A2. Green Unionism

The Centre for Future Work recently hosted a webinar presenting results from its new report, A Sequel We Don’t Want: What the 2026 Oil Price Shock Will Cost Canadians.

The webinar featured presentations from Jim Stanford (Centre for Future Work Director, and author of the report), Atila Jaffar (Canada Country Manager from 350.org, sponsor of a campaign for an excess profit tax on petroleum companies), and DT Cochrane (Senior Economist at the Canadian Labour Congress).

It explains the likely effects of the new global oil price shock on Canadian consumers, inflation, and interest rates. It predicts at least $50 billion in higher direct and indirect costs for consumers (including the flow-through effects of higher oil prices on prices of other products, ranging from transportation to food to housing). It also warned of the possibility of higher interest rates and even slower economic growth.

Please view the entire one-hour webinar on the Centre’s You Tube channel.

The post Webinar on New Report: A Sequel We Don’t Want appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Centre for Future Work Economist and Director Jim Stanford was recently interviewed on CBC News Channel regarding the outlook for Canada’s economy. He stressed that growth has been near-zero since U.S. president Donald Trump launched his trade war through big tariffs on Canadian exports. He also explained how high oil prices resulting from Trump’s attacks on Iran and the resulting disruption in global oil supplies would affect inflation in Canada, citing findings from the Centre’s recent report on the inflationary impacts of the war.

Please see the full interview here.

The post Oil Price Spike Causing More Trouble for Canada’s Economy appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Centre for Future Work Economist and Director Jim Stanford was recently invited to testify before the Senate of Canada’s National Finance committee, regarding the economic and fiscal outlook for the country. The testimony was part of the committee’s hearings regarding certain aspects of budget implementation (including measures announced in the recent Spring Economics and Fiscal Update).

Below are Stanford’s opening remarks. He touched on several issues, including the need to diversify the product composition of Canada’s exports in the wake of Donald Trump’s tariffs, issues related to the proposed new Sovereign Wealth Fund announced by Prime Minister Carney, and the macroeconomic and distributional impacts of the latest spike in global oil prices (resulting from the U.S. attacks on Iran). Questions to Stanford from committee members included the sovereign wealth fund, the risks of privatizing airports and other public assets, and the challenges facing the auto industry. A Hansard record of the full hearing is available here.

Opening Remarks Senate Standing Committee on National Finance Bill C-30 Hearings, May 27, 2026 By Jim Stanford, Economist and Director Centre for Future Work

Thank you very much, Senators, for the opportunity to meet and share my views on Canada’s economic and fiscal situation as you discuss issues related to the federal budget.

The Centre for Future Work is a labour economics research institute, founded in Canada in 2020. We conduct research on the full range of economic issues facing working people: including the future of jobs, wages and income distribution, skills and training, sector and industry policies, globalization, the role of government, public services, and more. The Centre also develops timely and practical policy proposals to help make the world of work better for working people and their families.  The Centre is independent and non-partisan.

Today I will present short comments on three economic issues of relevance to implementation of measures announced in the spring fiscal update, and related processes:

Diversifying Trade, Composition as Well as Destination: Donald Trump’s tariff policies and other trade attacks have posed a historic threat to Canada’s export industries. Most vulnerable are the higher-tech value-added industries that have been deliberately targeted by his Section 232 sectoral tariffs: including auto, steel, aluminum, and forestry. Further sectoral tariffs are possible given other investigations he has launched, including on aerospace, industrial machinery, semiconductors, and pharmaceuticals. Diversifying the end destination of our exports is a logical response to this challenge, and the federal government has pursued several opportunities in this regard. But there is another, equally important priority that must also be kept in mind as we traverse this challenge: diversifying the composition of our exports. In other words, what we sell is just as important as where we sell it. Canada has had some initial success in growing exports to other markets. By the fourth quarter of 2025, only two-thirds of our merchandise exports were to the U.S., down from three-quarters only a few years ago. That progress is fragile, however, dependent on cyclically high prices for gold, oil, and some other resource projects. At the same time, Canada’s dependence on exports of unprocessed or barely processed resource products – or ‘staples’, as they are often known in Canadian economic history – has been growing. Basic resources accounted for half of Canada’s merchandise exports last year, up from one-fifth at the turn of the century. Revering to a pure resource supplier – a ‘hewer of wood, drawer of water’ in the classic phrase – will not protect Canada’s economic sovereignty. We must preserve the capability to produce a full range of goods and services, including higher-technology value-added products. This goal should be front and centre in Canada’s emerging industrial policy strategy for responding to the threat from the U.S.

