Environment

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares179 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 Shares139 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 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