You are here
News Feeds
Spanish giant lobs second plantation wind project into EPBC queue just a week after the first
Spanish energy giant lobs another plantation wind project into EPBC queue, highlighting the minimal impact these projects will have on highly modified sites.
The post Spanish giant lobs second plantation wind project into EPBC queue just a week after the first appeared first on Renew Economy.
Australia’s largest industrial thermal storage project takes next “significant step”
Thermal energy storage hopeful begins key engineering and design study for what could be the largest project of its kind in Australia.
The post Australia’s largest industrial thermal storage project takes next “significant step” appeared first on Renew Economy.
Skeptical Science New Research for Week #22 2026
Climate Change Communication in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, Schäfer et al., Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Chang
Artificial intelligence (AI), and especially generative AI (GenAI), is rapidly reshaping climate change communication (CCC). Once dominated by news coverage and public campaigns, CCC now extends across scientists, NGOs, corporations, journalists, influencers, and citizens—all increasingly encountering and adopting AI tools. This article provides a comprehensive review of scholarship on the nexus of AI and CCC, synthesizing insights scattered across disciplines from social and computer science, and interdisciplinary fields like environmental and science studies. It identifies robust patterns alongside significant gaps, highlighting areas where future research is needed. Based on existing evidence, it shows that AI—as of now—functions less as a disruptive replacement of established communication and information-seeking practices rather than as an assistive layer in CCC: accelerating routine newsroom tasks, enabling personalized and multilingual outreach, and generating new textual, visual, and multimodal representations of climate change. Stakeholders use AI to monitor discourse, expose greenwashing, and broaden access to climate information, though systematic research on uptake and effects remains limited. Journalists experiment cautiously with AI, emphasizing human oversight, while influencers and content creators are understudied despite their growing role. The potential of AI-driven systems for fact-checking, policy analysis, and creative engagement has been explored, yet studies remain heavily English-centric and focused on text. Citizen studies reveal promises and risks: generative dialogues can reduce skepticism and foster engagement, but biases, misinformation, and equity concerns persist. Advancing the field requires comparative and interdisciplinary agendas that integrate computational and traditional methods, foreground transparency and inclusion, and address how AI can equitably support awareness, trust, and climate action.
Vacuuming the Sky? Metaphorical Framing in News Coverage of Carbon Dioxide Removal Methods, Bruggen et al., Environmental Communication
Discussions of proposed climate solutions, such as carbon dioxide removal (CDR), are multi-layered and contested. This study examines the role that metaphors play as frame devices in news coverage (2018–2024) about CDR. Using critical metaphor analysis, we examined 257 articles from major UK, US, and Canadian news outlets to identify and interpret contrasting metaphorical expressions from journalists and their sources, including industry, science, and civil society. We find that a wide range of source domains, including references to, e.g. historical events, household objects, crime, religion, and medical analogies, is used to metaphorically frame CDR. These metaphors reflect actors’ competing ideologies and interests, rooted in hopeful rational-optimist and socio-ecological visions. We also discuss how metaphor use could influence public engagement and policy and reflect on how language might oversimplify or obscure critical aspects of the technology.
Consensus Messaging Shifts Beliefs About Climate Change in a Field Experiment, Rode et al., Science Communication
Previous research on climate change consensus messaging has mostly taken place in controlled lab settings. In this field experiment, we engaged U.S. residents (N = 158) in brief doorstep conversations on climate change. Research assistants read a script about the scientific consensus (treatment) or basic facts about climate change (control) and then provided participants with a magnet containing the same information. The consensus message had a significant positive effect on consensus estimates (β = 0.45) and belief in climate change (β = 0.41), but not on other downstream attitudes or behavior. These results mostly align with theory and have implications for consensus messaging.
From this week's government/NGO section:24/7 renewables. The economics of Firm Solar and Wind, Dardour et al., The International Renewable Energy Agency
The authors show that the cost of firm renewable electricity has declined rapidly across all major technologies and markets. In high-quality solar and wind resource regions, co-located hybrid systems can already deliver round-the-clock electricity at costs competitive with - and in many cases below - those of new fossil-fuel generation. China currently defines the global cost floor, while costs in Brazil, India, South Africa, Australia, and the Gulf region are declining rapidly towards fossil-fuel cost parity. The authors identify key drivers of firm renewable costs – technology performance, resource quality and system configuration – and examine the policy levers that are proving decisive in translating cost competitiveness into deployment at scale. They conclude that the technologies are maturing, the costs are falling and the commercial demand is growing. The pace at which firm renewable electricity is deployed will be among the most consequential determinants of the global energy transition in the decade ahead.Climate Promises, Industry Handouts. Canada’s Fossil Fuel Funding in 2025, Environmental Defence Canada
The Government of Canada has provided at least $10.2 billion in fossil fuel subsidies and public financing in 2025. Since Environmental Defence began tracking fossil fuel subsidies in 2020, the federal government has provided at least $85.2 billion in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. This figure includes government direct spending as well as public financing through Crown corporations, such as Export Development Canada. In addition to fossil fuel subsidies, the Government of Canada provided at least $405.53 million dollars in subsidies for carbon capture and fossil fuel hydrogen projects in 2025. These technologies have failed to deliver on their promises to reduce emissions and have instead locked in further fossil fuel production. Furthermore, this figure excludes the estimated cost of the carbon capture investment tax credit, which is estimated to cost Canadians up to $5.7 billion by 2028, and up to $12.4 billion by 2035. The changes introduced in the Budget 2025 could increase the cost to Canadians by an additional $3.75 billion. In 2025, the cost of pollution from oil and gas companies operating in Canada was an estimated $56.4 billion. This figure was calculated by taking the most recent oil and gas emissions figures and multiplying with the social cost of carbon. Climate pollution created by oil and gas companies has massive costs, including health costs, property damage from extreme weather events, and decreased agricultural productivity due to changing weather patterns. The social cost of carbon helps to estimate what those costs to society are. 76 articles in 46 journals by 755 contributing authorsPhysical science of climate change, effects
Intensified Stratosphere–Troposphere Ozone Transport over Asia under a High-End Climate Trajectory, Luo et al., Journal of Climate 10.1175/jcli-d-25-0426.1
Most cited from this section, published 2 years ago:
Global aviation contrail climate effects from 2019 to 2021, Atmospheric chemistry and physics, 10.5194/acp-24-6071-2024 68 cites.
Observations of climate change, effects
Abrupt stream acidification and metal mobilization from permafrost degradation, Skierszkan et al., Science 10.1126/science.aea2898
Increasing exposure to compound heatwave and drought events in China during 1961–2020, Qin et al., Atmospheric Research 10.1016/j.atmosres.2026.109099
Two decades of urban heat intensification and exposure across 1400 cities, Naserikia et al., Communications Earth & Environment Open Access pdf 10.1038/s43247-026-03665-y
Wildfire Hazard in Poland in a Warming Climate: Past and Future Impact of Extreme Weather, Pi?skwar et al., International Journal of Climatology 10.1002/joc.70439
Most cited from this section, published 2 years ago:
Multivariate extremes in lakes, Nature Communications, 10.1038/s41467-024-49012-7 29 cites.
Instrumentation & observational methods of climate change, effects
Assessing winter climate change using cumulative sub-zero temperatures, HE et al., Advances in Climate Change Research Open Access 10.1016/j.accre.2026.05.008
Critical dependence of global ocean heat monitoring on the ocean observing system, Zhu et al., Nature Climate Change 10.1038/s41558-026-02661-6
Increasing Power When Controlling Multiple Hypothesis Testing with Climate Data via Covariate Smoothing, McEvoy & McKinnon, Journal of Agricultural Biological and Environmental Statistics Open Access 10.1007/s13253-026-00738-5
Most cited from this section, published 2 years ago:
Biogeographic patterns of daily wildfire spread and extremes across North America, Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 10.3389/ffgc.2024.1355361 19 cites.
Modeling, simulation & projection of climate change, effects
Evolution of Compound Drought and Extreme Precipitation Events on the Tibetan Plateau, Sun et al., Journal of Climate 10.1175/jcli-d-25-0306.1
Statistical-dynamical downscaling of EURO-CORDEX projections to 50 m resolution: characteristic days for Baden-Württemberg under climate change, Kermarrec et al., Frontiers in Climate Open Access pdf 10.3389/fclim.2026.1778467
Most cited from this section, published 2 years ago:
Central-Pacific El Niño-Southern Oscillation less predictable under greenhouse warming, Nature Communications, 10.1038/s41467-024-48804-1 14 cites.
Advancement of climate & climate effects modeling, simulation & projection
Epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty quantification in weather and climate models, Mansfield & Christensen, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society Open Access 10.1002/qj.70219
Evaluating Nex-GDDP CMIP6 Models for Extreme Wet and Dry Events Over Indonesia, Kurniadi et al., International Journal of Climatology 10.1002/joc.70437
Most cited from this section, published 2 years ago:
Is Bias Correction in Dynamical Downscaling Defensible?, Geophysical Research Letters, 10.1029/2023gl105979 24 cites.
Cryosphere & climate change
An Extreme Antarctic Event; 2025 Was Record Low Seasonal Sea Ice and Record High Iceberg Scouring, Barnes et al., Global Change Biology Open Access 10.1111/gcb.70938
Abrupt stream acidification and metal mobilization from permafrost degradation, Skierszkan et al., Science 10.1126/science.aea2898
Constrained simulation of permafrost thermal changes from 1980 to 2018 on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, Ji et al., Global and Planetary Change 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2026.105542
Most cited from this section, published 2 years ago:
Widespread seawater intrusions beneath the grounded ice of Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 10.1073/pnas.2404766121 52 cites.
Sea level & climate change
Estimating the cost of sea level rise, Sugiyama et al., DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Open Access pdf pmh:oai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/38529
Improved closure of the global mean sea level budget from observational advances since 1960, Zheng et al., Science Advances Open Access 10.1126/sciadv.aea0652
Paleoclimate & paleogeochemistry
Diminished Ross Ice Shelf and West Antarctic Ice Sheet during Last Interglacial warming, Carter et al., Nature Geoscience Open Access 10.1038/s41561-026-01988-1
Multi-model assessment of the deglacial climatic evolution at high southern latitudes, Obase et al., Climate of the past Open Access pdf 10.5194/cp-21-1443-2025
Biology & climate change, related geochemistry
Acute temperature effects on cilia beating increase coral deoxygenation, Pacherres et al., Science Advances Open Access 10.1126/sciadv.aeg0950
An Extreme Antarctic Event; 2025 Was Record Low Seasonal Sea Ice and Record High Iceberg Scouring, Barnes et al., Global Change Biology Open Access 10.1111/gcb.70938
Climate and land use change potentially drives southern range contraction and latitudinal shift in Caucasian Lynx, Shahsavarzadeh et al., Scientific Reports Open Access 10.1038/s41598-026-54072-4
Climate change accelerates global forest deadwood dynamics, Edelmann et al., Communications Earth & Environment Open Access pdf 10.1038/s43247-026-03651-4
Climate-driven vegetation vulnerability in a monsoon-dominated dryland: a dual-index (kNDVI–VHI) assessment for Pakistan, Mehmood et al., Frontiers in Environmental Science Open Access pdf 10.3389/fenvs.2026.1745938
Flood events from climate extremes drastically shift prey energy densities, Nitschke et al., Marine Environmental Research Open Access 10.1016/j.marenvres.2026.108136
Hot days increase the risk of heat-stress-related deaths in endangered koala populations, Mella et al., Biology Letters Open Access 10.1098/rsbl.2026.0117
Resilient nekton composition in the face of climate-driven foundation species shifts, Leavitt et al., Ecology Open Access 10.1002/ecy.70397
Taxonomic and functional diversity of benthic foraminifera as a promising proxy for tidewater glacier retreat, Fossile et al., Boreas Open Access 10.1111/bor.70068
Most cited from this section, published 2 years ago:
Asymmetrical Impact of Daytime and Nighttime Warming on the Interannual Variation of Urban Spring Vegetation Phenology, Earth s Future, 10.1029/2023ef004127 20 cites.
GHG sources & sinks, flux, related geochemistry
An Upper Bound on Carbon Emissions of Drained Peat Soil Grasslands From Satellite Radar Interferometry, Conroy & Hanssen, Geophysical Research Letters Open Access 10.1029/2025gl115732
Forest carbon protocols underestimate climate-driven carbon loss risks, Wu et al., Nature 10.1038/s41586-026-10571-y
Lowland tropical forests remain a methane sink under warming and long-term hurricane disturbance recovery, Conte et al., Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Open Access 10.1016/j.agrformet.2026.111225
Machine-learning-based estimates of global natural vegetated wetland methane emissions (2000–2025), Li et al., Earth system science data Open Access 10.5194/essd-18-3507-2026
Reduction of tropical cyclone-induced ocean carbon outgassing since 1993, Ye et al., Nature Geoscience 10.1038/s41561-026-01985-4
Widespread peat carbon losses driven by the 2025 Scottish megafire, Schoenecker et al., Nature Geoscience Open Access 10.1038/s41561-026-01994-3
Winter Mixing Controls Carbon Sequestration by the Biological Pump in the Subpolar North Atlantic, Fogaren et al., Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans Open Access 10.1029/2025jc023822
Most cited from this section, published 2 years ago:
Whole-soil warming leads to substantial soil carbon emission in an alpine grassland, Nature Communications, 10.1038/s41467-024-48736-w 65 cites.
CO2 capture, sequestration science & engineering
Concerns and Questions About Carbon Dioxide Removal Technologies, Luczak, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change Open Access 10.1002/wcc.70063
Determinants community involvement in a forest carbon sequestration initiative: a study case in Indonesia, Triana et al., Frontiers in Forests and Global Change Open Access pdf 10.3389/ffgc.2026.1770765
Economic costs of global forest protection may be overstated, Nepal et al., Nature Communications Open Access pdf 10.1038/s41467-026-73569-0
Impact on oysters in first-of-its-kind field trial of marine Enhanced Rock Weathering (mERW) with olivine as carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategy, Jankowska et al., Frontiers in Climate Open Access 10.3389/fclim.2026.1851765
Vacuuming the Sky? Metaphorical Framing in News Coverage of Carbon Dioxide Removal Methods, Bruggen et al., Environmental Communication Open Access 10.1080/17524032.2026.2673348
Most cited from this section, published 2 years ago:
Taking stock of carbon dioxide removal policy in emerging economies: developments in Brazil, China, and India, Climate Policy, 10.1080/14693062.2024.2353148 14 cites.
Decarbonization
An energy scenario for Japan towards 2040: Focused on efficiency improvements and renewable energy, Takase et al., Energy Policy 10.1016/j.enpol.2026.115398
Averting the steel carbon lock-in through strategic green investments, Bachorz et al., Nature Climate Change Open Access 10.1038/s41558-026-02635-8
High-impact weather effects on wind and solar power systems under future climate scenarios in China, Sun et al., Nature Communications Open Access 10.1038/s41467-026-73427-z
Most cited from this section, published 2 years ago:
Biological fermentation pilot-scale systems and evaluation for commercial viability towards sustainable biohydrogen production, Nature Communications, 10.1038/s41467-024-48790-4 68 cites.
Geoengineering climate
Artificial Flooding Leads to Thicker and Brighter Arctic Sea Ice, Blanchard?Wrigglesworth et al., Earth s Future Open Access 10.1029/2025ef007894
Contrasting Changes in Rainfall Structure Between Monsoon and Adjacent Dry Regions Under Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, Jiang et al., Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres 10.1029/2026jd046329
Most cited from this section, published 2 years ago:
Rethinking the Susceptibility?Based Strategy for Marine Cloud Brightening Climate Intervention: Experiment With CESM2 and Its Implications, Geophysical Research Letters, 10.1029/2024gl108860 13 cites.
Black carbon
Sediment records reveal elevated black carbon emissions potentially amplifying Arctic snowmelt, Gong et al., Communications Earth & Environment Open Access pdf 10.1038/s43247-026-03654-1
Aerosols
Most cited from this section, published 2 years ago:
Constraining effects of aerosol-cloud interaction by accounting for coupling between cloud and land surface, Science Advances, 10.1126/sciadv.adl5044 25 cites.
Climate change communications & cognition
Climate Change Communication in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, Schäfer et al., Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change Open Access 10.1002/wcc.70073
Consensus Messaging Shifts Beliefs About Climate Change in a Field Experiment, Rode et al., Science Communication Open Access 10.1177/10755470261442409
From cognition to action: climate risk perception and corporate capital structure optimization, Fu et al., Frontiers in Environmental Science Open Access pdf 10.3389/fenvs.2026.1826872
Most cited from this section, published 2 years ago:
Trust in climate science and climate scientists: A narrative review, PLOS Climate, 10.1371/journal.pclm.0000400 34 cites.
