News Feeds

By KAY MATTHEWS

Kit Carson Electric Cooperative CEO Luis Reyes just announced that the company has hired GZA GeoEnvironmental/Glorieta Geoscience (GZAGeoEnvironmental recently acquired Geoscience, which is based in Santa Fe) to conduct a water study of the proposed hydrogen facility in Questa. Kit Carson has only contracted for Phase 1 of that study, that states it will “assess the influence of pumping the Chevron production well (RG-14117-POD-18) on the groundwater flow conditions in the Questa, NM area.” However, the Phase I study will only develop a “three-dimensional visualization model,” which doesn’t involve well testing, drilling flow logs, measuring the rates of aquifer replenishment, and other critical water studies. If requested, Phase 2 would create “a groundwater flow model, calibrate the model, and prepare a report that summarizes the groundwater modeling work.” 

The Questa Watershed Coalition has received a detailed letter from a local hydrologist that lays down the details and requirements that a competent water study must include. The letter begins with this statement: “This will be a critically important study, and it is paramount that it be technically sound, comprehensive, and independently and impartially reviewed and validated.” The hydrologist emphasized that both Phases, 1 and 2, are necessary to “adequately predict hydrologic impacts. The visualization model should be accompanied by a conceptual model (which is basically a qualitative description of the flow system) and a quantitative water budget for all relevant hydrologic components (recharge, flux, discharge to rivers and wells, etc.) along with a clear statement of the objectives of the modeling exercise. He also stated that the 100 afy extraction rate is probably inadequate and 250 afy, the well’s adjudicated capacity, will be more likely needed. The Coalition will use the input in the letter to help assess the GeoScience study.

Questa Watershed Protectors have been asking Reyes for a comprehensive water study for months, as concerns over drought and the climate crisis are exacerbated by this year’s extreme situation. Snowpack measurements for the Sangre de Cristos are the lowest ever recorded, and both of the Questa acequias, Cabresto Lake Irrigation Community Ditch Association and Llano Community Ditch, have seen a significant loss of irrigation water. The well that will provide water for the hydrogen project is a Chevron exploratory well that they call the tailings facility water well. It’s 500 feet deep and will supposedly supply clean water for the project (the OSE will have to provide an assessment). A mile-wide study was done that said four other wells could be affected by the Chevron well, but Questa’s wells are not within that one-mile radius. A two-mile radius could affect 58 wells, including the many private wells in the community.

While GeoScience promotes its hydrogeology analyses and has worked all over the state, the president and senior hydrogeologist, Jay Lazarus, has an extensive history in the Taos area that may not bode well for an unbiased, comprehensive study of water quantity and quality in the Questa area that could be affected by the hydrogen facility. He’s been a longtime consultant for the Abeyta Water Rights Adjudication (Taos Pueblo) that resulted in a settlement in 2013. As such, he was a vocal opponent of the Public Welfare Statement that was drafted by a group of citizens as part of the Taos Regional Water Plan, back in 2006. The statement laid out the criteria for determining whether proposed water appropriations or transfers from the Taos Region to other regions and within the Taos Region from one sub-watershed to another are consistent with the public welfare.

Public welfare is one of the criteria the Office of the State Engineer is supposed to use to determine whether to approve a water transfer, but has rarely done so. That’s why the citizen committee urged that the Public Welfare Statement be incorporated into the Taos Regional Water Plan. But the parties to the Abeyta settlement raised objections to the proposed PWS, claiming it would prevent the implementation of the settlement and that it was contrary to state law. They, represented by Lazarus, wanted nothing to interfere with whatever transfers might be necessary for implementation of the controversial Abeyta Settlement.

In 2013, when Blackstone Ranch, which had acquired the historic McCarthy Ranch, “Taos’s last great grasslands” on Upper Ranchitos Road, applied to transfer just under 12-acre feet per year of surface water rights from the Alamitos Acequia to a groundwater well to irrigate landscaping around the “main-house,” a small orchard, gardens, greenhouse, and “fire-prevention pond”—which translates to 6 afy of groundwater. Their hydrogeologist, Jay Lazarus, was quite frank about the reason for the transfer: it would ensure the ranch irrigation water when there isn’t enough water in the acequia. This, of course, sets a bad precedent: As surface water continues to dry up more and more irrigators will want to pump groundwater instead. It’s already happening in southern New Mexico—and on a much larger scale than 12 afy of water—as farmers dependent on Elephant Butte Irrigation District for irrigation come up short and pump groundwater to save their crops. Texas sued, and a settlement agreement will require the retirement of thousands of acres of farmland to provide Texas with its allotted water rights under the Rio Grande Compact.

Finally, in 2025, at a public meeting about Sipapu Ski Area and Resort expansion plans, Lazarus was confronted in two claims he made as the ski area’s consultant on water quality monitoring. When asked about the ingredient surfactant, or Drift, used in snowmaking, Lazarus said that a New Mexico Environment Department study had found no impact on downstream users. The representative from the NMED corrected him that the agency was unable to test for snowmaking because surfactant is already present in the agency’s lab.

Lazarus was also challenged by Robert Templeton, a parciante from Dixon, when he made the often-touted claim that ski areas act as water reservoirs and help downstream users when the snow is released into the watershed in the spring. Templeton argued that stored water is only available during the spring runoff when the river flow is at or approaching flood conditions and is of no use to irrigators. The time that the “potentially stored” water is used for snowmaking is the exact moment when the water is needed in the river for recharge of wells and the sub-surface lands along the river’s course after the irrigation season.

.In a Taos News article Reyes was asked about allocating such a large amount of water during a time of extreme drought. His response was, “I’ve never seen it, living here [that] in a year we’ll get so much snow that it undoes, you know, 10 or 15 or 20 years of drought, but we’re not using [the water] for a while,” Reyes said. “I have faith that, like any cycle, we’ll start to get rains and moisture back, hopefully, like we did in the old days.”

The people of Questa would rather rely on a scientific assessment of what the water situation is right now before a water-guzzling project moves forward. Hopefully, that’s what they get.

RAFI is hiring an FSA Loans Technical Assistance Contractor to support farmers in the Southeast U.S. with Farm Service Agency loan programs. This remote six to 12-month contract will provide one-on-one help with farm numbers, loan applications, farm financials, loan restructuring, and borrower responsibilities. The contractor will also track cases, coordinate with RAFI staff and partners, and support farmer outreach and education.

The post Contract Opportunity: FSA Loans Technical Assistance Contractor  appeared first on RAFI.

This article Resistance is only half the equation was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

We no longer live in a world where courts reliably enforce limits on executive power; where media calls out abuse as abuse or where politicians depend on legitimacy to hold power. These conditions are eroding, and power is becoming more and more centralized. 

In the U.S., the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States in 2024 significantly expanded presidential immunity for official acts, raising concerns about accountability. Globally, ruling parties in Hungary and Poland have reshaped judicial systems through court-packing and disciplinary regimes that weaken independent checks on executive authority. And in countries such as India, new laws restrict freedom of the press. 

