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.

A plan to change your utility rates is dividing California environmentalists. Here’s why

News Feed
Friday, April 19, 2024

In summary The California Public Utilities Commission will consider on May 9 a new proposal that would change how Californians pay for electricity. On May 9, the California Public Utilities Commission is scheduled to vote on whether to let the state’s largest power providers slap most customers with a new fixed charge. Think of it like paying for a subscription service, except instead of forking over a monthly fee to watch old Friends episodes, this one lets you enjoy the comforts of 20th century living.  Also,according to the proposed rule, the utilities will be required to lower the rate we all pay for each unit of power we consume.   On average, electric bills won’t go up or down, but most households aren’t exactly average. Under the proposed change, people who use less electricity will pay a bit more as a result of the fee, while those who rack up large power bills will save thanks to the lower usage rates. The basic idea isn’t novel, even if it’s wildly controversial here in California; Most utilities across the country already collect fixed charges. But this proposed regulation comes with a distinctly California twist: The fixed charges would vary by income, with higher earners paying a $24 fee and lower-income households paying either $6 or $12. The proposed charges are significantly less steep than ones proposed by the utilities themselves last spring, which topped out at $128 per month for the highest earners. But with a national average of roughly $11 per month, the $24 fee under consideration is still on the high end. Though most households will be compensated, at least partially, through lower rates, that sticker shock has engendered plenty of political outrage. Republicans don’t like it because the income-varying nature of the charge smacks of a progressive income tax. Many Democrats have lambasted the idea, too, because the lower volumetric rates will water down the incentive to mind one’s electric usage. The utilities say they need some kind of fixed charge to help pay down wildfire and other rising fixed costs. “Those who consume more electricity, such as a single family home with (a) pool, will receive a discount at the expense of a low electricity user, such as an apartment renter,” wrote Jacqui Irwin, an Assemblymember from Thousand Oaks, along with 21 of her fellow Democratic colleagues last fall.  Irwin is also the lead author of a bill that would put a tight lid on fixed charges, capping them at $10 for most customers and $5 for those enrolled in the state’s biggest energy assistance program. What makes the debate especially unusual is where some of the state’s most influential environmental interests have come down on the proposal. Namely, on both sides. The Natural Resources Defense Council is for it. Environment California is against it. The Sierra Club called it a “mixed bag.”  Once upon a time, environmental interests shared a united view about the best way to make use of the grid: The less the better.  Now, depending on which green activist you ask, the regulatory proposal is either a utility-backed break from the state’s long, eco-conscious tradition of encouraging energy conservation, or a necessary first step toward electrifying our homes and vehicles for the sake of the planet’s future.  “Ten years ago, even, the grid was mostly powered by fossil fuels,” said Mohit Chhabra, an analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which backs the proposed change. “The question now, as the grid gets cleaner, is ‘When should you use more?’”  As the commission prepares for its vote early next month, the debate is the latest sign that the changing economics of electricity generation in California are beginning to upend the traditional politics of the grid as well. The case for a fixed charge The origin of the current debate dates back to at least 2021 when three UC Berkeley energy economists published a report on what’s wrong with California’s electricity prices. The report is heavy on jargon, but the gist is simple: Rates are just way too high.  Severin Borenstein, one of the report’s authors, said that isn’t a populist argument; it’s an economic and environmental one. Providing energy through the state’s increasingly solar- and wind-saturated electric grid is not only cheaper, but vastly more environmentally friendly than getting an equivalent amount of energy by burning gasoline or methane.  But because California has some of the highest retail electric rates in the country, “the cost of fueling my Prius at a gas station is about the cost of fueling a Tesla — and it shouldn’t be,” he said. “We are sending entirely the wrong price signals and it’s undermining decarbonisation.” The reason for the gap between the price California households pay and the actual cost of producing the energy, Borenstein argues, is that many of the costs that large utilities face — costs that have nothing to do with actually producing electricity — are larded onto the rates we pay per kilowatt hour. Those costs include paying off wildfire-related lawsuits, investments intended to ward off future fires, rebates for lower-income customers, electric vehicle charging stations, payments to customers with rooftop solar panels and upkeep of the grid itself. The utilities say they need some kind of fixed charge to help pay down wildfire and other rising fixed costs. The best way to pay for many of these costs would be out of the state budget, Borenstein argues — a political nonstarter. The report suggested an alternative: Cut rates and make up the difference with a fixed charge on every electric bill. Better yet, for the sake of fairness, make the fixed-charge vary by household income — an income tax of sorts, but paid monthly to the utilities.  