Agronomy, animal husbundry, food production & climate change
Assessing rainfall and temperature trends to guide agricultural adaptation, Msangi & Deus, Discover Agriculture Open Access pdf 10.1007/s44279-026-00607-2
Contextualizing the marginal returns of regenerative agriculture on maize performance under climate change in Nigeria, Kolapo & Sieber, Frontiers in Climate Open Access pdf 10.3389/fclim.2026.1767448
Dolomite in conjunction with straw application increased straw-derived CO2 emission while depressed soil organic carbon mineralization in two acidic paddy soils, Xu et al., Biology and Fertility of Soils 10.1007/s00374-026-02017-4
Effect of organic mulches in vineyards: CH4 and N2O emissions and their contribution to the GWP and carbon balance, Rodrigo et al., Frontiers in Environmental Science Open Access pdf 10.3389/fenvs.2026.1846259
Evaluating the Intercropping Systems in the Context of Agroecological Resilience in the Current Era of the Changing Climate: A Scenario of Scientific Analysis of Last Decade Data, Maitra et al., Climate Resilience and Sustainability Open Access 10.1002/cli2.70050
Nonlinear temperature change responses shape soil organic carbon loss-gain transitions in global Mollisol croplands, Meng et al., Nature Communications Open Access 10.1038/s41467-026-73759-w
Uncertainties in global hydrological and climate models challenge future estimates of crop water use and sustainability, Sun et al., Communications Earth & Environment Open Access 10.1038/s43247-026-03621-w
Viral mediation of anaerobic methane oxidation to carbon sequestration in paddy soil, Tong et al., Nature Geoscience 10.1038/s41561-026-01998-z
Most cited from this section, published 2 years ago:
Climate-resilient agricultural ploys can improve livelihood and food security in Eastern India, Environment Development and Sustainability, 10.1007/s10668-023-03176-2 21 cites.
Hydrology, hydrometeorology & climate change
Decoupling Between Heavy Precipitation Expansion and Population Exposure in a Warming World, Zhou et al., Earth s Future Open Access 10.1029/2025ef007771
Most cited from this section, published 2 years ago:
Widespread societal and ecological impacts from projected Tibetan Plateau lake expansion, Nature Geoscience, 10.1038/s41561-024-01446-w 131 cites.
Climate change economics
Achieving climate justice: climate finance and income inequality in developing countries, Li et al., Open MIND Open Access pmh:10.6084/m9.figshare.31389871
Estimating the cost of sea level rise, Sugiyama et al., DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Open Access pdf pmh:oai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/38529
Most cited from this section, published 2 years ago:
Has climate change promoted the high-quality development of financial enterprises? Evidence from China, Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10.3389/fenvs.2024.1332748 1 citation.
Climate change and the circular economy Climate change mitigation public policy research
Most cited from this section, published 2 years ago:
Integrated assessment modeling of a zero-emissions global transportation sector, Nature Communications, 10.1038/s41467-024-48424-9 99 cites.
Climate change adaptation & adaptation public policy research
An institutional perspective on integrating climate and societal challenges in urban areas, Wöhler et al., Climate Risk Management Open Access 10.1016/j.crm.2026.100829
Reframing climate adaptation and societal collapse: governance pathways for systemic risk in the Anthropocene, Granberg & Glover, Frontiers in Climate Open Access 10.3389/fclim.2026.1825767
The public mandate for equitable climate adaptation: Evidence from Aotearoa New Zealand, Parsons et al., Environmental Science & Policy Open Access 10.1016/j.envsci.2026.104398
Most cited from this section, published 2 years ago:
The Multi-Scalar Inequities of Climate Adaptation Finance: A Critical Review, Current Climate Change Reports, 10.1007/s40641-024-00195-7 29 cites.
Climate change impacts on human health
Associations between climatic variables and dengue incidence in high-burden countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis, James et al., Frontiers in Climate Open Access 10.3389/fclim.2026.1804553
Climate Change Elevates the Risk of Antibiotic Resistance in Global Surface Ocean, Yuan et al., Global Change Biology 10.1111/gcb.70929
Differentiated associations of daytime and nighttime heatwaves with long-term survival: A nationwide population-based cohort in China, Liu et al., Advances in Climate Change Research Open Access 10.1016/j.accre.2026.05.009
Eroding heat resilience in South Asian cities under observed warming trends, Yadav et al., Scientific Reports Open Access 10.1038/s41598-026-55172-x
Health Impact of Climate Change on Older Adults Living With Dementia: A Scoping Review, Gurung et al., Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change 10.1002/wcc.70071
Most cited from this section, published 2 years ago:
Climate Change, Environment, and Health: The implementation and initial evaluation of a longitudinal, integrated curricular theme and novel competency framework at Harvard Medical School, PLOS Climate, 10.1371/journal.pclm.0000412 23 cites.
Climate change & geopolitics
Climate Legislation and Global Green Development Transition: The Role of International Environmental Engagement and Government Readiness, Liu & FENG, Weather Climate and Society 10.1175/wcas-d-25-0140.1
Climate change impacts on human culture Other
Northern Hemisphere Wintertime Stratospheric Circulation Response to Smoke Injection From a Regional Nuclear Conflict, Yook et al., Geophysical Research Letters Open Access 10.1029/2026gl122395
Most cited from this section, published 2 years ago:
Increasing frequency and lengthening season of western disturbances is linked to increasing strength and delayed northward migration of the subtropical jet, , 10.5194/egusphere-2023-1778 1 citation.
Informed opinion, nudges & major initiatives
The subnational wedge in Paris-aligned pathways, Hsu et al., PLOS Climate Open Access 10.1371/journal.pclm.0000921
Most cited from this section, published 2 years ago:
‘Mind the Gap’—reforestation needs vs. reforestation capacity in the western United States, Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 10.3389/ffgc.2024.1402124 28 cites.
Book reviews
Book Review: Loss and Damage in Climate Politics, Tirivangasi, Environmental Politics 10.1080/09644016.2026.2677325
Articles/Reports from Agencies and Non-Governmental Organizations Addressing Aspects of Climate ChangeData Centers in California, Mark Specht and Vivian Yang, Union of Concerned Scientists
California already has many large data centers, and the state is expecting to see a surge of new data centers over the next decade. While data centers and the proliferation of AI pose a wide range of potential effects on the economy, the environment, and society, the authors focus specifically on the effects on the state’s electricity system and its ratepayers, along with policy solutions to mitigate those effects. If left unaddressed, data center growth could undermine grid reliability, slow the clean energy transition, and raise costs for ratepayers. Policymakers should require data centers to provide more transparency into their operations and pay their fair share of electricity costs. The state should additionally implement guardrails to minimize the harmful air quality effects from data center backup generation and ensure the growth of data centers does not stall clean energy progress or threaten grid reliability.2026 State of the Market. Corporate Demand, Market Evolution, and Buyer Leadership, Corporate Energy Buyers Association
Corporate energy buyers continue to play a defining role in the evolution of clean energy markets. Despite higher power purchase agreement (PPA) and energy prices, reliability risks, and growing complexity, corporate demand for clean energy reached new heights in 2025 and early 2026. Since CEBA’s tracking began in 2014, corporate buyers have announced more than 143 gigawatts (GW) of new large-scale clean energy capacity in the United States, with back-to-back record-setting years in 2024 and 2025. Corporate buyers are no longer simply participating in the energy transition — they are shaping it.Powering Canada Strong: A National Strategy for an Electrified Canadian Economy, Natural Resources Canada, Government of Canada
The national strategy will enable Canada to meet two initial challenges including building new infrastructure to double Canada’s electricity supply by 2050 and meet growing demand; and, accelerating electrification across the economy to support competitiveness and address climate change.Boom and Bust Coal 2026. Tracking the global coal plant pipeline, Shearer et al., Global Energy Monitor
Boom and Bust Coal is an annual survey of the global coal fleet by Global Energy Monitor and partners. The authors analyze key trends in coal power capacity and track various stages of capacity development including planned retirements. This provides key insights into the status of the global phaseout of coal power and evaluates progress towards the world’s climate targets and commitments. The data come from GEM’s Global Coal Plant Tracker, an online database updated biannually that identifies and maps every known coal-fired generating unit and every new unit proposed since January 1, 2010 (30 MW and larger). In 2025, the world built more coal and used it less. New coal power capacity additions increased by 3.5% to reach one of the highest levels on record, even as coal-fired electricity generation declined by 0.6%. This gap was particularly pronounced in China and India, where wind and solar met most or all new demand, driving down coal generation even as coal plant commissioning reached decade highs. Coal capacity is increasingly maintained not as a primary source of generation, but as a form of system insurance. The U.S. stood out as the only major economy in 2025 to increase coal generation, and the total number of countries pursuing new coal development is shrinking. The central challenge heading into 2026 is not the availability of alternatives to coal, but the persistence of policy frameworks that continue to treat coal as necessary even as power systems move increasingly beyond it.Proposed Amendments to the Cap-and-Invest Program, Legislative Analysts Office, California State Legislature
California has established statutory goals for reducing statewide GHG emissions—down to at least 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030, and to at least 85 percent below the 1990 level by 2045. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) sets a declining, aggregate cap on the amount of GHGs allowed to be emitted under the program. CARB issues a set number of allowances each year equal to the annual cap. Entities covered by the program can comply with the program by (1) reducing their emissions, (2) purchasing allowances, or (3) purchasing offsets. Each allowance is essentially a permit to emit one ton of carbon dioxide equivalent. In September 2025, the Legislature extended and made various changes to the cap-and-invest program. These changes: (1) modified the program’s design features and allowance allocations; (2) changed the allocation of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund revenues; and (3) added reporting, evaluation, and oversight provisions. April proposed amendments include establishing the total number of allowances through 2045, including removing 118 Million allowances through 2030, but adds back up to 118 million allowances above the cap for a larger and broader Manufacturing Decarbonization Incentive.Build Here: How Targeted State Investment in Geothermal Can Fill California’s Clean Firm Gap, Wilson Ricks and Ann Garth, Clean Air Task Force
The authors found that next-generation geothermal energy could dramatically reduce the cost of achieving California’s clean energy goals, but only if the state acts now to remove critical development barriers. The authors call on California to fund an in-field testbed program to explore and map the subsurface across high-potential geologic regions, generating the data needed to unlock large-scale private investment in next-generation geothermal development. The authors point to a proven model for unlocking next-gen development: the U.S. Department of Energy’s Utah FORGE testbed drilled a series of wells in rural Utah and publicly released the resulting subsurface data. Billions of dollars in private investment followed, including the world’s first commercial-scale enhanced geothermal systems facility, Fervo Energy’s Cape Station project, located directly adjacent to the Utah FORGE site. California now imports that zero-emission power to satisfy its own electricity demand but does not receive the economic advantages. California has the opportunity, and the geology, to direct development inside the state.From Paper to Practice : A Practical Guide to Formulating and Institutionalizing Long-term Climate Strategies (World Bank), Sutherland et al., World Bank
This guidance note is designed to equip governments and practitioners with implementable insights and a practical how-to framework for formulating and institutionalizing long-term strategy. It focuses on formulating technically sound LTSs and addresses their institutional integration, which involves embedding long-term low-emission, climate-resilient pathways in planning, budgeting, and decision-making processes across the government so that they can be operationalized through existing policy and fiscal instruments.Climate Promises, Industry Handouts. Canada’s Fossil Fuel Funding in 2025, Environmental Defence Canada
The Government of Canada has provided at least $10.2 billion in fossil fuel subsidies and public financing in 2025. Since Environmental Defence began tracking fossil fuel subsidies in 2020, the federal government has provided at least $85.2 billion in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. This figure includes government direct spending as well as public financing through Crown corporations, such as Export Development Canada. In addition to fossil fuel subsidies, the Government of Canada provided at least $405.53 million dollars in subsidies for carbon capture and fossil fuel hydrogen projects in 2025. These technologies have failed to deliver on their promises to reduce emissions and have instead locked in further fossil fuel production. Furthermore, this figure excludes the estimated cost of the carbon capture investment tax credit, which is estimated to cost Canadians up to $5.7 billion by 2028, and up to $12.4 billion by 2035. The changes introduced in the Budget 2025 could increase the cost to Canadians by an additional $3.75 billion. In 2025, the cost of pollution from oil and gas companies operating in Canada was an estimated $56.4 billion. This figure was calculated by taking the most recent oil and gas emissions figures and multiplying with the social cost of carbon. Climate pollution created by oil and gas companies has massive costs, including health costs, property damage from extreme weather events, and decreased agricultural productivity due to changing weather patterns. The social cost of carbon helps to estimate what those costs to society are.Building Europe’s alternative fuels industry for military resilience, Irina Patrahau and Ron Stoop, The Hague Center for Strategic Studies
Europe’s military readiness is increasingly tied to the resilience of its fuel supply chains. The authors warn that Europe risks replacing one strategic dependency with another unless it scales up domestic production of alternative fuels for defense. The authors examine how the 2026 Middle East oil disruption exposed Europe’s vulnerability to fuel supply shocks. Around half of the EU’s jet fuel imports originate from the Middle East, while military operations remain heavily dependent on liquid fuels such as jet fuel and diesel. The authors argue that “drop-in” fuels such as sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO), e-SAF and e-diesel offer the most viable pathway to strengthen resilience in the short to medium term because they can be integrated into existing military infrastructure without technical modifications. However, the study finds that current production levels remain far too limited to support military needs during crisis scenarios. Existing civilian-driven expansion plans would cover only a fraction of potential wartime demand, leaving armed forces exposed to shortages and competition with civilian consumers. The authors identify three priorities for policymakers including developing a coordinated civil-military strategy for alternative fuel scale-up; treating alternative fuel plants as dual-use strategic infrastructure eligible for defense and EU funding; and establishing minimum domestic production benchmarks for fuels critical to defense readiness.Climate change makes Arctic operations ever more complex, Lin Alexandra Mortensgaard, Danish Institute for International Studies
Climate change is already making Arctic planning and operations more complex. The notion that climate change multiplies existing threats increasingly falls short when it comes to understanding the scale, processes and the unknowns of climate change. Drawing on ongoing knowledge exchange with climate scientists, security actors could instead practice thinking in terms of types of change to avoid assuming foresight of operational and infrastructural consequences based on existing, known threats.Built to Endure. A Smart Guide for US Cities To Build Resilient Infrastructure That Lasts, Losos et al., Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment & Sustainability, Duke University
Resilience is needed for every community to thrive in a world at increased risk of natural disasters. But small and medium-sized communities do not need expensive analyses or teams of people to get started. Resilience is achievable—even for lean municipal teams—when people, sound governance, and systems thinking are supported by increasingly accessible digital tools that help inform decisions and strengthen community outcomes. The authors offer practical, step-by-step advice for small and midsized communities to integrate resilience into their infrastructure systems. Featuring eight case studies from cities in the United States and abroad, the guidebook is meant for immediate use in the real world. The guidebook also includes a separate section—Getting Started: Practical Entry Points for Local Governments—that will jump-start the systems thinking needed to truly achieve resilience.24/7 renewables. The economics of Firm Solar and Wind, Dardour et al., The International Renewable Energy Agency
The authors show that the cost of firm renewable electricity has declined rapidly across all major technologies and markets. In high-quality solar and wind resource regions, co-located hybrid systems can already deliver round-the-clock electricity at costs competitive with - and in many cases below - those of new fossil-fuel generation. China currently defines the global cost floor, while costs in Brazil, India, South Africa, Australia, and the Gulf region are declining rapidly towards fossil-fuel cost parity. The authors identify key drivers of firm renewable costs – technology performance, resource quality and system configuration – and examine the policy levers that are proving decisive in translating cost competitiveness into deployment at scale. They conclude that the technologies are maturing, the costs are falling and the commercial demand is growing. The pace at which firm renewable electricity is deployed will be among the most consequential determinants of the global energy transition in the decade ahead.The AI Data Center Race and Big Tech Monopoly Power. A Policy Framework for Community Self-Determination and Democratic Accountability, Stacy Mitchell and John Farrell, The Institute for Local Self-Reliance
To consolidate control over generative AI and deepen their monopoly power, dominant tech firms are driving a wave of hyperscale data center construction that is colliding with communities nationwide. In response, the authors developed a policy framework to help communities reassert public authority, curb monopoly power, prevent public cost-shifting, and ensure digital infrastructure is developed transparently and in the public interest.A Water Renaissance for California, Restore the Delta et al., Restore the Delta et al
California must create a new urban water renaissance: a new approach to prioritize local water and local communities in developing the reliable water supplies needed for the future. To accomplish this, California must choose to invest in local water supplies, reject sending billions of ratepayer dollars to take an ever-diminishing supply of water from the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta (Bay-Delta) and the Colorado River, and ensure adequate water to restore the Bay-Delta ecosystem and protect water quality. Following these improvements, interested parties must be brought together to work towards solutions to repair the aging levees in the Delta and the aging infrastructure of the State Water Project (SWP). Southern California and the Bay-Delta must move from conflict to collaboration to create a sustainable and reliable water supply for people and the environment. Create local drought-resistant water supplies and create resiliency. Reject costly new imported water projects. Local water supplies provide numerous benefits.Rethinking insects as alternative protein, Verkuijl et al., Stockholm Environment Institute
Insect farming often falls short of its environmental promise. Greenhouse gas emissions generated per kilogram of protein from insect production in temperate climates vary, but they can approach those of chicken and pork, and exceed those of soymeal and fishmeal. Favorable environmental results depend on conditions rarely met in practice. Low-emission insect farming requires organic waste as feed, minimal heating and renewable energy – a combination seldom achieved in temperate countries. Insect farming reinforces conventional animal agriculture rather than replacing it. A substantial proportion of insects are farmed for feed for farmed animals and aquaculture, not to substitute for meat in human diets. The sector poses underexamined risks. Insect farming introduces potential biodiversity threats from accidental releases and emerging animal welfare concerns, given growing evidence that at least some insect species may be capable of suffering. Investment in insect farming carries opportunity costs. To date, major companies, accounting for more than a third of total investment, have failed or have entered restructuring. Resources directed towards insect protein may divert funding, policy attention, and public goodwill from plant-based, fermentation-derived, and cultivated proteins: alternatives that may offer clearer sustainability benefits, with fewer drawbacks. About New ResearchClick here for the why and how of Skeptical Science New Research.
