

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
As Trump demolishes the old and drives America toward a darker future, the Democrats’ instinct has been to grieve, resist, and dream of restoration. But restoration may be the wrong goal.
President Donald Trump recently followed through on his threat to use the federal government shutdown as an occasion to fire government workers on a mass scale.
Shutdowns are temporary, yet the effects of this one seem likely to be permanent. It’s a kind of limbo, a foretaste of the old government being phased out, but with little clue what might replace it.
Such things have happened before in history.
While imprisoned in 1930 for opposing Mussolini’s fascism, the Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci famously wrote, “The old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.” L.S. Stavrianos’ 1976 book The Promise of the Coming Dark Age now seems dated, but raises a provocative question for our time: Can something new and better evolve from these dark times?
We need to envision a positive future with equal and ample opportunities for everyone to realize their full potential.
As Trump demolishes the old and drives America toward a darker future, the Democrats’ instinct has been to grieve, resist, and dream of restoration. But restoration may be the wrong goal. That’s the rueful lesson Polish democrats are drawing from Poland’s shift back toward authoritarianism.
Even if Democrats’ dream scenario—retaking the House in 2026 and the Senate and presidency in 2028—comes true, the world we knew isn’t coming back. What the Trump administration has destroyed—for example, dismissing 1,300 State Department employees in 20 minutes—may take 20 years to rebuild.
Then there are the nightmare scenarios. Republicans might rig future elections. Trump could consolidate an increasingly repressive police state.
Either way, we face a prolonged dark age. Surviving it will require more than a diet of “resistance”—we also need hope. We need to envision a positive future with equal and ample opportunities for everyone to realize their full potential.
There are practical steps in this direction that communities can take starting now. Neither left nor right, such actions would help bridge partisan divides and hedge against national systems that may soon start failing. They could include:
Greater localism. We could start shifting from full-throttle globalization toward more diversified, sustainable, and self-reliant local economies.
Trump’s tariffs disrupt the world economic order via top-down fiat, without offering any path out of the ensuing chaos. We need the opposite: bottom-up strategies to buffer communities against market turbulence and repression.
Reinvigorated localism could also enable communities to supplement whatever remains of the national safety net by reviving traditions of mutual aid.
Stronger, smaller democracy. More localized economies could lay the groundwork for more decentralized, egalitarian, and participatory governance, empowering communities to shape their own destinies.
Face-to-face community. We could step back from our screen-saturated lives to rebuild in-person ties. American communities are increasingly siloed. We could foster healthy pluralism by creating more opportunities to build personal connections across differences.
Soulful work. What if we built a more enriching job market?
We could shift work toward “caring, craft, and cultural” occupations. We could focus automation, robotics, and AI on reducing dangerous and mind-numbing work, and on lowering the cost of strategic essentials like solar collectors and medicines. And we should resist allowing AI to displace people from fulfilling work.
Ideas like these once seemed fringe or utopian. But as our democracy morphs into corrupt oligarchy or outright fascism, they may soon become deeply practical—even imperative.
Fully realizing them would eventually require matching changes at the national and global levels. But communities don’t have to wait—they can start now, working with resources locally at hand.
We need to recognize that something profound has shifted and a new epoch is coming. But instead of abandoning hope, this transitional period is the time to envision and begin building the world we want to inhabit on the other side.
Government needs to deliver for everyone, not just the wealthy. Local government can lead the way.
We all want to live in healthy, safe, and thriving communities. We expect our tax dollars to serve the common good, and we want to trust that government represents our interests. But today, the federal government falls far short of this goal; only 22% of Americans trust it.
Local governments, in many places but not all, continue to deliver for their residents. They are leading the fight against climate change without federal support. They took charge in their immediate and ongoing responses to Covid-19. And they continue to resist, creating sanctuary cities to protect immigrant communities threatened during the first Trump administration. Today, local governments prepare for a difficult future shaped by the policies of the current Trump administration, including the unnecessary deployment of federal troops to Los Angeles and Washington, DC.
Yet the work of local governments has never been more difficult. Americans continue to lose trust in government, and as conditions worsen, faith in government erodes further. This decline is not accidental—it stems from decades of funding cuts, deregulation, misinformation, voter suppression, and government missteps. It feels like the biggest beneficiaries of government today are the wealthy and large corporations, which continue to make record profits despite recessions, pandemics, and climate change.
The lack of trust in government and the concentration of wealth and power in a small elite are connected. A deliberate effort to undermine the government’s ability to deliver for all feeds a downward spiral of distrust. Consider how US President Donald Trump empowered Elon Musk to lead mass layoffs and weaken or shut down critical agencies, undermining services people depend on. This move fuels privatization, deregulation, wealth concentration, and further distrust in government.
So, where do we go from here? For government to ensure shared prosperity, we must first rebuild trust. That requires government to deliver for everyone, not just the wealthy.
The long road to rebuilding trust must start with rejecting the fearmongering and scarcity mentality that has left us isolated and unhappy. We must demand better results from both government and our economic system. We need a system rooted in mutual care and shared prosperity.
This transformation begins from the ground up; it depends on each of us cultivating a culture of belonging and connection in our daily lives. I see this willingness in the empathy and care people show for neighbors, the environment, and future generations. Government can correct course only if we engage with it and demand more—because we are committed to doing better ourselves. Over time, civic participation can rebuild trust in government—though not as it is, but as a transformed institution committed to nurturing relationships.
