our inputs. ANHE’s Hill Day helped me realize that ADVOCACY is AUTONOMY! Think about it, at the bedside you can only impact one patient at a time but at the systems level you can help change laws that impact public health! Nurses are trusted messengers who close the gap between patients and legislators. Climate change is a threat to humanity and as nurses we have a moral obligation to raise climate awareness in elected officials as they have no idea of how their laws affect healthcare.  

Bio

Amanda Dowe is a Registered Nurse, and a Chamberlain College of Nursing student pursuing a MSN with a concentration in Healthcare Policy. Her nursing expertise is in Oncology, Home Infusion, and Utilization Management. She knows the disproportionate effects of climate change on vulnerable populations first hand when Hurricane Melissa destroyed Jamaica and she advocated for her family via email to government officials to ensure they received basic human necessities like food, water, and sanitation. Currently, she is working with ANHE to complete a practicum project on data centers. 

 

The post ANHE Hill Days: The Power of Nurse Advocacy appeared first on ANHE.

There’s a particular weight to memory when you’ve lived through a time that others now only reference in shorthand. I don’t mean nostalgia. I mean the physical act of remembering who is missing.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, as AIDS moved through my community with a speed and indifference that still feels impossible to explain, I had address books that became, over time, records of absence. Names crossed out. Numbers that no longer rang. Whole clusters of friends and colleagues gone. Not abstractly, not statistically — specifically. People with voices, habits, jokes, plans. People who should have had the chance to grow older.

They didn’t.

At the same time, I was an undergraduate in marine biology, expected to keep pace — labs, exams, problem sets — as if the world were intact. Animal physiology, genetics, statistics, organic chemistry. Show up. Perform. Pass. All while a plague burned through my community with terrifying precision.

There was no accommodation for grief. No pause. No recognition that anything unusual was happening. The expectation was continuity — business as usual — no matter what was being lost.

And while that was happening, the federal government — under Ronald Reagan — withheld urgency in a way that still feels difficult to describe without anger. Years passed before the crisis was even named at the highest level. The silence was ambient, structural. It told us exactly how much our lives were worth in the hierarchy of concern.

So we filled the silence ourselves.

We marched. We organized. We protested in the streets and in front of federal buildings and in hospital wards. I remember the lines of police in riot gear, the pressure of bodies pushing forward, the stinging waft of tear gas, the sound of voices refusing to be contained. I remember the fear and the adrenaline and the clarity that comes when you understand that no one is coming to save you.

You either act or you disappear.

My generation built something out of that refusal. Not just activism but systems — care networks, research pipelines, legal strategies, cultural shifts. It was blood and sweat and grief. It was also ingenuity and persistence. It forced recognition where there had been none. It changed policy, medicine, and public understanding.

We didn’t win everything. But we won enough to believe that progress, once secured, might hold.

Now I’m in my 60s. There are more years behind me than ahead. This is supposed to be the part where you take a breath. Where you look around and see what endured. Where you enjoy, at least in part, the world you helped fight into being.

Instead I’m watching something else.

A kind of thinning. A quiet unraveling. A great forgetting. I’m watching it in civil rights language. I’m watching it in public institutions. And I’m watching it just as clearly in the environmental work I’ve spent my life in — where the stories we tell about land, water, and who belongs in them are being quietly rewritten.

The language shifts first. What was once widely understood becomes contested again. Terms that carried hard-won meaning — equity, inclusion, justice — are recast as excess, as ideology, as something to be rolled back in the name of neutrality. The current administration under Donald Trump has leaned into that reframing, encouraging a broader cultural move to strip away the very frameworks that made broader participation possible.

It’s familiar, in the way bad patterns often are.

You don’t erase history outright. You erode it. You question its premises. You remove it from curricula. You flatten it into something unthreatening or dismiss it as irrelevant. Over time the edges blur, the urgency fades, and the lessons become optional.

What makes this process so effective is its efficiency. Recast hard-fought struggles under a single dismissive label — “DEI” — and you don’t have to argue against their substance. You simply make them suspect. From there the cascade is predictable. Funding becomes conditional. Curricula are scrutinized. Research agendas narrow. Writing, teaching, and public engagement that reflect lived realities begin to carry professional or financial risk. Not always through explicit bans, but through signals — what is rewarded, what is questioned, what quietly disappears.

Fear does the rest. Institutions grow cautious. Individuals self-edit. The story contracts. And over time a generation comes of age not just without the full history, but with a lingering sense that perhaps those earlier gains were excessive, that something went too far. That equality and justice themselves were the overreach.

And alongside that, something even more unsettling: the return of silence from people who know better.

Allies who once spoke up now hesitate. Institutions hedge. The language becomes cautious, then vague, then absent. Even much of the media — consolidated, risk-averse, and increasingly billionaire-owned — pulls its punches, shaping silence as much as it breaks it. The same dynamic that defined the early years of the AIDS crisis, the gap between what was happening and what was publicly acknowledged, begins to widen anew.

There is, however, a distinction worth naming. The silence of the Reagan years was neglect — devastating in its indifference but defined by what was not done. What we’re seeing now is more deliberate. Federal agencies are being directed to reshape the narrative itself — to remove language, narrow scope, and determine whose experiences are permitted to remain visible. The effect may echo the past, but the mechanism has changed. This is not just silence. It is its construction.

That silence carries a memory for those of us who have seen it before.

As Pride Month arrives, we’re asked — publicly, collectively — to celebrate how far things have come. And there’s been real progress worth marking. But memory doesn’t move on a calendar. For some of us, it remains immediate, shaped by what it took to get here — the years when a “normal” life was never really on offer, when the choice was to fight or risk erasure. Sacrifice isn’t always something you commemorate cleanly. It lingers. It returns. In certain moments, it opens wounds again, often accompanied by a quieter, more persistent weight: the survivor’s question of why I am still here when so many are not.

We learned, very early on, what it meant. “Silence = Death” wasn’t rhetorical flourish. It was observation.

The throughline doesn’t belong only to the LGBTQ+ community. It runs through the broader arc of civil rights in this country.

Black communities fought to be seen in a nation structured to abuse and ignore them. Asian American communities refused to disappear into exclusion and incarceration. Indigenous nations resisted erasure from land and history. Women refused the legal and cultural frameworks that reduced them to property.

None of these struggles were granted recognition voluntarily. Each required pressure against systems that preferred quiet. These histories are not separate from environmental protection. They shaped it. And now, as those same voices are pushed to the margins again, the consequences are showing up in the places we claim to protect.

And here’s where the environmental story enters more fully — because public lands and waters have never just been about scenery. They’re where this country tells itself who it is.

Walk through a national park, a monument, a protected shoreline, and you’re walking through a narrative. These places carry the imprint of who was displaced, who resisted, who built, who endured. They are supposed to hold the full story — messy, uncomfortable, unfinished.

That’s precisely why they are now being rewritten.

What’s less clear to me is what is ultimately gained by narrowing that story. I understand the intent — the impulse to recast this country as the product of a singular lineage, to smooth complexity into something more orderly, more reassuring. There is a kind of counterfeit comfort in that version of history: simpler, less contested, easier to claim. But it comes at a cost. Because the fuller story of American lands and waters — of Indigenous stewardship, of displacement and resistance, of communities shaping and being shaped by these places — is not a burden. It is the substance of what “out of many, one” has always meant. To strip that away is not to clarify who we are. It is to trade a living, contested inheritance for something thinner, quieter, and far less true.

Recent directives have pushed federal agencies to scrub or soften references to slavery, Indigenous dispossession, civil rights struggles, LGBTQ+ history, and even climate science from the very places meant to preserve them. Exhibits have been altered, language removed, context narrowed. In some cases the stories of entire communities are being reduced or erased in the name of removing “divisive” narratives.

This isn’t just cultural housekeeping. It’s structural.

Because those same communities — the ones whose stories are now being minimized — were often central to the modern conservation movement itself. Indigenous stewardship shaped landscapes long before they were designated as parks. Black, Latino, and Asian communities have borne disproportionate environmental burdens while also driving environmental justice movements that expanded what conservation even means. LGBTQ+ advocates helped build coalitions, institutions, and public will at moments when environmental protection needed it most.

To erase those voices from the story of public lands is to do more than distort history. It is to narrow the present.

If conservation is recast as something neutral, apolitical, and disconnected from lived experience, then it becomes easier to exclude. Easier to decide who belongs in decision-making spaces and who does not. Easier to ignore whose communities are most affected by pollution, climate change, and ecological decline.

The land doesn’t just lose its history. It loses its witnesses. And once that happens, the decisions that follow begin to reflect that absence.

