The Great Daylight Robbery: How a Broken System Steals Our Time—And Nobody Stops It
Every year, like clockwork, we wake up one morning in March robbed of an hour—an hour stolen from us by an archaic, bureaucratic relic called daylight saving time.
And every year, in October, we are thrown a pathetic consolation prize: the return of what was ours to begin with.
It is a theft so audacious, so blatantly unnecessary, and yet, no matter how many protest, nothing changes.
It’s a prime example of modern political paralysis—where the will of the people is ignored in favor of inertia, convenience, and a mindless adherence to tradition.
The absurdity of it all is staggering. We have known for years—no, decades—that daylight saving time is a pointless exercise.
It was conceived by men who either wanted to save candles or shoot more pheasants before dusk.
Benjamin Franklin, one of its early proponents, suggested waking people up with church bells—or, if that failed, with cannon fire—to force them out of bed at sunrise.
William Willett, an English architect and golf enthusiast, was enraged that people were wasting precious daylight with closed curtains, so he campaigned relentlessly to change the clocks.
The problem?
Nobody wanted it then, and nobody wants it now. When the British Parliament first considered it in 1908, it was mocked. The New York Times called it ‘an act of madness.’ Farmers, train operators, and workers all opposed it, yet bureaucrats pushed it through.
It wasn’t even economic efficiency that made it law—it was war. Germany introduced daylight saving time in 1916 to conserve coal during World War I. Britain and the U.S. quickly followed.
That’s right—one of the most universally despised policies in the modern world was created not by popular demand or even by logical consensus, but by war-time desperation. And we’re still stuck with it.
Fast-forward a century, and three-quarters of Europeans want it gone. A 2018 EU survey found that 75% of respondents wanted daylight saving time abolished. Seventy-five percent!
That is a crushing majority in any democratic system. Yet what happened?
Nothing. Because the EU couldn’t agree on whether we should keep summer time, winter time, or revert to standard time. And so, the charade continues.
The same paralysis exists worldwide. In the U.S., countless states have tried to break free, but the federal government has refused to act.
In North Korea, they once changed the clocks—not for daylight saving, but as a statement against their former Japanese occupiers.
Meanwhile, most of the world just shrugs and accepts the twice-yearly jet lag, heart attack spikes, and sleep deprivation as if it’s an unchangeable force of nature.
Let’s be clear: daylight saving time no longer saves energy.
It no longer serves any real purpose.
It disrupts sleep patterns, increases accident rates, and infuriates millions. The only reason it persists is because politicians are too inept to agree on how to kill it.
And so, we go on, caught in a cycle of absurdity, having our time stolen every spring and grudgingly returned every autumn—like prisoners allowed a few hours of sunlight before being thrown back into their cells.
It is a staggering testament to our collective inability to eliminate something we all hate.
Perhaps Benjamin Franklin was onto something after all. Maybe what we really need isn’t another futile online petition.
Maybe we need the church bells.
Maybe we need the cannon fire.
Maybe we need to shake people out of their apathy and demand—once and for all—that this ridiculous theft of time comes to an end.
Science is simply common sense at its best - that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.
- Thomas Huxley
Stand Up for Science: Nationwide Protests Oppose Trump Cuts to Research
SCIENCE RESISTANCE
While much of the mainstream media in the U.S. has shamefully bowed to power to avoid financial ruin, the scientific and tech press is refusing to kneel.
In the face of relentless attacks on research, innovation, and intellectual freedom, publications that once stuck to their lanes of reporting on scientific breakthroughs and the latest tech gadgets are now the last line of defense against an authoritarian chokehold on knowledge itself.
The truth is ugly. The reckless gutting of critical research institutions, including agencies responsible for public health and life-saving innovation, is not just budget tightening—it is deliberate sabotage.
The dismantling of medical research funding, the obstruction of crucial vaccine development, and the systematic defunding of scientific inquiry are not accidents or missteps;
they are strategic moves to consolidate power and silence opposition.
One leading science publication recently interviewed organizers behind the "Stand Up for Science" protests. The sentiment was clear: people were enraged. They saw not just funding cuts but an all-out assault on knowledge, freedom, and democracy.
As one doctoral researcher put it, science is where all attacks on democracy converge—because attacking science means attacking innovation, ideas, and freedom itself.
