News Feeds

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 4, 2026

Statement on ACT NOW Clean Tech Initiative

ALLEGHENY COUNTY, Pa. — On June 4, Allegheny County Executive Sara Innamorato signed the Advancing Clean Technology for Neighborhood and Next-Generation Opportunity and Workforce (ACT NOW) Executive Order. In response, Ohio River Valley Institute Industrial Decarbonization Program Manager Justine Hackimer issued the following statement:

Clean technology and advanced manufacturing present a generational opportunity to strengthen Allegheny County’s economy, create high-quality jobs, and build on our region’s long history of industrial innovation. 

For generations, southwestern Pennsylvania’s workers, manufacturers, and research institutions helped power economic growth across the country. As global markets increasingly demand cleaner technologies, our region is well-positioned to compete for the industries that will shape the next generation of manufacturing. 

But realizing that opportunity requires more than individual projects. It takes coordination and smart policy like ACT NOW to ensure workers and local communities directly benefit from investments. We applaud County Executive Sara Innamorato’s leadership in shaping a clean tech future that works for all Pennsylvanians.

By investing in the industries of tomorrow while strengthening the systems that support workers and communities, the region can build a more diverse, resilient economy that creates opportunities for generations to come.

###

 

The post Statement on ACT NOW Clean Tech Initiative appeared first on Ohio River Valley Institute.

DrillOrDrop’s round-up of announcements from three companies with UK onshore oil and gas interests: investor raises stake, director resigns and refinancing continues.

West Newton oil and gas field.
Photo: West Newton and Sproatley Gateway to the Gasfields Reabold Resources – Crypto Cousins raises stake

Reabold Resources, the majority owner of the West Newton oil and gas field in East Yorkshire, announced this morning that a US investment company had increased its interest.

Rohan Oza, through Crypto Cousins, LLC, raised his investment in Reabold from 5.6% to 14.309% of voting rights.

A statement from Reabold said the share-owning threshold was crossed on 8 May 2026 and completed today (4 June 2026).

In March 2026, the company announced that Rohan Oza’s investment group had committed to buy 1,900 million ordinary shares.

Reabold said the funds raised from that share placing would be “used primarily to progress” the West Newton project. The operator, Rathlin Energy, has planning permission for lower-volume fracking on the West Newton A-2 well.

Reabold revealed last year that the West Newton sites, currently mothballed, could be used for bitcoin mining. It unveiled plans to use gas from the wells to generate electricity.

Reabold has also announced (3 June 2026) that it had granted exclusive rights to Zenith Energy plc to evaluate the potential acquisition of Reabold shares in Daybreak Oil and Gas.

Union Jack – director resignation

Union Jack Oil, another investor in West Newton, has announced the resignation of Graham Bull, a non-executive director.

A statement yesterday (3 June 2026) said:

“Mr Bull cited the detrimental effect attacks on the Board from certain media organisations has had on him and his family in his decision to resign.”

The statement did not name any media organisations.

Angus Energy – financial restructuring

Angus Energy, which operates the UK’s largest onshore gas site at Saltfleetby in Lincolnshire, announced today (4 June 2026) that it continued “to make good progress” on legal documents associated with its proposed financial restructuring.

The company has been refinancing its loan with the main creditors, including Trafigura and Forum Energy Services Limited.

The company said in a statement to shareholders:

 “Although progress to final binding agreements has been slower than anticipated, the Company is confident that the restructuring process will conclude in the coming weeks.”

“Upon execution, the proposed restructuring is expected to materially strengthen the Group’s balance sheet, enhance liquidity, and establish a more sustainable long-term capital structure.”

Share trading in Angus has been suspended since 19 May 2026. The company said trading would resume when the restructuring had been completed.

Angus also operates the Balcombe oil site in West Sussex. Planning permission for a well test at the site lapsed in February 2026. The company said it would reapply but no application has yet been published.

Price floors and supply management programs seem common sense to policymakers when it comes to oil and minerals, but what about US farmers and our overall food system? By: Patti Naylor, FFD president, George Naylor, FFD board member, and Laurel … Continue reading →

The company that gave up on oil operations in the protected landscape of the Lincolnshire Wolds is now trying to keep the abandoned well pad.

The Lincolnshire Wolds National Landscape at Biscathorpe.
Photo: SOS Biscathorpe

Egdon Resources has applied for planning permission to retain the former Biscathorpe oil compound near Louth, including hardstanding, surrounding earth mounds, security gates and fencing, access track and drain.

It said the site would be used by the landowner, F Wallis & Sons, for agricultural purposes.

Egdon said in a statement that Lincolnshire County Council planners had already “agreed in principle” to the proposal.

A public consultation is now underway. Comments must be submitted to Lincolnshire County Council by the end of this month (Tuesday 30 June 2026).

Egdon announced in December 2025 that it had abandoned an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for oil production and further drilling at Biscathorpe.

The company said in April 2026 it would be decommissioning the oil well at the site.

But this week news emerged about the new plans for Biscathorpe.

Egdon said retaining the well pad would avoid the need for 738 heavy goods vehicle movements over a period of 10 weeks.

But local opponents have said the application, if approved, would save Egdon the cost of restoring the site to farmland, required in a planning permission granted in 2018. It would also turn what had been described as a temporary operation into a permanent development.

Amanda Suddaby, of the local campaign group, SOS Biscathorpe, said:

“While it is unsurprising to us that Egdon would prefer to leave the infrastructure in place rather than incur the cost and effort of restoring the site, we don’t believe those commercial considerations should influence the planning decision.

“The proposal now before the Council risks turning what was presented as a temporary development into a permanent foothold in the landscape.

“Of principal concern is the fact that retaining the wellsite pad keeps alive the possibility of future oil and gas development at Biscathorpe should political, regulatory or commercial circumstances change.

“While no such proposal is currently before the Council, retaining the site would make future development proposals significantly easier.

“Once the site is fully restored, any future developer would need to start again and make an entirely new case for development whereas retaining the infrastructure leaves the door open and preserves a platform for future proposals.”

