Environment

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares129 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

    • 213 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      The US is destroying climate progress. Here’s a strategy to win over the right | Erin Burns

      by

      We are witnessing the most devastating climate disasters on record: wildfires ravaging Los Angeles, deadly floods in North Carolina, and global temperature records shattered month after month. We have officially surpassed 1.5C (2.7F) of warming, a critical threshold scientists have long warned against. At the same time, the US is scaling back policies, freezing critical programs and shifting priorities away from climate action.But now isn’t the time to give up on climate action. Instead, it is high time to rethink how it succeeds.The reality is that the United States has never had a true, comprehensive climate policy. Unlike other countries that have enacted economy-wide regulations, the US approach has been fragmented, focused on supporting specific technologies rather than tackling climate change holistically. That has especially been true for carbon removal technologies and practices that remove existing carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere and an essential tool for meeting global climate goals.Instead, we have federal direct air capture policy, federal agriculture policy, and federal forestry and oceans policy. Each of these exists within distinct legislative and political frameworks, driven not by national political divides but by state-level economic interests, policy mechanisms like tax credits or R&D funding, and the coalitions that support them.This distinction is crucial. Over the past few years, bipartisan support has helped unlock billions of dollars for carbon removal. But that does not mean carbon removal itself is bipartisan. Direct air capture has bipartisan support, as do soil carbon programs, reforestation efforts and ocean-based carbon removal. Almost every piece of legislation supporting a pillar of carbon removal has sponsors from both parties, but that is because they align with localized economic and political priorities – not because of broad bipartisan agreement on climate action.So, how do we make progress over the next four years? By acknowledging that climate action is a key consideration in policy, but is never the sole driving force shaping decisions. Take California’s decision to implement cleaner car standards. Yes, the state acted because the climate was in a bad spot, but also because smog was choking cities, making it harder for people to breathe. The policy wasn’t just about the long-term benefits of reducing emissions; it was about protecting public health in the immediate term. People supported action because they could see the direct, personal consequences of pollution in their daily lives.This is the lesson for carbon removal and broader climate solutions. Some climate advocates have suggested that, in order to navigate the shifting political landscape, we should build our political pitches around the economy rather than climate itself. But the path forward isn’t about removing climate from the conversation, because we will never build champions by pretending the world isn’t burning. Instead, it’s about “climate and … ” Climate and economic growth. Climate and public health. Climate and energy security. When we talk about and implement carbon removal, we need to prioritize the co-benefits beyond climate not because of who sits in the White House, but because these benefits are real and essential to securing long-term support from a broader bench of champions.Long-term public policy requires durable political coalitions. That means we must stop pretending climate action is only about climate. We need to ensure that communities hosting projects see tangible benefits–because without that, these projects won’t happen.I don’t say this only as someone who has worked in federal climate and energy policy for nearly 15 years, but as someone who grew up in the heart of West Virginia’s coal country. My community has lived through the rise and fall of a fossil fuel economy. We understand better than most the benefits and costs of an industry-dependent future. We also know that when economic transitions happen without real planning and investment in local communities, they leave devastation in their wake.This is why focusing on co-benefits isn’t a concession; it’s the only viable path forward. We need to defend existing climate and carbon removal policies based on the real, tangible benefits they provide. And we must build coalitions that last beyond election cycles, ensuring that climate progress is not derailed by shifting political winds.To those working on bipartisan climate solutions: now is not the time to water down our message or repackage our work for short-term political convenience, but to shore up our political capital for the long game. We need to secure immediate policy wins over the next four years, but we must also lay the groundwork for the next hundred. That means being honest about why we do this work, articulating both the benefits and trade-offs, and building trust – not just with policymakers, but with the communities that will host these projects.The political landscape will shift, but our commitment to a just, sustainable future must remain unwavering.