Local governments can create opportunities for residents to relate to each other better and forge stronger relationships. Because local government is closer to its constituents than state or federal agencies, it can offer more immediate opportunities for civic engagement and connection. I believe assigning local government the role of cultivating a sense of belonging is key to achieving shared economic prosperity and to overcoming the polarization that currently grips our communities.
Local governments can evolve by partnering with local leaders and civil society groups that—in many communities—are fulfilling key roles once held by local governments. By building true, trusting collaborations, governments can expand their capacity and impact, reshape how communities relate to public institutions, and restore trust and faith in their work.
When we share responsibility for our communities—when neighbors connect, participate, and help shape our governance—we push government to serve all of us better.
To be clear, local governments cannot create a culture of belonging alone. Many governments need to commit to a sustained process of reconciliation, especially with communities of color, to overcome their checkered past. As I write this essay, immigrant communities in Los Angeles and throughout the country are being terrorized by federal law enforcement agencies, often with the support of local law enforcement, separating families, traumatizing neighbors and neighborhoods, and severely eroding trust between the government and communities. There is no way around the fact that governments at each scale have inflicted harm on communities. Nor can we ignore the fact that government is how we organize how we live. What government looks like, and how it interacts with us, remains our choice—that is the essence of democracy.
Some might view the suggestion that governments should cultivate residents’ sense of connection and belonging as an example of “mandate creep.” But if not local government, then who is responsible for nurturing connections between neighbors and fostering the culture of our communities?
Consider the processes involved in governance—updating general plans, budgeting, making and implementing new laws. These processes have a tremendous impact on our lives, yet few people participate. What difference would it make if more people were involved? If local governments had more resources and expertise to increase participation, could we achieve better governance? If local governments prioritized participation and equipped public servants to engage more residents directly, perhaps we would feel more satisfied—or at least better understand the decisions shaping our lives.
Local governments can also foster a culture of belonging by creating and maintaining spaces for people to meet and build community. Sidewalks, streets, parks, libraries, transit, community centers, and gardens—spaces that local governments oversee—constitute the public realm. While we often view these places as hard infrastructure, their potential to foster “soft infrastructure” such as civic relationships and human capital remains underdeveloped. What if governments designed public spaces to maximize connection? During the pandemic, they temporarily used infrastructure this way—through slow streets, free transit, health services in community centers, and redesigned parks. If it worked then, why not all the time?
Local governments can further strengthen communities through local culture and civic pride. Where we come from shapes our sense of belonging. Even in a transient, digital world, most people spend much of their lives in one place. Local culture—its history, art, celebrations, customs, and people—plays a big role in how we feel about our communities and can bind us together. I saw this in Berlin during the 48 Stunden Neukölln festival, where streets, shops, and homes displayed art for the public, turning the entire neighborhood into a vibrant gallery. People mingled, explored, and took pride in their community. We can use cultural programming to deepen civic pride and participation, tying culture more closely to governance.
Ultimately, rebuilding faith in government begins with rebuilding faith in each other. When we share responsibility for our communities—when neighbors connect, participate, and help shape our governance—we push government to serve all of us better. The journey to restore faith in government and the process of restoring our social bonds are inseparable. Only by working together can we create the thriving, healthy communities we all desire.
We should’ve gotten rid of these Reagan-era restrictions long ago, but doing so now is more important than ever, with massive new federal funds in the pipeline for infrastructure and climate projects.
Ronald Reagan left highly visible marks on our capital city. The president who believed trees cause pollution now has his name carved into an edifice housing Environmental Protection Aagency offices. The infamous buster of the air traffic controllers union has an eponymous airport.
Even more disturbing? Vestiges of the Reagan era that are nearly invisible but continue to undermine progress towards a more equitable and sustainable economy.
Case in point: an obscure Office of Management and Budget (OMB) policy dubbed the “Uniform Guidance” that sets out rules for state and local governments when they use federal funds to pay private contractors. Republican officials in the Reagan administration seized on this policy as a weapon for blocking sub-federal actions they didn’t like.
Despite zero empirical evidence that an “efficiency above all” approach would improve contracting outcomes, the Reaganites succeeded in making it difficult for states and cities to attach labor and equity standards to contracts, for fear they would lose federal funding.
What, in particular, had the Reaganites so rankled? This was the 1980s, the era of a growing global movement to divest from Apartheid South Africa. Some U.S. cities and states wanted to join universities, churches, and other investors in refusing to do business with corporations that were profiting off the racist regime.
A report by Jobs to Move America and the Center for Media and Democracy delves into this history in depth, documenting the Reagan administration’s crusade to elevate contracting “efficiency” and “fair and open competition” above other interests, from fighting Apartheid to creating family-supporting jobs for those who need them most.
That Reagan officials lumped these issues together should come as no surprise. The Apartheid system itself was both racist and anti-union, designed to protect the privileges of a white elite class. And while the Republicans couched their arguments in free market rhetoric, the impact of their changes to OMB regulations reinforced our own country’s deeply embedded racial and economic inequities.
Despite zero empirical evidence that an “efficiency above all” approach would improve contracting outcomes, the Reaganites succeeded in making it difficult for states and cities to attach labor and equity standards to contracts, for fear they would lose federal funding.
The revisions also explicitly banned local hire programs, despite significant research dispelling the myth that such programs are anti-competitive and demonstrating positive benefits for disadvantaged workers and local economies. The Reagan-imposed ban meant, for example, that a largely Black city with high unemployment rooted in historic racism would have little power to prevent a contractor from bringing in an all-white, non-local engineering crew for an infrastructure project in their municipality.
We should’ve gotten rid of these Reagan-era restrictions long ago, but doing so now is more important than ever, with massive new federal funds in the pipeline for infrastructure and climate projects. Public funds are precious, and we all have an interest in ensuring that the benefits of these investments are equitably shared.