The Biscathorpe site is in the protected Lincolnshire Wolds National Landscape, the new name for areas of outstanding natural beauty.

A new law requires public bodies to “seek to further” the statutory purposes of Protected Landscapes” when considering planning applications.

Government advice said public bodies should seek to avoid harm and contribute to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty, special qualities and key characteristic of protected landscapes”.

Ms Suddaby said:

“For years local communities were assured that this development was temporary and that, once operations ended, the site would be restored to agricultural land. That promise was central to the original planning permission and seemed to offer a guarantee that the development would leave no lasting visual impact on the protected National Landscape.

“Additionally, retaining a substantial area of hardstanding in the National Landscape could encourage other forms of development that would not otherwise arise at this location. However, the over-riding issue is that infrastructure which was expressly permitted on a temporary basis is now being proposed for permanent retention.”

She also said:

“It is troubling that the planning documents state that the principle of retaining the site has already been agreed with County Council officers – even before public consultation.

“If commitments that were central to the original planning permission can be set aside in this way, local residents are entitled to ask what confidence they can ever place in planning conditions intended to protect landscapes and communities.

“This application is ultimately about trust. The original permission was granted on the basis that the development was temporary and the land would be fully restored. The time has come for those commitments to be honoured.”

SOS Biscathorpe is urging residents and supporters of the Lincolnshire Wolds National Landscape to object to the application and call for the site to be restored in accordance with the original planning permission.

The group said the decision on the application would test whether commitments made during the planning process could be relied upon when development proposals were approved.

At the time of writing, there were 12 objections to the new application.

In its supporting statement, Egdon said Nottinghamshire County Council had granted planning permission in 2025 for the retention of another former Egdon wellsite, at Kirklington, near Newark. Since then, Newark and Sherwood District Council have confirmed that two steel framed buildings could be installed on the site without planning permission. (The Kirklington site is not in a National Landscape.)

Egdon also said the Biscathorpe scheme would include planting a 940m2 of native hedgerow around the site area to increase biodiversity and provide visual screening to the fencing. The company said this would achieve the minimum 10% net gain for habitats and hedgerows required by law.

Other abandoned sites

Other recently abandoned oil and gas sites have still not been restored to farmland, as required by conditions in their original applications.

DrillOrDrop is monitoring progress to restore the Broadford Bridge oil site in West Sussex and the Preston New Road shale gas site in Lancashire.

At the Harlequin well site, Radcliffe-on-Trent, Nottinghamshire, the site was turned into a dog exercise track after five planning permissions for exploration expired without a well being drilled.

The National Planning Policy Framework requires mineral planning authorities to “provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity, to be carried out to high environmental standards, through the application of appropriate conditions”.

Former Harlequin pad, now covered in artificial grass and used as a dog exercise area.

This article Two visions of the US will compete at the World Cup was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'X7KS77oeS09TUSm5YDUzXA',sig:'uenPcZZpWTx2Ow0TwtuuFc7x_42LbpEbmfmTltLjQAQ=',w:'594px',h:'409px',items:'2276949828',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

As the United States prepares to co-host the 2026 World Cup with Mexico and Canada, the world’s biggest sporting event will unfold in a volatile domestic and international context. Eleven U.S. cities are hosting “the beautiful game” against a backdrop of militarized law enforcement — including over 167,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests in and around the host cities since last January — war with Iran, labor strife, and attacks on civil and political rights. With millions traveling to the region and billions more tuning in, the tournament — coinciding with the U.S.’s 250th anniversary — offers a rare opportunity for diverse sectors to elevate democratic values, expose the Trump administration’s propaganda and make its repression backfire.

Civic leaders in the United States are already capitalizing on this opportunity. A big tent coalition, backed by the Horizons Project that I co-lead — bringing together artists, labor, faith organizations, small businesses, veterans’ groups, legal advocates and youth activists — has launched a No ICE in the Cup campaign to build cross-sector, cross-ideological support for a tournament where all can participate without fear of violence or repression. Other community groups have joined forces on the “Our Copa” campaign, which includes a pledge to stop ICE raids during the World Cup, lift travel bans on Haiti, Iran, Cote d’Ivoire and Senegal, and let fans celebrate safely.   

How autocrats use the World Cup

Governments have long used mega-sporting events to bolster legitimacy, nationalist pride and power. Through “sportswashing,” authoritarian regimes in particular exploit the global spectacle to distract from repression and corruption while presenting an image of competence and national greatness. 

FIFA, which has an extensive record of corruption and human rights controversies, has often enabled these dynamics.In 1978, Argentina’s military dictatorship used the World Cup to present the country as united and orderly while a “Dirty War” saw tens of thousands disappeared, tortured and killed. The regime invested heavily in propaganda while temporarily pausing repression around stadiums and hotels to avoid international scrutiny. A clandestine torture center operated less than a mile from the national stadium, at the Escuela Superior de Mecánica de la Armada (ESMA), where political prisoners could hear cheering crowds during the final match.

Vladimir Putin similarly used the 2014 Winter Olympics and the 2018 World Cup to generate nationalist fervor and bolster domestic support for the annexation of Crimea while obscuring repression at home. Ahead of the 2022 World Cup, Qatar spent over $220 billion on infrastructure to polish its image amid blatant human rights abuses, including migrant worker deaths, labor exploitation and restrictions on LGBTQ+ expression. 

#newsletter-block_b54bfb04f7e82e4592b06965f70069a7 { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_b54bfb04f7e82e4592b06965f70069a7 #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 Trump administration has also turned to sportswashing. Unlike Qatar’s monarchy or the defunct Argentine junta, however, it is much less concerned with its international reputation. Instead, the World Cup offers a way to distract from the economic impact of the Iran War and build support for the administration’s domestic agenda, including restrictions on voting rights. Its coincidence with Trump’s Christian nationalist “Freedom 250” program advances this agenda, even if the tournament’s global, pluralistic character sits uneasily with MAGA’s more xenophobic elements. 