      Erin Burns is executive director of Carbon 180, a climate NGO seeking to reverse two centuries of carbon emissions More

    • 225 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘We’re being treated as grifters or terrorists’: US federal workers on the fear and chaos of their firings

      by

      The Trump administration has fired at least 20,000 government employees in its first month, as Elon Musk’s so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge) dramatically overhauls work at federal agencies. Some economists have speculated that these terminations, which could affect nearly 300,000 workers, will be the biggest job cuts in US history.Most of the workers cut were in probationary periods and lacked job protections that come with longer terms of employment. In social media spaces, especially the r/fednews subreddit, these workers described scenes of confusion and feelings of anger directed at Musk, an unelected billionaire dubbed a “special government employee” by the White House. Last week, unions for federal workers sued the Trump administration for unlawfully using probationary periods to cut staff.The mass firings appear far from over: this weekend, Musk demanded that all remaining workers detail their day-to-day duties in bullet points or face dismissal. (Several federal agencies told their employees not to respond to Musk’s email, and unions and advocacy groups moved to prevent retaliation against employees who did not comply.)Three recently terminated probationary workers told the Guardian about the effects on their lives and job prospects, and how the consequences will “trickle down” to all Americans. They requested anonymity due to fears of retaliation and the fact that they are currently looking for new jobs.‘Do I need to think about becoming a political refugee?’Scientist who works on food sustainability issues in the north-east USI was the third person hired in our unit, almost three years ago, to look at issues of access and fairness when it comes to food. Our probationary period for government scientists is three years. I was 10 weeks away from the end of this period; one of my colleagues who was also fired was only six weeks out.I went on maternity leave in August. When Trump was elected, I knew it would mess with my job. Specifically, I thought it would mess with telework, which I did half the time after I returned from maternity leave. I was concerned that I wouldn’t be able to have the time to breastfeed my baby at home or to manage the postpartum separation anxiety I’ve experienced. I decided to take a deferred resignation, because then I’d get severance.Six days after my resignation, when I was into the off-boarding process, my boss told me I was going to get a termination letter. It was a huge, emotional process to resign – I feel like I was basically bullied by Trump into doing so – but at least it was my decision to make. Now, I was getting fired. It’s been an insane rollercoaster of emotions.Government workers are real people with families who dedicated their lives and expertise to service. It feels like we’re being treated as grifters or terrorists, when we’re not. A lot of us have given up options for much higher incomes in order to do the work that we thought was going to help the world. This is a huge, huge loss for science, because now government researchers are going to shift into the private sector. There’s a lot of good work that the world won’t even know to miss, because we won’t get to do it.Now I’m wondering, do I need to think about becoming a political refugee? I have a big network in Europe and Canada, though I’d like to stay in the US. It’s hard these days to know what’s catastrophizing and what’s good planning. I think people are really hesitant to go to the worst-case scenario, but we know from history that things can get really bad. Some people see it coming, and some people don’t.It’s also been really, really disappointing and enraging for me to see the lack of effective resistance to Trump and Musk from Congress. There’s a lot of talk on the left about how this is all bad, but nothing’s really getting done. I understand the numbers, the majorities and minorities, but I just think this is not the time to be playing nice with the fascists.‘I’m exploring legal options’Cultural resource specialist for the National Resources Conservation Services (NRCS), an agency of the US Department of Agriculture, in North DakotaI’m an archaeologist. Anytime the NRCS wants to provide support to private landowners such as ranchers or famers, they are legally required to have someone like me to do on-the-ground surveys and excavations of the site.I started on 30 December. I was let go on 13 February. I’d moved from California to North Dakota, and believe it or not I was given relocation expenses to help pay for my move. I came here with my wife and two dogs, and we spent a good amount of money to do so. I sold my Camry and bought a Subaru because I thought I needed a car that could handle the snow up here; now I have a new SUV and a car payment.They told me that if I didn’t work for the federal government for more than a year, I’d have to pay back those expenses. I don’t know if they’re going to come after me for that now.View image in fullscreenIt would be one thing if they’d sent me a personalized letter saying something like: “Your position is being cut.” Instead, I got this generic form letter that still said “template” in the document title. It told me I was being fired for performance-based reasons, but my boss and I were like, I haven’t even worked here long enough to get a performance review. How can they say that?I guess there’s camaraderie among the people who got cut, but more than that everyone just talks about how stupid it is. Are they really making the government more efficient if they’re getting rid of all these people who do things that are required by law? I get the impression that Musk’s treating this like he would a private company such as Twitter, where he fired a lot of people. He’s acting like a CEO, but it’s not his company. It’s the federal government.I’m exploring legal options with employment lawyers, who indicated I’ll have to go through a bigger class-action type thing. There are a couple of class-action lawsuits going around that I’ve submitted my information to. I’m also applying to jobs, and I have a couple of interviews set up. One is for a job that’s in this area, another is out of state. If something good comes up, I would take it and move. That wouldn’t be too hard – I’ve been here for such a short time that I haven’t even unpacked everything yet.‘I didn’t go into this because I wanted to make six figures’Educator at a national forest in OregonI’ve worked for the forest in one way or another since 2019, first as an intern and then in a seasonal position. I got my permanent position in July of last year. During Trump’s first week, they asked for a list of names of everyone who had been hired in the last year. That put me on edge.One day, I saw a bunch of people at the USDA posting on the subreddit for federal employees about getting fired. I was going to text my supervisor to ask: “Am I getting fired?” and then she called me to say that she didn’t have any details but it was probably going to happen. The next day, Valentine’s Day, she called with her definitive list. That was a Friday. It was not a good weekend.It’s overwhelming to know that all the work I put in during the past five years is completely wasted. I have a two-year-old, and my husband and I wanted to have another, but now we don’t know about that. Working in the natural resources field, I don’t know what positions are going to be available, and I’m not sure where my career will go. Do I just give up and go into accounting or something? It’s so uncertain.I feel like we’re being attacked. There have always been people who are anti-government, but now I feel like people see all government employees as villains. I really cared about the work I did, and I didn’t go into this because I wanted to make six figures. The forest or park services have always been very bipartisan, and it’s not something you can easily throw away.We do a lot of school field trips – those won’t happen any more without us. Kids, especially those who come from poorer communities, won’t have the opportunity to come out here and see the natural world. The forest is going to be in disarray, the bathrooms won’t be cleaned, anyone who comes here will have a terrible experience. Without people maintaining the forest, the wildlife will have a worse habitat. All of these things trickle down. The people who fired us are higher-ups who don’t work in the field; everyone who knows the day-to-day of how to take care of this place is gone. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Climate researchers should play the Trump card | Brief letters