Fortunately, Biden’s OMB is moving in this direction with recently issued proposals for updating the Uniform Guidance. In a detailed public comment letter, nearly 150 unions and other members of the Local Opportunities Coalition commend the administration for positive improvements in 11 areas. Top on their list: the welcome removal of the ban on local hire policies.
The coalition also highlights changes to allow the use of scoring mechanisms to give companies a leg up in bidding competitions if they commit to creating specific numbers and types of jobs, with minimum levels of compensation and benefits. They also note positive steps to explicitly allow hiring preferences for disadvantaged communities, the use of project labor agreements between employers and workers and other pre-hire collective bargaining agreements, bans on the use of contract funds for union-busting, and protections against employers misclassifying workers as “independent contractors” to skirt labor laws.
The Local Opportunities Coalition also recommends a few key ways the Biden administration could strengthen their proposals. For instance, they could explicitly allow states and cities to require that contractors (and their subcontractors) pay living wages and clarify that local hire policies can apply to both infrastructure and service contracts.
In a separate comment letter, several pro-worker and Wall Street accountability groups also applauded the Biden administration’s progress while suggesting that OMB officials also make explicit that state and local officials have the flexibility to consider additional equity factors to ensure public funds actually help workers instead of lining the pockets of wealthy executives and shareholders.
Specifically, they urge support for procurement policies that give preference to companies that refrain from wasteful spending on stock buybacks, excessive CEO pay, and private equity-driven leveraged buyouts and drastic cost-cutting.
“Discouraging these practices will help ensure that corporate recipients of public funds provide high-quality services with broadly shared benefits,” notes the letter, signed by Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund, the Institute for Policy Studies, Communications Workers of America, Jobs to Move America, Take on Wall Street, and United for Respect.
The OMB is expected to finalized changes to the Uniform Guidance in early 2024.
Back in the 1980s, Reagan’s efforts to crush the anti-Apartheid divestment movement ultimately failed. With demands for sanctions mounting, Congress passed a law in 1986 that gave cover to this effective means of solidarity with the South African trade unionists and others who successfully brought down the racist regime.
By scrapping the remnants of Reagan’s ideologically driven contracting standards, the Biden administration can build on this proud history of using the public purse for the greater good.
In response to the coronavirus pandemic ravaging the news industry--forcing tens of thousands of layoffs, furloughs, and pay cuts in recent months--the nation's largest labor union for media workers launched a new "Save the News" campaign on Monday and urged Congress to provide relief to an industry that should be considered an essential service in a democracy.
"Americans need access to information about their local communities more than ever, and yet layoffs and furloughs are only increasing as this pandemic continues. Congress needs to act to save the news before it's too late."
--Jon Schleuss, The NewsGuild
The NewsGuild, a sector of the Communications Workers of America (CWA), represents over 24,000 workers in North America. In a statement announcing its new campaign, the union noted that "local news outlets have been damaged for years by tech giants siphoning away advertising revenue and private equity ownership groups hollowing out the industry with extreme cost-cutting measures."
"The Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated the devastation of the local news industry," the statement continues, acknowledging advertising revenue declines as well as job and wage losses. "At the same time, readers are turning to local news outlets in record numbers in search of accurate, up-to-the-minute information about how the Covid-19 pandemic is affecting their communities. Those journalists who remain have been hard at work providing life-saving public health information to readers, with many outlets offering their Covid-19 coverage for free as a public service despite financial strains."
The union's new campaign "will involve a six-figure digital ad campaign, direct lobbying on Capitol Hill, and a new website where--among other things--laid off and furloughed journalists will chronicle the industry's plights," according to the Daily Beast. The new website also details a three-part plan for federal lawmakers to provide relief to local news outlets, calling on Congress to:
"I am humbled to see so many members of our industry unite under one cause: protecting local journalism," NewsGuild president Jon Schleuss said in a statement. "Americans need access to information about their local communities more than ever, and yet layoffs and furloughs are only increasing as this pandemic continues. Congress needs to act to save the news before it's too late."
"The window isn't closed," Schleuss told the Daily Beast. "But it has gotten worse [in just the last month] and it is going to get worse every day."
As the Daily Beast reported:
The campaign, bluntly titled "Save the News," is unlike anything that NewsGuild-CWA has done in decades, officials say. And it puts the union in delicate territory: asking for direct assistance from the very political entities and officials that it covers. Schleuss acknowledged the discomfort that can come when an industry premised on telling other people's stories of suffering now is being forced to chronicle and promote its own. But with newspapers hit hard by slash-and-cut-minded ownership and ad revenues being lost because of the economic downturn caused by the spread of the coronavirus, there are, simply put, few remaining options.
"It has been a challenge for our industry in marketing ourselves that we aren't telling the stories that what we have done has positively impacted communities," Schleuss said.
Journalist John Nichols wrote for The Nation last week that "the federal government has a long history of providing support for diverse and independent local media, going back to the founding days of the republic--a subject Robert W. McChesney and I explored at length in our 2010 book, The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution That Will Begin the World Again."
"But the current crisis is so extreme and coming on so rapidly," he added, "that it requires immediate attention that draws on existing proposals for sustaining journalism, as well as new ones."
Nichols acknowledged efforts by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies and the New York Times to track the impacts that the pandemic has had on the news media industry as well as calls from advocacy groups and congressional lawmakers (pdf) for using federal coronavirus relief funds to support local journalism.