Customers would still be on the hook, the argument goes, but at least bills would do less to discourage Californians from buying electric cars and induction stoves.  The next year Gov. Gavin Newsom’s revised budget proposal included language that would let the state’s utility regulator do just that. An income-graduated fixed charge, the budget document read, would “enable creation of better price signals that will enhance widespread electrification efforts.”  A month later, that measure was tucked in a 21,000-word budget bill with little public discussion. It wasn’t until late last year, after the public utility commission began soliciting feedback on the proposal it had been tasked by the Legislature to come up with, that legislators began sounding the alarm and introducing new legislation to reverse course. Newsom’s office declined to comment on the current legislation. But in January, a spokesperson for the administration told reporters that the governor “looks forward to seeing a commission proposal that is consistent” with the 2022 budget bill language Electrification vs. conservation It’s not a coincidence that utilities in eco-conscious, politically blue California are rare among the nation’s power providers in doing without fixed charges. Sticking high energy users, believed to be higher income households, with more of the bill has always appeared to align with the state’s economically progressive bent. Charging more per unit of electricity also promotes energy efficiency.  Environmental advocates who oppose the change aren’t keen on lessening the current financial penalty for being an energy hog.  “It’s going to have this perverse impact of incentivizing wasting energy, encouraging people to buy the biggest car, the biggest house, leaving the lights on,” said Laura Deehan, state director of Environment California, at a digital press conference on Tuesday. The change would also further discourage the uptake of rooftop solar panels, she warned. It’s already been a punishing few years for the rooftop solar industry in California. In 2022, the public utilities commission cut the payment that panel owners receive for the excess energy they pipe back onto the grid. By lowering the per-unit cost of electricity that panel owners forgo, this year’s change would further chip away at the benefit of going solar, while also sticking those households with an unavoidable monthly fee. “High fixed charges pick winners and losers,” explained Bernadette Del Chiaro, executive director of the California Solar & Storage Association, in an email. “The winners are high energy users. The losers are low energy users. Adding solar and batteries to your home can also make you a low energy user. So, yes, we have a dog in the fight.”   “But the numbers of non-solar users impacted by this are much larger,” she said. Winners and losers Who those affected customers are is its own spirited debate. The biggest losers will be middle income households who just miss the cut-off for a discount and who currently have small energy bills. The biggest winners will be the biggest users.  “High usage customers tend to be wealthier people who can afford to pay these energy bills,“ said Josh Plaisted, founder of the engineering and regulator consulting firm Flagstaff Research, which conducted analysis of the proposed change for the Clean Coalition, a nonprofit that promotes policies that support rooftop solar, microgrids and other non-utility-based energy systems. Under the fixed charge proposal, “a home with a backyard pool in Walnut Creek is rocking it,” he said. Supporters counter that while higher income households do tend to use more energy, the relationship isn’t as consistent as one might think.  Of all the things that determine whether a house uses a lot of energy or a little, income isn’t as important as local climate, household size and the efficiency of the building, said Chhabra. Wealthier families are more likely to have better insulated homes, solar panels on their roofs and live in expensive coastal cities, all of which tend to result in lower electric bills. “Once you start looking through the details, a generic assumption like that just doesn’t hold,” he said. The CPUC estimates that a typical household that goes fully electric would save between $12 and $19 per month on their electric bill as a result of the new rate change. For now the debate may be more symbolic than meaningful. While the biggest winners and losers under the proposed policy stand to see their yearly utility spending change by a few hundred dollars, both supporters and opponents concede that most customers will fall somewhere in the middle. Many may not even notice the change. Meanwhile, the change won’t affect commercial or industrial customers at all. That’s not enough to break the bank for most, but nor is it likely to make the difference for a household weighing a gas versus an electric hot water heater. “Connecting the fixed charge with ‘this enables electrification’ just rings hollow,” said Plaisted.  The CPUC estimates that a typical household that goes fully electric — swapping out its gas-powered space and water heaters, its oven and its dryer with grid-powered alternatives — would save between $12 and $19 per month on their electric bill as a result of the new rate change. Chhabra argued that the effect that a reduced rate will have on conservation is also likely to be negligible. California’s electric prices are“ still the highest in the country, save Hawaii, right?” he said. “So there’s still enough signal there.” But as California continues its campaign to wean itself off fossil fuels, the divide among environmental advocates and other members of the Democratic coalition who shape state energy policy isn’t likely to go away anytime soon. “We are trying to balance conservation, efficiency, electrification and fairness,” said Chhabra. “And you can’t give the best thing for everything all at once.”