A respected chemist in a major science magazine has chronicled this destruction in grim detail: influenza vaccine research halted, university and hospital research groups defunded, clinical trials disrupted, and infectious disease surveillance weakened.
Even research into mRNA vaccine technology—critical for future pandemic preparedness—is now subject to direct oversight by political ideologues with no scientific expertise.
The consequences?
A setback in cancer research, vaccine development, and pandemic readiness that could cost countless lives.
And make no mistake—this isn’t about fiscal responsibility. This is about control. The suppression of knowledge is a hallmark of authoritarianism, and those in power know that an uninformed, confused, and manipulated population is easier to rule.
That’s why independent researchers and journalists are now under attack.
While traditional media outlets have largely chosen silence or compliance, the tech press is stepping up where others have failed.
Investigative pieces have uncovered the chaos being unleashed by a powerful tech billionaire’s influence over key institutions, describing a calculated effort to dismantle protective agencies from within.
His handpicked team—young, inexperienced, and blindly loyal—has been tasked with standardizing chaos, ensuring that oversight collapses and the old power structures are replaced with absolute, unchecked control.
Another major tech publication, long known for its deep dives into innovation, has shifted gears, openly acknowledging its transformation into a democracy blog.
Its editors have stated outright: this is no longer just about technology. This is about whether the conditions for progress, freedom, and innovation will survive at all.
The same tools that once empowered individuals—technology, free speech, and open knowledge—are now being used to suppress them.
Through calculated legal maneuvers, disinformation campaigns, and an aggressive rebranding of tyranny as "innovation," the institutions that safeguard democracy are being torn down.
This is not alarmism.
This is not paranoia.
This is happening.
And the question is no longer whether people will fight back—it is whether they will do so before it is too late.
The scientific community, the tech world, and every person who values truth must refuse to be silent.
Speak out.
Donate to legal efforts against this assault on knowledge.
Challenge every attempt to erase facts with propaganda.
In free countries, every man is entitled to express his opinions - and every other man is entitled not to listen.
- G. Norman Collie
Is democracy at risk of extinction?
The Pitfalls of Public Participation: When Citizen Engagement Becomes an Illusion
Public participation in political decision-making is often hailed as the antidote to governmental detachment, a way to ensure transparency and accountability.
Advocates argue that when citizens have a voice in shaping their communities, trust in the system increases, and better, more inclusive policies emerge. But is this idealistic vision grounded in reality?
Or does public participation, more often than not, serve as a mere facade—an illusion of influence that ultimately leaves both citizens and politicians frustrated?
Take the case of Plymouth, a city in southern England, where a neighborhood was transformed into a traffic-calmed zone. At first glance, the initiative appears to be a glowing example of successful citizen involvement. Nearly 80% of residents supported the change, following three years of dialogue between locals, schools, and experts.
But scratch beneath the surface, and the true complexity of public participation emerges. The process was lengthy, requiring constant negotiation, and inevitably, some voices were amplified while others were drowned out.
The fact that it took years to achieve what was, in essence, a localized urban planning adjustment highlights the inefficiency of such participatory models.
While citizen involvement can increase transparency and foster understanding of governmental constraints, it also adds layers of bureaucracy and often results in decisions that favor the most vocal and organized groups rather than serving the broader public interest.
Different forms of public participation suit different contexts.
Large-scale participation is useful for fostering broad discussions, while smaller, targeted groups work better for tackling complex issues in depth.
Selection methods vary—randomized participants may enhance legitimacy, while strategically chosen groups can ensure specific perspectives are represented.
But herein lies the paradox: the more tailored the selection, the less representative it becomes; the broader the input, the more chaotic and directionless the discourse.
At what point does participation shift from being democratic to being performative?
Beyond procedural hurdles, there is a darker side to public engagement. If citizen involvement is sought too late—after key decisions have already been made—then participation is nothing more than a hollow exercise in validation, a way for officials to feign inclusivity while staying the course they had already charted.
Likewise, if recommendations from participatory forums are systematically ignored, frustration festers, and trust in democratic institutions erodes rather than strengthens.
Even when there is genuine room for public influence, there is a risk that small but vocal minorities will hijack the process, imposing their preferences at the expense of silent majorities.