"Journalism cannot survive, and certainly not thrive, without resources. And those resources are not coming from a 'free market' that has stalled out," Nichols warned. "There has to be a federal fix, and that means that Congress must include muscular support for journalism in stimulus measures." Among the calls Nichols highlighted was a proposal from Free Press Action, a media reform group with which he and McChesney have long been associated.
As Common Dreams reported last week, Free Press Action's proposal, What a Journalism-Recovery Package Should Look Like During the Covid-19 Crisis (pdf), encourages both immediate relief to protect local reporting jobs and longer-term policies that "could create a bridge from this emergency period to a future of sustainable journalism that serves and represents local communities, especially Black and Latinx communities that have been disproportionately harmed by the current crisis and poorly served by dominant media."
According to Nichols: "Two things distinguish Free Press Action's recommendations. First, they focus on sustaining journalism, rather than bailouts for the big media companies--and hedge-fund investors--that were making a mess of things even before the pandemic hit. Second, they bring realism and precision to a discussion that to this point has lacked clarity."
Specifically, the advocacy group's proposal says that "Free Press Action does not support measures to treat large newspaper or broadcasting chains as small businesses under recovery efforts such as the Paycheck Protection Program. Such policies put deeper-pocketed interests in competition with smaller businesses that have much less access to legal and banking resources."
As the coronavirus pandemic continued to devastate local news outlets across the United States--even as some have seen audience and subscription boosts--the group Free Press Action on Monday unveiled a proposal to provide crucial financial relief to newsrooms and reporters while envisioning a more sustainable future for the industry.
The proposal, What a Journalism-Recovery Package Should Look Like During the Covid-19 Crisis (pdf), calls for Congress to allocate direct and indirect subsidies to journalists through the end of 2021 and to substantially increase federal funding for public-media institutions to protect local reporting jobs.
Free Press Action also put forth medium- and long-term policies that "could create a bridge from this emergency period to a future of sustainable journalism that serves and represents local communities, especially Black and Latinx communities that have been disproportionately harmed by the current crisis and poorly served by dominant media."
The policy recommendations come about a month after Free Press Action joined with over 45 groups and scholars to urge federal lawmakers to "include the journalism sector in the congressional assistance packages revitalizing affected industries." In a joint letter (pdf), they emphasized the importance of community-specific news during a pandemic and how the current crisis has affected the media industry.
"Congress must act now to save jobs and ensure crucial economic and health information reaches the people harmed most by this pandemic," Craig Aaron, Free Press president and co-CEO, said in a statement Monday. "To get through this emergency, we need trustworthy news and reporters on the beat. Wishful thinking about new business models or philanthropy won't be enough."
Aaron, co-author of the new recovery package, explained that "our proposed policies focus on directing relief efforts into the hands of local outlets and working journalists--so they can keep people informed during this crisis and its aftermath--and lay the foundation for sustaining community-centered news in the future."
In a series of tweets Monday, Aaron detailed some of the group's recommendations and promised there is more to come:
The proposal says the federal funding for local journalism "should be appropriated separately and in addition to money dedicated to small businesses" in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act President Donald Trump signed in late March. The plan also underscores the necessity of "strong guardrails to ensure money is spent locally and directly benefits newsrooms and their communities."
"Free Press Action does not support measures to treat large newspaper or broadcasting chains as small businesses under recovery efforts such as the Paycheck Protection Program," the proposal continues. "Such policies put deeper-pocketed interests in competition with smaller businesses that have much less access to legal and banking resources."
Proposal co-author and Free Press Action research director S. Derek Turner said Monday that "the local-news industry will continue to face massive business headwinds," calling for efforts to bolster local reporting even after the pandemic passes.
"Given the dire nature of the crisis, our proposal prioritizes getting important news and information in front of more people while targeting funds toward news that serves the local audiences that have been hardest hit," he said. "But if we, as a country, value high-quality local news, then bringing lasting relief to news deserts and meeting community-information needs everywhere will require a substantial public investment over a long period of time."
Since a national emergency was called in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, the governor of Kentucky signed a bill (HB 44) that seeks to over-criminalize climate protests, the governor of South Dakota signed a bill to punish protesters and climate activists, and Pennsylvania designated pipeline construction an essential service.
On the federal level, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has effectively been suspended, America's largest corporate employers (those with 500+ employees) were exempted from paid sick leave mandates in the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, and government allies and corporate interests are treating the global pandemic as a business opportunity. Ahead of the emergency, members of Congress dumped their stocks--then made investments in companies that would benefit from a crisis (before alerting the public). Corporations are jacking up the price of potential treatments. BlackRock is facilitating the multi-trillion dollar government corporate bailout.
People are dying. The powerful are taking actions to protect themselves. And the government is doing their bidding.
Americans Denied Authority
Meanwhile, across issues, including pipeline construction, paid sick leave, basic public health policy making, and many worker rights, American people are told they have no authority to act. In communities Americans call home, judges and politicians claim residents are powerless to make decisions that infringe on the "liberty" of corporations.
State and corporate interests sue Texas communities when they attempt to pass paid sick leave. Missouri communities are blocked from voting on local minimum wage increases. Ohio communities are told they cannot protect freshwater. Colorado communities' authority to stop fossil fuel extraction is denied by the state. The list is very long.
Americans' Authority Realized
People across the U.S. are facing the Covid-19 crisis. The government refuses to help but is willing to risk the lives of thousands--perhaps millions-- to save an unjust economy. As more people realize that no one coming to the rescue, they are forced to see their own authority.