The California Public Utilities Commission will consider on May 9 a new proposal that would change how Californians pay for electricity.

In summary

The California Public Utilities Commission will consider on May 9 a new proposal that would change how Californians pay for electricity.

On May 9, the California Public Utilities Commission is scheduled to vote on whether to let the state’s largest power providers slap most customers with a new fixed charge. Think of it like paying for a subscription service, except instead of forking over a monthly fee to watch old Friends episodes, this one lets you enjoy the comforts of 20th century living. 

Also,according to the proposed rule, the utilities will be required to lower the rate we all pay for each unit of power we consume.  

On average, electric bills won’t go up or down, but most households aren’t exactly average. Under the proposed change, people who use less electricity will pay a bit more as a result of the fee, while those who rack up large power bills will save thanks to the lower usage rates.

The basic idea isn’t novel, even if it’s wildly controversial here in California; Most utilities across the country already collect fixed charges. But this proposed regulation comes with a distinctly California twist: The fixed charges would vary by income, with higher earners paying a $24 fee and lower-income households paying either $6 or $12.

The proposed charges are significantly less steep than ones proposed by the utilities themselves last spring, which topped out at $128 per month for the highest earners. But with a national average of roughly $11 per month, the $24 fee under consideration is still on the high end. Though most households will be compensated, at least partially, through lower rates, that sticker shock has engendered plenty of political outrage.

Republicans don’t like it because the income-varying nature of the charge smacks of a progressive income tax. Many Democrats have lambasted the idea, too, because the lower volumetric rates will water down the incentive to mind one’s electric usage. The utilities say they need some kind of fixed charge to help pay down wildfire and other rising fixed costs.

“Those who consume more electricity, such as a single family home with (a) pool, will receive a discount at the expense of a low electricity user, such as an apartment renter,” wrote Jacqui Irwin, an Assemblymember from Thousand Oaks, along with 21 of her fellow Democratic colleagues last fall. 

Irwin is also the lead author of a bill that would put a tight lid on fixed charges, capping them at $10 for most customers and $5 for those enrolled in the state’s biggest energy assistance program.

What makes the debate especially unusual is where some of the state’s most influential environmental interests have come down on the proposal. Namely, on both sides. The Natural Resources Defense Council is for it. Environment California is against it. The Sierra Club called it a “mixed bag.” 

Once upon a time, environmental interests shared a united view about the best way to make use of the grid: The less the better. 

Now, depending on which green activist you ask, the regulatory proposal is either a utility-backed break from the state’s long, eco-conscious tradition of encouraging energy conservation, or a necessary first step toward electrifying our homes and vehicles for the sake of the planet’s future. 

“Ten years ago, even, the grid was mostly powered by fossil fuels,” said Mohit Chhabra, an analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which backs the proposed change. “The question now, as the grid gets cleaner, is ‘When should you use more?’” 

As the commission prepares for its vote early next month, the debate is the latest sign that the changing economics of electricity generation in California are beginning to upend the traditional politics of the grid as well.

The case for a fixed charge

The origin of the current debate dates back to at least 2021 when three UC Berkeley energy economists published a report on what’s wrong with California’s electricity prices.

The report is heavy on jargon, but the gist is simple: Rates are just way too high. 

Severin Borenstein, one of the report’s authors, said that isn’t a populist argument; it’s an economic and environmental one. Providing energy through the state’s increasingly solar- and wind-saturated electric grid is not only cheaper, but vastly more environmentally friendly than getting an equivalent amount of energy by burning gasoline or methane. 

But because California has some of the highest retail electric rates in the country, “the cost of fueling my Prius at a gas station is about the cost of fueling a Tesla — and it shouldn’t be,” he said. “We are sending entirely the wrong price signals and it’s undermining decarbonisation.”

The reason for the gap between the price California households pay and the actual cost of producing the energy, Borenstein argues, is that many of the costs that large utilities face — costs that have nothing to do with actually producing electricity — are larded onto the rates we pay per kilowatt hour. Those costs include paying off wildfire-related lawsuits, investments intended to ward off future fires, rebates for lower-income customers, electric vehicle charging stations, payments to customers with rooftop solar panels and upkeep of the grid itself.

The utilities say they need some kind of fixed charge to help pay down wildfire and other rising fixed costs.

The best way to pay for many of these costs would be out of the state budget, Borenstein argues — a political nonstarter. The report suggested an alternative: Cut rates and make up the difference with a fixed charge on every electric bill. Better yet, for the sake of fairness, make the fixed-charge vary by household income — an income tax of sorts, but paid monthly to the utilities. 

Customers would still be on the hook, the argument goes, but at least bills would do less to discourage Californians from buying electric cars and induction stoves. 

The next year Gov. Gavin Newsom’s revised budget proposal included language that would let the state’s utility regulator do just that. An income-graduated fixed charge, the budget document read, would “enable creation of better price signals that will enhance widespread electrification efforts.” 

A month later, that measure was tucked in a 21,000-word budget bill with little public discussion. It wasn’t until late last year, after the public utility commission began soliciting feedback on the proposal it had been tasked by the Legislature to come up with, that legislators began sounding the alarm and introducing new legislation to reverse course.

Newsom’s office declined to comment on the current legislation. But in January, a spokesperson for the administration told reporters that the governor “looks forward to seeing a commission proposal that is consistent” with the 2022 budget bill language

Electrification vs. conservation

It’s not a coincidence that utilities in eco-conscious, politically blue California are rare among the nation’s power providers in doing without fixed charges. Sticking high energy users, believed to be higher income households, with more of the bill has always appeared to align with the state’s economically progressive bent. Charging more per unit of electricity also promotes energy efficiency. 

Environmental advocates who oppose the change aren’t keen on lessening the current financial penalty for being an energy hog. 

“It’s going to have this perverse impact of incentivizing wasting energy, encouraging people to buy the biggest car, the biggest house, leaving the lights on,” said Laura Deehan, state director of Environment California, at a digital press conference on Tuesday. The change would also further discourage the uptake of rooftop solar panels, she warned.

It’s already been a punishing few years for the rooftop solar industry in California. In 2022, the public utilities commission cut the payment that panel owners receive for the excess energy they pipe back onto the grid. By lowering the per-unit cost of electricity that panel owners forgo, this year’s change would further chip away at the benefit of going solar, while also sticking those households with an unavoidable monthly fee.