SuggestionsPlease let us know if you're aware of an article you think may be of interest for Skeptical Science research news, or if we've missed something that may be important. Send your input to Skeptical Science via our contact form.
Previous editionThe previous edition of Skeptical Science New Research may be found here.
Transcript of EWG podcast 'Ken Cook Is Having Another Episode' – Episode 57
What does it look like to stand on principle when everyone around you is playing it safe? In today’s episode, EWG co-Founder and President Ken Cook sits down with Rina Shah, a political commentator, GOP strategist, geopolitical risk advisor and one of the most recognized Republican voices on national television.
As a former senior Capitol Hill advisor and two-time presidential campaign chief spokesperson, Shah spent years appearing on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and nearly every major network covering politics and global affairs. But long before the television appearances and the op-eds, she was the daughter of a Ugandan refugee family that lost everything under the brutal dictatorship of Idi Amin. That experience shaped everything about how she sees leadership, power and democracy.
Shah shares her family's remarkable story of survival, why she recognized the echoes of authoritarianism in President Donald Trump long before most were willing to say it out loud, and what it cost her to become the first elected Republican delegate to publicly challenge Trump’s nomination in 2016. A decade later, she’s still a Republican, still speaking out, and still refusing to let the party she loves be defined by fear and silence.
Disclaimer: This transcript was compiled using software and may include typographical errors.
Ken: I'm Ken Cook and I'm having another episode. And this is what I'm really excited about. This is a friend I've made over the internets. Over the past year and a half or so. And um, I have followed Rina Shah in her public persona, which is on just about every network television program I can think of that deals with politics, global affairs. The world of Washington. The, the world of GOP Democratic Party conflict.
You are constantly sought for your input and your perspective and just having spent, for the first time, you know, an hour or so together, uh, in person, I can see why. And so I'm tickled you were able to make some time and, and come on and talk to me, Rina. We've got
Rina: I had to make time, for a digital friend. We had to make it IRL, so here we are.
Ken: I'm so glad you did. Thank you. And, and there's so much to talk about. You know, one of the things that we chatted about just before the camera started rolling was sometimes I've felt like the Democratic party has left me.
Sometimes I felt like I left it. I've often identified as a bipartisan, nonpartisan in my professional life because I felt that was the best way to, to go about it. As well as abiding by the law and being nonpartisan. It just felt right. And for years, some of the best advice, some of the best support we got for environmental initiatives came from Congressional Republicans who had a conservation mindset who believed that we needed to protect nature because conserving things for the long term was a value that they held dear and so forth.
And even today, we, we never initiate a policy idea that we don't at least try to recruit Republican interest in or talk through with Republicans, both in California and here in in DC. And we were talking beforehand about how much that had changed. And it changed even during the course of your coming of age, right?
Rina: It did.
Ken: You had different plans, then to be someone who raised concerns about. Donald Trump in 2015 or 16.
Rina: And continue to, to this day, warn about Trumpism. Because what I, I think has happened in my journey is I've seen the light. And I, some people find it much earlier, people find it later. For me, I was forced to find it because I went through such a dark moment.
Exactly 10 years ago, I was the first elected delegate to the Republican National Convention to buck Trump and to say that I wanted to fight his nomination. And I did so in a place that was most unusual, but certainly had the most spotlight, which was Fox News. And I didn't expect to, because when I did it, it was just a natural answer to a question.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And so that experience taught me that, you know, you think you have friends one minute, and because you've said something, they suddenly don't wanna see you or affiliate with you. And it was a political fight that actually took a legal angle as well, because I was removed from a list of democratically elected delegates to the Republican National Convention, erased by my party.
And so, uh, to my family's credit, they helped me mount a legal fight. And I didn't take it lying down. And in doing so, I was the first challenge to Trump. And, uh, the whole world, the whole nation saw it. And so I still meet people to this day who said, I know who you were. I just never knew your name or what you look like, but I knew you were the first.
I remember I met filmmaker Michael Moore and he said, oh, I already know who you are. And there were people then, because it was the first kind of potential stop to Trump, because what my case signaled is that we could fight him on the floor of the convention and deny him the nomination to the party.
Which ultimately ended up not happening. I started basically the Free The Delegates movement. My case rather did. Other cases followed from, uh, a group of North Carolina delegates and Colorado delegates. And so I'm glad that I inspired people to do the right thing and express publicly what we felt about a man who did not, I feel, felt at the time, was not a Republican, a man who didn't seem to really show any allegiance to, to Republican party principles.
And had a lot of, I think, characteristics about him that gave me pause. Probably prime of which was, he was really somebody that looked like he saw the presidency as a, as a king. He wanted to be king. And I thought, oh, no, no. Because in my family's history, we know what that's like. On my dad's side, we were kicked out after three generations in Uganda by a dictator, by the name of, Idi Amin. And uh, we lost everything and so I grew up with my grandparents.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: Because they came and lived with my father in the US. The rest of my family all became political refugees to the United Kingdom. But because my father was already here in the United States getting medical training, we were lucky enough, and my dad had really chosen America too.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: As a young boy growing up in Uganda, he knew he wanted to come to America. He, of course, he could have never predicted that we'd be kicked out after three generations. I have cousins, older cousins of mine who have Ugandan passports as their birth passport. So this is a very recent experience in my family that I have had to see what you know, the result of was. And I've had to live that experience. I always say that dictators cause intergenerational trauma because
Ken: Yeah
Rina: My dad had seven sisters and loads of cousins who all looked up to him and, and many of whom needed him on a monetary level too. So much of my childhood and, and even young adult life was spent seeing that and seeing kind of the shambles of, again, losing everything we had, uh, and what it does just because one man didn't like how successful we were as merchants there in Uganda and he, and he killed many, I mean, it was a genocide.
Ken: Yeah, for sure.
Rina: My grandfather was able to escape a camp, and again, knowing these things, knowing that the madman Ida Amin, wanted to be a dictator, I kind of just knew that anybody who behaves that way is gonna create an America that I wouldn't recognize.
Ken: Had impulses that go in the wrong direction. And just to be clear to everybody you declare still as a Republican do, and it's not, not like you've left the Republican party. Yeah. It's more that under Trump,
Rina: The party’s left me.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: In a way.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: In a way. Yeah.
Ken: Yeah. Exactly. Right.
And, and you know, just in our, you know, brief conversation before. I so admire the way you express your values, and they're not all the same as mine. But the one thing that I, that I'm really impressed by is it's sort of the inverse of betrayal, which is, you know, loyalty to principles versus betraying them for the sake of power.
And we talked a lot about that. Of course, this is a town that trades in that. Where you're, you're almost seen as a sucker if you don't know the game and play by it. Right. Uh, what kind of loser would stand up for their principles, instead of get the next job? And, and I'm just thinking you must have been, you know, at, at that point in your career, you would've seen yourself in a Republican party, like the party of the of Bush.
You would've seen yourself maybe going into government rising up in the ranks and, and, and living within the Republican values that you hold dear and serving the country in that way. But that future,
Rina: It's not there that, that's not a reality, right. Yeah. I, I, well, I think I was telling you, all my family, or everybody in my family is a doctor.
My, my husband, my late father, both my brother and my sister. All four of my brother-in-laws and sister-in-laws, everybody has a medical degree. And I just have the greatest utmost respect for that because of course it is, I've seen their, their journeys and their tough journeys. You know, it is not only one of great sacrifice, emotionally and physically, it's a monetary sacrifice. Because going into the medical profession nowadays isn't an instant
Ken: No.
Rina: You know, um, sort of payday. I mean, yes, it's good money, but you gotta really want it. And I, I think I always grappled with what I really wanted and I, I looked back at some point in my, uh, young professional life and, and this was like right after college and I said, what is it I really wanna do?
And I had always loved the American presidency, and now I'm, I have the great pleasure of saying that I've actually served two US presidential campaigns at the highest level. Yeah. I've been a comms director and chief spokesperson for two of them, and they were chaotic and unsuccessful. But they were still full fledged presidential campaigns that allowed me to live outta my suitcase in many, many states, including South Carolina, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico.
I mean, learning all the things that you need to know and yeah, so I had this great life as a political operative when I left Capitol Hill, and I left Capitol Hill only in 2011.
Ken: Yeah
Rina: So I hadn't been a political operative for very long when I did the thing I did in 2016, so 10 years ago, I blew up my own career by bucking President Trump.
And after that, I, I think it's been a recurring question to me. What do I really want? Well, I wanna help people the way that my siblings and my husband and my dad did. And so, uh, to honor my late dad's legacy, we kept all his clinics open and, and it's just been a really great thing to be able to do that.
So, the way I see public service or having a job in government is public service to me. It's a way to change people's lives for the better. And I keep thinking about that. Well, surely there's an opportunity for me to do that again and, and every couple years I get a call from somebody saying, well, you run somewhere.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And in this past 10 years, it's been a no. Because I suffered what I suffered 10 years ago. I've lived to tell the tale, which I feel great about, and I was vindicated, of course by the impeachment decisions on Capitol Hill. And you know, I will say, I'm still able to enter the White House. So that is the testament to how America is a beautiful nation in which anything is possible.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: But I definitely worry about just the impact I could have on, um, my fellow man because I'm, I'm not able to run for something and take on a real role in, uh, in public life that I, I would've wanted prior to 10 years ago.
Ken: Well, I, I mean, just to be clear, again, I think that the role you have in public life is more than impressive now.
Rina: Um, thank you.
Ken: Like I say, I don't, I, I can hardly turn on the television where your, your perspective hasn't been sought by someone and for good reason. Let's talk a little bit about the whole question of how so many people made the opposite decision that you made, Rina. Saw the same things, probably thought very close to the same thing about what they were seeing in Trump.
Rina: Oh yeah.
Ken: And yet they decided that they were going to go along or they were gonna be quiet, or they were going to look the other way. Or, or maybe they thought, and I think this was probably quite common, that they felt like someone needed to serve the interests of the public with a Republican lens and that they could do it.
And if they were in the government or if they were following along, they would get things done that would advance the greater good. Saw maybe Trumpism as more of a sideshow that they could work within. I think that was pretty common in his first term.
Rina: Yeah.
Ken: I think maybe some people were hiding out a little bit and maybe just liking the power and the position, but I think a lot of people really felt like, I gotta stick with this job 'cause someone worse will come in, that will bend to his will and I can — and so that became part of what Trump wanted to get rid of in his second term.
Those RINO Republicans, right. And uncontrolled bureaucrats in the deep state. And so now, how does it all hold together for so many of those people?
And we talked about it before and I think you summarized it and just said it's power.
Rina: Yeah. There's an obsession with power and money once you get here. It's exactly like what you see in the movies. It's disturbing to actually be able to have to, you know, say that that, that it is on that level. The sort of mental, I think acrobatics that have to take place
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: Are kind of mind boggling to me when I see people working through a lot of, what are illogical pathways to an answer under this administration? Because a lot of what this administration puts out, it, it just doesn't make sense.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: Take for example, the tariffs.
Ken: The tariffs, and we have to, we have to tell everyone. You were one of the name plaintiffs. In the tariff case, then you opposing Trump's tariffs and, um, congratulations on winning at the Supreme Court among many others.
Rina: Yeah. The team definitely, uh, deserves a credit. I was actually named in the amicus brief, so I can't take full credit, but, uh, but def, defending democracy together.
Neal Katyal, uh, Norm Eisen. These are giants. I think if, if you're not following them, uh, you're missing out because they make the most coherent arguments. And I think that's, that's where we're at. You just have to, in the face of this nonsense, you have to sort of very squarely and coherently say, no, this is what's what.
And so that tariff case, the one that I was in the amicus brief for, was, um, with many other Republicans, I must add. Former congresswoman from Virginia, Barbara Comstock. Uh, there were some folks from the Nixon administration, Reagan administration. So you can tell these are long time.
Ken: My people.
Rina: Yes. I mean, I was gonna say, come on now. Experience learned, people who care a lot about principles and values. So yes, you, I have figured that out in our friendship. Ken, you just, you, you seem to understand that at no point does one need to turn their back on what they've been saying all along. No, because then that makes you completely untrustworthy.
And what kinda leader are you then? There have been any many times I've, I've looked at sort of my trajectory and thought, well, is this. I'm a businesswoman now. I have a firm, I get clients, we do geopolitical risk advisory services. These are, I'm selling something to companies. So, uh, a lot of what I'm out there saying could endanger some of their businesses, but that is why I decided to do all of this under non-disclosure agreements.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: But I had to get creative to save myself. To be able to continue to earn money. That kind of bothers me at the end of the day.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: I shouldn't. A person that's been a two time senior Capitol Hill advisor and a two time presidential campaign chief spokesperson should not have to worry about where their next job is gonna be.
And so, um, fortunately I've kept my firm running, but, but back to the tariffs case, because I, I wanna bring that together and say, I was a, a, a creature of Congress and why I signed onto this case is because the case hinged entirely on Trump not having the authority to impose these tariffs. That Congress has the actual authority.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: You know, I know most Americans don't think about Article One. But when you start to kind of, even at the surface level, like start to follow some of these people, you'll see very plainly what is at stake in the, in the Trump era, and it's some of the most decent common stuff. So the fact that we had to do a case for something so simple just really made me livid.
Uh, and, and I was named in the case that was actually Learning Resources, which is a toy company they brought first. And, and so a
Ken: A toy company,?
Rina: I love this toy company, right? Yeah. I bought the toys well before I, they brought this case and so. I noticed their, their toys were pretty good quality. I noticed at times they were not made in the USA, but that's kind of the norm these days.
And um, most millennial moms like me will say most everything we've been buying since we first find out we're pregnant, is made offshore, made in China, made somewhere else and, and it's been really discouraging and I, and I get what the president has been trying to say, make in America, but you can't snap your fingers and do it right away.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: I am concerned, yes. About what's going into our landfills. I'm concerned about this consumption centric culture. But I don't think the president is concerned about those things.
Ken: No.
Rina: I think he's trying to negotiate better trade deals. He's had plenty of time to do so and he hasn't.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: So I was glad we were successful with this case.
People say, well, he turned around and said the next day he's gonna issue a 15% global tariff and, and sure he can do that under another temporary order. But even experts are saying that they don't think he has the right to do so.
Ken: It won't hold either.
Rina: Yeah. So I was I, to that end, I was like, we'll fight him anywhere and any time and anyhow.
Yeah, because yeah. He's not doing things that he has the authority to do. That is what we, the American people have the right to do is to stand up against that. And so a lot of this is hard for me to talk about, Ken, to be real honest.
Ken: I, I understand. '
Rina: ‘Cause I'm a bridge builder. I'm not a real fighter where I'm like, yeah, we're gonna get him, we're gonna tear him down.
Ken: We're gonna, we're gonna defeat.
Rina: Yeah. Time to shred this guy, you know? I'm not that type. And I, I guess people would say, well, what kind of political operative were you? Well, probably not a great one, you know? I mean, I, I gave it my all, but I am a lover, not a fighter. I, I care about building bridges and I think it's so obvious to me in this moment we need to do that because we’ve become completely polarized.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And uh, the people on the right are just defending nonsense every day of the week in the name of sticking it to the other side.
Ken: Yeah. Yeah. And being loyal to Trump. I noticed the distinction he made with, uh, Erika Kirk, where she said she forgave even the person who shot her husband and, uh, said, you know, spoke about embracing and loving, uh, even the most vile direct enemies, and Trump got up at the same ceremony and said, he likes to hate his.
Rina: Yeah. It's, it's completely bizarre how those kind of people remain around him when he says the kind of things that we teach our children not to say.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: The kind of things we would never utter in a meeting. We've just allowed our, our, you know, the head of our executive branch, who by the way doesn't recognize that he is co-equal to the legislative branch.