Mega-sporting events thus create a paradox for authoritarian and wannabe authoritarian leaders. On the one hand, they offer an extraordinary opportunity for spectacle, nationalism and financial enrichment. On the other hand, they intensify media scrutiny and pressure from civil society. This creates opportunities for dissent and for movements to mobilize in order to make state propaganda backfire, raising the costs of repression and strengthening democratic forces.

Pro-democracy mobilization at the World Cup

Because the World Cup creates a global media spectacle and often becomes all-consuming for host countries, it creates ideal conditions for public dissent. When Brazil hosted the 2014 World Cup, the tournament became a focal point for mass mobilization amid concerns over corruption, inequality and authoritarian policing. Organizers effectively linked lavish stadium spending to failing public services and condemned police violence under President Dilma Rousseff, helping reshape public debate around democratic accountability.

In Argentina, the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo mobilized to expose forced disappearances and state terror to domestic and international audiences. They deliberately marched during the tournament near areas frequented by foreign reporters, while human rights groups distributed lists of the disappeared and launched the “Football yes, torture no” campaign.

Recent U.S. football activism has been deeply connected with the politics of authoritarian immigration enforcement. In LA, the Angel City Football Club and Los Angeles Football Club spoke out against ICE during the height of the mass deportations in 2025. 

Stadiums and fan spaces as sites of civic power  

Football culture — with its chanting, parody, songs, costumes and memes — has been key to building civic power and undermining authoritarian narratives. While autocrats use the World Cup to fuse patriotism with regime loyalty, football fans, described as the “largest international social movement,” have used joy, humor and spectacle to expose abuses and build forms of civic pride outside of state control. Matches gather entire communities in stadiums — emotionally charged spaces where even small acts of dissent, such as coordinated chants, banners and silence during national anthems — can have cascading effects.

Protesters flood the Seoul Plaza in South Korea during the 2002 World Cup. (Wikimedia)

Under martial law in Poland, stadiums became centers of anti-communist resistance during the 1982 World Cup. Fans chanted anti-regime slogans and displayed banners for the banned Solidarność trade union, defying threats that their “hooliganism” would be punished by military courts. Football culture helped sustain the Polish opposition’s morale in the face of repression and contributed to the broader civic infrastructure that supported Poland’s 1989 democratic transition. Similar dynamics were visible in Chile under Augusto Pinochet. In South Korea, which co-hosted the 2002 World Cup, millions of red-clad “Red Devils” took part in street cheering, helping normalize large-scale public assembly after decades of authoritarian rule. Their efforts informed later mobilizations, including the candlelight protests that removed President Park Geun-hye.  

American activists have also used humor to mock authoritarian absurdities, such as when President Trump was being awarded the inaugural FIFA peace prize last December in Washington, D.C. In response, residents kicked footballs at a “wall of ICE” while dancers performed nearby. 

Although athletes are technically banned from engaging in political speech at the Olympics and World Cup, they have often used their platform to advance social and political causes. Many are familiar with the 1968 Mexico City Olympics, when U.S. sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised black-gloved fists on the podium to protest racial injustice. 

During the Qatar World Cup, European teams attempted to wear “OneLove” armbands supporting LGBTQ+ rights; FIFA’s threats only amplified criticism of the federation and Qatar. Iranian players also remained silent during their national anthem in solidarity with protesters after Mahsa Amini’s killing.   Both before and during the 2026 Winter Olympics, multiple Team USA athletes spoke out against ICE policies, including cross-country skiing star and Minnesotan Jessie Diggins, who expressed solidarity with protesters after the killings of Reneé Good and Alex Pretti. 

Activating broad coalitions

Mega-events depend on vast infrastructure, from construction and transit to hospitality and security. This creates leverage for key “pillars of support,” especially labor and business, whose cooperation is essential for the games to run smoothly. This dependence helps explain why labor and human rights issues have been so central to democratic organizing around the World Cup in Qatar, Russia and South Africa. 

No Ice in the Cup organized a soccer tournament on May 31. (Kisha Bari)

More generally, mega-events enable the formation of large, diverse coalitions composed of otherwise unlikely allies. Returning to the example of Brazil, in 2014 activists mobilized a big tent of public transit activists, labor unions, students, favela groups, Indigenous activists and anti-police violence organizations. These disparate groups united around their shared opposition to corruption and “crony capitalism.”   

Today, the global Dignity 2026 Coalition — comprising over 120 civil society organizations, including the AFL-CIO, the ACLU, Human Rights Watch and the NAACP — is pressuring FIFA and the Trump administration to uphold democratic freedoms during the World Cup. AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler called on FIFA leadership to keep DHS and ICE agents out of host cities, while other major unions, such as UNITE Here Local 11 in Los Angeles, have threatened strikes along similar lines. Meanwhile, in partnership with the No ICE in the Cup campaign, local businesses in U.S. host cities have organized a “Welcome Standard” pledge to create safe and welcoming environments for the millions of fans, community members, visitors and workers taking part in the tournament. The active sign-on campaign, which includes legal training and support for local businesses, will channel patrons to participating businesses.  Faith groups have also joined the action, with Interfaith Alliance offering “Preach and Teach” resources for pastors, imams, rabbis and other faith leaders to use during the period of the World Cup. 

Two visions of the US clash

The Trump administration is using the 2026 World Cup to stage a patriotic spectacle that glorifies the president, promotes his policy agenda and showcases America’s 250th anniversary — even as it demonizes those who love football. Indeed, most host cities are home to large immigrant communities who live in fear of racial profiling, inhumane detention and summary deportation. The present moment thus reflects a clash between two visions of the United States: a narrow, exclusionary vision based on white, Christian identity politics, and an inclusive vision reflected in the World Cup itself, one of a pluralistic society shaped by immigration and diversity. 