“High fixed charges pick winners and losers,” explained Bernadette Del Chiaro, executive director of the California Solar & Storage Association, in an email. “The winners are high energy users. The losers are low energy users. Adding solar and batteries to your home can also make you a low energy user. So, yes, we have a dog in the fight.”  

“But the numbers of non-solar users impacted by this are much larger,” she said.

Winners and losers

Who those affected customers are is its own spirited debate. The biggest losers will be middle income households who just miss the cut-off for a discount and who currently have small energy bills. The biggest winners will be the biggest users. 

“High usage customers tend to be wealthier people who can afford to pay these energy bills,“ said Josh Plaisted, founder of the engineering and regulator consulting firm Flagstaff Research, which conducted analysis of the proposed change for the Clean Coalition, a nonprofit that promotes policies that support rooftop solar, microgrids and other non-utility-based energy systems.

Under the fixed charge proposal, “a home with a backyard pool in Walnut Creek is rocking it,” he said.

Supporters counter that while higher income households do tend to use more energy, the relationship isn’t as consistent as one might think

Of all the things that determine whether a house uses a lot of energy or a little, income isn’t as important as local climate, household size and the efficiency of the building, said Chhabra. Wealthier families are more likely to have better insulated homes, solar panels on their roofs and live in expensive coastal cities, all of which tend to result in lower electric bills.

“Once you start looking through the details, a generic assumption like that just doesn’t hold,” he said.

The CPUC estimates that a typical household that goes fully electric would save between $12 and $19 per month on their electric bill as a result of the new rate change.

For now the debate may be more symbolic than meaningful. While the biggest winners and losers under the proposed policy stand to see their yearly utility spending change by a few hundred dollars, both supporters and opponents concede that most customers will fall somewhere in the middle. Many may not even notice the change. Meanwhile, the change won’t affect commercial or industrial customers at all.

That’s not enough to break the bank for most, but nor is it likely to make the difference for a household weighing a gas versus an electric hot water heater. “Connecting the fixed charge with ‘this enables electrification’ just rings hollow,” said Plaisted. 

The CPUC estimates that a typical household that goes fully electric — swapping out its gas-powered space and water heaters, its oven and its dryer with grid-powered alternatives — would save between $12 and $19 per month on their electric bill as a result of the new rate change.

Chhabra argued that the effect that a reduced rate will have on conservation is also likely to be negligible. California’s electric prices are“ still the highest in the country, save Hawaii, right?” he said. “So there’s still enough signal there.”

But as California continues its campaign to wean itself off fossil fuels, the divide among environmental advocates and other members of the Democratic coalition who shape state energy policy isn’t likely to go away anytime soon.

“We are trying to balance conservation, efficiency, electrification and fairness,” said Chhabra. “And you can’t give the best thing for everything all at once.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Freedom of Voice: A Newcomer’s Guide to Safe and Effective Protesting

How to participate in causes you believe in — in a manner that will be noticed, respected, and heard. The post Freedom of Voice: A Newcomer’s Guide to Safe and Effective Protesting appeared first on The Revelator.