Looking ahead, the real challenge is not improving individual participation methods but integrating them meaningfully into governance structures.
Without this transformation, increased public involvement risks becoming a double-edged sword:
raising expectations of influence without delivering actual power, fueling cynicism, and further alienating citizens from the very institutions meant to serve them.
The question, then, is not whether public participation is inherently good or bad—it is whether it is truly effective.
As long as it remains an accessory rather than a driving force in governance, public input will continue to be more about optics than impact.
Democracy should be more than just a performance. The illusion of participation might appease citizens in the short term, but when engagement fails to translate into meaningful change, disillusionment follows.
And in an era of growing distrust in institutions, empty promises of inclusion could prove more dangerous than no participation at all.
The A.G. Addendum:
Professional Solutions: Making Public Participation More Effective
To avoid the pitfalls of ineffective public participation, the following solutions can be implemented:
Early and Continuous Engagement: Public input should be sought at the very beginning of decision-making processes, not just after key choices have been made. Ensuring that participation is a proactive rather than reactive measure helps create meaningful dialogue rather than performative inclusion.
Structured and Transparent Decision-Making: Clear guidelines should be established on how public input will influence final decisions. Transparency about what will and will not be considered prevents frustration and increases trust in the process.
Balanced Representation: Instead of favoring the loudest voices, structured selection methods—such as citizen assemblies with randomized representation—should be used to ensure a diverse range of perspectives is included.
Expert Facilitation and Mediation: Trained facilitators can help navigate discussions, ensuring that all voices are heard and that debates remain constructive. Mediation can also prevent conflicts that arise from ideological divides.
Hybrid Participation Models: A combination of in-person deliberations and digital platforms can make engagement more accessible while maintaining depth in discussions. Online tools such as interactive surveys, deliberative polling, and real-time feedback mechanisms can supplement traditional methods.
Pilot Programs and Iterative Feedback Loops: Instead of implementing sweeping changes based on initial feedback, decision-makers should test policies in controlled settings and adjust them based on real-world outcomes and continued public input.
Accountability Mechanisms: Public participation must be tied to clear accountability structures. Governments and institutions should be required to publicly respond to recommendations, outlining which suggestions were adopted, which were not, and why.
"A billionaire-stacked government writing policies for... billionaires. Shocking! Tax cuts for the rich, scraps for the rest—yet you wonder why 'caravans' march toward the so-called 'holy land'? America’s motto was never 'In God We Trust'—it was always 'Get rich or die trying.' And guess who’s holding the scissors?"
- Adaptation-Guide
Laurence Tribe: It’s not over. The resistance is about to ignite
Where Is Your Resistance Now?
The United States is experiencing its own Putinization. Russians are openly mocking how Americans seem powerless against their president’s rampage.
In 1828, Russian philosopher Pyotr Chaadayev wrote that Russians existed only as a grand warning to the world. He described Russian society as indifferent to good and evil, truth and lies, while being recklessly bold and astonishingly resilient to hardship. According to him, Russians lacked any real sense of duty, justice, law, and order—traits he attributed exclusively to the West.
Fast-forward two centuries, and Chaadayev’s analysis is disturbingly relevant—not to Russia, but to the U.S., where political transformations that took decades in Russia are unfolding at lightning speed.
Russian history is a case study in what happens when a state abandons democracy’s humanistic foundations or never embraces them in the first place. The ever-disillusioned and hyper-patriotic Russian population has now turned its gaze westward with a smug sense of vindication.
Russian Schadenfreude
The parallels between Russia and America are so glaring that even Russia’s opposition figures can’t help but revel in the irony.
“Westerners have loved telling us Russians to take to the streets and protest, claiming our slavish nature prevents us from overthrowing Putin—and now?” journalist Nikolai Epplée sneers on Facebook, receiving a flood of approving comments from Russia’s liberal circles.
The Trump administration has rolled back civil rights, cracked down on free speech, academic research, and corporate independence, purged the state apparatus, and threatened neighboring countries with military force. So, where’s the resistance?
Americans argue that they will take to the streets only after exhausting all legal avenues—an excuse that Russians now mock with glee.
Even if Americans don’t deserve the scorn, their response mirrors Russia’s failed pro-democracy movement, which washes its hands of any responsibility for allowing tyranny to flourish.
