Environment

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares59 Views

    US exits fund that compensates poorer countries for global heating

    by

    The Trump administration has withdrawn the US from a global agreement under which the developed nations most responsible for the climate crisis pledged to partly compensate developing countries for irreversible harms caused by global heating.The loss and damage fund was agreed at the Cop28 UN climate summit in late 2023 – a hard-won victory after years of diplomatic and grassroots advocacy by developing nations that bear the brunt of the climate crisis despite having contributed the least to greenhouse gas emissions. The fund signalled a commitment by developed, polluting countries to provide financial support for some of the irreversible economic and noneconomic losses from sea level rise, desertification, drought and floods already happening.The US has a long record of delay tactics and obstructionism, and had so far pledged only $17.5m (£13.5m) to the loss and damage fund, which became operational on 1 January this year. Now the US, the biggest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, will no longer participate in the initiative.“On behalf of the United States Department of the Treasury, I write to inform you that the United States is withdrawing from the board for the fund for responding to loss and damage, effective immediately,” said Rebecca Lawlor, the deputy director at the US Office of Climate and Environment, in a letter to the fund.The decision to abandon the loss and damage fund was condemned by climate advocates from the global north and south.“The US decision to step away from this commitment at such a crucial moment sends the wrong message to the global community and to those in dire need of assistance,” said Mohamed Adow, a climate policy analyst and director of the thinktank Power Shift Africa. “We urge the United States to reconsider its position in the interest of the planet and future generations … this regrettable decision risks undermining collective progress and erodes the trust necessary for effective international cooperation.”Rachel Rose Jackson, a research director at Corporate Accountability, said: “Let’s be clear – the US has never been a climate champion. Yet the Trump administration’s anti-climate action agenda – including its withdrawal from the loss and damage fund board – is a wrecking ball made of dynamite. It’s dangerous, it’s malicious and it will destroy lives.“We cannot allow the Trump administration, and the greedy corporations pulling the strings, to get away with destroying the planet. It’s time for the United States to pay up its climate debt and do its fair share of climate action.”Ali Mohamed, the chair of the African Group of Negotiators, a coalition of African nations participating in UN climate negotiations, said: “This decision, made by the nation with the largest historical responsibility for climate change, jeopardises vital support for vulnerable countries facing irreversible climate impacts.”Trump has already pulled out of the 2015 Paris climate accords – for the second time after the US was reinstated under Joe Biden – claiming the international agreement on cutting greenhouse gas emissions and preventing climate catastrophe ripped off the US.“I’m immediately withdrawing from the unfair, one-sided Paris climate accord rip-off,” he said, signing the executive order on his first day in office. “The United States will not sabotage our own industries while China pollutes with impunity.”China currently ranks as the top greenhouse gas emitter but is also the global leader in the manufacture and deployment of renewable energy. The US is the largest historical emitter and, while emissions have fallen alongside reductions in coal, it has become the world’s largest oil and gas producer by a huge margin in recent years.Record-breaking ocean and atmospheric temperatures have caused chaos around the world and across the US, including devastating wildfires in Los Angeles and deadly flooding across Florida and southern Appalachia. Meanwhile, several of Trump’s policies, including his pledge to “drill, baby drill”, dismantle federal agencies, and impose tariffs that threaten a trade war, risk derailing the burgeoning US renewables sector.The loss and damage fund is a work in progress. As of late January, 27 countries had pledged a combined total of $741m – the equivalent of about 0.2% of the irreversible losses developing countries are facing from global heating every year.The US withdrawal appears to be another rejection of global diplomacy and the reality of the climate crisis.Harjeet Singh, a climate activist and founding director of the Delhi-based Satat Sampada Climate Foundation, said: “The decision by the Trump administration exemplifies a longstanding pattern of obstruction by the US government in securing necessary finance for addressing climate impacts, [and] undermines global efforts to deliver climate justice.“As the largest historical emitter, the United States bears a significant share of the blame for the climate adversities affecting vulnerable populations worldwide. We must hold them accountable and ensure they contribute their fair share towards global climate reparations.” More

    More stories

    • 138 Shares56 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump administration to drop case against plant polluting Louisiana’s ‘Cancer Alley’