#support-block_1887800b3a5adb8286e80c763affb071 { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

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

Donate

The World Cup has created a major opening for pro-democracy groups across sectors, geographies and ideologies to unite and ensure that it is not weaponized to advance the administration’s propaganda or anti-democratic agenda. In the United States, where football is gaining in popularity and many fans root for both the U.S. team and their countries of origin, the tournament is a time of sportsmanship and camaraderie. It offers an opportunity to remind fans at home and abroad of the power of ordinary people coming together in joyful competition, the central theme of a recent community youth soccer tournament in New York City.

Finally, the World Cup provides an opportunity to connect the dots between militarized law enforcement and efforts to restrict voting rights. These efforts are especially urgent ahead of the midterm elections; the same coalitions mobilizing around the World Cup can help defend states and localities in the face of federal attacks on free and fair elections. More than ever, ordinary people must insist that “fair play” also applies to how Americans choose their leaders. They can harness the energy and enthusiasm surrounding the World Cup and America’s 250th anniversary to imagine and build a more free and democratic United States. 

This article Two visions of the US will compete at the World Cup was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

The Trump administration is redirecting at least $90 million in National Park Service fee revenue toward projects in Washington, D.C., tied to the nation’s 250th anniversary on July 4. According to the Washington Post, the spending includes a $1.6 million fireworks display, more than five times the typical Fourth of July fireworks budget, and roughly $76 million for repairs and “beautification” projects such as work on the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

The money is coming from a portion of park entrance fees that federal law allows the National Park Service to spend outside the parks where the fees were collected. Trump administration officials, including Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, have defended the spending as legal and part of broader efforts to prepare the nation’s capital for President Donald Trump’s America 250 celebrations. But diverting dollars to D.C. will have negative impacts on the rest of the national park system, which faces a maintenance backlog estimated at about $24 billion.

Several park officials told the Post that they had recently been informed there was little or no funding available for projects at their own parks. A letter sent by senior agency officials to staff in April said that parks should not expect any money from a contingency fund to cover unforeseen costs, because that money is being diverted to pay for the nation’s 250th anniversary and projects in D.C.

Quick hits The state of the nation’s public lands

WAMU

We’re having our worst wildfire year in a decade, and it’s probably going to get worse

Outdoor Life

Opinion: Improve county and Forest Service wildfire plans

Missoulian

Trump goes all in on OHV use on public lands, worrying conservationists

GearJunkie | Outdoor Life | Idaho Capital Sun

BLM to hold largest oil and gas lease sale in Colorado history

Capital & Main

Interior department’s slavery exhibit removals probed by court

Bloomberg Law | Courthouse News

Fast-tracked logging project on Yellowstone’s northern border draws pushback

Montana Public Radio | Inside Climate News

Experts are concerned about how staff cuts in public-lands agencies will impact firefighting

KSJD

Quote of the day

At [Backcountry Hunters and Anglers] we advocate for access every single day, but motorization in these backcountry lands is not the same thing as access… Access means conserving access for hunters and anglers in perpetuity for our future generations.”

—Jack Polentes, policy and government relations senior manager for Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Outdoor Life

Picture This

@COParksWildlife
TFW someone says they want to skip work and go fishing
THIS WEEKEND IS FREE FISHING WEEKEND. On June 6-7, 2026, anyone can fish for free, and the fishing license and Habitat Stamp requirements are waived: https://cpw.info/4u6rbdn

 

Feature image: Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool; Source: Doug Burgum via X

The post Trump and Burgum divert park fees to D.C. ahead of July 4 appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

By Vanessa Mascia Turri

Naples became one of Europe’s most ambitious experiments in democratic water governance after Italy’s 2011 referendum against water privatisation. Yet bringing water back into public hands did not necessarily redistribute power over how water itself would be governed.

In 2011, after the Italian referendum against water privatisation, Naples became one of the most ambitious experiments in remunicipalised water governance in Europe. The city transformed its water utility into ABC Napoli (Acqua Bene Comune Napoli), a publicly owned entity presented not simply as a return to public management, but as an attempt to implement the “democracy of the commons” theorised by the Italian Forum of Water Movements.

Within this perspective, water was understood not only as a public service, but as a common good whose governance should involve the direct participation of citizens and social movements.

Over the following decade, Naples became a testing ground for a broader political question that has emerged across many remunicipalisation struggles: what happens when the language and practices of the commons enter public institutions? The Neapolitan experience shows that bringing water back into public hands does not automatically democratise its governance. Instead, participation became continuously negotiated and reshaped through political conflict, financial pressures and struggles over who should control public resources.

From water struggles to the democracy of the commons

Since the early 2000s, struggles against water privatisation have connected local mobilisations to broader debates around the commons. Struggles against water privatisation in Europe have often gone beyond opposition to market reforms and increasingly connected demands for public ownership with broader claims around the commons and direct democracy, as explored throughout the Reimagining, remembering and reclaiming water series. In many countries, water movements have challenged not only privatisation, but also the idea that essential services should be governed through technocratic and top-down forms of management, increasingly linking water struggles to broader claims around the commons and direct democracy, as discussed in Transforming capitalism? The role of the commons and direct democracy in struggles against water privatisation in Europe.

In Italy, these debates converged in the Italian Forum of Water Movements, one of the broadest water movements in Europe. As broader discussions around the commons in Italy have shown, these debates extended well beyond water itself and raised wider questions about collective resources, democracy and institutional change. Under the slogan “si scrive acqua, si legge democrazia” (“it is written water, it is read democracy”), the movement argued that remunicipalisation should involve not only public ownership, but also direct civic participation in water governance.

Naples became the most ambitious attempt to translate this political vision into institutional practice.

 

Poster from the 2011 Italian referendum campaign against water privatization reading “Water is not for sale.” Image courtesy of the Forum Italiano dei Movimenti per l’Acqua.

Naples became the most ambitious attempt to translate this political vision into institutional practice.

Yet public and academic debates on remunicipalisation have often focused on privatisation conflicts and legal transitions, paying far less attention to what happens afterwards. How are participatory mechanisms actually organised inside remunicipalised utilities? How much power are institutions willing to share with social movements and citizens once remunicipalisation has taken place?

