Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Montana GOP Senate Candidate’s Ongoing Hypocrisy On Climate

News Feed
Tuesday, April 16, 2024

Montana businessman Tim Sheehy built his aerial firefighting company, Bridger Aerospace, on certain scientific realities — namely that global climate change is real and driving more extreme wildfires. He even touted it as a leader in the fight against planet-warming emissions.But when it came time to campaign for the U.S. Senate, the GOP hopeful quickly embraced partisan talking points on climate, repeatedly railing against what he calls the “climate cult” and “radical environmentalists,” while blaming the growing wildfire threat exclusively on forest mismanagement.And while the Trump-endorsed MAGA conservative flipped his script on climate, his company continues to embrace climate and wildfire science — at least in public filings. In its latest annual report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, filed in March, Bridger Aerospace writes that “we believe that rising global temperatures have been, and in the future are expected to be, one factor contributing to increasing rates and severity of wildfires.” It cites climate research, including an Environmental Protection Agency website that notes “multiple studies have found that climate change has already led to an increase in wildfire season length, wildfire frequency, and burned area.” And it warns shareholders and potential investors that climate change poses numerous risks to the company. “The potential physical effects of climate change, such as increased frequency and severity of storms, floods, fires, fog, mist, freezing conditions, sea-level rise, and other climate-related events, could affect our operations, infrastructure, and financial results,” the document states. “Further, we have been studying the potential effects of climate change (increased severity and frequency of storm events, sea level rise, land subsidence, change in temperature extremes, changes in precipitation patterns and drought, and wildfire) on Bridger’s assets, operations and services, and we are developing adaptation plans to set forth a strategy for those events and conditions that we believe are most significant,” it continues. “Consequences of these climate-driven events may vary widely and could include increased stress on our services due to new patterns of demand, physical damage to our fleet and infrastructure, higher operational costs and an increase in the number [of] requests for our services. In addition, we could incur substantial costs to repair or replace aircraft and facilities.”Tim Sheehy, a former Navy SEAL and the founder of an aerial firefighting company based in Montana, announced his Republican campaign for the U.S. Senate last year.Sheehy, a decorated former Navy SEAL, founded Bridger Aerospace in 2014 after retiring from the military and has continued to serve as its chief executive officer while running for office. It wasn’t long ago that Sheehy spoke freely about the climate and wildfire threats. In a January 2023 interview with journalist Jane King on Nasdaq Marketplace, Sheehy described wildfires as a global, climate-fueled “crisis.”“The wildfire crisis is really spreading globally as we see the effects of climate change and urbanization,” he said. “We’re seeing fires become larger, they move faster, they’re hotter, and most importantly it’s becoming more and more critical to combat them early because of the amount of settlement we have in wildfire prone areas.” Sheehy said demand for his company’s services has “skyrocketed” in recent years, with no signs of slowing down. Sheehy launched his bid to take on incumbent Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) just five months later, in June. Before doing so, Bridger scrubbed climate language from its website, including a line about the company “fighting on the front lines of climate change,” as ABC News first reported. Right out of the gate, Sheehy seemingly abandoned any concern about the global crisis — one that his party has spent decades denying and downplaying while cheerleading for planet-warming fossil fuels. As the campaign has rolled along, Sheehy has advanced his attacks against climate activists and environmentalists. He’s described John Kerry, who until recently served as President Joe Biden’s climate envoy, as the “Supreme Leader of the Climate Cult,” accused Biden of being “more worried about the climate cult than our national security and men and women in uniform,” and railed against both the federal government — his company’s biggest client — and “radical environmentalists.”“When radical Democrats tell us they want to shut down our economy and kill Montana jobs — we ought to take them at their word and take them out of office,” he wrote in a recent post to X, formerly Twitter.On his campaign website, Sheehy blames increasingly catastrophic wildfires not on climate change and urbanization but on poor forest management and “radical environmentalists who are suing and shutting down timber projects with frivolous litigation.”It’s hard to overstate the irony in Sheehy’s dismissal of climate action as job-killing, given that his company continues to tout its climate credentials to secure lucrative government contracts and grow its business. Federal and state government contracts accounted for 88% and 99% of Bridger’s revenue in 2023 and ’22, respectively. However, as the Montana Free Press first reported this month, Bridger is deeply in the red, reporting a net loss of $77.4 million in 2023. Sheehy’s campaign did not respond to HuffPost’s request for comment, nor did it respond when HuffPost first wrote about the stark divide between Sheehy’s newfound rhetoric on climate and the company’s strategy.Bridger’s latest SEC filing offers a unique glimpse into Sheehy’s ongoing involvement with the company and how his campaign could negatively impact business. “Although Mr. Sheehy continues to spend significant time with Bridger and remain highly active in our management during his candidacy, he has not devoted his full time and attention to Bridger. Mr. Sheehy has spent, and expects to continue to spend, time campaigning for the U.S. Senate seat,” the filing states. “Additionally, Mr. Sheehy and we may be the targets of one or more negative media campaigns in connection with Mr. Sheehy’s U.S. Senate campaign. Public perception of, or news related to, Mr. Sheehy or his U.S. Senate campaign may adversely affect our brand, relationship with customers, suppliers, employees or other of our stakeholders or our standing in the industry, any of which could materially impair our business and results of operations.”Part of that might come down to the company’s own founder and CEO’s partisan about-face on what has been a key pillar of Bridger Aerospace’s business approach.Support HuffPostOur 2024 Coverage Needs YouYour Loyalty Means The World To UsAt HuffPost, we believe that everyone needs high-quality journalism, but we understand that not everyone can afford to pay for expensive news subscriptions. That is why we are committed to providing deeply reported, carefully fact-checked news that is freely accessible to everyone.Whether you come to HuffPost for updates on the 2024 presidential race, hard-hitting investigations into critical issues facing our country today, or trending stories that make you laugh, we appreciate you. The truth is, news costs money to produce, and we are proud that we have never put our stories behind an expensive paywall.Would you join us to help keep our stories free for all? Your contribution of as little as $2 will go a long way.Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.Dear HuffPost ReaderThank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?Dear HuffPost ReaderThank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you’ll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.

