Content by specific author

By Cathy Cowan Becker, Responsible Finance Campaign Director

On May 7, Cameron Hamilton, acting administrator of FEMA, told Congress, “I do not believe it is in the best interest of the American people to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency.”  

Within a day, Hamilton was out, replaced by Department of Homeland Security assistant secretary David Richardson, who told agency staff, “Don’t get in my way ... because I will run right over you” in enacting an agenda of pushing disaster relief to the states.  

That same day, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced it would discontinue updating its Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters database, widely used by insurance companies, city officials, and more. 

The database -- which shows an ever-increasing number and severity of natural disasters in recent years -- draws from both public and private data shared by industry and nonprofits, so is not easily replicable.  

Public opinion 

All of this is the opposite of what the American people want, according to two recent opinion polls by Data for Progress.  

One poll conducted in March 2025 for the Insurance Fairness Project found 67% of likely voters across party lines are concerned about increasing extreme weather events, and 74% believe a property insurance crisis will affect them personally. Yet 61% think the federal government is not doing enough to address this crisis.

Another poll in January 2025 found that 67% of likely voters prefer funding public insurance over allowing private insurance to charge higher premiums to cover increasing storm damage. Policies with voter support include: 

• Funding disaster prevention and resilience at the community level (74%) 

• Paying some costs of home insurance for low- and moderate-income households (71%) 

• Creating a national insurance fund to cover damages from extreme weather events (68%) 

• Providing home insurance coverage to Americans directly from the federal government (67%). 

Likely voters blame the current property insurance crisis most on CEOs of insurance companies (85%), climate change (72%), and inflation (83%) -- but fewer (62%) connect it to the fossil fuel industry driving more frequent and intense storms of the climate crisis.  

The data are clear

Thanks in part to the actions of over 5,400 Green Americans, in January the Federal Insurance Office released a trove of zip-code-level data on how climate change has affected property insurance, with reporting on 250 million policies by 330 insurance companies from 2018 through 2022.  

Now allied organizations Revolving Door Project and Public Citizen have used this information to create Mapping the Home Insurance Crisis, showing property insurance trends on an interactive map. You can see how metrics such as average premium, average claim amount, and claim frequency change in zip codes across the United States.  

The results show home insurance is becoming less available and more expensive across the nation. Nor is the crisis limited to coastal states like California, Florida, and Louisiana – it is spreading across the Midwest into areas once thought to be climate havens.  

Another report by Consumer Federation of America analyzes purchased proprietary data to find property insurance premiums have increased an average of 24% over the past three years – an extra $21 billion in price hikes for Americans.  

A typical homeowner with a mid-range credit score and a $350,000 home replacement value paid an average premium of $3,303 in 2024 -- $648 more than in 2021.  

States with the greatest increase in premiums were Utah (59%), Illinois (50%), Arizona (48%), and Pennsylvania (44%). States with the greatest premium hikes in absolute dollars were Florida ($2,118 increase), Louisiana ($1,775), and Kentucky ($1,426). 

Such significant increases in property insurance premiums have ripple effects across the economy:  

• Because mortgage loans typically require borrowers to have home insurance, some homeowners may sell their homes or default on their mortgage. A premium increase of $500 is linked to 20% higher likelihood of mortgage delinquency. 

• Some homeowners settle for inadequate insurance with high deductibles, less coverage, and more exclusions.  

• Some homeowners “go bare” -- meaning they do not buy property insurance. As of 2021, 7.4% or 6.1 million homeowners were uninsured, leaving them one major disaster from losing everything. 

• Young people and first-time homebuyers are less able to buy homes, leaving them out of an important pathway to building financial stability. 

• Neighborhoods with many uninsured homes see more damaged and vacant properties, leading to a downward spiral of property values and tax base.  

Case study: California 

Although the property insurance crisis affects the entire country, one of its epicenters is California, where January's climate-fueled wildfires in Los Angeles are estimated to cost over $250 billion. The fallout is impacting both public and private property insurance.  

Everyone pays into the FAIR Plan 

California’s FAIR (Fair Access to Insurance Requirements) Plan, the state’s public insurance plan of last resort, had already grown by 40% since 2023 with people abandoned by major insurance companies not renewing policies. At the time of the wildfires in January, the FAIR Plan had just $377 million to pay over 4,800 claims.  

Unlike private insurance, FAIR plans can raise money by charging private insurers when they are short on funds to pay claims. In February, California regulators allowed the FAIR plan to charge $1 billion from private insurance companies doing business in the state.  

However, recent concessions to the industry now allow these private insurance companies to pass on up to $500 million of this cost to all policyholders in the state – meaning everyone will pay, whether they were affected by the wildfires or not.  

State Farm seeks emergency rate hike 

In 2023 State Farm stopped accepting new applications for property insurance in California; then in 2024 it raised rates by 20%. State Farm is still California’s largest property insurance company, holding 3 million policies or about 20% of the market.  

After the Los Angeles wildfires, State Farm received provisional regulatory approval for an emergency rate hike of 17% for homeowners, 38% for landlord policies, and 15% for renters and condominiums. Insurance commissioner Ricardo Lara granted final approval on May 13.

The rate hike means average State Farm policyholder in California will pay $841 more for home insurance in 2025 than they did in 2023, according to a report by Center for Climate Integrity. About 30% of communities will pay $1000 or more, while 5,000 policyholders in six counties will pay over $3,000 more in premiums. In one zip code, 1,700 policyholders will see premiums increase by $7,553, or 72%.  

On April 17 the Eaton Fire Survivors Network called for an investigation of State Farm over widespread delays, denials, and unresolved claims, urging state leaders not to approve the rate increase request. “Most people assume that if you pay your premiums, your insurer will be there when disaster strikes,” group leader Joy Chen said. “But for many State Farm policyholders, the fire was just the start of their trauma. Each day since then, their financial and emotional devastation has grown because of State Farm's actions.” 

Meanwhile, State Farm is the nation’s second-largest insurance investor in the fossil fuel industry that is driving the climate crisis, with over $20 billion invested in 65 fossil fuel companies. These investments help shore up insurance company profits in years when they pay more in claims than they take in premiums, but they also multiply the problem.  

Policy solutions 

An issue as large as the climate-fueled property insurance crisis requires policy action. Reports by Consumer Federation of America, Center for American Progress, and Public Citizen make several overlapping policy recommendations, including: 

Public funding 

• Increase public funding for climate resilience on both the property and community levels.  

• Require insurers to consider home hardening expenses in setting prices.  

• Create national public reinsurance, or insurance for insurers, that lowers risk for comprehensive coverage of homeowners. 

Accountability 

• Prevent insurers from passing on costs to consumers while they insure and invest in fossil fuels. 

• Strengthen regulatory oversight of rates and underwriting, including non-renewals. 

• Require insurers to have adequate reserves. 

Data gathering 

• Create a national climate modeling tool and establish routine data reporting. 

• Model insurance data collection on the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), which requires public disclosure of data on the census tract level. 

• Ensure homebuyers and renters know their exposure to climate risks. 

Protecting yourself 

Unfortunately, an administration pushing disaster relief to the states just before hurricane season is unlikely to implement these policy solutions anytime soon.  

Here’s what you can do in the meantime: 

• Check out Green America’s Climate Smart Insurance Directory, which lists options in every state for insurance companies that do not insure fossil fuel projects and invest little to nothing in the fossil fuel industry. 

• Shop around. Call three independent insurance agents and ask them to quote costs and coverage at regional mutual insurance companies. Different agents work with different companies, so calling more than one will give you a fuller picture of what is available in your area. Regional insurance companies are no more risky than large insurers and could save you money for the same coverage.  

• Seek adequate coverage. The quotes you get should cover the cost of rebuilding your home and replacing personal property, as well as temporary living expenses, medical payments, and liability claims. Keep in mind the cost of building materials, furniture, clothing, and electronics is rising.  

• Don’t go without. Property insurance protects your investments, not just from natural disasters but also someone else’s negligence. You can cut costs by bundling home and auto insurance, paying in monthly installments, and asking for any discounts such as through AAA or AARP.  

• If your policy is canceled, ask for an extension so you have time to shop for new insurance. Ask for a written explanation including any photos or videos. File an appeal if the evidence provided is not accurate. Make any repairs your insurance company asks for, but start shopping right away in case you need to switch. 

In the heart of Bloomington, where liberal ideals often clash with systemic realities of poverty and injustice, People’s Cooperative Market (“People’s Market”) has been cultivating more than just crops – it’s been nurturing a vision of food sovereignty that challenges deeply ingrained economic and racial structures.

As part of a long legacy of Black food sovereignty projects, the People’s Market has positioned itself as an agent of change. Its work goes far beyond simply distributing food; it's a radical act of reimagining economic systems and community support. The co-op operates under democratic principles building toward consensus, equity, cooperative economics, and collective values. In practice, this might look like voting on vendors; or receiving input from producers, vendors, organizational partners, and buyers.   Most recently, to decide how to use grant funds, the co-op members incorporated input from families that receive free Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) shares, when they voted on which producers to purchase from. 

The market operates using a sliding scale, supplying some Bloomington families with weekly CSAs at no cost. One can be a CSA member, ordering week to week (versus the traditional model of paying up-front at the beginning of each season), or folks can drop by the market and purchase locally-produced fruits and veggies, eggs, meat, bread, and more separately.  A suggested sliding scale is on display for purchasers to choose what they pay based on their circumstances.  When one enters the market, they will notice that all of the produce is displayed on one table, unlike the traditional farmers’ market model where each farmer sets up their own table.  In this way, farmers, many of whom drive two hours to reach Bloomington, simply have to drop off their produce instead of selling for hours as well.  There are also vendors with prepared foods, including baked goods, and artisans. There’s Colombian empanadas, coconut rolls, cakes, meat and vegan hand-pies—all delicious.  There are also one-off special events like a clothing exchange or used book sale.  Each vendor and event is chosen by keeping in mind the needs of the community.    

"People often don't understand why we give food away for free," Lauren McCalister, the co-op’s incorporator, explains. "There's a misconception that free food undermines the economy. But that's wildly untrue."  Her work is driven by a deeper understanding of economic resilience – one that recognizes how spaces of redistribution, from co-ops to consignment stores, actually increase the quality of life in communities. Low-cost to free food has a positive impact on the economy by increasing purchasing power for low-income individuals, stimulating local businesses through increased food spending, and improving workforce productivity by reducing hunger-related health issues, ultimately leading to a more stable economy, especially during economic downturns.  In short: If an individual or family doesn’t have to worry about getting enough food and nutrition, they can focus on taking care of their lives in other ways and can allocate more of their spending to things beyond food.

An important aspect of its mission is a commitment to regenerative agricultural practices that heal both land and community. In its own greenhouse, the co-op uses—and encourages its partnering farmers to use—minimal tillage, crop rotation, and cover crops that restore soil health, rebuilding the ecosystem with each season. They prioritize chemical-free growing methods, recognizing that soil health is intrinsically linked to community health.  Many of the farmers use organic, regenerative practices—or, “farming!” as McCalister would say—though they may not have gone through the expensive certification process. McCalister has personally visited the farms to learn more about their operations and to create real relationships with the farmers. 

Last year at the RAFI (Rural Advancement Foundation International) conference, McCalister discovered a striking data point. A map showing food security between 2010 and 2020 revealed a stark truth: areas with Walmarts experienced less food security. Inspired, she challenged the researchers to create the inverse map – demonstrating how co-ops might be a solution (research in-progress).

The work is not without its challenges. In Bloomington, a town that prides itself on liberal values, McCalister has experienced firsthand the resistance to confronting systemic racism. "We've been positioned as the antagonists," she notes, reflecting on how the People’s Market’s very existence is often seen as a threat to the established order. The more traditional farmers’ market vendors claim that using a sliding scale (including $0) undermines their own business.  However, the Bloomington Farmers Market is thriving, attracting thousands each Saturday morning.  Those who benefit from a sliding scale and those who believe in a different model from the traditional capitalist one, find their way to the People’s Co-op.  Community members are also welcome to visit and support both markets, as each has different vendors and meets different needs.

The co-op’s approach goes beyond individual interactions, recognizing the broader systemic conditions that shape food access and community health. "You can't just use food without acknowledging its political, social, and racial implications," McCalister asserts. Each low-cost or free assortment of produce, eggs, and bread—each cooperative interaction becomes an act of resistance and reimagining. 

The People's Co-op represents more than a food distribution system. It's a model of community resilience, a challenge to economic assumptions, and a testament to the power of mutual aid and collective action. In a landscape where food can be a weapon of economic control, People’s Market is turning it into a tool of liberation.

As Bloomington – and the nation – continue to wrestle with questions of equity and food access, People’s Market stands as a beacon of hope, proving that another way of organizing our food systems is not just possible—it’s essential.

Learn more about the People's Co-Op Market here.

In the town of Ellettsville in southern Indiana, where suburbia fades into farmland, Lauren McCalister's farm stands as a testament to resilience and community. The black-owned farm, situated at a unique crossroads of American life – nestled in a right-leaning intersection between a McMansion, a 300-acre Land Trust of corn and soybeans, and a trailer park– tells a story of transformation and purpose.

"I got into farming because of poverty," Lauren shares candidly. But what began as a means of survival has blossomed into a family operation. The farm operates primarily as a family affair, with Lauren, her husband, and their children working the land together. Occasionally, they welcome eager learners who want to experience farm life firsthand.

The property's history runs as deep as its limestone foundation. The original farmhouse, thoughtfully positioned with its front door facing due north, was built by a cattle farmer who quarried the limestone himself. This attention to detail and connection to the land didn't go unnoticed when McCalister sought to purchase the property. The previous owner, daughter of the original farmer, had declined numerous offers over two years, paying taxes on an empty house while waiting for the right buyers. When she learned the McCalisters planned to continue farming the 40 acres, she finally agreed to sell.

"She drives by sometimes," Lauren says with a smile. "When we see her, she tells us how happy it makes her to see the sheep there and someone farming."

The farm began with just three sheep—a wedding present from a friend looking to “call [Lauren’s] bluff” on wanting to husband sheep; hence the name “Three Flock Farm”.  Today, the name is still apt as they have three flocks of sheep, goats, and chickens, totaling about 100 animals. Through trial and error, Lauren learned what grows best on the farm; namely:  blueberries, sweet potatoes, and mushrooms. 

The farm's impact extends beyond its fences. They sell their meat to Mother Hubbard’s Cupboard (a food pantry and community hub for access to healthy foods) and the People's Cooperative Market, ensuring that quality, locally-raised meat and eggs remain accessible to those who might otherwise go without. But perhaps their most beloved community contribution is their annual tradition of bringing lambs to the public library for children to hold.

"There are very few things in my life that I'm like... adorable," Lauren admits, "but watching kids meet the lambs is one of them." The visits have become so popular that they now require breathing exercises before introducing the lambs, as children literally shake with excitement at the prospect of holding them. "There's always at least one kid that, after holding the lamb, declares 'I want to be a sheep farmer!'" Lauren recounts with pride.

The farm operates with minimal outside help and follows what would be considered as “regenerative organic practices”.  Lauren explains that they knew they didn’t want to spray any synthetic chemicals.  She then observed that the sheep happily ate and trampled down her fields of cover-crops, in which she then directly planted her crops, later learning that this technique is considered “crimping”.  Lauren pointed out that what she does is farming.  It’s what others are doing that is the issue (destroying the land and lessening the nutritious quality of our food), such as using harmful pesticides, mono-cropping, or rototilling.  

The McCalister farm represents more than just a business or a means of survival. In a time where the distance between farm and table grows ever wider, their story reminds us of the power of personal connection to the land and the community it feeds.

Building the green economy is about more than being informed about corporations—it’s about actually supporting businesses that have adopted green practices, are growing the local economies, and pay suppliers fairly. Where you shop and what you buy when you do sends a direct message. So vote with your dollar!