We see it in policy rollbacks framed as efficiency. In weakened protections justified as balance. In the sidelining of environmental justice as unnecessary complication. The same logic that dismisses DEI as “woke” is being applied to conservation — stripping away the very perspectives that made the field more honest, more effective, and more accountable.

Remove those perspectives and the system doesn’t become clearer: It becomes more brittle. Because ecosystems don’t exist in isolation from people. And conservation that refuses to see people clearly will fail to protect either.

This is the same pattern I watched unfold decades ago. Information existed. Communities spoke. The impacts were visible to those closest to them. But the systems in power chose not to see, not to listen, not to act.

That gap — between reality and recognition — is where harm multiplies.

There came a point when I threw my old address books away. The accumulation of loss had become unbearable — page after page of names, each one a life interrupted, a story cut short.

I think about it now as a warning. What we’re seeing this time around is a different kind of erasure. It starts quietly: histories softened, contexts removed, voices pushed to the margins. By the time the loss is visible, the record has already been rewritten.

What I carry from that time isn’t just grief. It’s a kind of pattern recognition — the moment systems begin to look away, the subtle softening of language to avoid discomfort, the speed with which urgency dissolves into ambiguity and then into silence.

And I know what it takes to interrupt that erasure. It takes people willing to challenge the rewriting of the story, to hold onto memory even as it’s being erased, and allies who understand that silence is not neutrality — it is participation in the outcome.

Because silence is still available as an option. It always is.

You can choose to look away. You can tell yourself that things aren’t that bad, or that they’ll correct themselves, or that it’s someone else’s fight. You can let the language erode, let the policies shift, let the history blur.

Or you can recognize the pattern and decide, again, not to accept it.

For those of us who have lived through earlier versions of this, that decision feels less like a choice and more like a reflex. We’ve seen where silence leads. We know what it costs.

And we know, just as clearly, what it takes to break it.

Republish this article for free! Read our reprint policy. Previously in The Revelator:

Environmental Groups: Earn Your Place at Pride

The post The Great Forgetting appeared first on The Revelator.

Reliability, power price hedging and avoided infrastructure investment are among the top reasons for the battery push.

Welcome to Cited, your essential guide to new climate research.

In the news

SPRING HEATWAVE: Temperature records for May fell across western Europe as the region baked in an “exceptionally early” heatwave, reported the Associated Press. The outlet noted that temperatures reached 35.1C in the UK and 36C in France at the end of last month, with the latter’s national weather service stating that a “heat dome” had produced temperatures more than 10C higher than “usual”. BBC News said temperatures reached 40.3C in Portugal. Carbon Brief explored how the media covered the extreme weather and the role of climate change.

CLIMATE RESEARCH ‘STYMIED’: The White House released draft regulations that would “give political appointees the final word” on federal research grants and other funding across government agencies, reported Scientific American. According to Bloomberg, climate experts said the “sweeping” changes would “stymie research in the field”. At the same time, the Guardian reported the National Science Federation – a US government agency – announced it would be dismantling a $368m deep-sea observation system that provides “crucial” data on ocean systems and climate change. [For more, see ‘Spotlight’ below].

WMO WARNING: A report from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and UK Met Office, covered by Reuters, found that average global temperatures are forecast to reach “near-record levels” in the next five years. The newswire said the report projected that average temperatures each year over 2026-30 will range between 1.3-1.9C above pre-industrial levels, with one year where temperatures will top the warmest year on record, set in 2024.

Research picks Impacts

• Climate change and population growth have led to a 51% increase in global exposure to extreme daytime heat in cities over the past two decades | Communications Earth & Environment
• Global warming interacts with poverty to “magnify educational disruption” and “deepen existing inequities” among children and young people | The Lancet
• Human-caused greenhouse gas emissions has increased the likelihood of “landfalling” oceanic heatwaves by a factor of nine | One Earth

Nature

• Wildfire “disturbances” have been shifting Canada’s forests from a carbon sink to a carbon source since the 2000s | Global Change Biology 
• Following decades of rapid decline, mangrove forests around the world have been recovering since 2010, with both forest loss and degradation rates slowing | Science 
• Large-scale cultivation of macroalgae has “low potential” for carbon dioxide removal and unintended consequences that “can be substantial” | Biogeosciences 

Projections

• Global hailstorm-induced damage potential could increase by 37-42% by the late 21st century, depending on the emission scenario | Nature 
• Even under a low-emissions scenario, 45% and 35% of mountain bird and mammal species, respectively, are at risk of seeing losses in habitat range by 2050 that outweigh any gains by at least 20% | Conservation Biology
• Future warming will likely boost natural methane emissions from freshwater, as methane-oxidising bacteria fail to keep pace | Nature Climate Change

Captured

China accounts for more “conventional” carbon dioxide removal (CDR), such as afforestation and reforestation, than any other country in the world. That is according to the third edition of the annual state of carbon dioxide removal report, published last week and covered in detail by Carbon Brief. China’s average conventional CDR of 539m tonnes of CO2 over 2014-23 is more than double that of the US, the next-highest country.   

625

How many times greater cities in the global south experienced “compound” exposure to extreme heat and air pollution than global-north cities over 2003-20, according to an npj urban sustainability study.

Spotlight AMOC observations at risk Ocean Station Papa instrumentation buoy, among those slated for removal. Credit: PMEL

The Irminger Sea, a patch of frigid ocean east of Greenland, plays an outsized role in the Earth’s climate. 

Here, surface water that has travelled thousands of kilometres from the tropics grows cold and dense enough to sink to the ocean’s depths – a transformation that must occur for the water to begin a long journey back to the southern hemisphere.

This makes the Irminger Sea an “action centre” for the mighty Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), the vast system of ocean currents that keeps temperatures in Europe mild.

Last week, the US government announced plans to dismantle ocean moorings installed in the Irminger Sea which, among other things, collect data on the health of the AMOC.

This came as part of a programme to “descope” the Ocean Observatories Initiative, a $368m network of ocean sensors installed in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

Two of the moorings earmarked for removal in the Irminger Sea form part of an internationally funded, trans-Atlantic AMOC monitoring array, known as OSNAP, that stretches from Canada to Scotland.

Experts told Carbon Brief the move by the Trump administration highlights the vulnerability of AMOC observation systems around the world. These deep-sea moorings – scattered across the Atlantic – collect real-time data on, among other things, ocean current, temperature, pressure and biochemistry.

Prof Penny Holliday, chief scientific officer of the UK National Oceanography Centre, told Carbon Brief that the OSNAP array, as well as the RAPID array at 26N, are “entirely dependent” on research grants that have to be “continually reapplied for”. 

“Funding is perilous all the time,” she said.

A report prepared last month by scientists for Nordic ministers exploring the security of funding for AMOC observing systems warned that RAPID and OSNAP were in “critical condition” and faced “material exposure over an 18-month horizon”. Meanwhile, other key basin-wide and global components of the global AMOC observing system were rated as “at risk”.

It is not just US funding that is uncertain. The report notes, for example, that the five-yearly funding the UK provides to RAPID and OSNAP is “at risk from 2027 due to year-on-year budget reductions” at the Natural Environmental Research Council. 

(RAPID is funded by the US and UK, whereas OSNAP is backed by five different countries, with the US contributing half of the total financial support.)

Report co-author Dr Femke de Jong from the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research told Carbon Brief that “continued AMOC observations” are under pressure in “multiple countries”. She said:

“While the risk of a declining AMOC to society is starting to be recognised, there is not yet a system or institution in place to guarantee a way to monitor it.”

AMOC monitoring arrays are still in their infancy – RAPID, the oldest, was launched in 2004. Two decades of data captured so far shows that the AMOC is slowing down. However, scientists will need many more years of data to be able to confidently link the decline to climate change, rather than natural variability in the ocean. 

NOC’s Holliday points to the disconnect between scientific and funder timelines:

“The timescale of observations needed in order to be able to detect a climate change signal from the very naturally variable ocean is around 40-60 years…. [And yet], in the Netherlands, they have to apply for a new grant for their ocean moorings every two years. They are going to have to do that for 40 years. 

“This is a very inefficient way of getting funding for what should be critical infrastructure.”