I mean, you can't normalize this. There's not any degree of what he says that I can feel proud of, and I think that's. Real tragic because the American presidency is a place where you genuinely look up to for direction. When the country feels lost, I mean, I was very young on 9/11, but I remember Bush two leading us, George W. Bush
Ken: He rose to the moment
Rina: For what it was, he was able to do that. And there were plenty of times President Obama did too. I, because I think what I, I, we were discussing earlier, right? Is that sense that those guys cared?
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: They showed care. Yeah. Trump actually shows the opposite in so many of his interactions, he's showing you how little he cares.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: He wants you to know that he's got something more important than that. And, and that is another instance in which I have to wonder what kind of impact is this gonna have on the next generation of Americans? Gen Alpha? I don't know what that's gonna do to their brains about how they see government. Elected office. Do they see that
Ken: Civic discourse?
Rina: Yeah. What is leadership to them? Is leadership just being in the role and then behaving any which way you see fit?
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: That to me is even worse because so much of the work you've done, I love that we connect on this, is that you know you wanna treat things, people around you well, right?
If you're not even treating the people around you, well, are you treating this earth we've inherited? Well, no, I don't think so.
Ken: And I, I came up in a time where some of the best advice I got certainly in Washington to try and get legislation passed or try and build bridges, as you were saying, came from Republicans who would pull you aside and and say, look, here's how to approach some of my members who don't maybe agree with you or even with me.
Try these arguments, see this person first, and if that person agrees. Basic coaching, because the goal was to do something that was good for the conservation of natural resources, the protection of the environment. It doesn't get more conservative than that. You know now so many of those impulses because they run against what Trump says, you know, that windmills cause cancer and we have to keep producing unlimited amounts of coal and oil, uh, because they're all clean and solar panels are dangerous.
All this stuff that he's saying. And then the deregulatory efforts, uh, for climate change and clean water, clean air. I know there are Republicans on Capitol Hill. I know it. Who object to this, but they dare not speak out.
Rina: They don't wanna be primaried, they don't want to be in his cross hairs, because with that comes public attention.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: So many of them don't want that. Um, because then it trickles down to their families too. And it is, every time Trump pours a little bit of gasoline on a fire, it just doesn't turn into a small fire or even one that's a house fire. It's, it becomes a blazing inferno.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And that's what each one of them fear is that inferno will take them down in a different way.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: But at the same time, what you're seeing is a complete capitulation to a man who acts as if he's king.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: Like I said, kind of doing things under temporary orders, which he doesn't even have the right to do. And so everything goes to the courts. And I trust the courts. I'm somebody that has always believed that the courts give me at least hope.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: Um, because the courts have saved us from a lot of terrible things in this republic. But again, in a representative democracy like ours, 'cause that is what we are, we have trust in these men and women to go up there and speak the minds of their constituents. And their constituents all aren't one party and they all aren't one demographic.
And so it's almost like they've been derelict of their duty in not speaking up against Trump and just kind of keeping their heads down and ho hum doing the job. I think a lot of them do that too. Well, I think this is a problem across the political spectrum. They remain in office just because of the money and the power.
Ken: The entourage, the attention.
Rina: Awards for doing nothing almost. I mean it's, it's kind of laughable that we've created an entire class of Americans that are above the average retirement age in this country, which is somewhere between 61 and 67. Whole crop of folks that go to Congress and stay out how? Oh, wait until death.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: I mean, it is, it is just,
Ken: They get, they have to be carried out.
Rina: Yeah. So many people look at Congress and feel kind of betrayed and, and that there's no hope in it anymore because they know these people just stay to become fat cats. I mean, genuinely, if you're not leaving, what are you doing?
And, and I, I think term limits I can, the best case I've heard against them is that, well, it doesn't leave people enough time to come and have the impact they wanna have. Like, so be it. So then they're gonna be forced to try to have that impact in a shorter, truncated timeline. But really going back to kind of what these people are consumed with, the fact that there's no ban on insider trading is a huge tell.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: The fact that so many of their net worth just grows and grows and grows over the years, though they've held no other jobs outside.
Ken: And we know what they make.
Rina: Indeed.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And then, uh, just a real desire to be relevant. I think that's why so many of them don't leave. 'Cause they fear again, won't have that, that fanfare that they're so used to.
Ken: Yeah
Rina: It, it's almost like a coming down off of that. But that's not mine and your problem. We are the taxpayers who pay for them to go up there and really advocate for us. How many of them advocate for us anymore?
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And I don't even know that they're advocating for the right thing. I mean, there were good Republicans who were so concerned about Trump and the Paris Accords and, and this horrible hand.
Ken: The climate, the climate, international climate accords.
Rina: Exactly. Just the flat out denial he's done of climate change. That, that
Ken: It's a hoax,
Rina: It's a sickening thing when you know that there, even in my beautiful Native West Virginia, there are rivers and streams that are contaminated with literal poison. Toxins that are causing people to get sick. So why do we have a president that is again, doing this?
And to answer my own question, it's because he knows that distraction is the best way to slip other things through.
Ken: Yeah. Yeah. One of the moments when I, I really sort of thought this second term was going to be bad, was in the consideration of the great Big Beautiful Bill.
When all of the investments that had been made under the Biden administration in red states for clean energy, battery plants, uh, electric vehicles, all manner of investments that were being made in red states. And there were plenty of Republicans going to the ribbon cuttings. It was gonna be more jobs, it was gonna be more tax revenue. All good things. They didn't vote for the bill, but that's okay.
Biden, you know, Biden kind of gave him a wink and said, I know you didn't vote for it. This is an American
Rina: Oh yeah.
Ken: Effort to, you know, to green our energy supplies and compete with China. But when, when Trump came in and just, you know, just said, it's all a hoax and we have to end everything that Biden invested in, even in Republican districts and states, they just, so many of 'em just stayed silent.
Rina: I mean, hundreds of billions of funds, public, private funds. And um disproportionately
Ken: And jobs.
Rina: Right. And disproportionately going to red states.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: I mean, the logic there would be okay, just kinda let that one go. People you know, over time will, will figure out that these are there, I'm looking at where were the top districts that saw most, uh, of the billions in factories, like EVs and uh, and solar and batteries. These were deeply red. In Georgia, North Carolina, Nevada, Texas. I mean, when you're creating jobs in rural and suburban red communities and you're not saying anything about those people not having voted for it, I think that's a true statesmanlike stance.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And I think that's what we can credit Biden for, but when we're talking about there being no lasting political insulation for that, that's a real missed opportunity on the Trump administration's part.
Ken: I felt like it was, I, I thought that would really undercut a lot of environmentalists and Democrats.
You know, it, it just didn't cross my mind. I mean, I have seen over, over years I've seen. You know, the tea parties say, well, we shouldn't even build highways.
Rina: Yeah.
Ken: Block the highway bill. But this is something very different. And I've taken a lot of this Trump stuff very seriously. It's, people have commented on it. But that's, that's how I do my environmental policy and politicking.
Rina: I love that, Ken, because why wouldn't you take it seriously? This is about how
Ken: How could you not.
Rina: The country and, and what you just said right there again, the missed opportunity on, on economy and jobs and growth. This is should be nonpartisan.
Ken: Totally. And it's the cheapest energy now, right? I mean, we're going back to coal that costs more. Didn't used to, but it does now.
Rina: Right. I just think that it's, it's nonsensical — that these leaders resisted preserving these subsidies.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: Constituents, I hope, tell some of these people how they feel, but I do think most people are tuning in.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: Because they, they're tired of the chaos and, and Trump knows that too. He knows when it's too chaotic. Everybody's not tuning in fully. And in fact they're tuning out because they're sort of like, okay, it's too much.
Ken: Yeah,
Rina: It's too much.
Ken: I'll live my life somehow without that channel.
Rina: I mean, with the Biden stuff, there was no chaos.
So that's why I think. The mainstream media zeroed in on his health so vehemently obviously he was in decline.
Ken: Mm-hmm.
Rina: Not everybody makes it to the age of 80 and behaves the same.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: I, I was in shock the other evening to see Trump at the podium in the House of Representatives for the state, uh, state of the Union, because he's not that much younger than Biden.
Ken: Right.
Rina: And the fact that he seemed very perky and no letting up on the gas. Uh, that was surprising to me. But again, aging hits different people differently. Everyone's different. Yeah. I just think that because the Biden administration didn't engage in the chaos strategy that this administration deploys every day of the week, then
Ken: That's interesting.
Rina: They were able to unfortunately have a target on their back.
Ken: Yeah. One of the things that caught my eye, uh, with you in the last couple of years, and there've been many 'cause I see you all, like I say, I see you all the time on my screen, was when you raise concerns about RFK Junior as the nominee for HHS, and you know, you're, you're someone who trained in as to the master's level in public health.
So you might well have been someone who rose through the ranks if you'd gone into government and been a high official now at HHS or FDA or whatever. And we would've been well served by your, our attitude to build bridges and, and compromise, if, if we'd had that. So say a little bit about speaking out on Kennedy's nomination.
We, of course we opposed it here for a lot of different reasons, but what caught your eye there? He seems very like Trump in many ways. Uh, and the way he approaches debates by just making them go away. Or like, instead of, you know, having gold standard science, which would mean a scientific debate, just firing scientists who disagree with them.
What was your early warning sign? As someone with some public health background and a family of doctors. They must have been calling you up. Say this is a disaster.
Rina: Well, I th, I think they know that I'm, I'm very, very much, uh, disturbed by the a Secretary Kennedy. I still believe Trump should rescind him because — the vaccine stance.
Ken: Yeah, the vaccine stance. I agree.
Rina: Toughest one for me. And it's, it's personal actually. My, my late dad, um, was a polio survivor. And so, uh, a lot of why dad passed away is 'cause he had post-polio syndrome, which weakens your, your muscles. Uh, internally.
Ken: Yeah, yeah.
Rina: And, um, he contracted polio at age three in Africa at a time where people here in the US were getting polio vaccine, my dad was not. He was a surgeon. He was able to operate for eight hours at a time. His right shoe was built up, uh, because his leg was shorter.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And so every one of his shoes were built up and, and yes, it was absolutely amazing. He was a real life Superman, just knowing that if he'd had access to that vaccine. That wouldn't have been a story. And maybe he'd still be with us today.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And so I, I think for dad, if he were alive today, he'd be completely gobsmacked, by the idea of this Kennedy, in, you know, in a cabinet role, telling Americans that vaccines are not safe.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: With the measles outbreak in Texas.
Ken: And South Carolina, even now, there were up to a thousand cases there.
Rina: Right. I, I mean, it's just a really disturbing, disturbing thing. I mean, he, I know RFK Jr has brought attention to a lot of under-discussed issues. Chronic illness, the roots of those, uh, illnesses. Uh, environmental toxins, obviously. Food additives.
Ken: Yeah, yeah.
Rina: Food system reform.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: You know, I know these are areas where EWG, you are champions, but he's also shifted the conversation in the Republican party towards health is a core issue, which means something.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: But again, kind of, not just softly or indirectly pointing to that crowd of generally homeschooling mothers who are nervous about whatever vaccine for their kids.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: He's elevated those people.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: To the point where I don't think the criticisms he gets are unfounded.
I'm, I'm glad he's seeing a lot of challenges because in, in the polling that I've seen, people are showing that they are concerned about his performance.
Ken: They're very concerned.
Rina: It's a mixed bag.
Ken: After all his criticism of the medical profession, parents still trust their doctors.
Rina: Yeah.
Ken: They mistrust him on vaccine policy.
Rina: Yeah. 60% overall disapprove in KFF data.
Ken: Yeah. Yeah. It's interesting because time, and again, Kennedy will say that the, the medical profession's been corrupted by Big Pharma and so forth, and yet he'll always fall back on the point that you should just have a conversation with your doctor.
Well, where are all these crooked doctors then. Why are they, what's not fitting together here? And, you know, people do trust their family doctor, and, you know, none of the doctors in your family are making money by what they prescribe.
Rina: No. No, they're not. Absolutely not. And I think that's, that's a huge misconception.
And, and certainly there was a point in time where the pharmaceutical industry had a choke hold on American doctors. Yeah. I mean, seventies, eighties. I remember when I, I was born in the eighties, but. There were, you know, reps that were, their sole job was to entertain the doctor and his family
Ken: Yes, of course.
Rina: And take them on these lavish vacations. And all this, and give them all this swag. So in my own home I remember there being like Cipro pens and stuff like that. And I just remember like my, my dad was not a prescriber, like in that way. Of course he prescribed, but he was a surgeon more.
So, you know, he didn't have the challenges his friends who were internal medicines had. I would go over to some of my dad and mom's friends' houses and they were, you know, family physicians or internists. I mean, everything would be drug company, like the Post-It notes even.
Ken: Yeah. Yeah.
Rina: So that branding came from, yes, them wanting doctors to prescribe their stuff and there was a heavy hand on that. But there's been serious legislation over the past 25 to 35 years.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: That has really made it difficult for a doctor to be genuinely owned by a pharmaceutical company. I mean, there, there are certain areas, pain and addiction medicine where.
You know, people could make some claims, but I mean that, we are such a litigious society, let me put it that way. That I, I don't think we're seeing in American medicine what we saw years ago. Uh, you are seeing because it's a, a, actually, actually not as lucrative as it used to be. You are seeing a more of a, a servant minded physician leader go in.
Ken: Yeah, that's been my impression.
Rina: Yeah. It's been really fascinating.
Ken: And you see them online now. More of them. Some, oftentimes speaking out against things Kennedy has said, and I'm encouraged by, you know, doctors in everyday life just saying, okay, I'm gonna turn on the camera and I'm gonna.
Rina: I think they should.
Ken: Talk about my lived experience.
Rina: Yeah, you know, uh, we should definitely meet, uh, Dr. Vin Gupta, who's up in New York City. I think a frequent guest on MS Now.
Ken: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Rina: He's great. He's got a real service mind too, and I think
Ken: Absolutely.
Rina: He happens to be also of Indian descent like me. I think for many of us who grew up with fathers or mothers who were in the service profession.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And, and my mom ran my dad's clinics for many years. Yeah. And in addition to a, a, a very large staff, it was about this do good, you know, do good for your fellow man. Particularly in impoverished areas where, where we've had rural clinics, I mean, you see people come in that haven't had access to a hot meal or a hot shower, you know, they've got a lot of things going on, uh, malnourished people.
And, and all you can say is that that is the place where, you know, we need to be talking most about how to really make sure we strengthen the safety net in this country. I think that is the one thing that this administration has disappointed me greatly in the second term on — it's a lack of regard for Medicare and Medicaid recipients.
Ken: Yeah. I'm very worried about that.
Rina: Government's job is to help those that can't help themselves.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: The young, the poor, the, the sick and the elderly.
Ken: And in many cases there, you know, there's significant overlap with environmental pollution — those are the, the communities that are most afflicted.
They're the communities where they often are underinsured or uninsured. They won't have access to the same safety net that had a year ago because of some of the changes in the, in the law last year. And I've said to several people, environmental protection in some ways is built on the control of infectious disease by public health professionals.
That allows us to worry now about environmental pollution and its chronic, uh, effects on health because we, we have this baseline that's been taken care of. That's driven by acceptable vaccination rates and protection against measles and polio and mumps and and so forth. If that starts to erode, the public health profession's not gonna say, well, we need to keep focused on lead poisoning or some of these more complex environmental exposures.
They're gonna rush to the emergency, and the emergency is going to be measles, it's going to be mumps, it's going to be pertussis, it's going to be all those diseases that we can control with vaccines.
Rina: I just think to continue to paint out doctors is a problem, is a really terrible thing that RFK Jr. is doing because.
There is no greater trust, and this, again, another nonpartisan view than the relationship. And, and it, it's a trust relationship between a patient and a doctor.
Ken: A hundred percent
Rina: Or any provider, even if you've got a nurse practitioner. I think he's, he's really by not having any formal training. I, I think he's doing a real disservice to the country.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And that's why I had, um, I had said, uh, I believe on CNN, that I believe that Dr. Marty Macari or Dr. Scott Gottlieb would've been better people and could still be if Trump chooses to rescind this guy. Because I'm not entirely sold that he is a bridge to getting independence to become Republicans. No, I mean, he is just, he is somebody who's distracting from the priorities that this country has on a public health level.
Ken: Yeah. We'll have to see what the midterms bring, but I
Rina: Oh yeah.
Ken: We've been commenting quite a bit on social media lately that his decision to support Trump in the executive order to make more of this weed killer glyphosate by under, you know, defense authorization conditions. A lot of Maha moms feel really betrayed by that. And they’re right to feel betrayed.
Rina: I was very excited about the MAHA movement at first. It's vaccines that's turned me completely off. I actually even attended a MAHA Roundtable.
And so I got the invitation for the second one, but it was, um, oh, it was on the epidemic of vaccine injury.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And I was a total, whew.
Ken: Hard no.
Rina: Yeah, because it's like really? Because the one I was at was really good. It was about school lunches. And these were really great moms who were up there talking about how they're getting everything local from, the meats even. And
Ken: So exciting.