Sovereign Wealth and the Public Interest: Concurrent with the spring fiscal update, Prime Minister Carney recently announced his government’s intention to create a new sovereign wealth fund, that would invest in various projects with the intent of stimulating desired new economic activity, strengthening the structure of Canada’s economy, and accumulating public wealth over time. This is an interesting proposal with both opportunities and risks. Successful examples of sovereign wealth funds exist around the world. In general, the goal is not solely to accumulate and invest budgetary surpluses; most sovereign funds have a mandate to wield public capital in the interests of economic diversification or the qualitative development of the domestic economy. On that score, the fact that Canada’s fund is likely to be initially endowed with borrowed funds (rather than accumulated budget surpluses, which do not exist right now at the federal level) is not the critical issue. However, it will be important to correctly specify the mandate and governance structure of the new fund. In my judgment, the goal should be to foster investment and growth in strategic value-added industries that add to the breadth of capabilities of the Canadian economy, and help to address the composition challenge I mentioned above. I am worried by Mr. Carney’s reference to ‘asset recycling’ in his initial discussion of the idea, through which the government would potentially sell of existing public assets (reportedly including airports and ports) in order to subsidize other projects. This is a dangerous model that risks undermining the public interest in continued ownership of those vital assets. The goal is not to ‘recycle’ public wealth, but to build it over time (and enhance our economic capacities in so doing), and the new sovereign fund should be structured and managed with those public interests as its top priority.

The Latest Oil Price Shock: An already uncertain macroeconomic environment has been further disrupted by Donald Trump’s attack on Iran, the resulting closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and a global shock in oil prices. This will have negative effects on Canada, even though we are a major net exporter of oil and import virtually no oil from the Persian Gulf. Our Centre recently published a report estimating the impact of this oil shock on consumer costs and future inflation, based in part on the documented experience of the last oil shock (in 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine). We considered three broad scenarios: one in which the Strait reopens immediately, one in which it remains closed for three more months, and one in which it remains closed for six more months. In any of these cases, supply disruptions and high prices will last for months after the Strait reopens, due to delays in loading and transporting shipments from the Persian Gulf, damage to export infrastructure from the war, and lasting shifts in expectations and risk premiums built into world prices. Even with immediate reopening, Canadian consumers would pay an additional $50 billion in direct and indirect costs over a 12-month period starting with the outbreak of the war at the end of February. The inflation rate would rise above 4 percent. If the Strait remains closed for longer, those costs escalate, and inflation could rise to 6 percent or higher. In turn, that will lead to higher interest rates and slower growth – on top of the existing weakness in Canada’s economy from the trade war. This disruption is the last thing Canada needs right now, and in my view it highlights important policy considerations. Having core energy prices in Canada set on the basis of volatile fluctuations in global futures markets, with no connection to Canadian production, supply, and demand conditions, exposes us to unnecessary risks. We should have a conversation in Canada about other ways to manage petroleum prices (noting that we already regulate electricity prices and gas distribution charges, which have remained stable despite the global oil chaos), and other ways to manage inflation (rather than relying solely on across-the-board interest rate hikes to suppress inflation of any kind, no matter its cause). I would also support fiscal measures to redistribute some of the record revenues that are now flowing to the petroleum industry as a result of this latest price shock – and which partly reflect excess costs paid by Canadian consumers. An excess profit tax, modeled on the one applied to Canadian banks and insurance companies during the pandemic, could recapture some of that revenue windfall, and use it to finance rebates to Canadian consumers and investments in renewable energy infrastructure (which are ultimately the best way to disengage from the volatility of world oil fluctuations). Bill C-30 includes measures to reduce federal excise taxes on gasoline and diesel in response to this price shock; asking the petroleum industry to contribute to the cost of that relief seems both fair and efficient. The full report which I reference, titled ‘A Sequel We Don’t Want: What the 2026 Oil Price Shock Will Cost Canadians,’ is available at www.centreforfuturework.ca.

Thank you again for your attention, and I look forward to any questions or discussion.

The post Senate Testimony on the Canadian Economic Outlook appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

A barbed wire fence surrounds the forced labor camp in Pahokee, FL, where two workers escaped hidden in the trunk of a car, their escape ultimately leading to the recent forced labor prosecution, US v Moreno. After escaping, the workers reported their experience to the Coalition of Immokalee Workers. The CIW took the case to federal authorities and assisted in the investigation of the successful prosecution. Kroger was found to be linked to the forced labor ring as a buyer of watermelons harvested by workers entrapped by the criminal conspiracy. US Attorney Gregory W. Kehoe for the Middle District of Florida: “The victims in this case were deceived by conspirators and subjected to deplorable conditions while being exploited for greed and profit.” Special Agent in Charge Brett Skiles of the FBI Miami Field Office: “Villatoro Moreno and his co-conspirators lured victims from Mexico with false promises of fair wages and good working conditions. It was all a lie… In addition to harsh and extreme working conditions, the workers were subjected to poor living conditions, charged excessive expenses, and endured humiliating treatment and threats.” US Department of Justice Press Release: “The Palm Beach County Human Trafficking Task Force, which includes the FBI, HSI, and the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office investigated the case. The Task Force received assistance from the Department of Labor Office of the Inspector General, the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division, the U.S. Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service, (and) the Coalition of Immokalee Workers…”

Since its inception in 2010, the Coalition of Immokalee Workers’ Fair Food Program has brought life-saving human rights guarantees to hundreds of thousands of farmworkers and helped transform the practice of farm labor management on farms from Florida to California. Indeed, the FFP has ushered in nothing short of a human rights revolution in the fields for nearly two decades now, eliminating longstanding abuses in our country’s trillion-dollar food industry ranging from systemic wage theft and deadly working conditions to sexual assault modern-day slavery. 