In response, we see a grinding pattern of reaction from pundits and resisters, but the power of centralized authority remains. Trump has retained power despite his involvement in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, as well as his name being all over the Epstein files. Leaders in Turkey and Egypt have been accused repeatedly of inciting democratic backsliding, yet they maintain power. At the same time, ecological, economic, cultural and political crises expand. 

This moment demands more than opposition. What is needed is not just resistance against corrupt centralized systems, but to create new, local systems that restructure power so it is dispersed throughout society. Because the problem is not only that those in power abuse it. The problem is that power is concentrated in the first place.

#newsletter-block_63d9dbab8221236ed68f8cf749bded55 { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_63d9dbab8221236ed68f8cf749bded55 #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.

The work of Gene Sharp stands apart in the field of nonviolent theory for one central reason: his understanding of power. For Sharp, justice, equality, freedom and any meaningful form of democracy do not exist simply as ideals or constitutional rights. They exist only when power is actually dispersed throughout society — embedded in the daily practices, institutions and relationships of ordinary people. Without that dispersion, democracy is little more than a substanceless claim.

Many nonviolent activists and scholars have embraced part of Sharp’s insight. They recognize that governments do not rule by force alone, but by the cooperation and support of institutions, organizations and individuals. From this perspective, power is contingent. If people withdraw their cooperation strategically and nonviolently, regimes can be forced to concede, reform or even collapse. This understanding has shaped movements across the world, from civil resistance campaigns to election protection efforts.

And yet, there is an equally important part of Sharp’s insight they are missing.

The problem of concentrated power

We are seeing how deeply dependent we have become on centralized systems that do not have our best interests in mind. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed how centralized healthcare and supply chains have become, leaving many without timely access to care and essential goods. And recurring, large-scale electrical outages, such as the 2021 Texas power crisis, show how dependent millions are on centralized grids that can fail. 

When power is concentrated — whether in governments, corporations or some fusion of the two — corruption is not an accident. It is a structural inevitability. Systems organized around concentrated power will, over time, bend toward the interests of those who hold it. Policies, resources and decision-making processes become oriented toward preserving and expanding that power, often at the expense of the broader population.

Previous Coverage

Will the real Gene Sharp please step forward?

Even the most well-intentioned leaders operate within structures that reward consolidation, control and self-preservation. For example, in an effort to make the U.S. government more efficient and effective, President Barack Obama reinstated presidential authority, ushering in an era of consolidated executive power. The result is an unfortunate recurring pattern: Inequality deepens, accountability weakens and public institutions drift away from the people they are meant to serve.

When decision-making is centralized, the distance between those who hold power and those affected by it widens, often to the point where meaningful feedback becomes filtered, delayed or ignored altogether. Over time, this creates an environment where leaders are not only insulated from consequences, but are also operating with an increasingly distorted understanding of reality. Citizens, in turn, become disengaged or disempowered, sensing that their voices carry little weight within systems designed to concentrate authority rather than distribute it. The result is not just corruption in the traditional sense, but a deeper erosion of responsiveness, adaptability and trust — conditions without which meaningful reform from within is exceedingly difficult.

Activism as external correction

In response to the erosion of democracy and the increasing inaccessibility of necessities like food, healthcare and housing, activists organize. They build networks to monitor elections, serve as watchdogs on corporate behavior, defend civil rights and provide essential services where governments fail. These efforts are vital. They protect people from immediate harm and at times, win meaningful reforms.

But rather than transforming how power is organized within society, these efforts often function as external correctives. They attempt to restrain abuse, mitigate harm and fill gaps left by failing institutions. In doing so, they implicitly accept the continued existence of centralized power structures, even as they resist their consequences.

This creates a paradox. Activists devote enormous energy to building parallel systems. Yet the underlying structures that concentrate that power remain largely intact.

The burden of endless resistance

Over time, this dynamic places an unsustainable burden on civil society. Activists become responsible for preventing abuse by those in power, holding institutions accountable and providing services that those institutions fail to deliver.

This is, in effect, a permanent state of resistance. It is also a reactive posture. Each new harm requires a new response, a new organization, a new campaign. The work expands endlessly, while the root cause — the concentration of power — remains unaddressed. 

One example of this is the environmental justice movement, particularly the coordinated pushback against federal rollbacks. Coalitions such as We Are Still In and the U.S. Climate Alliance mobilize states, municipalities, businesses and civil society to uphold the commitments of the Paris Agreement. Additionally, environmental groups repeatedly challenge deregulation, while states advance their own regulations. This created a multi-level infrastructure of resistance. Yet, even these efforts are forced into a constant defensive posture, expending vast energy to block or mitigate harms rather than dismantling underlying structures that enable federally sanctioned reversals of policy. 

While it’s true that it matters who holds office — we know that Trump’s policies are far more harmful to the environment than were Biden’s — this distinction does not resolve the deeper problem. The structure of centralized power remains unchanged, meaning that environmental policy can be rapidly advanced or dismantled with each shift in administration. As a result, even hard-won gains remain fragile. This volatility prevents the kind of long-term, consistent action required to address the climate crisis at scale. 

The question that follows is both simple and profound: Why do we accept a system in which people must constantly organize to defend themselves against the very structures meant to serve them?

Reimagining the mainstream structure

If we take Sharp’s theory of power seriously, the answer cannot lie solely in resistance.

Withdrawing cooperation from unjust systems is a vital tool. But it is only half of the equation. The other half is construction: building a society in which power is distributed from the outset, rather than concentrated and then contested.

Previous Coverage

Why building inspiring alternatives is necessary to counter authoritarianism

This requires a shift in orientation. Instead of asking how to better monitor and constrain centralized power, we must ask how to redesign the structures that produce it. What would it mean to organize political, economic and social systems so that decision-making authority is broadly shared? So that communities have direct control over the conditions of their lives? So that power is not something granted from above, but something exercised collectively?

In such a system, the need for vast external networks of resistance would diminish. Not because injustice would disappear, but because the mechanisms for addressing it would be built into the fabric of society itself.

And this is key. When power is disbursed throughout society into local communities — for example, when food is grown locally, housing is owned by cooperatives, health care is operated by neighborhood clinics, and so on — then community members can withdraw from or reduce their dependence on centralized, mainstream agribusinesses or real estate corporations or medical institutions. Empowering communities to take care of more and more of their own essential needs is a grassroots process that restructures how power is distributed in society. And the more communities that are empowered by these local initiatives, the more dispersed and decentralized power becomes. 

Addressing concerns of centralized power

The task ahead then is not only to resist concentrated power, but to replace it with distributed forms of governance and organization. To shift from a model of external oversight to one of internal design. In other words, the goal is not merely to challenge power, but to reconfigure it.

Around the world, communities are already doing this. They are realizing Sharp’s theory of decentralized power. By developing community gardens, housing coops and health centers, people can opt out of mainstream institutions and systems, greatly weakening the power those systems have over them. This is not merely an effort to fill in gaps. Instead, it deliberately shifts how power is distributed in society. Because, as dependency decreases, so does the ability of centralized authorities to command compliance. What emerges is not a parallel safety net, but a reconfiguration of power itself, one in which legitimacy flows from local and collective production and governance rather than from those who live far away.  