My article From theory to practice: evaluating civic participation in Naples’ remunicipalised water service examines these questions through the case of ABC Napoli, reconstructing how participation was progressively organised, contested and reshaped during the decade following remunicipalisation.

Participation and the limits of the commons

At the moment of remunicipalisation, Naples faced deteriorated infrastructures, chronic underinvestment and a massive municipal public debt. For many activists of the Neapolitan water movement, remunicipalisation was therefore not only about public ownership, but also about transforming the priorities of water governance through ecological restoration, infrastructural investment and more equitable access to water.

Over the following decade, ABC Napoli experimented with different forms of civic participation. Initially, the municipal government opened the board of directors to representatives linked to the Italian Forum of Water Movements and to environmental associations. Yet local activists who had led the mobilisation against privatisation were largely excluded from these arrangements, generating immediate tensions over who had the legitimacy to participate in the governance of the utility.

The most ambitious participatory experiment emerged with the creation of the Civic Council, a public assembly open to citizens, activists and ABC workers. Meetings were held directly inside the company and addressed issues such as tariffs, infrastructure maintenance, hiring policies and investment priorities. Delegates from the assemblies also participated in discussions with the board of directors, creating one of the most advanced attempts in Europe to institutionalise direct civic participation inside a remunicipalised water utility.

However, participation became far more conflictual once these assemblies started intervening in concrete political and economic questions. Members of the Civic Council promoted long-term infrastructural investments and the recruitment of specialised personnel while defending the financial stability of the utility. According to several interviewees, these priorities increasingly clashed with those of the municipal government, which was more focused on short-term employment policies and the management of public-sector jobs within a broader context marked by debt, unemployment and political pressures surrounding public employment.

These tensions ultimately led to the removal of the board of directors and to the progressive weakening of participatory governance. In the following years, participation increasingly shifted towards weak consultative mechanisms with limited influence over decision-making processes. Many activists gradually distanced themselves from the experiment, while severe financial constraints continued to limit investments in infrastructures and ecological renewal.

Rather than evolving towards deeper forms of democratic governance, the Neapolitan experience progressively revealed the difficulties of institutionalising the “democracy of the commons” within existing municipal structures and political priorities.

Remunicipalisation without democratisation?

Poster from the Italian public water movement following the 2011 referendum campaign, emphasising water as a public right rather than a source of profit. Image courtesy of the Forum Italiano dei Movimenti per l’Acqua.

The experience of ABC Napoli complicates many celebratory narratives surrounding remunicipalisation. Bringing water back into public hands did not automatically redistribute power inside public governance. On the contrary, the Neapolitan case shows how quickly the language of the commons can become absorbed into existing institutional structures once participation starts challenging concrete political and economic interests.

The weakening of participatory governance inside ABC Napoli did not result from a lack of civic mobilisation or technical expertise. Quite the opposite: activists involved in the water movement developed increasingly detailed proposals on tariffs, infrastructures and long-term investments, becoming capable of intervening directly in the governance of the utility. Participation became problematic precisely when it stopped being symbolic and started questioning how public resources, infrastructures and employment should be managed.

In Naples, these tensions unfolded within a broader context marked by public debt, deteriorated infrastructures, unemployment and long-standing systems of political mediation surrounding public-sector employment. Under these conditions, the “democracy of the commons” increasingly collided with the political and administrative logics shaping municipal governance.

More broadly, the Neapolitan experience suggests that remunicipalisation alone cannot democratise essential services without a real willingness from public institutions to share decision-making power. Commons become politically difficult when they move beyond participation as consultation and start demanding participation as co-governance.

Rather than offering a linear model of democratic transformation, Naples reveals the unresolved tensions that emerge when social movements attempt to institutionalise the commons inside existing state structures. The question, then, is not simply whether remunicipalisation is possible, but whether public institutions are truly willing to democratise the power through which public resources are governed.

—

Featured image: Protest sign reading “Public water, public management. Clear?” during a demonstration of the Italian water movement. Photo courtesy of the Forum Italiano dei Movimenti per l’Acqua (acquabenecomune.org).

The post From remunicipalisation to the democracy of the commons appeared first on Undisciplined Environments.

Russian-Speaking Leftists, a group based in Germany, on 19 May published this interview with a socialist activist living in Russia who, they write, “stands for revolutionary defeatism”.[1] I translated it and added the footnotes. SP. Download this article as a PDF Q: Please tell us a little about yourself. A: I am a communist. I […]

A 70-foot geyser of toxic oilfield wastewater erupted near Loving, New Mexico, after a pipe component failed at a disposal site operated by NGL Energy Partners. Loving is located in the Permian region, which produces roughly 6.6 million barrels of crude oil per day. About 40 barrels of wastewater were released, highlighting the growing problem caused by enormous volumes of “produced water” generated during oil and gas extraction.

Produced water is highly saline and can contain petroleum chemicals and radioactive materials. The state recently banned the discharge of treated produced water to ground and surface waters. Most of it is disposed of by injecting it deep underground. However, New Mexico’s oil boom has led to rapidly increasing wastewater volumes—more than 2.7 billion barrels in 2025 alone—putting pressure on disposal systems. The state is running out of suitable injection sites, and wastewater injection has been linked to earthquakes, brine leaks, and similar blowouts. In 2024, over 4 million gallons of produced water were spilled by oil and gas companies.

The geyser incident has intensified debate over whether treated produced water should be reused outside the petroleum industry. Industry advocates say that advanced treatment could turn it into a valuable water source and reduce disposal pressures, but the water’s composition is not fully understood, large-scale treatment remains unproven, and reuse could create new health and environmental risks.