The mass proliferation of mutual aid networks across the world is making headlines. Italians are on strike to stop all non-essential jobs. People are defining what is "essential." Where governments are failing, people are filling the void and calling them to account. These networks of civic participation are multi-fold and often hard to notice. Local farms have launched local food distribution networks. Across the continent, neighbors are coordinating amongst themselves to provide for the most vulnerable. Formal and informal people-powered safe food delivery services are popping up around us. Local governments are taking action no one could have imagined a few months ago.
These are bold and necessary actions carried out by groups of courageous and dedicated people who are exercising their powers of self-governance. At their core is service to community. They exist because governments are not functioning in the way people want or need.
Where Will This Go?
As this crisis worsens, and as it begins to intersect with the multi-layered crises that preceded it, empowered and deliberate human governance in defense of life will be needed. It is a moment for transformative change. The actions of centralized governments give people no other choice but to develop heathy forms of local self-governance.
Over the span of two decades, the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) has partnered with 200 communities in the United States to advance a framework for self-governance that subordinates corporate interests to the public health and the health of life-sustaining ecological systems.
At the root of our work is a direct challenge to the dominant system of law and structure of government.
It's Time to Think Big: A People's Offense
Together, we are working to change the purpose of the law--and to encourage self-governance in defense of what is really "essential": life, not more commerce.
Today, local governments are showing they can--and will--fill the voids. The same week the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was suspended, a new form of law made an historic gain. Last week, for the first time in U.S. history, a state was successfully pressured to enforce a local Rights of Nature law. The Grant Township, Pennsylvania local Rights of Nature law--backed up by organized community resistance--forced the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to rescind a permit for a toxic frack waste injection well that threatened local drinking water and ecological life. This local law directly challenged existing state and federal laws protecting the corporate activity. CELDF has been assisting Grant in fighting to protect their community law for over five years.
It's Time to Scale Up: What You Can Do
From responding to health threats such as Covid-19, addressing deplorable conditions in detention facilities, or correcting unfair wages and sick leave benefits--people can take action.
With a small but dedicated group of people, individuals can organize to create a Health Bill of Rights, a Prisoner Bill of Rights, or a Worker Bill of Rights. That means fighting for the system change we need, and implementing it in your back yard to establish things like new tenant rights, enforceable Rights of Nature, reasonable sick leave, and safe working conditions.
Is your community seeing an increase in the number of residents facing homelessness? Read up on a local initiative, the Right to Survive ordinance, which was placed on Denver's May 2019 ballot. Denver community members advanced first-in-the-nation enforceable human rights for people experiencing homelessness.
Don't expect--or even ask--your local government to do the right thing. It has to be you, your neighbors, and other local allies, working together to make it happen. This crisis calls for us to challenge the government system that is failing us. Now is an opportunity for radical collective action for healthier and more just communities.
The Center for Biological Diversity on Monday rolled out a new program to push back against the nation's community- and wildlife-harming energy system that the climate advocacy group says is based on fossil fuels and a "centralized monopoly on power."
The goal of the new effort, the Energy Justice Program, is to help forge a path towards a just and renewables-based energy future.
"Our broken energy system threatens our climate and our future," said Jean Su, the Energy Justice Program's new director, in a statement. "Utilities were given monopolies to ensure public access to electricity, but these dinosaur corporations are now hurting the public interest by blocking the clean energy transition to profit off the fossil fuel era."
"In this era of climate catastrophe," she continued, "we have to stop these outdated monopolies and usher in a new electricity future that works for people and the planet."
To meet those goals, the new program will pursue a number of avenues, including using legal action to fight utilities' obstruction of clean energy efforts, helping communities advance local solar programs, and crafting energy policies on the state, federal, and international levels.
Some of that work is already underway. In June the Center filed a brief with a federal court in a bid to block Arizona power utility Salt River Project from slapping a 60-percent electricity rate hike on rooftop solar customers--a move the group described (pdf) as an obstacle to achieving "the energy transition demanded by climate science."
The Center is among the groups in Energy Justice NC. The diverse coalition that seeks to end the energy stranglehold in North Carolina held by Duke Energy, which continues to invest in fossil fuel projects
The time for a new energy system, says the Energy Justice Program, is now.
"Amid this climate and extinction emergency," said Su, "the U.S. can't afford to stick with the same centralized, profit-driven electricity system that drove us here in the first place. We have to seize this once-in-a-generation opportunity to design a new system of accountable, equitable, truly public power."
Argument 1: Localism is inevitable.
Globalization was made possible by long-distance transport, communications, and capital flows. It fits with widespread assumptions about progress and economic growth leading to a better future. But there are good reasons to think that our current bout of globalization is actually a brief, fragile, and highly problematic phase of human history.
Societies seem to pass through a "secular cycle" in which they grow in size and interconnectedness, but then experience instability and decline, becoming more decentralized and isolated once again. This secular cycle mirrors the adaptive cycle discussed in ecological literature, wherein ecosystems pass through phases of exploitation (in which total biomass, energy capture, and species interconnectivity all grow), conservation (where biomass, interconnectivity, and energy capture reach a peak, but at the expense of system resilience), release (a fairly sudden loss of biomass, energy capture, and connectivity), and reorganization (in which pioneer species begin a recovery, opening the way for a new exploitation phase).
Our current global society appears to be in the conservation phase of its adaptive cycle: it is at a peak of scale and integration. If the cyclical behavior of past societies is repeated in ours, recent trends toward globalization and urbanization will reach natural limits and be reversed. The inflection point may not be far in the future. Factors potentially leading to a loss of connectivity are growing in number, including environmental degradation (climate change, biodiversity loss, widespread plastics and petrochemical pollution), resource depletion (topsoil, fresh water, minerals), and over-reliance on debt to maintain economic growth.