In the examples below, we see communities around the world building local control over essential needs such as housing, food, health care, energy, technology and safety. Each project that enables people to meet these needs locally — rather than through international corporations or federally controlled institutions — is a step toward local empowerment. As more communities adopt this approach, power becomes increasingly distributed across society.

Housing: Community control over land and shelter A Zapatista slogan on a mural in the autonomous town of Marinaleda, Spain, translates “the land belongs to those who work it.” (Turismo de la Provincia de Sevilla)

In southern Spain, the town of Marinaleda has created a radically different housing model. Following the election of Mayor Manuel Sánchez Gordillo — a labor leader pivotal to the town’s fight for self-governance — Marinaleda expropriated a significant amount of land from the state and launched a de-commodified housing system. Residents build their homes on collectively owned land; the town supplies construction materials and labor while occupants pay minimal mortgage payments tied to maintenance rather than profit. While operating within a broader national system, the town has effectively removed housing from market forces, placing control in the hands of the community itself.

In Jackson, Mississippi, Cooperation Jackson is working to build a solidarity economy rooted in worker ownership and community land control. Based on the model of Mondragon, Spain, residents are reducing dependence on both state and corporate systems.

Food: Feeding communities without external control

Few examples demonstrate community power more clearly than the Zapatista Autonomous Communities in Chiapas, Mexico. There, Indigenous communities have built autonomous systems of governance and agriculture, producing food collectively on communal land. In food forests, families and collectives farm milpa plots (corn, beans and squash) alongside cooperative coffee production. These systems operate independently of state programs and corporate supply chains, ensuring that communities can feed themselves on their own terms.

Community control goes beyond food. Volunteer medical professionals provide training for locals and help operate small community clinics that provide basic care, vaccinations and maternal support. Local community-run schools provide education that includes Indigenous languages, history and agroecology. And security as well as justice issues are brought before community assemblies. 

Power is dispersed by rooting it in the community itself and sustaining it through ongoing practice rather than reliance on institutions organized and controlled far from the people they are meant to serve. This reduces residents’ vulnerability to political shifts, market fluctuations and external control. Participation is embedded into daily life, making autonomy a lived reality rather than an abstract ideal. 

Likewise, in India, Navdanya, a woman- and Earth-centered movement to protect biodiversity, supports networks of farmers who preserve and share native seeds, rejecting dependence on corporate-controlled agriculture. Though funded in part by donations from corporate partners, they maintain seed sovereignty, which allows them to retain control over the very foundation of food production.

Health care: Care as a collective practice

Across many Indigenous communities, healers and midwives operate within community structures where knowledge is passed through generations. Care is often relational, land-based and spiritually integrated. For example, within the Navajo Nation, Diné traditional healing is an active, community-embedded system. And in Maya Ixil regions, comadronas (traditional midwives) guide pregnancy, birth and postpartum care using herbal remedies and spiritual practices. While outside funding supports this work, it nevertheless provides examples of how traditional and alternative healing can replace total dependence on mainstream health care systems. 

These health care practices are examples of mutual aid networks — many of which have expanded rapidly in recent years — in which communities can organize care without institutional backing. Funded through direct contributions and relationships of trust, these networks provide medical support, caregiving and essential supplies outside formal systems.

Energy and technology: Infrastructure in community hands

Energy and technology are often treated as inherently centralized, but communities are challenging that assumption. For example, Barefoot College trains local residents in the Global South — often women — to build and maintain solar infrastructure themselves, placing both knowledge and power in community hands.

Digital infrastructure is also being reclaimed. Community-built mesh networks, such as Guifi.net, provide locally owned internet systems governed by its users rather than corporate providers. These networks demonstrate that even complex technological systems can be decentralized and collectively managed.

Safety: Community-based security and governance

In the Indigenous Mexican town of Cherán, residents expelled external political authorities and established their own system of governance and security. Community patrols replaced state police, and decision-making shifted to local assemblies.

Similarly, within Zapatista communities, systems of justice and conflict resolution are handled collectively, without reliance on external courts or enforcement structures. Safety, in these contexts, emerges from shared responsibility rather than imposed authority.

From meeting needs to redistributing power

It’s worth noting that not all community-based efforts are entirely self-sufficient. Some, like community land trusts, rely heavily on ongoing government funding. And Germany’s energy democracy movement makes use of public grants and corporate support. Additionally, community safety groups provide programs that interrupt violence and reduce harm, but still depend on local police. Yet, they are models for systems and structures that can and sometimes do transition to total independence.

What unites these examples is not perfection but a desire to reduce their dependence on centralized institutions. They demonstrate that communities can meet essential needs through systems they control. That reduction matters because dependence is the mechanism through which power is maintained.

#support-block_35839f63b588c0a2d3a6cde949b8dc6a { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

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

Donate

A fair critique of decentralizing power is that it can fragment capacity and deepen inequality between communities. Not all localities begin with the same resources, skills or cohesion, and without coordination, decentralization can produce uneven outcomes, duplication of effort or gaps in essential services, especially in moments that require large-scale response. It can also risk exclusion or local capture if decision making is dominated by a few voices. 

These are real concerns. But they point to the need for networking, not isolation. They reveal the importance of shared standards, mutual aid across communities and federated structures that allow coordination without recentralizing authority. In this model, power is distributed, but not disconnected. Communities retain control over their systems while participating in broader networks that pool knowledge, redistribute resources and maintain accountability.

When communities no longer rely on governments or corporations for housing, food, energy or care, their participation in those systems diminishes. And their withdrawal is not merely tactical. Rather, it becomes a condition of life that rebuilds societal power structures from the ground up. 

And when this is multiplied across communities, something larger begins to emerge: a society in which power is not concentrated and contested, but dispersed and practiced. This is what it means to take Gene Sharp seriously — not only to withdraw cooperation from unjust systems, but to build the capacity to live without them. 

This article Resistance is only half the equation was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Born and raised in Colorado, Cory Kreft began working on a honey farm at 15 years old. He returned to beekeeping after college, eventually buying the business from his former boss. But in 2021, his bees suddenly began dying. He lost 85 percent of his hives. The losses continued the next year, and the next. After extensive testing, he identified the culprit: a relatively new class of pesticides called neonicotinoids, often shortened to neonics. 

These chemicals are commonly used to coat crop seeds before planting, ostensibly to protect the plant from pests and insects during early growth. Thanks in part to a federal regulatory loophole, the use of neonic-treated seed has quietly exploded in recent years, with little regulation or oversight. Almost all conventional corn and more than half of soy seed in the U.S. is now treated with neonics. 

A legal loophole called the treated article exemption allows companies to apply these toxic chemicals to products like seeds without registering them separately as pesticide products. The seeds then fall into the same class as antimicrobial toothbrush coatings or treated lumber sold at major home improvement stores, with few legal limitations around how they are monitored, used, or disposed of. “Anyone can legally go buy this pesticide-treated seed, dump it in a river, and then contaminate the entire water system,” Kreft said.