And nothing exposes the complicity of a society in its own oppression more than its attitude toward war.
The Comfort of Denial
Even in Russia’s police-state conditions, surveys—whether conducted by the state or independent groups—consistently show that about 70% of Russians support the war against Ukraine. About 15% are outright war hawks.
Liberal circles contest these figures, claiming that opinion polls in dictatorships are unreliable or that only the hawks truly support the war, while the rest are merely opportunistic or afraid to speak out.
But this vision of a passive, victimized population is no different from the paternalistic attitude of the ruling elite. It mirrors the widespread mentality of helplessness: We are just little people; we can’t change anything.
The argument that “about half” of Russians support peace talks is often cited as proof that the public opposes the war.
Yet, the real question—whether Russia should withdraw from Ukraine entirely—is never even asked. In Putin’s Russia, you must support the war, but you can’t call it a war. Sound familiar?
The Trump administration’s attacks on statistical agencies and its bans on politically inconvenient terminology are eerily reminiscent of this strategy.
The Tyrant’s Winning Formula
During the first Chechen war under Boris Yeltsin, public protests erupted. Back then, the Russian leadership discovered the magic formula that Putin later perfected and that now enjoys global adoption:
Ignore every scandal, counter every accusation with a bigger lie, and never hold anyone accountable. Then, win elections anyway.
Each successive Russian war met with less resistance and more public enthusiasm. The 2014 annexation of Crimea sent nationalist euphoria soaring, and even opposition figures like Alexei Navalny and Mikhail Khodorkovsky downplayed its importance. Still, for many, rejecting Crimea’s annexation became a litmus test of political allegiance.
This is one reason why many Ukrainians believed the full-scale invasion in 2022 would spark mass protests in Russia. In reality, thousands—not millions—protested, making it easy for the regime to crush resistance with brutal efficiency.
The U.S. audience should take note: If Trump floats annexing Canada or Greenland and your biggest media outlet, The New York Times, calmly debates the electoral consequences for the Republican Party instead of screaming about a descent into outright fascism, you’re already halfway down the Russian path.
The Quiet Normalization of Insanity
This is how even independent media are tamed long before full censorship kicks in: by engaging in critical affirmation. This is the process of treating even the most insane, unlawful government actions as if they have a legitimate basis, as if they merely serve some misunderstood national interest. Gradually, this normalizes authoritarian rule.
Soon, even the most outrageous acts—like invading a peaceful neighbor—stop being seen as unspeakable crimes and instead become questionable political decisions. And society, exhausted by the domestic crises its own government creates, merely watches in weary detachment.
There’s suddenly so much to fight for—and so little hope of winning—that people redirect their energy to tangible, small-scale relief efforts:
charity for sick children, help for the elderly, aid for homeless veterans.
Russia’s recent past looks alarmingly like the near future of America—and perhaps Europe.
Poverty as a Political Resource
One last lesson Russia is offering the world: The impoverishment of the masses isn’t a crisis for the government—it’s an opportunity. Throughout the 2000s, economists warned that rising personal debt would drive millions of Russians into financial ruin and destabilize the state. Then, war solved the problem overnight.
Instead of imposing mass conscription, it was far easier—and cheaper—to recruit a mercenary army from society’s most desperate and indebted.
High casualty rates didn’t even spark unrest. Families were silenced with death payouts, while entire rural regions—especially those populated by ethnic minorities—were quietly depopulated.
Meanwhile, life in the major cities carried on largely unchanged. The only real differences?
People now drive Chinese cars instead of European ones and take flights through Istanbul or Belgrade instead of Paris or Berlin.
Chaadayev was right: Russians are adaptable.
Your Resistance? Your Knowledge and Your Wallet
The political trajectory of the U.S. is grim, but there’s no excuse for complacency. Many Russian dissidents are now proof of how irrelevant opposition figures become when they avoid real criticism of their own society and choose symbolic protests over real action.
Russia’s history is one of producing—and imposing—tyranny. Maybe it cannot be otherwise.
But let’s not pretend Russia is uniquely doomed. Tyranny isn’t Russian—it’s human. And it thrives wherever people are too passive to fight it in meaningful ways.
So, where is your resistance?
It’s in your knowledge—stay informed beyond mainstream spin.
And it’s in your wallet—fund those who fight for democracy, refuse to support institutions that enable authoritarianism.