The “No Kings” protests in June drew an estimated 4-6 million people to more than 2,000 events around the country — making it one of the largest protest turnouts in history. Many attendees interviewed during “No Kings” revealed that they had never attended a protest before. This continues two trends we’ve seen since the Women’s March in 2017: More and more people are protesting, and every event is someone’s first protest. Environmental causes have been a big part of this. The 2019 Global Climate Strike was the largest climate protest to date. And a recent survey found that 1 in 10 people in the United States attended environmental protests between June 2022 and June 2023. But protesting for the planet (or against oppressive government actions) poses risks that newcomers should understand. Protesting itself can be physically demanding. Meanwhile, legislatures around the country (and the world) have taken steps to criminalize protest, and right-wing agitators have increasingly used violence to harm or intimidate protestors. With all of that in mind, The Revelator has launched a multipart series on protest safety, especially geared toward first-timers. After all, it’s going to be a long, hot summer for environmental advocates seeking to make their voices heard in public across America and the globe. Before the Protest Are there meetings, including virtual meetings, from the organizing entity? Attend if you can; they’ll help you to understand the specific protest messaging so everyone is on the same page before the protest. Learn if there’s a check-in process: Will there be signs, T-shirts, hats, or other identifying items to receive while registering or when you show up for this protest? Make sure you sign up for text lists and other communications in case of inclement weather, parking issues, and other last-minute changes for the location and presentation of the protest. Know who to contact and what to do if you run into trouble while protesting. Decide how you’re getting there (in an eco-friendly way, if possible): Find out if public transportation or carpools are available, or organize your own rideshares. What to Bring to a Protest — and What NOT to Bring Plan ahead: Bring the right supplies for a day of protesting. What to Bring: A backpack and belt bag that are durable and not bulky. The belt pack keeps your hands free. Comfortable, quality walking shoes. This is non-negotiable. Wear closed-toe shoes that are broken-in and for walking long distances. Protest signs that clearly display your message in big, bold letters and can be easily read from far away. Make sure your signs are made with sturdy, bright, durable boards, with a comfortable handle. Short messages are better than a block of text. Stay hydrated. Bring a lot of water — which may also prove useful for clearing eyes and face of tear gas and pepper spray. (Milk has been disproven as tear-gas relief.) Lightweight, nutritious, protein-rich snacks: energy bars, nuts, etc. A face mask and safety goggles for smoke and tear gas. These can also hide your identity from cameras and police surveillance. A hat, sunglasses, jacket, umbrella…Clothing should be appropriate for changing weather conditions and can perform double duty as cover for any identifying skin markings. These items can also obscure your face from facial recognition technology. A change of clothes (just in case). Hand sanitizer and wipes. A first-aid kit if the organization does not provide a medical station or personnel that can be easily identified as first aid providers in the crowd. Your ID in case you’re detained. Your phone. (Essential for staying connected, but digital privacy may be a concern. See our resources section below for some guidance.) A power bank to charge devices. Other items might include a cooling towel; flashlight or headlamp; and a lanyard with a list of emergency contacts, medical conditions and medications. Things Not to Bring for a Demonstration: Alcohol or drugs. Spray paint. Firearms, knives, mace, pepper spray, tasers or weapons of any sort, even items that might be construed as weapons (such as a small Swiss army knife, metal eating utensils, etc.). Firecrackers or fireworks or anything explosive. Flammable liquids. Flares and smoke bombs. Torches (flashlights are okay). While You’re at the Protest The late civil rights icon John Lewis said, “Get in good trouble, necessary trouble,” encouraging people to challenge the status quo. Do: engage in group activities, meet and greet people. This is a great opportunity to forge friendships behind a greater cause, and for future protests or community organizing. Help those around you. Study your surroundings and people around you. Stay alert and be aware of the people in your group: Is there someone who has joined the demonstration who seems too aggressive and appears to be carrying firearms, weapons, and other tools of violence? If you get triggered and feel overly emotional with what’s happening, take that as your cue to head home. Empirical research shows that the most effective protests are non-violent. Political scientist Omar Wasow saw this in a study of the 1960s U.S. Civil Rights movement, finding that when protesters were violent, it prompted news stories focused on crime and disorder, and lent more sympathy to the opposition, who then become viewed as promoting law and order. In contrast, peaceful demonstrations that are violently repressed by the state make media coverage sympathetic to the protesters and strengthen peaceful movements. Remember that you’re not protesting in a vacuum. Don’t take actions that feed the opposition news media. Your behavior, attire, and reactions to provocative actions by the opposition and the police, National Guard, or military could be recorded by smart phones or the media, especially social media. Assume you’re being watched and that your words are being listened to. Don’t taunt or antagonize the opposition and de-escalate any confrontations that are becoming heated or aggressive. Stay calm and focused. Don’t rise to the bait of police or military force. Don’t throw things at them. Be passive but firm in your presentation. If you are arrested, don’t struggle or fight. Be polite and compliant — and the only word coming from your mouth should be, “lawyer.” Staying calm and respectful can be challenging when participating in a protest demonstration. Emotions run high, especially in the hot summer months. However, being a “peaceful protester” with resolute calm and dignity makes a greater impression on the public, many of whom sit on the fence about current issues and events. These are people who may be getting inaccurate information and have become dismissive of our endeavors as “unserious” activism. Screaming, yelling, and deriding don’t win them over but reinforce their opinion of us as obnoxious troublemakers. Opposition media outlets will cherry-pick video footage of “bad actors” and edit these bits of footage in loops that will play constantly in the media. As a result, your protest message will be ignored over the more inflammatory messaging about your cause. Coming Up: This series will continue with a look at the history of peaceful protesting and tips on how to organize a protest. And we want to hear from you. What questions do you have about protesting? What advice would you share? Send your comments, suggestions, questions, or even brief essays to comments@therevelator.org. Sources and Resources: Summer of Change: New Books to Inspire Environmental Action The Activist Handbook and other sources below provide practical guides and resources so you can plan your demonstration successfully. Indivisible  and No Kings offer training and education on protesting safely and effectively, as well as new and upcoming protest events. The Human Rights Campaign: Tips for Preparedness, Peaceful Protesting, and Safety ACLU Guide: How to Protest Safely and Responsibly Amnesty International Protest Guide Wired: How to Protest Safely: What to Bring, What to Do, and What to Avoid Infosec 101 for Activists “The New Science of Social Change: A Modern Handbook for Activists”  by Lisa Mueller “Agenda Seeding: How 1960s Black Protests Moved Elites, Public Opinion and Voting”  by Omar Wasow “Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha)”  by M. K. Gandhi Republish this article for free! Read our reprint policy. Previously in The Revelator: Saving America’s National Parks and Forests Means Shaking Off the Rust of Inaction The post Freedom of Voice: A Newcomer’s Guide to Safe and Effective Protesting appeared first on The Revelator.