The Trump-endorsed MAGA conservative keeps flip-flopping on the climate — and SEC filings reveal how hypocritical he really is.

Montana businessman Tim Sheehy built his aerial firefighting company, Bridger Aerospace, on certain scientific realities — namely that global climate change is real and driving more extreme wildfires. He even touted it as a leader in the fight against planet-warming emissions.

But when it came time to campaign for the U.S. Senate, the GOP hopeful quickly embraced partisan talking points on climate, repeatedly railing against what he calls the “climate cult” and “radical environmentalists,” while blaming the growing wildfire threat exclusively on forest mismanagement.

And while the Trump-endorsed MAGA conservative flipped his script on climate, his company continues to embrace climate and wildfire science — at least in public filings.

In its latest annual report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, filed in March, Bridger Aerospace writes that “we believe that rising global temperatures have been, and in the future are expected to be, one factor contributing to increasing rates and severity of wildfires.” It cites climate research, including an Environmental Protection Agency website that notes “multiple studies have found that climate change has already led to an increase in wildfire season length, wildfire frequency, and burned area.” And it warns shareholders and potential investors that climate change poses numerous risks to the company.

“The potential physical effects of climate change, such as increased frequency and severity of storms, floods, fires, fog, mist, freezing conditions, sea-level rise, and other climate-related events, could affect our operations, infrastructure, and financial results,” the document states.

“Further, we have been studying the potential effects of climate change (increased severity and frequency of storm events, sea level rise, land subsidence, change in temperature extremes, changes in precipitation patterns and drought, and wildfire) on Bridger’s assets, operations and services, and we are developing adaptation plans to set forth a strategy for those events and conditions that we believe are most significant,” it continues. “Consequences of these climate-driven events may vary widely and could include increased stress on our services due to new patterns of demand, physical damage to our fleet and infrastructure, higher operational costs and an increase in the number [of] requests for our services. In addition, we could incur substantial costs to repair or replace aircraft and facilities.

Tim Sheehy, a former Navy SEAL and the founder of an aerial firefighting company based in Montana, announced his Republican campaign for the U.S. Senate last year.

Sheehy, a decorated former Navy SEAL, founded Bridger Aerospace in 2014 after retiring from the military and has continued to serve as its chief executive officer while running for office.

It wasn’t long ago that Sheehy spoke freely about the climate and wildfire threats. In a January 2023 interview with journalist Jane King on Nasdaq Marketplace, Sheehy described wildfires as a global, climate-fueled “crisis.”

“The wildfire crisis is really spreading globally as we see the effects of climate change and urbanization,” he said. “We’re seeing fires become larger, they move faster, they’re hotter, and most importantly it’s becoming more and more critical to combat them early because of the amount of settlement we have in wildfire prone areas.”

Sheehy said demand for his company’s services has “skyrocketed” in recent years, with no signs of slowing down.

Sheehy launched his bid to take on incumbent Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) just five months later, in June. Before doing so, Bridger scrubbed climate language from its website, including a line about the company “fighting on the front lines of climate change,” as ABC News first reported. Right out of the gate, Sheehy seemingly abandoned any concern about the global crisis — one that his party has spent decades denying and downplaying while cheerleading for planet-warming fossil fuels.

As the campaign has rolled along, Sheehy has advanced his attacks against climate activists and environmentalists. He’s described John Kerry, who until recently served as President Joe Biden’s climate envoy, as the “Supreme Leader of the Climate Cult,” accused Biden of being “more worried about the climate cult than our national security and men and women in uniform,” and railed against both the federal government — his company’s biggest client — and “radical environmentalists.”

“When radical Democrats tell us they want to shut down our economy and kill Montana jobs — we ought to take them at their word and take them out of office,” he wrote in a recent post to X, formerly Twitter.

On his campaign website, Sheehy blames increasingly catastrophic wildfires not on climate change and urbanization but on poor forest management and “radical environmentalists who are suing and shutting down timber projects with frivolous litigation.”

It’s hard to overstate the irony in Sheehy’s dismissal of climate action as job-killing, given that his company continues to tout its climate credentials to secure lucrative government contracts and grow its business. Federal and state government contracts accounted for 88% and 99% of Bridger’s revenue in 2023 and ’22, respectively. However, as the Montana Free Press first reported this month, Bridger is deeply in the red, reporting a net loss of $77.4 million in 2023.

Sheehy’s campaign did not respond to HuffPost’s request for comment, nor did it respond when HuffPost first wrote about the stark divide between Sheehy’s newfound rhetoric on climate and the company’s strategy.

Bridger’s latest SEC filing offers a unique glimpse into Sheehy’s ongoing involvement with the company and how his campaign could negatively impact business.

“Although Mr. Sheehy continues to spend significant time with Bridger and remain highly active in our management during his candidacy, he has not devoted his full time and attention to Bridger. Mr. Sheehy has spent, and expects to continue to spend, time campaigning for the U.S. Senate seat,” the filing states. “Additionally, Mr. Sheehy and we may be the targets of one or more negative media campaigns in connection with Mr. Sheehy’s U.S. Senate campaign. Public perception of, or news related to, Mr. Sheehy or his U.S. Senate campaign may adversely affect our brand, relationship with customers, suppliers, employees or other of our stakeholders or our standing in the industry, any of which could materially impair our business and results of operations.”

Part of that might come down to the company’s own founder and CEO’s partisan about-face on what has been a key pillar of Bridger Aerospace’s business approach.

Support HuffPost

Our 2024 Coverage Needs You

Your Loyalty Means The World To Us

At HuffPost, we believe that everyone needs high-quality journalism, but we understand that not everyone can afford to pay for expensive news subscriptions. That is why we are committed to providing deeply reported, carefully fact-checked news that is freely accessible to everyone.

Whether you come to HuffPost for updates on the 2024 presidential race, hard-hitting investigations into critical issues facing our country today, or trending stories that make you laugh, we appreciate you. The truth is, news costs money to produce, and we are proud that we have never put our stories behind an expensive paywall.