Promised to be safer, but still toxic

Neonics were first introduced in the 1990s with the promise of being safer than older pesticides. “Neonics are neurotoxins, and they work by attacking critical parts of insects’ nervous systems,” says Jennifer Sass, a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, or NRDC. The chemicals target neural receptors that are more common in insects than mammals. 

Neonics are systemic, so they move from treated seed into the tissues of the entire plant, including the pollen and nectar, and the fruits and vegetables that people eat. Manufacturers and government regulators claimed that these properties would make neonics relatively harmless to wildlife and people, and reduce soil and water contamination, since they claimed the pesticides would stay within the plant. 

Those claims didn’t hold up, says Sass, who has been researching pesticides for over 25 years. “They were supposed to be safe for people and wildlife. But none of that turned out to be true.” 

Since then, research has shown that neonics pose profound health risks for pollinators, ecosystems, and likely also people. The pesticides persist in the environment long after application and can travel via wind or waterways, contaminating ecosystems and communities miles away from where they were originally used. Overall, the amount of land treated with insecticide has continued to increase.

Research on seed coatings has found that they don’t typically help corn farmers’ bottom line either. Treated seeds have shown little or no impact on crop yield, so farmers are also paying more for unnecessary chemicals. Even so, pesticide-treated seeds have become so ubiquitous that it’s often hard for farmers to source untreated seed, and many use neonic pesticide-treated seed when they’re not needed. 

Neonics have become nearly impossible for pollinators and people to avoid. “They’re everywhere,” Kreft said, noting that he now buys food to place inside his hives during the summer months to keep the bees from foraging contaminated plant material. “They’re in the corn pollen in Colorado and the Midwest, and almond farmers in California are injecting neonics into their trees and putting them into irrigation systems. There’s absolutely nowhere we can go that our bees won’t be exposed to them.” 

When bees encounter neonic-contaminated pollen, the neurotoxin disrupts the neurological functions they rely on to navigate, forage, and survive. The hive then slowly declines and dies. “Over the last five years, we’ve seen between 60 to 85 percent hive mortality each year,” said Kreft. “It’s about a million dollars in losses for us annually.” 

The impacts of neonic pollution

The regulatory loopholes around neonics don’t end at the seed sales stage. They extend to disposal, too. Judy Wu-Smart, an entomologist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, has devoted her career to pollinator research. In 2017, she and her team made a disturbing discovery when they checked their beehives at a research site near Mead, Nebraska: The bees in every hive were dead. The pattern continued year after year. “We had almost 100 percent mortality from 2017 through 2020,” she said.

The team discovered that an ethanol plant called AltEn was operating near their research site. Major agrichemical companies use facilities like this to dispose of unpurchased seed before it spoils. The AltEn plant, Wu-Smart said, was processing much of North America’s surplus neonic-treated corn seed, contaminating surrounding ecosystems. Because neonic-treated seed is exempt from many rules that normally govern similar pesticide products, the facility was not subject to the same regulation and oversight as other pesticide disposal locations.

At the same time, residents in the nearby town of Mead began experiencing troubling developments: dead wildlife, sick family pets, and mysterious health problems. The seed disposal plant was selling ground-up pesticide-treated seed residue as a soil conditioner to nearby farms. Farmers were unknowingly applying high concentrations of neonicotinoids to their fields. 

After mounting scrutiny, the AltEn ethanol plant closed in 2021. But Wu-Smart notes that now, no one knows where excess neonic-treated seed is going for disposal. “It’s a big black box,” she said.

A growing push for stronger regulation

While the harm neonics inflict on pollinators is well documented, their effects on humans remain less certain. A recent study found that over 95 percent of pregnant women had neonics in their bodies. The chemicals have been linked to neurological, reproductive system, and developmental harms. Because neonics are now so widespread in food and water, Sass said, exposure has become nearly constant. “It’s everywhere now,” she said. “It’s in breast milk, tap water, even in baby food.”

Sass highlights research showing links to autism and learning disabilities among children from families living and working around farm chemicals like neonics. “I want people to understand that neurotoxic chemicals are bad for our brains, especially with fetal or early childhood exposure,” she said. “Early life exposure is more likely to cause permanent harm, much like lead or mercury.” 

Yet while research into human health effects continues, the regulatory gaps around neonic-treated seed are enormous. Wu-Smart said that when her bees were dying, neither state nor federal agencies could intervene, since there was no clear legal pesticide violation, like using a product in a way that contravenes its label instructions or other rules. Instead, the bees were being exposed through neonics that had spread into the surrounding environment — something current pesticide enforcement mechanisms were not designed to address. The same loopholes that allow treated seed to avoid full pesticide oversight also have created regulatory gaps around storage, disposal, contamination, and exposure well beyond the farm fields the pesticides are intended for.

Advocacy groups like NRDC have turned to state-level legislation. In Colorado, lawmakers recently considered the SEED Act, which would have expanded farmers’ access to seeds without insecticide coatings, while limiting unnecessary use.  The bill highlighted how a handful of major agribusiness companies have dominated the seed market, leaving many farmers with few options beyond chemically treated seeds. 

During the SEED Act hearings in the Colorado Senate, the act’s opponents argued that the legislation could increase costs and administrative burdens for farmers, while supporters highlighted the data showing limited benefits from pesticide-treated seeds and the evidence of the harm that neonics cause to pollinators and human health. They argued that the bill would protect pollinators, waterways, and public health, while also giving farmers more choice.

The act was ultimately defeated in Colorado, but similar laws have passed in New York and Vermont, and neonic regulation proposals have emerged in other states, including Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Hawaii.

Commonsense solutions

There’s an urgent need to close the gaps around neonic regulation by advocating for policies that limit unnecessary neonic use, expand seed options without harmful insecticides, and shift agriculture away from default chemical use. Since most neonic seed treatments are not actually needed to address pest problems, and typically provide no overall benefit, critics say that farmers should not be automatically using the pesticides. Instead, they propose a need-based model that preserves farmers’ ability to use treated seed when truly necessary, while restricting unnecessary use that spreads pollution. Quebec adopted this approach in 2019, with striking results: Neonic treatment for corn seed went from near universal to near zero in just a few years.

Those protections can’t come soon enough. In Mead, Nebraska, the environmental damage from neonic-treated seed did not end when the plant closed in 2021. Wu-Smart said that the pesticide contamination still lingers. “We’re still seeing high amounts of neonics in the honey from our hives in the area,” she said. “I wouldn’t eat it.” 

In Colorado, beekeeper Cory Kreft is not sure he can continue his honey farm. “There’s so much work that goes into beekeeping,” he said. “If I can’t keep my bees alive because this pesticide is everywhere, why would I keep doing this?”

Seed We Need is a coalition of farmers, scientists, educators, and advocates working to change the system. We support eliminating unnecessary neonic use in Colorado and bring safer, more transparent seed options to the table because our land, our health, and our future depend on it.

Join us in fighting for safer seed and a healthier Colorado. 

LEARN MORE

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The fight to protect pollinators and people from the ‘pesticides that are everywhere’ on Jun 1, 2026.