Preprints to watch

Carbon Brief’s pick of new papers still going through peer review

• Urban areas were responsible for two-thirds of CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels in 2022 | Nature portfolio
• Climate adaptation measures are responsible for one-quarter of greenhouse gas emissions and three-quarters of human freshwater withdrawals | Earth System Dynamics
• Global food miles – the emissions generated from transporting food – could be “lower than previously estimated”, at around 0.82bn tonnes per year | Nature portfolio

Noticeboard

• 10 June: AMS Washington Forum early registration deadline 
• 10-12 June: Fourth international conference on carbon dioxide removal, Milan
• 11 June: Application deadline for postdoctoral research position in the political economy of net-zero at the University of Oxford; Salary: £39,424-47,779
• Mid-June: AGU annual meeting abstract submissions open
• 17 June: World Weaving climate research programme funding application deadline
• 17 June: CCMC lecture (online): “Temperature, health and adaptation: What actually protects people?”
• 21 June: Application deadline for postdoctoral research position in extreme event health impacts at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; Salary: £42,552-66,456

Cited is researched and written by Cecilia Keating, Robert McSweeney, Ayesha Tandon, Daisy Dunne and Dr Giuliana Viglione.

Please send tips, feedback and upcoming climate research to cited@carbonbrief.org

This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s fortnightly Cited email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.

The post Cited 9 June 2026: Europe’s ‘exceptional’ heatwave | Warming forecast | AMOC observations ‘at risk’ appeared first on Carbon Brief.

This article 10 reasons to resist AI was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

This article is drawn from the author’s forthcoming weekly series “Ten Reasons to Resist AI: A series of AI explainers for the left.” You can read the series introduction here and follow along as each article is released.

With artificial intelligence so thoroughly embedded within our lives, and the constant surround sound of AI marketing, acquiescence can feel inevitable. This is the precise effect tech companies are banking on when they sign billion dollar checks for Super Bowl commercials. For people engaged in movements, it is our job to be defiant, to insist that our present circumstances are mutable, to imagine a way out, and to get there. Many in the anti-capitalist left have an intuitive understanding of why AI is bad, even a visceral revulsion, but becoming fluent in the details is paramount to mounting an effective resistance. 

The most powerful corporations and their government co-conspirators wield AI as a weapon to wage class war. They are making trillion-dollar gambles on data center development that, if successful, will reap enormous profits at the expense of the rest of us. 

However, these companies have shown their cards. They are placing massive bets on AI years before their business models are profitable. To rig the game, corporations are making two bluffs: 1) that a frictionless AI-powered future will benefit humanity (techno-optimism), and 2) that we are powerless to stop the march of technology (inevitability). The ubiquity of these narratives, which are often parroted by the well-intentioned, is an industry strategy to flood the zone and coax people into complacency.

But if the slog toward an AI dystopia is halted or even slowed, Big Tech’s investments could spectacularly backfire, forcing companies to fold. It’s time to go all-in on AI resistance. Here are 10 applications and impacts of AI that are fueling resistance.

1. Environment 

Data centers are the source of AI’s most catastrophic environmental consequences, both atmospheric and local. A single AI data center uses the same amount of energy as 100,000 homes, and the largest ones under construction today will each consume 20 times more, equivalent to more than half of all homes in New York City. This translates to a substantial bump in carbon emissions, particularly as  data centers’ gluttony for electricity drives a natural gas boom.  

Tech companies are not only putting stress on the existing power grid, but also building new fossil fuel plants alongside their data centers. For example, Meta is building three gas-fired power plants to supply its Louisiana data center, and Oracle recently announced that its 1.4 gigawatt data center will be 100 percent fossil-fueled. MIT researchers estimate that in 2026, electricity consumption from data centers will approach 1,050 terawatt-hours, which, if data centers were a nation, would make them fifth largest in global electricity usage, after Japan and before Russia. 

#newsletter-block_812d115b48d691452942409e89186792 { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_812d115b48d691452942409e89186792 #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.

In addition to exacerbating the climate crisis, data centers also have catastrophic local environmental effects. Many rely on diesel generators that spew nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter and other carcinogens into the air. Data centers are also intensifying an already-dire water crisis. A mid-sized AI data center requires about the same amount of water as a small town, while the larger ones consume roughly 5 million gallons daily, the same amount as a city of 50,000.

In many cases, Black and Indigenous communities historically harmed by environmental racism are being yet again subjected to a toxic industry. xAI (owned by Elon Musk) built a gas-powered data center known as “Colossus” in Boxtown, a Black neighborhood in Memphis, to power the infamously racist chatbot Grok. Less than two years after the plant was built, nitrogen dioxide levels — which trigger and aggravate asthma — spiked by 9 percent in Boxtown.

While the environmental consequences of AI are grim, local communities are rising up against these behemoths in their backyards and forming a pivotal chokepoint in the AI resistance. A recent report found that local organizing victories that stopped or delayed data centers cost tech companies $156 billion in 2025. At least 142 groups in 24 states are actively organizing against data centers — you can read about some of them here.

2. Labor

There is absolutely no doubt that corporations are already leveraging AI to cut costs, replace workers and bolster profits. AI chatbots, agents and data processing systems are already replacing workers in data entry, customer service and administrative roles.  While job displacement is a real impending crisis, it is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to AI’s labor implications. 

A frequent rebuttal to concerns about AI’s impacts on labor is: “Sure some workers will be replaced, but jobs will also be created.” And while some jobs have indeed been created during the AI boom, what these jobs actually consist of goes unsaid. Mary L. Gray and Siddharth Suri coined the phrase “ghost work” to describe the tedious and underpaid labor that corporations disperse to networks of contractors in the Global South, obscuring the true human impacts of their products.

One of the more nefarious forms of ghost work in the AI industry is data labeling — a mind-numbingly tedious task necessary to train generative AI models. For example, ChatGPT was trained on trillions of words scraped from the internet. But a significant portion of those words includes vile, racist, misogynistic bile. Before ChatGPT could be trained, workers — largely in Kenya, being paid $2 an hour — first had to sort through repulsive internet content and flag it as such so that the AI could learn to identify and avoid repeating it.

Companies including Amazon use AI-powered cameras and productivity algorithms to surveil workers. (Dio Cramer)

AI is also supercharging the capacity for bosses to surveil and repress workers. Amazon is one of the most notorious adopters. Warehouse workers are tracked via AI-powered cameras and subjected to backbreaking paces based on AI-powered productivity algorithms. A network of nine mandatory surveillance technologies help the company monitor its nearly 400,000 delivery drivers, including by listening to their personal phone calls. The monitoring is used to enforce arbitrary “driver safety” standards tied to compensation, which experts warn can amount to wage theft. Additionally, Amazon made an AI- generated “unionization risk map” to track relationships between union organizers at different facilities.

Unions are perhaps the most important frontline of resistance to AI. As corporations attempt to introduce AI into more and more industries, more and more workers will have the opportunity to organize their workplaces against AI. In addition to unions that are securing contract protections, such as the Amazon Labor Union and UFCW, some leading groups supporting worker-organizers on this front include the Luddite Lab, The Tech Workers Coalition and No Tech for Apartheid.

3. Militarism 

If there’s one thing AI is definitively good at, it’s killing people. 

The U.S. based-company Anduril has received tens of billions of dollars from the Pentagon for its fully autonomous weapons, including a newly minted $20 billion contract to produce drones for the Iran War. The Pentagon also uses a Palantir-developed AI-targeting system called “Maven,” which builds its lists of people and infrastructure to target by harvesting classified data from 179 sources, like satellites and surveillance infrastructure. Like many surveillance and weapons systems, the technology was tested and refined on Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

Israel has its own version of Palantir’s Maven, called “Lavender.” Using civilian surveillance infrastructure in Gaza, Lavender generates a profile of Gaza’s 2.1 million residents, assigning each person a score from 0-100 expressing the probability that they are a resistance fighter. In Gaza, Lavender is judge, jury and executioner: The Israeli Defense Forces reference these scores, which have a 10 percent inaccuracy rate, to generate “kill lists” for its genocide. 

The most powerful militaries use AI targeting systems and fully autonomous weaponry to wage wars. (Dio Cramer)

For militaries, AI solves the problem of humanity — because an automated targeting system has the exact morals of whichever tech company programs it, which is to say: no morals at all. 

So who has the ability to stop wars in the AI era? With AI companies proposing a future in which “warfighters” become “technomancers,” tech workers have taken the lead. No Tech for Apartheid, a campaign led by Google and Amazon workers organizing against their employers’ contracts with the Israeli military is one inspiring example. No Azure for Apartheid recently forced Microsoft Azure to void a contract with the IDF. Local campaigns under the banner “Purge Palantir” also emerged this year, pressuring Congress members to return donations from Palantir and businesses to drop Palantir contracts. 

4. Policing and surveillance

From software targeting migrants to license plate readers, facial recognition programs and border panopticons, AI is a force multiplier in policing and surveillance.