Would you join us to help keep our stories free for all? Your contribution of as little as $2 will go a long way.

Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.

As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.

Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.

Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.

Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.

Dear HuffPost Reader

Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.

The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?

Dear HuffPost Reader

Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.

The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you’ll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.

Support HuffPost

Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

How Minecraft and other video games are teaching kids about climate change

Forget slaying dragons, the newest gaming trend is saving the virtual world (and maybe ours too).

Earlier in April, more than 60 million people were presented with a mission: Track down and vanquish a golden, fire-breathing dragon terrorizing a vulnerable village.That is, a digital village in the metaverse of Minecraft, a videogame that allows its many users to explore and build their own worlds. In this new Minecraft minigame, “Heat Wave Survival,” players are facing up against the Heat Dragon, a villain developers created to represent the deadly threat of extreme heat as global temperatures rise.This is just one of the many ways that climate change is infiltrating game night. Around the world, developers and designers are intentionally weaving climate change characters like the Heat Dragon, as well as potential solutions, into board games and video games to help engage users in the fight to slow global warming.Today, we are exploring how the climate movement is growing within the gaming universe—and what that could mean for the real world.Climate Gamers: The main goal of Minecraft’s “Heat Wave Survival” is to slay the mighty heat dragon, but throughout the mission, players get tips on how to recognize the symptoms of heat-related illnesses and the best ways to respond such as hydrating or finding a cool space, reports Fast Company.The team, led by the nonprofit Adrienne Arsht-Rockefeller Foundation Resilience Center, is also developing a second game in its series in which players are in charge of building their own city supplied by renewable energy, with the option to install heat-resilient infrastructure such as shade structures. The games are primarily aimed at young students.But this isn’t the first initiative of its kind. In 2019, the United Nations launched its Playing for the Planet Alliance, with the goal of helping the video game industry shrink its environmental footprint and engage its players in climate action.Each year, the Alliance—which has dozens of members such as Sony and Google—hosts a “Green Game Jam,” where companies are encouraged to integrate more eco-friendly themes into their games. In 2023, developers added nature conservation elements into 41 games, Bloomberg reports. For example, the company Rovio Entertainment added a temporary new challenge to the popular game Angry Birds, in which users were tasked with saving virtual endangered animals in the Amazon.However, the video game industry itself has its own emissions issues to reckon with. Along with the energy required to play a game, engineers use large amounts of energy to power computers during development, and manufacturing of game accessories and devices uses vast quantities of plastic and batteries, which can contribute to the growing problem of electronic waste after they are disposed of, Claire Asher writes for Mongabay.In December, a CNET report found that “only a portion of gaming companies release climate impact data,” but that a growing number of developers are making efforts to reduce emissions through the use of renewable energy in their supply chains.Clean Energy Simulations: Outside the virtual world, a new energy-oriented version of the classic board game “Settlers of Catan” is being released this summer. The original iteration was created in 1995 and tasked players with creating their own nation from scratch on an undeveloped island. The new game, dubbed “Catan: New Energies,” will introduce more of the modern-day struggles that come along with rapid industrial growth, and the emissions associated with them.In the game, players must choose between investing in expensive clean energy options or low-cost but high-polluting fossil fuels (sound familiar?). Though “Catan: New Energies” does not outright mention the term climate change, if pollutant levels get too high, “the game ends in catastrophe” and the player with the most renewable energy tokens wins, according to Catan’s website.Benjamin Teuber, co-developer of the new game, told NPR that during the development phase, the testing team would “always manage to over pollute.”However, games offer unlimited chances to explore how to wrangle in runaway emissions: “We had heavy discussions afterwards,” Teuber said. “We all felt kind of bad, we learned a thing or two, and the next game we played differently.”But what about the real world, where research shows that there won’t be unlimited opportunities to slow emissions before climate change irrevocably alters ecosystems and cities? Board games and simulations can “inspire players to learn about the climate crisis and motivate them to act,” Sam Illingworth, a game developer and science communications expert at Edinburgh Napier University in the United Kingdom, wrote in the Conversation.“As we face the urgent challenges ahead, I believe that such games can play a crucial role in fostering understanding, dialogue and action.”This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, independent news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. It is republished with permission. Sign up for their newsletter here.

Just Six Companies Create About a Quarter of Global Plastic Waste, Survey Finds

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The more plastic a company makes, the more pollution it creates. That seemingly obvious, yet previously unproven, point, is the main takeaway from a first-of-its-kind study published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances. Researchers from a dozen universities around the world […]