Quick hits Trump nullifies 50 years of limitations on off-highway vehicles

E&E News | Yahoo News

Public lands face increasing threats in Trump era, advocates warn

Axios

More than 95% of national refuge lands could allow more hunting

KUNC

Opinion: The Forest Service is too important to be a political pawn

Los Angeles Times

Trump’s wildfire overhaul faces a pivotal review

E&E News

Interior appeals ruling vacating endangered species regulations

Bloomberg Law

Wyoming’s ‘Path of the Pronghorn’ is a signature away from protections

WyoFile

New political players have upended a fragile peace in Colorado’s oil and gas wars

Colorado Sun

Quote of the day

If the federal government is going to move the Forest Service, reorganize its parts and further downsize this agency, every American should demand that key questions be answered first. Members of Congress should lead the charge through effective and bipartisan oversight.”

—Dan Glickman and Ann Veneman, former secretaries of Agriculture, Los Angeles Times

Picture This

@Interior

From neighborhood parks to remote wilderness, America is full of places to relax, explore, and make lasting memories. Whether you’re hiking a trail, paddling a river, or watching a sunset, everyone can celebrate Great Outdoors Month and enjoy the natural splendor of our country.

 

Feature image: Permian Basin oil and gas development; Source; SkyTruth/Flickr

The post 70-foot wastewater geyser erupts in New Mexico oilfield appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

This factsheet shows that Ontario can easily accommodate enough solar and wind installations to meet the projected provincial demand for electricity in 2050.  These options will be lower cost and faster to deploy than new nuclear. Read the factsheet

The post Does Ontario Need New Nuclear to Keep its Lights on in 2050? appeared first on Ontario Clean Air Alliance.

FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS’ legal obligation to consult and accommodate Indigenous nations has been confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada for over 20 years. The duty to consult is triggered when a government’s action may affect Indigenous Nations’ rights. An action that could severely impair Indigenous Nations’ exercise of their rights entails accommodation measures to mitigate negative effects. Additionally, British Columbia in 2019 passed legislation committing the government to align its laws with the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). UNDRIP affirms Indigenous Nations’ right to self-determination, including the right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) to make decisions that affect Indigenous lands. Prior to 2023, British Columbia’s mineral claims regime violated both the imperative to consult Indigenous Nations and the principles of UNDRIP. In the previous system, individuals or companies with a Free Miner Certificate could pay a nominal fee to register a mineral or placer claim through B.C’s Mineral Titles Online. These claims confer a priority right to subsurface minerals and the exclusive ability to pursue further permits to conduct significant exploration work. First Nations had no role in the claims registration process and were only consulted during the later permitting stage. This “free entry” system would have likely remained in place if not for litigation that challenged its constitutionality. 

Gitxaała vs. British Columbia (2023)

The Gitxaała Nation and Ehattesaht First Nation first successfully challenged the “free entry” system in 2023, with the British Columbia Supreme Court confirming that it violated the duty to consult. The B.C. government was ordered to reform the regime to implement consultation processes, which was rolled out in March 2025. However, it took an appeal to produce an additional ruling from the B.C. Court of Appeal in 2025 that confirmed the previous mineral claims regime was also inconsistent with FPIC, as incorporated by the B.C. government’s legislation. This judicial acknowledgement that the Mineral Tenure Act is inconsistent with Indigenous nations’ rights under UNDRIP must thus be addressed in subsequent consultative forums and reforms, which could be subject to future litigation. The B.C. Court of Appeal’s decision is being appealed by the B.C. government on the grounds that it is creating “confusion” over the legal status of UNDRIP in Canada (Depner 2026). 

It is worth pausing here to further examine the B.C. government’s position. The B.C. government accepted the need for reforms aimed at incorporating Indigenous consultation to meet both their duty to consult under Canadian common law and the standards of UNDRIP as affirmed in B.C. legislation. However, the B.C. government is challenging the position that inconsistencies between the Mineral Tenure Act and other B.C. laws and UNDRIP are justiciable. The B.C. government is arguing against judicial forms of accountability over how UNDRIP is implemented.

The rejection of judicial intervention over UNDRIP implementation would mean that only the duty to consult creates a justiciable standard of honourable state conduct towards Indigenous Nations, leaving UNDRIP and legislation affirming it to be treated as an aspirational framework.

A similar challenge by the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories is being made to the Federal Court of Appeal after the Federal Court in early 2025 ruled that UNDRIP serves as an interpretative lens that changes the standards of Indigenous consultation. 

Legitimacy Deficits

Excluding the judiciary as a venue to challenge the state’s implementation of UNDRIP is the latest demonstration of the state’s preference for controlling processes of decision-making, particularly over land and waters. The evolution of the duty to consult is illustrative of what happens when the judiciary permits the state to use existing decision-making processes that simply integrate additional steps to include Indigenous consultation. In Process as Power, I analyze how the duty to consult’s obligations as outlined in Canadian common law permits Canadian governments to consult Indigenous Nations without adapting to Indigenous standards of good governance. The judiciary did not compel Canadian governments to restructure the process of decision-making, only that Indigenous Nations must be formally included in pre-existing models with the final decision-making power residing with a minister.

The consequences of perfunctory consultation are enduring legitimacy deficits throughout state decision-making, contributing to continuing Indigenous-state conflict and litigation. 

Such legitimacy deficits arose when B.C.’s mineral claims regime was reformed to conform to the duty to consult standard. In a six-month review of those reforms, a majority of First Nations survey responses revealed that they perceived the decision-making process to lack transparency and produce only weak accommodation measures. Despite formally meeting the duty to consult, these consultative processes overburden Indigenous communities to review numerous applications because no additional supports are provided (Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals 2025, 16); they do not clearly demonstrate how Indigenous feedback was considered and were even perceived to ignore First Nations (Ibid, 17); and they produce unresponsive accommodation measures (Ibid, 18). These results are striking because they closely mirror issues present in other decision-making processes related to reviewing industrial activities. Process as Power includes an examination of B.C.’s Environmental Assessment process and the same state-driven unilateralism permeates that forum as well. I trace how these deficiencies are tied to the ways in which the duty to consult case law over time permitted state-led decision-making designs while narrowly defining what Indigenous Nations can raise in consultative forums. 