      by

      The obvious solution to American researchers having grants withdrawn for projects containing the word “climate” (Outcry as Trump withdraws support for research that mentions ‘climate’, 21 February) is to rename climate heating “Trump”. We could be amazed that “Trump makes seas rise”, “Trump makes Greenland a green land again” and “Trump makes summer warmer and longer”. Who would oppose that?Mark DavisFrome, Somerset My friend always said that you should never leave a small child and a dog of any size together as it is equivalent to leaving two toddlers together and giving one of them a pair of sharp scissors (The rise of the cane corso: should this popular status dog be banned in the UK?, 19 February).Vanessa RickettGreat Missenden, Buckinghamshire Aged 14, I received an otherwise good school report (Letters, 20 February) that included an observation made by Mrs Tinlin, my art teacher: “Steven is too easily satisfied by a mediocre standard of work.” Her acid comment provided me with the lifelong motivation to pursue a scientific career.Prof Steve ArmesUniversity of Sheffield When I worked in mainstream schools, pupils’ feedback on their teachers was all the rage. One favourite comment: “I hate RE with Mr Grieve as he occasionally manages to teach me something.” Ian GrieveGordon Bennett, Llangollen canal Re the Duchess of Sussex’s latest rebranding effort “As Ever” (Emma Brockes, 19 February), I couldn’t help feeling it was a little too close to “Whatever”.Sarah HallLeamington Spa, Warwickshire More

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      These people protected US forests and lands. Their jobs have now vanished due to Trump