Along the way, many of the world’s largest retail food brands have joined the Fair Food Program — including household names like McDonald’s, Walmart, and Whole Foods — recognizing the program’s unique power not just to remedy abuses after they have happened, but actually to prevent human rights violations altogether, and so to prevent the full-blown public relations crises that can occur when egregious abuses are connected to popular consumer brands through their supply chains. Here at the FFP, we call that invaluable risk mitigation capacity of the program the “Power of Prevention”, and we are proud not only of the FFP’s immense impact on farmworkers’ lives over the past 16 years, but of its impact on our participating buyers’ and participating growers’ business practices and supply chain management, as well. 

It’s really quite simple: Sometimes the best headline is the headline that never happens, especially when that headline is a US Department of Justice press release connecting yet another brutal forced labor prosecution to your company’s supply chain. And yet…

All too many retail food brands — among them many well-known companies like Publix, Kroger, and Wendy’s — still refuse to join the FFP. Instead, they continue to cling to the long-discredited “Corporate Social Responsibility” playbook, claiming — against ample and painful evidence — that their supplier codes of conduct and occasional social audits are effective and sufficient to address any labor abuses in their suppliers’ operations. As a result, there are still far, far more farmworkers who toil beyond the reach of the Fair Food Program’s powerful protections than there are who harvest our food in the FFP’s environment of dignity and respect.

And that’s why the CIW continues to uncover and help prosecute modern-day slavery cases on non-FFP farms, including the recent case US v. Moreno, which came to light after two workers hid in the trunk of a car driven by a Good Samaritan who helped the workers escape the control of their crewleader and call the CIW to report the rampant abuse and threats they had experienced at the camp. That slavery case cast a national spotlight on the growing issue of forced labor in agriculture, and inspired the CIW’s 5-day, 50-mile march from Pahokee, FL to Palm Beach — home of Wendy’s former board chairman Nelson Peltz. When announcing that the defendant in the case had been sentenced to nearly a decade in prison, the US Department of Labor also disclosed that Kroger, a long-time Fair Food Program holdout, had been buying watermelons from the forced labor operation. 

Today, we want to share an update on that case and, in that context, take a moment to reflect on the FFP’s unique “Power of Prevention”. 

Here below is the latest update from the US Department of Justice on US v. Moreno — including the announcement that Alexander Villatoro Moreno, who was a critical player in the forced labor ring, was extradited from Mexico, pleaded guilty to conspiracy, and just received a 70-month prison sentence:

Mexican National Pleads Guilty to Racketeering Conspiracy Involving the Forced Labor of Mexican Workers

Alexander Villatoro Moreno, age 53, also known as Quichi, pleaded guilty in federal court in Tampa, Florida, to conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. A federal grand jury in the Middle District of Florida had previously returned a six-count indictment against multiple defendants for their roles in the conspiracy, which victimized Mexican H-2A workers who, between 2015 and 2017, had worked in the United States harvesting fruits, vegetables and other agricultural products.

According to court documents, Villatoro Moreno and his co-defendants operated and managed Los Villatoros Harvesting (LVH), a farm labor contracting company, that functioned as a criminal enterprise compelling victims to work in Florida, Kentucky, Indiana, Georgia and North Carolina. Villatoro Moreno and his co-defendants fraudulently recruited Mexican nationals to come into the United States on short-term, H-2A, agricultural visas and misled the United States to secure visas for the victims. Villatoro Moreno and his co-defendants charged workers exorbitant recruitment fees to work for LVH and lied to the victims about how much they would be paid, the hours they would work, the working conditions and the reimbursement they would receive for paying recruitment fees and other expenses. The workers were then compelled to provide long hours of physically demanding agricultural labor, six to seven days a week, for far less pay than they were entitled to under the law.

In addition to the work conditions, Villatoro Moreno and his co-defendants used various coercive means to compel the victims’ labor, including imposing debts on workers; confiscating the workers’ passports; subjecting workers to crowded, unsanitary and degrading living conditions; verbally abusing and humiliating the workers; threatening workers with arrest, jail time and deportation; isolating workers by preventing them from interacting with anyone other than LVH employees; and threatening to physically harm the workers’ family members back in Mexico if the workers failed to comply with their demands.