You don’t have to take to the streets to fight back. You just have to stop feeding the beast.
The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticism.
- George Jean Nathan
Germany faces energy dilemma | DW News
The Union (CDU/CSU), SPD, and the Greens have reached an agreement on a draft law regarding billions in debt for defense and infrastructure.
The agreement also includes adding the phrase “climate neutrality by 2045” to the German Constitution. Does this mean that climate neutrality is becoming a constitutional goal?
The current proposal introduces a new Article 143h in the German Constitution, allowing the federal government to take on up to 500 billion euros in additional debt (a "special fund"). This money is intended for “additional investments in infrastructure and additional investments to achieve climate neutrality by 2045.”
However, this is a financial regulation that specifies a purpose for the funds. It does not establish climate neutrality as a constitutional goal in the same way that social welfare (Article 20) or environmental protection (Article 20a) are enshrined in the Constitution.
The goal of climate neutrality by 2045 is currently only defined in the Federal Climate Protection Act. It could still be modified or expanded through regular legislation. The financial regulation in the new article ties spending to this goal but does not make it a constitutional requirement.
Could the German Constitutional Court interpret it differently in the future?
We don’t think so. First, Article 143h is clearly just a guideline for how the money should be used. Second, people should be aware that constitutional goals always leave room for political decisions. Otherwise, courts would end up making laws instead of Parliament.
Even with a strong constitutional goal like social welfare, the only firm legal requirement is to ensure a minimum standard of living.
Similarly, environmental protection means the government must take action against climate change, but that doesn’t mean it must introduce carbon rationing or reach net zero by a specific deadline.
Even if such a requirement were added to the Constitution, it would still have to be balanced against other constitutional rights and priorities.
That being said, there is always a risk that phrases from financial regulations could later be interpreted more broadly. Some critics fear that this new article could be a "Trojan horse” for the Green Party’s climate policies.
However, the Constitutional Court has consistently shown strong legal reasoning, so we think such concerns are exaggerated.
What are the risks of the new financial rules?
When a new constitutional rule is introduced, people often argue about a potential legal problem that later turns out to be minor—while other, unforeseen issues become more significant.
The politically sensitive point here is ensuring that this massive new debt does not indirectly lead to higher government spending on everyday expenses (such as social benefits or administrative costs).
The law says the new debt must be "additional” to regular investment spending, and it requires an “appropriate level of investment in the federal budget.” This will be defined by ordinary laws, but it could also become a constitutional dispute.
Does the "debt brake" still exist?
Yes, but there could be new loopholes in how it is applied. For example, the revised Article 109(3), sentence 5 allows defense spending beyond a certain level to be exempt from the debt brake.
If there are no strict limits, future governments might be tempted to classify all sorts of spending as "defense-related”—including civil protection, intelligence agencies, or cybersecurity. That could lead to significant debt increases.
However, we remain cautiously optimistic. Even in times of geopolitical crisis, financial sustainability should not be completely ignored. If necessary, the German Constitutional Court could step in to set limits.
The Adaptation-Guide Translation:
No, "climate neutrality by 2045" is not ironclad or untouchable. It is not a constitutional obligation but rather a policy goal set in regular law (the Federal Climate Protection Act). That means:
It Can Be Changed by Law – Since it is part of ordinary legislation, the government or a future majority in Parliament can amend or even repeal it through the regular legislative process. It does not require a constitutional amendment.
The New Constitutional Article (143h) Does Not Make It a Fixed Obligation – The proposed article allows for funding to help reach climate neutrality by 2045, but it does not legally enforce that deadline as a constitutional duty.
The Constitutional Court Won’t Automatically Enforce It – Unlike fundamental rights (e.g., human dignity or the rule of law), this goal does not have direct legal protection in the Constitution. If the government misses the target or decides to push the deadline back, it’s a political issue, not a clear constitutional violation.
Bottom Line:
Germany’s commitment to climate neutrality by 2045 is flexible—it depends on political will and future legislative decisions.
While it's a strong policy objective, it's not set in stone like constitutional rights.
A future government could change the target if it has the necessary parliamentary majority.
The Green Paradox: When Progress Clashes with Reality
The dream of a green future is irresistible. Streets once choked with exhaust are transformed into leafy pedestrian havens. Solar panels blanket rooftops, cutting energy bills and liberating homeowners from fossil-fuel dependence.