      by

      Approximately 2,300 people have been terminated from the agencies that manage the 35m acres (14m hectares) of federal public lands in the US.These are our lands. They encompass national parks and forests, wilderness and marine protected areas, scenic rivers. They are home to campgrounds, river accesses, hiking trails and myriad other sites and facilities that more than 500 million people visit each year.The termination letters sent to employees stated that they had “not demonstrated that your further employment at the agency would be in the public interest”. Those same people fought fires, protected sacred sites, cleared trails, cleaned campgrounds and bathrooms, educated visitors and managed wildlife. They also provided safety, including search and rescue and emergency medical treatment.All chose this career – and the low pay that comes with it – because they love the lands they worked on. The majority of them live in the small rural communities that rely on federal public lands agencies for employment. We have now lost a wealth of cumulative experience and historical knowledge; the damage to public lands, resources and livelihoods will be long-lasting. And the firings aren’t over yet.Victoria WinchUS Forest Service wilderness forestry technician
      Flathead national forest, Spotted Bear ranger district, adjacent to Glacier national park, MontanaView image in fullscreenI was on trail crew, which is responsible for creating and maintaining about 1,000 miles of hiking trails, which sometimes have to be cleared three to five times in a season from downed trees.People come on to these lands to hunt, to feed their families. People are allowed to get firewood. Outfitters, who are a big part of the local economy, use these trails.But every single field person at Spotted Bear was terminated. Those trails won’t get cleared this year. And it takes less than one season for them to be totally impassable.There will be no one to warn rafters and anglers about hazards in the river, no one to post about grizzlies in an area, no one to support the fire crews. No one to even help people find their lost dogs, which I’ve also done over the years. A million acres of public land will go unmanaged.We are hard-working, blue-collar manual laborers. We make under $40,000 a year. And we come back year after year just to have the privilege of caring for these places that we love so deeply, and making them accessible for the American people. I don’t know what’s more patriotic than that.Adin KotzlerUSFS packer and fire support
      Pintler ranger district and Bob Marshall wilderness, MontanaView image in fullscreenMy job was to pack in supplies to support Forest Service trail crews, rebuild backcountry cabins, plant tree seedlings and [help] wildlife biologists to do their research, among other things. To be able to sharpen a crosscut saw, safely fell a tree or pack a mule – those are all dying arts. It’ll be very hard to bring it back.I’m also qualified for fire support as a tree faller; I can also dig fire lines. When fires exploded in the summer, I tied up my mule and served alongside my fellow firefighters to protect our resources and our people. The fire crews are going to struggle without us.There’s a ton of economic benefits from outfitting, guiding, hunting and fishing. Now the access will not be there for people who have made their livelihoods in the mountains for generations. I was born and raised in small-town western Montana, and I have seen the positive effect of Forest Service employees, outfitters and recreationists on our small towns.What’s amazing to me about America is that we have these public lands – at the same time, it’s so incredibly fragile. And we’re really at risk of losing it to the billionaire agenda.Erica DirksUSFS archeologist
      Tongass national forest, AlaskaView image in fullscreenFederal archeologists don’t do our jobs for the money. I loved my job because I got to help preserve things that mean something to so many people.I’ve always wanted to work with local tribal entities and have their guidance in how they want us to interact with their heritage. My first day on this job, I consulted with our local tribal members and was immediately accepted thanks to this incredible relationship that had been fostered over 30 years by the archeology team in this part of Alaska.When the tribal entity found out people were losing their jobs, they organized what amounted to a downtown march in our little town of 2,000 people to show their support for us. They lost their tribal liaison, the people who worked with them in recreation and fisheries, at a time when Trump has indicated he wants to rescind the Roadless Rule [a federal regulation that protects roadless areas in national forests] and open up the Tongass for logging.We’re talking about incomprehensible damage lasting hundreds of years down the line. Now Indigenous matters won’t be considered any more.For that termination letter to say “you haven’t proved your employment worth in the public interest,” that this work that we do isn’t valuable to our community, is absolutely ridiculous. Our community showed right away that it was.Nick MasseyUSFS wilderness Ranger