Rina: It, super exciting.
I had meant to stay for like 20 minutes just to see what it was all about. I ended up seeing like an hour and a half, 'cause it's a great concern to me. I have children. And my children are very small and I, I don't get much right in motherhood. In fact, every day I think I'm being a hashtag bad mom.
But, I do pride myself on making their lunches and snacks fresh every day. And they are in, um, Planet Box, which are, it's a great company. I love them.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: Yeah. Uh, I've been using Planet Box for years and, and these are just stainless steel reusable, so easy with my faucet just to wash them quickly.
Absolutely. I, I don't have these plastic things that I'm putting in a dishwasher worried about.
Ken: The microplastics and all the rest,
Rina: The chemicals. None of it
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And my kids know, I even send dipping sauces and little stainless steel. They know their, their utensils are stainless steel.
Ken: So if you're, you're just, you're basically saying if something opens up here at EWG, you'd be a good, you'd be a good candidate.
Rina: I'm a big fan.
Ken: I think you might be
Rina: My kids even eat off of stainless steel plates, I, I'm just so concerned about kind of, all of the leaching of the toxins. Coming off the, the materials that we have just normalized for ourselves and giving these tiny, tiny babies, these all plastic bottles. I mean, when I was growing up, we just didn't even have anything that had that many components.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And sure we weren't taking water bottles to school.
Ken: No, no.
Rina: We were drinking from water fountains
Ken: No. When did we get so thirsty? Exactly. Well, you know, and, and I have to say, we look at the MAHA Moms and except for the vaccine part, which we looked the other way from. I regret that now I should have paid more attention to what was happening with that dynamic.
But they're EWG people in many ways, right? They, they're worried about what's in their food, their air, their water. They don't want to have tons of ultra processed food. They want to make sure that we have a food environment, as it were, that offers other choices that are affordable and accessible.
All good things, not things Kennedy worked on directly before he went to support Trump, by the way. He was not a food policy guy, we never saw him in those debates. But still, he got the idea and it allowed him to not talk about vaccines during the campaign, which I think they didn't want him to do.
But now it is, it has turned out that it's harder to make lasting real change in food policy. Most of the jurisdiction for environmental protection is not under Kennedy, and they're deregulating just as fast and deeply as they can over at EPA, uh, and energy and interior. So he's brought along a lot of people with big promises and one after another, at least by my estimation, I think even in vaccines, ultimately it won't pan out.
I think ultimately, the decisions he's making defacto now, will be overrun by the march of science, ultimately. So he can make the decisions now 'cause by fiat because he has that power. But in order for them to really stick, he really does have to have gold standard science and go up against the best scientific minds that have a different approach.
And that's how you resolve these debates, not by firing the scientists that disagree with you, you.
Rina: Evidence is so important.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: I mean, I remember when Obama and and Bush would come out even with charts, I mean, that wasn't uncommon. This president doesn't bring a single shred of evidence that is normal.
Ken: They don't show their work.
Rina: No, they don't. And if they do put up a picture or a graph or something, it's highly questionable.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: Because let's not forget, this is a president that lied about his inauguration numbers in the first term
Ken: From the start? Yeah. Like day one. Yeah. And then he got his press secretary
Rina: To double down.
Ken: To double down. And that's the dynamic that is, has been more than anything disheartening to me knowing so many Republicans here in Washington and in just in life. I know so many of them. I know you're disappointed to see people not speaking truth to power. Just, just running for, for cover.
Rina: Well, I always say I stay in the Republican party to be an agent for good and change.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: Because what happened to me 10 years ago, easily could have pushed me out of the party and I could have said, I'm an independent now, I'm a Democrat now. We're a multi-party system.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: Or so we like to think. But the reality is we are a duopoly. And yes, the independents are growing in number. When you live in this town, you kind of have to pick a side and I, I don't wanna be pushed out, I'll tell you that.
I'm, maybe I'm a little too arrogant on that piece.
Ken: You don't strike me as the kind of person that's pushed out very easily.
Rina: Exactly.
Ken: I think you got that from mom and dad too.
Rina: I think I did. And it was, you know, one of those moments where I had to say, is this worth fighting for? And now 10 years later, I can absolutely say it was because I stood up for what I believed in.
I stood up against an injustice, what was wrong. They had no right to do that when I had become the number two vote getter. Out of 160 people a ballot. And so I, I just knew that I had to stand my ground. But in standing my ground, in this town, I've also realized a few things — is that there are people here who will keep their mouths shut because they are tired of having to defend their decision.
And also because their decision was one that was more about being against the other side than being for this side. That's kind of what I've seen with many a Republican who supports Trump, uh, that may even go and work in one of these agencies. The way I, I see them, these people, is that they feel that they aren't able to do anything outside of what they've got their sight set on.
So they'll do it, but they'll stay quiet about the tough stuff. Because why rock the boat for themselves? Why ruin a good thing, when this is probably a job that has a nice price tag attached? You know this, there's a lot of power and money concern in this town because it all leads back to somewhere. And as humans, I get it.
We wanna be tribal.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: I mean, I know there's a growing crop of us that are anti-Trump. Uh, particularly with my organization, our Republican legacy, which, uh, Senator Jack Danforth of Missouri, Missouri and I we're, we've, uh, he created the org. He and some others. He is, uh, right now our, our figurehead and just a gem of a, a human.
Ken: Yeah, he is, of course.
Rina: He's got so much fight in him. He, uh, he asked me to co-author a Wall Street Journal op-ed with him this past fall in October. It was, um, titled Republicans, uh, ditch MAGA and, and so, you know, we were sort of making the case as to why Republicans need to abandon.
Ken: Take their party back
Rina: Yeah. And I, I think there's a growing sense that we can do it because Trump can't be here forever. And, uh, if he tries there's certain things in the Constitution that prohibit him from doing so. But I also believe that there are people out there who don't feel that JD Vance, the vice president, has what it takes to be
Ken: The successor.
Rina: Mm-hmm. The, yeah, to be the person who carries the mantle for, for Trumpism or MAGA or for MAHA, like he just doesn't have it. But certainly from a lot more people, I do hear that there was a silent Trump voter this last time. And many women my age, you know? Who would never tell you that they did.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: Because they felt so betrayed by Biden on the economy. Now here we sit.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: Over a year out from Trump having taken office and we see the economy isn't any better.
Ken: No.
Rina: So I think voters are hungry for not just a bridge builder, but somebody that's gonna really roll their sleeves up and get it done and be creative policy-wise.
Not do this nonsensical stuff of, let me just issue these tariffs across the board. And if you're really aiming at China, why aren't the tariffs against them much higher?
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: So he's not ever able to explain to the American people why he does what he does.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And the next, uh, leader of the Republican Party, I think will have that. Will have to explain.
Ken: Well, let's hope so. Um, and I just wanna thank you and, and tell you how much I admire your courage and uh, your consistency. It's inspirational. I'm not one who thinks institutions protect themselves. I think institutions a, actually, are very malleable, and that the only thing that matters is the people in them.
You know, you, you just decided to stand up and say, no, this, you know, the way our process works, I should be represented. I earned the votes and refused to believe otherwise when you were challenged because you have the evidence. So I look forward to the day when Republicans like you are the ones in charge.
When we can have these conversations about all manner of issues and come out the other side and not just be friends, but be allies for the common good, 'cause that's how you strike me, my friend. I'm so grateful that you took some time to be on the show with me today.
Rina: For having me here and you give me hope that wherever there's a wrong, there'll be somebody who makes it right, 'cause that's what you've been doing in your work and in your life. So thank you.
Ken: Thank you. It's good to be in the foxhole with you.
Rina: Indeed. Thanks again.
Areas of Focus Food & Water Ultra-Processed Foods May 28, 2026Why Virginians Are Paying Billions for Dominion’s Data Center Gas Plant
Make it make sense: At a time when Virginians’ bills are being hit by soaring fuel costs, yet again tied to never-ending wars overseas, Dominion is proposing what would be the second-largest gas plant in the United States. Never mind that clean energy is both cheaper and its fuel-free, unlimited and unaffected by foreign affairs. You and I will finance this unnecessary three-gigawatt behemoth in Cumberland County, and AI data centers will use the electricity.
Dominion keeps repeating the false claim that “Virginians” are using more electricity. It’s simply not true — residential electricity demand is relatively unchanged in recent years. Over 90% of projected demand is from data centers. In the absence of Big Tech leeching ever more electricity from our collective grid, the insanely oversized Cumberland Gas Plant would look even more like what it is — a cash grab.
It’s a winning formula if you’re a wealthy CEO like Bob Blue, who in 2025 made $15,219,108, including a $4.5 million bonus and $9 million in stock awards. Data centers increase statewide electric demand, your company builds enormously expensive gas infrastructure to serve them, and captive Virginia customers pay you back, plus a handsome profit. Better yet, all of the risk of volatile gas fuel costs goes directly to households and other electric customers.
So if you’re already struggling to pay — or not paying, and risking eviction in one of the highest eviction-rate states in the country — your electric bill, well, that’s a bummer. Dominion is about to add more fuel charges, and on top of that, it wants you to finance their newest enormous gas plant, plus interest, to serve data center electric demand. It’s all just cash under the mattress to Bob Blue and Mark Zuckerberg.
Exactly how much will this gargantuan plant cost you and me? We don’t have the exact numbers yet, but consider that the recently approved 1-gigawatt Chesterfield gas plant, large for a gas plant but diminutive in comparison to Cumberland, is projected to cost ratepayers over $8 billion once fuel and Dominion profits are added to already billion-dollar construction costs. Common sense would indicate that Cumberland, three times as large, could cost us three times as much. Just checking — could you and your neighbors maybe cobble together $24 billion? Zuckerberg and friends could really use the favor.
To add injury to insult, on top of the added costs to your electric bill, gas plants like Chesterfield and Cumberland are an insidious, often invisible adder to annual healthcare costs. Indeed, a Southern Environmental Law Center report found that pollutants like fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the smaller Chesterfield plant would saddle Virginians with an additional $3.5 billion in health costs.
A few years ago, the war in Ukraine sent gas costs spiking. We will continue to pay those fuel costs for decades, because policymakers chose to spread them out over time as opposed to causing sudden short-term increases. This was, of course, before data center demand caused massive short-term increases anyway.
Now, the United States’ foray in Iran has caused oil and gas costs to once again skyrocket (by the way, Shell reported $7 billion in profit last quarter, up 24% from last year). So long as Dominion continues to choose volatile, costly gas over local, affordable clean energy, these deferred fuel costs will continue to stack onto one another for decades — locking today’s foreign conflicts into decades and decades of high energy bills.
What’s maddening is that there is very clearly a better way. Clean energy has rapidly become the lowest-cost source of electricity in the world, with solar and wind costs falling dramatically over the past decade. The International Energy Agency has called solar power “the cheapest electricity in history.” As technology improves and battery storage becomes cheaper, experts expect clean energy prices to continue declining, making renewable power even more affordable for homes and businesses.
The good news is that Virginia lawmakers have wisely chosen to chart a long-term path towards a more stable, clean energy future, and Gov. Abigail Spanberger has made energy affordability a major focus of her tenure. But decision points like Chesterfield and Cumberland test policymakers’ commitment to affordability in real time. Virginia families quite literally cannot afford to keep shelling out billions for corporate profits, volatile fuel prices and endless new data center demand. We must ask that these policies and campaign commitments to people over corporate profit hold fast.
Op-Ed by Victoria Higgins, CCAN Action Fund’s Virginia Director, initially published in Richmond Times Dispatch.About the author: Victoria Higgins is the Virginia Director for CCAN Action Fund. Her career in environmental advocacy began with Green Corps, a rigorous training program for environmental organizers.
She worked on campaigns with Mighty Earth, Conservation Colorado, and Environment Virginia to hold corporate polluters accountable, pass state climate policy, and limit plastic pollution in Virginia’s waterways.
She received a Master of Science in Energy Policy and Climate at Johns Hopkins University.
The post Why Virginians Are Paying Billions for Dominion’s Data Center Gas Plant appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.
Challenge to West Newton fracking consent heads for court
Legal papers have been submitted to the High Court in a legal challenge against plans for lower-volume fracking at an oil and gas site in East Yorkshire.
Campaigners opposed to the West Newton oil and gas site in East Yorkshire.Photo: West Newton Said No
The case, brought by local campaigner Peter Lomas, seeks to quash the Environment Agency’s decision to permit the operation at the West Newton-A site in Holderness.
The site operator, Rathlin Energy, plans to inject liquid and proppant into the West Newton-A2 well at pressures high enough to fracture surrounding rocks.
The operation is intended to make oil and gas flow more readily to the surface and allow the commercial exploitation of the well.
The A2 well is drilled through the chalk aquifer, which supplies water locally. The West Newton-A site is 882m from the Lambwath Meadows site of special scientific interest.
The caseThe case papers set out Mr Lomas’s three main reasons for applying for a judicial review of the decision:
- The EA breached environmental permitting and water protection regulations by failing to recognise the prohibition of inputting hazardous substances into groundwater. The EA has admitted an error in law by stating there would be an “indirect input” into groundwater. In fact, there would be a direct input. As a result, there was insufficient information for the public to comment, making a consultation so unfair as to be unlawful.
- The EA breached its responsibilities on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, facilitating public participation and understanding the effects of proposed work on the climate.
- The EA erred in law by granting Rathlin’s request for a variation of its environmental permit to allow fracking, without first reviewing the Hydraulic Fracturing Plan (HFP). This is a required document that aims to manage the risk of seismic events caused by fracking. Rathlin submitted the HFP to the EA three hours after the decision to allow fracking had been issued.
Peter Lomas said today:
“As can be seen by the grounds of my challenge it’s important that I oppose this environmental permit variation as far as I can.
“The regulators need to be held accountable at all stages of the environmental and planning processes. Scrutiny is paramount, as is transparency throughout all processes.
“Playing with figures, percentages and confusing wording when it comes to the very real risk of our precious drinking water being compromised is not negotiable. The risk of seismic events is a reality, it’s not an untruth.
“We simply cannot sit by and do nothing about it in the hope that it will all go away. We must all act and that’s why I’m acting as an individual, in the hope of quashing this permit variation.
“I thank everyone so far that have helped me in realising my legal challenge, and I hope that this will be a catalyst for others to follow suit.”
Fracking using large volumes of liquid has, in effect, been banned in England by a moratorium, in force since 2019.
But lower-volume fracking, like that proposed at West Newton and at Burniston in North Yorkshire, is allowed.
Environmental campaigners have described this as a legal loophole and urged the government to ban all forms of fracking.
- The campaign group, West Newton Said No, has launched a crowdfunder to raise money for Mr Lomas’s legal fees. At the time of writing, it had raised more than £2,000 from 36 donations. The target is £20,000.
Official climate advice on onshore oil and gas underestimates risks – campaign group
The campaign group behind a landmark legal judgement on carbon emissions has criticised official advice to government on the climate impact of onshore oil and gas.
Methane emissions from a UK onshore hydrocarbon site.Photo: Clean Air Task Force
The Weald Action Group, which secured the 2024 Finch Ruling at the Supreme Court, said the Climate Change Committee (CCC) may have underestimated the climate risks from onshore petroleum operations in guidance to ministers.
The CCC is required by law to provide advice to the government every five years on how onshore petroleum extraction in England affects the UK’s ability to meet its climate targets.
Earlier this year, the CCC told the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, greenhouse gas emissions from conventional onshore petroleum production in England were “a small contributor to carbon budgets and Net Zero”. The CCC also assumed that emissions would decline as onshore sites matured and closed.
But the Weald Action Group (WAG) said in a response this week that the CCC’s assessment was “incomplete” and not “a robust basis” for determining whether onshore oil and gas operations were compatible with UK carbon budgets.
In a letter to the CCC chair, Nigel Topping, the group said this year’s advice “failed to reflect the current reality of the onshore petroleum sector”.
WAG also said the CCC relied on assumptions that were “inconsistent with observed industry activity and regulatory practice”.
The CCC did not appear to have taken into account new expansion plans by onshore operators, WAG said. It said the CCC’s conclusions contradicted previous support for tighter limits on oil and gas production and a presumption against further exploration.
WAG also suggested:
“the assessment used to inform the Committee’s advice is incomplete and therefore underestimates the climate risks from onshore oil and gas under current policy and regulation.”
Expansion plansWAG identified eight proposals to expand onshore oil and gas in the UK.
The plans include four sites in North and East Yorkshire (Burniston, Foxholes, Ebberston Moor and West Newton), three in Lincolnshire and North Lincolnshire (Wressle, Whisby and Glentworth) and one in Dorset (Waddock Cross).
WAG said a moratorium on further onshore petroleum development would be a “reasonable and logical position for the CCC to adopt”.
Regulatory failureWAG also said the climate impact of onshore oil and gas was compounded by a failure of regulators to ensure disused wells – a source of methane emissions – were decommissioned in “a timely manner”.