Child labor in slaughterhouses is shocking, and it’s something we have the power to stop. Join us in demanding JBS, Perdue, Cargill, and Tyson Foods stop child labor.

The Trump Administration’s tariffs are causing market gyrations.  They could increase inflation and cause a recession.  Tariffs also harm people with lower incomes in the US the most and people in poorer countries as well – the same people who are also being harmed by the Administration’s cuts to the federal government and overseas aid. 

Even with the recent rollback of many tariffs for 90 days, there is an overall tariff in place of 10 percent on all countries, high tariffs on several imported materials and products, and a 145 percent tariff on many products from China, our third-largest trading partner.  No one can predict what’s next: each day, the Administration’s tariffs change.

You may be understandably worried about rising prices and falling 401Ks.

Here’s 6 steps you can take as a consumer to go green and save green ($): 

1. Start a garden 
   Tariffs will result in rising prices for many goods.  Some of them, like the Nintendo Switch, we can live without, or put off purchasing, but we can’t go without food.  One great way to cut down on food costs is to grow your own; you can save hundreds of dollars per year growing your own food, and it will be more nutritious. Green America’s Climate Victory Garden campaign will show you how to grow organic foods that also fight climate change.  Or, work with your neighbors to start a Climate Victory Community Garden.  If you grow more food than you need, you can donate it to a local food bank or share with your neighbors. 

2. Support a CSA or farmer markets 
    A great way to support the local economy while eating healthy is to sign up for community supported agriculture (CSA), where you will receive fresh produce every week directly from a local farm.  Or, visit a local farmers market to choose between several farms.  Either way, you’ll save money and get fresher produce. 

3. Buy used clothes or do a clothing swap 
    Thrifting and swapping clothes is a fun way to get a new look while saving money. When you purchase used clothing, you extend the life of that shirt, blouse, or suit, and prevent it from going to landfill or getting dumped overseas. Many used clothing and goods stores support charities, so you are also doing good in the community.  Or, you can set up or take part in a clothing swap, where you can meet people while trading clothes out of your closets.  

4. Take part in or start a lending library for tools, household goods, toys 
    When you need a shovel, band saw, carpet cleaner or other tools or goods occasionally, why buy them?  Instead see if you can set up a lending library with your neighbors.  On a list serve or social media page, people can post what they need and borrow it.  Some local libraries have set up lending libraries for many items other than books – you can borrow a tool or a game and pick up a book to read as well!  

5. Buy a used car or go car-less 
    Tariffs on imported cars will likely drive up prices for many new cars, so it makes sense to buy used cars, where even late-model cars are much cheaper than new.  Or, you can take this time to see if you can go car-less. The ready availability of electric bikes (some which can carry significant loads), car-sharing apps and services, and public transportation might meet all your transportation needs while eliminating a major source of climate emissions.  

6. Repair instead of replace 
    A great way to reduce your purchases is to make current stuff last. When appliances break, see if you can repair them instead of replacing – sometimes the repairs are cheaper than you think.  You can mend clothing, or have someone repair it.  Well-made furniture is always worth repairing.  Keep your car in good repair with regular maintenance. 

You can find more ideas from our Green American magazine issue "Going Green on a Budget". 

And, don’t forget to support businesses that integrate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) into their operations, and steer your money away from companies like Walmart, Amazon, and Target that walked back their commitments to DEI.  Instead, make sure to support the greenest businesses across the country for the products you need to purchase new! 

These steps are just a handful of the ways you can go green and save money.  As you work to save money and save the planet, you’ll create new skills and forge relationships with people in your community.  We can all learn from each other how to be more resilient and create mutual support during these hard times. 

WASHINGTON, DC – APRIL 10, 2025 – Green America and the Child Labor Coalition launched a new campaign aimed at eradicating child labor and labor violations in the food production industry, with a focus on the four top U.S. meat processing companies. The campaign will focus on child labor and labor violations at Perdue Farms, JBS, Tyson and Cargill, including launching a consumer petition and engaging a network of allied grassroots groups on the ground across the country. 

Once thought a relic of the past, child labor is on the rise in the United States. Major U.S. corporations are putting children as young as 13 to work in dangerous jobs they are too young to perform and that are hazardous to their health. An estimated 300,000 to 500,000 children are working in the agriculture industry alone.  

In January, Perdue Farms and JBS, two of the country’s largest meat-packers, were fined a combined $8 million for relying on children to work in their slaughterhouses. Children also have been reportedly working in dangerous conditions at Tyson and Cargill facilities. To make matters worse, 31 states have worked to loosen child labor and safety laws since 2021. 

Charlotte Tate, Labor Justice Campaigns Director at Green America, said: “In the United States today, illegal child labor is resurgent because of the irresponsible business practices of corporations, including some of the top meat-packing companies. It’s appalling that multi-billion-dollar meat producers are profiting from children carrying out dangerous work cleaning in their facilities. Cargill hit record profits of up to $6 billion in recent years. JBS is even bigger, with a reported $20 billion profit last year alone. While companies are taking steps in response to federal investigations, more needs to be done to protect children from child labor and unsafe working conditions throughout their entire supply chains.” 

Reid Maki, Child Labor Advocacy Director for the Child Labor Coalition and National Consumers League, said: “Children’s lives are on the line and there is no time to waste. In just the last two years, the U.S. has experienced fatalities and permanent, traumatic injuries involving children working at dangerous and exploitative jobs in meat-processing facilities. Companies have a legal and moral obligation to eliminate child labor in the food production industry.” 

Todd Larsen, Executive Co-Director at Green America said: “Sadly, there have been several reports of minors who suffered injuries that included mangled arms and chemical burns in food processing facilities cleaned by contractors hired by meatpacking companies. These children are working long hours, often late in the night, to do work that should only be performed by adults.”  

JBS – JBS is the world’s largest meat processor. The Department of Labor recently uncovered serious child labor violations at multiple JBS facilities, revealing minors as young as 13 years old working in hazardous working conditions. These violations were found in locations in Grand Island, Nebraska; Greeley, Colorado; Worthington, Minnesota; and Marshall, Minnesota. The Department of Labor report states that these minors were exposed to and cleaned hazardous machinery during overnight shifts. JBS paid $4 million in fines in January 2025 for child labor violations in several states. 

Tyson – Tyson is the second-largest meat processor after JBS. The Department of Labor recently found minors as young as 13 working in hazardous conditions at Tyson Foods facilities in Green Forest, Arkansas and Goodlettsville, Tennessee. The Department of Labor also began investigating Tyson for child labor violations at two poultry processing plants in Arkansas. 

Perdue – The Department of Labor recently found children as young as 13 working in hazardous conditions in a Perdue Facility in Virginia. Tragically, while sanitizing power-driven meat-processing equipment, a child working an overnight shift was traumatically injured when his arm was caught in a machine that he was cleaning and cut to the bone in February 2022. Perdue recently agreed to pay $4 million in fines based on investigations of child labor in Virginia. 

Cargill – Cargill is the world’s largest ground beef producer. The Department of Labor recently uncovered child labor violations at Cargill facilities in Dodge City, Kansas and Fiona, Texas. The investigation of Packer Sanitation Services Inc. (PSSI), which was contracted by Cargill and other meatpackers, found children working with hazardous chemicals and cleaning equipment such as brisket saws and “head splitters,” often on overnight shifts.  

Green America is a non-profit organization representing over 250,000 individual members and 2,000 small businesses. Our mission is to harness economic power—the strength of consumers, investors, businesses, and the marketplace—to create a socially just and environmentally sustainable society. 

The Child Labor Coalition (CLC) represents millions of Americans through 37 organizations that fight to protect worker rights, human rights, and child rights. CLC members include the nation’s largest union, the National Education Association, the National Consumers League, Human Rights Watch, and the Fair Labor Association, as well as numerous groups that are also concerned about the welfare of vulnerable children at risk of child labor exploitation. 

### 

MEDIA CONTACT: Parke Qua for Green America, (216) 276-2476 or pqua@hastingsgroupmedia.com. 

ABOUT  

Green America is the nation’s leading green economy organization. Founded in 1982, Green America provides the economic strategies, organizing power and practical tools for businesses and individuals to solve today’s social and environmental problems. http://www.GreenAmerica.org  

Nothing is more threatening to those who crave absolute power than an engaged public that knows and exercises their rights to the fullest extent. Which is why the Trump administration has clearly set its sights on uprooting decades of social, political, and economic programs providing resources and support for historically marginalized communities.

Let’s be clear: the intent behind pressuring corporations, organizations, and institutions in both private and public sectors to drop anything the administration deems DEI is to completely erase trans and other queer people, Black, Indigenous, and other people of color, immigrants, refugees, disabled people, poor people, working class people, Muslims, and other marginalized communities from public life.

Nowhere is this more apparent than the vicious and intense targeting of transgender people, from denying trans youth life-saving gender affirmative care to forcing the National Park Service to remove any mention of transgender people from the Stonewall Memorial. These cruel, petty acts aren’t just about ignoring the history that bigots in power don’t like—they’re specific, traumatic attacks that deny the very existence of trans people.

Their message to marginalized communities can’t be any clearer: We don’t see you. We don’t hear you. We don’t speak to you. Because you don’t matter at all.

All the while, we continue to face escalating climate and environmental crises that we cannot hope to address without applying the full force of skill and innovation that comes from embracing a fully integrated, equitably resourced, and diverse talent pool. By banning DEI programs and practices, the administration is deliberately hamstringing our ability to create a sustainable, stable, and safe world for us all. Despite all the data pointing to the multiple ways diversity, equity, and inclusion focused practices benefit us socially, economically, and politically, the administration and its allies persist in promoting the lie that we must choose between diversity and quality.

This is a false choice—diversity and quality are not opposites, not unless you accept the underlying belief that “diversity” (meaning anything outside the white supremacist status quo) is inherently less qualified until proven otherwise. Green Americans already know that cultivating communities of diverse thought, abilities, lived expertise, and experiences increases opportunities for qualified people to show their merit, regardless of their identities.

Which is exactly why JEDI principles (justice, equity, diversity, inclusion) are foundational to Green America’s mission and work culture. The articles in this issue of Green American reflect our steadfast belief that these practices are both a moral imperative and good business, and that ending them puts everyone at risk. Critics like to claim that DEI is about vague ideology, not concrete actions, so one of our goals in this issue was to offer accessible, practical advice for how to implement or strengthen DEI policies in your own spaces, as well as suggest businesses you can support. We hope these articles provided you with useful roadmaps for having these important discussions in your own networks, whether you’re advocating for how understanding the ongoing impacts of historic discrimination is essential to provide impactful resources for sustainable entrepreneurs, why we need to support island states—including U.S. territories—in building climate-resilient economies and infrastructure, or why immigration justice and labor protections are green issues.

No matter the rhetoric or spin, the simple fact remains that diversity is our strength. It’s communities working together by including multiple voices and integrating new ideas to create a stronger whole. It’s acknowledging the wrongs of the past and present to create an equitable and just future where our collective resilience ensures that we won’t just survive—we’ll thrive.

Climate change and the need for developing environmentally sustainable systems of business, food supplies, power production, and so forth, are issues that affect communities worldwide. Disabled people are particularly vulnerable to how climate change exacerbates inequitable access to resources like disaster relief, health care, and housing, yet disabled voices and perspectives are marginalized, if not outright ignored, in discussions shaping public policies and in implementing solutions. And under the current administration’s attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion focused programs, disabled people face even higher barriers to access of critical resources and support.

Disability Culture Lab is the first nonprofit media and narrative lab created to shift the ways disability is commonly perceived and understood by an ableist society. In this interview, founder and director Meier Galblum Haigh shared their thoughts with Green America about common myths pitting the needs of disabled people against environmental sustainability, how disability communities are building climate resiliency, and why disability justice is an essential part of climate advocacy.

The following text has been edited for clarity.

Green America: Disabled people are twice as likely as non-disabled people to be harmed by the effects of climate change—we’ve seen this horribly reflected in the aftermath of recent disasters like the wildfires in Los Angeles, but U.S. sustainability policies often don’t prioritize the needs of disabled communities. What are some common misconceptions about the relationship between disability justice and environmental sustainability?
 
Meier Galblum Haigh: There is a myth that disability justice and environmental sustainability or climate change are at odds. That myth has been fueled by billionaire-friendly campaigns that pit accessibility devices against sustainability. In reality, climate justice, environmental justice, and disability justice are one fight: It’s the people vs. corporate greed. 

Disabled people face regular harassment over access to basic life. It benefits fossil fuel companies and corporations to push a false narrative of “personal responsibility” environmentalism over public health and pollution regulations. That harassment extends to plastic straws, pre-cut vegetable packages, grocery delivery, and more. The result: Everything we need to survive becomes the target, rather than the disabling actions they take to get and stay rich.

Pollution, fossil fuel extraction and processing, and climate disasters like wildfires and super storms are all disabling. Disabled people are left behind in disaster planning and response, and it gets worse as the frequency and intensity of storms increases.  

GA: How can we proactively disrupt these false choices pitting disability needs against environmental concerns in our advocacy? 

Haigh: We need to remind folks who the real villains are: corporations who have made billions of dollars polluting our air, water, and climate—and [are] lying about it. 

Disabled folks should be a core constituency in the climate movement, but the inaccessibility of most climate and environmental advocacy means so much power is left on the table. If we want to win in this fight of people vs. [corporate] power—we need all of us. 

For too long, environmental justice and climate activists have practiced the same sacrifice zone politics of fossil fuel companies, picking and choosing which communities are worthy and which to leave out. But there is too much at stake. It’s time to make space for a new wave of organizing where we all get free together—because we can’t afford to leave power on the table. 

GA: Community-led innovations are vital to a thriving green economy. What are some key insights that sustainability movements are missing by not integrating the lived expertise of disabled people from the start? 

Haigh: First, we need an accessible Green New Deal. We need clean, accessible cities and towns across the U.S. that are walkable and rollable for all. That looks like protected bike lanes for power chairs and scooters and Deaf/hard of hearing cyclists—not just able-bodied cyclists. Folks want to see transit for all, not for some. 

Second, we can’t pit people against people. Sustainability activists too often take the corporate bait and blame individuals—too often poor and disabled folks—for billionaires’ corporate greed. We should be going after fossil fuel companies and mega-retailers, not disabled folks’ straws. We should push car companies to make EVs, and politicians to build a better EV grid—not attack disabled parents who need food delivery to feed our families.

GA: Representation matters but even when disabled people are included in the decision-making process and policy implementation, what are some common pitfalls that can happen? What steps can we take to help the impact of proposed solutions align with their intentions? 

Haigh: It’s important that we don’t tokenize. We need disabled representation that represents the needs of disability communities, not just one disabled person at one table. 

We need accessible climate and environmental justice movements and organizations that ensure as many disabled people can participate at every level as possible. We don’t just need CART and ASL and wheelchair access—we need a commitment to radical inclusivity that puts disabled ideas and brilliance at every table. And we need funding for our organizations to join those tables. 

GA: Information accessibility is just as important as accessing resources, especially at a moment when the spread of dis/misinformation through news and other media channels, as well as social networks, is a real danger. How have disabled folks been affected by dis/misinformation about issues like climate change, green economies, and sustainability movements? 

Haigh: There is a huge dis/misinformation pipeline targeting the disability community online. Especially young disabled white men—just like other young white men across the country have been targeted by influencers who spread misogynistic, racist, and transphobic rhetoric. We need a lot more funding and a lot more research on where our folks are being targeted, how, and how to combat that dis/misinformation.

GA: The negative impacts of pesticides, microplastics, fossil fuels, monocropping, and other environmental issues compound the already considerable difficulties of existing in our ableist systems. What are some of the solutions and resources disabled communities have developed as a result that “green” movements should be learning from? 

Haigh: One piece of disability community organizing that I think “green” movements should learn from is the practice of access—working to make all actions, events, aid, and anything else we do as accessible as possible to as many people as possible. 