Another factor that is likely to be decisive is energy supply. The integration and scaling of social systems have required enormous and expanding amounts of energy, and our current energy system is about twenty-five times larger than the global energy system that existed at the start of the industrial revolution.
This system is entirely unsustainable in terms of its sources (86 percent of current energy comes from depleting, climate-destabilizing fossil fuels) and therefore almost certainly in terms of its scale as well. While a one-to-one replacement of energy from fossil sources with energy from alternative sources may be theoretically possible, substitution is not happening at remotely the rate needed to avert serious environmental impacts from climate change or economic impacts from fossil fuel depletion. With less energy, we will eventually see less trade and transport (though perhaps global communication networks could be maintained, if scaled back).
In sum, a reversion to a more localized form of social organization is an entirely predictable consequence of past and current trends. It therefore makes sense to start thinking about how localization could be accomplished in ways that maximize benefits and minimize costs.
Argument 2: Localism is desirable.
The past few decades have seen many social movements advocating localization, driven mostly by concerns for equity, human rights, and environmental protection (as still-local indigenous communities struggle to maintain their way of life in the face of globalization). From "Buy Local" campaigns in communities across the US to "Transition Town" initiatives and nonprofit advocacy organizations like Local Futures, this work has sprung largely from the theoretical foundations of bioregionalism laid down in the 1970s and 1980s. Localism is largely a corrective to the depredations and excesses of corporate globalization, but there is more to it than that.
As Sebastian Junger argues in his influential book Tribe, humans evolved living in small groups and function best in contexts where they know one another face-to-face. It is in our communities where we (as individuals, families, businesses, and organizations of all kinds) most directly interact with the people and institutions that make up our society. And it is where we are most affected by the decisions that society makes. When political and social entities grow in size, the likelihood of power concentration increases. And people tend to handle lots of power poorly. The only sure way to keep power inequality from causing extreme injustice and social instability is to keep the scale of social organization small.
Moreover, we work hardest to protect places we know and love. "Nature" is an abstraction, but the urge to protect one's home is powerful. That is why place-based conservation efforts (such as local land and farm trusts, community parks, and publicly managed commons) are often more effective than campaigns by distant city dwellers to save rainforests and emblematic species on the far side of the planet.
Much of the best climate change mitigation work is happening at the local level. In the national and international arena, political polarization and the power of the fossil fuel lobby have prevented strong action, but in local communities--where citizens can talk face-to-face--climate action has been easier to achieve. For example, where I live (Sonoma County, California) all cities have signed on to decarbonization goals far more ambitious than ones adopted at the federal level during the Obama administration.
Of course, localism won't automatically solve all our problems. Anyone who has ever worked in local politics or a grassroots organizing campaign knows that corruption, polarization, and power grabs can afflict even the smallest communities. Some local environmental and community welfare efforts succeed; others fail.
Further, many of the world's current counter-globalization trends appear steeped in parochialism, right-wing populism, and racism. Brexit and the efforts of the current US administration to build a wall on the nation's southern border seem to be driven largely by fear and distrust of immigrants and refugees--attitudes that are worrisome in the context of growing flows of people from the Global South fleeing climate chaos and increasing political instability. I would argue that these are signs that the recent cycle of global integration has already run its course. We can't buck the tide of history. Our task is not to resist localism, but to push for a humane localism--to make the most of its opportunities, while avoiding as much as possible its potential pitfalls. If the inevitable trend toward localism is not led by those who are pro-social and visionary, it will instead be led by the worst opportunists.
In the best instance, communities can benefit from localism by sharing and cooperating across geographic boundaries through informal networks, as Transition Towns have done. However, it is by no means assured that electricity grids and global communications can be maintained over the long run, as energy and financial flows decline chaotically. While we still benefit from those global flows, it makes sense to push for worldwide climate agreements and other sane policies. Global movements along these lines (e.g., Extinction Rebellion) can benefit from diverse voices and strategies arising from, and aligned with, local concerns and existing regional organizations. But it also makes sense to envision and plan for a peaceable, compassionate, and virtuous path down the ladder of societal scale.
The bottom line: Even if you find argument 2 less than convincing, argument 1 is probably not negotiable. A Great Unraveling is in store, and has evidently already commenced. How shall we navigate it?
Originally published by the Great Transition Initiative at https://greattransition.org
In 2012, citizens from Highland Park, Michigan came together to form Soulardarity in response to the repossession of over 1,000 streetlights from their city. Their goal is to organise for community-owned solar street lights, energy production and equitable development. Since its formation, Soulardarity has installed seven solar streetlights and deployed over US$ 30,000 worth of solar technology in Highland Park and the surrounding communities through the PowerUP bulk purchasing programme. The group has also organised advocacy at the city and state levels for regulation, policy and local political leadership to support community ownership, transparency and environmental responsibility.
Soulardarity also advocates for a Community Ownership Power Administration (COPA) as part of the growing call in the United States for a Green New Deal to tackle climate change, economic inequality and racial injustice.
Highland Park is an 8-square-kilometre city within the larger metropolis of Detroit. Founded in the early 1900s, it primarily known for auto tycoon Henry Ford and the Model T plant that was previously located here. It was also the world headquarters of another high profile automotive employer, Chrysler. Lesser known is its history as a hub of white supremacist activity in the 1930s, facilitated by Ford's own racist and antisemitic efforts to create a white supremacist company town.