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The more plastic a company makes, the more pollution it creates. That seemingly obvious, yet previously unproven, point, is the main takeaway from a first-of-its-kind study published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances. Researchers from a dozen universities around the world found that, for every 1 percent increase in the amount of plastic a company uses, there is an associated 1 percent increase in its contribution to global plastic litter. In other words, if Coca-Cola is producing one-tenth of the world’s plastic, the research predicts that the beverage behemoth is responsible for about a tenth of the identifiable plastic litter on beaches or in parks, rivers, and other ecosystems. That finding “shook me up a lot, I was really distraught,” said Win Cowger, a researcher at the Moore Institute for Plastic Pollution Research and the study’s lead author. It suggests that companies’ loudly proclaimed efforts to reduce their plastic footprint “aren’t doing much at all” and that more is needed to make them scale down the amount of plastic they produce. Significantly, it supports calls from delegates to the United Nations global plastics treaty—which is undergoing its fourth round of discussions in Ottawa, Canada, through Tuesday—to restrict production as a primary means to “end plastic pollution.” Volunteers across 84 countries collected 1.8 million pieces of plastic waste and counted the items contributed by specific companies. “What the data is saying is that if the status quo doesn’t change in a huge way—if social norms around the rapid consumption and production of new materials don’t change—we won’t see what we want,” Cowger told Grist. That plastic production should be correlated with plastic pollution is intuitive, but until now there has been little quantitative research to prove it—especially on a company-by-company basis. Perhaps the most significant related research in this area appeared in a 2020 paper published in Environmental Science and Technology showing that overall marine plastic pollution was growing alongside global plastic production. Other research since then has documented the rapidly expanding “plastic smog” in the world’s oceans and forecasted a surge in plastic production over the next several decades. The Sciences Advances article draws on more than 1,500 “brand audits” coordinated between 2018 and 2022 by Break Free From Plastic, a coalition of more than 3,000 environmental organizations. Volunteers across 84 countries collected more than 1.8 million pieces of plastic waste and counted the number of items contributed by specific companies.  About half of the litter that volunteers collected couldn’t be tied to a specific company, either because it never had a logo or because its branding had faded or worn off. Among the rest, a small handful of companies—mostly in the food and beverage sector—turned up most often. The top polluters were Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestlé, Danone, Altria—the parent company of Philip Morris USA—and Philip Morris International (which is a separate company that sells many of the same products). More than 1 in 10 of the pieces came from Coca-Cola, the top polluter by a significant margin. Overall, just 56 companies were responsible for half of the plastic bearing identifiable branding. The researchers plotted each company’s contribution to plastic pollution against its contribution to global plastic production (defined by mass, rather than the number of items). The result was the tidy, one-to-one relationship between production and pollution that caused Cowger so much distress. Many of the top polluters identified in the study have made voluntary commitments to address their outsize plastic footprint. Coca-Cola, for example, says it aims to reduce its use of “virgin plastic derived from nonrenewable sources” by 3 million metric tons over the next five years, and to sell a quarter of its beverages in reusable or refillable containers by 2030. By that date the company also aims to collect and recycle a bottle or can for each one it sells. Pepsi has a similar target to reduce virgin plastic use to 20 percent below a 2018 baseline by the end of the decade. Nestlé says it had reduced virgin plastic use by 10.5 percent as of 2022, and plans to achieve further reductions by 2025. In response to Grist’s request for comment, a spokesperson for Coca-Cola listed several of the company’s targets to reduce plastic packaging, increased recycled content, and scale up reusable alternatives. “We care about the impact of every drink we sell and are committed to growing our business in the right way,” the spokesperson said. Similarly, a PepsiCo representative said the company aims to “reduce the packaging we use, scale reusable models, and partner to further develop collection and recycling systems.” They affirmed Pepsi’s support for an “ambitious and binding” UN treaty to “help address plastic pollution.” Countries need to lay down the law: “It’s not going to be Coca-Cola or some other big company saying, ‘I’m gonna reduce my plastic by 2030.'” In a response provided after publication of this story, Altria said it believes the study is “fundamentally incorrect” because Phillip Morris USA operates only in the US, yet the study includes data from more than 80 countries. “So, it is impossible for Altria and PM USA to be responsible for 2 percent of global branded plastics pollution this study reports. In fact, for the US data, Altria is not on the list of the top companies, further demonstrating this study is inaccurately attributing plastic waste found internationally to our companies.” Two of the other top polluting companies did not respond to a request for comment. It’s worth noting that many of the companies’ plans involve replacing virgin plastic with recycled material. This does not necessarily address the problem outlined in the Science Advances study, since plastic products are no less likely to become litter just because they’re made of recycled content. There’s also a limit to the number of times plastic can be recycled—experts say just two or three times—before it must be sent to a landfill or an incinerator. Many plastic items cannot be recycled at all. Richard Thompson, a professor of marine biology at the University of Plymouth in the UK, commended the researchers for making “a very useful contribution to our understanding about the link between production and pollution.” He said the findings could shape regulations to make companies financially responsible for plastic waste—based on the specific amount they contribute to the environment. The findings could also inform this week’s negotiations for the UN global plastics treaty, where delegates are continuing to spar over whether and how to restrict production. According to Cowger, if the treaty really aims to “end plastic pollution”—as it states in its mandate—then negotiators will need to think beyond voluntary measures and regulate big producers.  “It’s not going to be Coca-Cola or some other big company saying, ‘I’m gonna reduce my plastic by 2030, you’ll see,’” Cowger told Grist. “It’s gonna be a country that says, ‘If you don’t reduce by 2030, you’re going to get hit with a huge fine.’”

The world agreed to create a climate reparations fund. Now comes the hard part.

A 26-member board is finally beginning work on the UN’s new loss and damage fund.