We include questions about access needs in event invitations, and shift resources to meet them. We post access information in advance—parking, stairs, food and allergy restrictions, distance, scent sensitivities, ASL, CART, etc. We try to meet people where they are at, rather than expecting people to meet us where we are.

Environmental injustice is disabling. Climate injustice is disabling. The reality is, just as “green” movements have fallen short on access, inclusion, and the embracing the power of disabled people, our government has fallen short as well. In response, many disability communities have developed tight-knit mutual aid networks to deal with the massive gaps in care infrastructure. Other movements would do well to follow suit.

We need organizing, mutual aid, and a lot of cultural change work to get us through what’s coming. Let’s make it happen. Together.

To learn more about Disability Culture Lab’s work, visit disabilityculturelab.org

While the Trump administration demonizes diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts and many large corporations fold to political pressure by walking back prior commitments to support minority-owned businesses in their stores and supply chains, Green America’s Green Business Network® members are preserving and celebrating their heritage. By supporting artisans, upholding traditional practices, and promoting fair trade, they sustain cultural identities while fostering economic resilience and empowering communities. Their efforts are increasingly vital given the ongoing impact of the administration’s hostility to immigrant communities and providing foreign aid.

Grounds for Change merges a passion for coffee with a commitment to sustainability and social equity. Offering certified organic, fair-trade coffee, they support small-scale farmers in Guatemala, Mexico, and Colombia. By promoting traditional farming methods that respect the land and community, Grounds for Change uplifts these farming cultures while fostering a sustainable future for both people and the environment. Kitsap County, Washington | Ships Worldwide | groundsforchange.com

Gilden Tree celebrates cultural craftsmanship through its handcrafted personal care products, including soaps, lotions, and bath accessories. Collaborating with artisans from regions like the Mediterranean and Asia, the company preserves time-honored techniques in soap-making and skincare. Their high-quality offerings not only reflect these traditions but also provide economic support to the artisans behind them. Omaha, Nebraska | Ships Worldwide | gildentree.com

Velasquez Family Coffee celebrates its Guatemalan roots by producing premium, ethically sourced coffee grown on their family farm in the highlands of Guatemala. Using sustainable, traditional methods passed down for generations, the family prioritizes environmental stewardship, community well-being, and quality. By paying fair wages to farmers and fostering long-term relationships, they ensure their cultural legacy and coffee expertise endure. Comayagua, Honduras | Ships Worldwide | vfamilycoffee.com

Prabhuji’s Gifts honors the spiritual traditions of India by offering an array of products inspired by Hinduism, Buddhism, and other practices. From incense and jewelry to meditative tools and clothing, their offerings reflect the depth of Indian cultural heritage. Through fair trade partnerships, they support artisans creating these handcrafted items, preserving centuries-old techniques while promoting mindfulness and peace. Catskill Mountains, New York | Ships Worldwide | prabhujigifts.com

Mayan Hands works to sustain the cultural richness of Guatemala’s Mayan communities by providing fair wages to artisans crafting traditional woven textiles, pottery, and handmade goods. By emphasizing the use of natural dyes and intricate weaving techniques, the organization helps preserve the artistic traditions and vibrant patterns unique to Mayan culture. Their efforts also strengthen the local economy and empower Indigenous artisans. Guatemalan Highlands | Ships Worldwide | mayanhands.org

African Market Baskets showcases the artistry and cultural heritage of African weaving traditions. Each basket is a testament to generations of craftsmanship, and the company’s focus on fair wages empowers women artisans while celebrating their skills. Through these partnerships, African Market Baskets helps preserve and share the diverse weaving techniques and artistry that are central to African culture. Upper East Ghana | Ships Worldwide | africanmarketbaskets.com

Minga Fair Trade Imports highlights the creativity and craftsmanship of Latin American artisans by offering handmade goods such as textiles, pottery, and jewelry. Their commitment to fair trade ensures artisans receive equitable pay, preserving traditional skills and driving economic growth within Indigenous communities. By supporting marginalized groups, Minga champions cultural heritage and sustainable development in the region. South America | Ships Worldwide to Retailers | mingaimports.com

Seeds to Sew International uplifts women and communities in East Africa through the creation and sale of handcrafted textiles, clothing, and accessories. Their mission focuses on celebrating African heritage, preserving traditional sewing techniques, and fostering sustainable practices. By providing fair wages and educational opportunities, the organization empowers women and promotes community development. Hopewell, New Jersey | USA Shipping | seedstosew.org

Canaan Palestine honors Palestinian traditions by supporting local artisans and sustainable practices in the West Bank. Through the sale of handmade olive wood carvings, intricate embroidery, olive oil, and other crafts, they ensure that Palestinian heritage thrives while providing vital income for families. Their commitment to fair trade guarantees artisans fair compensation and their products share the rich stories, culture, and artistry of Palestine with the world. Burqin, Palestine | Ships worldwide | canaanpalestine.com

Friends of the Third World Inc. supports artisans from developing nations by offering a marketplace for handcrafted goods from various cultures in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. By focusing on fair trade practices, they ensure artisans receive equitable pay while safeguarding the unique artistic techniques and cultural identities that define their communities. Fort Wayne, Indiana | Ships Worldwide |
friendsofthethirdworld.org

Committing to a successful DEI program at your business and reaping the benefits is no small task. Truly impactful DEI programs create committed leadership, employee engagement, integrate DEI practices into organizational operations, use needs-based training and education, and have clear metrics to measure success and ensure accountability.

“There’s a number of considerations [when it comes to DEI programs],” says urbanist and social entrepreneur Nicholas Lalla, author of the book “Reinventing the Heartland.”

Additionally, DEI programs, which are completely legal, can often prevent lawsuits and legal troubles. A culture of respect is much less likely to foster discriminatory behavior that results in lawsuits.

Experts and business managers weigh in on first steps curriculums should consider for true gains and progress.

Step One: Start Today

“Start with something simple, educate yourself, educate your coworkers,” says Mike Houston. “You don’t need to start with a full staff training, but it’s important to begin your educational journey.”

Houston is the general manager at Takoma Park Silver Spring (TPSS) Co-op, a local grocery store founded in 1981 as a vegetarian storefront. The business had a focus on equity long before Houston arrived, he says.

“We have 45 staff members from 22 different countries. We translate trainings into Spanish and Amharic, because we have staff members more comfortable receiving information in those native languages.”

Lalla adds it is key to “ask yourself why you’re pursuing a DEI initiative” and be honest and realistic. This helps the program avoid what Lalla calls the “theatre” of symbolic efforts and lip service with no real impact.

Perhaps most importantly, starting today means accepting inevitable mistakes. If a business owner refuses to implement a DEI program until it’s perfect, it will never be implemented at all, and that inaction will inevitably harm your employees and your business.

Step Two: Be Specific—And Broad

DEI initiatives are not one-size-fits-all. Success hinges on specificity, tailoring a program to consider a business’s industry, the number of employees, goals, and more.

Houston describes what this looks like for TPSS, including educating employees specifically about redlining’s effect on grocery stores and food access.

“The more you learn, the more you understand that those policies were intentional and can only be undone with intention,” he explains. “We’re connected with hundreds of co-op grocers all over the country and this topic has been discussed for years as co-ops look to open in areas without a full-service grocer. We know we need to help support these stores with resources and knowledge because their success will help bring grocery stores to communities that need them.”

Identifying what a business’ goals are for a DEI program also helps narrow what the program looks like in practice. The initiatives worth anything “move the needle,” Lalla explains, and businesses must set quantifiable goals and a system to monitor them. He recommends going “a step further” by tying DEI goals to executive and Board goals.

It’s why TPSS moved to an EBIA framework for its program—equity, belonging, inclusivity, and accessibility. The co-op’s goals are making the store a welcoming place, encouraging a diversity of languages spoken by employees, products representing vast cultural preferences, and an accessible space for every shopper, all the results of intentional thinking.

While everything must be done with intention, Lalla says a common misstep is “thinking one program or initiative is sufficient.”

“Inclusion is a value that needs to permeate all aspects of a company,” he further adds. “Where the company is located (is it accessible via public transportation), remote work policy (is it flexible), hiring practices (do you prioritize skills over degrees), benefits (do you provide health insurance and retirement savings), security (is it safe but not overly policed), leadership (does the executive team look like the community), etc. Companies need to think about it more comprehensively and not just a single initiative that checks a box.”

Step Three: Commit

The road to equity may be paved with good intentions but it’s not a smooth one—mistakes and critics can interfere with progress, which makes commitment all the more important.

“An organization must first be ready to welcome diverse perspectives and change to accommodate new voices,” insists Houston. “If your organization is not ready to incorporate diversity into decision-making and your organizational culture, then you’re not ready to proactively seek it out. I think that’s the trap a lot of organizations have fallen into in the last few years.”

To stay accountable, Lalla recommends a DEI consultant to make suggestions and help keep a business on track.

Despite critics’ claims that DEI programs are illegal and harm white people, the results speak for themselves. In fact, according to a 2019 report by global nonprofit Coqual, white women have been the biggest beneficiaries of DEI initiatives.

“80% of our staff has been with us three or more years, and 60% have been here five years or longer,” Houston says, crediting TPSS’ commitment to equity and inclusion.

Retention is not the only success. On average, more diverse and inclusive teams outperform gender-homogenous and less inclusive teams by 50%, according to Gartner.

“To stay competitive in an increasingly innovative and disruptive business world, companies need talented teams full of a diversity of perspectives—talents who are empowered to help solve problems, create opportunities, and add value,” Lalla concludes.

Solutions and success require ingenuity, and we are more powerful when not only is everyone welcome at the table, but everyone’s voices are heard and considered.

Ready to Hire a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Consultant?

Green America’s Executive Co-Director: Culture, Strategy & Green Business Planning, Dr. LaKeisha Thorpe, has some advice for businesses looking to hire a DEI consultant.

• Define your business’ goals and needs with specificity and clarity to find the right DEI consultant
• Determine your business’ timeline and budget for DEI work
• Find someone who not only has subject matter knowledge, but lived experience in a marginalized body and is willing to share their journey
• Ask about their education (formally or informally) and study of DEI tenets
• Ensure the consultant will be honest and frank, while practicing understanding and solution-oriented aid.

As Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Wesley Lowery says in his book “American Whitelash,” white Americans have historically reacted to racial progress in a “three steps forward, two steps back way”—and this time, the scapegoat is corporate DEI policy.

Companies claim that rolling back DEI programs are about “ensuring our executive incentives are tied to business performance” (Molson Coors); are related to the evolving “external and legal environment related to political and social issues” (Ford Motor Co.) and are based on “many years of data” (Target).

Those claims are highly suspect, coming on the heels of tantrums thrown by an unpredictable and openly racist Presidential administration. But what is clear is that by rolling back DEI, these businesses are taking an ill-advised gamble on long-term success—over a decade of research demonstrates that sticking to DEI policies is better for bottom lines, workers, and buyers. While CEOs and corporate leadership may reap short-term rewards from bowing to pressure from anti-DEI spokespeople, it’s everyday Americans who are paying the price for their greed and cowardice.

Withdrawing DEI Commitments Is a Spineless Act

In 2024, right wing critics generated transphobic outrage to Budweiser’s partnership with transgender celebrity Dylan Mulvaney. Budweiser responded with lukewarm platitudes about bringing people together over American beer and eventually lost $1.4 billion in sales for parent company Anheuser-Busch. Other companies with conservative consumer bases like Harley-Davidson, Tractor Supply, and Ford Motor Co. feared similar backlash and ended any commitments they’d previously made to address diversity, equity, and inclusion issues.

The current political landscape is increasingly hostile to LGBTQIA+ people, Black, Indigenous, and other people of color, the economically disadvantaged, disabled people, and immigrants. Major U.S. companies caving to right wing harassment for actions as simple as partnering with a young trans woman for a single online ad spot doesn’t just put profits at risk, it puts whole communities—many of whom contribute considerably to the very profits these companies are so eager to protect—in even more vulnerable positions. It’s impossible to separate Anheuser-Busch’s refusal to clearly condemn the harassment Mulvaney was subjected to from the onslaught of state and federal laws targeting trans people from accessing basic health care, legal protections, and general participation in public life as their full, authentic selves.

Similarly, Walmart made bold promises to rectify decades of inequitable corporate practices after the murder of George Floyd and subsequent mass public protests in 2020. After a mere four years, Walmart executives changed their minds on progressive corporate policies last November, including stopping its initiative to increase supplier diversity; halting participation in the Human Rights Campaign’s annual benchmark index measuring workplace inclusion of LGBTQIA+ employees; and ending racial equity training programs for staff. The ending of those policies will negatively impact Walmart’s workers and the communities those stores serve far more than its corporate leadership. It will also harm the marginalized-owned and operated small businesses that relied on those initiatives to bring their goods to a wider audience in a market that’s already stacked in favor of multinational conglomerates.

According to Walmart’s 2024 Annual Belonging, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Report, people of color make up over 50% of its hourly U.S. workforce, with Black and Latino workers at roughly 20% each, but only 26% of Walmart officers (senior and executive leadership) are people of color, with Black and Asian officers at just under 10% each. Meanwhile, studies show that while being one of the largest employers in the U.S., Walmart offers some of the lowest pay and contributes to high area unemployment, often by putting smaller, local competitors out of business.

Walmart also cut off donations to its philanthropic arm, the Center for Racial Equity, established in 2020 and dedicated to addressing the root causes of inequality for African Americans by offering grants to 501(c)3 nonprofits working on these issues. Walmart’s 2024 Annual Belonging, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Report stated that “the Center for Racial Equity has invested more than $80 million” in nonprofits that work to “create equitable outcomes for Black and African American communities.” Those funds have helped nonprofits like Code the Dream provide support for people in tech apprenticeships, and Unlock Potential provide career opportunities for young people ages 16 to 24 at risk of incarceration.
This swift corporate U-turn shows how tenuous corporate DEI commitments can be when they’re made without conviction, especially if leadership believes that doing the opposite will protect their bottom line. And repealing DEI policies doesn’t just put a company’s long-term stability at risk, doing so also harms the very communities those corporations claim to care about.

DEI Commitments Create Long-Term Success

In early 2025, both Apple and Costco refused to humor attempts to abolish their DEI programs and commitments, asserting their DEI policies have been, and continue to be, good for business.
Their claims aren’t coming out of thin air. According to Boston Consulting Group, in research based on data covering 27,000 employees in 16 countries, company leadership that prioritizes DEI can slash attrition risk by 50% and increase employee motivation by nearly 25%. Workers who stick around and want to work reduce hiring and training costs, ultimately saving the company money and increasing innovations.

In fact, anti-DEI campaigners and the companies that cave to their demands are not the majority in the marketplace, they’re the outliers. In an annual survey released in 2024, the Association of Corporate Citizenship Professionals reported that 83% of respondents said their organization’s commitment to DEI remains consistent. Another 13% said their commitment increased compared to last year. In the State of Sustainability report published by Teneo, 43% of companies continue to maintain and promote DEI goals, and 80% of those goals remain unchanged since 2023; 70% of companies maintain supplier diversity programs; and 67% have programs seeking diverse talent.

While news coverage may uncritically repeat the story that brand name companies are backing out of DEI commitments, the reality is that most companies are standing their ground.

Sticking to DEI also makes sense in the long term as younger generations enter the workforce and become regular buyers. Gen Z will represent 30% of the workforce by 2030, and 28% of that workforce identifies as LGBTQIA+. According to a Human Rights Campaign survey, more than 75% of LGBTQIA+ adults view companies that rollback diversity initiatives dimly, and many of those folks would quit or look for a new job if their employer ceased implementing DEI policies.

The strength of green businesses—or companies that utilize sustainable and socially responsible practices in their workplaces and supply chains—also demonstrate that a commitment to DEI pays dividends and supports local communities.

Gloria Ware, CEO of Get the Bag{GBN}, has been sourcing from Black women-owned businesses across the country for the company’s subscription box service for years. Takoma Silver Spring Co-op{GBN} started an in-house DEI training in 2019 because the company’s board believed it had value for its employees—and general manager Mike Houston agrees.