      by

      The Donald Trump administration has formally agreed to drop a landmark environmental justice case in Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley” region, marking a blow to clean air advocates in the region and a win for the Japanese petrochemical giant at the centre of the litigation.Legal filings made public on Friday morning reveal that Trump’s Department of Justice agreed to dismiss a long-running lawsuit against the operators of a synthetic rubber plant in Reserve, Louisiana, which is allegedly largely responsible for some of the highest cancer risk rates in the US for the surrounding majority-Black neighborhoods.The litigation was filed under the Biden administration in February 2023 in a bid to substantially curb the plant’s emissions of a pollutant named chloroprene, a likely human carcinogen. It had targeted both the current operator, the Japanese firm Denka, and its previous owner, the American chemical giant DuPont, and formed a central piece of the former administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) efforts to address environmental justice issues in disadvantaged communities. A trial had been due to start in April 2025 following lengthy delays.Community leaders in Reserve had expressed grave concerns about the case’s future following Trump’s return to the White House after the president moved to gut offices within the EPA and justice department responsible for civil rights and environmental justice.On Friday, 84-year-old Robert Taylor, a resident in Reserve who has lost a number of family members to cancer, described the move as “terrible” for his community.“It’s obvious that the Trump administration doesn’t care anything for the poor Black folk in Cancer Alley,” Taylor said. “[Trump’s] administration has taken away what protections we had, what little hope we had.”Filings show that parties involved in the litigation, including lawyers for Denka and DuPont, met on Wednesday and agreed jointly with the US justice department to dismiss the case.The EPA referred all questions about the lawsuit to the US justice department, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.DuPont did not immediately respond to a request for comment.A spokesperson for Denka did not respond to questions from the Guardian but issued a statement thanking the Trump administration and lauding Louisiana’s Republican governor, Jeff Landry, for his “unwavering support”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe chemical firm pointed to a $35m investment in emissions offsets and said “the facility’s emissions are at an historical low”. The company “remains committed to implementing the emissions reductions achieved as we turn the page from this relentless and draining attack on our business”, the statement added.According to the complaint filed in 2023, emissions from the plant pose “an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health and welfare”. The lawsuit had specifically singled out the risk to children living near the plant and those attending an elementary school situated close to the plant’s fence line. It noted that average readings at an air monitor near the school between April 2018 to January 2023 showed that those under 16 could surpass the EPA’s excess cancer risk rate within two years of their life.On Friday, Taylor vowed to continue pushing back against pollution.“We are going to fight them and prepare ourselves to keep going. We were preparing for the worst, and I don’t know how it could get any worse now that the government has totally abandoned us, it seems.” More

    • 163 Shares75 Views

      in US Politics

      What is this era of calamity we’re in? Some say ‘polycrisis’ captures it

      by

      Two months into 2025, the sense of dread is palpable. In the US, the year began with a terrorist attack; then came the fires that ravaged a city, destroying lives, homes and livelihoods. An extremist billionaire came to power and began proudly dismantling the government with a chainsaw. Once-in-a-century disasters are happening more like once a month, all amid devastating wars and on the heels of a pandemic.The word “unprecedented” has become ironically routine. It feels like we’re stuck in a relentless cycle of calamity, with no time to recover from one before the next begins.How do we make sense of any of this – let alone all of it, all at once?A number of terms have cropped up in the past decade to help us describe our moment. We’re living in the anthropocene – the era in which humanity’s impact is comparable to that of geology itself. Or we’re in the “post-truth” era, in which we no longer share the same sense of reality. We’re facing a permacrisis, an endless state of catastrophe.But perhaps the word that best describes this moment is one that emerged at the turn of the millennium, picked up steam in the 2010s and has recently been making the global rounds again: polycrisis.Not to be confused with a “perfect storm” or the perhaps less scientific “clusterfuck”, “polycrisis” – a term coined by the authors Edgar Morin and Anne Brigitte Kern – refers to the idea that not only are we facing one disaster after another, but those messes are all linked, making things even worse. Or, as Adam Tooze, a Columbia