After three decades of work, advocates for developing countries scored a major win at last year’s United Nations climate change conference in Dubai: World leaders unanimously agreed to set up a climate reparations fund. As the planet warms, the poorest nations are being hit hardest by drought, rising sea levels, hurricanes, and a slew of other climate impacts — even though these countries did the least to cause global warming, compared to their early-industrializing peers. Enter the so-called loss and damage fund, which is supposed to compensate them for the unavoidable effects of climate change. So far, the international community has pledged more than $650 million to the venture. Now the tedious, unsexy — and often boring — work of setting up the fund is just beginning.  This week, a 26-member board is meeting for the first time to discuss the administrative and institutional policies required to operationalize the fund and dole money out to developing countries in need. The board’s to-do list is long. It ranges from the procedural — selecting co-chairs and agreeing on a host country for the fund — to the more substantive: deciding which countries are eligible to receive funding, how to fundraise and replenish the fund, and whether or not the World Bank will help manage the fund.  The board was supposed to hold its first meeting at the end of January, but a stalemate among wealthy countries, including the U.S. and those of the European Union, about who to nominate to the board led to delays, putting the meetings three months behind schedule. Much of this work must be completed in just over six months, before the next United Nations climate conference, known as COP29, in Baku, Azerbaijan. “There’s a very large work plan for the year,” said Brandon Wu, director of policy and campaigns and head of international climate justice work at the nonprofit ActionAid USA. “They are still trying to squeeze in three meetings before COP29 to be able to stay on schedule.” Wu is attending the board meeting as an observer. The stakes are high. The roughly $650 million that has been pledged so far is a sliver of the estimated need — which researchers have pegged at as much as $580 billion per year by 2030 — and is broadly seen as startup money sufficient only to establish the fund.  As the main contributors to the climate crisis, wealthy countries are expected to be the primary donors to the fund. But before the fund can begin allocating money to poorer nations in need, a number of decisions need to be made. Key among them is whether the World Bank will serve as a trustee and help manage the operations of the fund. Wealthy nations believe that the bank, which houses several other environmental and climate funds, has the experience, reputation, and administrative know-how to best manage a financial endeavor of this size. But developing countries were initially opposed to the idea, citing the failures of the bank’s past programs and its role worsening debt crises in poor countries. Ultimately, developing countries reluctantly agreed to allow the World Bank to host the loss and damage fund on an interim basis. But that decision was contingent on the bank meeting 11 conditions, including allowing recipients to directly access money from the fund instead of requiring that money pass through an intermediary international institution, such as a United Nations agency or multilateral development bank. The World Bank has until June to deliberate, and report on whether or not it can meet those conditions.  Initial discussions about those conditions have already hit snags, according to reporting by E&E News. The loss and damage fund’s board and the bank can’t seem to agree on who should sign off on financial agreements when money is disbursed. The World Bank has a number of policies in place to ensure that the money it doles out isn’t misused and meets various environmental and social safeguards. Since the loss and damage fund is expected to hand out money to a range of national and subnational groups as a result of the direct access condition, the bank will likely work with hundreds of entities. That increases the chances that a recipient misuses the money or fails to pay back a loan, putting the bank on the hook. As a result, the bank wants the responsibility — and liability — to lie with the board, while the board has argued that as trustee, the bank should have final signing authority.  If a project that receives money from the fund is unable to pay the bank back, the bank’s credit rating could be affected, which in turn could lead to a decrease in the bank’s borrowing power, said Michai Robertson, a lead negotiator for the Alliance of Small Island States, a group representing 39 island nations. “They see this as a big cluster of issues,” he said. “If you have one entity from each developing country, that’s 140 countries that can access the fund directly and not use a go-between. The bank sees this as a huge risk.” If the bank ultimately reports that it cannot meet the 11 conditions, countries will go back to the drawing board to establish an independent fund. Those decisions will be made at COP29 in Azerbaijan.  Even if the stalemate between the board and bank is resolved, the board will still have many more thorny questions to work out, including which countries will be eligible to receive money from the fund. In the agreement inked in Dubai last year, countries agreed that the fund’s resources are meant for “developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.” But the agreement did not define which countries qualify as “particularly vulnerable.” The phrase has typically referred to small island states and those classified as “least developed countries” in climate talks — but that leaves out countries like Pakistan, which faced catastrophic floods in 2022, and others that are widely seen as appropriate recipients for loss and damage funding.  Hanging over these discussions is also the question of how the fund will raise the trillions of dollars that will be required in the coming years to address the loss and damage countries will face due to climate change.  “There’s sort of the elephant-in-the-room question, which is when is the fund actually going to get meaningful amounts of money,” said Wu. If the fund receives very little money, the board will end up designing policies meant to facilitate the transfer of millions of dollars — not the trillions that are needed, he said.  “The scope of the ambition of the fund is a big question,” he said.  This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The world agreed to create a climate reparations fund. Now comes the hard part. on Apr 29, 2024.