When officials began investigating, Villatoro Moreno obstructed the federal investigation by helping to prepare false payroll information to conceal underpayments to the workers and distributing fake reimbursement receipts to the victims to make it appear that LVH was complying with the law by reimbursing the workers for their travel-related expenses.

In the course of the investigation, one worker told prosecutors: “All this time, I could not return to Mexico for fear that something would happen to me. That the Villatoros had paid someone to kill me.”   In the press release announcing Villatoro Moreno’s sentencing, representatives from the Department of Justice had this to say:  “The victims in this case were deceived by conspirators and subjected to deplorable conditions while being exploited for greed and profit,” said US Attorney Gregory W. Kehoe for the Middle District of Florida. “Today’s judgment sends a clear message that we will leverage the resources of our law enforcement partners to uphold our nation’s immigration laws and vigorously prosecute those who engage in human trafficking.”   “Villatoro Moreno and his co-conspirators lured victims from Mexico with false promises of fair wages and good working conditions. It was all a lie,” said Special Agent in Charge Brett Skiles of the FBI Miami Field Office. “In addition to harsh and extreme working conditions, the workers were subjected to poor living conditions, charged excessive expenses, and endured humiliating treatment and threats. Not only is this wrong, but it is also against the law. Investigating this case was a team effort. I commend the Palm Beach County Human Trafficking Task Force, the Department of Labor, the Diplomatic Security Service, and numerous workers’ rights groups for their close cooperation.”   “Today’s sentence sends a clear message that those who exploit vulnerable workers and engage in forced labor will face serious consequences,” said Acting Special Agent in Charge Jose R. Figueroa of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Miami Field Office. “We are committed to protecting workers, safeguarding the integrity of the H‑2A program, and relentlessly pursuing those who manipulate the immigration system. HSI will continue to leverage partnerships across the government, with private industry, and around the world to combat forced labor and disrupt crimes of victimization…”  Read more of the DOJ press release here    The Power of Prevention

While successful slavery prosecutions of individual farm bosses provide a measure of justice for victims, they are a limited and ultimately insufficient tool if the goal is to end forced labor altogether.

First, prosecutions are inherently backward-looking. By the time a case reaches court, workers have already endured the abuses typical of forced labor operations — physical violence, psychological trauma, sexual abuse, and dangerous or even deadly working conditions. Even when justice is served, it is difficult, if not impossible, to fully repair the harm inflicted on those victims.

A Fair Food Standards Council auditor (left) interviews a worker on an FFP farm

Moreover, the legal framework used in forced labor prosecutions generally targets the employers closest to the workers: crewleaders and farm bosses directly involved in the abuse. Those higher up the supply chain — from farm owners to the retail brands purchasing the produce harvested by exploited workers — almost always emerge unscathed. Though they may have known, or should have known, about the abuse, and though they often benefit indirectly through lower labor costs and lower prices, they rarely face consequences when a crewleader is convicted of forced labor.

Early on in the CIW’s three-decade fight against human trafficking, it became clear that prosecutions alone would never end forced labor. If the movement’s broader goals — ending modern-day slavery in the fields and creating a world without victims — were ever to be achieved, something more was needed. The solution lay in addressing the underlying economics that had made slavery and other widespread farm labor abuses possible for generations.

The incentives were clear. For decades, major food retailers used their enormous purchasing power to push prices lower and lower throughout their supply chains. As farm-gate prices fell, growers struggled to survive on increasingly thin margins, often by suppressing wages and minimizing labor costs. Combined with weak and infrequent enforcement of labor laws, this created a system in which those who violated workers’ rights were effectively rewarded — whether through wage theft, sexual harassment, or forced labor — and rarely punished for their crimes.

As Warren Buffett’s longtime investor partner Charlie Munger famously said, “Show me the incentives, and I’ll show you the outcomes.” That principle applies as much to farm labor management systems as it does to financial markets. When economic pressures encourage abuse and legal protections are weakly enforced, exploitation flourishes. But the reverse is also true. When protecting workers is rewarded, and violations carry meaningful consequences, outcomes change. Abuses decline, accountability increases, and the possibility of a world without victims comes into view.

That is not merely a theory.

Since the launch of the Fair Food Program in 2010, incentives on participating farms have been fundamentally transformed. By leveraging the purchasing power of participating buyers, the FFP rewards growers who comply with its labor standards through continued business and preferential purchasing, while growers who violate workers’ rights risk losing access to major markets.

Just as importantly, the program protects workers who report violations. Retaliation itself is a serious violation that can jeopardize a grower’s relationships with some of the largest food buyers in the world. The result is a powerful system of worker-driven monitoring that ensures abuses are identified quickly and violators face real consequences. As a result, forced labor, sexual violence, and other severe human rights abuses have been effectively eliminated on participating farms for nearly two decades.

That is the “Power of Prevention” in action.