University history professor and public intellectual who has championed the term, put it: “In the polycrisis the shocks are disparate, but they interact so that the whole is even more overwhelming than the sum of the parts.”Our globalized world is built on interconnecting systems, and when one gets rattled, the others do too – a heating climate, for instance, increases the risk of pandemics, pandemics undermine economies, shaky economies fuel political upheaval. “There’s a kind of larger instability, or a larger system disequilibrium,” the researcher Thomas Homer-Dixon says. To illustrate the situation, Homer-Dixon uses a video of metronomes on a soft surface. Though they’re all started at different times, they end up synchronized, as each device’s beat subtly affects the rest. When people see it for the first time, “they don’t actually see what’s happening properly. They don’t realize the forces that are operating to cause the metronomes to actually synchronize with each other,” Homer-Dixon says.In much the same way, it’s often unclear even to experts how global systems interact because they are siloed in their disciplines. That limits our ability to confront intersecting problems: the climate crisis forces migration; xenophobia fuels the rise of the far right in receiving countries; far-right governments undermine environmental protections; natural disasters are more destructive. Yet migration experts may not be experts on the climate crisis, and climate experts may have limited knowledge of geopolitics.That’s why Homer-Dixon thinks better communication is essential – not just to create consensus around what we call our current predicament but also how to address it. He runs the Cascade Institute, which is fostering “a community of scholars and experts and scientists and policy makers around the world who are using this concept [of polycrisis] in constructive ways”.“Constructive” is a key word here. “You’ve got to get the diagnosis right before you can go to the prescription,” he says. Finding that diagnosis means looking at how stresses on various systems – climate, geopolitics, transportation, information, etc – intersect and identifying what his team calls “high leverage intervention points”: “places where you can go in and have a really big impact for a relatively low investment”.The Cascade Institute’s proposals target what they have identified as key drivers of the polycrisis, such as polarization and climate change, by, for instance, improving school curricula to bolster students’ understanding of disinformation and expanding the use of deep geothermal power.In addition to bringing people with disparate expertise together, the Cascade Institute, part of Royal Roads University in British Columbia, has developed an analytical framework for understanding the polycrisis, and it operates a website, polycrisis.org, which serves as a hub for the latest thinking on the issue – including critiques of the concept, Homer-Dixon says. The site contains a compendium of resources from academia to blogposts that explore the polycrisis, reflecting, for instance, on what’s already happened in 2025 (a tenuous ceasefire in Gaza, California wildfires, Trump upending the global order, an AI-bubble selloff, and the outbreak of bird flu).View image in fullscreenThere has been some backlash to the idea of the polycrisis. The historian Niall Ferguson has described it as “just history happening”. The political scientist Daniel Drezner says its proponents “assume the existence of powerful negative feedback effects that may not actually exist” – in other words, when crises overlap, the outcome might not always be bad (for instance, the pandemic lockdowns might have had some short-lived environmental benefits). Some point to past crises as evidence that what we are experiencing is not new.Homer-Dixon disagrees. “We’ve moved so far and so fast outside our species’ previous experience that many elites don’t have the cognitive frame to grasp our situation, even were they inclined to do so,” he wrote in 2023, when the term was the talk of Davos.It’s all a bit overwhelming, as Homer-Dixon acknowledges. “If you’re not really scared by what’s going on in the world, you’re braindead,” he says.On the other hand, “t​​he crisis can actually be a moment for really significant change,” he says, “because it kind of delegitimizes the existing way of doing stuff, the existing vested-interest stakeholders who are who are hunkered down and don’t want anything to change”. For instance, while Homer-Dixon sees Donald Trump as an “abominable” figure, he also notes that, “like an acid”, the president dissolves norms around him. That creates the risk of disaster but also offers opportunities to change the world for the better.“This really is a critical moment in human history and things can be done,” Homer-Dixon says. “We don’t know enough about how these systems are operating to know that it’s game over.”And the term itself, as terrifying as it is, can also be a strange comfort. “I think that’s useful, giving the sense a name. It’s therapeutic,” Tooze told Radio Davos. When the world feels like a nightmare, identifying the condition gives us something to hold on to – a kind of understanding amid the chaos. More