Defying Climate Change: Yellowstone’s Lake Ice Isn’t Melting Like Others

According to recent research led by scientists from the University of Wyoming, the duration for which Yellowstone Lake remains ice-covered each year has remained constant...

Yellowstone Lake, North America’s largest high-elevation lake, freezes over completely in late December or early January and usually thaws in late May or early June. The period of ice cover has not changed in the last century, despite warming temperatures in the region. Credit: Lusha TronstadAccording to recent research led by scientists from the University of Wyoming, the duration for which Yellowstone Lake remains ice-covered each year has remained constant over the past century, even amidst rising regional temperatures.That is an unexpected finding, as most lakes around the world are experiencing shorter durations of ice cover, the scientists note in a new paper published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.“We show that contrary to expectation, the ice phenology of Yellowstone Lake has been uniquely resistant to climate change,” wrote the scientists, led by Lusha Tronstad, lead invertebrate zoologist with UW’s Wyoming Natural Diversity Database and Department of Zoology and Physiology, and Isabella Oleksy, a former UW postdoctoral researcher now on the University of Colorado-Boulder faculty. “The unchanging ice phenology of Yellowstone Lake stands in stark contrast to similar lakes in the Northern Hemisphere.” Other researchers involved in the study are from Utah State University, Colorado State University, and Colorado Mesa University.Geographic and Environmental ContextSituated at 7,733 feet above sea level in the heart of Yellowstone National Park, Yellowstone Lake is North America’s largest high-elevation lake, roughly 20 miles long and 14 miles wide with a surface area of 132 square miles. It freezes over completely in late December or early January and usually thaws in late May or early June.Records for the lake’s ice-off date have been recorded each year by Lake Village Ranger Station staff since 1927, and the ice-on date has been recorded since 1931. In addition to studying those records, the scientists analyzed climate data for the same period, 1927-2022, including air temperatures and precipitation. They also compared Yellowstone Lake’s data with seven similar lakes in northern Europe.The lack of long-term change in the duration of Yellowstone Lake’s ice cover was unexpected because the Yellowstone region has seen a warming climate, the researchers say. Since 1950, annual temperatures have increased by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit throughout the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. The changes are particularly pronounced at the high elevation of Yellowstone Lake, where air temperatures increased by about 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit between 1980-2018.“Using local weather data, we found some evidence for increased summer, fall, and spring temperatures, primarily in the last three decades,” the scientists wrote about air temperatures at Yellowstone Lake. “Given the key role of air temperatures in driving ice formation and break-up, it is noteworthy that we did not find evidence for corresponding shifts in ice phenology.”The Role of Snow in Ice PhenologyWhy the apparent discrepancy?While it is possible that fall minimum temperatures — which are important in predicting ice formation — are not rising as quickly as overall temperature trends in the region, a more likely explanation is that increased snowfall at Yellowstone Lake has served as a buffer against warmer weather, the scientists say.Snow cover, particularly in spring, can delay ice break-up. Cumulative spring snow, which was strongly correlated with delayed ice-off dates, has nearly doubled over the last century at Yellowstone Lake, the research showed. In general, precipitation has increased in spring and fall there.That differs from the Upper Green River Basin to the south, where snowfall has declined or been relatively stable at high elevations.“Shifts in local precipitation, especially increases in fall and spring snow, appear to be buffering (Yellowstone Lake) ice phenology against warming temperatures,” the researchers wrote.But, the scientists are not sure how long this phenomenon will last, noting projections of continued warming and shifting precipitation regimes in the high Rocky Mountains.“Our results, paired with recent analyses of climate projections, suggest a ‘tipping point’ may be coming when ice phenology abruptly changes for Yellowstone Lake,” they wrote. “This tipping point will largely stem from the ongoing shift from snow- to rain-dominated precipitation regimes in the fall and spring.“… Increased spring rainfall has not yet caused a detectable long-term trend toward earlier ice break-up, potentially because of the counteracting effects of increased spring snow. As temperatures warm further, and fall and spring snowfall decreases, ice phenology may rapidly change on Yellowstone Lake.”If that happens, “there may be wide-ranging consequences for nutrient cycling, lake productivity, fisheries, and recreation,” the scientists concluded.Reference: “Despite a century of warming, increased snowfall has buffered the ice phenology of North America’s largest high-elevation lake against climate change” by Lusha Tronstad, Isabella Oleksy, Justin P. F. Pomeranz, Daniel Preston, Gordon Gianniny, Katrina Cook, Ana Holley, Phil Farnes, Todd Koel and Scott Hotaling, 8 April 2024, Environmental Research Letters.DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ad3bd1