ICE uses a new Palantir surveillance system called ELITE to map immigrants’ locations in real time, reportedly equipping the agency with 20 million potential targets. Facial recognition technology is another part of ICE’s AI-powered arsenal. Clearview AI, a private company partly funded by Palantir founder Peter Thiel, compiles a massive biometric database with billions of images scraped from the internet, leveraging AI to analyze these images and generate “faceprints” of civilians for use by local and federal police clients. 

If you’re sensing a common theme — AI technologies deepening repression — Flock Safety’s Automated License Plate Readers, or ALPRs, will come as no surprise. ALPRs are high-speed, computer-controlled cameras mounted on street poles, streetlights, highway overpasses, mobile trailers or police cars. They automatically capture every license plate number that passes by, along with data on location, date, time, photographs of the vehicle, driver and passengers. Police can instantaneously access a network of over 83,000 cameras nationwide by searching for a specific plate number or even vehicle characteristics such as “green Subaru with a peace sign bumper sticker.” Police forces have free rein over this data, including enabling police in Texas to track down a woman who conducted a self-managed abortion.

Dystopian surveillance tech is animating resistance across the U.S. Organizers developed a digital resource called DeFlock, crowdsourcing information on the locations of ALPRs and helping local communities build public pressure campaigns against municipalities with Flock contracts. Victories against AI-assisted surveillance tech are mounting: 68 cities across the U.S. have rejected proposals to implement Flock or cancelled existing contracts with local law enforcement. 

5. Algorithmic racism 

Yes, sometimes racist tech CEOs and developers deliberately program AI systems to reflect their values. But far more often, algorithmic racism occurs when the machines are trained to reflect the way people communicate on the internet, which — if you hadn’t noticed — is overwhelmingly racist.

To program AI systems, tech companies scrape data from trillions of words on the internet, training the model to recognize and replicate patterns in human language. A study published in Science looked under the hood of generative AI systems and found that the word “pleasant” was associated far more often with the names of white people than Black people. 

The widespread algorithmization of our society, from court sentencing to hiring decisions, means that AI is exacerbating systemic racism. On the grounds of eliminating bias, companies increasingly make hiring decisions with AI tools that scan and analyze data from resumes, online profiles and employment histories. But studies show that AI-based hiring decisions are actually more biased than human ones. 

AI systems trained on large swaths of the internet mirror racist attituds found in abundance online. (Dio Cramer)

Courtrooms in states across the U.S. use AI to generate “risk assessment scores,” which are referenced by judges at every stage of the criminal justice system, from bond-setting to sentencing. When ProPublica investigated risk score algorithms in Broward County, Florida, courtrooms, it found that Black defendants were twice as likely to be falsely labeled as likely future criminals than white defendants. 

Organizations such as the Algorithmic Justice League are tackling algorithmic racism and exposing the ways that AI systems can perpetuate discriminatory practices. And while organizing to eliminate algorithmic racism is an admirable endeavor (AI recidivism predictors should, at the very least, not be racist), it is insufficient in isolation. Because the primary flaws of prison and policing systems are not individual racist attitudes, algorithmic or otherwise (though that is of course an issue), but the broader function that these systems serve.

Addressing individual bias of cops and prosecutors does not alter the essential function of carceral systems — putting humans in cages. The same may be said for algorithms. Without combatting the fundamental issues at the heart of these systems — without abolition — AI simply tosses the hot potato into a robot’s heat-proof hands.

6. Health

While AI is not the root sickness of our terminally ill health care industry (that would be the profit motive), it is a contributing factor. This is also true of mental health, where tech executives offer their chatbots as substitutes for therapists and even friends — exacerbating social isolation. In both industries, corporations are offering AI as a quick fix to the crises they created. 

UnitedHealth Group developed an AI-backed algorithm called nH Predict to determine whether patients’ insurance claims are approved or (more often) denied. The algorithm is wildly inaccurate, consistently determining that physicians’ decisions were not medically necessary, and thus, not covered. Patients can in theory appeal denied health insurance claims, but it’s an arduous, soul-sucking process, and healthcare companies know that a minuscule fraction of policyholders – 0.2 percent, to be exact — will do so, the vast majority instead paying out of pocket or forgoing necessary care. Sure, some patients will die along the way, but it’s more profitable to delay, deny, depose. 

In the realm of mental health, a recent crisis of AI-assisted suicide is inflicting young people across the U.S. Researchers estimate that about 12.5 percent of Americans between ages 18 and 21 solicit mental health advice from generative AI. This same study found that every week 1.2 million users express suicidal ideation to ChatGPT. Rather than encouraging children to seek professional support, in some cases the chatbot dissuaded them from talking to their parents or calling a suicide prevention hotline. On April 11, 2025, ChatGPT helped 16-year-old Adam Raine tie a noose, then said: “I know what you’re asking, and I won’t look away from it.” This was the final message Adam received before he took his own life. His parents referred to the ChatGPT as a “suicide coach.” 

After ChatGPT instructed 16-year-old Adam Raine on how to tie a noose, his parents called the chatbot a “suicide coach.” (Dio Cramer)

The American Psychological Association warns that generative AI can contribute to deteriorating social skills, an inability to develop emotional connections and a loss of real-world relationships. 

The same tech industry that disregarded evidence of rampant social isolation now claims that its suicide-coach robots are the solution. There is a growing movement to enact government policy regulating generative AI chatbots. In October, California became the first state to pass legislation to protect children from predatory AI companion behaviors. Now, companies must implement safety features like age verification, publicize self-harm protocols and face liability for illegal deepfakes. New York followed suit with similar protocols in November. 

Pursuing regulation in every state and eventually the federal government is a necessary near-term safeguard, as organizers simultaneously work to convince the public that AI companions simply should not exist.

7. Art and music

Art and music are under attack by tech companies building AI products. AI image generators are trained on datasets containing billions of copyrighted images, often without the artists’ knowledge, consent or compensation. These models analyze images for patterns, stripping art down to raw material inputs fed to sophisticated algorithms that generate “new” images. Art becomes coal. Music becomes oil.

AI companies are flooding streaming services with ersatz music that is in direct competition with human art. Many of the songs recommended by our streaming services — often unbeknownst to us (Spotify, Apple Music and Amazon Music don’t mandate labeling AI-generated music) — are AI slop. Publishers are also using AI image generators for book covers and editorial illustrations, displacing human artists.

One famous site of AI resistance in 2023 was the Writers Guild of America strike, when AI usage by Hollywood studios was one of the main points of negotiation. After months of picketing, the writers won a contract that implements guardrails to give workers agency over AI implementation, rather than their bosses. While writers, artists and musicians should indeed be primary agents deploying new technologies in their fields, it’s worth going a step further. It’s worth asking whether AI-generated art should exist at all. Is art a pure form of human expression or will we allow it to be captured by synthetic machines?

A broad cultural shift is necessary to beget mass AI rejection. An effective strategy may simply be to make it profoundly uncool to use AI by making fun of cartoonishly anti-human products — as when New Yorkers defaced subway ads for an AI-companion called “Friend,” inspiring a Boycott AI campaign.

There are plenty of signs that “ridicule as praxis” (a phrase minted by Alex Hanna, co-author of “The AI Con”) is working — and costing tech companies billions of dollars. The Metaverse, an oft-mocked $80 billion project by Meta, unceremoniously shut down this year. OpenAI also recently pulled the plug on their video-generation business, Sora, despite a massive investment from Disney. The reason? People weren’t using the products.

8. Education 

There’s a litany of problems besetting the U.S. education system — chronic underfunding of public schools, private capture of what should be a universal human right, one-size-fits-all pedagogies, “teaching to the test,” and a racist school-to-prison pipeline, for starters.

Yet, tech companies are marketing AI as a one-stop-shop solution to “empower” teachers and “streamline” learning. School districts across the U.S. are welcoming AI with open arms, signing contracts with companies such as Google, OpenAI and Anthropic. Eighty percent of K-12 teachers reported their school districts use Google Chromebooks, which now come pre-installed with the generative AI system Gemini. 

According to the College Board, as of May 2025 about 84 percent of high school students in the U.S. use generative AI for schoolwork, inside and outside of school. Higher education is capitulating, too. Academic institutions are enthusiastically adopting untested products. ChatGPT Edu is being embraced at universities such as Columbia. Arizona State also recently rolled out an AI tool called “Atomic” that generates modules scraped from webinars without the professors’ consent. 

As schools and higher education institutions adopt AI products in the classroom, studies show that students experience “cognitive debt.” (Dio Cramer)

A recent study shows that students reliant on AI experience a phenomenon called “cognitive debt,” in which their ability to retain information deteriorates. Education Week found that 20 percent of students’ generative AI use in school “involved cheating, self-harm, bullying and other problematic behaviors.” 