WAG said:
“evidence from multiple UK onshore sites indicates that decommissioning is frequently delayed, increasing the likelihood of prolonged emissions from inactive or suspended wells”.
The group accused the onshore sector of deferring well abandonment and site restoration for as long as possible “due to financial constraints, a reluctance to incur costs where funds are available, or broader political and strategic ambition”.
WAG said this was abetted by a “laissez-faire approach” from the industry regulator, the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA).
The group said the NSTA had allowed Star Energy to schedule decommissioning of the South Leverton field in Nottinghamshire in 2028, even though production had stopped in 2020-2021.
WAG added that at Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road shale gas site in Lancashire, the NSTA extended the deadline for decommissioning wells beyond the expiry of planning permission.
“Questionable data”WAG also said the CCC had relied data on methane emissions from upstream oil and gas activities recorded in the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI).
The group said:
“There is doubt over the reliability of using NAEI data to estimate the impact of the onshore sector on carbon budgets – particularly regarding methane emissions.”
The CCC relied upon a production emissions baseline based on what it admitted was “limited publicly available information”, WAG said.
It added that research in 2023 indicated that the NAEI data could be underestimating true methane emissions, particularly from onshore venting.
New Florida Scrub-Jay Mural Delights Visitors in Downtown DeLand
New Mexico has the nation’s best DER interconnection policy: report
The state received high marks for its robust energy storage interconnection framework, frequent public reports on its interconnection queue and incorporating IEEE’s technical standard for DER interconnections.
Transcript of EWG podcast 'Ken Cook Is Having Another Episode' – Episode 56
Long before “Make America Healthy Again,” or MAHA, existed, there was Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine): A self-described hippie, back-to-the-lander, certified organic farmer, and the first woman ever elected to Congress from Maine’s first district.
Since taking office in 2009, she has relentlessly fought pesticide preemption, championed SNAP benefits and school nutrition programs, and pioneered legislation on food waste and organic agriculture. She’s been fighting for healthier lives long before MAHA was a movement.
Now MAHA has arrived, promising to achieve in a news cycle what Pingree has spent decades trying to accomplish legislatively. MAHA Action's president recently sent a memo to Republican Party leadership calling the movement “a once in a generation political gift to the GOP" and pledging $100 million to elect Republicans in the midterms.
Meanwhile, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., once a prominent voice against toxic pesticides, now celebrates executive orders by President Donald Trump expanding glyphosate production, even as former pesticide lobbyists take key positions at the Environmental Protection Agency.
MAHA was pitched as a bipartisan effort – but reality tells a different story. In today’s episode, EWG co-Founder and President Ken Cook talks with Pingree about the contradictions between what the administration says on MAHA and what it’s actually doing on policy.
And that’s the real divide: between those doing the difficult work of governing and achieving real results, and those packaging that work into snappy branding and social media posts. One is measured in years of policy fights and incremental wins. The other is measured in headlines and clicks. Yet only one of them changes the law to protect the public.
Disclaimer: This transcript was compiled using software and may include typographical errors.
Ken: Hi, I'm Ken Cook and I'm having another episode. And I'm wondering if any of you have had an episode like this, because it pertains to MAHA. And specifically I wonder those of you out there who you know adhere to MAHA principles, hope for the success of Make America Healthy again, I wonder if you know that MAHA, that was supposed to be bipartisan and nonpartisan, is anything but now. I'm referring specifically to a memo from the President of Maha Action, Tony Lyons, and this is a memo that he sent to the top political leaders of the Republican Party: the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, the Chairman of the committee that elects Senate Republicans, the chairman of the committee that elects House Republicans. And the subject is, making Maha a permanent part of the GOP coalition. That's right. And it was CC'd also to Senate Majority Leader John Thune and the speaker of the house, Republican Mike Johnson, all Republicans. And here's how it starts, the executive summary: just like MAGA Make America Great again was eight years ago, The Make America Healthy Again movement is a once in a generation political gift to the GOP. It promises to expand the Republican base and help the GOP win future elections, in the midterms and beyond.
In sending this memo along to these GOP political leaders, Tony Lyons pledged to raise $100 million, the president of MAHA Action, $100 million for the midterms, solely to elect Republicans.
Now, the reason I bring this up now is because the guest on my show today is one of the revered legislators in the space of trying to make agriculture and our health work together. Everything from organic farming, because she is an organic farmer, to nutrition programs, to reducing pesticide use, to trying to do something about food additives. My guest today, Chellie Pingree, is central in Congress to all of those efforts.
But it turns out she's a Democrat. In fact, she's the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee that considered a spending bill earlier this year that had a provision in it that MAHA hated. And that provision, uh, would have eliminated the liability of pesticide companies like Bayer Monsanto, producer, seller, marketer of Roundup, and glyphosate, the active ingredient.
That would've prevented them from being basically exempt from liability by changing the preemption provisions of federal law to make sure that state law couldn't be used, such as failure to warn provisions in state law, that that couldn't be used as the basis of court cases against Bayer Monsanto. That was the foundation of the case by the way, that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. HHS secretary was on the legal team of. Uh, the very first Roundup case, uh, that awarded millions of dollars to a groundskeeper who developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Well, this provision would've made it impossible to pursue those kinds of cases under state law because it said basically only what EPA says about cancer or only what EPA insists beyond a label matters, not what states decide, might be relevant to preventing exposure to carcinogens.
Now, the person who killed that was not a MAHA Republican of the sort that Tony Lyons and MAHA Action wants to exclusively elect. It was Democrat Chellie Pingree. Long before she was a lawmaker representative Chellie Pingree was a self-described hippie, a back to the lander, and a certified organic farmer on North Haven Island off the coast of Maine.
Her unique background shaped a career spent taking on some of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. Since she arrived in Congress in 2009, the first woman ever elected to Congress from Maine's first district by the way, she served on both the House Agriculture Committee and the Appropriations Committee.
She pioneered legislation on food waste, fought pesticide preemption provisions year after year, including most recently, a measure sponsored by Republicans only, on the House Appropriations Committee. She championed full SNAP benefits and support, nutrition support for low income families, school nutrition programs, and organic agriculture.
She was doing all this when some others weren't paying attention that should have been paying attention, and she's worked to try and get Democrats to focus more on this. Mostly she's done this without much fanfare and too often without enough company. Of her fellow legislators. Now MAHA has arrived, Make America Healthy Again, promising to do in a news cycle what Pingree has spent decades trying to accomplish legislatively.
The movement talks a big game on ultra processed food, toxic chemicals, the broken food system and pesticides. But the record so far tells a different story. RFK Jr. Cheered a Trump executive order expanding glyphosate production.
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, the world's most widely used weed killer, made infamous by Monsanto that is now owned by Bayer. Why? Because pesticide lobbyists now run the EPA. Yes, the Environmental Protection Agency, run by pesticide lobbyists in this particular sphere. And no, of course, it doesn't make any sense.
Now SNAP, the single most important tool for getting healthy food to struggling families is in the crosshairs of the Farm Bill Republicans are pushing right now. I've known Congresswoman Pingree for, we're, we're not really sure. We tried to figure it out, but it's certainly decades. We don't wanna do the numbers.
She's really one of my heroes in the realm of food and agriculture and public policy, and where environment and health and agriculture intersect with social justice. Thank you for being with us Congresswoman. I'm also proud to say we've had the good fortune to work with your daughter, Hannah Pingree. Who is also a distinguished public servant in her own right.
Chellie: That is so true. She's a rock star. I'm just glad she's not running against me 'cause I'd have to drop out. She's way cooler than me.
Ken: She is the bomb. Well, thank you for joining. Uh, I know you're so, so busy and there's a number of topics I wanna, I wanna try and cover with you, but I wanna start with something.
Because I, I noted it at the time. It was just over a year ago, you wrote an op-ed for The Hill, in which you asked the question, "Make America Healthy Again, question mark… let's see if they're serious." And you went through a number of issues there. Agreed with MAHA and, uh, their leadership. The food system's broken.
No one has been more eloquent in describing how it's broken and how we should try and fix it than you have been over many years. Congressman Pingree, you've been very vigilant to make sure that we understand that you can't Make America Healthy Again if you have hungry people, and especially hungry kids, that we need to worry about pesticides and microplastics and PFAS, and you mention all of these in your editorial.
You also mention what Kennedy talks about all the time, the, the chronic disease epidemic that we're facing, much of which is related to what we eat and the need to crack down on food, chemicals, and ultra processed food. You laid it all out at the very beginning, just before the inauguration.
So let me ask you now, as you appraise the Trump administration or the, the MAHA movement, Congressman Pingry, what, what do you think? Have they been serious? Where have they been serious? Where have they been producing policy vaporware?
Chellie: Yeah, really good question. Thank you. That could take up about two and a half hours of our time, and in some ways you could say the jury's still out.
And Ken, thank you for the great work that EWG does on these very areas, because I know we're really aligned on so many of these topics. I guess there's two ways I'd look at it. There are times when my colleagues say: hey, RFK, you know, misses the mark on a variety of things. So I can't listen to a thing that he said, you know, earplugs in, he's done.
On the other hand, there's this sort of school of thought, look, we're not in power, we're not in control as a, as a Democrat or even, um, certain ideologies, but what can we win while we have the opportunity? And I guess I would say that's more my side of this equation. There are battles that we've been in.
Whether it's with toxic chemicals or healthy foods that we haven't always been able to get, you know, a win, whether it's the Democratic side or Republican side. Sometimes it's just that nobody sort of cares about this, or we're up against huge lobbying entities that we can never beat. So my feeling is, look, there's some things that they're talking about clearly around the food is medicine side, this idea that you know what you eat really has a huge impact on your health.
But we have to make sure that it's not just window dressing and it's not just, you know, some, some great applause lines, but it never comes to anything. And we have to be sure that they don't dismantle the good things we already have at the USDA or other programs that we care about.
So, on the one hand, I mean, I'm thrilled they're talking about ultra processed food and saying, you know, how do we actually regulate it? What do we go about doing? I'm glad that they're talking about toxics in the environment and you know, eliminating pesticides. I'm concerned when they say things like, “Hey, we're gonna just really support regenerative agriculture at the USDA,” but on the other hand, maybe don't support organics or don't support some way of determining, when you say regenerative agriculture, are you still saying you can use glyphosate to kill the weeds?
You know, how are you gonna go about doing this? So you gotta have some specifics there. And I'm also really worried about this administration overall, which doesn't come through RFK necessarily, these proclamations. But they've already done a lot of damage to our SNAP benefit program, which is really the fundamental way that people who are barely making ends meet afford more healthy food.
And we're just about to go into a markup of the Farm Bill finally. And I am worried that, you know, SNAP could be harmed, programs like GusNIP, which is, you know, the way people get access to healthier fruits and vegetables and adds to their SNAP benefits aren't being enhanced.
And some of the things that we've already lost at the USDA, one of which was the program that helped pair up farmers producing healthy foods, going into school lunches and food banks was already destroyed in an earlier program, and we haven't been able to get it back. So that's a long, sort of chaotic way of saying, hey, the jury's out.
I'm gonna be with you anytime. You know, we can make some improvements here, and if you're willing to take on the pesticide industry with me, you know, RFK, I'm all in. But if this is just window dressing as it has been in some ways with this administration at the EPA level where they've backed down on some things like both glyphosate and pfas, dicamba, you know, like we've already seen them sort of backtracking.
Then I don't want them getting all the glory and it just being kind of bullshit.
Ken: Yeah. I, I'm with you on that. And you know, Jane Black recently wrote a great piece for the New Republic, uh, for TNR. Where she sort of asked the question, where are Democrats? Why are they letting this issue be taken away from them?
And of course, the Democrats I think of immediately that deserve the credit and I think have not gotten it, are people like you and Cory Booker and you know, Jim McGovern, who was on the podcast a couple weeks ago. And so many others that I've worked with, EWG has worked with in some cases for decades.
And it is frustrating. It's also frustrating. I, I know that you were a big supporter of First Lady Michelle Obama when she was saying many of the things that, uh, Kennedy has been saying recently. Uh, saying them from the, really, with the strength of the Oval Office behind her and alignment of agencies.
But at that time, Republicans weren't having it. It was the nanny state. Uh, you know, you can't help but think the person who was saying it determined their views, uh, to a, a disturbing degree more than the the substance of what she was speaking about. How do you think about the issues generally?
Mostly it's been Democrats standing up and I'll give a great example, and you were the exemplar of it recently. I don't know how many times and how many Farm Bills we've had to fight back preemption types of provisions invariably offered by Republicans. Sometimes it was on animal welfare in California or Prop 65 in California.
It last, uh, couple of years, it's been pesticide preemption. But you're the one in the appropriations process, a Democrat who stood up, and I don't think any Republicans, correct me if I'm wrong, stood with you to stop that preemption provision from just moving through on a spending bill. How do Democrats sort of step back into what I think they deserve, as, you know, certainly work to be done, but you've been there, Democrats have been there on these issues for many years.
Chellie: Yeah, it's an interesting case study and, and you're right, I just read the Jane Black, uh, story myself, and in there I say you know, I spend a lot of time trying to convince my colleagues that this is an important and relevant issue, and that has actually been true since I came to Congress.
Ken: I've watched you do it in rooms with your colleagues.
Chellie: Yes, I have. Yeah. And when I first came, you know, I had worked on a lot of prescription drug pricing issues and I thought, oh, you know, this is gonna be my fight. And I got in there and there were a hundred people in the Democratic caucus lined up to fight on healthcare and prescription drugs. And virtually nobody wanted to go to the agriculture committee in those days.
And if they did, it was because they represented a particular commodity or a state, or they felt it was their obligation. Now that has changed and you see a lot more Democrats who wanna be on the Ag Committee, and many of them really stand up and fight for SNAP benefits and fresh, healthy local food. And we are the ones who sign on to issues, like you said, the pesticide preemption.
When that came up in my subcommittee, I'm the ranking member on the interior. An environment subcommittee, you know, I just said, we're drawing a line in the sand here. I am not standing for this. But it was tough, because there are always those times when people even on my side of the aisle say, hmm, you know, I don't know how that's gonna go with the farmers in my district and I wanna take it on.
All that said, we are the majority of the people who have been in this fight with groups like yours over the years. And the interesting thing about the story was saying, you know, now the attention is coming through MAHA and this idea that this is sort of RFK and the MAHA groups that thought of this for the first time when we've been toiling in the, you know, sort of organic regenerative, healthy food spear for a long time.
Now, for me, I've just said, as I said earlier, look. If there are MAHA moms or people who feel they identify with the MAHA movement, they're gonna stand up and care about this. You know, let's have a conversation and let's work together. So one of the things we really did in that committee hearing and, and during that debate.
Was to make sure that we were contacting all of the activists on the MAHA side that we could find and saying, let's talk about this. Let's talk about how we can win on these issues. And for many of them, you know, they came at it through being moms. They came at it through, you know, learning this on social media, on the internet, and didn't really know that, you know, there was a Democratic side or a Republican side.
They really thought that Donald Trump and RFK brought these things up for the first time, and the rest of us were all just sitting in the pocket of the chemical companies. And I was very pleased to see that many of them, highly knowledgeable, you know, just were activists because they cared about these health issues.
And so we've had great success really working with them on amendments and ideas and you know, questions around the Farm Bill or around EPA measures. And I think some of it is just, you know, figuring out, like you've gotta find your allies on both sides of the aisle. You gotta fight to win here. You can't just be like, well I wanna make sure the other side always loses and my side never aligns myself with them because I just think that can be a mistake in politics when our politics is so volatile and it switches back and forth.
All the time. But as to the topic of like getting my own colleagues to understand what a important issue this is to their constituents, it is my eternal crusade, and I'm in the middle of it again right now. 'Cause we're going into another election cycle, and when I had the chance and caucus to explain to the broad cross section of our caucus, like how did we win the pesticide preemption thing.
You know, plug your ears if you're one of the few people who's on the other side of this, but for the majority of my caucus, these are just issues they don't pay attention to or think about.
Ken: Yeah.
Chellie: And they have to be reminded, you know, your district is full of moms, of people who are really worried about what their kids are eating, of people who are worried about their own personal health and why toxic chemicals are appearing in our diet more often, or fertility rates are changing and you need to speak directly to them.
And so I've just been, you know, crusading through my colleagues and saying, if you want my help, I will help you think about what issues matter in your district, how to make connections with those, uh, moms and others, and you need to understand this is a bipartisan or a nonpartisan issue.
A lot of people come into politics because they're mad about you know, sewage sludge being spent near their house or some other toxics issue. And then they start to see like, ooh, look at all the money that gets spent on this. Or how people get co-opted for their vote, or how often, you know, members vote without really thinking through the issue. So I truly believe it's a, it's just a shortcoming right now of, of my side.
And I'm sure you'll agree with me, if you had told me this 10 years ago, that somehow the world would be fully turned upside down and rather than us being the champions of, you know, organic, clean, healthy food, it would be the other side and we would look like we were in the pockets of industry. I wouldn't have believed you, you know?
Ken: Yeah.