UAW’s Latest Labor Victory Is a Huge Climate Win, Too

Angel Gomez, a second-shift underbody mechanic at the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, was on the line when United Auto Workers won the factory union election. “I heard hollering,” said Gomez, as the news broke through the shop floor on Thursday, April 18. “There were people who’d been trying to do this for fourteen years, they’ve been putting in the work through all these failed elections, and finally they got it. It was a good feeling.”Renee Berry, 58 years old and a veteran of those two failed elections, was even more ecstatic. Apologizing over and over again on the phone for being so emotional, she told me the ballot count was agonizingly slow: Yes, no, no, yes, yes. “I almost had an anxiety attack,” she said. “We put our blood sweat and tears in this plant.”The Volkswagen plant had become a litmus test for the South. After UAW’s union campaigns at the plant were defeated in 2014 and 2019, the popular adage was that labor just couldn’t win here. The country’s media outlets of record united to declare the south a resource pit, a place where labor goes to die. And it’s true that states here are right-to-work, where the power of unions is severely curtailed by legal barriers to organizing and wages overall are far lower than the national average. But as this election shows, the South is home to an energetic homegrown labor movement that’s patient and insistent in the face of a hostile political climate. That, combined with an injection of federal investment in renewable energy industry, is pushing the region towards a very different trajectory than the one imagined by conservative politicians who have opposed these developments.Corporations, and the incredibly wealthy people who run them, have become Republicans’ biggest donors, swaying even more moderate politicians into virulent anti-unionism. That’s trickled down to local politics in places like Chattanooga, where many people lacked unionized family members or much context for the what union membership might mean. “It was just a lot of people who are ambivalent, and just seemed like, I’m not sure, a lot of these guys, you really just needed to give them just a little bit of information, like a little bit of like, Hey, this is what could be possible,” said Zach Costello, a worker who was on the organizing committee. It was often easier to convince people like Berry, whose dad was a union steelworker: she knew it meant healthcare, a pension, higher wages, and job security. They and Gomez fanned the embers, despite Southern politicians over the past few decades doing their best to stamp the spark of the labor movement out.The Volkswagen plant is the first new auto industry union in the South in eighty years, and the only union plant owned by a foreign automaker. “In the nineties, governors began trying to entice foreign auto plants to come to the south,” said Stephen Silvia, a labor economist at American University. “They told auto producers that wages are lower, taxes are lower, land is cheaper, and we cultivate a nonunion environment.”It all began when Tennessee offered Nissan generous incentives to establish a plant in the community of Smyrna. Nissan became the first foothold in a wave of industry relocation to the South, and amongst the state’s owning class, a sign of incoming prosperity. “We’re all gonna be rich!” exclaimed the mayor of Smyrna at the time, according to an account in the Journal of Southern History. In 1989, UAW’s attempts to organize the Nissan plant lost by a two-one margin. The companies’ union-busting playbook—frightening ads that threatened the plant’s closure, captive audience meetings, rhetoric about losing jobs, and offers of competitive pay should the union lose—became the playbook for anti-union campaigns across the region ever since. As unions lost, the auto industry’s landscape tilted southwards, meaning that about half of auto workers now work in nonunion plants, which are mostly located in the Southeast. Before that time, nearly all autoworkers belonged to a union. Auto manufacturers located themselves in rural areas, often establishing racist hiring practices to keep solidarity out of the shop floor. Other industries trickled into the region, too—aviation, tech, chemical manufacturing, and paper products, just to name a few. All made their homes in various states where business came cheap and easy.Climate regulations and the Inflation Reduction Act’s generous incentives are now stimulating electric vehicle manufacturing. Despite the Biden administration’s pro-labor economic agenda, IRA funding—and thus billions of dollars in public and private investment—has largely gone to areas with low union density, spurring worries among auto workers that the EV shift could create a second tier of lower-paid, nonunion workers spearheading the transition to electric vehicles, working in dangerous conditions with flammable elements like lithium.In 2022, Volkswagen broke ground on EV production and assembly; the same year, the Mercedes plant in Tuscaloosa, Alabama—UAW’s next battle, organizers tell me—began manufacturing an electric SUV. In the most recent union contract between UAW and the Big Three automakers, General Motors and Stellantis agreed to allow joint-venture EV manufacturing plants under the union umbrella, and now, Tennessee may be the next step.Since the beginning conversations about reducing dependence on fossil fuels—a necessary transition that nonetheless could have deleterious impacts on workers across steel, coal, oil, auto, and building trades industries—workers have demanded a “just transition”: an energy transition that prevents as much of the workforce as possible from being dislocated, allows for training and opportunity, and provides jobs equal to or better than the ones that came before. Environmental organizations have taken up the demand, too, seeing that a united front for labor rights and environmental justice is more powerful than keeping the two at loggerheads, as right-wing politicians might prefer. A just transition is what workers in the South are demanding as the IRA funds flood in.“We’re seeing a bunch of EV manufacturers come here,” said Michael Adriaanse, “and they should be union.” Adriaanse organizes with the Blue Oval Good Neighbors Committee. In rural, working class Black communities in west Tennessee, this labor and community coalition is mobilizing to bargain with Blue Oval City, a Ford joint venture electric vehicle plant that’s the recipient of the largest public investment the state of Tennessee has ever made, with an added $9.2 billion in funding from the Department of Energy. The VW victory has given workers hope for their efforts to negotiate good jobs and community benefits with the EV industry, he added. But it’s going to be hard won.“Anti-union sentiment across the country is virulent, and laws across the country don’t support unionization,” said Vonda McDaniel, who serves as a part of the Blue Oval coalition and is president of the Middle Tennessee Central Labor Council. Lawmakers in Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama passed bills just this year and last year barring state incentives to companies that voluntarily recognize unions. In 2022, Tennessee enshrined right-to-work into its constitution. The prospect of this election had Southern governors running scared, so much so that the governors of Tennessee, Texas, South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia wrote a joint public condemnation of the union drive. In Alabama, which boasts the seventh highest poverty rate in the country, Governor Kay Ivey lambasted UAW, saying that “the Alabama model for economic success is under attack.” Research has shown that any economic growth in right-to-work states tends to benefit the already wealthy. In its previous attempts to organize Volkswagen, the UAW attempted a top-down strategy, where they tried to simply persuade Volkswagen to recognize the union. The UAW employed a different strategy this time, a bottom-up strategy that truly involved deep organizing in the plant. “This has to be personal, person to person, door to door,” McDaniel said.The simple power of conversations worked for Zach Costello, who found that once people started talking about their conditions, they started flipping themselves more than he really flipped them, often across partisan lines. “You really saw a lot of people you would expect, because of their political leanings, to not really be pro-union,” he said. “But people are ready to throw out culture war crap, when they’re talking about real things that affect them.”McDaniel now hopes national unions—many of which have been wary of investing resources in the region—see the success of this strategy. Currently, state-level politics in the South mean many unions tend to write it off, refusing to engage their resources in what they have seen as a losing battle.Outside the automotive industry, other regional rank-and-file workers and labor organizers see these victories reinvigorating their own long-term struggles for economic and racial justice. While Tennessee is still ranked thirteenth lowest state for union representation, its union membership is the fastest-growing in the country, across all job sectors. UAW’s changing strategy and priorities certainly made the win possible, but so, too, did the genuine exuberance and support of the statewide and Southern labor movement, which has been chipping away at poor working conditions, workplace inequality, and depressed wages for two hundred years—through the end of slavery, through miners’ rebellions and textile strikes, through Black sharecroppers’ uprisings, and the Memphis garbage collectors’ strike that saw Martin Luther King’s final speech. Workers in Tennessee say they’ve been working for this kind of breakthrough.“Something feels different in Tennessee,” said Bobbi Lyn Negrón, a public school teacher and member of the Metropolitan Nashville Educators Association, which won a fight against school privatization only this week. “But we still have workers across the South that have been resisting.” Negrón listed a few fights off the top of her head: Memphis fragrance factory workers who’ve been on strike; an active campus workers’ union in the eastern part of the state that’s won repeated graduate stipend raises. Amid a dispiritingly anti-labor state political climate, this feels like a moment of true possibility. “We have a saying in Spanish, ‘like candela’,” Negrón said, “meaning the fire in us is going to ignite.”