    • 175 Shares88 Views

      in US Politics

      Federal layoffs hit the deep-red, rural US west: ‘Our public lands are under threat’

      by

      Republican representative McKay Erickson walked through the halls of the Wyoming capitol with a Trump 2024 pin on the front of his suit jacket. Much of Erickson’s home district in Lincoln county falls under the jurisdiction of the Bridger-Teton national forest and Grand Teton national park.With that federal land, comes federal workers. While it appears districts in Wyoming crucial to US energy dominance have been spared the brunt of the layoffs, McKay said his forest-heavy district has not been so fortunate. He’s hearing from his constituents about the layoffs, and he’s troubled about the implications for his district’s future.“These people have a face to me,” Erickson said. “They have a face and a place in either Star Valley or Jackson that I know quite well.”Erickson is a small-government conservative, laments bureaucracy and stands by his belief that there’s a need to “cut the fat” at the federal level. But in his district, he foresees a lack of trail maintenance hurting local outfitting companies and understaffed parks with closed gates.“This way is so indiscriminate, and it doesn’t really drill down on the real issue as to where those cuts need to be,” Erickson said. “I’m afraid that probably all we’re going to lose is services.”Erickson’s district is in a bind that’s playing out across the American west.Wyoming, for the third presidential election in a row, voted for Donald Trump by a wider margin than any other state in the country. Neighboring states Idaho and Montana also swung red with mile-wide margins. All three have high proportions of federal land (Idaho – 62%, Wyoming – 48%, Montana – 29%), and thriving outdoor recreation industries dependent on public lands.Erickson, while watching cuts with apprehension, said that he is still supportive of the president, who won more than 81% of presidential votes cast in Lincoln county in 2024.“It hasn’t really shaken me. It’s concerned me, but not shaken me in my support,” Erickson said.As layoffs under Trump and billionaire Elon Musk’s so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge) bleed out of the Beltway and across the country, local business owners, politicians and federal employees in the rural Mountain West told the Guardian that they feared devastating consequences for their communities.The Guardian reached out to US senators from Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, some of whom have publicly praised Doge’s work, about their constituents’ concerns. None responded to a request for comment.Few towns represent the ties between small town economies and public lands better than Salmon, Idaho. With a population of just over 3,000, Salmon is cradled by a nest of federal lands, including the Salmon-Challis national forest, the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness and a smattering of Bureau of Land Management holdings.Dustin Aherin calls Salmon home, and is the president of Middle Fork Outfitters Association, which represents 27 local businesses. He said that the day-to-day duties of forestry service employees, from river patrol to permitting to conservation, keep businesses like his alive. Recent layoffs put their future in jeopardy.“The team in the field that manages the Middle Fork and Main Salmon river, all but two were terminated. And the two that were left have been reassigned,” Aherin said. “We have no on-the-ground management as of right now.”The urgency caused by the layoffs sent Aherin to Capitol Hill, where he spoke with the Guardian between meetings with federal officials. He held cautious optimism that Idaho’s federal delegation would be able to help craft a solution.A hundred miles south-west of Salmon, in Stanley, Idaho, Hannah, a terminated employee from the Sawtooth national forest who requested anonymity, has a grim outlook for the future of the small mountain town. She said that about 40% of staff was cut, including the entire wilderness and trail crew. She wonders who will handle the public-facing jobs, from cleaning toilets and campgrounds to providing visitor information, and worries about the effects on Stanley, which took a major hit in the 2024 wildfire season.“In a small town like this where you only have a couple good months of a summer season, one hard year and another hard-ish year could be really bad for some local businesses,” Hannah said.Hannah said the termination cost her her health insurance just weeks before a costly surgery, and she expects to have to relocate. In the early stages of her career, she said the experience will likely sour her, and other young civil servants, on public service.“We’re losing the next generation of public land stewards,” Hannah said. “And our public lands are under threat.”Similar anxiety is creeping into communities surrounding the Mountain West’s marquee national parks, which are economic engines for the region. A 2023 report estimated that National Parks generated more than $55bn in economic impact off of a budget of $3.6bn. Many of these dollars went to gateway towns in red states, such as those framing the entrances to Grand Teton national park or Yellowstone national park.Dale Sexton, owner of Dan Bailey’s fly shop in Livingston, Montana, is helping push the revival of the Yellowstone Business Coalition, whose 400-plus members are lobbying Montana’s federal delegation to work to address the effects of federal layoffs. Sexton is pragmatic about the national political climate and is betting that an economics-based argument will move the needle.“I’m envisioning that our delegation currently doesn’t want to abandon the Doge ship,” Sexton said. “But I’m also hopeful that outcry becomes so loud that it garners their attention and affects change.”Livingston city commissioner Karrie Kahle envisions a trickle-down effect from the layoffs.“As we lose federal workers first, if one of them is lost, we’re potentially losing a whole family from our community,” Kahle said. “If that federal worker has a partner, is that partner a teacher or doing other work in our community? Are we going to lose kids out of our school systems?”Andrea Shiverdecker, an archaeologist in Montana’s Custer-Gallatin national forest, lost her job on Valentine’s Day. Along with the impact on her personal life and community, Shiverdecker dwells on potential consequences for Yellowstone.“I don’t think people understand the sheer volume and amount of people that come through our ecosystem every year and the amount of manpower it takes to keep cleaned up,” Shiverdecker said. “This is what we fear with our public lands … We need to be stewards and foster them for future generations.”Shiverdecker said the layoff process has been disorienting. She said she was terminated 25 days before the end of her probationary period, while paperwork was being run for her promotion. She said she believes in “good people” and hopes to somehow return to her job, but right now, she has a lot of frustration.“How am I getting laid off for performance issues when you were processing my promotion?” Shiverdecker said. “It’s heartbreaking as a dedicated public servant, as a disabled veteran, as somebody who loves the fact that they’ve served. That’s the biggest honor you can give.” More

    • 113 Shares46 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Administration Said to Drop Lawsuit Over Toxic Chemical

      by

      The Trump administration plans to drop a federal lawsuit against a chemical manufacturer accused of releasing high levels of a likely carcinogen from its Louisiana plant, according to two people familiar with the plans.The government filed the lawsuit during the Biden administration after regulators determined that chloroprene emissions from the Denka Performance Elastomer plant were contributing to health concerns in an area with the highest cancer risk of any place in the United States.The 2023 lawsuit was among several enforcement actions taken by the Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of poor and minority communities that have disproportionately borne the brunt of toxic pollution.The Denka plant is located in the predominantly Black community of LaPlace, La., in a region so dense with industrial facilities that it is known as “Cancer Alley.” Chloroprene is used to produce neoprene, a synthetic rubber that is found in automotive parts, hoses, beer cozies, orthopedic braces and electric cables.The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment. The agency intends to ask the United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana this week to dismiss the lawsuit, according to the two people familiar with the decision, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the case.The lawsuit had given the neighboring community a measure of hope that pollution levels might finally come down, said Robert Taylor, a founder of Concerned Citizens of St John Parish, a community group.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares83 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump orders swathes of US forests to be cut down for timber