Chellie: I grew up in sort of the organic, back to the land movement, and this has always been one of the things I've worked on, but I've seen the conversion of people to the other side because they think we're not paying attention.
Ken: Yeah, it's, it's very frustrating and a lot of it does relate to social media and the fact that that's where people get their information and I think, you know, certainly, um, Kennedy and his followers have been very aggressive and very adept at making this case and finding a villain.
I thought St. Linda Lake's comment in the TNR story that Jane wrote was right on that, you know, Democrats have not been muscular enough.
Chellie: Mm-hmm.
Ken: And we have not been willing to call out villains.
I've, I've always found that, you know, Democrats are, they're sort of shy about taking on or worried about taking on the agricultural establishment. And at the same time, kind of hopeful that if we give them enough subsidies, whether, whether it's solar farms in rural districts or increased subsidies for ethanol or whatever, it may, may be that, that, that farmers will come home.
I don't know.
Chellie: No, it, it hasn't worked. Let's just be clear. It hasn't worked. And I think when you're talking about on the food side of it. You know, we think about the agriculture issue, the Farm Bill and the Ag Committee as farmers, and we talk endlessly about, you know, capturing the hearts of farmers.
But 85, 80 to 85% of it is nutrition and really impacting what people eat. And when you come down to eating, everybody eats, everybody's worried about their health. Everybody's being told by their doctor that they gotta, you know, take more tests or pay more attention to their health or cut back on the foods that are bad for them.
I mean, it's in everybody's vocabulary and we walk away from something really important when we miss that. So it's just stupid not to get this one right.
Ken: It's frustrating. Right?
Chellie: Yeah.
Ken: You know, I, I'm willing to be much more critical of MAHA and Kennedy maybe than, than you are at this juncture.
Just because I think, he made a lot of promises during the campaign and during the transition he was gonna ban all these pesticides. He was gonna ban all these food chemicals. Hasn't done that. In fact, quite the opposite. And you have Lee Zelin, as you mentioned, over at at EPA. I think a lot of MAHA influencers are now realizing that he's in charge of pesticides and that he hired pesticide lobbyists
Chellie: Right
Ken: To run the agency. Uh, how they missed that first time around? I'm not really sure. We all saw it unfolding. And, you know, Zelin has, um, been a, a big advocate of, uh, deregulation, getting the government out of climate change just last week, of course, the greatest deregulatory act in history. He is always very modest about, um, what he's doing and supporting of, of Trump and modest about his environmental ambitions.
And as Churchill once said of a rival, he has much to be modest about in that regard. But, but I find it frustrating that we've replaced authority with influence and authority, meaning knowledge and competency and so forth. Until there's an appetite for that as opposed to more clicks or more engagement and more followers, until there's a real substantive focus, I think it's gonna be very, very easy for people to be duped.
And I, I think a lot of MAHA followers have been duped. I mean, look what's happened at the Supreme Court now. We have the Department of Justice weighing in on the side of Monsanto.
Chellie: I wanna be a thousand percent with you on this. I don't wanna, I don't wanna be misleading. ‘Cause I agree. We now have an administration run by incompetent people who are, uh, for the most part, especially when you're talking about the EPA and the USDA, of ill will are using their power to, you know, damage these systems we've built up over the years.
And going back to DOGE and Elon Musk, they decimated these departments and we got rid of so many competent, knowledgeable people, and particularly at places like the EPA, where they've now eliminated all of the research that they do there and just taken the teeth out of what they're able to do. And the American public expects the federal government, that's one thing, is to take care of, you know, our environment and our health.
And they lie through their teeth about things like the endangerment clause. And you know, I mean, there's so much bad going on over there. And I do think one of the problems with RFK is that he sort of came in as a crusader running a presidential campaign. And then said, I'm gonna fix agriculture and the chemical system and, you know, make food healthier for people again.
And he has absolutely no ability to influence any of those other agencies. They're just doing, you know, the bidding of this administration. So RFK is sort of the ultimate huckster in that kind of way. It's been interesting talking to the, uh, some of the MAHA advocates who came into my office and said, “wow, you know, we were really surprised that they signed onto this Supreme Court brief in favor, you know, of Bayer” and exactly what you said.
You know, they started a petition, some of them, to fire Lee Zeldin because all of a sudden I think it did occur to them again, you know, earnest citizens in a sense who didn't have, you know, a huge like, you know, handbook of civics and how these things work came in thinking, well, RFK has told us this stuff and it's gonna work.
So yeah, I don't wanna think we can let our guard down at any moment. I'm only trying to win a few things here and there and make sure we, we do that and, and again, make sure, whoever gets credit for it, you know, that the Democrats realize these are important issues. And that's sort of what brought them in.
I mean, again, another thing that story said is that for many of these people, they're sort of saying like, “Oh, well I voted for Trump, but maybe, you know, maybe I should consider the other side.” I mean, one person actually said to me, are there Democrats who would be in favor of these issues we care about, you know, that we should consider in the next election?
And I was like, you know, what the hell? You know, like, yeah, just to be clear, let me show you this letter, you know, with a hundred of my colleagues on here who are mad about these, you know, pesticide preemptions or whatever it is. So yeah, I mean, it's just a reminder that we all have our work cut out for us on this stuff and that this election will be really critical and we can't let people get hoodwinked again by these guys who are just the worst possible intent.
Ken: No, I, I think that's exactly right. And one of the things that really sort of bothers me now there, you know, there's sort of the MAHA rank and file, lots of mom. Some are there for the vaccine hesitancy or oppositions. A lot of 'em are just there for the food.
A lot of 'em are republicans, some are independent. There’s polling on all of this. So it's a very diverse movement, but at the top of it, that's political. They are dedicated and they have a rally on the, on a Zoom call almost every Wednesday. They're dedicated to maintaining GOP control. I mean, that is the objective that they talk about, rallying around Bobby, making sure we retain the House and the Senate.
So that we can continue forward with this winning agenda. And I think that's where I'm, you know, I'm wanting to see more crossover for MAHA rank and file to think about that in exactly the way you just described.
Like, well, you know, there is another alternative and if you were to go down the list of people who've actually done things: introduced legislation, tried to get things passed opposed, bad things, most of that column is gonna be with Ds next to their names. And to me to say, well, we're, you know, we're, we're in play, we might go Republican or we might go Democratic. At this juncture in this administration, how on earth could you see a choice?
Chellie: But I do think you're right. It's partly because of the politics of this administration and strong arming people and saying, hey, you know, you're either with us or against us. You gotta stick with us here. And sort of this weakness of Democrats not standing up and saying, but this is our agenda.
You know, we are the ones fighting for your ability to have good health. And to make sure your kids are safe and that they get a healthy school lunch and that you can afford to eat these fresh fruits and vegetables and the healthy foods that are gonna make you feel better. We lose that at our own peril, or we don't talk about that at our own peril.
You know, we're coming up to a, a Farm Bill markup, and I give Angie Craig credit because one of the things she's done. From the start is to say we're drawing a line in the sand on the pesticide preemption thing,
Ken: Which is in the house Republican bill, right?
Chellie: Yeah. They've put that in the bill. Yeah. So we'll have an, I'll probably do the amendment and we will fight back on it, and we're hoping that there have been enough MAHA calls into some Republicans on that committee who actually feel, you know, that they don't need it in the bill.
And there'll be, you know, a lot of fighting in that markup about SNAP benefits and you know, the ability to afford healthy food. And a variety of other things that I think are really important part of this agenda. Now, very little of America tunes into a Farm Bill markup, let's just be clear.
But yeah, again, you know, it all depends on, you know, what gets clipped and recycled on social media and what do people see, and I think it's a really important time for us to make those statements and people to be able to say like, who's fighting for you and who's going against you? And then keep up that drumbeat as we go into the, you know, next round of elections.
Ken: Well, I know where you'll be, you'll be at the front leading along with other Democrats on that committee. And Angie's a good example. Jim McGovern's on the ag committee too. It's gonna be a time to, I, I'm not saying pull out the popcorn, I'm thinking, it's better to show up rather than just to watch. Let's, let's encourage everyone to participate, call your members and, and weigh in please. Because it is hard for people to pay attention.
Even when you look at the complexion, sort of, of the Democratic caucus, as you say, until recently, people didn't wanna necessarily get on the Ag committee if they represented suburban and mostly urban constituencies. And the Farm Bill vote was for many years, kind of a throwaway or you know, they'd make a deal in exchange for something they wanted. Very natural part of everyday politics. But now I think we see the stakes are pretty high. And a lot is riding on the leadership position.
Mr. Thompson has a very different set of views about agriculture than MAHA when you lay it out and um, I'm, I'm hoping those contrasts come through.
Chellie: Yeah. And he got in a fight with one of the MAHA people because he, he stated in a, a political article or something that the people who were opposing the pesticide preemption were extremists and that really upset a lot of MAHA moms, which created a lot of social media attention.
So, and there's already setting it up for a fight. And, uh, I think they're already feeling a little bit of the pain, you know, maybe they should change the language or something else. And again, that's just one small issue, but we have to be making, you know, a real serious point on every one of those kinds of issues so that people can hear over and over again.
Who's worrying about your health? Who's really fighting the chemical companies? You know, these are fights that you don't have to do a lot of persuasion because people generally don't like chemical companies and don't wanna have toxics in their food or their environment, but you gotta make sure they know what's going on and, and how they fight back.
I mean, politics has gotten so just exhausting for people right now because it's a daily assault of, you know, ICE in the streets or international issues, or just so much conflict in the Epstein files. You know, it just sort of reins down on you every day.
But also I think it's been helpful to try to help understand a little bit that, for instance, people who have been struggling with this healthcare cost problem, which is, you know, affecting more and more people. Whether it's through the loss of the tax exemptions or what's coming with Medicaid and the impact on rural hospitals or everything else, everybody feels a, a problem with the cost of healthcare, but a lot of that happened in the big ugly bill.
And, you know, they took away the money for healthcare and gave it to ICE. They took away the money for, you know, things that you cared about, like, um, SNAP benefits and food for people who are struggling and gave it to ICE. So suddenly people are like, wait, that's why there's so many of 'em in the street.
You know, that's why they wanna build this detention center in, you know, Southern New Hampshire or Eastern Oklahoma or wherever it is you are. So it's complicated, but you kinda have to pull people into all these issues and say, hey, I know you're just focusing on this ICE detention center, but the reason they've got all this money is they took away the money from hungry people.
Ken: Yeah. People talk all the time about kitchen table issues? Well, there's no place where the kitchen table is centered more than the Farm Bill debates. Look into the crystal ball. Now you've been pretty good at looking into crystal balls. Over the years, you've been someone who's, you, you, you have really seen a lot of these issues over the horizon that other people have not seen.
Where do we end up after the Ag Committee finishes its work? They report a bill out. It goes to the floor. Obviously we have a parallel process in the Senate. And we wanna remind people that that's, as that unfolds, many of the same fights will have to be waged over there as well. But how do you think this is going to end up, and one of the, this is the, this is a little bit of a nerdy question.
You know, but back in the day, and I really am dating myself, there was a time when enough Republicans and enough Democrats could come together to at least threaten a floor amendment to make a change in the Farm Bill, to preserve SNAP benefits, to move money out of the big subsidy programs, or at least limit them so we have enough for conservation and rural development and other issues.
That was always, uh, to me, the, the antidote to a kind of not great bipartisanship, which was let, let's just get as much money Democrats and Republicans to the farm subsidy lobby, and the rest will be rounding errors or will hold steady.
But the bipartisan push for reforms, I mean, this goes back to, you know when Sherry Boehlert, people like that around Ryan Kind, obviously on the Democratic side. Talk a little bit about how you see the post-committee process unfolding in the House. They'll probably try and move the bill to the floor pretty quickly, I would, I would guess, if they can. But what do you think it will look like and do you think there will be any opportunity to stage some at least protest votes?
If not, try and win some amendments on the floor if there's bad things we need to fix.
Chellie: Yeah. Very good questions. You know, the, the crystal ball is more murky than it ever was. As you might recall, you know, we've had. I think the most recent Farm Bill, where we really couldn't come to an agreement in the House.
And it took the Senate to write a more, hospitable Farm Bill that then had to come back to us, which isn't usually how it happens. 'cause usually we do find this sort of coalition of people who, you know, take a little from the subsidies, a little from here. And had we been able to do the Farm Bill prior to the Big Ugly Bill, Big Beautiful Bill, it was called, we might have had a little more latitude for that because I think GT was getting pretty close to, you know, making a deal. 'cause we could move some money around.
You know, the, SNAP program had a little bit of money that we didn't wanna give up, but might've gone over here. There was extra conservation funds that were gonna go over here. And then you had the CCC, which is this big sort of pot of money
Ken: Big piggy bank for Trump.
Chellie: Right, exactly. Well, and a lot of that got taken away in the big ugly bill. So the cash that usually sort of softens the blow on some of these things has disappeared.
Ken: It's spent.
Chellie: Yeah. They spent the money. It's, and then, then you've got the tariff problem where Trump has just created himself an enormous nightmare that has been really damaging to so many farmers.
He's already had one bailout. I mean, we've heard that maybe the total bailout is closer to like. $40 billion. I mean, it's lots and lots of money that they actually need to do these bailouts to help out all the commodities that have been harmed by his kind of crazy and unpredictable tariffs. So you throw that into the mix, it's much harder to figure out how we could have a floor strategy, how this does anything, but just get through the floor perhaps on a partisan basis.
Or maybe they don't have the votes again, to do it. Because we don't have as many Democrats who will say, yeah, I need to pass a Farm Bill, I'll just bite my tongue and go along with it. Because they've put so many either poison pills in there, maybe some of them will come out, or they've done so much damage to the SNAP program. Now whether the Senate can actually, you know, make this all, make the magic happen and try to come together with something, I mean, I, I think they could get the poison pills out, but whether there's enough money in there to make everybody whole, I'm not sure.
But you know, it's sometimes not revealed till it's revealed. So, you know, we kind of have to see what the tenor of the markup is. Does anything, you know, come out after that. You know, that, you know, GT and the Republicans really wanna move this Farm Bill. I mean, it's, it's getting pretty old and it really is time we're working on the next farm bill, honestly.
So it's like a lot of other things that have just lost their functionality with this administration. With less competent executive branch secretaries and others, and with this sort of bleeding of the funds and staff to do the thing. So it's hard to tell.
Ken: Yeah. Well those are all the question marks over this process after assuming the fireworks end in the, in the committee, but I don't think they will.
I think we'll see more spill over into the floor and we'll see if anything can be done about it. I just want to thank you for, uh, and again, just point out to people that when you think about leadership on an agenda that you might call the Michelle Obama agenda, you might call the Michael Pollan agenda, you might call the organic agriculture, sustainable agriculture.
Any agenda that you would associate with progress on our food system going after processed food, encouraging more fruits and veg, you have been the leader, Congresswoman. You have been the leader time and time again, and I know you have, you're gonna give credit to lots of other people because that's your nature.
But I just want to single you out right now, 'cause I got you on a, on camera, to thank you. It's been an honor to work by your side for many years. And we're still right there, so, uh, let's try and get something done.
Chellie: Well, we're, uh, once again in the fight of our lifetime. So, Ken, thank you for, for taking the time to chat with me and for all of your gracious compliments, but really I am so grateful for EWG and the work that you do and the unique niche that you guys occupy because it's really been so critically important on so many of these issues and in a very broad spectrum of the things that we care deeply about.
So thank you for that. I look forward to continuing this fight and we will somehow navigate this and I do believe in the end, you know, we're gonna win here. We're gonna win on these things, but it's a tough slog right now.
Ken: I agree. Well, I, Congresswoman Pingree, I will see you in the foxhole.
Chellie: I look forward to it. Thank you so much.
Ken: Thank you to Congresswoman Chellie Pingree for joining me today, and thank you out there for listening.
If you'd like to learn more, be sure to check out our show notes for additional link. To take a deeper dive into today's discussion, make sure to follow our show on Instagram at KenCooksPodcast. And if you're interested in learning more about ewg, head over to ewg.org or check out EWG's Instagram account @EnvironmentalWorkingGroup.
If this episode resonated with you or you think someone you know would benefit from it, send it along. The best way to make positive change is to start as a community. With your community. Today's episode was produced by the estimable Beth Rowe and Mary Kelly, and our show's theme music is by Moby.
Thanks for listening.
Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Farming & Agriculture Farm Subsidies Pesticides May 28, 2026“La gente estaba feliz con el cambio”: las monitoras ambientales que transformaron el barrio El Estadio en Costa Rica
Mayo, 2026
Costa Rica enfrenta una crisis de residuos con sus rellenos sanitarios casi al límite de su capacidad. El Municipio de León Cortés, por ejemplo, envía el 85% de sus residuos al relleno sanitario, y solo un 14% tiene como destino el reciclaje. Esta situación ha llevado a una proliferación de proyectos de incineración en el país, amenazando tesoros de biodiversidad como la zona Monumento Natural de los Santos, una zona rural y cafetera donde ocurre parte del proyecto de soluciones basura cero que presentaremos a través de la experiencia de Yoselin Zuñiga.