Over the course of the 20th century, the city's demographics shifted from majority white to majority black, and for a brief period Highland Park was a centre of black affluence. However, the loss of first Ford and later Chrysler drove a tremendous downturn in population and economic stability. By the early 2000s, Highland Park was one of many majority black cities across Michigan struggling against austerity, state-mandated anti-democratic practices like emergency management, and the loss of public control over major assets like the water department and public school system.
In 2011, DTE Energy, the investor-owned monopoly utility that controls southeast Michigan's energy infrastructure, repossessed over 1,000 streetlights from Highland Park to ameliorate a debt of $4 million in unpaid electric bills accumulated over many years. To put this in context, the city's debt to the utility was still significantly less than what DTE's CEO, Gerard Anderson, took home in compensation that year: $5.4 million
Despite this being only one of a long series of atrocious assaults on Highland Park's citizens, the repossession was publicly known and provided fertile ground for organising. It was in this context that Soulardarity was born.
The repossession prompted Highland Park residents to organise their own solar street lights. But it also forced the community to reckon with deeper questions about how DTE has treated residents. A 2017 survey of 70 Highland Park households conducted by Soulardarity found that close to half of those polled had trouble paying their electrical bills. A quarter had experienced gas or electricity shutoffs, the majority of which took place during Michigan's cold winter months. Nonetheless, DTE has proposed additional extensive rate hikes in order to generate money that goes in large part to maintain their current coal plants, to build new fossil fuel facilities, and to pay their CEOs millions.
We see white supremacy and capitalism as entwined root causes that drive the impacts felt on the ground. Leadership development and education in black and working class communities is critical for building power and restoring democracy and self-determination where they have been stripped away.
The investor-owned monopoly utility system directly uses the power of the state and legal system to guarantee profits. However, there is strong contemporary evidence that locally-grounded struggles for collective ownership can disrupt these systems and lead to structural change. For example, the large investor-owned utility Xcel Energy recently announced its move to 100% clean energy - in large part due to the municipalisation efforts of communities and progressive politicians in Colorado (Boulder and Colorado Pueblo) and Minnesota (Minneapolis) to bring energy utilities back into local public control.
In line with the broader conditions of austerity, infrastructure failure, and anti-democratic policies, DTE Energy has consistently leveraged its social, political and economic capital to resist all efforts towards the localised ownership of clean energy. A regular contender for the state's largest political contributor, DTE uses a combination of campaign contributions and subsidiary lobbying groups to fight legislation supporting renewable energy, especially when it falls outside utility ownership.

Despite this regressive and unfriendly environment, there are major opportunities for clean energy in the state. A coalition of cities in southeast Michigan, which includes the Detroit metropolitan area, successfully fought for improvements in LED street lighting rates, and the newest wave of regressive rate increases by DTE Energy creates good conditions for building movements for public and cooperative ownership of power production.
Soulardarity's aim is to build energy democracy in Highland Park and the neighbouring communities through education, organising and the development of energy infrastructure.
Soulardarity is a democratic, community-governed membership organisation. Our nine-member board is member-elected and is required to have a majority of Highland Park members. Not only is this structural form of democracy core to the project, but it is critically bolstered by a culture of member leadership and vision. Any Soulardarity programme or project is developed and driven in response to member needs and priorities. A few of our core programme areas include:
* Highland Park Campaign: Initially focused just on solar street lighting, our Highland Park Campaign team now seeks to make the city a global model for sustainability and democracy. This includes organising for local policy change and developing clean energy. Our proposal to the city government for solar street lighting can be found at www.ourpowerandlight.com. We will soon release a Blueprint for Energy Democracy, a guidebook for action and building political will between the city and its residents.
* PowerUP: A programme to expand equitable access to solar and build economic unity through the bulk purchasing of solar lighting, emergency power and other products. Since 2016, we have deployed $30,000 worth of solar throughout Highland Park and Detroit, and initiated the process of forming a member-owned energy cooperative.
* Energy Education: We conduct ongoing education with the community, movement partners and our membership on a wide variety of topics: from the basics of home energy management and cost savings to the political and economic history of the utility system, and from local to state energy issues.
* Work For Me, DTE!: A campaign to challenge the public authority and legal entitlement of our local investor-owned utility monopoly, DTE Energy, on rate hikes, poor service, racist practices and investment in dirty energy. This campaign includes community organising, movement building and legal intervention with the Public Service Commission.
* Membership & Governance: We practice deep democracy, leadership development, community self-governance and collective determination as critical steps in the success of our overall mission.
As part of the growing call for a Green New Deal to tackle climate change, economic inequality and racial injustice, Soulardarity advocates for implementing a Community Ownership Power Administration (COPA). We believe that we need a system-wide transformation of the energy system, which would include new democratically-owned renewable grids. Such a transformation is not unprecedented.
With the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, Roosevelt launched the Rural Electrification Administration (REA) as a way to jumpstart rural electrification by providing long-term, patient capital in the form of low to no interest loans. Originally, these loans were offered to for-profit utilities, but the utilities deemed REA projects unprofitable and rejected the loans. Farmers and rural communities, however, applied in huge numbers to start electric cooperatives, public power districts and municipal utilities in order to bring electricity to their areas. Within a decade of opening up the programme, rural areas went from having little or no electricity to more than 90 percent electrification, spurring the faster growth of rural economies. Nearly all of the loans were fully repaid and the ultimate cost to the taxpayer was low. REA is now considered as one of the most successful of the New Deal agencies.