      Pisgah national forest, North CarolinaView image in fullscreenBeing a wilderness ranger on the east coast is very different than a lot of places in the west, because we have really high visitation rates. On some of our wilderness trails, we see close to 400 visitors a day in the summertime.We were very, very busy with public interaction, conversations, giving directions, educating. I would come up on folks quite often who were either lost or having some sort of emergency, and I’m also a member of two mountain rescue teams in the area.I really loved seeing so many different people from different walks of life. Being able to be a part of that wilderness experience that people are having was really, truly magical.I think we’ll start seeing a lot more abuse of public lands, because there’s not any education out there to give people some guidance on how to behave. We’ll have so much more trash. And losing jobs is really going to impact the local communities involved in working in these places.Fenix Van TasselBureau of Land Management environmental planner
      Eastern Oregon and WashingtonView image in fullscreenEnvironmental planners basically determine any and every action taken on federal land, from resource extraction and grazing to installing signage, plus the rehabilitation and conservation of public lands.This winter season, we’ve done a lot of rehabilitating burn scars from big fires. We had one of our largest fire seasons this past year, and so we’ve been out planting sagebrush for sage grouse habitat and mule deer wintering areas.Our projects entailed issuing permits that would bring energy and broadband to rural communities out in eastern Oregon and Washington, including tribal. Part of Trump’s agenda is to push energy infrastructure, so it’s interesting that we’re getting laid off. All of these infrastructure projects, including telecommunications, just aren’t going to happen. There’s going to be a larger disparity of access to rural communities.Any pushes for green energy, green infrastructure, anything related to climate change or environmental justice will be completely silenced and wiped off the map.It’s sad that we got laid off, but it’s also sad for the good people who are still left on the inside. The only person that they kept from my team was a lands and realty specialist, whose job is to intake applications. But none of that work will get done – our funding was completely removed two weeks before I got fired.Ryan SchroederBLM rangeland management specialist
      South-west ColoradoView image in fullscreenI finally got this dream job after 11 years of school and working in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico rangelands to be qualified for this position. It’s one of the most difficult positions to fill in public lands management agencies.My job was to review, renew and update grazing permits for private ranchers to graze their livestock on public rangelands, and work to promote and sustain healthy habitats for all Americans, whether they’re hunting, recreating, going out on a side-by-side or grazing livestock.Last Friday, a rancher came in and we were talking about how excited we were to get a grazing allotment reopened. He was saying that maybe, with this administration, things would finally move forward.I was fired an hour later.In every place that I have worked in, there are impacts from 100-plus years ago that we’re still trying to remediate and recover from. And that’s in addition to the current impacts of changing weather patterns: more aridity, less water and more intense storms. This was an opportunity to help people, help landscapes, help wildlife, help our public resources adapt to change. This was my way to serve my country.There are a lot of people saying the national parks are going to be trashed. This is more than just trashed parks. This is the future of our ecosystem and our public land.Fischer GangemiUSFS river ranger
      Middle and south fork of wild and scenic Rivers, MontanaView image in fullscreenI led crews that would patrol the river corridor in the most protected watersheds in the nation.You don’t need a permit to float our rivers, so there’s everyone from outfitters and guides to rafters to anyone with an inner tube. In a five- to six-day patrol, we would take 15-20lb of trash out of the wilderness and bury an average of 20 piles of human waste. And still, I loved every minute of it.The community of people I worked with were the most passionate people I’ve ever worked with. I started working [for the USFS] a couple days after I graduated high school. We had to solve all of the problems we found in the wilderness on our own, which was really good for me.Without rangers out there, it’s going to be really bad. Trash will pile up, waste will pile up. Rivers are dynamic, and so a high water year might clean it out – but all that trash is just going downstream, and that’s just really sickening. More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘The path forward is clear’: how Trump taking office has ‘turbocharged’ climate accountability efforts