      by

      Donald Trump has ordered that swathes of America’s forests be felled for timber, evading rules to protect endangered species while doing so and raising the prospect of chainsaws razing some of the most ecologically important trees in the US.The president, in an executive order, has demanded an expansion in tree cutting across 280m acres (113m hectares) of national forests and other public lands, claiming that “heavy-handed federal policies” have made America reliant on foreign imports of timber.“It is vital that we reverse these policies and increase domestic timber production to protect our national and economic security,” the order adds.Trump has instructed the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to increase logging targets and for officials to circumvent the US’s Endangered Species Act by using unspecified emergency powers to ignore protections placed upon vulnerable creatures’ habitats.This move is similar to recent instructions by Trump to use a rarely-used committee to push through fossil fuel projects even if they imperil at-risk species. Experts have said this overriding of the Endangered Species Act is probably illegal.The order also stipulates logging projects can be sped up if they are for purported wildfire risk reduction, via “thinning” of vegetation that could ignite. Some scientists have said that aggressively felling forests, particularly established, fire-resistant trees, actually increases the risk of fast-moving fires.“This Trump executive order is the most blatant attempt in American history by a president to hand over federal public lands to the logging industry,” said Chad Hanson, wildfire scientist at the John Muir Project.“What’s worse, the executive order is built on a lie, as Trump falsely claims that more logging will curb wildfires and protect communities, while the overwhelming weight of evidence shows exactly the opposite.”Hanson said logging alters the microclimate of forests, creating hotter and drier conditions that helps wildfires, such as the events that recently ravaged Los Angeles, to spread faster.“Trump’s exact approach, logging in remote forests and telling communities that it will stop fires, is responsible for numerous towns being destroyed by fires in recent years, and hundreds of lives lost,” he said.Environmental groups decried Trump’s latest attempt to circumvent endangered species laws that shield about 400 species in national forests, including grizzly bears, spotted owls and wild salmon, and warned an increase in logging could pollute the water supply relied upon by millions of Americans.“Trump’s order will unleash the chainsaws and bulldozers on our federal forests. Clearcutting these beautiful places will increase fire risk, drive species to extinction, pollute our rivers and streams, and destroy world-class recreation sites,” said Randi Spivak public lands policy director for the Center for Biological Diversity.“This is a particularly horrific move by Trump to loot our public lands by handing the keys to big business.”The future of some of America’s most prized forests now appears uncertain. Under Joe Biden, the US committed to protecting the last fragments of old-growth forest, which contain some of the grandest and oldest trees on Earth. As trees soak up planet-heating carbon dioxide, protecting the oldest, most carbon-rich trees is seen as a way to help address the climate crisis. The former president also vowed to end deforestation by 2030.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHowever, the amount of logging in national forests surged under Biden amid a rush of tree felling ahead of expected restrictions on old-growth cutting. Biden, under pressure from Republicans and the timber industry, halted the old-growth protection plan in January and Trump officially killed off the executive order in his first day back in the White House.Trump’s shift towards a more industry-friendly stance has been underlined by his choice of a lumber executive lead the Forest Service, which has just fired 2,000 workers amid a purge led by Elon Musk, who has also been recently seen wielding a chainsaw.Tom Schultz, previously a vice-president of Idaho Forest Group, which sells wood, will be the next Forest Service chief, overseeing the management of 154 national forests and 193m acres of land, an area roughly the size of Texas.“Working with our partners, we will actively manage national forests and grasslands, increase opportunities for outdoor recreation, and suppress wildfires with all available resources emphasizing safety and the importance of protecting resource values,” Schultz said in a statement.Green groups criticized the choice of Schultz. “Naming a corporate lobbyist to run the agency tasked with overseeing the last old growth left in the US makes it clear that the Trump administration’s goal isn’t to preserve our national forests, but to sell them off to billionaires and corporate polluters,” said Anna Medema, associate director of legislative and administrative advocacy for forests and public lands at the Sierra Club.Schultz replaces Randy Moore, a soil scientist who was the first black person to lead the Forest Service. In a departing note to staff ahead of his retirement, Moore wrote that the recent loss of staff from the agency had been “incredibly difficult”.“If you are feeling uncertainty, frustration, or loss, you are not alone,” Moore wrote. “These are real and valid emotions that I am feeling, too. Please take care of yourselves and each other.” More