COPA is a financing and technical capacity programme similar to the first New Deal's REA. The administration would provide a catalytic tool for a new energy system based on local, community benefit. Municipalities, counties, states and sovereign tribal nations could gain the necessary legal authority along with access to a suite of patient financing and funding mechanisms -- including low to no interest loans, grants and other incentives -- that would enable them to terminate their contracts with investor-owned utilities, buy back the energy grid to form a public or cooperative utility, and invest in a resilient, renewable system.
The funds could also be used by community utilities to invest in vibrant local economies. Working with community members, the utilities could build or spur projects in energy efficiency, grid resiliency, shared solar and electrification, and provide affordable energy rates, good jobs and access to community-based enterprise along the way.
This approach could increase buy-in from organised labour, as well. Unions have historically pushed back on renewable energy developments since utility and fossil fuel companies have typically had union representation, while renewable energy companies to date have largely not been unionised. The public sector's higher rate of unionisation -- about five times above that of private sector workers -- could increase unions' trust that a publicly-owned utility would secure labour agreements with fair wages and good working conditions throughout their operations and contracted work.
Soulardarity envisions a world in which thriving local communities are powered by clean energy. These communities will have the self-determination to protect natural resources and human well-being, and will collaborate to this end. We believe that all of this can be achieved if communities like Highland Park lead the way. Any solution to racism and capitalism must also address the climate problem and vice versa. We believe that our work brings insight and vision at that intersection, and this could not be more critically needed at this moment in natural and human history.
"If you always do what you've always done, you always get what you've always gotten." Is there any better explanation for our collective failure so far to prevent climate breakdown and social division? As another year passes with global greenhouse gas emissions still rising, it's time to shake up what we've always done.
2018 was a thunderous year for the climate which gave us a glimpse of the new normal: record-breaking heat, a blazing Arctic, the northern hemisphere seemingly on fire. These, alongside a clanging alarm about the disastrous impacts of 1.5degC of global warming from the UN in October, contributed to growing public recognition that climate breakdown is very real and its effects serious.
2018 also saw growing momentum for climate movements in confronting political inaction. From the Extinction Rebellion movement in the UK, to thousands of school children on strike in Australia (and similar movements elsewhere). Climate demonstrations in Europe bigger than ever. A record 5,000 people joined civil disobedience to protest coal mines in Germany. A number of laws were also passed that pointed in the right direction: Ireland and a number of cities divested from fossil fuels; the EU gave backing to citizen and community-owned renewable energy, and Spain lifted the controversial 'sun tax'. The costs of renewable energy and energy storage also fell.
And yet fundamentally, and depressingly, little really changed on climate change. The UN climate talks in Poland at the end of 2018, sponsored by the coal industry, once again resulted in low ambition, loopholes to undermine action, and steps backwards on meaningful finance and equity for countries of the global South. In the three years since the Paris Agreement of 2015, major industrialised countries have pledged carbon cuts that would result in global warming twice as hot as the targeted 1.5degC. And most countries are not on track to meet even those.
One reason is that climate policy has been dominated by the neoliberal idea that the private sector can lead the transition to a low-carbon economy. Such approaches to climate action have failed spectacularly. They have not stopped the rise in fossil fuel use, despite growth in renewable energy. Rather, renewables have grown in tandem with fossil fuels and energy demand. Market-focused policies have constrained the roll-out of renewables and other climate friendly solutions - which are restricted according to their ability to generate profit for private interests. And they have resulted in growing energy poverty.
Market-first approaches have failed to reduce emissions as much as they have fallen short in terms of social justice. The Gilets Jaunes (yellow vests)protests in France have shown that unjust 'green' policies result in push-back from lower income people, who feel penalised and stand to gain nothing from them. They are challenging the current climate discourse. The climate movement must see these protests for what they are: a push back against neoliberal approaches which seek to unload risks and costs away from corporations and on to the shoulders of the working class majority. The fight to fix climate breakdown will never be won if workers and low-income households are excluded. Expecting them to pay for the costs of the pollution that they did not create will backfire.
In 2019, climate action must shift in a different, radical direction. The missing link is energy democracy. Energy democracy starts from the standpoint that energy is a common good - not a commodity to be bought and sold. Access to energy is a human right for everyone - a basic condition to participate in public life with dignity. Energy democracy calls for public and social ownership of energy, to serve both social and ecological needs: energy that is reliable, affordable and clean.
With energy socially owned and in democratic control, we can reduce energy waste and overall consumption, decarbonise, and empower communities to make their own energy choices. Democratic control would mean a much faster transformation to 100% renewable energy for all. It means inclusive solutions - tackling energy ownership, generation, savings, storage, and action on energy poverty together - that would improve millions of people's lives. Unlike the current profit-focused model, it does not ignore the dire need for quality energy efficient homes for all.
Energy democracy rejects profit-focused energy, which has seen large energy interests stubbornly cling to fossil fuels and resist action on energy poverty. It provides a path away from the destructive competition for "market share" - a legacy of privatisation. Servicing investor profit ties the large 'incumbent' companies to their existing capacity, forcing them to resist the introduction of renewables. All of this prevents the kind of planning, cooperation, and local input that the transition to a fossil-free economy demands.
We must encourage and support communities and municipalities to take control of their own energy needs and wants, putting solidarity as a central value. But energy democracy needs to operate at all levels - local communities, regional and national governments, and international institutions like the EU.
Energy democracy promotes a genuinely 'Just Transition', ensuring workers whose jobs could be impacted by the shift away from fossil fuels, are protected and actively included in decision making. And it allows for a planned and orderly transition, not one that's held captive to the enforced chaos of the market.
We can't fix climate breakdown by continuing to do what we've always done - nor without tackling social division. In 2019, let's put energy democracy centre-stage.