Cities reimagine themselves as vibrant, car-free sanctuaries, and entire nations declare themselves leaders of the energy transition.
It’s a vision worth fighting for. But it's also a battlefield, where every victory seems to come with unintended casualties.
Green Utopias, Bureaucratic Nightmares
When a city dares to rip cars from its arteries and replace them with trees, outdoor cafés, and bicycles, it sparks both admiration and outrage.
The future has arrived—but was anyone asked whether they wanted it?
Local businesses, lifelong residents, and commuters who relied on those streets suddenly find themselves caught in a social experiment they never signed up for.
The courts swoop in, declaring the entire transformation illegal. Not because going green is wrong, but because the process was flawed—rushed, undemocratic, arrogant.
Change imposed from above breeds resistance, even when it’s for the common good.
The message is clear: sustainability without consensus is just another form of authoritarianism.
The Energy Boom No One Saw Coming
Elsewhere, a country that was once Europe’s underdog in economic power now finds itself basking in the glow of renewable energy dominance.
The numbers are staggering: more than half the nation’s electricity demand covered by wind, solar, and hydro. Electricity costs plummet while investment soars.
The rest of the continent watches, envious, as the economy surges ahead while their own stagnates under the weight of outdated policies and expensive energy.
Yet, behind this green success story lurks another uncomfortable truth. The energy transition has winners—but also losers.
Industries thrive, but so do investors who exploit the subsidies and incentives meant for ordinary people. Cities grow, but so do property prices, forcing out longtime residents.
Cheap energy powers expansion, but at what cost?
Who truly benefits, and who gets left behind?
The Myth of Effortless Change
Going green is no fairy tale. It’s not a smooth, glorious march toward a better world.
It’s a brutal tug-of-war between vision and practicality, between idealism and economic survival.
It’s lawsuits, backlashes, skyrocketing rents, and working-class families pushed to the margins of their own cities.
It’s a government celebrating a booming economy while glossing over the deeper fractures within society.
It’s sustainability advocates demanding more action while ignoring the unintended consequences.
It’s the left pushing too fast and the right resisting too hard.
It’s businesses profiting while pretending they’re saving the planet.
And yet, despite all the contradictions, despite all the bureaucratic disasters and economic disparities, one truth remains: the world cannot afford to stand still.
The transition must happen. But how it happens will determine whether it succeeds—or whether it becomes just another broken promise, another political battlefield where progress dies in a maze of legal battles, economic gaps, and social unrest.
The future is green.
The question is whether we can build it without tearing ourselves apart first.
The automobile has not merely taken over the street, it has dissolved the living tissue of the city ... Gas-filled, noisy and hazardous, our streets have become the most inhumane landscape in the world.
- James M. Fitch
Why BP Learned to Love Oil Again
The Great BP Greenwashing Scam: There Never Was an Honest Shift to Sustainability
The oil giant BP never truly wanted to go green. It was all a show, a carefully orchestrated illusion designed to pacify regulators, investors, and climate-conscious consumers.
Now, the mask has slipped, and the company is back to doing what it always intended—doubling down on oil and gas.
Five years ago, BP’s then-CEO Bernard Looney made headlines with his grand declaration that the company would transform into a “force for good in a carbon-neutral world.”
He promised a radical reduction in fossil fuel production—40% less by 2030—and a tenfold increase in green energy investments.
Looney was hailed as a visionary, a leader willing to disrupt the status quo. But it was all smoke and mirrors.
Fast forward to today: BP’s new CEO, Murray Auchincloss, has ripped the green facade to shreds.
This week, he proudly announced a $10 billion increase in oil and gas investments, aiming to boost production to 2.5 million barrels per year.
Meanwhile, the company’s much-hyped renewable energy investments will be slashed by a staggering 70%. The excuse?
BP had been "too optimistic" about the energy transition. Translation: The green gamble didn’t make enough money.
Let’s be clear: BP’s so-called green transition was never about saving the planet. It was a branding exercise, a cynical ploy to gain goodwill while still raking in profits from fossil fuels.
Looney’s exit amid scandal provided the perfect opportunity to abandon the charade. Auchincloss, who served as Looney’s CFO, never truly embraced the green agenda.