    • 175 Shares105 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Erased generations of talent’: US public land stewards decry firings and loss of knowledge

      by

      It’s become known as the Valentine’s Day massacre.On 14 February, tens of thousands of civil servants were fired, as the Trump administration hacked away indiscriminately at the federal government.Among them, roughly 3,400 from the US Forest Service, 2,300 at the Department of Interior, including 1,000 from the National Parks Service, and thousands more who study the country’s soils, seas and skies.For those who steward more than 640m acres of US public lands, the sweeping firings left behind gaping holes in an already short-staffed workforce and deep uncertainty about their livelihoods.More than a dozen federal workers, some of whom are still employed and some of whom lost their jobs, spoke to the Guardian this week, sharing stories of proud sacrifice; careers dedicated to the public good and the public lands that were abruptly ended with emails decrying that their work wasn’t in “the public interest”.The rhetoric built into the president’s firing spree builds on a widening disconnect in the public’s understanding of the work being done on their behalf, they say, work that’s expected to be sharply felt when it stops being done.Toilets, trash and overgrown trails tend to spark notice when they are not maintained. The smoldering campsites that would have been extinguished could now create the next catastrophe. Trampled conservation areas will not regrow, strategies that kept endangered plants and animals from extinction may not be studied or implemented, and vital weather warnings may not make it into forecasts.“It seems like a lot of voters have been fed this idea that they are going to fire the fat cats, the bureaucrats who live on government cheese and never do any real work,” said Ben Vizzachero, who lost his position at California’s Los Padres national forest last week. “The people they are firing are hardworking everyday folk.”As a wildlife biologist for the United States Forest Service, Vizzachero’s role was focused on ensuring the federal government was following its own laws, put in place to protect the environment.Tasked with complex missions to open the lands for recreation or resource development while securing their preservation and conservation into the future, agencies rely on expertise like Vizzachero’s to achieve difficult to balance aims. “I think we live in an age where people take that for granted,” he said.A biologist at another forest who asked not to be named as they appeal to get their job back echoed Vizzachero’s concerns. They were just days away from the end of their probationary period with a promotion being processed when they were fired. Now, their projects have slowed or stopped.It’s affected not just the forest but also local businesses, tribes and other partners deeply involved in the complex and integrated work.“The targets agencies are asking us to hit for timber harvests, mineral extractions, restoration projects – they have all come to a halt,” they said.When done right this work isn’t often noted by the public, even those who have long enjoyed its outcomes.“We get to see pelicans flying along our coast and bald eagles nesting at our lakes and reservoirs,” said Vizzachero. “It’s easy to forget that when our parents were young those birds were on the brink of extinction.”‘People are really struggling’The firing spree has also taken an exacting toll on the workers themselves, many of whom have long borne the brunt of tight budgets and ever-expanding workloads. Some said they had just settled into housing after spending years living out of their cars to accommodate low pay and remote work. Others said they’d lose access to medical coverage, including one employee in the midst of a cancer diagnosis. Most have been grappling with an uncertain future, looking to the few private-sector options available for the specialized roles they once filled.“If you’re doing, say, vegetation sampling and prescribed fire as your main work, there aren’t many jobs,” said Eric Anderson, 48, of Chicago, who was fired 14 February from his job as a biological science technician at Indiana Dunes national park.All the years of work Anderson put in – the master’s degree, the urban forestry classes, the wildfire deployments – seemed to disappear in a single email dismissing him.“I have worked so hard for so many years to get to this point,” said a scientist at fish and wildlife service who asked to remain anonymous, noting how much work it takes just to land a position in the federal government as a scientist. “They erased whole generations of talent.”Many of the Trump administration’s cuts to the federal government are being challenged in court, and some have been brought temporarily to a halt.But the firings are just the beginning of a broader mission to dismantle civil service across the US, and federal workers are bracing for more.A memo from the office of management and budget issued this week outlines instructions for a widespread “reduction in force”. Department heads have been asked to draft plans for the severe drawdown, according to documents reviewed by the Guardian, including identifying high, medium and low priority layoffs for the next round. The administration has ordered that only one person can be hired for every four people let go.The holes will be further exacerbated by the thousands more who took resignation deals pushed by the administration and hiring freezes that left departments unable to fill old vacancies. Even if new hires are approved, onboarding them is going to be slow: the HR systems are already struggling to keep up with the firings and appeals.Experts say the cuts could leave some departments with staffing levels typically seen during government shutdowns just as public appreciation of public lands and the reliance on science has continued to grow.Visitation to parks and recreation in forests has surged in recent years, adding new strains on aging infrastructure and more opportunities for injuries and wildlife conflicts, and increasing dangers from extreme conditions fueled by the climate crisis.Joel Hathaway, a public affairs specialist who was among those fired from Beaverhead-Deerlodge national forest said that even before the firings, there was always more work to do than any one person could handle in each position. “These are complex tasks that are usually thankless – but always worthy.”The small town in Montana that he calls home is host to many federal employees, with forest headquarters and a Bureau of Land Management office nearby. With the wide scale cuts, there won’t be enough job options to go around, he said.“There isn’t enough private sector work,” he said. “People are already cutting back on their spending and will be forced to relocate. That has a trickle-down effect on every business in town from the brewery to the hardware store.”Hathaway is among those worried he will not be able to afford his mortgage. “My partner and I will likely have to sell our home and relocate – we will have to start over,” he said. But he’s distressed about more than having his life upended.“Right now people are really struggling not only because of the financial aspect of it but because of the cold, callous nature in which it was undertaken,” he said of Trump’s firing spree.“People are struggling with their mental health, frankly. It is a really difficult thing to be the target of people who are so powerful and also hold you in so little regard.”The Associated Press contributed reporting More