“It’s been powerful,” Houston says for the Green Business Network blog. “You can’t help but connect these things back to current politics and policies, so, again, historical context is important for understanding the world that we exist in to do business.” (Read more about Takoma Silver Spring Co-op’s efforts on p. 28.)

DEI Is Here to Stay

DEI advocates recognize that the consequences of centuries of racism, wealth inequality, corporate greed, misogyny, and other injustices won’t go away just because we stop talking about them. We want sincere commitment and dedication to change, regardless of political headwinds. And we know the push back we’re seeing now is nothing new. There was plenty of reactionary protest to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the establishment of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which made it illegal for companies to discriminate based on race, gender, national origin, religion, or age in their hiring practices.

Modern DEI programs have their roots in private sector attempts to address areas that federal policy hadn’t yet covered, such as the persistence of discriminatory internal barriers to advancement and preferential treatment in business partnerships and supply chains. There is a direct line connecting the early efforts of employees filing discrimination lawsuits with the EEOC in the 1960s and 1970s and the normalization of companies adopting diversity training into their regular business models to corporate responses to social movements like Black Lives Matter including commitments to address racial inequity in their supply chains and workplaces in 2020.

It’s because DEI policies foster cultures of belonging by acknowledging the harm caused by discriminatory practices and committing to fair and equitable reparative actions that we continue to advocate for them. They are not just viable business strategies—they celebrate both individuality and belonging, and they uphold the American belief in a merit-based achievement system by sharing opportunities with all people. They help to create an environment—both in and out of the workplace—where people can show up as their whole selves, feel safe to share new ideas, and create breakthrough achievements.

By weaponizing racism, misogyny, and other forms of bigotry, anti-DEI campaigners are convincing people to destroy the very policies that all of us have actually benefited from. White women have been the biggest beneficiaries of diversity initiatives. Many veterans benefit from multiple programs halted by President Trump’s executive orders to “end the scourge of DEI in the federal government.” And countless small farmers across the country are in danger of losing their livelihoods thanks to the administration’s sweeping federal funding freezes.

The only ones who benefit from ending DEI programs are those whose hoarded power and wealth are threatened by just practices and equitable policies that recognize real merit. Making DEI practices integral to company policies and goals is setting a solid foundation for long-term success and will better serve not only shareholders, employees, and customers, but also our society and planet.

At the 29th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) about Small Island Developing States (SIDS), U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres addressed the disproportionate risks their communities face in the era of the climate crisis and the shared challenges to sustainable development, including limited resources, susceptibility to natural disasters, excessive dependence on international trade, and beyond. In the Caribbean, home to a majority of SIDS, islands are seven times more likely to be hit by a hurricane than larger states, and SIDS’ GDP cost of disasters is four times that for larger nations.

“You have every right to be angry, and I am too,” Guterres said. “You are on the sharp end of a colossal injustice.”

Five of these states are unincorporated territories of the United States: Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. The spoils of America’s imperialist ambitions, these unincorporated territories are completely subject to the federal government—participation in presidential elections end after the primaries, they have no senators, and only one non-voting member in the U.S. House of Representatives. Aside from American Samoa, whose residents are considered U.S. nationals and not citizens, if someone from the other four territories lives in and has formal residency in one of the 50 states or Washington D.C., they can vote in presidential elections beyond the primaries.
Like other SIDS, they are also pivotal in the global fight for environmental justice and yet too long neglected. Essayist Doug Mack wrote in his book “The Not-Quite States of America”:

A century or so ago, Americans didn’t just know about the territories but cared about them, argued about them. But what changed? How and why did they disappear from the national conversation? The territories have made us who we are. They represent the USA’s place in the world. They’ve been a reflection of our national mood in nearly every period of American history.

Prioritizing the welfare of places and people forcibly annexed in Western countries’ pursuits of empire and now at disproportionate risk to climate change is not only a moral imperative for humanity, but also a necessary part of the road to climate resilience and sustainability.

Fragile Environments, Resilient People

SIDS take up a small amount of landmass space on our planet—just 0.5% of the world’s surface area. Their environmental contributions though, are massive, boasting 20% of the world’s biodiversity and 40% of the world’s coral reefs. Between this scale of ecological diversity and Indigenous practices that eschew the exploitive treatment of available resources characterizing most mainland economies, these communities are often overlooked as leaders in the development of climate sustainability.

The U.N. fears low-lying islands could become uninhabitable by the end of the century, leading to mass population displacement. While these territories inflict minimal damage on the planet, they suffer the consequences of our shifting environments on a far more intense scale than the countries who contribute the most to climate change. 75% of their coral reefs are threatened by climate damage, annual costs of natural disasters are typically 1% to 8% of an island state’s entire GDP, and electric costs are the highest in the world because of imported fossil fuels. Most (94%) of residents live within 100km of a coral reef, a main source of food security, economic revenue from tourism and recreation, shoreline protection, and biodiversity.

Dr. Hiroshan Hettiarachchi, dean and professor of civil engineering at the University of Guam, says the context of size is critical to understand the environmental reality of our neighbors. Unreliable and unstable climate activities wreak disastrous havoc to infrastructure and livelihoods, and island states’
isolation and limitations are “huge barriers to a fast recovery.”

Facing an uphill battle, these small but resilient communities are some of the most ambitious and aggressive leaders in the climate space. In 2023, 40 SIDS met and exceeded climate goals, installing 8.7 gigawatts of renewables capacity. In 2018, the Republic of Seychelles launched the world’s first sovereign blue bond, a financial tool that helps raise capital for marine and ocean conservancy projects. Across the Indian Ocean, the Maldives saw a decrease in plastic pollution after launching the Maldives Authentic Crafts Cooperative Society, a women-led program empowering women with paid opportunities to produce reusable cloth bags and reduce single-use plastics.

Most of these successes were partially funded by the Global Environment Facility, a multilateral environmental fund, and future success won’t be possible without continued aid. Support of this aid is especially crucial. During Biden’s administration, $4 billion of a pledged $11.4 billion dedicated to climate projects helped low-income countries with things like renewable energy and protection from natural disasters. This money came from USAID, which is now under attack from the Trump administration.

Demand Action, Leadership, Justice

Aid from larger countries is not only vital to contending with climate change, but also part of a much larger debt that these island communities are owed.

“Economically powerful countries have benefited from exploiting natural resources in the world while emitting carbon dioxide and methane for over 250 years,” Hettiarachchi explains. “The damage they have caused to the environment for their economic gain is now felt by all of us. It’s only fair they take the lead in helping other nations.”

In May 2024, the fourth International Conference on Small Island Developing States (SIDS4) adopted The Antigua and Barbuda Agenda for SIDS (ABAS)—a Renewed Declaration for Resilient Prosperity. This declaration aims to help island states achieve Sustainable Development Goals and lists necessary help from the international community.

Economically powerful countries have benefited from exploiting natural resources in the world while emitting carbon dioxide and methane for over 250 years.”

— Dr. Hiroshan Hettiarachchi

Hettiarachchi emphasizes how those who don’t live in vulnerable states have a responsibility to understand the unique risks and challenges those communities are grappling with. For Hettiarachchi, his work as a civil engineer helped broaden his understanding about the effects of climate change. He recalls how despite growing up in Sri Lanka, which is itself an island, it “took years” for him to understand how the neighboring Maldives was affected more severely than his home.

“But wealth or power means nothing if the majority in those countries do not understand the real issues SIDS are facing currently,” Hettiarachchi says.

At COP29, however, the international community did not step up. Less wealthy countries will receive $300 billion annually through 2035 for environmental help, which is far less than the amount needed: $1.3 trillion annually through 2030.

“Developing countries have been forced to accept half-measures, COP after COP,” said Chandni Raina, a negotiator for India at COP29. “These half-measures push the costs of climate change on to the people least responsible but suffering the worst consequences.”

A Responsibility to Each Other

Cancer, asthma, cardiovascular disease, lead poisoning. All of these and more are health risks associated with environmental damage and bad environmental policies. Those who come from communities like the Marshall Islands know from lived experience how severe the impacts of environmental racism—often in the name of national security and scientific discovery—can be.

“The U.S. carried out several nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands from 1946 to 1958, making devastating
consequences for the health and environment of the islands and their inhabitants,” Hettiarachchi says.
The islands’ population during this time was between 11,000 and 14,000 people, all suffering from the equivalent of 1.6 Hiroshima bombs being detonated every day for 12 years, according to UNHCR. Jeton Anjain, previously Minister of Health and a senator of the Marshall Islands Parliament, recounted the fallout from Castle Bravo, the largest test: “The atoll was covered with a fine, white, powder-like substance. No one knew it was radioactive fallout. The children played in the ‘snow.’ They ate it.”
The National Cancer Institute revealed in 2005 that for people exposed to the fallout of these tests, the risk of contracting cancer was greater than one in three. Seen as disposable because of the islands’ remote location and “sparse” population, the U.S. military did not pause to consider the wellbeing of the Marshallese. As of 2018, about a third of the Marshall Islands’ population has relocated to mainland U.S., mostly due to unemployment (rates hover around 40% and a 1986 law called the Compact of Free Association, which granted the Islands independence from the U.S., allows Marshallese citizens to live and work in the U.S. without visas or work permits) and climate change.

“Punishing king tides combined with persistent drought have wreaked havoc on dwindling fresh water supplies,” Mike Taibbi reported for PBS NewsHour. “The view among climate experts, and many here who keep rebuilding their sea walls against the warming, rising Pacific, is that the islands are sinking, if not disappearing.”

As powerful, more developed countries have historically justified their occupation of small island states by citing reasons of national security and scientific study, they also bear the responsibility to provide the funding, time, energy, and resources those communities now need to build and maintain systems of climate resiliency to ensure their safety.

“The objective of any help should be focused on improving island sustainability,” Hettiarachchi recommends. “Globalization has given many good things to the SIDS, but it has also taken away sustainable living practices the island communities have practiced for thousands of years.”

Climate change is bigger than all of us, but especially for small island communities that contribute the least to environmental disaster but face insurmountable public debt due to disproportionate damage and neglect. The ingenuity and practices already exist among these diverse and astonishing places to care properly for our planet, it is resources and support that are sorely needed.

In a rolling farmland in Goldsboro, North Carolina, where generations have coaxed life from the earth, Cheryl Alston walks through her fields with a knowing smile. She runs her hands through the dark, nutrient-rich soil and plucks a bright, firm tomato from the vine. 

“Can you imagine eating a tomato so sweet you might call it a piece of candy?” Alston says. “It all comes straight from the field, from the best soil in the world. It’s just wonderful.” 

For farmers like “Mama Cheryl” Alston, regenerative agriculture isn’t a trend—it’s tradition. Across the
country, Black women have long practiced sustainable farming methods, nurturing their soil with techniques passed down through generations. In the face of industrial farming’s extractive practices, they have persisted in growing food in a way that prioritizes soil health, biodiversity, and community resilience.

The Benefits of Regenerative Agriculture

Regenerative agriculture is a holistic approach that focuses on restoring and enhancing ecosystems, particularly soil health. Unlike conventional farming, which often relies on synthetic inputs and intensive monoculture, regenerative practices emphasize balance—cover cropping, crop rotation, composting, reduced tillage, and agroforestry—to build resilience from the ground up.

“It’s better-quality products that are better for our bodies,” Cee Stanley, CEO of Green Heffa Farms says. “Healing our Earth and our bodies at the same time.” 

One of the key components of regenerative agriculture is increasing organic matter in the soil. Cover
cropping, for example, involves planting specific crops during the off-season to protect and enrich the soil, prevent erosion, and suppress weeds. Crop rotation improves soil nutrients and disrupts pest cycles, reducing the need for chemical inputs. Meanwhile, agroforestry—integrating trees and shrubs into farmland—enhances water retention and supports wildlife habitats.

These methods not only produce healthier crops but also sequester carbon, making regenerative agriculture a powerful tool in the fight against climate change.

“We’ve Always Done It This Way”

For many farmers, regenerative agriculture is not a new direction but a steadfast tradition. Farming practices rooted in ancestral Indigenous knowledge and African traditions have always emphasized working in harmony with nature. 

“I’ve been doing those kinds of things all along, but hadn’t put a name to it. I had no idea folks were calling it ‘regenerative farming,’” Alston says. “Now I’m reaching another level, replenishing this incredible soil and growing this healthy food.” 

Yet, these farmers often find themselves left out of mainstream agricultural conversations, despite their deep understanding of soil stewardship.

“Black women occupy a really unique and kind of sacred space in farming that’s not often respected,” Taylor Herren, farm program specialist with Green America’s Soil & Climate Initiative says. “These ladies are growing real food and owning Black businesses that are really good for both people and the planet.”
While regenerative agriculture is gaining traction in sustainability discussions, the financial and structural barriers to transitioning away from extractive farming practices remain high. Many Black farmers operate on smaller-scales and face difficulties accessing loans, land, and market opportunities from long-standing racist inequities in banking, commerce, and real estate practices. Programs like Green America’s Soil & Climate Initiative (SCI) aim to bridge this gap.

Soil & Climate Initiative: Making Regenerative Farming More Accessible

SCI helps farmers access resources, funding access, and knowledge-sharing platforms that can empower them to adopt regenerative methods. SCI’s program aids small and medium-sized farms transition to regenerative practices by connecting growers with grants covering the costs of cover crops, composting, and soil analysis, while also offering technical training and data tracking tools.

“There are a lot of barriers built into the system, both traditional farming and regenerative, that keep all kinds of people out of it,” Stanley says. “We need new, diverse groups of people getting involved to make change.” 

One of the biggest challenges farmers can face is the time it takes to see financial returns on regenerative investments. SCI’s data-driven approach helps farmers track improvements in soil health, water retention, and yield increases, allowing them to demonstrate progress and secure better market opportunities.

Marginalized farmers are at a further disadvantage. Historically, Black women have had less access to support that could aid in this transition, such as personal savings or generational wealth. This lack of assets is often used to penalize these women when applying for loans.

“These family farms are good folk who are working hard are getting crushed by corporate interest,” Herren says. “Usually, if you’re doing what’s best for the environment, it’s harmful to business. Getting this change to happen on the ground is difficult, but it’s really beautiful.”

Collective Power: Farmers Helping Farmers

Beyond SCI’s direct support, Black women in regenerative agriculture are creating their own networks, sharing resources and knowledge to uplift their communities. Cooperative farming models and land-sharing initiatives are gaining momentum, allowing farmers to reduce costs, increase efficiency, and contribute to the stability and development of rural communities. This ensures that sustainability is not just about the land but also about strengthening the people who steward it.

“I want everybody to do better and live better,” Stanley says. “Everybody can do it. We just have to help and support each other.”

In addition to hands-on farming, education plays a vital role in expanding the reach of regenerative agriculture. Alston, a passionate advocate for sustainable practices, has dedicated her efforts to teaching the next generation of farmers and environmental stewards. 

As a garden curriculum coordinator, she works with K-6 students to plan and implement school gardens. Alston helps certify students as junior master gardeners who can bring what they’ve learned back home. 
“Hopefully [the trend of regenerative farming] will extend and move as far as it can go,” she says. “You are what you eat, you know.”  

The Future of Farming

As public demands for agricultural industries to use more sustainable practices increase, regenerative agriculture is becoming more than a movement—it’s an economic and environmental necessity. By working with SCI to cultivate partnerships with brands and food companies, farmers increase their chances of securing long-term viability and connect with more markets that value sustainability. With over 100 farmers across 23 states participating in SCI’s programs, these farmers are proving that regenerative farming can be both profitable and practical.

“We want more farmers to practice regenerative agriculture, so we help in the ways that we can, on the farm side and on the business side,” Herren says. “It’s a journey but it’s a good one.” 

For Black women in agriculture like Alston, regenerative practices are more than soil deep or merely a means to create profit. They represent a reclamation of ancestral knowledge, a commitment to community, and a promise to the Earth. As Alston stands in her field, surveying the crops she has nurtured, she sees not just the harvest before her but the legacy she will leave behind.