From engaging in door knocking campaigns to speaking at city council meetings, APEN’s youth leadership in Carson plays an important role in our strategy to hold Phillip’s 66 accountable for remediation of their Carson refinery.

Through our advocacy, we were able to pass a resolution to create a taskforce to engage residents, community members, and environmental experts on the refinery remediation process.

Today we hear directly from Jonathan Garcia, a youth leader and Carson resident, on the impact of living so close to the refinery and the future of APEN’s work in the South Bay Harbor Gateway.

Hi, my name is Jonathan and I’m a member of APEN LA. I’ve been a part of that community for about two years now. A lot of our work recently has been focused on Phillips 66 and the refinery closure. 

To me that’s an issue that really hits home because I’ve lived near the major refinery complex in Carson my entire life. 

There’s a lot of pollution, noise, costs, occasional explosions that come with having to live near oil infrastructure. 

I didn’t realize I had asthma until my late high school years. A lot of my peers have breathing issues or cancer in their families. 

Recently, we received political education around the war in Iran and the connections between our national reliance on fossil fuels and our military aggression abroad. 

We discussed how the same fossil fuels that cause cancer, sickness, and death in our own neighborhoods drive resource wars and destruction overseas.

 Destructive forever wars like the war in Iran will keep happening and fossil fuels will keep poisoning our communities unless we transition fully to renewable energy. 

We want renewable energy investments in our people, schools, healthcare, and communities and that can only happen when we stop oil companies from squeezing as much profit as they can out of infrastructure, and declare bankruptcy leaving toxic sites that they refuse to clean up.

That’s why last year APEN LA mobilized and won a taskforce from the Carson City Council to oversee the Phillips 66 refinery closure. 

This coming year, APEN LA will focus on working with Carson City Council and the Planning Commission to build up this taskforce, meet with LA Regional Water Board to understand the remediation process for refinery grounds, and expand our youth membership so we can have a say in the clean up process.

Please donate to our spring fundraiser so we can continue to do this crucial work in Carson and the South Bay Harbor. 

In solidarity,

Jonathan Garcia

Youth Member, APEN Los Angeles

 

The post Holding Phillips 66 Accountable appeared first on Asian Pacific Environmental Network.

With less than two weeks for the Senate to take up Senator Mike Lee’s Congressional Review Act (CRA) joint resolution to undo the management plan for Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, our staff in DC are closely watching the Senate’s calendar. In the meantime, we’re throwing a Virtual Rally for Grand Staircase-Escalante this Wednesday evening! Please join us—and bring any friends, family, neighbors, and colleagues who also love the redrock, Grand Staircase-Escalante, and southern Utah.

Virtual Rally for Grand Staircase-Escalante!
Wednesday, June 3, at 6 pm MT on Zoom
Click here to register

We know the ongoing uncertainty and “hurry up and wait” feeling surrounding the CRA fight has been hard. But our love of the monument keeps us grounded in a world filled with distractions. 

During this virtual rally, you’ll hear from SUWA’s Organizing Team and executive director, as well as some of the many voices speaking out to defend the monument—Native leaders, scientists, former Bureau of Land Management staff, and others! We’ll share the latest on the CRA timeline, hear stories from grassroots activists, and, of course, send you off with the latest actions you can take to protect this remarkable place.

Click here to register now.

Thank you for all you’re doing to speak up and protect Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Need some inspiration? Check out our “Love for Grand Staircase-Escalante” StoryMap and review this interactive piece from the More Than Just Parks Substack.

 

The post Virtual Rally for Grand Staircase-Escalante! appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

Orhan Solak is deputy director of Türkiye’s Directorate of Climate Change.

In today’s fraught economic context, everyone is looking to do more with less, and financing climate action is no exception. Yet there are clear opportunities to make better use of existing funding to achieve climate goals, including the repurposing of more than $700 billion in agricultural subsidies to support a just rural transition.

While public support for agriculture and food security has increasingly been reflected in global climate discussions, particularly in the context of the Paris Agreement’s Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), the scale and urgency of current challenges call for stronger consensus and rapid implementation of practical, context-sensitive solutions.

The need to empower farmers to adopt sustainable practices, such as reducing food loss, cutting waste, building resilience and managing water resources wisely, is not a modern ethos. It echoes the model of Göbeklitepe, civilisation’s earliest-known settlement, built on the principles of solidarity, balance and harmony with nature.

This historical perspective underscores that sustainable resource management is deeply rooted in human development, and it reinforces the importance of aligning today’s agricultural transformation with both environmental integrity and social equity.

• May 28, 2026 News El Niño expected to bring next record-hot year as soon as 2027 With El Niño set to return, the World Meteorological Organization has raised its predictions for another record-breaking hot year Read more
• May 29, 2026 Comment COP31 must persuade countries to make fossil fuel transition plans  As the Iran war disrupts oil and gas supplies, the UN climate summit should tackle fossil fuel dependency, energy affordability and energy access – national roadmaps are a good start Read more

However, to date, public support for farming globally has largely prioritised synthetic fertilisers and input-intensive production models, often overlooking more sustainable, resource-efficient and resilience-oriented agricultural practices.

The good news is that countries are increasingly recognising that climate action cannot come at the cost of food security, dignified livelihoods and greater equality. Any transition to more sustainable food systems must be “just” for the farmers and the rural communities who underpin them.

Enhancing long-term food security

As COP31 President, Türkiye will draw on its unique historical and geographical position as a bridge between regions and civilisations to foster dialogue, strengthen cooperation and mobilise collective efforts toward scaling up finance towards net zero targets, a vital pillar of this year’s COP31 climate talks in Antalya.

Moving forward, greater emphasis should be placed on supporting sustainable and climate-resilient agricultural systems through targeted investments, capacity-building, innovation and nature-positive practices.

Strengthening support for efficient water use, soil health, agroecological approaches and circular production models can enhance long-term food security while improving resilience to climate-related shocks.

Comment: Nature cannot be ignored by Europe’s next big budget

In this context, aligning agricultural policies and financing mechanisms with sustainability objectives will be essential not only for protecting natural resources, but also for ensuring inclusive rural development and intergenerational equity.

A just rural transition that achieves climate goals and zero waste without undermining agricultural communities and economies is not possible without countries providing the necessary financial support. Redirecting agricultural subsidies offers a promising path toward both objectives, but only when reform is carefully designed and sensitive to context. Done well, it can offer a way to ease pressure on governments to find fresh funding.

New high-level panel to offer alternatives

This is the mission of a new High-Level Panel for a Just Rural Transition, recently launched in Ankara. Together with panel members that include former heads of state, senior officials from international organisations, and government representatives from across Africa, the Americas and Europe, I believe we can provide governments worldwide with viable and sustainable alternatives.

In the context of heightened scrutiny over international aid and finance, redirecting existing funding makes both economic and environmental sense.

New data shows rich nations likely missed 2025 goal to double adaptation finance

In Türkiye, farm subsidies have, for several years, increasingly supported organic farming through an established certification system aligned with international standards. The Green Deal Action Plan, published in 2021, set out objectives to reduce the use of pesticides and chemical fertilisers, promote organic production, increase renewable energy use, and improve waste and residue management.