Central to the program’s success are the CIW’s legally binding agreements with participating buyers, who commit to preferentially purchasing from suppliers that comply with the FFP’s labor standards and suspending purchases from those who don’t. These market incentives helped transform Florida’s tomato industry from what federal prosecutors once called “ground zero for modern-day slavery” into what one human rights expert described on the front page of The New York Times as “the best workplace environment in U.S. agriculture.” No comparable system exists elsewhere in American agriculture.

Had the Fair Food Program been operating on the melon farms involved in the U.S. v. Moreno case, its protections and enforcement mechanisms would have dispelled the climate of fear among workers and detected even minor abuses before they escalated into forced labor. Yet buyers of those melons, including Kroger, continue to reject participation in the program. Instead, they rely on a failed model of voluntary standards and social audits that has repeatedly proven incapable of protecting workers or preventing abuse.

That is why nationwide expansion of the Fair Food Program is so urgently needed.

As Fair Food allies, you play an indispensable role in expanding the market power behind the program. By making your voices heard in executive offices and corporate boardrooms, you help pressure companies to take responsibility for labor conditions in their supply chains.  Farmworkers need your continued support to ensure that companies such as Kroger, Publix, and Wendy’s embrace genuine, worker-driven social responsibility and join the Fair Food Program.

Stay tuned for an upcoming digital action where you can help call on more corporate buyers — including Kroger, Publix, and Wendy’s — to join the Fair Food Program.

Canada’s economy has been growing very slowly for the last year, since Donald Trump launched his trade war against Canada’s exports. The side-effects of Trump’s attacks against Iran (including high oil prices and accelerating inflation) have further undermined growth in Canada.

Recent Statistics Canada data indicate that real GDP in Canada (adjusted for inflation) declined very slightly (by 0.036%) in the first quarter of 2026. Coming on the heels of a larger decline in real GDP in the final quarter of 2025, this signifies that Canada is experiencing a ‘technical recession” – traditionally defined as two consecutive quarters of contraction in real GDP.

There is no doubt that Canada’s economy faces serious headwinds, primarily the decline in exports to the U.S. and weak business capital spending (hurt by the uncertainty surrounding the trade environment and the economic outlook). As Centre for Future Work Director says in this commentary, originally published in the Toronto Star, whether the resulting growth is slightly above or slightly zero is not meaningful for economic policy decisions.

A technical recession is more about politics than economics By Jim Stanford

Statistics Canada recently released its quarterly report on Canadian GDP, covering the first three months of 2026. Most economists had expected a modest increase in GDP, but the final number came in slightly below zero.

Coming on top of a small decline in the last quarter of 2025, this means Canada has experienced what is commonly called a ‘technical recession’: two consecutive quarters of shrinking real GDP (adjusted for inflation).

Opposition politicians jumped on this report as evidence that Canada’s economy is being mismanaged. They were joined by Pete Hoekstra, the famously undiplomatic U.S. ambassador to Canada, who cited the data to renew his call for Canada to become the 51st state.

‘Technical recession’ is a very rough-and-ready benchmark commonly used to determine whether the economy is shrinking. One-quarter declines in real GDP often occur, without signalling serious economy-wide trouble.

The two-quarter rule is only slightly more robust. But it is still arbitrary and subjective, and doesn’t necessarily say much about what’s actually happening in the economy.

The U.S. follows a much stricter definition. A technical committee at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) monitors dozens of indicators, including employment, consumer spending, and business investment. Only when there is widespread evidence of significant contraction “spread across the economy and last[ing] more than a few months,” will it declare a recession.

Even as technical recessions go, this one is as ‘technical’ as they can get. Both of the quarters in question registered tiny declines in measured real GDP. And both of those declines reflected unusual statistical quirks, more than evidence of broader economic contraction.

In the fourth quarter of 2025, GDP declined solely because businesses sharply reduced excess inventories accumulated earlier in the year, after Donald Trump started his trade war. Statistics Canada accounts for inventory reductions as a charge against GDP. Excluding that $13 billion drawdown, GDP would have grown a modest 0.3 percent.

Then in the first quarter of 2026, GDP shrank because of an unusual surge in gold imports, which rose (coincidentally also by $13 billion) as industrial users and financial investors took advantage of softer gold prices. Without that temporary inflow of gold, GDP would have grown 0.5 percent.

So in neither case was the broader economy genuinely shrinking. Canada’s economy is not in recession, in any economically meaningful sense. This week’s strong labour force report, showing Canada created 88,000 jobs in May, confirms the economy is still growing, albeit too slowly.

Opposition politicians see the technical recession as great fodder for memes and sound bites. Indeed, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre talked of virtually nothing else last week. Politicians should be careful, however, about putting too much emphasis on this single, arbitrary metric.