Summer of Change: New Books to Inspire Environmental Action

America’s summer celebrations are upon us, and these eight books will inspire environmentalists to act for our country and our planet. The post Summer of Change: New Books to Inspire Environmental Action appeared first on The Revelator.

“A patriot…wants the nation to live up to its ideals, which means asking us to be our best selves. A patriot must be concerned with the real world, which is the only place where their country can be loved and sustained. The patriot has universal values, standards by which they judge their nation, always wishing it well — and wishing that it would do better.” — Timothy Snyder, On Tyranny It’s the summer season: Barbeques are firing up, the stars and stripes are in view, and people are preparing to make a difference in the second half of the year. As we look to the “patriotic threesome” of holidays celebrated across the United States — Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, and Labor Day — it’s a good time to ask how you’ll show your patriotism for the planet. It’s especially important this year, given the current wave of misappropriation and compromises facing our natural lands and resources. Eight new environmental books might offer you some ideas on how to accomplish that. They offer ideas for getting involved in politics, improving your activism, and making important changes in your homes and communities. We’ve excerpted the books’ official descriptions below and provided links to the publishers’ sites, but you should also be able to find these books in a variety of formats through your local bookstore or library. Tools to Save Our Home Planet: A Changemaker’s Guidebook edited by Nick Mucha, Jessica Flint, and Patrick Thomas The need for activism is more urgent than ever before and the risks are greater, too. Safe and effective activism has always required smart strategic planning, clear goals and creative tactics, and careful and detailed preparation. Without these, activists can end up injured, penalized, or jailed. If anything, these risks are greater today as powerful forces in government and industry resist the big changes needed to slow the climate crisis and keep Earth livable for generations to come. Tools to Save Our Home Planet: A Changemaker’s Guidebook reflects the wisdom and best advice from activists working in today’s volatile world. A go-to resource for driving change, it offers timely and relevant insights for purpose-aligned work. It is intended as a primer for those new to activism and a refresher for seasoned activists wanting to learn from their peers, a reassuring and inspirational companion to the environmental and justice movements that we desperately need as a society. When We’re in Charge: The Next Generation’s Guide to Leadership by Amanda Litman Most leadership books treat millennials and Gen Z like nuisances, focusing on older leadership constructs. Not this one. When We’re in Charge is a no-bullshit guide for the next generation of leaders on how to show up differently, break the cycle of the existing workplace. This book is a vital resource for new leaders trying to figure out how to get stuff done without drama. Offering solutions for today’s challenges, Litman offers arguments for the four-day workweek, why transparency is a powerful tool, and why it matters for you to both provide and take family leave. A necessary read for all who occupy or aspire to leadership roles, this book is a vision for a future where leaders at work are compassionate, genuine, and effective. Scientists on Survival: Personal Stories of Climate Action by Scientists for XR In this important and timely book, scientists from a broad range of disciplines detail their personal responses to climate change and the ecological crises that led them to form Scientists for XR [Extinction Rebellion] and work tirelessly within it. Whether their inspiration comes from education or activism, family ties or the work environment, the scientists writing here record what drives them, what non-violent direct action looks like to them, what led them to become interested in the environmental crisis that threatens us all, and what they see as the future of life on Earth. Public Land and Democracy in America: Understanding Conflict over Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument by Julie Brugger Public Land and Democracy in America brings into focus the perspectives of a variety of groups affected by conflict over the monument, including residents of adjacent communities, ranchers, federal land management agency employees, and environmentalists. In the process of following management disputes at the monument over the years, Brugger considers how conceptions of democracy have shaped and been shaped by the regional landscape and by these disputes. Through this ethnographic evidence, Brugger proposes a concept of democracy that encompasses disparate meanings and experiences, embraces conflict, and suggests a crucial role for public lands in transforming antagonism into agonism. The State of Conservation: Rural America and the Conservation-Industrial Complex since 1920 by Joshua Nygren In the twentieth century, natural resource conservation emerged as a vital force in U.S. politics, laying the groundwork for present-day sustainability. Merging environmental, agricultural, and political history, Nygren examines the political economy and ecology of agricultural conservation through the lens of the “conservation-industrial complex.” This evolving public-private network — which united the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Congress, local and national organizations, and the agricultural industry — guided soil and water conservation in rural America for much of the century. Contrary to the classic tales of U.S. environmental politics and the rise and fall of the New Deal Order, this book emphasizes continuity. Nygren demonstrates how the conservation policies, programs, and partnerships of the 1930s and 1940s persisted through the age of environmentalism, and how their defining traits anticipated those typically associated with late twentieth-century political culture. Too Late to Awaken: What Lies Ahead When There Is No Future by Slavoj Žižek We hear all the time that we’re moments from doomsday. Around us, crises interlock and escalate, threatening our collective survival: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with its rising risk of nuclear warfare, is taking place against a backdrop of global warming, ecological breakdown, and widespread social and economic unrest. Protestors and politicians repeatedly call for action, but still we continue to drift towards disaster. We need to do something. But what if the only way for us to prevent catastrophe is to assume that it has already happened — to accept that we’re already five minutes past zero hour? Too Late to Awaken sees Slavoj Žižek forge a vital new space for a radical emancipatory politics that could avert our course to self-destruction. He illuminates why the liberal Left has so far failed to offer this alternative, and exposes the insidious propagandism of the fascist Right, which has appropriated and manipulated once-progressive ideas. Pithy, urgent, gutting and witty Žižek’s diagnosis reveals our current geopolitical nightmare in a startling new light, and shows how, in order to change our future, we must first focus on changing the past. How We Sold Our Future: The Failure to Fight Climate Change by Jens Beckert For decades we have known about the dangers of global warming. Nevertheless, greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase. How can we explain our failure to take the necessary measures to stop climate change? Why are we so reluctant to act? Beckert provides an answer to these questions. Our apparent inability to implement basic measures to combat climate change is due to the nature of power and incentive structures affecting companies, politicians, voters, and consumers. Drawing on social science research, he argues that climate change is an inevitable product of the structures of capitalist modernity which have been developing for the past 500 years. Our institutional and cultural arrangements are operating at the cost of destroying the natural environment and attempts to address global warming are almost inevitably bound to fail. Temperatures will continue to rise, and social and political conflicts will intensify. We are selling our future for the next quarterly figures, the upcoming election results, and today’s pleasure. Any realistic climate policy needs to focus on preparing societies for the consequences of escalating climate change and aim at strengthening social resilience to cope with the increasingly unstable natural world. Parenting in a Climate Crisis: A Handbook for Turning Fear into Action by Bridget Shirvell In this urgent parenting guide, learn how to navigate the uncertainty of the climate crisis and keep your kids informed, accountable, and hopeful — with simple actions you can take as a family to help the earth. Kids today are experiencing the climate crisis firsthand. Camp canceled because of wildfire smoke. Favorite beaches closed due to erosion. Recess held indoors due to extreme heat. How do parents help their children make sense of it all? And how can we keep our kids (and ourselves) from despair? Environmental journalist and parent Bridget Shirvell has created a handbook for parents to help them navigate these questions and more, weaving together expert advice from climate scientists, environmental activists, child psychologists, and parents across the country. She helps parents answer tough questions (how did we get here?) and raise kids who feel connected to and responsible for the natural world, feel motivated to make ecologically sound choices, and feel empowered to meet the challenges of the climate crisis—and to ultimately fight for change. Enjoy these summer reads throughout the holidays and get involved with activities and protests that support our environment and wildlife. Whether it’s changing the way you celebrate to more sustainable fun or joining environmental summer pursuits, we hope you’ll make good trouble this holiday season. For hundreds of additional environmental books — including several on staying calm in challenging times — visit the Revelator Reads archives. Republish this article for free! The post Summer of Change: New Books to Inspire Environmental Action appeared first on The Revelator.