“It’s the best. This good taste on the food coming straight from the field,” Alston says. “It’s just wonderful.”

The raging fires in Los Angeles, made more likely and more uncontrollable by dry conditions exacerbated by climate change, destroyed the homes, communities, and livelihoods of tens of thousands of people. The impacts affected people of all races and incomes. Yet some Angelenos, including immigrants, were among the hardest hit.

Thousands of immigrants lost their housing, including in the diverse Altadena neighborhood. In addition to losing housing in the fire, many immigrants instantly lost employment. When wealthier homeowners lose their homes, housekeepers, landscapers, and nannies are suddenly unemployed, sometimes permanently. And business that largely employ immigrant cleaning staff may shutter offices that burned. While wealthier residents may be able to work from home while they are displaced, the burned out homes and offices were the only workplace for many immigrants.

The Latino Policy & Politics Institute estimates that at least 35,000 jobs held by Latinos were at risk of temporary or permanent displacement. Since many of the immigrants holding these jobs are undocumented, they won’t receive any government assistance. This is part of a larger pattern: government and private assistance generally benefits those who are already better off, while people with lower incomes often slide further into poverty after disasters. Research demonstrates that both GoFundMe campaigns and FEMA relief direct dollars to people who are wealthier and better connected, reinforcing and exacerbating income inequality rather than narrowing it.

In many ways, the L.A. fires shed a spotlight on an ongoing truth: climate change often impacts those who are in the most precarious position, and in the U.S., that includes immigrants. It’s not just headline-worthy climate disasters posing a threat. In their day jobs, immigrants are greatly impacted by rising temperatures and other consequences of the climate crisis.

That’s definitely the case in the fields and slaughterhouses creating the nation’s food supply. Immigrants are the backbone of U.S. agriculture, making up 73% of the agricultural workforce. Agricultural workers perform back-breaking work for an average of 46 hours per week with no overtime pay, often in sweltering temperatures, with few breaks. They are 35 times more likely to die from heat-related stress than workers in other occupations.

And when forest fires break out, it is immigrant workers that often suffer the most, since they often work outside in farming, landscaping, and construction jobs. Wildfires produce smoke laden with fine
particulate matter. Smoke inhalation can exacerbate existing health conditions and is linked to increases in heart attacks, stroke, and cancer.

The Trump Administration’s executive orders on climate change and immigration will make the
situation worse. Pulling out of the Paris Climate Accords, opening more federal lands to drilling, and increasing natural gas export terminals are just a few of the ways that the Administration will accelerate
climate emissions. And orders deploying the military to the border while attempting to end birthright
citizenship and engaging in raids on undocumented workers makes the situation of millions of immigrants more precarious. The more precarious their legal situation, the harder it is for immigrants to seek protection for themselves from climate impacts and other hazards on the job, since they risk deportation if their employers turn on them.

As green economy activists, our support for immigrants in L.A. and elsewhere who are unlikely to get government aid is vital. In the aftermath of the fires, there are many opportunities for us to take immediate action. For instance, Inclusive Action for the City launched a fund to support outdoor workers impacted by the fire. The Fund already has a wait list of 8,000 workers and needs donations so it can
provide $500 payments to workers in need. The National Domestic Workers Alliance has also set up a fund to support domestic workers harmed by the fires.

In the long run, we can urge local and state officials to protect immigrants in our communities. We can also support federal and state laws and rulemaking that provide protections for domestic, caregiving, agricultural, landscaping, and construction workers, while opposing the roll backs of existing protections in states like Texas and Florida.

Make no mistake, immigration and worker protections are green issues. All advocates for the
environment and climate need to stand up for the rights of people on the front lines of climate change, and who are essential to keeping our economy running, when they are under attack.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are fundamental to creating a truly just and sustainable world. The Civil Rights Era brought greater equity and justice to the U.S. over half a century ago—but the new administration is determined to dismantle that progress.

In this issue of Green American, we present the moral and business cases for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives—as well as what these concepts look like in practice and what they’re meant to achieve.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Are Tools

DEI programs and policies aren’t just philosophical concepts—they’re tools to help organizations, institutions, and businesses achieve more just, fair, and accessible practices that work regardless of changes in leadership or political alliances. They operate as safety nets because no matter how well-intended people might be, we all have different experiences that may shape our decisions and perspectives in harmful ways we’re not always aware of.

Diversity asks us to be aware of who is in the room and what that means for the perspectives being shared and those that are missing.

Equity is about more than equal treatment—it means understanding both the barriers and advantages people have faced to be even considered for entry into that room, including an organization’s own history of discriminatory practices, as well as the impacts to communities who have been discriminated against historically.

Inclusion merges our awareness of who is (and isn’t) in the room and what they’ve likely experienced so that policies and practices can be implemented to ensure a sense of belonging, safety, and welcome.
Let’s apply these principles to a simple analogy. I’ve decided to buy lunch for everyone in my organization, regardless of who they are, how they identify, or the role they hold at the organization. By asking each person about their dietary preferences without judgement, I ensure the provided meal will meet their specific needs. Finally, my invitation to lunch is tailored in a way that communicates how everyone is welcome to attend, underscoring the nonjudgmental way people were asked about the food they can eat and how reflecting those choices help them feel valued as people, not just placeholders on staff.

In short, DEI takes a holistic view of who is part of a business or organization and how historically discriminatory practices in both public and private sectors have shaped who’s been included and excluded, so that real, lasting changes can be made to ensure the implementation of more just and equitable practices moving forward.

Direct Action, Not Just Declarations

Treating humans with respect and care is how we build affinity, loyalty, and involvement within diverse communities. Any good marketing professional can attest that those three traits are the gateway to major profits. And people know when those overtures are merely performative, not transformative … just ask Target.

When companies make press statements about “hearing concerns of discrimination in the workplace” but don’t change how employees are hired or advanced in their careers, people notice. When organizations create new “diversity-focused roles” but fail to provide the people they’ve hired with support and resources to do the job, we see that as a set-up. And when companies prominently feature Black, disabled, queer, and other marginalized folks in their ad campaigns but don’t bring marginalized-owned businesses into their supply chains or pay workers living wages, we recognize that as tokenism.
Those half-baked approaches only further prime the public to take a cynical view of DEI, in which people and organizations only support DEI initiatives for appearances. And underlying it all is the implication that if DEI is “just for show,” then anyone hired or appointed in part because of DEI-influenced practices is inherently unqualified unless otherwise proven.

But when implemented correctly, these programs help create real, lasting changes that dismantle discriminatory policies and cultures in practice, not just as a vague set of principles. In doing so, hiring, promotion, and the provision of support and resources are more likely to be based on fair recognition of merit and potential. In short, DEI ensures justice.

It’s About Quality AND Quantity

The idea that DEI means “choosing diverse applicants (people who aren’t white, men, straight, able-bodied, etc) over qualified applicants” is an age-old lie at the heart of the opposition to DEI. Having these practices shape how we decide who to hire, award grants to, or accept into a coveted program has never meant automatic approval for applicants from marginalized backgrounds. What they do mean is that we can’t ignore how biases and prejudices—whether we’re aware of them or not—have influenced who has historically been granted or denied access to opportunities and resources to build safe and healthy lives as valued members of our communities and then changing our practices to do better.

It asks us to reconsider what we think of as “the right qualifications” for a job or what we mean by “the right culture fit” for an organization to ensure that our candidate pools are diverse in identifying characteristics, skill sets, and personal, academic and professional experience. Because it’s not just marginalized people whose lived expertise is shaped by our identities. No one’s identity is negative—all of us can contribute to society.

DEI holds us accountable to make sure folks are given an equitable chance to fulfill the requirements during their application and interview process. It means candidates’ skills and qualifications are assumed from the get-go and that they are considered holistically, not just as a potential tick in a list of identities.
Those of us from underrepresented populations are all too familiar with the stigma that comes with being successful and different. Too many people still believe we haven’t earned our achievements and don’t acknowledge how hard we work to keep them at all. We battle both individual slights and discriminatory policies while our voices aren’t always heard or respected—sometimes our work is even stolen, and we’re left with little recourse for compensation, credit, or justice.

No matter what detractors claim, DEI has never meant giving someone something they have not earned simply because they are marginalized in some way. Nor has it made us worse off as a country—the simple truth is that when marginalized communities have the chance to succeed, we all benefit from the diversified talent pool and visions of leadership.

This is why, at Green America, we choose to call our DEI mission JEDI—standing for Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. Because through all our programs—every initiative, every policy, and every action—the goal is always justice. We seek meaningful transformation that addresses the systemic inequities of our society and develops pathways for all people to thrive on a healthy planet.

As you explore the stories and insights throughout this issue, we hope you will be inspired to advance justice in your own communities, social groups, and workplaces. The challenges ahead will require all of us working together.

As we like to say at Green America, the JEDI force isn't just with us—it is us, collectively creating the better future that is possible for all people.

Just as diversity is crucial to healthy ecosystems in Mother Nature, diversity is crucial to healthy and joyous communities and people.

WASHINGTON, DC – April 2, 2025 – Green America launched an updated version of its searchable directory of banks that don’t finance fossil fuels, engage in predatory practices that hurt consumers, or do business with destructive industries. The expanded Get A Better Bank directory has added thousands of new listings for local and regional banks and credit unions, allowing consumers to find financial institutions that support local entrepreneurs, serve community non-profits, create affordable housing, and finance renewable energy.

The directory includes a searchable map with listings for over 3,000 community development banks and credit unions, with almost 17,000 locations in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. It is the largest resource of community development banks and credit unions available.

Bill McKibben, founder of Third Act and 350.org, said: “The Get a Better Bank directory makes it easy for consumers to find local banks or credit unions that are engaging in responsible business practices. Just imagine if every American suddenly stopped banking with financial institutions that harm people or the planet. We could change the world!”

Cathy Cowan Becker, Responsible Finance Campaign Director at Green America, said: “The world's largest banks have plowed over $7 trillion into expanding fossil fuels since the Paris Agreement. It's time for people to vote with their dollars by moving their money out of US megabanks and into local banks and credit unions whose mission is to build their communities. Green America's Get a Better Bank map provides options for mission-driven financial institutions in every community, along with guidelines for how to make the switch. This is how each of us can use the banking we do every day to build a better world.”

Banks and credit unions in the Get a Better Bank directory include:

• Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs), which specialize in lending to people, organizations, and businesses in under-resourced communities.
• Minority Depository Institutions (MDIs), in which the majority of ownership or membership and the community it serves are minority groups such as Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, or Women.
• Low-Income Designation (LID) credit unions, for which over half their membership has a family income of 80% or less of the median family income for the metropolitan area.
• Membership in Inclusiv, a federation of community development credit unions whose mission is to help low- and moderate-income people and communities achieve financial independence.
• B Corp certification, a designation that a bank meets high standards of verified performance, accountability, and transparency.
• Membership in the Global Alliance for Banking on Values (GABV), an international network of frontrunner banks and credit unions that use finance to serve people and the planet.
• Green America Green Business Network certification, the first and most diverse network of socially and environmentally responsible businesses in the country.

What sets Green America’s Get a Better Bank map apart from other bank listings is its focus on financial institutions that work to build their communities. Each bank or credit union has a mission of building their communities through mortgage, car, small business, and social service financing. They do not engage in lending that harms people or the planet.

The top nine US banks have plowed over $2 trillion into fossil fuel development since the Paris Agreement, financing methane gas plants, coal mining, fracking, liquid gas export, tar sands oil, and more. Megabanks also lent billions in predatory subprime mortgages that their borrowers could not repay, leading to the housing market crash in 2008. Almost 10 million Americans lost their homes. Consumers file thousands of complaints each year against megabanks over fraudulent practices, deceptive lending, and predatory fees.

By choosing a community development bank or credit union, Americans can ensure that their money helps to build stronger communities and a better world.

ABOUT 

Green America is the nation’s leading green economy organization. Founded in 1982, Green America provides the economic strategies, organizing power and practical tools for businesses, investors, and consumers to solve today’s social and environmental problems. http://www.GreenAmerica.org 

Third Act is a growing community of Americans aged 60 and older determined to change the world for the better. Third Act harnesses an unparalleled generational power to protect our climate and safeguard our democracy. Using our life experiences, skills, and resources, we unite to tackle the unfinished work of our lifetimes and ensure a safe and stable planet for generations to come. http://thirdact.org 

MEDIA CONTACT: Parke Qua for Green America, (216) 276-2476 or pqua@hastingsgroupmedia.com

The communications industry contributes at least 2.5% of our global greenhouse gas emissions and consumes an enormous amount of electricity from fossil fuels each year. And Comcast is a big part of that.

**********************************************************************************

Green America is an equal opportunity employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without discrimination regarding: actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, related medical conditions, breastfeeding, or reproductive health disorders), age (18 years of age or older), marital status (including domestic partnership and parenthood), personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, family responsibilities, genetic information, disability, matriculation, political affiliation, citizenship status, credit information or any other characteristic protected by federal, state or local laws. Harassment on the basis of a protected characteristic is included as a form of discrimination and is strictly prohibited.

By Cathy Becker, Responsible Finance Campaign Director

Last June, Tractor Supply made headlines when it announced it would eliminate jobs and goals focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as stop sponsoring Pride festivals and submitting data to the LGBTQ advocacy group Human Rights Campaign.

Soon following were similar announcements from John Deere, Harley-Davidson, Brown-Forman (maker of Jack Daniel’s), Lowe’s, Ford, and Molson-Coors.

Many of these companies had started or increased DEI programs and goals following the murder of George Floyd and Black Lives Matter protests in 2020. But in the wake of the Supreme Court decision to overturn affirmative action in college admissions – as well as pressure from conservative crusaders like Robby Starbuck and the climate-change denying National Center for Public Policy Research – they began to backtrack in 2024.

Starbuck began by targeting companies that rely on rural or conservative customers, but recently expanded to mainstream companies like Meta, McDonald’s, and Target.

Among those companies was Walmart, which in November announced it would end racial equity training, phase out supplier diversity programs, review funding of Pride events, stop participating in the Human Rights Campaign survey, and close its Center for Racial Equity, a $100 million philanthropic initiative to address gaps in outcomes for African Americans in education, health, criminal justice, and other areas.

Investors push back

All these shifts in company diversity, equity, and inclusion programs have not gone unnoticed by investors – some of whom have started to push back.

As the season for corporate annual general meetings heats up, several investor groups have submitted shareholder resolutions related to DEI changes:

• As You Sow is asking Tractor Supply to issue a report describing the research and analysis it did before making changes to its DEI policies and practices.
• Amalgamated Bank and As You Sow are asking John Deere to issue a report on the effectiveness of its efforts to create a meritocratic workplace.
• As You Sow is asking Harley-Davidson to issue a report describing the research and analysis it did before making changes to its DEI policies and practices.
• Mercy Investments and As You Sow are asking Ford Motor Co. to issue a report describing the research and analysis it did before making changes to its DEI policies and practices.

Shareholders are also issuing letters and statements. This year Whistle Stop Capital organized its third Investor Statement Reaffirming the Need for Companies to Ensure Meritocratic Workplaces asking companies to:

• Make clear their ongoing commitment to ensuring diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplaces.
• Have clear executive management and board level oversight of workplace culture.
• Publish quantitative data showing the diversity of their workforce alongside their hiring, promotion, and retention rates of employees by diversity characteristics.

The statement is “a show of support from investors who are paying diligent attention to these issues,” said Jaylen Spann, senior associate at Whistle Stop Capital. “We have the intention of sharing this with companies so they can hear from shareholders just how much of a focus there is on these issues outside of what’s happening in politics.”

Similarly, Mercy Investments and the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility also organized a joint investor letter to Walmart, signed by 31 organizations managing $266 billion in assets, including Green America, Natural Investments, and Oxfam America.