Students are increasingly rejecting AI, even organizing high school Luddite clubs. Harvard recently cancelled its contract with ChatGPT, after its senior advisor on artificial intelligence said “the uptake among undergraduates was far less than we anticipated.”

Teachers trying to curb AI use without resorting to surveillance and punishment are resurrecting low-tech methods like in-class blue-book writing assignments, or instructing students on the flaws of generative AI and the inimitable qualities of human intelligence.

Meanwhile, advocacy groups such as Schools Beyond Screens, based in Los Angeles, are pushing for stricter education policy to limit AI use. In New York, NYers for an AI Moratorium is taking things a step further: calling for a complete halt to AI use in classrooms. 

9. Media and misinformation

AI is fundamentally altering the information ecosystem. Media conglomerates are inviting AI into the newsroom, while social media companies are opening the floodgates for AI deepfakes that erode our ability to discern truth from hogwash. 

During the federal occupation of Minneapolis, organizers relying on Instagram to disseminate information about rapidly shifting conditions were deluged with AI-generated videos depicting fake confrontations between ICE and protesters, muddling the crystal clear evidence of ICE’s abuses. To the untrained eye, these deepfakes can be indistinguishable from reality. 

We are facing compounding crises: a torrent of AI slop on social media, an unregulated digital information ecosystem, a distrustful public and a fascist government casting doubt on basic reality. 

Good journalism has never been more important. But corporate media is capitulating to the tech industry. Dozens of publications, including The New Yorker, Associated Press, Vox Media, and The Wall Street Journal, signed secretive deals to license their stories to ChatGPT, often without the consent of journalists. 

Meanwhile, outlets are also inking deals with tech companies to automate crucial aspects of journalism. The Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post recently launched “Ember,” an AI-writing coach for op-ed contributors to more efficiently churn out op-eds — now required by Bezos to promote the virtues of capitalism — with fewer pesky humans involved. The Baltimore Sun publishes political analysis using generative AI. An editor at Fortune has “written” over 600 stories with generative AI.

Unionized journalists across the U.S. are campaigning under the banner “News Not Slop” to defend their work from “media companies implementing artificial intelligence in ways that damage the credibility of journalism.” 

#support-block_227e021fcd2d82e389a090307e4e5f04 { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

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

Donate

And while pushing back against vampiric tech companies encroaching on the media industry is necessary, resisting AI in the media and tackling rampant misinformation will require transforming the media landscape and taking back ownership from oligarchs. (Yes, that means reading and supporting independent media is a crucial AI resistance strategy.)

10. Human Dignity

If we are to resist AI effectively, this fight must also be waged on the existential territory of what it means to be human. 

Our foes — the misanthropic class of tech billionaires, the Zuckerbergs, Musks, Altmans and Thiels of the world — have their own vision of humanity. And they are not shy about expressing it. “I was able to rebalance my headcount on my support,” said Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff. “I’ve reduced it from 9,000 heads to about 5,000 because I need less heads.” Sure, the rhetorical decapitation is a figure of speech, but it’s an awfully revealing one for a tech CEO whose profit margins rely on cutting costs by replacing human brains with synthetic ones.

We might also question whether artificial intelligence is intelligent at all. Whereas human thought involves “organic associations, speculative leaps, and surprise inferences, AI can only recognize and repeat embedded word chains, based on elaborately automated statistical guesswork,” write the editors of n+1. 

This distinction between the dynamic chorus of human intelligence and the monotonous drone of AI is backed by science. “The more you delve into the intricacies of the biological brain, the more you realize how rich and dynamic it is, compared to the dead sand of silicon,” writes neuroscientist Anil Seth. Relying on dead sand to think for us has immense effects — the crisis at hand is nothing short of brain-breaking. MIT researchers found a correlation between reliance on generative AI and “cognitive atrophy.” AI is literally shrinking people’s brains. 

Crowning AI systems with parallel, if not superior, intelligence erodes our humanity, chipping away at our strengths until we concede to this enfeebled conception of ourselves. 

Through our resistance, we get to assert an alternative vision of humanity, one rooted in solidarity, collectivism and reciprocity — those wonderful features of humanity anathema to Silicon Valley, which they dismiss as “bugs.” Communing with others, bouncing ideas off of actual human beings, making connections across our beliefs and lived experiences, identifying points of tension and agreement, being wrong, very wrong, feeling upset, then elated, and finding enlightening moments of connection through a ballad of conversation – that is irreplaceable. If we are to succeed, this vision must be so irresistible as to form its own narrative of inevitability. 

Because AI is increasingly ubiquitous, we have boundless opportunities to affirm our humanity and to invite people along with us. You don’t need permission to perform anarchic acts of AI rejection — refusing facial recognition technology at the airport, stickering AI subway ads, reducing your personal reliance on Big Tech, standing in the path of delivery robots, the list goes on. (There is an actual AI Resist List where you might find some inspiration.)

Bravery begets bravery begets movements begets revolution.

This article 10 reasons to resist AI was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

In markets where supply and demand are out of balance, grid connection increasingly comes with a choice: either bring the needed power yourself, or bring flexibility, write experts at ICF.

Australia's biggest transmission project to date - hit by delays and cost overruns - has finally been energised and should be commissioned later this year.

The post “Not easy:” Australia’s biggest transmission project energised after delays and cost overruns appeared first on Renew Economy.

Co-authored by Jenny Silva is the Executive Director at Call Marin Home and Member of the Executive Committee of the Marin Group of the Sierra Club SF Bay Chapter.
Jessie Rountree is the Marin Resilience Manager at Greenbelt Alliance.

The housing and climate crises are often regarded as separate problems, when in fact they are intertwined. In an increasingly urbanized world, there is one powerful solution that addresses both: building more homes where people already live. 

This type of development is called infill. It places new and modified homes within existing neighborhoods and developed areas. The contrast to this is sprawl, a familiar practice in much of California that includes low-density residential housing, often on rural, natural, and agricultural lands. Sprawl fragments habitat, severs wildlife corridors, and disrupts the carbon sequestration and flood-prevention benefits of healthy ecosystems.

Because we share these beliefs, Greenbelt Alliance is proud to join Call Marin Home, a coalition of leading organizations expanding housing through production, preservation, and protection for an inclusive Marin County. We know that increasing housing supply is essential to advancing our mission and sustaining a thriving, equitable community. 

By choosing infill housing instead of sprawl, we can address both our housing shortage and climate challenge to create healthier communities.

Protecting the land we can't afford to lose

Marin’s environmental ethos is evident in our abundant open spaces. Over 85% of Marin County is restricted from development, consisting of federal parks, agricultural land, water district lands, and open space preserves. However, we seem to limit our value of open space to only our County boundaries. 

Because we have simultaneously limited affordable and moderate-density homes in Marin, our community members have been forced to move elsewhere in the region and commute in for work. The direct result is that we are disrupting more lands by creating sprawl further out in Sonoma, the East Bay, and beyond. Since 1950, outer-metro locations like Santa Rosa have increased in physical size by over 300%, mostly through low-density development.

When we build inward instead of outward, we reduce disruption to the soils, trees, and plant communities. These healthier landscapes sequester carbon, improve water quality and quantity, and offer connected habitat to wildlife. The good news is that we have substantial options within already developed footprints to build the housing we need without disrupting our beloved open space.

The more housing density we build now, the more land we can preserve for our future.

Reducing our emissions

Transportation accounts for the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions in Marin County. 64% of Marin’s workforce commutes from outside the county due to its high cost of living and age distribution.

When homes are built closer to jobs, transit, and services, people drive less. That means fewer and shorter car trips—one of the most effective strategies California can use to address climate change. In fact, building affordable housing is one of the most effective strategies for reducing carbon emissions, far more effective than transitioning to EVs. 

Less driving also improves our notorious Bay Area traffic and reduces wear on roads and bridges, so that local government budgets can be allocated to needed adaptation investments. Further, density creates the demand that makes buses, trains, and public transit economically viable. Centralized and denser housing is what makes public transit actually work.The emissions benefits are not limited to transportation. Newer units also tend to be more compact than suburban single-family homes, which require less energy and use less water.  

Connecting our community

Building new homes in existing communities puts families closer to jobs, schools, parks, and shopping, giving more Californians access to vibrant, connected communities. When a new building is nestled amongst a storefront or café, it generates foot traffic that supports local businesses, activates streets, and makes walking and biking safer and more enjoyable options.