Climate Activist Throws Bright Pink Paint on Glass Covering Picasso Painting in Montreal

The stunt is part of an environmental organization's efforts to draw attention to the dangerous wildfires spreading through Canada

Climate Activist Throws Bright Pink Paint on Glass Covering Picasso Painting in Montreal The stunt is part of an environmental organization’s efforts to draw attention to the dangerous wildfires spreading through Canada The activist threw paint on Pablo Picasso’s L'hétaïre (1901). Last Generation Canada A climate activist threw pink paint at Pablo Picasso’s L’hétaïre (1901) at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts last week. The 21-year-old man, identified as Marcel, is a member of Last Generation Canada, an environmental organization that works to combat climate change. After splashing Picasso’s portrait with the paint, Marcel made a speech in French to the gallery, which was captured on video and posted on social media by Last Generation Canada. “There are more than 200 wildfires in Canada at this moment, 83 of which are not protected [and] which are out of control,” he said. “There are too many problems here. There are people who are dying. … If Canada doesn’t do much, soon we will all be dying.” Quick fact: Picasso’s blue period Pablo Picasso created L’hétaïre during his famous “blue period,” when the artist painted monochromatic artworks in shades of blue and blue-green. Canada is in the midst of its wildfire season, which occurs between April and October. The blazes have consumed almost nine million acres across four Canadian provinces, report the New York Times’ Nasuna Stuart-Ulin and Vjosa Isai. This season is a particularly bad one. In early June, satellite data revealed that the number of fire hotspots was four times higher than normal, per the Associated Press’ M.K. Wildeman. Marcel’s stunt is part of a three-week “action phase” by Last Generation Canada, according to a statement from the organization. The group is demanding that the Canadian government form a “Climate Disaster Protection Agency” to aid those “whose homes, communities, lives and livelihoods have been destroyed by extreme weather, including wildfires worsened by the burning of fossil fuels.” Picasso’s L’hétaïre, which was on loan from the Pinacoteca Agnelli in Turin, Italy, was covered by a layer of protective glass, and the pink paint caused no visible damage, according to a statement from the museum. Two museum security guards confronted Marcel and turned him over to the Montreal police. Officials tell Hyperallergic’s Maya Pontone that Marcel has been released from custody and will later appear in court. “It is most unfortunate that this act carried out in the name of environmental activism targeted a work belonging to our global cultural heritage and under safekeeping for the benefit of future generations,” Stéphane Aquin, the director of the museum, says in the statement. “Museums and artists alike are allies in the fight for a better world.” In recent years, damaging the glass protecting famous artworks has become a popular method of protest among some climate change groups. However, one of the best-known groups, a British organization called Just Stop Oil, announced in March that it would start winding down such tactics after the United Kingdom decided to stop issuing new oil and gas licenses. “We value paint strokes and color composition over life itself,” Marcel says in the statement from Last Generation Canada. “A lot more resources have been put in place to secure and protect this artwork than to protect living, breathing people.” The Montreal Museum of Fine Arts was displaying L’hétaïre as part of the exhibition “Berthe Weill, Art Dealer of the Parisian Avant-Garde,” focused on the 20th-century French gallery-owner who exhibited Picasso’s early work. After the June 19 incident, the museum was closed for a short period before reopening later that day. L’hétaïre has not yet returned to the gallery. “I am not attacking art, nor am I destroying it. I am protecting it,” says Marcel in a social media post by Last Generation Canada. “Art, at its core, is depictions of life. It is by the living, for the living. There is no art on a dead planet.” Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Measles Misinformation Is on the Rise – and Americans Are Hearing It, Survey Finds