      by

      Donald Trump’s re-election has “turbocharged” climate accountability efforts including laws which aim to force greenhouse gas emitters to pay damages for fueling dangerous global warming, say activists.These “make polluters pay” laws, led by blue states’ attorneys general, and climate accountability lawsuits will be a major front for climate litigation in the coming months and years. They are being challenged by red states and the fossil fuel industry, which are also fighting against accountability-focused climate lawsuits waged by governments and youth environmentalists.On day one of his second term, the US president affirmed his loyalty to the oil industry with a spate of executive actions to roll back environmental protections and a pledge to “drill, baby, drill”. The ferocity of his anti-environment agenda has inspired unprecedented interest in climate accountability, said Jamie Henn, director of the anti-oil and gas non-profit Fossil Free Media.“I think Trump’s election has turbocharged the ‘make polluters pay’ movement,” said Henn, who has been a leader in the campaign for a decade.More state lawmakers are writing legislative proposals to force oil companies to pay for climate disasters, while law firms are helping governments sue the industry. And youth activists are working on a new legal challenge to the Trump administration’s pro-fossil fuel policies.Industry interests, however, are also attempting to kill those accountability efforts – and Trump may embolden them.The state of Vermont in May passed a first-of-its-kind law holding fossil fuel firms financially responsible for climate damages and New York passed a similar measure in December.The policies force oil companies to pay for climate impacts to which their emissions have contributed. Known as “climate superfund” bills, they are loosely modeled on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s Superfund program.Similar bills are being considered in Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts and now Rhode Island, where a measure was introduced last week. A policy will also soon be introduced in California, where recent deadly wildfires have revived the call for the proposal after one was weighed last year.Minnesota and Oregon lawmakers are also considering introducing climate superfund acts. And since inauguration day, activists and officials in a dozen other states have expressed interest in doing the same, said Henn.“I think people are really latching on to this message and this approach right now,” Henn said. “It finally gives people a way to respond to climate disasters, and it’s something that we can do without the federal government.”View image in fullscreenProgressives introduced a federal climate superfund act last year. But with Republicans in control of the White House and both branches of Congress, it has a “less than zero chance of passing”, said Michael Gerrard, the faculty director of the Sabin center for climate change law at Columbia University.The state laws are already facing pushback in the courts. This month, 22 red states and two oil trade groups sued to block New York’s climate superfund law.“This bill is an attempt by New York to step into the shoes of the federal government to regulate something that they have absolutely no business regulating,” West Virginia’s attorney general, John B McCuskey, who led the suit and whose state is a top coal producer, told Fox News.In late December, trade groups also filed a lawsuit against Vermont’s climate superfund act which, if successful, could potentially topple New York’s law.Fossil fuel interests were expected to challenge the climate superfund laws even if Kamala Harris was elected president and have been boosted by Trump’s win. “I think [they] feel like they have more of a shot with the executive backing them,” said Cassidy DiPaola, spokesperson for the Make Polluters Pay campaign.It “would not be shocking” if Trump’s justice department were to file briefs in support of plaintiffs fighting the laws, said Gerrard, which could tip the scales in their favor.More legal challenges may also be on the way, and if additional states pass similar policies, they are expected to face similar lawsuits. But Henn says he is confident the laws will prevail.“I think Republicans think that they’re going to be able to just scare off local legislators or local attorneys general from pursuing a polluter pays agenda, but I think they’re wrong,” he said. “We have widespread public support for this approach. People don’t like the fossil fuel industry.”Over the last decade, states and municipalities have also brought more than 30 lawsuits against fossil fuel interests, accusing them of intentionally covering up the climate risks of their products while seeking damages for climate impacts.As Trump’s pro-fossil fuel policies move the US in “precisely the wrong direction” on the climate crisis, they will “surely inspire yet more litigation”, said Gerrard. Michigan has announced plans to file a suit in the coming months, and more are likely to be rolled out this year.The cases face a formidable opponent in the fossil fuel industry, which has long attempted to fend off the lawsuits. Since January, courts have dismissed litigation filed by New Jersey, New York and a Maryland city and county, saying the states lacked jurisdiction to hear the cases.Other decisions have been positive for the plaintiffs. In three decisions since spring 2023, the supreme court turned down petitions from the fossil fuel industry to move the venue of the lawsuits from the state courts where they were originally filed, to federal courts which are seen as more friendly to the industry.Last week, a court in Colorado heard arguments over the same issue in a lawsuit filed by the city of Boulder. The outcome will have major implications for the future of the challenge.Trump has pledged to put an end to the wave of lawsuits, which he has called “frivolous”. During his first term, his administration filed influential briefs in the cases supporting the oil companies – something his justice department could do again. “It’s clear where their allegiances are,” said Gerrard. “And if they file briefs that would be good for the defendants.”Alyssa Johl, vice-president and general counsel of the Center for Climate Integrity, which tracks and supports the lawsuits, said: “There is still a long road ahead for these efforts, but the path forward is clear.”“As communities grapple with the increasingly devastating consequences of big oil’s decades-long deception, the need for accountability is greater than ever,” she said.Youth-led litigationAnother climate-focused legal movement that is gaining steam: youth-led challenges against state and federal government agencies, for allegedly violating constitutional rights with pro-fossil fuel policies.Trump’s second term presents an important moment for these lawsuits, said Julia Olson, founder of the law firm Our Children’s Trust, which brought the litigation. While some lawyers will fight each rollback individually, her strategy could “secure systemic change”, she said.View image in fullscreenOn Wednesday, a US judge rejected an Our Children’s Trust suit filed by California youth against the EPA, saying the challengers failed to show that they had been injured by the federal body. Olson said the judge “misapplied the law”.That same day, the most well-known Our Children’s Trust case, Juliana v United States – in which 21 young people sued the federal government – suffered a blow. In December, the plaintiffs filed a petition with the supreme court to send the case back to trial after it was tossed out. The US solicitor general has now filed a brief opposing their petition; Olson said it “mischaracterized” the case.Our Children’s Trust’s lawsuits have in other instances seen major victories. In December, Montana’s supreme court upheld a landmark climate ruling in favor of young plaintiffs, which said the state was violating youths’ constitutional right to a clean environment by permitting fossil fuel projects with no regard for global warming.That victory in a pro-fossil fuel red state, said Olson, inspires hope that children could win a lawsuit against a conservative, oil and gas-friendly federal government.She is working on another lawsuit against the Trump administration, whose “brazen” anti-environment agenda could bolster the challengers’ arguments, she said.“These policies will kill children … and by making his agenda obvious, I think that he helps us make that clear.” More