    • 175 Shares92 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘It’s been a lifesaver’: millions risk going hungry as Republicans propose slashing food stamps

      by

      During a recent grocery store visit, Audrey Gwenyth spent $159.01 on items such as eggs, Greek yogurt, edamame snaps, bagels, chia seeds, brownie mix, oatmeal, milk, cilantro rice and pork sausage. The entire bill was paid via her electronic benefit transfer, or EBT, card, which is how recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), pay for groceries at participating stores, farmers markets and restaurants.“Because I’m a single mom and I don’t receive child support, I don’t have a lot of help in the world,” said Gwenyth, a mother of two toddlers, whose food budget is around $100 per week. She shares many of her EBT purchases on social media to help others make the most of their benefits. “I could not pay for food if it wasn’t for EBT. It’s been a lifesaver.”In the US, more than one in eight households say they have difficulty getting enough food. Snap, formerly known as food stamps, helps more than 42 million people fill those gaps, and is considered the country’s most effective tool to fight hunger. But now, the USDA-run program is facing attacks from House Republicans who see deep cuts as a way to pay for an extension of the 2017 tax bill that benefits the very wealthy.On Tuesday night, the House narrowly passed a budget resolution that called for $4.5tn in tax cuts and a $2tn cut in mandatory spending, which includes programs such as Snap and Medicaid.While it is unknown exactly how much would be slashed from Snap, some estimates say funding could be reduced by at least 20%. The House budget resolution enables committees to cut $230bn from the agriculture committee over 10 years in order to help extend tax cuts for the top 1%, according to the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.This means the millions who rely on Snap would receive less help, and many of them could lose assistance altogether, even amid rising food costs and inflation.“Hunger and poverty aren’t going to stop because you cut a program,” said Gina Plata-Nino, Snap’s deputy director at the Food Research & Action Center (Frac). “The price of food keeps going up, things are more expensive, people are concerned about tariffs in terms of consumer goods and people relying on these benefits will not have any recourse.”Cuts could be made by limiting how people use Snap, removing benefits from those who lose their jobs and arbitrarily capping maximum benefits. Congress could also convert Snap into a block grant and have states pay a portion of benefits, which could limit access to assistance at a time when families are struggling already.Anti-hunger groups are especially alarmed about proposed alterations to the Thrifty Food Plan, which the USDA uses to determine benefit amounts and the annual cost of living of living adjustment, or Cola. One Republican proposal would cut $150bn from the program by limiting Thrifty Food Plan updates, which means benefits would be slashed for every American using Snap, affecting one in five kids in the US.Republicans have sent mixed signals. The House agriculture chair GT Thompson (Republican of Pennsylvania) said last week there would be no Snap cuts in reconciliation or the upcoming farm bill. But other Republicans have signaled openness to this, and critics of the budget resolution question how lawmakers could possibly chop $230bn without affecting Snap.Even before cuts, the current average Snap benefit is only around $6 a day per person, which means that they often fall short of what people actually need. “When you think about the rising cost of food, that is such a small amount of food,” said Rachel Sabella, the director of No Kid Hungry New York, a non-profit that works to end childhood hunger. “People are making tough choices in the grocery store.”Six dollars doesn’t get you much these days at food retailers. This year, the average price of eggs hit a record high of $4.95, and is expected to keep climbing as the US deals with the ongoing bird flu outbreak. A gallon of milk costs more than $4 and a pound of ground chuck costs $5.50, according to the consumer price index.To get by, families often hide food to save so it lasts later into the month. Caretakers report eating less or cutting their portion sizes and mothers say they sometimes forgo food at the end of the month so their kids can eat. People also reduce protein and produce in favor of cheap filler foods like rice. For people already making concessions, these proposed cuts would be devastating.“I live in poverty, not ignorance, so I keep a monthly budget and watch my spending very closely, which requires precision,” said Brytnee Bellinger, who is visually impaired and receives around $80 per month in food assistance. Bellinger usually spends her Snap dollars on grass-fed bison, which she says helps combat her iron deficiency, and fresh produce from farmers markets. If her benefit amount was reduced, she would likely be unable to afford either.“How are people supposed to balance making healthy food choices with spending wisely if their Snap benefit amount doesn’t accurately reflect the current cost of a healthy diet?” she said. “Poor people buying food isn’t the cause of federal overspending.”After being founded in 1964 as part of Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty, Snap has been targeted by both Republicans and Democrats. Cutbacks to the program were first made in the early 1980s under Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which set time limits, reduced maximum allotments and eliminated eligibility of most legal immigrants for food stamps. During his first term, Donald Trump unsuccessfully attempted to cut Snap by 25 to 30%.While the Biden administration has been lauded for updating the Thrifty Food Plan to boost the amount of money people have to buy food, Republicans have made reversing the increase a major priority.GOP lawmakers and conservative thinktanks have falsely criticized the program as having high administrative costs and being rife with fraud and abuse. (In 2023, around 6% of Snap spending went to state administrative costs and few Snap errors are due to fraud on the part of recipients.) They’ve also attacked recipients for using Snap on things such as sweetened drinks. Trump officials have said that they want to ban sugary beverages, candy and more, although similar efforts have failed in the past.And the USDA secretary, Brooke Rollins, signaled on Tuesday that she plans to target Snap under the guise of keeping undocumented immigrants from receiving benefits even though they are already generally prohibited from receiving food assistance.When Snap benefits are cut, researchers have found that children were more likely to be food insecure, in poor health and at risk for development delays. Since Snap is part of a larger ecosystem, advocates say cutting the program will increase healthcare costs, poverty and hardship.Retail giants such as Walmart, Albertsons, Costco, Sam’s Club and Kroger would also be severely affected since Snap dollars are most often spent there. More than 25% of all Snap dollars are spent at Walmart and nearly 95% of the program’s recipients say they shop at the retailer.Food banks and pantries would also be massively affected by cutbacks. “If Snap is cut at the levels they’re talking about, food banks are not going to be able to fill that gap – we’re meant to be an emergency system,” said Jason Riggs, the director of policy and advocacy at Roadrunner Food Bank of New Mexico. “A cut to Snap at this time, when food costs are continuing to rise, the timing is horrifying. We can’t food bank our way out of this.” New Mexico has the eighth highest hunger rates in the nation and Riggs said many of their clients already use Snap.In Los Angeles, 25% of households face food insecurity, far higher than the national average of 14%, and rates are expected to increase due to the effects of the recent wildfires. “If cuts to Snap are enacted, we would need to further draw on philanthropic and community support to try to meet the increased demand for our services,” said Chris Carter, senior policy and research manager at Los Angeles Regional Food Bank, which has distributed $14.2m pounds of food and personal care products through their network, which is a 37% increase compared with last year.Advocates of Snap say there are still countless people who qualify for assistance but do not apply for it due to administrative burdens, social stigma and deeply ingrained myths about welfare and poverty in the US. Food insecure veterans are consistently less likely than nonveterans to be enrolled in Snap and data from the National Council on Aging shows that while nearly 9 million older adults are eligible for Snap, they are not enrolled. Immigrants who are permanent residents or green card holders are only able to apply for Snap after a five-year waiting period, although there are a few exceptions for children and disabled people receiving other benefits.Since being diagnosed with lupus, pancreatitis and gallbladder stones, Michele Rodriguez has been unable to work and had to change her diet to include daily servings of fresh vegetables for juicing to help with her health conditions. If her benefit was reduced, she said she would have to prioritize feeding her two children and rely on food pantries, which would have long lines, or free giveaways for produce.“It’s just devastating because people like myself and seniors and children need help with food,” said Rodriguez, who sees the proposed cuts as being unfair and contrary to what Trump said while campaigning. “The price of food has not gone down. It’s really sad to see he’s only fighting for and helping people like him, but the people in the middle and lower class, what about us? Don’t you want to protect all of us?” More