Implementing UNDRIP?

UNDRIP fundamentally departs from the duty to consult standard because it presents an Indigenous-driven framework through FPIC that respects Indigenous self-determination. The fact that governments like B.C., Canada, and the Northwest Territories have passed UNDRIP-affirming legislation showed promising signs that reconciliation politics was backed by some action. But UNDRIP’s implementation was always going to be the real test of these governments’ commitments. In the context of the B.C. Environmental Assessment process, I find that reforms starting in 2018 have made some progress to improve the capacity of Indigenous Nations to review applications and to consistently respect the rights-holding status of Indigenous Nations. Other developments are more concerning, like how decision-making power continues to reside with a minister who is not bound by any party, including a new dispute resolution facilitator. Crucially, in this particular policy area, ongoing nation-to-nation negotiations are being pursued to advance additional reforms to uphold UNDRIP (Environmental Assessment Office 2025). 

Combatting the state’s asymmetrical hold over decision-making in matters that affect Indigenous Nations would be completely undermined if governments could unilaterally decide how to implement UNDRIP. The Eby government’s attempted volte-face to suspend parts of their UNDRIP-affirming legislation in response to the mining litigation is not only a political betrayal to the Indigenous Nations in that province working to advance UNDRIP but also conflicts with the direction established in recent appellate decisions. Canadian appellate courts have explained that legislative commitments, like those aimed at implementing UNDRIP, engage the Crown’s honour, which compels these governments to act upon their declarations. The Crown being bound to fulfill legislative promises related to the goal of reconciliation has been affirmed in other Indigenous rights contexts like the C-92 Reference decision (2024) concerning Indigenous child welfare. As explained in Gitxaała v. British Columbia (2025), the B.C. government’s legislative “affirmation…amounts to a binding Crown promise, namely, that the Crown will act as though the existing legal rights, obligations, principles, minimum standards and goals expressed in UNDRIP in specific relation to Indigenous peoples apply to British Columbia laws, including the common law” (at para. 161). 

Thus, the appeal of the Gitxaała v. British Columbia decision shows that legal uncertainty stems more from the state’s intransigence to maintain its decision-making processes than UNDRIP’s status in Canadian law. Unfortunately, the lack of cooperation on UNDRIP’s implementation may also produce a chilling effect that prevents the passage of UNDRIP-affirming legislation in other jurisdictions.

The conflict over process rights is just beginning and will continue to entwine both legal and political developments.

Endnotes

Depner, W. (2026, February 7). B.C. seeks to challenge landmark court ruling over mineral rights and DRIPA. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/eby-dripa-gitxaala-ruling-challenge-mineral-rights-9.7078151

British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office. (2025, September). Review of the 2018 Environmental Assessment Act [Backgrounder]. Government of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/environmental-assessments/act-review/eao_act_review_backgrounder.pdf

British Columbia Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals. (2025, December). Mineral Claims Consultation Framework—6 month review. Government of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/environmental-assessments/act-review/mineral_claims_consultation_framework__6_month_review.pdf

Gitxaała v. British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2025 BCCA 430.

Citation:

Do, Minh. “The Politics of Process: B.C.’s Mineral Claims Regime and the Threat of an FPIC Freeze,” Yellowhead Institute. June 02, 2026. https://yellowheadinstitute.org/2026/the-politics-of-process-b-c-s-mineral-claims-regime-and-the-threat-of-an-fpic-freeze

The post The Politics of Process: B.C.’s Mineral Claims Regime and the Threat of an FPIC Freeze appeared first on Yellowhead Institute.

Con el objetivo de fortalecer y dar visibilidad a experiencias locales que promueven la prevención y gestión responsable de residuos, la iniciativa Rutas basura cero seleccionó una serie de recorridos presenciales ejecutados por organizaciones locales en distintos países de América Latina. 

La propuesta surge en un contexto de creciente preocupación por la crisis de los residuos y los impactos ambientales, sociales y económicos asociados al actual modelo de producción y consumo. Frente a este escenario, las estrategias de basura cero han demostrado ser una alternativa efectiva para reducir la generación de residuos mediante prácticas de reducción, reúso, reciclaje y compostaje, al tiempo que promueven la justicia ambiental y el fortalecimiento de las economías locales.

En particular, los sistemas de reúso y rellenado están cobrando cada vez más relevancia como soluciones replicables y escalables para avanzar hacia comunidades más saludables y sostenibles. Sin embargo, muchas de estas experiencias continúan siendo poco conocidas fuera de sus zonas, lo que limita su potencial de incidencia y réplica.

Para revertir esta situación, el proyecto Rutas basura cero impulsa recorridos presenciales coordinados por organizaciones locales, que permiten a tomadores de decisiones, representantes de gobiernos, académicos, líderes sociales y otros actores clave conocer de primera mano iniciativas exitosas en funcionamiento.

Las rutas incluyen visitas a proyectos con al menos un año de trayectoria y resultados comprobables, vinculados a prácticas como el rellenado de envases, el lavado y reutilización de utensilios, el compostaje descentralizado y el cooperativismo. Además, cada experiencia es documentada mediante registros audiovisuales que pasan a integrar una base regional de casos de éxito.

La iniciativa busca generar espacios de intercambio entre experiencias consolidadas y actores estratégicos, así como producir materiales que contribuyan a la difusión y sistematización de aprendizajes sobre modelos basura cero en la región.

A continuación, compartimos las organizaciones e iniciativas seleccionadas que forman parte de esta primera edición de Rutas basura cero:

Quito, Ecuador: https://youtu.be/zAfFljwO-uU

Entrejardines nos lleva a la compostera y huerta comunitaria del barrio La Floresta en Quito, luego pasamos por Pure!, una empresa de turismo que comparte cómo ha adoptado prácticas de reúso y segregación en origen dentro de su oficina, y terminamos en el restaurante Pim’s donde conocemos cómo gestionan sus residuos sólidos y orgánicos. 