Statistics Canada regularly revises its GDP data on the basis of new information. The decline in first-quarter GDP was so tiny (just $900 million out of a $3 trillion economy, or 0.036%) it could easily switch positive with the next revision. In fact, that decline was so small Statistics Canada’s official release stated that GDP was “unchanged” – a nuance lost in the histrionics of Question Period.

Just such a revision occurred back in the third quarter of 2023. A much larger initial decline in GDP (reported as -0.4% at the time) was later changed to a small increase. If that happens again, the whole pseudo-recession will be revised right out of existence, and these politicians will rightfully look silly.

There’s no doubt Canada’s economy is facing tough times. Donald Trump’s tariffs, now followed by his war in the Persian Gulf, are the clear culprits behind weak exports and investment uncertainty. Whether GDP growth is slightly above zero, or slightly below, is irrelevant. The critical priority is to boost spending, investment, and job-creation in all sectors (including public services) fast enough to offset that shock and enhance Canada’s economic independence.

Theatrics over whether an arbitrary line has been crossed are an unhelpful distraction from that task.

The post Political Drama Over Technical Recession Not Justified appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Build the Village, Break the Empire

While the US and Israel relentlessly drop bombs on Iran, Lebanon, and Palestine with our tax dollars and living costs skyrocket as a result, regenerative economies, collective healing, and liberation can feel like pipe dreams to many of our families, neighbors, and fellow workers. We are faced with the Herculean task of just surviving the constant physical and psychic attacks—let alone needing to build something that requires our wildest imaginations and all of our labor.

The truth is, everyday people have already been building the villages that we need to survive this crumbling empire; sometimes prompted when crisis hits their communities, but sometimes just because they see each other, understand the collective needs, and act intuitively. Neighbors do it whenever they lend tools or kitchen ingredients. Families and friends do it whenever they bring meals to a sick loved one. These informal practices could be a foundation for viable economic infrastructure—aka organized ways we care for home.

In this newsletter, we explore some of the ways we and our homies are building power by building the village. Flip through these pages to learn more.

{Cover IMAGE ID: Cover image by Amir Khadar. Movement Generation’s June 2026 Newsletter. The theme is titled Build the Village, Break the Empire. The illustration features a large ancient tree. In the bottom portion, the roots underground are crushing and breaking institutional buildings representing the United States, as well a military tank and police car. The top portion shows people farming and living in community beneath the tree canopy in the sunrise.}

SUPPORT MG

DOWNLOAD THE PDF

LISTEN TO THE AUDIO VERSION:

COMING SOON

 

 

     

Though cowards flinch? No retreat on climate policy!

Image by Claudia Hinz from Pixabay

By Paul Atkin

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

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

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

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

They also know that theirs are not popular polices.

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

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

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

Looking at these one by one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*pun intended.

 

Join Us

Get in the loop! Sign up to receive future GJA Newsletters and Blogs here.

SIGN UP Join the debate

Send us your contribution to the debate. We will contact you about using it here on our News & Debate page.

Name

Email

Contribution

Submit

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

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

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

Preparation for the Hill

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

On the Hill

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

After the Hill

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

Author’s Reflection

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

Bio

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

 

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

To come.

Reform run councils do not represent local opinion on climate

Image by Mick Holder

The increased number of Reform run Councils reversing climate emergency declarations and rowing back on limited but essential climate mitigation and adaptation measures should not be confused with popular support for them on this issue; even in areas where they have won with a landslide. 

Friends of the Earth have produced a very useful study of popular opinion – and the key environmental/climate issues – for every local authority in England. You can find yours by typing your postcode into the home page here. 

An example is Thurrock, where Reform won 45 seats out of 49 in May, but; 

• 71% of people are worried about the climate crisis, 

• 60% think it should be a government priority 

• and 75% support renewable energy.

This concern is also reflected among existing Reform voters nationally, almost twice as many of whom would back a solar farm over fracking as the best way to create energy in their local area when forced to pick between the two (43:23%). The figures for voters in general are even more strongly opposed to Reform policy, with 60% choosing solar over 10% choosing fracking.

Back in Thurrock, there are serious climate and environmental issues affecting people’s everyday lives that any council will have to address; however you label them: 

• 52% of homes are poorly insulated, 

• 100% of neighbourhoods have air quality below WHO standards, reflecting poor local public transport, non existing cycling infrastructure and too few public EV chargers, 

• 54,480 people are at extreme risk of flooding, 

• only 28% of household waste is recycled 

• and 89% of neighbourhoods have less than 20% tree cover.

Every other Reform dominated area will have a similar, but specific, profile and this is an area of political vulnerability for them.

Check out your own local authority, gain strength from the knowledge that Reform Councillors are a loud minority standing on very thin ice (which is getting thinner as it gets hotter) and think about how to campaign on the key problems, and who else to do it with. 

Paul Atkin 

 

Join Us

Get in the loop! Sign up to receive future GJA Newsletters and Blogs here.

SIGN UP Join the debate

Send us your contribution to the debate. We will contact you about using it here on our News & Debate page.