    • 250 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      There are many ways Trump could trigger a global collapse. Here’s how to survive if that happens | George Monbiot

      by

      Though we might find it hard to imagine, we cannot now rule it out: the possibility of systemic collapse in the United States. The degradation of federal government by Donald Trump and Elon Musk could trigger a series of converging and compounding crises, leading to social, financial and industrial failure.There are several possible mechanisms. Let’s start with an obvious one: their assault on financial regulation. Trump’s appointee to the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Russell Vought, has suspended all the agency’s activity, slashed its budget and could be pursuing Musk’s ambition to “delete” the bureau. The CFPB was established by Congress after the 2008 financial crisis, to protect people from the predatory activity that helped trigger the crash. The signal to the financial sector could not be clearer: “Fill your boots, boys.” A financial crisis in the US would immediately become a global crisis.But the hazards extend much further. Musk, calling for a “wholesale removal of regulations”, sends his child soldiers to attack government departments stabilising the entire US system. Regulations, though endlessly maligned by corporate and oligarchic propaganda, are all that protect us from multiple disasters. In its initial impacts, deregulation is class war, hitting the poorest and the middle classes at the behest of the rich. As the effects proliferate, it becomes an assault on everyone’s wellbeing.To give a couple of examples, the fires in Los Angeles this year are expected to cost, on various estimates, between $28bn and $75bn in insured losses alone. Estimates of total losses range from $160bn to $275bn. These immense costs are likely to be dwarfed by future climate disasters. As Trump rips down environmental protections and trashes federal responsiveness, the impacts will spiral. They could include non-linear shocks to either the insurance sector or homeowners, escalating into US-wide economic and social crisis.If (or when) another pandemic strikes, which could involve a pathogen more transmissible and even more deadly than Covid-19 (which has so far killed 1.2 million people in the US), it will hit a nation whose defences have been stood down. Basic public health measures, such as vaccination and quarantine, might be inaccessible to most. A pandemic in these circumstances could end millions of lives and cause spontaneous economic shutdown.Because there is little public understanding of how complex systems operate, collapse tends to take almost everyone by surprise. Complex systems (such as economies and human societies) have characteristics that make them either resilient or fragile. A system that loses its diversity, redundancy, modularity (the degree of compartmentalisation), its “circuit breakers” (such as government regulations) and backup strategies (alternative means of achieving a goal) is less resilient than one which retains these features. So is a system whose processes become synchronised. In a fragile system, shocks can amplify more rapidly and become more transmissible: a disruption in one place proliferates into disaster everywhere. This, as Andy Haldane, former chief economist at the Bank of England, has deftly explained, is what happened to the financial system in 2008.A consistent feature of globalised capitalism is an unintentional assault on systemic resilience. As corporations pursue similar profit-making strategies, and financialisation and digitisation permeate every enterprise, the economic system loses its diversity and starts to synchronise. As they consolidate, and the biggest conglomerates become hubs to which many other enterprises are connected (think of Amazon or the food and farming giant Cargill), major failures could cascade at astonishing speed.As every enterprise seeks efficiencies, the system loses its redundancy. As trading rules and physical infrastructure are standardised (think of those identical container terminals, shipping and trucking networks), the system loses both modularity and backup strategies. When a system has lost its resilience, a small external shock can trigger cascading collapse.Paradoxically, with his trade wars and assault on global standards, Trump could help to desynchronise the system and reintroduce some modularity. But, as he simultaneously rips down circuit breakers, undermines preparedness and treats Earth systems as an enemy to be crushed, the