Walkability also rebuilds the kind of social connections that keep communities healthy and resilient in the face of climate change. Neighbors who walk the same streets, share the same corner store, and know each other by name are more likely to support one another when climate impacts occur.

All Californians should have the opportunity to live in healthy communities and enjoy the natural lands and open spaces that make this area unique.

Creating a greater variety of homes in connected communities can help increase affordability, address climate change, and improve quality of life for Californians. That is the future we want to build in Marin.

Local decisions about housing are being made now, and elected leaders need to hear clearly from residents who support building more homes. Stay connected with Greenbelt Alliance via email and social media and sign up for Call Marin Home’s email updates to stay informed about key upcoming meetings and get the tools you need to make your voice heard.

Header Photo: Scott Hess

The post Housing Builds a Healthier Climate Future for Marin appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.

In April 2026, California farmer Terri McCall stood on the steps of the Supreme Court at a rally protesting pesticide use, telling the story of how her husband and dog both died of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a disease she believes was caused by pesticides. Her husband, Jack, had used Roundup for more than three decades on their 20-acre ranch before dying of cancer in 2016.

Over 57,000 pesticide products are currently registered for use in the United States, ranging from powerful chemicals used in conventional agriculture, to common insect repellents approved for use on children. Scientific evidence is accumulating that some of them are linked to illnesses ranging from cancer to Parkinson’s disease. 

But beginning in 2024, a powerful coalition of chemical manufacturers and industry groups launched a coordinated national effort to pass “immunity laws,” bills designed to shield companies from potential legal claims tied to harms from their pesticide products. Over the past three years alone, industry lobbyists attempted to pass pesticide immunity legislation in 15 different states.

The battle over ‘failure to warn’

At the center of the industry’s lobbying effort is a key legal question: What responsibility do pesticide companies have to warn users and consumers about potential health risks from their products? In many states, individuals can currently bring “failure to warn” claims if they believe a company withheld information about harms associated with a pesticide.

The chemical makers advocating for pesticide immunity laws argue that companies should be protected from those lawsuits as long as they use labels approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But opponents say that standard is dangerously inadequate.

There are longstanding concerns about the EPA’s pesticide review process. For example, the official EPA labels for glyphosate still do not carry a cancer warning, despite mounting evidence that it may cause cancer and other groups like the World Health Organization calling it “probably carcinogenic.” 

“The science is pretty clear,” said Daniel Hinkle, the senior counsel for policy and state affairs at the American Association for Justice. “The evidence continues to accumulate, and the pesticide makers continue to lose in the courtroom.”

Meanwhile, a growing body of research links a broad range of health harms to commonly used pesticides, including neurodevelopmental impacts, respiratory problems and reduced IQ in children, health problems like liver and metabolic diseases, and cancer.

The pesticide lobbyist’s playbook

Several landmark court cases have found chemical makers responsible for illnesses like cancers and neurological diseases, resulting in billions of dollars in payments from pesticide makers. Bayer alone has paid over $11 billion in cancer settlements linked to its products. In response, the chemical industry has poured millions of dollars into lobbying for pesticide immunity laws at the state and federal levels, and in the courts. “It’s very clear that this is a coordinated campaign by the industry to absolve themselves of legal liability for health harms from these chemicals,” said Hinkle.

In the last three years, advocates fought against proposed immunity bills in 15 different states. While defeated in a dozen states, the bills passed in Georgia, North Dakota and Kentucky. “The states where these bills are passing have some of the highest cancer rates in the nation,” said Joy Reeves, the director of policy and strategic development at the Rachel Carson Council. “The reality now is, if you’re a farmer and get sick, you have fewer options to hold the pesticide companies accountable.”

Environmental and legal advocates say the campaign behind the pesticide immunity laws is both sophisticated and well-funded. Hinkle says a central driver of the effort is the Modern Ag Alliance (MAA), a lobbying and public relations group founded by Bayer, the maker of Roundup, in 2024. 

While many states do not make lobbying expenditures easy to track, those that do show huge sums are being spent on pesticide immunity legislation. According to public filings, MAA spent roughly $1.6M lobbying in Tennessee in 2025. Reporting by the Idaho Sun found that MAA was the top outside spender in Idaho politics that same year. 

What pesticide immunity could mean for families

As industry groups push for legal protections around pesticide injury, there are growing concerns about what these bills could mean for public health, accountability, and local input.

In 2012, on a warm July afternoon in Iowa, organic farmer Rob Faux was working in his poultry yard. He heard an airplane roar overhead, and then droplets began raining over him and his chickens and turkeys. A crop duster kept the sprayer on as it passed over Faux’s farm twice, covering them with fungicides and insecticides. 

Subsequently, Faux was diagnosed with cancer. Recent data shows that Iowa, which has one of the highest rates of pesticide use in the country — in 2025, 53 million pounds of pesticides were used in the state — also has the second-highest cancer rate in the nation.

Faux is now the communications manager and resident farm expert for the Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network (PAN). He says that many products that people use every day, from ant bait to mosquito repellent, will similarly fall under the scope of the new immunity laws. 

“If these laws pass, and someone sells a mosquito repellent for children that makes them sick, for example, these pesticide immunity bills will eliminate pathways for families to hold the makers accountable,” he said. 

He also points to the loss of local control as a key concern. “If I live in a town where the drinking water comes from a local lake, but pesticide applicators are using chemicals that are getting into the water, the community should be able to protect people,” he said. Many of the proposed immunity bills would prevent that, because local or state governments wouldn’t be allowed to set pesticide rules that are stricter than federal standards.

A pivotal moment in the pesticide immunity fight

These concerns brought together a broad coalition spanning left-leaning environmental advocates and members of the Make America Healthy Again network. Protestors gathered outside the Supreme Court for a rally the last week of April as the justices inside heard opening arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell. The closely-watched case could reshape the future of pesticide litigation nationwide.

The case centers on whether federal pesticide labeling laws and EPA labels override state-level failure-to-warn lawsuits. A ruling in Monsanto’s favor could dramatically weaken legal pathways for people alleging harm from pesticide exposure. “This is a case that is largely about states’ rights,” said Reeves. “It will affect states’ ability to regulate pesticides.”

Just a few days later, federal lawmakers overwhelmingly rejected an effort to insert pesticide immunity language into the Farm Bill. Seventy-three Republicans joined Democrats in opposing the pesticide immunity provision. 

“It was a pretty astounding defeat,” said Max Sano, a senior policy and coalitions associate with Beyond Pesticides who helps organize a national coalition of farmers, farmworkers, scientists, and advocacy groups. “But these bills are still popping up everywhere [on a state level], so we can’t afford to slow down.” His organization is currently monitoring newly proposed pesticide immunity legislation in 10 states.

The rise of a new pesticide reform movement

As momentum grows against pesticide immunity laws, Reeves described the current moment as “today’s Silent Spring movement,” referencing Rachel Carson’s landmark 1962 book that helped ignite the modern environmental movement. “Today, the pesticide reform movement is diverse,” Reeves said. “It’s cross-partisan. It’s far-reaching.” 

Advocates like Reeves, Sano, and Hinkle are taking a multi-pronged approach to fighting pesticide immunity laws: organizing national coalition calls, educating lawmakers, tracking bills across states, mobilizing grassroots campaigns, and coordinating legal and public awareness efforts.

And individuals can have a deep impact on the fight, too, Hinkle said. “It is incredibly important to be in communication with your lawmaker,” he said. “Every single call or email matters. Concerned constituents and grassroots organizing have really been the decisive forces in holding off this onslaught.”

Reeves echoes him, saying, “If you care about your family and your community, you should engage on this issue. It affects us all.”

The Rachel Carson Council (RCC), founded in 1965, is the national environmental organization envisioned by Rachel Carson to carry on her work after her death. We promote Carson’s ecological ethic that combines scientific concern for the environment and human health with a sense of wonder and reverence for all forms of life in order to build a more sustainable, just, and peaceful future. The Rachel Carson Council is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.

LEARN MORE

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The quiet push to shield pesticide makers from lawsuits on Jun 9, 2026.

FirstEnergy’s proposal adopts a cost allocation practice from the gas pipeline sector. It comes ahead of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s expected large load interconnection decision on June 18.

Energy price increases such as those triggered by the war in Ukraine make faster decarbonization more cost effective, according to a new analysis of the EU energy system. The net benefits could amount to roughly 3% of the bloc’s projected GDP in 2050, the study suggests.

In the past, the EU has been highly dependent on imported oil and gas. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in early 2022 caused fossil fuel prices to spike and prompted EU leadership to reduce or eliminate imports of Russian natural gas.