Name

Email

Contribution

Submit

The post Reform run councils do not represent local opinion on climate first appeared on Greener Jobs Alliance.

By Jeremy Brecher,
Senior Strategic Advisor, LNS Co-Founder

Listen to the audio version >>

As we saw in the previous commentary, Donald Trump is conducting a full spectrum counter-revolution against the Greentech revolution that is transforming energy production and consumption worldwide. This commentary shows that he has managed to significantly impede the onward march of Greentech in the US, but that Greentech is marching on nonetheless.

Collage featuring a photo of Donald Trump (Trump’s second presidential portrait, taken in June 2025 by Daniel Torok, The White House, Public Domain) and an aerial view of broken solar panels on a rooftop (Envato, Bilanol)

In the aftermath of Trump’s assault, the Greentech revolution in America is churning – both stopped in its tracks and driving forward.

Climate journalist and musician Jael Holzman recently took a “cross-country rock n’ roll tour” with her band Ekko Astral. Shee observed:

“Driving across the country with my band, I saw solar and wind projects in Wisconsin, Kansas, Arizona, and Idaho. One drive from Austin, Texas to Rozwell, New Mexico, sent me through a dizzying maze of wind farms in a western portion of the Lone Star State that surrounded my vehicle on all sides with spinning blades and transmission lines — and fracking rigs, because it was Texas. It felt like some sort of twisted, magnificent energy wonk video game.”

But she also noted:

“I drove through open fields and farmland in the Midwest and the Great Plains, including places where building solar or wind is banned outright. I drove straight through the part of central Idaho where Lava Ridge, once the largest wind farm in the country, would have been built this year if not for Donald Trump.”

First, the bad news

President Trump signed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBBA) into law on July 4, 2025. The law rolls back many parts of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act by ending tax credits for wind and solar energy, removing incentives for electric vehicles and home energy efficiency, and increasing support for fossil fuels, nuclear energy, and traditional agriculture. Photo credit: The White House, Public Domain

Trump’s Greentech counter-revolution has succeeded in making many corporations and governments cut back or abandon climate goals and policies. The consequences are catastrophic for the climate – and for the future of the American people.

• A week before the 2024 election, Idaho’s largest electric utility struck a 35-year deal to buy power from the Jackalope Wind project that would span an area the size of Chicago, with hundreds of wind turbines generating clean electricity by 2027. But President Trump’s Interior Department quickly stalled Jackalope’s environmental review. In September, the Idaho utility finally canceled its contracts with Jackalope Wind, citing “uncertainties related to the federal permitting process.” Jackalope is only one of more than 60 large wind and solar farms that are being blocked on federal lands. According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, 73,000 megawatts of solar projects on land are currently at risk from political interference due to the Trump administration’s “blockade.”
• After the tax credit for buying an EV was allowed to expire at the end of September, sales of EVs plummeted by about 46 percent. In 2025 as a whole, American businesses and households invested $91 billion in zero emission vehicles, a 5% decrease from the previous year. Ford took a $19.5 billion loss from abandoning a planned battery factory and canceled its F-150 EV. In the face of the global shift to EVs, Big Three’s share of the global auto market has fallen from nearly 30 percent in 2000 to about 12 percent today, while China’s share has risen from 2 percent to 42 percent.
• According to the Rhodium Group’s Clean Investment Monitor, the pipeline of new clean energy and transportation manufacturing investment—measured by new announcements in manufacturing projects—totaled $44 billion over the past two years, down by 70% compared to $149 billion during the previous two years. In the first quarter of 2026, clean energy and transportation investment in the United States totaled $61 billion, a 3% decline from Q4 2025.
• The impacts of Trump’s cuts can be felt in the smallest and most impoverished communities. Solar Holler, a solar developer and installation company with 105 employees across Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio and Virginia, had been growing 20 to 30% annually. Solar provided 70% of the company’s business. But residential solar tax incentives were cut off under Trump’s big, beautiful budget. The company’s growth forecast for 2026 is down from 30% to “roughly flat.” Appalachian Voices, a non-profit working with local communities, was awarded a half-million-dollar EPA grant to help five former coal communities in Virginia. The grant was summarily terminated by Elon Musk’s Doge.

While the impact of Trump’s policies is just beginning to be felt, they are already pushing back the forward march of the Greentech revolution. For example, late in 2025 the International Energy Agency (IEA) nearly halved its forecast of renewable energy growth in the United States, citing the end of tax incentives, new import restrictions, the suspension of new offshore wind leasing, and restricting the permitting of onshore wind and solar PV projects on federal land.

Tens of billions of dollars of manufacturing projects to build solar panels, batteries, charging stations and other clean technologies have already been canceled, with hundreds of billions of dollars of additional announced investments imperiled. According to the Princeton University-led REPEAT Project, the rollback of Biden-era climate regulations will cause an estimated 7.6 billion tons of additional greenhouse gas emissions to be released in the coming decade, as much as 150 million gas-powered cars would emit in that same time.