In addition, Türkiye’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan (2024–2030) further strengthens this policy direction by integrating climate resilience considerations into agricultural practices and supporting sustainable land and resource management approaches.

Other countries are also embracing innovative approaches. Malawi, for example, is piloting a system in which subsidies for synthetic fertiliser are conditional on other, more climate-positive practices such as diversifying the crops planted to help improve soil health or applying soil conservation measures and managing soil organic matter. Elsewhere, the UK is also shifting to a model that rewards environmental stewardship through its Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI).

The exact ways in which farm subsidies are redirected will depend on each country’s specific circumstances and needs, but the overall approach is one that stands to benefit all nations.

Channelling public support away from high-emission practices is not only a strategy for addressing today’s challenges, but also one that helps build long-term resilience.

Waki Munyalo works on her farm after harvesting her maize insured by an agricultural insurance company that helps small-scale farmers to manage the risk associated with extreme climate conditions, in Kitui county, Kenya, March 17, 2021. (Photo: REUTERS/Monicah Mwangi) Waki Munyalo works on her farm after harvesting her maize insured by an agricultural insurance company that helps small-scale farmers to manage the risk associated with extreme climate conditions, in Kitui county, Kenya, March 17, 2021. (Photo: REUTERS/Monicah Mwangi) Just Transition Mechanism consultations in Bonn

This month’s Bonn Climate Conference will mark an important milestone on the road to COP31, helping to shape the agenda for the negotiations in Antalya six months later.

Countries will consult over the Just Transition Mechanism, the financial framework designed to ensure the transition to a climate-neutral economy is fair. This is a vital opportunity to ensure that agrifood systems and rural communities are placed at the heart of its agenda, and it is a moment to reinforce the philosophy of COP 31: from dialogue to consensus and action.

To accelerate climate action at the “COP of the Future”, we must learn from the past and improve upon it through strengthened dialogue, consensus-building, and concrete, action-oriented outcomes.

Countries should recognise that a just rural transition requires action not only from actors within the agrifood system, but across all relevant sectors and industries. Momentum is steadily growing, and under Türkiye’s COP31 Presidency priorities, this agenda is expected to feature prominently. This momentum sets the stage for a defining COP31 for climate equity and inclusive climate action.

The post Agricultural subsidies can be repurposed for a just and sustainable rural transition appeared first on Climate Home News.

Peter Massie spent a decade inside Canada’s energy bureaucracy, where he learned the importance of strategic industry policy.  

That makes Massie ideally positioned to make the case that Canada needs to rebuild its energy strategy to seize the rare opportunity presented by geothermal energy.  

Canada sits atop an enormous, inexhaustible supply of clean geothermal energy, but the country currently lacks a cohesive strategy to unlock that energy for the benefit of Canadians.  

Massie runs the Cascade Institute’s Geothermal Energy Office from Ottawa, guided by a foundational idea: Canada’s greatest energy achievements were not accidents — they were strategized. For example, Canada’s oil and gas industry it is the result of smart, targeted research and development.  

“Maintaining a strong energy sector is no longer just an economic imperative for Canada,” he argues. “It’s an existential one.” 

Energy, Massie says, is quickly becoming the most sought-after global currency. Canada holds the fourth-largest oil reserves on the planet — and sells almost all of it to a single, increasingly unpredictable customer south of the border.  

“Expanding our infrastructure is already showing returns, but it’s a comfortable half-measure,” he says. “And comfort is no longer a viable strategy.” 

The energy is there, but tapping it requires smart cooperation across government, academia and industry. It requires (sometimes risky) business of a country investing in something new. Massie likes to borrow a line from the Harvard economist Michael Porter: “National prosperity is created, not inherited.” 

“Canada’s natural resources were our inheritance,” Massie says. “The technologies that convert them to prosperity are creations of Canadian ingenuity.” 

Massie sees geothermal as an essential companion to Canada’s other energy industries – each of which emerged from deliberate strategy. The CANDU reactor grew out of the Chalk River laboratories and a postwar federal push. Steam-assisted gravity drainage, the made-in-Canada breakthrough that unlocked the deep oil sands, came from a 1970s coalition of government, industry, and academia.  

Peter Massie will be hosting a number of discussions and announcments at the World Geothermal Congress in Calgary, June 2026.

“These projects were defined by strategic long-term thinking, calculated risk-taking, and collaboration across the public and private sectors,” Massie says. In recent years, he argues, Canada has drifted into “a non-strategy — much talk, but little clarity over what, exactly, we need to do as a nation to remain competitive.” 

Massie believes Canada should start with what it’s best at; the country’s deep subsurface expertise — built over decades of oil and gas production — transfers almost directly to new industries like geothermal energy, critical minerals, and carbon capture. Canada is perfectly positioned to be a goethermal leader.  

But Massie is also adamant that technology is never enough on its own. “Technology does not exist in a vacuum,” he says. “Technologies exist in social and economic systems. And when we want to drive a transition, we have to drive a socio-technical transition.” 

That requires the unglamorous work of dissecting regulations, markets, institutions, and public opinion. “There is no such thing as technology neutrality,” he says. “Blunt instruments, such as the carbon price and tax credits, can scale existing industries.  But alone, they just aren’t enough for transformative breakthroughs.” 

For the Cascade Institute — which studies the tangle of interconnected global crises called the polycrisis — geothermal is what’s known as a high-leverage intervention. Geothermal can be a well-timed “nudge” that alleviates strains on multiple global systems at once.  

“By providing a source of clean baseload power, geothermal can relieve all kinds of other systemic stressors, including energy security, powering data centres, and addressing climate change” says Massie.  

Massie spent more than a decade in the federal government, most recently as acting director of strategic policy and techno-economic analysis in Natural Resources Canada’s Office of Energy R&D, modelling how emerging technologies could help Canada decarbonize.  

Nowadays, the stakes are far greater to Massie. He’s a new father, so the future he studies and strategizes for is also the one his daughter will inherit. 

“Canada has faced challenging moments before,” he says. “Each time, we made the choice to invest, innovate, and lean into our strengths. With higher stakes than ever, we now face that choice again: strategize or stagnate.” 

The post Strategize or Stagnate: Peter Massie on Canada’s geothermal moment appeared first on Cascade Institute.

California nurses are celebrating today, June 1, the historic implementation of long-awaited safe nurse-to-patient staffing ratios in the state’s acute psychiatric hospitals (APH) that should dramatically improve the care behavioral health patients receive and that RNs can provide.

The article covers what rights for wetlands need to be recognized as, the responsibilities of humans towards and with wetlands, the legal structures necessary to effectively implement and enforce wetland's rights, and examples of rights of wetlands in practice.

The post Suggested Reading – How Implementing the Rights of Wetlands Provides Benefits to People and Wetlands: Relationships, Rights, Responsibilities, Experiences, and Actions appeared first on CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities.