Zona de los Santos, Costa Rica: https://youtu.be/VTS_io9FWok

La Asociación Defensores Monumento Zona de los Santos, nos muestra cómo están trabajando para preservar una zona de alta biodiversidad a través del manejo de residuos de subproductos de procesos de cultivo de café como el que hacen en Coope Tarrazu y Coopedota. Luego terminamos con una parada en el Centro de acopio Preserve Planet (CAPP) para saber más sobre segregación de residuos y recuperación de tapas de refrescos.

Magallanes, Chile: https://youtu.be/fOl7LHwXlEg

Fundación Lenga nos traslada a la zona más austral del Chile donde iniciamos el recorrido en Compost Coiron y su proyecto de gestión de residuos orgánicos, donde además nos cuentan cómo el turismo influye en el colapso del vertedero municipal de Puerto Natales. En Punta Arenas, conocemos el laboratorio textil Puro Viento, una iniciativa de reuso que utiliza residuos textiles y gigantografías publicitarias para hacer artículos como mochilas, estuches, entre otros. Finalmente, llegamos a Puerto Williams para saber más sobre la iniciativa municipal de gestión de residuos. 

This post is based on a talk I gave at the Ecosocialism conference in London on Saturday 30 May, about the Fare Free London campaign, in which I participate, and the wider movements of which it is part. I was on a panel on “Organising the climate movement” with Tyrone Scott of War on Want […]

The  California High-Speed Rail Authority’s Board of Directors on Monday voted to elevate board member Stephen Kawa, a longtime former aide to Gov. Gavin Newsom, to become the governing body’s new board chair. Read more.

VENTURA, Calif. — A new daily AMTRAK Pacific Surfliner train is now connecting Los Angeles and San Luis Obispo early every morning, giving commuters an additional option, especially those traveling from Ventura to Santa Barbara Counties for work. Read more.

Once Tap Plus launches later this year, it will be available on the agencies that operate roughly 95% of public transit trips in California, but there are some notable laggards… Read more.

Check out “Censored News” coverage of May 16

Protest in Utah against Energy Fuels uranium mines and mill

“CENSORED NEWS: Shut Down Energy Fuels — Uranium Mining and Radioactive Dumping on Native People”

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.

President Donald Trump rescinded two executive orders on Friday evening that aimed to balance off-road vehicle (OHV) use on public lands. The 1972 and 1977 orders, signed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter, required federal agencies to minimize ecological damage, harassment of wildlife, and recreational conflicts due to OHV use on public lands. Repealing the orders prioritizes motorized recreation and resource extraction over conservation, increasing the risk of widespread environmental degradation.

The White House called the rescinded orders “outdated and burdensome” hurdles to energy and timber production. Without this guidance, fragile ecosystems—including those inside national parks—are at risk of unmitigated OHV use, which can degrade streams, displace wildlife, and significantly damage soil and vegetation. Beyond ecological damage, allowing more OHV use in the backcountry will increase dust and noise pollution and lead to conflicts between off-roaders and other user groups, like hikers and rafters.

“Rescinding guidance meant to reduce conflicts in the backcountry and protect wildlife habitat isn’t popular; that’s why Trump tried to bury it by putting this order out on a Friday evening,” Center for Western Priorities Communications Director Kate Groetzinger told the New York Times.

Wildfire experts warn of dire fire season to come

Historic drought conditions and an exceptionally light mountain snowpack have left much of the West vulnerable to wildfire this year. Simultaneously, fire experts are deeply concerned about federal management shifts and significant personnel losses within agencies like the Forest Service and Interior department. “I think this is going to be the year,” warned Timothy Ingalsbee, co-founder and executive director of Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics and Ecology. “The conditions are just ripe for some really bad outcomes.”

Quick hits USGS rolls out national map of public lands and waters

E&E News

Trump Interior Secretary Doug Burgum says says MAGA rally for America’s 250th will be ‘nonpartisan’

Yahoo News

Here’s where the Trump administration plans to allow hunting, fishing on refuge and park service lands

Outdoor Life

Park Service officials raised alarms over Trump administration’s tennis center plan

Washington Post

Forest Service delays public rollout of its proposed repeal of Roadless Rule

Lookout Eugene-Springfield | Bloomberg

How to define ‘access’? Bitterroot property swap sparks public land debate

Missoulian

Column: Make grazing great again?

High Country News

UFC White House fight and race cars take over National Park Service land

Los Angeles Times

Quote of the day

Essentially, this is a hijacking of one of America’s oldest and most well-respected conservation organizations… There are so many very good people at the foundation, with so many years doing real work on behalf of America’s national parks, it’s heartbreaking to watch.”

—Aaron Weiss, executive director of the Center for Western Priorities, Los Angeles Times

Picture This

@mypubliclands

Hey parents! Did you know your fourth-grade student is eligible for an annual pass to America’s public lands? With school almost out for the summer, it’s the perfect time to get the pass.

The Every Kid Outdoors pass allows fourth graders and their families to receive free entrance to federal public lands and waters during their fourth grade school year (September-August).

To do this, log on to everykidoutdoors.gov with your student, complete an activity and then download and print your pass voucher. Redeem the printed voucher for the pass at thousands of federal public land sites throughout the country.

 

Feature image: Radar Hill OHV Area, Oregon; BLM/Flickr

The post Trump repeals rules governing off-roading on public lands appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

 

Backbone Intern Giacomo Moody's Story Map for We the People is now LIVE!.

The Story Map traces the journey of this Iconic image, from its 2007 debut at Seattle Center to its current deployments in pro-democracy protests around the country. Check out Giacomo's great work and the amazing fruits of our collective labors.

Learn more about joining us in DC or pitching in to support our team going to Washington, DC to mark the 250th Birthday of this country. We'll once again take the streets in a defiant and beautiful expression of common cause and our shared commitment to fulfilling mission of creating a more just, sustainable, and democratic nation, and a future we can be proud to hand our children.

Check out the We the People Story Map at BackboneCampaign.org/WeThePeople.