The Greentech Revolution: Bloodied but Unbowed

Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook, January 2026

Despite Trump’s efforts to gut fossil free energy, during his first year in office, solar generation rose by 83 TWh (+27%), meeting 61% of the 135 TWh rise in electricity demand. By mid-year, renewables generated more than half of US electricity for the first month on record. Even without subsidies, renewables remain the most cost-competitive form of new power generation.

In a report posted on January 16, the US Energy Information Agency said, “We expect the combined share of generation from solar power and wind power to rise from about 18% in 2025 to about 21% in 2027.” Utility-scale solar is the fastest-growing source of electricity generation in the United States, increasing from 290 BkWh in 2025 to 424 BkWh by 2027.” Almost 70 gigawatts (GW) of new solar generating capacity projects are scheduled to come online in 2026 and 2027, “a 49% increase in U.S. solar operating capacity compared with the end of 2025.” “The three main dispatchable sources of electricity generation (natural gas, coal, and nuclear) accounted for 75% of total generation in 2025, but we expect the share of generation from these sources will fall to about 72% in 2027.”

In 2025, $278 billion was invested across the U.S. in the manufacture and deployment of clean energy, clean vehicles, building electrification, and carbon management technology – up 5% from 2024. This despite an 11% decrease in the fourth quarter relative to the same period in 2024. Investment to decarbonize energy and industrial production over 2024-5 was up 35% compared to the prior two years. Investment in emerging climate technologies in 2024-25 —clean hydrogen, sustainable aviation fuels, carbon management and new approaches to decarbonizing the production of cement, iron and steel, and pulp and paper— was 53% higher than in the previous two years. In the past two years, companies have announced a total of $347 billion in new investments in clean energy production and industrial decarbonization projects, a 16% increase compared to the previous two-year period.

Worldwide, the blocking of the Straits of Hormuz and the subsequent crisis in the cost and availability of fossil fuel energy has radically accelerated the Greentech revolution, with countries around the world scrambling to expand their fossil free energy production. Ironically, Trump’s petro-war on Iran is radically accelerating the very Greentech revolution he is attempting to destroy.

The Greentech Revolution is proceeding over, under, around, and through Trump’s counterrevolution. Greentech is an irresistible force; it may not immediately overcome the immovable object of Trump’s obstruction, but it is already circumventing and eroding it.
Subsequent commentaries in this series will show how.

Get “Strike!” via EmailGet “Strike!” via Substack DONATE ONLINE

The post Irresistible Greentech Revolution Meets Immovable Trump Counter-Revolution first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

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

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

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.

According to a new report from the research organization Ember, last year solar and wind power accounted for 99 percent of the growth in world electricity supply, while generation using fossil fuels declined.

In the US, 93% of all electricity capacity added in 2026 is set to come from solar, wind and batteries. Just 7% will come from fossil fuels.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/28/trump-clean-energy-progress

The post Solar and Wind Providing 99% of New Global Electricity! first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Image Source: Canva “Green Grass Field Under Blue Sky,” by Dan Blood. (Altered)

Unexpected breakthroughs are making energy produced from sun, wind, and water cheaper, safer, and more efficient than energy produced from fossil fuels. That’s according to a new series of commentaries by LNS senior strategic advisor and co-founder Jeremy Brecher. The series explores this “Greentech revolution,” and ask what it will mean for Americans. According to Brecher, the Greentech Revolution is already transforming the way the world produces and uses energy and it will further transform economics, politics, and society. Here are the first pieces in the series giving the background of the Greentech Revolution globally and in the US:

The Greentech Revolution: A New Strike Series

“Energy runs the world, and how energy is produced and used is undergoing a historic transformation. As UN secretary general António Guterres put it,‘We are on the cusp of a new era. Fossil fuels are running out of road. The sun is rising on a clean energy age.’”

The Greentech Revolution: Energy Production

“The use of sun, wind, and water rather than fossil fuels to produce energy is transforming economies around the world. How far has that transformation already gone and what is likely to be its future?”

The Greentech Revolution: Energy Consumption

“Radical, unanticipated developments in electrification, storage, distribution, and other technologies are transforming not only the way energy is produced but also the way it is used. Like the transformation in energy production, these advances in energy consumption are transforming economies and creating new opportunities to protect the climate and improve our lives.”

The US and the Greentech Revolution

“Greentech technologies that protect and improve the environment are revolutionizing energy production and consumption worldwide. The Greentech revolution has also been under way in the US, but it has been severely retarded by the power of the fossil fuel industry and its allies and the policies they promulgated.”

The post The Greentech Revolution first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Sign On Letter Oppose Rollbacks to ZEV

The post Health Organizations Oppose Rollbacks to Clean Vehicles Standards appeared first on ANHE.