In turn, this sudden drop in energy supply has left the EU with an “energy gap.” In the new study, researchers use a pair of computer models to conduct a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of short- and long-term solutions to filling in the gap.

Short-term strategies to increase the energy supply such as burning more coal or biomass involve high costs, a heavy public health burden, or both, the analysis shows. Meanwhile, demand-side solutions like reducing private transportation by 20% or turning down thermostats by 3 °C to reduce heating demand have limited impact.

With short-term solutions inadequate and geopolitical developments in the Middle East and elsewhere suggesting the energy crisis is likely to persist and can’t simply be white-knuckled through, the researchers turned their attention to solutions that would fundamentally reorganize the EU’s energy system in the coming decades.

Three scenarios that involve increasing electrification, increasing renewable sources of energy like solar and wind power, and reducing private transportation while filling in the remaining energy gap with renewables would all reduce net costs to society by 2050, the researchers found.

New infrastructure and equipment required for electrification and building out renewables costs money. A lot of money. But the savings from lower fuel prices, reduced public health burden from air pollution, and lower costs to society from climate change are greater than those costs.

“Eastern EU countries such as Poland, Latvia, Slovakia, and Hungary are more reliant on Russian imports and exhibit the largest benefits,” the researchers write.

In fact, why wait for 2050 to complete the greening of the energy system? The analysis shows that if high energy prices persist, an even faster rollout of renewables and decarbonization is cost effective.

With energy prices as high as they were in August 2022, the benefits of moving the EU’s current 2050 renewables target ahead by 5, 10, or even 20 years outweigh the costs. The savings on fuel, public health, and climate change costs are greater than the expense of quickly building new power plants and other renewable energy infrastructure.

However, in some of the scenarios analyzed the outcomes differ by country: Even if the EU as a whole shows a net benefit, individual countries might not, highlighting the need to develop strategies tailored to each country’s situation to keep things equitable across the bloc.

The researchers also modeled an even more ambitious energy transition goal, a net-zero-emissions push that would require increasing the EU’s share of renewables to 80%. In this scenario, an accelerated green transition looks good at moderate fuel prices, not just high ones.

“This suggests that once energy prices surpass a certain threshold, initiating the transition earlier becomes increasingly beneficial,” the researchers write.

Source: Meng W. et al. “Rethinking energy transition strategies for the European Union amid rising energy prices.” 2026.

Image: ©Anthropocene Magazine.

The Trump administration acted unreasonably in eliminating the 5% total cost threshold as a route for wind and solar projects to prove tax credit eligibility, a federal judge ruled.

Lost to science for more than 70 years, the black-lored waxbill was only recently rediscovered in a marshy region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Now, researchers have published the first clear photographs of the bird ever taken in the wild.

Read more on E360 →

Bill Hare is the CEO of Climate Analytics, a global climate science and policy institute working to accelerate climate action.

The word ‘implementation’ has featured long and loud recently in discussions about the UN climate process.

The host government of last year’s COP30 summit, Brazil, argued that it should be an “implementation COP”. And if you talk regularly to influential participants in the UN process, you’d be surprised how many will tell you that in the current political climate, it’s all about implementing the pledges and targets governments have already made, rather than aiming to raise them.

This interpretation of ‘implementation’ is dangerously wrong. You can see that it is wrong by simply going back to the Paris Agreement. Article 4 states that Parties (countries) “shall prepare, communicate and maintain successive nationally determined contributions” (NDCs), and that each new NDC “will represent a progression” beyond the Party’s previous one and “reflect its highest possible ambition”.

In other words, regularly increasing ambition is a central element of implementing the Paris Agreement. Governments pledged to increase ambition regularly, and the community of people who care about climate change needs to hold them to that pledge.

Raised expectations

Even a cursory look at the current state of emissions shows that without increased ambition, the other central pillars of the Paris Agreement will not be realised. The global emissions peak will not come “as soon as possible”, net zero will not be reached in the second half of this century, and global warming will race beyond the 1.5°C limit, with catastrophic impacts beginning in the most vulnerable countries and risks increasing for everyone.

Since the Paris summit in 2015, expectations and obligations on governments to step up on decarbonising their economies have increased. In 2021 and 2022, governments declared via the UN Human Rights Council and UN General Assembly that the right to a healthy environment is a universal human right. An environment of dangerous climate change is not a healthy one, so the obligation to cut emissions further and faster is clear.

• May 12, 2026 Politics Paris Agreement committee snubbed over missing NDC climate plans Many governments have still not submitted a nationally determined contribution to the UN, breaching a key requirement of the Paris Agreement Read more
• May 7, 2026 Comment ICJ follow-up resolution is a test of climate leadership at the UN If states back the resolution by consensus, it would send a powerful message of commitment to climate action and the rule of law, despite pushback by some big emitters Read more
• Apr 14, 2026 Politics Türkiye sets COP31 dates and appoints Australian cattle farmer as youth champion In an open letter, Murat Kurum gives details of the October Pacific pre-COP and the November COP31 leaders’ summit in the Turkish city of Antalya Read more

Last year, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that 1.5°C is the primary limit of the Paris Agreement and constitutes a legally binding target. It clarified that states have obligations, not only under the UN climate convention, but under customary international law, human rights law and the Law of the Sea.

It also reaffirmed that governments’ NDCs must reflect their highest possible ambition. Last month, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution endorsing the ICJ ruling, with governments voting 141 for, and only eight against.

Failing on ambition

Nonetheless, most governments are not showing the ambition required by their international obligations. Fifty-two countries have not submitted their third NDC with emission-cutting targets for 2035, which they were supposed to do more than a year ago.

Many submitted NDCs fall well short of what is required, with Indonesia, Russia and Saudi Arabia among countries whose level of ambition, if reflected globally, would usher in at least 4°C of global warming.

We know from our own analysis that if countries just implemented their present level of ambition through 2035, the world would warm by 2.6°C above preindustrial levels by 2100, a catastrophic scenario.

A member of the Bolivian Armed Forces helps people cross the Pirai River following the collapse of bridges connecting different communities following floods triggered by an overflowing river that isolated several communities in the eastern Santa Cruz region, in El Torno, Bolivia, December 17, 2025. REUTERS/Claudia Morales A member of the Bolivian Armed Forces helps people cross the Pirai River following the collapse of bridges connecting different communities following floods triggered by an overflowing river that isolated several communities in the eastern Santa Cruz region, in El Torno, Bolivia, December 17, 2025. REUTERS/Claudia Morales

But we also know that if countries implemented policies consistent with their highest possible ambition, we can limit overshoot of 1.5°C to about 0.2°C, halt global warming within 25 years, and bring it down to about 1.2°C by the end of the century. Other analyses paint a similar picture.

Make no mistake: this level of overshoot will have serious adverse consequences. But two things are very clear: we can get warming back below 1.5°C before 2100, and countries can be far more ambitious than they are now.

Meanwhile real-world events are demonstrating more clearly than ever that moving quickly and decisively to an economy powered by clean electricity bolsters energy security, reduces energy costs and avoids the geopolitical blackmail and bullying associated with dependence on a continuous supply of fossil fuel imports.

Back the collective process

Because the various UN declarations and decisions outlined above are taken collectively by governments, we can make an interesting deduction: most governments themselves recognise that they need to show more ambition. There are many reasons why each of them doesn’t do so on its own; and one of the key aspects of the UN climate process is that it allows and encourages them to do so with some degree of collectivity.

What all of this speaks to is the need to increase the focus on raising ambition, to continue to use the UN climate process as the key convening forum, and to use COPs as the place where governments are held accountable at a high political level every year. There is no other forum that does that and no other place in which vulnerable countries are at the table on equal terms with the biggest emitters.

What to expect from the Bonn climate talks

Right now, the geopolitical going is tough; and the tough need to get going towards the trouble, not run away from it.

Yes, delivery of existing pledges is absolutely necessary. If governments use this decade to honour the Global Stocktake outcomes from 2024 – if they triple renewable energy capacity, double the rate of energy efficiency improvements and make deep cuts in methane emissions – that will go a long way to keeping global warming below 2°C. Most are not on track – so yes, full implementation of what countries have already agreed is sorely needed.

But ambition must also be strengthened, urgently. It’s not an either-or: ‘implementation’ has to include ‘increasing ambition’. Climate science, international law, climate justice and the needs of the world’s most climate-impacted societies demand nothing less.

The post The UN climate process needs ambition – the law demands it appeared first on Climate Home News.

The Secretariat of the Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism (CSIPM) for relations with the United Nations Committee on World Food Security (CFS) is seeking for a full-time administration and logistics officer during the period September – December 2026, with possibility of a longer-term extension of the contract.