    • 138 Shares86 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Day of Reckoning’: Trial Over Greenpeace’s Role in Pipeline Protest Begins

      by

      Energy Transfer, which owns the Dakota Access Pipeline, is seeking $300 million, a sum that Greenpeace says could bankrupt the storied environmental group.Lawyers for the pipeline company Energy Transfer and Greenpeace fired their opening salvos in a North Dakota courtroom Wednesday morning in a civil trial that could bankrupt the storied environmental group.The suit revolves around the role Greenpeace played in massive protests against construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline nearly a decade ago. The pipeline, which carries crude oil from North Dakota across several states to a transfer point in Illinois, was delayed for months in 2016 and 2017 amid lawsuits and protests.The trial commenced on Wednesday with opening arguments in a quiet county courthouse in Mandan, N.D. Greenpeace says Energy Transfer, which built the Dakota Access Pipeline, is seeking $300 million in damages.Energy Transfer, one of the largest pipeline firms in the country, accused Greenpeace of inciting unrest that cost it millions of dollars in lost financing, construction delays, and security and public-relations expenses. Trey Cox, its lead lawyer, told the nine-person jury that his team would prove that Greenpeace had “planned, organized and funded” unlawful protests. He called the trial a “day of reckoning.”Everett Jack Jr., the lead lawyer for Greenpeace, gave a detailed timeline to rebut aspects of that account, saying Greenpeace played a minor role in the demonstrations, which drew an estimated 100,000 people to the rural area.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More