Republicans are far more skeptical of vaccines and twice as likely as Democrats to believe the measles shot is worse than the disease.

By Arthur Allen | KFF Health NewsWhile the most serious measles epidemic in a decade has led to the deaths of two children and spread to nearly 30 states with no signs of letting up, beliefs about the safety of the measles vaccine and the threat of the disease are sharply polarized, fed by the anti-vaccine views of the country’s seniormost health official.About two-thirds of Republican-leaning parents are unaware of an uptick in measles cases this year while about two-thirds of Democratic ones knew about it, according to a KFF survey released Wednesday.Republicans are far more skeptical of vaccines and twice as likely (1 in 5) as Democrats (1 in 10) to believe the measles shot is worse than the disease, according to the survey of 1,380 U.S. adults.Some 35% of Republicans answering the survey, which was conducted April 8-15 online and by telephone, said the discredited theory linking the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine to autism was definitely or probably true – compared with just 10% of Democrats.Get Midday Must-Reads in Your InboxFive essential stories, expertly curated, to keep you informed on your lunch break.Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S. News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy.The trends are roughly the same as KFF reported in a June 2023 survey. But in the new poll, 3 in 10 parents erroneously believed that vitamin A can prevent measles infections, a theory Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has brought into play since taking office during the measles outbreak.“The most alarming thing about the survey is that we’re seeing an uptick in the share of people who have heard these claims,” said co-author Ashley Kirzinger, associate director of KFF’s Public Opinion and Survey Research Program. KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.“It’s not that more people are believing the autism theory, but more and more people are hearing about it,” Kirzinger said. Since doubts about vaccine safety directly reduce parents’ vaccination of their children, “that shows how important it is for actual information to be part of the media landscape,” she said.“This is what one would expect when people are confused by conflicting messages coming from people in positions of authority,” said Kelly Moore, president and CEO of Immunize.org, a vaccination advocacy group.Numerous scientific studies have established no link between any vaccine and autism. But Kennedy has ordered HHS to undertake an investigation of possible environmental contributors to autism, promising to have “some of the answers” behind an increase in the incidence of the condition by September.The deepening Republican skepticism toward vaccines makes it hard for accurate information to break through in many parts of the nation, said Rekha Lakshmanan, chief strategy officer at The Immunization Partnership, in Houston.Lakshmanan on April 23 was to present a paper on countering anti-vaccine activism to the World Vaccine Congress in Washington. It was based on a survey that found that in the Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas and Oklahoma state assemblies, lawmakers with medical professions were among those least likely to support public health measures.“There is a political layer that influences these lawmakers,” she said. When lawmakers invite vaccine opponents to testify at legislative hearings, for example, it feeds a deluge of misinformation that is difficult to counter, she said.Eric Ball, a pediatrician in Ladera Ranch, California, which was hit by a 2014-15 measles outbreak that started in Disneyland, said fear of measles and tighter California state restrictions on vaccine exemptions had staved off new infections in his Orange County community.“The biggest downside of measles vaccines is that they work really well. Everyone gets vaccinated, no one gets measles, everyone forgets about measles,” he said. “But when it comes back, they realize there are kids getting really sick and potentially dying in my community, and everyone says, ‘Holy crap; we better vaccinate!’”Ball treated three very sick children with measles in 2015. Afterward his practice stopped seeing unvaccinated patients. “We had had babies exposed in our waiting room,” he said. “We had disease spreading in our office, which was not cool.”Although two otherwise healthy young girls died of measles during the Texas outbreak, “people still aren’t scared of the disease,” said Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, which has seen a few cases.But the deaths “have created more angst, based on the number of calls I’m getting from parents trying to vaccinate their 4-month-old and 6-month-old babies,” Offit said. Children generally get their first measles shot at age 1, because it tends not to produce full immunity if given at a younger age.KFF Health News’ Jackie Fortiér contributed to this report.This article was produced by KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF. It was originally published on April 23, 2025, and has been republished with permission.

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.