“There’s a coalition of faith and values investors that have been engaging Walmart for decades on equity issues, diversity, and things that fall in the larger bucket of DEI,” said Caroline Boden, director of shareholder advocacy at Mercy Investments. “When we saw the announcement that they were rolling back many of their commitments and programs, we collectively felt this immense sense of disappointment.”

Additionally, as the largest private employer in the United States, Walmart’s decision to bow to anti-DEI campaigns has a far-reaching impact on the corporate landscape beyond their own day-to-day operations.

“They have an outsized impact whether they want to acknowledge that or not. The decisions they make, including on these issues, have a ripple effect in the market,” Boden said.

The investor letter to Walmart got results when company executives agreed to meet with representatives of the investor groups. Investors brought several questions to that meeting such as: What was the business case for rolling back DEI commitments? What conversations did Walmart have with anti-DEI activists? Did they talk with any other stakeholders? What role did the board play?

Making the Business Case

Investors’ support of DEI programs isn’t just a moral stance; it’s also based on years of studies pointing to how DEI is good for business. The fourth edition of McKinsey’s long-running diversity report finds that companies whose executive teams have the highest representation of women and most ethnic diversity are 39% more likely to outperform financially than companies whose executive teams have the lowest representation of women and least ethnic diversity.

JUST Capital’s 2024 Index Concepts finds that Russell 1000 companies ranking in the top fifth for worker issues, workforce advancement, and a living wage enjoy cumulative returns of 24.57%, 25.35%, and 24.31% respectively, compared to an average index return of 8.31%. These companies are significantly more likely to disclose pay gaps, tie ESG performance to executive compensation, and have a human rights policy.

Another report, Capturing the Diversity Benefit by As You Sow and Whistle Stop Capital, uses the EEO-1 forms, or reports that companies with 100 employees or more are required to file with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Department of Labor each year, of 1,641 companies in 11 sectors to analyze the relationship between workforce diversity and financial performance from 2016 through 2022.

The report finds higher percentages of BIPOC management are positively correlated with a series of financial performance indicators such as enterprise value growth rate, income after tax, and return on equity. The relationship was strongest in the Communications Services, Consumer Discretionary, Consumer Staples, Financials, Health Care, and Information Technology sectors, and weakest in Energy, Materials, and Real Estate. Large-cap companies had the clearest positive relationship with diverse management.

“Companies do have the opportunity to outperform financially when they have more diversity within their management and executive leadership teams,” Spann said. “This means they are paying greater attention to the talent they source, the talent they retain, and the people they are advancing in their organization.”

Standing Up for DEI

Not every company is retreating in the face of attacks on DEI programs. When the National Center for Public Policy Research put an anti-DEI resolution on its proxy ballot, Costco pointedly advised shareholders to vote against it.

“Our Board has considered this proposal and believes that our commitment to an enterprise rooted in respect and inclusion is appropriate and necessary,” Costco wrote. “The report requested by this proposal would not provide meaningful additional information to our shareholders.”

Costco shareholders voted down the resolution by over 98% at its annual meeting on January 23. Apple shareholders also rejected an anti-DEI resolution by 97.3% on February 25.

Cosmetics producer e.l.f. Beauty, is also standing by its diversity programs, which CEO Tarang Amin credits for its success. The company has a young diverse following, with a workforce that is 75% women and 40% people of color. Sales have increased 75% in the past five years.

Even if other companies are not openly stating support for DEI, they are also not abandoning it. A 2024 report by Paradigm found that although companies were distancing themselves from terms like DEI, they are still doing the work: 60% of companies have a DEI strategy, 66% have a DEI budget, and 73% have DEI commitments.

“For many investors who have been in ongoing engagements with publicly traded companies for years, what we are hearing is that the narrative might be shifting, but the work is staying the same,” said Anandi Somasundaram, program lead for Racial Justice Investing. “It might look like shying away from their DEI commitments ... but coalition participants are noticing that what’s actually changing in practice is close to nothing.”

Other experts point out the risks of rolling back DEI commitments. For example, the National Institute for Workers’ Rights finds that a retreat from diversity, equity, and inclusion programs could be used as evidence against companies in discrimination lawsuits over a hostile work environment and disparate treatment.

“They can’t get rid of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which says companies can’t discriminate based on sex, race, national origin,” said Nadira Narine, senior program director at Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility. “So if companies give in to the right-wing agenda around DEI, what do they face on the other side? They face litigation, they face consumer backlash, they face workforce backlash. They really need to account for all the things that could come at them if they don’t abide by basic civil rights law.”

What can you do?

While investors can push back on DEI roll backs through shareholder resolutions and letters to management, consumers can also take action:

• Use your dollars to support companies that support you. You can search for diversely owned sustainable businesses in our Green Business Network.
• Examine your own portfolio, including retirement and college funds, and reach out to companies that are either rolling back or sticking up for DEI programs.
• Push any institutions you are part of that have investments to vote on shareholder resolutions and contact companies to make their views known.

Together we can show companies the value of DEI programs and the risks of rolling them back.

Amazon is full of deals, but those deals come at a big cost to people and the planet. So, before you click on that item that sounds like a steal, check out Green America's 10 reasons to not shop Amazon. 

Don’t shop Amazon because it... 

1. Exploits workers and fights unions. Amazon has a long history of opposing unionization.   The National Labor Relations Board is investigating 343 charges related to anti-union activities by Amazon, its subsidiaries and direct contractors. During the unionization drive at a warehouse in Bessemer, Alabama, NBC News reports: “Amazon illegally arranged for a U.S. Postal Service mailbox to be installed in the fulfillment center parking lot during the election. The union alleged that it gave the impression that Amazon might have had access to the secret ballots cast by workers.”  The company also recently rolled back its DEI initiatives. Amazon had set a goal in 2020 of doubling the number of Black vice presidents and directors.

2. Has more than double the injury rates of industry average. Recent research by the Strategic Organizing Center found that injury rates at Amazon facilities are reportedly double that of the industry average. In 2022, Amazon reported 39,000 injuries at warehouses, an increase of nearly 1,000 injuries from 2021. 

3. Creates dangerous working conditions for delivery workers. A May 2022 report from the Strategic Organizing Center found that nearly one in five workers experienced injuries, a 40 percent increase over the prior year. 

4. Facilitates anti-immigrant actions by the US Government. Starting in the first Trump Administration, the Guardian reported that Amazon Web Services (AWS) hosted the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) databases which allows "the department and its agencies to track and apprehend immigrants." DHS’ databases, currently hosted on AWS servers, allow the department to “supercharge surveillance and deportation” according to immigrant advocates. 

5. Is a major climate emitter. Amazon’s climate emissions are similar to Denmark’s and its direct emissions grew seven percent between 2022 and 2023, in part due to increased emissions from delivery vehicles. Tech companies, including Amazon, are increasingly relying on fossil fuels and nuclear energy to power massive servers for AI technology, undermining their current climate and renewable energy commitments 

6. Creates excessive packaging waste. A report from Oceana found that in 2019, Amazon generated 465 million pounds of plastic waste. This is “enough to circle the earth over a hundred times in the form of air pillows.”  In response to environmental organization campaigns, Amazon has since taken steps to reduce plastic packaging, but the company still sends out plastic mailers with chasing arrows symbols, making it appear that they are recyclable, when most municipalities can’t recycle them. 

7. Refuses to protect factory workers.  In 2020, Amazon and adidas supplier Hulu Garment in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, suspended its entire workforce of 1,020 workers, leaving workers owed $1 million in pay.  Labor justice organizations, including Green America, are urging Amazon to provide payments to the workers, which it so far has refused to do. And, while Amazon adopted policies to protect consumers from toxic chemicals in its clothing, it has yet to adopt policies protecting workers. 

8. Penalizes small businesses that use its platforms. The Sun magazine did a feature interview with author Stacy Mitchell on how Amazon undermines local economies and is bad for small businesses. The Wall Street Journal documented Amazon using data from 3rd party sellers to create its own products.  In 2023, the US Federal Trade Commission, joined by 17 state Attorneys General, filed suit against Amazon for using its monopoly power to stamp out rivals.  

9. Is a tax dodger. In 2018, Amazon faced scrutiny when it paid zero dollars in federal income taxes on its $11 billion profits and even received $129 million in tax rebates. Three years later, the company was only paying a federal income-tax rate of 6%. Without tax breaks, the company would have paid an additional $5 billion in taxes that year. The Institute for Local Self Reliance has documented how Amazon’s tax dodging fueled its rise as a monopoly provider. 

10. Sells unsafe products.  In July 2024, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission ordered Amazon to take action to stop selling unsafe products on its website to unsuspecting consumers.  The Commission found that “400,000 products are subject to this order: specifically, faulty carbon monoxide (CO) detectors, hairdryers without electrocution protection, and children’s sleepwear that violated federal flammability standards.” 

What You Can Do 

• While Amazon makes it so easy to shop on its site, if you resist the urge to engage in one-click shopping and instead shop directly with a local green business, you’ll have the satisfaction of knowing you are supporting your local economy and get to meet business owners and employees who share your values.  

• Shop online directly from green businesses in our Green Business directory – with hundreds of businesses vetted for their environmental and social responsibility and thousands of products to choose from. 

• Check out our Sustainable Alternatives to Amazon. 

• Take Action today to send a message to Amazon urging it to protect the rights of all workers. 

You’ll wind up being more intentional about your spending, and more likely only purchase what you need, and you’ll be directly supporting the green economy.  

**********************************************************************************

Green America is an equal opportunity employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without discrimination regarding: actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, related medical conditions, breastfeeding, or reproductive health disorders), age (18 years of age or older), marital status (including domestic partnership and parenthood), personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, family responsibilities, genetic information, disability, matriculation, political affiliation, citizenship status, credit information or any other characteristic protected by federal, state or local laws. Harassment on the basis of a protected characteristic is included as a form of discrimination and is strictly prohibited.

At the 2025 Grammys, Global Impact Award winner Alicia Keys used her time at the mic to state, “DEI is not a threat, it’s a gift.” With Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) under attack from the Trump Administration, making the case for DEI to millions of people was inspiring.

And it’s not just major stars stating the case for DEI. Big box retailer Costco made a strong argument for DEI in response to a shareholder resolution asking the company for a report on the risks of DEI.  The Costco Board’s statement in response is worth quoting at length: 

Our success at Costco Wholesale has been built on service to our critical stakeholders: employees, members, and suppliers. Our efforts around diversity, equity and inclusion follow our code of ethics … and reinforce with everyone at our Company the importance of creating opportunities for all. We believe that these efforts enhance our capacity to attract and retain employees who will help our business succeed … As our membership diversifies, we believe that serving it with a diverse group of employees enhances satisfaction … And we believe (and member feedback shows) that many of our members like to see themselves reflected in the people in our warehouses with whom they interact. 

Having diversity in our supplier base, including appropriate attention to small businesses, is beneficial for many of the same reasons diversity benefits our Company. We believe that it fosters creativity and innovation in the merchandise and services that we offer our members. 

Costco’s shareholders agreed with the Board with 98 percent voting against the resolution. Shareholders were likely unpersuaded by the proponents’ over-the-top characterization of DEI:  "Diversity, equity and inclusion ….is weaponized language concealing a radical Marxist agenda."  That’s because shareholders realize the obvious: DEI is good for creating a welcoming and innovative space that benefits employees, customers, and suppliers – it’s good for morale and for business.     

And Costco is not alone.  A recent survey of 1,000 companies found that only five percent were cutting back on DEI while 22 percent are increasing their DEI budgets.  Apple, JP Morgan Chase, Microsoft, and several other Fortune 500 companies recently reiterated their support for DEI.  And multiple research studies document the benefits of DEI to corporate culture and performance. 

So, What’s Up with Walmart and Target? 

But some companies are walking back their commitments to DEI.  Two notable recent companies in retreat are mega-retailers Walmart and Target.    

Walmart made DEI commitments in 2020 following the murder of George Floyd and the resulting protests.  But in November 2024, the company announced it was “ending racial equity training programs for staff and evaluating programs designed to increase supplier diversity.” And Walmart announced it was ending its five-year, $100 million commitment to the Center for Racial Equity, as well as its support for Pride celebrations and participation in the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index. 

Target similarly rolled back its DEI programs and support for Pride.  The company says it concluded its three-year DEI goals as planned, is rebranding its supplier diversity team to “supplier engagement,” and is ending its participation in the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index. Tellingly, its chief community impact and equity officer stated, “as a retailer that serves millions of consumers every day, we understand the importance of staying in step with the evolving external landscape, now and in the future.” 

This mention of “the evolving external landscape” is likely referencing Donald Trump’s return to the White House and his administration’s hostility to DEI.  Administration attacks on DEI, starting with the federal government agencies, are causing concerns for any private entity that supports DEI.   

Trump’s attorney general, Pam Bondi, issued a memo on Day 1 telling Department of Justice staff to “investigate, eliminate, and penalize” private sector companies and universities for “illegal” DEI practices.  Left unclear is how corporate DEI practices are illegal; in fact, corporate training on preventing harassment and discrimination (often part of DEI) can actually protect companies from discrimination lawsuits.   

The “evolving external landscape” changing is also likely a nod to the targeting of companies by right-wing activists, including Robby Starbuck, the former music video producer turned opponent of DEI.  But by rolling back commitments to Black, Brown, and LGBTQ+ employees, suppliers, and customers risks creating backlash from millions of customers, as well as demoralizing employees and ultimately reducing profits. 

Time to Act 

That backlash from customers is already here.  Soon after Target’s announcement, activists protested outside the company’s headquarters and called for a boycott of the company. At the protest, civil rights attorney Nekima Levy Armstrong told MPR news that she attributes Target’s walking back of DEI to Trump’s threats, but goes on to say, “They (Target) acted cowardly, and they made the decision to bow down to the Trump administration, when we are here today, saying we will not bow down.”  

But, some of the Black-owned businesses that sell at Target have asked customers not to boycott their products at the retailers, since so much of their revenue comes from sales on the company’s shelves. 

So, what can you do as a consumer? 

• Support Black-owned and other diversely owned businesses at Target. For example, you can go to Target and purchase only those products from Black and diversely owned businesses such as Black Girl Sunscreen and Black & Bold coffee. Buy only products from diversely owned companies, and nothing else. While you are there, let the store manager know what you purchased and why, and that you won't be purchasing anything else.  
• Then send the same message out on your social media and call the company's 800 line (see below).  
• Purchase directly from Black-owned businesses.  If you no longer want to step foot in Target or Walmart, you can support Black-owned businesses directly through their websites.  
• Take part in the February 28, 2025 blackout by not purchasing from any major retailers for one day.  Organizers are asking people to purchase from a local or small business instead if they need to make a purchase. 
• Check out the NAACP’s The Black Consumer Advisory for strategies to support Black-owned businesses and companies that support DEI. 
• Shop from Green America’s Green Business Network, with hundreds of small green businesses offering thousands of products.  Use the “Search by Ownership” filter to find diversely owned businesses, including Black-, women-, LGBTQ-, LatinX-, Asian American-, Indigenous-, and disability-owned companies.   

Take Further Action 

Upset with Target’s, Walmart’s, and other companies’ walking back of DEI?  Let them know you prefer to shop at stores that value diversity in their workforce, suppliers, and customers.  A simple message expressing your disappointment and asking the companies to reconsider their stance on the companies’ social media page can go a long way.   

• You can comment on Walmart’s Facebook or Instagram. 
• You can comment on Target’s Facebook or Instagram. 
• You can call Walmart at 800-925-6278. 
• You can call Target at 800-440-0680. 

You can also reach out to the companies through chats and forms on their website. 

Similarly, letting companies like Costco know that you applaud their continued support for DEI can help these companies stand strong. 

And join Green America today – members will receive our next Green American Magazine, which dives into the value of DEI in companies small and large. 

Green America harnesses economic power — the strength of consumers, investors, businesses, and the marketplace — to create a socially just and environmentally sustainable society. Together, we can protect our beautiful planet and all its people!