Now, he’s free to lead BP back to its true priorities: maximizing shareholder value, whatever the cost to the climate.
And speaking of shareholders, they were never on board with BP’s green ambitions.
The company’s stock performance lagged behind its competitors—Shell, ExxonMobil, and Chevron—all of which stuck to their fossil fuel guns.
When activist hedge fund Elliott Management bought a 5% stake in BP, the writing was on the wall. Elliott has a brutal reputation for forcing companies to maximize short-term profits, no matter the collateral damage. It was only a matter of time before BP caved.
Auchincloss is now racing to sell off $20 billion in assets by 2027, including parts of BP’s gas stations and infrastructure. Why?
To trim the fat and please Wall Street. He boasts that his goal is to double BP’s market value to $200 billion, restoring it to pre-Deepwater Horizon disaster levels.
In other words, BP wants to make investors forget about its catastrophic oil spill, just as it hopes to make the world forget about its empty green promises.
Despite all this, the market reaction has been lukewarm. BP’s stock barely budged after the announcement, and even Elliott Management isn’t entirely satisfied.
Bloomberg reports that the hedge fund is still pushing for further cuts and possibly even leadership changes.
No one at BP actually cares about sustainability—the only debate is over how much oil and gas they can extract before the world catches up to them.
BP’s about-face is a stark reminder that Big Oil never had any intention of leading the fight against climate change.
Their commitments were never real, only convenient. As long as fossil fuels remain profitable, these companies will continue extracting, polluting, and greenwashing their image to keep regulators and the public at bay.
The transition to clean energy won’t come from BP or any of its competitors—it will have to be forced upon them.
If BP ever had a moral compass, it just drilled right through it.
How to Boycott BP and Its Enablers
BP thrives because consumers, investors, and governments continue to fuel its business. If you want to hit BP where it hurts, here’s how:
1. Stop Buying BP Fuel
BP owns multiple gas station brands beyond the ones with its logo. Avoid purchasing fuel from:
BP-branded gas stations
Aral (Europe, especially Germany)
Amoco (U.S.)
Castrol (BP’s lubricants brand used in many service centers and auto shops)
Instead, fill up at companies investing in renewables or better yet, reduce reliance on gasoline altogether by walking, biking, or using public transport.
2. Ditch BP-Linked Banks and Investment Funds
Many financial institutions fund BP’s fossil fuel operations. Investigate your bank and retirement fund:
Big offenders include JPMorgan Chase, Citi, and HSBC, which continue to finance BP and other oil giants. Consider switching to banks or funds with strong ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) policies.
Check your mutual funds and retirement plans—many include BP stocks. Opt for fossil-free funds like Green Century, Trillium, or Pax World.
3. Pressure Retailers to Cut Ties
BP supplies fuel and lubricants to many industries, from airlines to shipping companies. Voice your opposition to corporations that rely on BP’s products, including airlines, delivery services, and auto manufacturers. Ask companies where their energy and fuel come from—and demand better alternatives.
4. Stop Using Castrol Motor Oil
BP owns Castrol, one of the largest motor oil brands worldwide. Opt for non-BP lubricants, such as:
Royal Purple
Valvoline
Mobil 1 (owned by ExxonMobil but investing in some renewable tech)
5. Support Renewable Energy & Clean Tech
Switch to renewable electricity providers in deregulated markets.
Use public transit, carpool, or electric vehicles to reduce fossil fuel demand.
Invest in solar panels or community energy programs rather than supporting BP’s fake greenwashing schemes.
6. Make Noise—Call for Divestment & Regulations
BP only backpedaled on its green promises because investors weren’t convinced they were profitable. That means pressure matters.
Sign petitions demanding that institutions divest from BP.
Call on policymakers to hold BP accountable and accelerate clean energy policies.
Expose BP’s greenwashing—call out their hypocrisy on social media, in discussions, and through activist campaigns.
7. Hold BP Accountable for Its Past Crimes
BP still owes environmental debt from Deepwater Horizon, one of the worst oil spills in history. Support organizations like the Gulf Restoration Network and others fighting for justice.
Support investigative journalism and climate watchdogs exposing BP’s ongoing environmental destruction.