net effect is likely to make human systems more prone to collapse.At least in the short term, the far right tends to benefit from chaos and disruption: this is another of the feedback loops that can turn a crisis into a catastrophe. Trump presents himself as the hero who will save the nation from the ruptures he has caused, while deflecting the blame on to scapegoats.Alternatively, if collapse appears imminent, Trump and his team might not wish to respond. Like many of the ultra-rich, key figures in or around the administration entertain the kind of psychopathic fantasies indulged by Ayn Rand in her novels Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, in which plutocrats leave the proles to die in the inferno they’ve created, while they migrate to their New Zealand bunkers, Mars or the ocean floor (forgetting, as they always do, that their wealth, power and survival is entirely dependent on other people). Or they yearn for a different apocalypse, in which the rest of us roast while they party with Jesus in his restored kingdom.Every government should hope for the best and prepare for the worst. But, as they do with climate and ecological breakdown, freshwater depletion, the possibility of food system collapse, antibiotic resistance and nuclear proliferation, most governments, including the UK’s, now seem to hope for the best and leave it there. So, though there is no substitute for effective government, we must seek to create our own backup systems.Start with this principle: don’t face your fears alone. Make friends, meet your neighbours, set up support networks, help those who are struggling. Since the dawn of humankind, those with robust social networks have been more resilient than those without.Discuss what we confront, explore the means by which we might respond. Through neighbourhood networks, start building a deliberative, participatory democracy, to resolve at least some of the issues that can be fixed at the local level. If you can, secure local resources for the community (in England this will be made easier with the forthcoming community right to buy, like Scotland’s).From democratised neighbourhoods, we might seek to develop a new politics, along the lines proposed by Murray Bookchin, in which decisions are passed upwards, not downwards, with the aim of creating a political system not only more democratic than those we currently suffer, but which also permits more diversity, redundancy and modularity.Yes, we also – and urgently – need national and global action, brokered by governments. But it’s beginning to look as if no one has our backs. Prepare for the worst.

      George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      California’s Push for Electric Trucks Sputters Under Trump

      by

      The state will no longer require some truckers to shift away from diesel semis but hopes that subsidies can keep dreams of pollution-free big rigs alive.President Trump’s policies could threaten many big green energy projects in the coming years, but his election has already dealt a big blow to an ambitious California effort to replace thousands of diesel-fueled trucks with battery-powered semis.The California plan, which has been closely watched by other states and countries, was meant to take a big leap forward last year, with a requirement that some of the more than 30,000 trucks that move cargo in and out of ports start using semis that don’t emit carbon dioxide.But after Mr. Trump was elected, California regulators withdrew their plan, which required a federal waiver that the new administration, which is closely aligned with the oil industry, would most likely have rejected. That leaves the state unable to force trucking businesses to clean up their fleets. It was a big setback for the state, which has long been allowed to have tailpipe emission rules that are stricter than federal standards because of California’s infamous smog.Some transportation experts said that even before Mr. Trump’s election, California’s effort had problems. The batteries that power electric trucks are too expensive. They take too long to charge. And there aren’t enough places to plug the trucks in.“It was excessively ambitious,” said Daniel Sperling, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who specializes in sustainable transportation, referring to the program that made truckers buy green rigs.California officials insist that their effort is not doomed and say they will keep it alive with other rules and by providing truckers incentives to go electric.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