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

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

How the Bamako Convention Can Drive Real Implementation of the Basel Convention in Africa

By Gilbert KUEPOUO, Executive Director of Centre de Recherche et d’Education pour le Developpement (CREPD)

The African continent has historically been a dumping ground for hazardous chemicals, technologies, and waste from the global north and from countries such as China, India, and Turkey.

This dumping is the result of brute economic forces, often characterized as “toxic colonialism,” as evidenced by the recent case of Italian waste dumped in Tunisia. The real costs of waste disposal are shifted onto the recipient population and environment, transferring negative externalities born in the global north and other countries onto the African continent. 

As African civil society strives to drive action on waste trade as an urgent environmental and social justice issue in Africa during Africa Day, it is important to examine the global and regional instruments that govern waste trade, their weaknesses, and areas of complementarity and effectiveness. 

At the global level, the Basel Convention on the transboundary movement of hazardous waste and its disposal, adopted in 1989 and entered into force in 1992, regulates the global trade in hazardous and other waste.

While the Basel Ban Amendment (Article 4a of the Basel Convention), adopted in 1995 and entered into force relatively recently on 5 December 2019, prohibits the export of hazardous waste from developed countries (Annex VII) to developing countries (non-Annex VII), it is not applicable to countries that have not ratified it, including many African countries.

Further, the Basel Ban Amendment does not apply to Basel’s Annex II waste, which includes household waste, mixed plastic waste, and non-hazardous e-waste, nor does it apply to as defined by the African Bamako Convention. It is therefore vital for all African countries to ratify both the Basel Ban Amendment and the Bamako Convention.

The Bamako Convention, which I like to refer to as the “African dam regulation”, is a treaty of African nations, created by Africans for Africans, that entered into force in 1998 and is intended to protect the continent against the dumping of hazardous and other waste.

It is a regional agreement accepted by the Basel Convention under its Article 11, which allows legal waste trade agreements that are no less environmentally sound than the Basel Convention, and can, for example, in particular interests of developing countries, be stronger than the Basel Convention. For example, the Bamako Convention offers stronger protections than the Basel Convention in the following ways: 

1. The Bamako Convention considers any waste containing either listed hazardous substances or listed hazardous characteristics as hazardous wastes. The Basel Convention, on the other hand, requires both a hazardous substance and a hazardous characteristic at the same time to qualify as hazardous waste. 

2. The Bamako Convention considers all chemicals, whether they are factually waste or not, as hazardous waste if they are banned or severely restricted for environmental or human health reasons anywhere in the world. The Basel Convention does not consider these banned or severely restricted chemicals as wastes subject to control in Africa. 

3. The Bamako Convention uniquely considers nuclear wastes of all kinds (Y0), as well as wastes collected from households, and incinerator ashes from the burning of wastes collected from households (Y46 and Y47) to be hazardous wastes. The Basel Convention does not consider these wastes to be hazardous waste.

4. The Bamako Convention bans the import of all hazardous wastes into the continent of Africa, as well as the ocean dumping in the waters under the jurisdiction of African States. There are no such provisions under the Basel Convention.

In light of these stronger protections, the Bamako Convention is truly a regional dam treaty to prevent hazardous and other waste, including chemicals banned or severely restricted by governments around the world, from crossing the sovereign borders of the African continent and causing further harm. It provides African countries with strong protections against environmental injustice and exploitation, and gives them future opportunities to self-regulate and set stronger trade bans or controls than the Basel Convention, keeping regional needs top of mind.

For example, the Bamako Convention plays a major role in preventing plastic and electronic waste from being exported to the African continent. It is also well-positioned to prevent toxic technologies, such as the chemical recycling of plastics and waste incineration, from being moved to the African continent from the Global North.

However, while in legal force for 29 African countries, Bamako is not yet fully functional as intended.  

First, the Convention needs to be fully ratified by all 54 member states of the African Continent. To date, only 25 countries, including those regularly targeted for hazardous waste dumping, such as Nigeria, Ghana, and Kenya, have not ratified the Bamako Convention. 

Second, and of critical importance, is the mobilization of resources to allow for a steady source of funding, for adequate operationalisation, and to hold regular meetings, as any Convention must have in order for it to function. An initial step toward this was taken during the last BRS COP through a decision calling for communication and synergies with Basel, aiming for a stronger partnership.

The AMCEN-20 (African Ministerial Conference on the Environment) decision on Bamako also calls for ratification and the convening of the next COP—COP4 of the Bamako Convention — with the support of the African Union and UNEP (United Nations Environment Program).   

We must collectively call on UNEP, AMCEN, the GEF (Global Environment Fund), and all national governments of Africa to ratify the Bamako Convention if they have not, and, moreover, to explore ways to overcome these critical institutional challenges and gaps to finally achieve a functional regional convention on chemicals and waste. The most important job is finished—we have a convention. It is now our time to breathe life into it so it can fulfil its promise of protecting Africa, now and for its future generations.

The post Why Africa’s Own Treaty May Be the Key to Fixing Global Waste Trade Rules first appeared on GAIA.

On June 2, PM Press will publish Three Roads: Labor Music Ecology by Joe Uehlein, founder of the Labor Network for Sustainability. Here’s a description of the book:

“After decades organizing from within the labor establishment, Joe Uehlein realized that winning real climate and economic justice meant moving beyond the limits of traditional labor and environmentalism.

As former secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO’s Industrial Division and director of the AFL-CIO’s Center for Strategic Campaigns, Joe fought from the inside. But in 2005, he stepped away from the AFL-CIO to found the Labor Network for Sustainability, forging deep alliances between labor, climate, and environmental movements. His vision: transform the labor movement to embrace ecological responsibility—and environmentalism to uplift working-class solidarity.

But Joe’s work has never been confined to boardrooms or picket lines. With a guitar in hand, he’s shared stages with Pete Seeger and Tom Morello, turning songs into rallying cries and stories into tools for resistance.

Three Roads weaves strategy, memoir, and music into a powerful call to action. Through compelling personal narrative and frontline insight, Joe offers an urgently needed blueprint for bridging movements and pushing boundaries. This is a book for anyone who dreams of a world where working people and the planet thrive together.

Because the road to justice has to walk in more than one direction—and we need all of them.”

Here are some early comments on the book:

“The story of an extraordinary life spent making change, from one of the greatest labor organizers of our era. Anyone who has ever asked ‘what can I do’ should read this book—part memoir of compassion and grace; part manifesto for the world we need.”

—Annie Leonard, Author of The Story of Stuff, cofounder, Jane Fonda Climate PAC

“There is no one who has so seamlessly combined idealism, activism and music as Joe Uehlein has. He is a once in a generation heir to Woody Guthrie and Phil Ochs and he is also a helluva writer.”

—Saket Soni, Author of The Great Escape, Founder of Resilience Force

“Joe Uehlein is one of our great movement troubadours, organizers and good troublemakers. He brings the vision and commitment and joy with his music to add life and power to our struggles for a better world. This book tells his story, and it should inspire us all to take the action we need to take in these times.”