About Us

Victories

Take Action

Thank you for signing up to receive resources on Climate Victory Gardens! We just sent you an email, so please check your inbox.

Green America harnesses economic power — the strength of consumers, investors, businesses, and the marketplace — to create a socially just and environmentally sustainable society. Together, we can protect our beautiful planet and all its people!

About Us

Victories

Take Action

Our Clean Electronics Production Network - which aims to remove hazardous chemicals from production of mobile phones, computers, etc. - has published the 3rd Annual Report of their Toward Zero Exposure program!

The program has now completed three full years, and in that time, Founding TZE Signatories - Apple, Dell, HP and Fairphone - have positively impacted thousands of workers as they have worked to meet TZE program commitments to reduce or eliminate worker exposure to hazardous chemicals.

Fairphone completed year 2 of their program and has already turned their focus towards CEPN's 2nd Round of Priority Chemicals, earning the designation of 2nd Round Signatory. 

Collectively, our Signatory and program influence continues to grow: 

• Signatories included nearly 1 million workers in employee engagement & participation initiatives such as Joint Chemical Safety Committees or grievance hotline awareness, a significant increase over last year. 
• Over 1,000 facilities in the Signatories’ manufacturing supply chains have collected data on process chemical use with the Process Chemical Data Collection Tool (or equivalent), remaining consistent with last year’s impact. 
• Over 800 facilities in the Signatories’ manufacturing supply chains are estimated to have already substituted the 1st Round of Priority Chemicals. Well over 100,000 employees work in production in those facilities. 
• The number of distinct supplier companies that have been influenced to improve worker chemical safety by TZE Signatories also continues to exceed 200 companies. 
• Signatory and program influence extends to facilities in at least 30 countries. 

The 3rd Annual TZE Report also details the program's growth through new tools and resources and growing recognition among partners, peers, and industry leaders.  

We invite you to join us in celebrating the success of the TZE program thus far and we look forward to continued growth in 2025 and beyond. We welcome companies that share the values of our Founding Signatories to join us in the effort to protect workers from exposure to hazardous process chemicals in the electronics supply chain. 

Over 150 Community, Business, and Environmental Organizations Oppose Proposed Wood Pellet Projects in California    

Draft environmental impact report on two Drax proposed plants that would produce more than one million metric tons of wood pellets per year draw comments from over 45,000 individuals   

Coalition calls report insufficient in protecting local environment and communities and call for its rejection   

SACRAMENTO, CA (January 21, 2025) – As Golden State Natural Resources’ (GSNR) Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) public review period on its industrial-scale wood pellet project proposal comes to a close, civil society is raising their opposition.    

The project would include two industrial-scale wood pellet plants, one in the central Sierras and another in Northern California, as well as a storage and export terminal in Stockton, CA.   The wood pellets will ultimately be burned in overseas power plants. While the project rests on wildfire mitigation and forest resiliency, the DEIR fails to adequately explain how GSNR would achieve that goal, fails to evaluate alternatives that would actually reduce wildfire risk, and admits it will cause significant air pollution impacts to communities and worsen the biodiversity and climate crises.   

Opponents say the analysis included within the DEIR is woefully insufficient, lacking critical details, and riddled with inaccuracies. Even based on their own analysis, this project is rife with “significant” adverse community, climate, and ecological impacts.   

See below these key impacts and what advocates are saying,   

Details on key DEIR findings:   

1. Pellet plants in Tuolumne and Lassen Counties will conflict with the county’s air quality plans. The Lassen facility will exceed air pollution control district limits for dangerous air pollutants like particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, and carbon monoxide. The Tuolumne County facility will exceed the annual threshold for CO. These impacts come with health risks: GSNR facility-induced individual cancer risk in Lassen is more than double CEQA’s threshold of significance and in Tuolumne County  is more than four times than CEQA’s threshold of significance   

2. The wood pellet storage and export terminal will create significant NOx impacts as well as cumulatively significant PM 2.5 impacts in an area already failing national standards for PM 2.5   

3. The DEIR proves that GSNR’s project is inadequate and counterproductive for the goal of wildfire mitigation. The DEIR fails to demonstrate that the project would mitigate wildfire risk and improve forest resiliency. The proposed logging activity will occur largely in remote areas far from communities. Furthermore, while the DEIR claims the project would result in increased management of dense forests to address wildfire risk,  it categorized only 27% of the project area’s forests as “overcrowded” and an even smaller amount—15.5%—of the project area consists of high-density stands. Even more tellingly, ~90% of forests that would be “thinned” as part of the project are outside of high density areas, where the DEIR states that treatment effects would be diminished.    

4. The entity carrying out this Project, Golden State Natural Resources (GNSR), plans to partner with Drax, a United Kingdom-based company that has a long track record of devastating forest ecosystems throughout North America.   

5. This project makes no sense as “climate mitigation” because it will release substantial climate heating greenhouse gas emissions at every stage, worsening the climate crisis. The project would significantly increase logging of California’s forests, releasing their stored carbon at a time when we must increase forest protection and carbon storage. As admitted by the DEIR, the carbon emissions from this project would be significant and conflict with meeting California’s climate goals.   

Here is what Advocates are saying:      

Gloria Alonso Cruz, environmental justice advocacy coordinator with Little Manila Rising in Stockton:  “It is frustrating to see greenwashed projects like GSNR’s Wood Pellet continue to list the community of Stockton as the only option to materialize false climate solutions and continue business as usual in a state designated Disadvantaged Community (DAC) that is already overburdened by air pollution and facing decades of unmet National Air Quality Standards. I fear that Stockton and the communities impacted by the project will see the same treatment that other places across the U.S. have received from the wood pellet industry.”  

Matt Holmes, project director for Valley Improvement Projects: “Cashing in on California forests GSNR's filthy trucks, trains and ocean going vessels will poison the unlucky overburdened communities that happen to lie between their pellet mills and the Port of Stockton all in the name of science free forest resilience. “   

Rita Vaughan Frost, Forest Advocate at NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council): "As if the biomass industry’s sordid environmental history isn't alarming enough, the impact report that GSNR released speaks for itself: this project is an ineffective attempt at wildfire prevention and a health hazard to communities across Northern California. It's time to reject this project, protect California's forests from industrial-scale extraction, and dedicate our time and resources to real solutions that will safeguard communities from wildfires."  

Gary Hughes, Biofuelwatch, Americas Program Coordinator: "As the deadline for written public comment passes we are reminded that public agencies like the California Air Resources Board explicitly requested that GSNR schedule adequate public meetings on the draft environmental documentation -- a course of action that GSNR refused to take. Despite the effort of GSNR to avoid public scrutiny, dozens of local, regional, statewide, national and international environmental and human rights stakeholders have made it clear that this wood pellet export scheme is a climate dead end."   

Mary Elizabeth, M.S., R.E.H.S., Delta-Sierra Group Conservation Chair, Sierra Club:   The Golden State Natural Resources's wood pellet export project undermines California’s climate and 30x30 goals. This wood export project will significantly harm local communities and forests, while moving us further away from environmental infrastructure that promotes equity and climate resilience.  The DEIR failed to account for fire risks at the Port of Stockton, identifying utilities and regulatory agencies.  The DEIR is another example of how Stocktonians are left to suffer from increased pollutant exposures that are "significant and unavoidable", as well as the other communities in Lassen and Tuolumne Counties.  

Dan Howells, Climate Campaigns Director at Green America: “GSNR’s environmental assessment shows much of what we already knew. Drax’s industrial scale projects will hurt communities, destroy forests, and make climate change worse. And the overwhelming outcry from organizations and individuals shows that the public is seeing through the sales pitch from Drax and is telling California policy makers these projects must be rejected.”    

Shaye Wolf, Ph.D., climate science director at the Center for Biological Diversity: “The devasting L.A. fires show it’s vital that we invest in the wildfire safety solutions that work, and this project takes us in the wrong direction,” said Shaye Wolf, Ph.D., climate science director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This dirty wood pellet project would take away critical resources from home hardening and defensible space work, the solutions that best protect communities during wildfire. An extremely polluting industry that harms forests, communities and the climate can’t be allowed to get a foothold in our state.”  

Dr. Mary Booth, Director, Partnership for Policy Integrity for the Partnership for Policy Integrity: “The Golden State project is underpinned by the usual assortment of half-baked claims that logging wilderness areas is going to help the climate and reduce the threat of fire. Given the emergency California is facing, it’s urgent to focus on measures that will actually protect communities.”  

Maya Khosla, Sonoma County Climate Activist Network (SOCOCAN!): “California should be a leader in the race to replace fossil fuels, to address the climate crisis. Instead, the plan for GSNR facilities to produce about one million tons of pellets every year is  ignoring the carbon emissions arising from logging, putting communities at risk everywhere along its destructive path, and doing nothing good for the climate. The false notion of carbon neutrality achieved by treating trees and other natural forest wood as “forest waste” is a loophole that benefits logging and polluting industries.”   

###   

Little Manila Rising (LMR) serves the South Stockton community, developing equitable solutions to the effects of historical marginalization, institutionalized racism, and harmful public policy. LMR offers a wide spectrum of programs that address education, environment, redevelopment, and public health. LMR values all people’s unique and diverse experiences and wishes to see the residents of South Stockton enjoy healthy, prosperous lives.     

Valley Improvement Projects (VIP) strives to reach-out to low-income and working class communities, communities of color, immigrants, Spanish-speakers, LGBTQ community, religious minorities, indigenous communities, youth, elders, people with disabilities, houseless community, and many others who carry the extra burdens of our society.     

NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 3 million members and online activists. Established in 1970, NRDC uses science, policy, law and people power to confront the climate crisis, protect public health and safeguard nature. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Beijing and Delhi (an office of NRDC India Pvt. Ltd).        

Biofuelwatch provides information and undertakes advocacy and campaigning in relation to the climate, biodiversity, land and human rights and public health impacts of large-scale industrial bioenergy.  We are a small team of staff and volunteers based in Europe and the USA.     

The Delta-Sierra Group of the Mother Lode Chapter is a regional unit of the Sierra Club that organizes outdoor activities and focuses attention on environmental issues. We all agree to practice the Sierra Club motto that you should "Explore, Enjoy and Protect the Planet."     

Green America is the nation’s leading green economy organization. Founded in 1982, Green America provides the economic strategies, organizing power and practical tools for businesses and individuals to solve today’s social and environmental problems.     

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 1.7 million members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.     

Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) uses science, litigation, policy analysis and strategic communications to promote policies that protect climate, ecosystems, and people.     

SOCOCAN (www.SonomaCountyCan.ORG), is an umbrella for 50 organizations and 300 individuals.      

In 2024, the Federal Insurance Office, an agency within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, worked with state insurance commissioners on a “data call.” The initiative gathered zip code level data from across the country on how climate change is affecting property insurance, covering claim frequency, claim severity, loss ratio, premium costs, nonrenewal rates, and cancellation rates from 2018 through 2022. 

This is important because most major insurance companies are insuring fossil fuel projects and investing in fossil fuel companies -- even as they stop insuring customers in climate-vulnerable states and raise rates on everyone else because of the climate crisis caused by fossil fuels.

The data collection was not without controversy: At least seven states -- Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, Indiana, Montana and North Dakota -- refused to participate, meaning insurance companies headquartered in those states did not report. However, national insurers and insurers in other states did report, for a total of 246 million policies or 80% of homeowners policies written during the study period.

But there was one problem: Neither the Federal Insurance Office nor the National Association of Insurance Commissioners would make the data public. 

Pressuring the FIO

To address this, Green America partnered with Consumer Federation of America and 18 other groups on a letter urging the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to release the data. Another letter signed by 37 organizations urged the Federal Insurance Office to do the same. 

When our letters did not produce results, advocacy groups launched a grassroots campaign seeking signatures on a petition asking the Federal Insurance Office to make the data it had gathered public. A total of 43,622 people signed the petition in a campaign organized by Consumer Reports, Americans for Financial Reform, Green America, and Public Citizen. 

“Our members across the country are paying ever higher rates for property insurance — and that’s when they can even get insurance if they live in a climate-vulnerable area,” said Cathy Becker, responsible finance campaign director at Green America. “Yet instead of addressing the climate crisis behind these increased costs, big insurance companies are insuring and investing in its chief cause — the burning of fossil fuels. The least the Federal Insurance Office could do is release the data it has gathered about insurance company practices, so we can hold them accountable.” 

On January 16, our actions produced results: The Federal Insurance Office finally released a report, "Analyses of U.S. Homeowners Insurance Markets, 2018-2022: Climate-Related Risks and Other Factors," along with a treasure trove of zip-code level raw data. 

It was "the most comprehensive look yet at the effect of climate change on the American home insurance market," according to The New York Times. 

This would not have happened without the quick action of almost 5,400 Green Americans, who had just one day after the holiday break to sign our petition. Thank you to each one of you who took action! 

What’s in the report? 

The Federal Insurance Office analyzed 246 million policies from 2018 through 2022 aggregated to the zip code level, or about 80% of homeowner policies. Key findings of the report include: 

• U.S. homeowners faced increasing costs for insurance between 2018 and 2022. Nationally, the cost of homeowners insurance increased 8.7% faster than inflation, but customers in the most climate-stressed areas saw their premiums rise 14.7% faster than inflation.  

• The cost of insurance was much greater in areas with higher expected losses to buildings than in areas with lower expected losses. Consumers in zip codes with the highest losses paid an average of $2,321 for homeowners insurance between 2018 and 2022 – 82% more than in zip codes with the lowest expected losses.  

• Insurers’ costs also were higher in areas with the highest expected losses from climate-related perils. Claims averaged $24,000 in high-risk areas compared to $19,000 in low-risk areas. Insurers paid out more in claims than they took in premiums in high-risk areas, leading them to raise rates and not renew policies. 

• Policy nonrenewal rates were higher in areas with the highest expected losses from climate-related perils. Nonrenewal rates were 80% higher for consumers in the highest-risk zip codes compared to the lowest risk.  

• Different climate-related perils dominated different regions, resulting in diverse claims and loss patterns. Areas impacted by severe convective storms – thunderstorms, tornadoes, hailstorms – saw a higher number of claims, while regions impacted by wildfires saw higher dollar-value claims. Hurricanes accounted for more losses to buildings than other perils, resulting in the most expensive premiums and highest nonrenewal rates.  

• The zip codes within each of the seven regions with the highest losses also had the highest cost of insurance for consumers, highest losses to insurers, and highest nonrenewal rates. The regions include Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Northen Great Plains, Southern Great Plains, Northwest, and Southwest. 

The report concluded by recommending the Federal Insurance Office and National Association of Insurance Commissioners collaborate on an annual data gathering and report, expand the data to include additional market segments such as multi-family residential housing, make the data available to policymakers and researchers, and use the data to improve public awareness of how climate risks affect insurance and the benefits of investing in property resilience.  

What can you do? 

The Federal Insurance Office did not gather any data on insurance company investments, nor did the report discuss how most major insurance companies insure fossil fuel projects and invest in fossil fuel companies. Please continue to follow Green America and allies such as Insure Our Future for information and actions you can take.   

Meanwhile, if you are insured by one the large national insurance companies such as Liberty Mutual, State Farm, or GEICO that insures fossil fuel projects and invests in fossil fuel companies, you can use our Climate Smart Insurance Directory to find a local or regional insurance company in your state. We show you how to shop for insurance – some people who made the switch have saved hundreds of dollars! 

In 2024, the Federal Insurance Office, an agency within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, worked with state insurance commissioners on what's known as a data call. The initiative gathered zip code level data from across the country on how climate change affected property insurance from 2018 through 2022.

This is important because most major insurance companies are insuring fossil fuel projects and investing in fossil fuel companies -- even as they stop insuring customers in climate-vulnerable states and raise rates on everyone else because of the climate crisis caused by fossil fuels.

Collecting insurance data is the first step to dealing with this issue, but there was one problem: Neither the Federal Insurance Office nor the National Association of Insurance Commissioners would release the data to the public.