• Location: Rome, Italy
• Working hours: Full time 
• Closing date for applications: 15 July 2026

Background

The Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism (CSIPM) for relations with the United Nations Committee on World Food Security (CFS) is the largest international space of social movements, Indigenous Peoples’ and civil society organisations working to eradicate food insecurity and malnutrition. The Mechanism was founded in 2010 as an essential and autonomous part of the reformed CFS. The purpose of the CSIPM is to facilitate civil society and Indigenous Peoples’ participation and articulation into the policy processes of the CFS.

The CSIPM is an open and inclusive space that gives priority to the organisations and movements of the people most affected by food insecurity and malnutrition. Since it was founded, several hundred national, regional or global organisations have participated in the CSIPM. Far more than 380 million smallholders and family farmers, agricultural and food workers, fisherfolk, pastoralists, Indigenous Peoples, consumers and urban food insecure around the world are affiliated to organisations that participate in the CSIPM. The Mechanism respects pluralism, autonomy, diversity and self-organisation and tries to ensure a balance of constituencies, gender, and regions.

The CSIPM Secretariat is dedicated to facilitating the functions of the CSIPM, supporting the implementation of its work plan and activities during the CFS inter-sessional period and throughout the CFS Plenary Sessions. The CSIPM Secretariat supports the different CSIPM structures and articulations both in terms of governance and policy thematic work, accompanying all related processes. It is also responsible for providing coordination, facilitation, logistical, financial, and communication support to increase the overall capacities of the space and its participating organisations. The CSIPM Secretariat’s team is currently composed of 3 people with longstanding experience in the follow-up and coordination of the overall CSIPM activities, including the related logistics. The CSIPM is looking for a 4th team member to provide logistics and administration support, who will be accompanied by the rest of the team in the handover process

Main duties and tasks of the Administration and Logistics Officer are:

Logistics:

• Support in the organisation of in-presence meetings and online calls, including the organisation of interpretation;   
• Ensure the reservation of flights and hotels and an adequate accounting and archiving of these expenses.
• Supporting CSIPM participants in providing the necessary documentation for their Schengen Visas requests 
• Reimbursement of participants expenses and ensuring an adequate accounting and archiving of these expenses.
• Support the registration process to CFS meetings, CFS Plenary and the Annual Forum of the CSIPM.
• Preparation of meetings documentation, including photocopying, organising and assembling folder for participants and distributing meeting materials.
• Communication with service providers (website, applications, universities, hotel etc.)

These tasks will be implemented with the support and in close collaboration and coordination with the CSIPM Secretariat team particularly with the Secretariat’s Coordinators. 

Administration of funding and administrative tasks:

• Account for CSIPM expenditures on a weekly/bi-weekly basis. Work in close collaboration with the CSIPM Coordination to evaluate expenditures against available budget
• Liaise with CSIPM host organisations that administer funds on behalf of the CSIPM to:
  • Facilitate the signing of funding contracts between hosting NGOs and donors;
  • Ensure payment of invoices on a weekly basis;
  • Prepare sub-contracts between CSIPM and the NGOs for the transfer of funds provided by the CSIPM for the regional/constituency consultations.
• Work in close collaboration with the CSIPM Coordinators for the preparation and finalisation of service contracts for CSIPM consultancy services (i.e. interpreters, translators, communication experts, website designer, etc.), and working contracts for CSIPM secretariat staff.
• Support the CSIPM Coordination in:
  • In close collaboration with the CSIPM Coordination, keeping an overview and control of CSIPM funding needs, income and expenditure.
  • Supporting in the liaison with FAO Partnerships Division for the preparation of Letter of Agreement for funds provided by Member States
  • Liaising with the CSIPM host organisations to facilitate access to resources and their use.
  • Supporting the preparation of funding proposals for submission to donors, working closely with the CSIPM Coordination, particularly for multi-year funding projects, and follow up the process until their final approval and signature.
• Exploring and proposing long term options for the administration of CSIPM funds, for example by identifying and selecting organisations that could administer CSIPM financial resources or researching and follow up of procedures to establish a legal entity and association for the CSIPM.
• Managing working group email lists once or twice a week. 
• Brings a problem-solving attitude and is willing to support the team with research or ad hoc tasks when capacity is stretched, understanding that this role may occasionally require stepping in on areas outside the core remit to keep things moving.

Reporting:

• Support the CSIPM Coordination in the preparation of financial reports and narrative reports for submission to donors.
• Work in close collaboration with the CSIPM Coordination and hosting organisation during audits on financial reports
• Support in the preparation of quarterly/biannually Financial Reports and status of CSIPM funding needs to be presented to the CSIPM Finance working group and the Coordination Committee (CC) during the CSIPM Annual Forum and CC meetings. 

Profile and requirements

The CSIPM is looking for an Administration and Logistics officer committed to support social movements, Indigenous Peoples’ and civil society organisations meaningful participation in global food governance spaces, that has a positive and problem solving attitude and that enjoys working in a team and for the service of rights holders, marginalised communities and in contact with decision makers. 

The selected candidate will have: 

• A university degree, relating to economy, administration, political science, or an equivalent combination of a relevant undergraduate degree, plus related work experience and on-the-job training;
• 3 years work experience related to project administration management; basic financial administration, including budget tracking, expense reporting, and supporting financial reporting processes;
• Experience in organising and preparing international meetings and events with peoples’ organisations and social movements and a substantial understanding of what this entails and how it is different from other type of meetings. 
• Commitment to supporting civil society participation in inter-governmental policy dialogue and decision-making; 
• Working experience with social movements, Indigenous Peoples, and civil society organisations that promote human rights approaches to food security and nutrition, gender equality, and food sovereignty will be considered a plus;
• Excellent oral and written communication skills are necessary;
• Strong organizational and time-management skills, with attention to detail;
• Proactiveness in taking on further responsibilities as the learning and handover process advances
• Good working knowledge of Excel and Word;
• Good knowledge in managing online community and video-conferencing platforms such as Zoom;
• Fluent in English and knowledge of Italian. Working knowledge of another language between Spanish and French is an asset;
• We are looking for someone who
  • Is committed, reliable, responsible and proactive with good problem-solving skills;
  • Enjoys working in a multi-cultural environment and can contribute harmoniously to team work;
  • Can adapt to a flexible working schedule and can work and communicate well under pressure and tight deadlines;
  • Has experience collaborating effectively and working in a team, fostering clear, transparent and respectful communication.
  • Takes ownership of their work and communicates proactively even when problems arise, e.g. when deadlines or tasks are at risk, including being comfortable flagging when something has not been completed rather than letting it go unnoticed.

We offer

• Working in a unique and dynamic space of civil society and Indigenous Peoples’ democratic participation to the United Nations;
• Being part of a highly motivated, welcoming, professional, caring and intercultural team in the context of intercontinental diversity; 
• An appropriate remuneration and a rewarding work environment. Further details will be provided in the event of an interview;
• The position is based in Rome. The selected person will be offered an Italian working contract (either a consultancy contract or a so-called co.co.co. contract with paid leave and holidays) with a monthly net salary that lies at 1.800 Euro. 
• The first contract offered will last for a trial period of four months (September to December 2026); if performance is positively assessed the contract will be further extended. In case of extension and after one year, the contract typology will be confirmed with the selected candidate. The salary may be reviewed subject to performance assessment and availability of funds. 

If you are fit for this role, we invite you to submit your CV and a one-page cover letter highlighting your motivation and most relevant experiences to this role. Applications should be sent to: csmrecruitments@gmail.com by 15 July 2026. 

Timeline of the recruitment process 

• 15 July – Deadline for submitting applications
• Weeks of 20 and 27 July – First round of interviews. 

Selected applicants will be asked to participate in an online interview (or potentially in-person if the candidate is based in Rome) with the full team of the CSIPM Secretariat, as well as the responsible of the hosting organization of the CSIPM. 

• Short-listed candidates might also be asked to pass a written evaluation task, and a second interview. 
• The selected person is expected to join the CSIPM Secretariat from the first week of September 2026. 
• The CSIPM office, where part of the work will take place, is in FAO Headquarters, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00154 Roma, Italy. In addition, the CSIPM Administration and Logistics Officer will be required to go on bi-weekly basis to the office of the hosting organization of the CSIPM, currently located in the Garbatella neighbourhood. 

Download the vacancy announcement (PDF)

The post CSIPM Vacancy: Administration and Logistics officer appeared first on CSIPM.

Nurses at Saint Mary of Nazareth Hospital in Chicago are prepared for their one-day strike on June 11 to protest the administration’s illegal firings of six nurses in retaliation for union activity.