—Jeff Johnson, Former President, Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO

“Joe is an unwavering warrior-troubadour for working folks everywhere. If you can listen to his song ‘Sweet Lorain’ without choking up, then you’ll never understand working for a living. Woody Guthrie; Ella Mae Wiggins; Pete Seeger; Rev. Fred Kirkpatrick; AND their heir: JOE UEHLEIN. He is the living symbiosis of labor and environmental—and he doesn’t just sing it: he has lived it in the trenches. I have been a fan forever!”

—Heather Booth, Organizer Extraordinaire, Democratic Party Consultant

“Joe Uehlein has lived enough for not just one, but three extraordinary lives. As a labor activist, he has been a tireless advocate for union democracy and progressive politics. When he understood the perils to our earth represented by climate change, he walked away from a big AFL-CIO job to devote himself to sounding the alarm about climate to a hesitant labor movement. Through it all he has used music to convey what speeches alone cannot. In the process Joe has emerged as ‘labor’s troubadour,’ a worthy successor to Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger, keeping political folk music alive and teaching upcoming musicians the richness and appeal of this music. If you are seeking inspiration on how to live your life in a meaningful way—start with this book.”

—John Harrity, President Emeritus of the Connecticut Roundtable on Climate and Jobs

Order Three Roads: Labor Music Ecology here.

The post LNS President Uehlein Tells His Story in New Three Roads Book first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

LNS president Joe Uehlein will kick off a tour for his new book, Three Roads: Labor Music Ecology June 11 in Dearborn, MI to celebrate the release of Three Roads: Labor, Music, Ecology. The book is the powerful autobiography of longtime labor leader and Labor Network for Sustainability Founder Joe Uehlein. This special event for the national Book & Music Tour will bring together movement leaders, organizers, and music lovers for an evening of stories and songs from a lifetime spent fighting for workers, the environment, and a better world. Blending live music with reflections from the frontlines of labor and climate activism, Uehlein will share how the “three roads” of labor, music, and ecology have shaped his journey- and the movements he helped build. Come celebrate the launch and join us for a powerful evening of music and solidarity!

When: 5-8 pm June 11

Where: UAW Local 600 Union Hall, 10550 Dix Ave., Dearborn, MI

MORE INFO
RSVP NOW

If you are at the Labor Notes conference in Chicago you can catch Joe at the “meet the authors” event June13, 4:00-6:30 pm in the Hyatt Grand Ballroom C.

If you are near Denver, join us for Joe’s third tour event:

When: 5:30-7:30 pm June 22

Where: Event Room, Colorado People’s Center, 730 21st St, Denver, CO 80205

The post Uehlein Book-and-Concert Tour Kicks Off in Dearborn, Chicago, and Denver first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Photo by Sydney Ghazarian

By Sydney Ghazarian, LNS Director of Strategic Campaigns

At the recent Jobs With Justice conference in Atlanta, labor and community organizers joined Union of Southern Service Workers members in a powerful march and rally alongside Waffle House workers demanding dignity on the job, safer workplaces, and a living wage. Workers and allies filled downtown streets chanting “We work, we sweat, put $25 on our check!” as they called for $25/hour wages, 24/7 security protections, and an end to mandatory meal deductions that dock workers’ pay whether they eat or not. The action connected frontline worker struggles to broader fights for economic and racial justice in the South, highlighting how mega-events like the upcoming World Cup are driving profits and tourism while service workers continue to face poverty wages and unsafe conditions. With support from unions and movement partners (including LNS), the rally showed growing momentum for cross-movement solidarity rooted in the belief that our future must include respect, safety, and economic security for all workers.

Support Union of Southern Service Workers demands by signing their petition today.

The post LNS Marches with Southern Service Workers first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Photo source: Canva. “Activists demonstrating against global warming,” by Oneinchpunch

A growing list of labor unions – including IBEW Local 280, Iron Workers Local 29, SMART Local 16, CWA Local 7901, and the Eugene Education Association – have all endorsed the Eugene Clean Energy Fund.

The proposal, a ballot initiative for the November 2026 election, would fund clean energy, green jobs, and climate resilience by placing a 2% fee on the profits of Eugene’s billion-dollar corporations.

ECEF is a community-driven ballot initiative developed by a coalition of climate, health, housing, and racial justice organizations in Eugene. If passed, it would support four main areas of work:

• Renewable energy and energy efficiency programs: 60%
• Clean energy jobs training, apprenticeships, and contractor support: 25%
• Green infrastructure programs that result in carbon gas sequestration: 10%
• Future innovation: 5%

The Breach Collective, one of the initiators of the ballot, says:

“When trade unions endorse a climate initiative like this, it shifts the false narrative that workers have to choose between economic security and climate justice. It signals to voters that this isn’t a fringe environmental issue, but a mainstream, pro-worker, pro-community investment in Eugene’s future. For the building trades specifically, a transition to clean energy means construction: retrofitting homes, installing solar, building green infrastructure. That’s good, skilled union work.”

The labor endorsements join a growing coalition that already includes environmental organizations, racial and social justice organizations, health organizations, community groups, and elected leaders.

For more information, visit the ECEF website.

 

The post Unions Back Eugene, OR, Clean Energy Fund first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Image Source: Canva. “Changes,” by KWaiGon

By Liz Ratzloff

Liz Razloff, Director, Center for Labor and Community Studies at the University of Michigan-Dearborn and former co-director of the Labor Network for Sustainability, recently wrote:

“Right now, a new economy is being built around us.

A new plant goes up on the edge of town. Farmland gets cleared for a battery facility. Transmission lines expand. Data centers rise, drawing as much power as entire neighborhoods. Billions of dollars move through statehouses and corporate boardrooms, deciding what gets built, where, and for whom.

But most working people are experiencing these changes differently.

A storm hits harder than it used to. A basement floods. A highway shuts down. A shift is missed. A power bill climbs. A job disappears or a new one appears without clear wages, standards, or protections. Rising heat makes work slower and more dangerous. We are living inside this transformation.

Corporate executives are making decisions that will shape entire regions for decades, often with public subsidies and limited accountability. State and local governments are competing to bring these projects in, sometimes offering tax breaks and incentives without guarantees about wages, working conditions, or long-term community benefit.

Across the country, workers are starting to push back on the idea that they should simply accept whatever this transition delivers. They are organizing not just around wages and contracts, but to shape the future of their industries. They are asking who controls investment, who sets the terms of new jobs, and what kind of economy is being built with public resources.

Auto workers are preparing for coordinated bargaining across an entire sector. Energy workers are raising questions about how new infrastructure is built and who benefits from it. Workers across industries are connecting the dots between climate change, job quality, economic power, and organizing.

Workers are not waiting to see what happens. They are stepping in to shape the future.

This means fighting to ensure that public investment creates high-quality, union jobs, not a race to the bottom. It means demanding training pathways that actually open doors, not promises that disappear once projects are approved. It means building alignment between labor and communities so that development strengthens the places people live, rather than extracting from them.”

You can read Liz’s full piece here.

To be connected with future CLCS organizing and programming around sustainable jobs and just transition, fill out this interest survey.

The post Workers Confronting the “New Economy” first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.