Angel Gomez, a second-shift underbody mechanic at the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, was on the line when United Auto Workers won the factory union election. “I heard hollering,” said Gomez, as the news broke through the shop floor on Thursday, April 18. “There were people who’d been trying to do this for fourteen years, they’ve been putting in the work through all these failed elections, and finally they got it. It was a good feeling.”Renee Berry, 58 years old and a veteran of those two failed elections, was even more ecstatic. Apologizing over and over again on the phone for being so emotional, she told me the ballot count was agonizingly slow: Yes, no, no, yes, yes. “I almost had an anxiety attack,” she said. “We put our blood sweat and tears in this plant.”The Volkswagen plant had become a litmus test for the South. After UAW’s union campaigns at the plant were defeated in 2014 and 2019, the popular adage was that labor just couldn’t win here. The country’s media outlets of record united to declare the south a resource pit, a place where labor goes to die. And it’s true that states here are right-to-work, where the power of unions is severely curtailed by legal barriers to organizing and wages overall are far lower than the national average. But as this election shows, the South is home to an energetic homegrown labor movement that’s patient and insistent in the face of a hostile political climate. That, combined with an injection of federal investment in renewable energy industry, is pushing the region towards a very different trajectory than the one imagined by conservative politicians who have opposed these developments.Corporations, and the incredibly wealthy people who run them, have become Republicans’ biggest donors, swaying even more moderate politicians into virulent anti-unionism. That’s trickled down to local politics in places like Chattanooga, where many people lacked unionized family members or much context for the what union membership might mean. “It was just a lot of people who are ambivalent, and just seemed like, I’m not sure, a lot of these guys, you really just needed to give them just a little bit of information, like a little bit of like, Hey, this is what could be possible,” said Zach Costello, a worker who was on the organizing committee. It was often easier to convince people like Berry, whose dad was a union steelworker: she knew it meant healthcare, a pension, higher wages, and job security. They and Gomez fanned the embers, despite Southern politicians over the past few decades doing their best to stamp the spark of the labor movement out.The Volkswagen plant is the first new auto industry union in the South in eighty years, and the only union plant owned by a foreign automaker. “In the nineties, governors began trying to entice foreign auto plants to come to the south,” said Stephen Silvia, a labor economist at American University. “They told auto producers that wages are lower, taxes are lower, land is cheaper, and we cultivate a nonunion environment.”It all began when Tennessee offered Nissan generous incentives to establish a plant in the community of Smyrna. Nissan became the first foothold in a wave of industry relocation to the South, and amongst the state’s owning class, a sign of incoming prosperity. “We’re all gonna be rich!” exclaimed the mayor of Smyrna at the time, according to an account in the Journal of Southern History. In 1989, UAW’s attempts to organize the Nissan plant lost by a two-one margin. The companies’ union-busting playbook—frightening ads that threatened the plant’s closure, captive audience meetings, rhetoric about losing jobs, and offers of competitive pay should the union lose—became the playbook for anti-union campaigns across the region ever since. As unions lost, the auto industry’s landscape tilted southwards, meaning that about half of auto workers now work in nonunion plants, which are mostly located in the Southeast. Before that time, nearly all autoworkers belonged to a union. Auto manufacturers located themselves in rural areas, often establishing racist hiring practices to keep solidarity out of the shop floor. Other industries trickled into the region, too—aviation, tech, chemical manufacturing, and paper products, just to name a few. All made their homes in various states where business came cheap and easy.Climate regulations and the Inflation Reduction Act’s generous incentives are now stimulating electric vehicle manufacturing. Despite the Biden administration’s pro-labor economic agenda, IRA funding—and thus billions of dollars in public and private investment—has largely gone to areas with low union density, spurring worries among auto workers that the EV shift could create a second tier of lower-paid, nonunion workers spearheading the transition to electric vehicles, working in dangerous conditions with flammable elements like lithium.In 2022, Volkswagen broke ground on EV production and assembly; the same year, the Mercedes plant in Tuscaloosa, Alabama—UAW’s next battle, organizers tell me—began manufacturing an electric SUV. In the most recent union contract between UAW and the Big Three automakers, General Motors and Stellantis agreed to allow joint-venture EV manufacturing plants under the union umbrella, and now, Tennessee may be the next step.Since the beginning conversations about reducing dependence on fossil fuels—a necessary transition that nonetheless could have deleterious impacts on workers across steel, coal, oil, auto, and building trades industries—workers have demanded a “just transition”: an energy transition that prevents as much of the workforce as possible from being dislocated, allows for training and opportunity, and provides jobs equal to or better than the ones that came before. Environmental organizations have taken up the demand, too, seeing that a united front for labor rights and environmental justice is more powerful than keeping the two at loggerheads, as right-wing politicians might prefer. A just transition is what workers in the South are demanding as the IRA funds flood in.“We’re seeing a bunch of EV manufacturers come here,” said Michael Adriaanse, “and they should be union.” Adriaanse organizes with the Blue Oval Good Neighbors Committee. In rural, working class Black communities in west Tennessee, this labor and community coalition is mobilizing to bargain with Blue Oval City, a Ford joint venture electric vehicle plant that’s the recipient of the largest public investment the state of Tennessee has ever made, with an added $9.2 billion in funding from the Department of Energy. The VW victory has given workers hope for their efforts to negotiate good jobs and community benefits with the EV industry, he added. But it’s going to be hard won.“Anti-union sentiment across the country is virulent, and laws across the country don’t support unionization,” said Vonda McDaniel, who serves as a part of the Blue Oval coalition and is president of the Middle Tennessee Central Labor Council. Lawmakers in Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama passed bills just this year and last year barring state incentives to companies that voluntarily recognize unions. In 2022, Tennessee enshrined right-to-work into its constitution. The prospect of this election had Southern governors running scared, so much so that the governors of Tennessee, Texas, South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia wrote a joint public condemnation of the union drive. In Alabama, which boasts the seventh highest poverty rate in the country, Governor Kay Ivey lambasted UAW, saying that “the Alabama model for economic success is under attack.” Research has shown that any economic growth in right-to-work states tends to benefit the already wealthy. In its previous attempts to organize Volkswagen, the UAW attempted a top-down strategy, where they tried to simply persuade Volkswagen to recognize the union. The UAW employed a different strategy this time, a bottom-up strategy that truly involved deep organizing in the plant. “This has to be personal, person to person, door to door,” McDaniel said.The simple power of conversations worked for Zach Costello, who found that once people started talking about their conditions, they started flipping themselves more than he really flipped them, often across partisan lines. “You really saw a lot of people you would expect, because of their political leanings, to not really be pro-union,” he said. “But people are ready to throw out culture war crap, when they’re talking about real things that affect them.”McDaniel now hopes national unions—many of which have been wary of investing resources in the region—see the success of this strategy. Currently, state-level politics in the South mean many unions tend to write it off, refusing to engage their resources in what they have seen as a losing battle.Outside the automotive industry, other regional rank-and-file workers and labor organizers see these victories reinvigorating their own long-term struggles for economic and racial justice. While Tennessee is still ranked thirteenth lowest state for union representation, its union membership is the fastest-growing in the country, across all job sectors. UAW’s changing strategy and priorities certainly made the win possible, but so, too, did the genuine exuberance and support of the statewide and Southern labor movement, which has been chipping away at poor working conditions, workplace inequality, and depressed wages for two hundred years—through the end of slavery, through miners’ rebellions and textile strikes, through Black sharecroppers’ uprisings, and the Memphis garbage collectors’ strike that saw Martin Luther King’s final speech. Workers in Tennessee say they’ve been working for this kind of breakthrough.“Something feels different in Tennessee,” said Bobbi Lyn Negrón, a public school teacher and member of the Metropolitan Nashville Educators Association, which won a fight against school privatization only this week. “But we still have workers across the South that have been resisting.” Negrón listed a few fights off the top of her head: Memphis fragrance factory workers who’ve been on strike; an active campus workers’ union in the eastern part of the state that’s won repeated graduate stipend raises. Amid a dispiritingly anti-labor state political climate, this feels like a moment of true possibility. “We have a saying in Spanish, ‘like candela’,” Negrón said, “meaning the fire in us is going to ignite.”

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.