To address this, Green America partnered with 19 other groups on a letter urging the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to release the data. A second letter signed by 37 organizations urged the Federal Insurance Office to do the same.

When our letters did not produce results, advocacy groups launched a grassroots campaign seeking signatures on a petition asking the Federal Insurance Office to make the data it had gathered public. A total of 43,622 people signed the petition in a campaign organized by Consumer Reports, Americans for Financial Reform, Green America, and Public Citizen.

“Our members across the country are paying ever higher rates for property insurance — and that’s when they can even get insurance if they live in a climate-vulnerable area,” said Cathy Becker, responsible finance campaign director at Green America. “Yet instead of addressing the climate crisis behind these increased costs, big insurance companies are insuring and investing in its chief cause — the burning of fossil fuels. The least the Federal Insurance Office could do is release the data it has gathered about insurance company practices, so we can hold them accountable.”

On January 16, our actions produced results: The Federal Insurance Office finally released a report, "Analyses of U.S. Homeowners Insurance Markets, 2018-2022: Climate-Related Risks and Other Factors," along with a treasure trove of zip-code level raw data.

The report was "the most comprehensive look yet at the effect of climate change on the American home insurance market," according to The New York Times.

The report reveals how the climate crisis is linked to insurance losses, claims, and higher rates.

This would not have happened without the quick action of almost 5,400 Green Americans, who had just one day after the holiday break to sign our petition. Thank you to each one of you who took action with us! 

Learn more about the report and its key findings here. Then switch from your fossil-fuel-supporting insurance company to a climate-safe one with our Climate Smart Insurance Directory.

Dan Howells, Director of Climate Campaigns for Green America 

There is a ton of hype about Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its ability to make all our lives easier. It can do everything from creating a better wheel to helping students cheat on homework essays. A tad facetious but for all the envisioned benefits, AI comes with a big environmental cost. Not every function of AI is an energy hog, but in general it is widely acknowledged AI will drive the need for more and more electricity to power the data centers it relies on. And some tech companies like Microsoft, Amazon, and Google are looking to nuclear energy to feed AI’s thirst for electricity, including a controversial reopening of Three Mile Island – the site of the worst nuclear disaster in the US – to meet the energy needs of Microsoft. 

Nuclear energy has many downsides – from the waste that cannot be safely disposed of, to the possibility of accidents impacting millions of people, to the environmental justice impacts of uranium mining.  It is also costly to build, and plants are often delayed for years. The newest nuclear plants to come online in Georgia were seven years late and $17 billion over budget. Small modular nuclear plants that would be cheaper to build, but still have safety issues, are years off from commercial deployment, if they are ever deployed. It is a fantasy to pretend that nuclear energy will save us from climate change or meet increasing energy needs, including from AI. Yet instead of looking to drastically increase the use of renewable energy that is far cheaper and safer, combined with gains in energy efficiency, these tech companies are looking to build more nuclear power plants.   

No one wants a nuclear plant or waste disposal site in their neighborhood. So as AI becomes more and more a part of our future tech companies are increasingly delaying the shut down or restarting fossil fuel plants. These plants are polluting local communities and driving up energy costs for consumers. Instead of turning to nuclear and fossil fuels, tech companies should take the opportunity to bolster renewable energy and energy efficiency solutions to change the way we use and produce electricity. The choice companies like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft make could lead our clean energy future or a continuation of a dangerous and dirty energy past. If AI is so smart, it would choose renewables.  

Learn more about the 10 cons to nuclear energy.

Ready to take action? Demand corporations rapidly scale up renewable energy and energy justice in the US and abroad. 

Dan Howells, Director of Climate Campaigns for Green America 

From stacks of documents, newspapers, magazines to packaging materials and supplies – paper accounts for approximately 26% of total waste at landfills in the United States.  It’s a stark reminder that we need to rethink our consumption and disposal of paper products. But did you know there’s a much larger paper trail behind the scenes, one that most of us aren’t even aware of, that is a major contributor to climate change? 

Our healthcare system uses a surprising amount of paper that harms the environment, pollutes communities, contributes to deforestation, and exacerbates climate change. 

The Prescription Problem 

Every year, billions of prescriptions are written in the United States. Accompanying each one are enormous paper pamphlets, averaging 30 to 45 pages in length, meant for healthcare professionals (HCPs), not patients. These pamphlets, sometimes stretching the length of a dining-room table, take 8-12 months to produce and ship, meaning they are often outdated by the time they arrive. 

It's called prescribing information, and it contains complex information about the chemical composition of drugs. That prescribing information is required by law to be printed and shipped with every prescription filled in the U.S. 

The numbers are staggering: In 2019, approximately 3.79 billion prescriptions were dispensed in the U.S., and by 2023, that number had jumped to 6.7 billion. At 30 to 45 pages of paper per prescription, that amounts to billions of wasted sheets every year. Because that printed information is outdated and difficult for pharmacists to read, the paper that is often thrown away, contributing to an enormous amount of waste.  

This is happening in a world that’s becoming increasingly digital—where telemedicine, electronic records, and e-prescriptions are rapidly becoming the norm. So, why is this still happening? 

The simple answer: Congress has stood in the way. 

A Missed Opportunity for Change 

A decade ago, the FDA proposed a rule that could have significantly reduced the environmental impact of paper prescriptions. The proposal suggested moving the prescribing information for healthcare professionals into a digital format—something that would have saved millions of trees, reduced paper waste, cut down on carbon emissions, and increased safety for patients. That’s because the 8–12-month delay on printed information arriving at pharmacies means that healthcare professionals could mistakenly use outdated or incorrect information—and it is part of the reason why pharmacists already opt for digital information, tossing the printed booklets in the trash. 

But despite the clear environmental and safety benefits, Congress has blocked this rule change, and the environmental consequences are stacking up. 

In fact, the Environmental Paper Network’s Paper Calculator™ estimates that if we switched to online prescribing information, we could save more than 1.8 million tons of wood (that’s the equivalent of 10 million trees), nearly 11 billion gallons of water, and reduce 8.5 billion pounds of greenhouse gas emissions. That amount of reduced paper production would have real, tangible changes on our fight against climate change. 

Why Now? 

It has been 10 years since the FDA’s proposal, and it is more urgent than ever to address this enormous amount of paper waste. The longer we delay this transition, the more paper waste we continue to generate, exacerbating the very issues we’re trying to solve. 

Paper is a necessary part of life, but we need to be responsible about how we use it. Given the overwhelming support from medical professionals for a shift to digital, and the clear environmental benefits of doing so, it’s time to demand action. It’s time to end the outdated federal regulations that are keeping us stuck in a paper-based system. 

The transition to digital prescribing isn’t just a matter of convenience—it’s a crucial step in reducing the healthcare system’s carbon footprint and helping us take meaningful action in the fight against climate change. 

Two major climate disasters have gripped the nation in recent months. In January, four separate wildfires driven by 100 mph Santa Ana winds destroyed cities and towns in Southern California, including Pacific Palisades, Malibu, Altadena, and Pasadena. At least 10,000 structures, including entire residential neighborhoods, were leveled. Over 100,000 people were ordered to evacuate, and at least 16 are dead.  

Last fall, Hurricane Helene made landfall in Florida as a Category 4 storm, but quickly worked its way inland. Most impacted was Western North Carolina, the mountainous region of Asheville, previously thought to be a climate haven. Storm surges, landslides, and power outages washed way and cut off entire communities. At least 230 people died. Hurricane Milton followed two weeks later, hitting already damaged coastal Florida. Months later, the trauma still lingers for everyone in the disaster zone.

Unprecedented is a word often used to describe these extreme climate events. Yet such events are becoming increasingly common. The year 2024 saw 27 climate disasters costing $1 billion or more, the second-most on record (2023 had 28). Last year was also the warmest year on record, and the first time the Earth passed 1.5°C of warming since pre-industrial times.  

At the center of these disasters is property insurance. Anytime someone’s home or business is damaged or destroyed in a fire or storm, they expect their insurance to foot the bill to recover and rebuild. Yet in Southern California, thousands of homeowners were dropped by State Farm a few months before the fires, and in Western North Carolina, almost no one had flood insurance.  

Insurance at a crossroads 

Property insurance has reached a crisis point – but in crisis is also opportunity. In their roles as both insurance providers in case of disaster and major institutional investors, big insurance companies have the unique power to determine what our future looks like. 

These companies could continue business as usual – a vicious cycle of insuring fossil fuel projects and investing in fossil fuel companies to make a quick profit, all while dropping policy holders in climate-vulnerable areas and raising rates on the rest of us.  

Or these companies could begin a virtuous cycle of phasing out insurance and investments for fossil fuel projects and companies that make the climate crisis worse, choosing instead to use their record profits for underwriting and investing in the clean energy transition.

The first choice leads to an uninsurable future that permanently undermines the entire economy. The second choice leads to an insured future that lays the foundation for sustainable prosperity. 

As a Senate Budget Committee report from December 2024 put it: 

One thing is certain: unless the United States and the world rapidly transition to clean energy, climate-related extreme weather events will become both more frequent and more violent, resulting in ever-scarcer insurance and ever-higher premiums. This is predicted to cascade into plunging property values in communities where insurance becomes impossible to find or prohibitively expensive — a collapse in property values with the potential to trigger a full-scale financial crisis similar to what occurred in 2008. To avoid such a devastating fate, we must speed the transition to clean energy and eliminate carbon pollution. Climate change is no longer just an environmental problem. It is a looming economic threat. 

Senate Banking Committee, Next to Fall: The Climate-Driven Insurance Crisis is Here -- and Getting Worse

Insuring our future 

In its eighth annual scorecard and report, Insure Our Future -- a campaign comprised of environmental, consumer protection, and grassroots organizations holding the U.S. insurance industry accountable for its role in the climate crisis -- explores the relationship between climate change and property insurance companies worldwide.  

The report, Within Our Power, has five eye-opening findings: 

• Over one-third of weather-related losses in the past two decades – a total of $600 billion -- can be attributed to climate change. That’s an average of $30 billion per year. 
• Climate-attributed losses account for a growing share of insured weather losses, showing that decarbonization is crucial to contain soaring insurance costs. Climate-attributed losses are now 38% of insurance payouts, $52 billion of $132 billion in 2022, and growing at 6.5% per year.  
• Climate-attributed losses for 28 top property and casualty insurers totaled $10.6 billion in 2023 – almost equaling the $11.3 billion they took in premiums to insure fossil fuel projects. For more than half of companies, climate-related insurance payouts exceeded fossil fuel premiums. Yet revenue from fossil fuel premiums represents only 2% of their business.  
• Insurance premiums for the renewable energy market was less than 30% of the fossil fuel insurance market in 2023, pointing to a bottleneck for up to $10 trillion in clean energy investments. US insurance companies especially lag in the proportion of insurance for fossil fuels over renewable energy. 
• At the brink of 1.5°C, insurers are abandoning at-risk communities worldwide while enabling fossil fuel expansion that drives these risks higher – requiring immediate policy and regulatory action. Last year the Italian insurer Generali broke the cycle by ruling out oil and gas expansion, including LNG terminals. 

Policy prescriptions 

Insure Our Future, as well as Ceres and Climate & Community Institute, have all issued reports outlining policies that could put the property insurance industry on a more sustainable path. 

Insure Our Future’s Within Our Power report calls for integrating climate risks into the regulatory framework for insurance companies, overseeing insurers’ management of climate risks, allocating climate risks and costs to protect individuals and communities, mandating data transparency, using scientific climate scenario analysis, and requiring insurers to pay more for insuring and investing in fossil fuels.  

Ceres' 10-Point Plan for the Insurance Industry calls for mandatory risk disclosure, predictive climate modeling, innovative insurance products, incentivizing climate mitigation, climate-adjusted pricing models, federal climate reinsurance, mandatory and transparent climate transition, climate-resilient building codes, equity and accessibility, and leveraging insurers’ investments.  

Climate & Community Institute’s Shared Fates report views the insurance crisis as a housing justice issue, calling for the creation of federal and state Housing Resilience Agencies that would provide public disaster insurance, disaster risk reduction, address renters and mobile homes, and create climate advisory councils.  

What can you do? 

As an individual facing this insurance crisis, here are several things you can do: 

• Share this blog post with your friends!
• Learn about how the largest insurance companies are insuring risky fossil fuel projects and investing in fossil fuel companies – and which ones invest the most. 
• Use Green America’s Climate Smart Insurance Directory to find insurance companies in every state that do not insure fossil fuel projects and invest little to nothing in the fossil fuel industry.  
• Find out how to shop for insurance by contacting several independent insurance agents in your local area, region or state.
• Tell over 70 executives at the nation’s largest insurance companies to stop profiting off fossil fuels while leaving customers holding the climate crisis bag.  
• Check out Green America’s webinar on Responsible Home and Auto Insurance, with speakers from GreenFaith, Third Act, and Insure Our Future.  
• Has your insurance premium skyrocketed in recent years, or have you lost your insurance? Call the Insurance Commissioner in your state to tell your story.  

Originally published in Cincinnati Enquirer on July 31, 2024

You won’t notice it the next time you go grocery shopping, but changes are happening in refrigerated aisles nationwide. Several major American supermarket chains are starting to do away with old, inefficient refrigeration systems and modernizing their stores to take advantage of cost-cutting new technologies, which also reduce emissions that contribute to climate change.

A handful of Kroger’s over 2700 stores are using natural refrigerants that are much less harmful to the environment. As the largest supermarket operator in the country, a move to natural refrigerants would represent an important shift for the industry and evidence that company leadership has been listening to consumer demand for the phase-out of older hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigeration. HFCs are a “super pollutant” and potent greenhouse gas used in older systems, with up to 4000 times more global warming impact than carbon emissions when they leak. On average, leak rates in the sector are about 25%.

Given the forthcoming implementation of the EPA’s Technology Transitions Program, consumer sentiment and the increasing cost of HFCs, the move will benefit the environment, Kroger’s brand and the company’s bottom line. Starting next year, the Technology Transition rule under the AIM Act will go into effect, setting limits on the use of HFC refrigerants by sector, including equipment used in Kroger stores. To seize greater emissions reductions for the climate and to avoid higher refrigerant costs for systems at a time of decreasing HFC supply, it’s a wise business decision for Kroger to start its transition. Now Kroger should continue the transition by rolling it out to its over 2700 existing stores nationwide.

Kroger can follow the lead of competitors, including Aldi, Whole Foods, and Target, that are leading the industry on upgrading to natural refrigerants like ammonia, propane and CO2, which have zero or near-zero climate impact.

As the nation’s leading green economy organization, Green America has urged Kroger to publicly commit to adopting natural refrigerants in all new and existing stores and to develop a plan to phase out use of HFCs by 2035, with an interim target to heavily reduce HFC emissions by 2030. Changing a few stores to natural refrigerants is good but Kroger must go much further. We urge the company to make to eliminate HFCs from all new and existing stores on an accelerated timeline.

With the possible pending Albertson’s merger, Kroger could find itself with an even larger HFC burden to reduce due to regulatory and economic forces. Albertson’s is the second-largest U.S. supermarket chain after Kroger, using ultra-low GWP refrigerants in fewer than 1% of its stores and 50% of distribution centers. Although early-adopter companies are leading the way, most major supermarket chains are failing to act. Because of poor technology adoption, refrigerant management, policies and commitments, companies like Walmart, Costco, Publix, Giant Eagle, H-E-B, Wegmans, Wakefern, SEG and Trader Joe’s each performed poorly on the Environmental Investigation Agency’s 2024 edition of the Climate-Friendly Supermarkets Scorecard.

There’s an old saying that goes: the best time to plant a tree was 30 years ago, and the second-best time to plant a tree is now. The same is true for supermarket companies considering whether to invest in more efficient refrigeration technology. There is no time to waste. Protecting the communities the company serves can’t wait. And while Kroger has taken some initial steps on refrigerants, the company has much more work to do. The best time to eliminate HFCs might have been years ago, but the second-best time is now.