Final Thought: Hit Them Where It Hurts
BP doesn’t care about press releases or moral arguments—it cares about money and public pressure.
The more people who cut off their financial support, the faster BP will be forced to change—or collapse under its own greed.
As long as our social order regards the good of institutions rather than the good of men, so long will there be a vocation for the Rebel.
- Richard Roberts
US jury orders Greenpeace to pay $660 million over protests, threatening the organization's future
The $660 Million Verdict Against Greenpeace: A Death Sentence for Environmental Justice
The verdict against Greenpeace is not just an attack on one organization—it is a brutal, calculated warning shot at every activist, every environmentalist, every indigenous protector, and every single person who dares to stand up against the all-devouring machinery of corporate greed.
This isn’t about justice. This isn’t about law and order. This is about silencing dissent and crushing those who refuse to kneel before the unchecked tyranny of oil, money, and power.
A jury in Mandan, North Dakota, awarded Energy Transfer—the $70 billion behemoth behind the Dakota Access Pipeline—a staggering $660 million, effectively attempting to bankrupt Greenpeace. The charge?
Inciting protest.
Inciting resistance against the desecration of sacred indigenous lands.
Inciting a demand for clean water, for basic human decency, for a world where profit does not reign supreme over people and the planet.
If this is a crime, then what does that make Energy Transfer and every politician who greased the wheels for this ecological horror show?
A Rigged Trial in a Company Town
Let’s talk about the jury, because that alone should send shivers down the spine of anyone who still clings to the illusion of a fair justice system.
More than half of the jurors had ties to the fossil fuel industry. Many openly disliked the protests.
And how many of them were members of the Sioux, Mandan, Pawnee, Gros Ventres, Assiniboine, or Blackfeet nations—those whose lands and waters are most directly imperiled by this pipeline? Zero.
From the outset, Greenpeace was fighting on hostile ground, against a company that has already demonstrated its willingness to bulldoze over human rights.
Energy Transfer is the same corporation that hired mercenary security forces, set attack dogs on peaceful demonstrators, and used surveillance and intimidation tactics lifted straight out of a dystopian nightmare.
And now, through a trial that was nothing more than a corporate show trial, they have twisted the legal system into yet another weapon against those who dare to resist.
The Death of Protest, The Birth of Corporate Rule
This verdict isn’t about punishing Greenpeace for defamation.
It’s about setting a precedent.
It’s about telling every protester, every journalist, every indigenous water protector: If you stand in our way, we will destroy you.
This is not just a lawsuit. This is corporate eco-terrorism, and it is winning.
Lawsuits like this are a part of a broader, insidious legal strategy known as SLAPP—Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.
These suits aren’t meant to win on legal merit; they’re meant to drown their targets in endless legal fees, to bleed them dry, to intimidate them into silence. They are an abomination of justice, a direct assault on free speech and the First Amendment, and now they’ve been weaponized against the very organizations that fight to keep this planet habitable.
The Real Criminals Walk Free
What does Energy Transfer call criminal?
Standing up for the right to clean water.
What does the state call unlawful?
Protecting land that belongs to indigenous peoples.
What do the courts punish?
Those who resist the destruction of their homes and ecosystems.
And what does Energy Transfer get in return?
A pipeline that pumps billions into their pockets while spilling oil into our rivers. A legal system that acts as their personal enforcer. A nation that prioritizes fossil fuels over the very air we breathe.
If there is a crime here, it is the Dakota Access Pipeline itself. It is the rubber-stamping of fossil fuel expansion while we stand on the brink of climate collapse.
It is the theft of indigenous land. It is the unholy alliance of corporate power and state force, working in perfect synchronization to crush all opposition.
The Fight is Far From Over
This verdict is a catastrophe, but it is not the end. Greenpeace will appeal. The fight will continue in the courts, in the streets, and in every corner of this country where people refuse to be silenced.
Energy Transfer may think they have won a battle, but the war is far from over.
They may have secured a legal victory in a courtroom stacked against justice, but they cannot erase the truth.
They cannot erase the voices of those who stood at Standing Rock, who faced down their dogs and their tear gas, who refused to back down even in the face of overwhelming brutality.
We stand at a crossroads.
Either we allow this verdict to be the death knell of environmental activism, or we use it as a rallying cry.
Because if we let them take down Greenpeace, who will they come for next?