Yoselin Zúñiga, monitora ambiental del proyecto Lideresas del cambio.© Camila Aguilera.
Yoselin vive en el barrio El Estadio, en León Cortés, y fue una de las siete promotoras ambientales del proyecto Líderesas del Cambio, impulsado por la Asociación Defensores del Monumento Natural Zona de los Santos. El proyecto nació con el fin de buscar soluciones desde el origen del problema y de llegar con esas soluciones a la vida cotidiana de las personas.
El proyecto comenzó con un estudio de composición de residuos que arrojó que el 60% de los residuos de los hogares que iban a participar en el proyecto correspondía a residuos orgánicos que terminaban en el relleno sanitario. Por otro lado, el municipio ofrecía retiro diferenciado, pero faltaba potenciar la educación ambiental para generar los cambios que se necesitaban para que existiera un compromiso a largo plazo por parte de los hogares.
“No era citar a la gente a un salón y decirles qué hacer. Era ir a sus casas, adaptarse a sus horarios, compartir un café, conversar”, comenta Yoselin.
Promotoras ambientales, el corazón del proyectoMonitoras ambientales.
La mayoría de los hogares que participaron en el proyecto estaban compuestos por mujeres que sostenían las tareas del hogar y que, por lo tanto, tenían dificultades para salir de la casa y asistir a charlas o talleres. Por eso, las siete Lideresas del cambio eran mujeres del mismo barrio, también jefas de hogar, que compartían un lenguaje común y sabían cómo abordar la cotidianidad del barrio para sacar adelante el proyecto.
“Queríamos demostrar que las mujeres somos la primera base del hogar en lo que tiene que ver con reciclaje y compostaje”, explica Yoselin. “No desde un discurso feminista, sino desde la realidad cotidiana. Somos quienes sostenemos gran parte de la casa y también podemos impulsar estos cambios”.
Para cumplir la misión de hacer las visitas domiciliarias, las monitoras recibieron una capacitación de 16 horas para fortalecer sus capacidades técnicas y habilidades sociales, prepararon materiales educativos y fichas de monitoreo.
Llevar la educación ambiental a cada casaUna de las decisiones del proyecto fue evitar capacitaciones masivas o charlas impersonales. Las conversaciones de las tres visitas que estaban contempladas para los 175 hogares que se sumaron al proyecto ocurrían dentro de las casas, en horarios acordados con cada familia. “No es lo mismo llegar a entregar un afiche que sentarse a conversar con alguien que ya conoce a la persona que le está hablando”, comenta Yoselin.
Recorrido por el barrio El Estadio, Costa Rica.Las visitas se adaptaban a cada familia y fue un acompañamiento en el que se enseñó a compostar, a segregar y a reducir. Algunas personas aprendían escuchando, otras necesitaban ver ejemplos o tocar materiales. Por eso llevaban portafolios con muestras y apoyos visuales. “La idea no era solo ir a decir cosas. Era que realmente captaran el mensaje”.
Compostaje, menos malos olores y menos basuraEl proyecto contempló la gestión de la fracción de orgánicos desde el comienzo. Quienes querían compostar en sus propios patios recibieron orientación y, quienes no podían hacerlo, tuvieron la opción de acceder a retiro diferenciado. Para ello, se articuló un trabajo con Ovejas Verdes, el programa piloto municipal de gestión de residuos orgánicos, que envía los residuos a Coopetarrazu, la planta de gestión de orgánicos industrial más grande de Costa Rica, donde el compost generado vuelve a productores de café.
Visita a la planta de compostaje de Coopetarrazu.“El orgánico fue lo que más le gustó a mucha gente”, recuerda Yoselin . “En la segunda visita me decían: ‘Los gusanos se me quitaron de la basura, los malos olores, las cucarachas también’”.
“Uno pasa una semana acumulando residuos orgánicos en una bolsa y claro que eso genera malos olores. Cuando empezaron a separarlos, el cambio se notó de inmediato”.
“La gente me acogió muy bonito”Si bien cada paso que se dio permitió consolidar cambios sostenidos con impactos ambientales positivos, también se buscaba impulsar una transformación social a través del fortalecimiento del liderazgo de las promotoras y que el barrio El Estadio se convirtiera en un referente ambiental en el cantón.
Yoselin dice que una de las cosas que más la marcó fue la forma en que las familias abrieron las puertas de sus casas.“Entrar al hogar de alguien siempre es delicado. Uno podría pensar que la gente se va a sentir incómoda si le dicen qué hacer con sus residuos”. Pero ocurrió lo contrario. “No tuve malas caras de nadie. En la segunda visita ya me decían que llegara a la hora del café o del almuerzo para compartir”.
Para Yoselin, buena parte de los resultados tuvieron que ver con la cercanía. Ese enfoque permitió que las familias se sintieran parte del proceso y no simplemente receptoras de instrucciones. “Si alguien no podía un día, reprogramábamos. Todo era muy accesible. Entonces las personas también se comprometían”.
El miedo a los basureros clandestinos y la amenaza de la incineraciónAunque el proyecto mostró buenos resultados, Yoselin dice que todavía existe preocupación por el futuro de los residuos en la zona, “Sabemos que tenemos un problema. El problema de los plásticos de un solo uso, de la contaminación tan grande que hay, de que los rellenos sanitarios ya no dan abasto. En la zona ya las municipalidades no tienen contratos con los botaderos de basura. Y lo que más miedo nos provoca a nosotros como asociación y a nosotras como promotoras son los basureros clandestinos”, explica.
También menciona la amenaza de una incineradora proyectada para la zona, “Si llega el momento en que la municipalidad no tiene dónde llevar esa basura, ¿qué va a hacer? La gente va a tirarla donde pueda o van a poner la incineradora. Una incineradora que sabemos que en San Pablo León Cortés tiene los permisos firmados. Entonces, nosotros necesitamos dar a entender que sí se puede, que el cambio se puede hacer.”
Para ella, la solución no pasa solamente por gestionar mejor la basura, sino por reducirla desde el origen. “La idea no es pasar la vida buscando cómo resolver los residuos. La idea es que no se generen”.
“No podemos perder a esas familias”Cuando habla del futuro, Yoselin insiste en la continuidad. “No queremos que esto desaparezca”. Las familias ya capacitadas, dice, necesitan seguimiento, nuevas actividades y espacios donde seguir participando.
Al cerrar la conversación, vuelve a recalcar que el proyecto funcionó porque se construyó desde el barrio, entre personas que ya se conocían y compartían la vida cotidiana. “Fueron más de quinientas personas alcanzadas entre adultos y niños. No podemos perder eso”.
“La gente estaba feliz con el cambio.”
The post “La gente estaba feliz con el cambio”: las monitoras ambientales que transformaron el barrio El Estadio en Costa Rica first appeared on GAIA.
Everlane, Shein, and the myth of sustainable fashion
As a college sophomore with an internet connection during the Obama era, I was instantly intrigued by the promise of the new direct-to-consumer clothing brand Everlane. I don’t remember how or when I found out about the fashion startup exactly; I just remember getting the emails. Launched around 2011 with venture capital funding, Everlane styled itself in a sort-of minimalist, pro-consumer ethos. The idea was simple: sell beautiful clothing made really well — so-called “modern basics” — at reasonable prices. The company made it all the more enticing by amping up the exclusivity factor; like the early days of Gmail, you needed an invitation to shop.
By forgoing brick-and-mortar stores, Everlane, co-founded by Michael Preysman, advertised itself as cutting out the middleman and allowing the consumer to reap the benefits. Initially, Everlane promised its wares — it started with boxy T-shirts — would always be priced at less than $100.
The company embodied a decidedly millennial spirit: the idea that change was not only possible, but possible via simply buying better things. I spent hours pouring over the brand’s email marketing and clothing collections. I got off the waitlist in the fall of 2011 (“You’re one of the first in the door!”, the email read), but for months, I just browsed. Even at their heavily discounted prices, I wondered if $25 was too much to pay for a pocket tee, when Urban Outfitters was just down the street — or if the quality of a $15 box-cut tee would hold up, especially if I couldn’t see or touch it before buying. In the early days, by Preysman’s own assessment, Everlane was operating almost as more of a branding exercise. “I have seen, candidly with Everlane, we’ve had periods where we had okay product when we launched, and the brand carried all the weight,” he told a business podcast in 2024. “Then we had great products, and we had really high engagement.”
From the author’s email inbox. Frida Garza / GristIndeed, over time, the company’s aesthetic and business model shifted as it grew in popularity and reach, and its price point changed with it. In 2017, Everlane announced that its first brick-and-mortar store would open in New York City, where shoppers can still browse $148 jeans and $268 cashmere sweaters today. Its mission also became more ambitious: Everlane announced plans in 2021 to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. The company sought to “empower people to live their best lives with the least impact on the planet — and leave the apparel industry cleaner than we found it.” In its latest sustainability report, Everlane stated the company has reduced Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions by 60 percent since 2019, and reduced per-product carbon emissions by 42 percent.
The brand has signaled its commitment to the planet in other ways throughout the years, including its focus on using certified organic cotton and attempting to eliminate virgin plastic from its supply chain. Additionally, the company has taken the public inside its factories, publishing glossy-looking photos from its facilities in Vietnam, China, Italy, and other countries and tracking which ones use renewable energy and pay living wages.
For these and other reasons, the company mystified consumers last week, when it was sold to the e-commerce giant Shein, which ranked as the biggest polluter in fast fashion last year. Shein offers clothing, jewelry, home goods, and accessories, all for sometimes shockingly cheap prices — the true cost of which is its carbon-intensive supply chain. The sale was orchestrated by L Catterton, the company’s majority owner, according to fashion reporter Laura Sherman who broke the story. (Preysman, who stepped down as CEO in 2022, wrote on LinkedIn that he “found out at the same time as everyone,” and has since announced he would launch another Everlane-esque business with no venture capital or private equity money.) Fashion magazines balked, asking if Everlane’s acquisition spells the end of the fashion industry’s sustainability aspirations writ large. But the sale of Everlane to this particular buyer should turn the inquiry around: Of what use are sustainability goals in the face of hyper-consumerism? Put another way: Was it ever the case that simply buying (more) different things would ever yield a more livable planet?
Consumers, it seems, only want to shop sustainably if it means they can, in fact, keep shopping: A study from 2025 found that even when shoppers are buying secondhand fashion, they’re also still buying new clothes.
The companies’ offerings are, of course, different: Preysman famously told the New Yorker magazine, “You do not get laid in Everlane.” Shein, meanwhile, is a one-stop shop for plunging necklines, revealing cut-outs, sheer fabrics, and ruffles on ruffles. And the methods are different, too: Shein is less of a fashion brand and more of an everything store — a no-man’s land of AI-powered nanotrends — akin to Amazon or Temu. Hop on over to the Shein website, and you can just as easily find a halter top that makes you look like a ladybug or a pair of oversized jorts or buckets of slime. But, for all the hoopla around the acquisition, there are glimpses of Shein’s story in Everlane’s initial pitch, now adjusted for a new generation of shoppers accustomed to ultra-convenience.
They were both, at one point, online-only stores offering clothes people wanted at seemingly unbeatable prices. And Shein has also apparently taken pages out of Everlane’s marketing playbook, by offering limited glimpses into its factories — albeit, heavily filtered through its influencer-fueled PR machine. In 2023, the platform invited a group of content creators on an all-expenses-paid trip to tour its facilities in Guangzhou, China. One influencer documented the visit in a video, noting that at least one worker was “surprised” about the rumors that Shein factories’ poor working conditions. (The video has since been deleted.) The publicity move was immediately met with criticism for attempting to sanitize Shein’s reputation.
Everlane’s store in San Francisco. Liz Hafalia / The San Francisco Chronicle via Getty ImagesIn fairness, fifteen years after it launched, Everlane is nowhere near the scale of Shein, which reportedly produces 10,000 new items per day. But the question around whether the fashion world can ever truly become sustainable is something of a red herring, and even Preysman knows this — or knew it, at one point. “The word sustainability has been completely greenwashed,” he told Forbes in 2021. He went on: “Show me a fashion brand that claims it is sustainable, and I will show you a fashion brand that is not honest. One can be ‘more sustainable’ but nothing is truly sustainable.” In the end, the future of fashion retail relies on consumers buying more clothes.
I did eventually buy multiple things from Everlane: a canvas backpack that held up really nicely for years; a silk button-down I wore just as much to graduate school classes as I did on vacation. I bought a pair of bootcut jeans after a long, painstaking discussion with a salesperson and a third woman in the dressing room who butted into the conversation.
But I never shop at the Everlane store or website anymore, and that’s because I don’t have to — the thrift stores of New York City are filled with the brand’s clothes. It’s not the only one: On the racks at Goodwill, I can always dependably find at least one Shein top these days.
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Everlane, Shein, and the myth of sustainable fashion on May 28, 2026.
Explore John James Audubon’s Historic Home Outside of Philadelphia
Women’s Rebel Voices: Film (Barbara Dane) and Music Tour (Lara Manzanares)
What happens to the small things when the big things disappear?
Sometimes, the fate of lots of small things hinge on the fate of a few very big ones. Take the story of the dung beetles and the elephant.
For a long time, scientists have warned that the loss of certain “keystone” species can cause outsized disruptions in an ecosystem. At the most extreme, it can wipe out still more species, a phenomenon known as “coextinction.”
While this domino effect makes sense in theory, documenting its occurrence in the wild has proven much trickier. Ecosystems are complex and hard to control, defying easy manipulation or observation. But scientists in Kenya appear to have done just that in an ambitious melding of computer modeling, on-the-ground experiments and detailed observations of the landscape.
The upshot: Insect diversity can hinge on the health of a single giant herbivore species. And that in turn can influence everything from nutrient cycling to seed dispersal. It’s a lesson how shifts in diversity can fray whole ecosystems.
“Our findings underscore the value of conserving elephants, not just for their own sake, but also for the biogeochemical integrity of savannas, the prosperity of pastoral and agro-ecosystems, and the cosurvival of charismatic minifauna,” the scientists wrote in a study published today in Science.
At the center of this is the interplay between dung beetles and elephants, or more specifically, elephant poop.
Dung beetles have earned plenty of attention for their appetite for feces, especially the species that roll animal dung into tidy balls and trundle them across the ground. But that’s a trick done only by some of the dozens of beetles that feed themselves and their larvae on other animal’s droppings. There are the “dwellers” that live in the dung, the “tunnelers” that store dung in holes, and then the famous “tumblers.” All told, scientists from U.S., European and African universities identified 176 different species of dung beetles at the Mpala Research Centre in Kenya, ranging in size from a grain of wheat to a chicken egg.
Elephants, of course, aren’t the only animals depositing dung piles in this part of Africa. But when these scientists set up a buffet of eight different kinds of local dung, a disproportionate number of the beetles showed a particular fondness for elephant dung. Traps set next to piles of elephant poop captured between 1.5 and 24 times more individual beetles and 2 to 6 times more species than any other kind of feces.
That might have something to do with the sheer volume deposited by a typical elephant. But it also appeared related to the animal’s digestive system. Beetles showed a preference for animals that digest plant fiber in their intestines near the end of the gut (elephants and zebras), rather than ruminants that break down food more completely in a series of stomach chambers. In other words, not all poop is the same according to some of the most discerning dung connoisseurs.
.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl , .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {height: auto;position: relative;}.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby:hover , .IRPP_ruby:visited , .IRPP_ruby:active {border:0!important;}.IRPP_ruby .clearfix:after {content: "";display: table;clear: both;}.IRPP_ruby {display: block;transition: background-color 250ms;webkit-transition: background-color 250ms;width: 100%;opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: #eaeaea;}.IRPP_ruby:active , .IRPP_ruby:hover {opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: inherit;}.IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl {background-position: center;background-size: cover;float: left;margin: 0;padding: 0;width: 31.59%;position: absolute;top: 0;bottom: 0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {float: right;width: 65.65%;padding:0;margin:0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text {display: table;height: 130px;left: 0;top: 0;padding:0;margin:0;padding-top: 20px;padding-bottom: 20px;}.IRPP_ruby .IRPP_ruby-content {display: table-cell;margin: 0;padding: 0 74px 0 0px;position: relative;vertical-align: middle;width: 100%;}.IRPP_ruby .ctaText {border-bottom: 0 solid #fff;color: #0099cc;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .postTitle {color: #000000;font-size: 16px;font-weight: 600;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .ctaButton {background: url(https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts-pro/assets/images/next-arrow.png)no-repeat;background-color: #afb4b6;background-position: center;display: inline-block;height: 100%;width: 54px;margin-left: 10px;position: absolute;bottom:0;right: 0;top: 0;}.IRPP_ruby:after {content: "";display: block;clear: both;}Recommended Reading:The insect apocalypse is more nuanced than it first appears
When the scientists plugged the results into a computer model mapping the interactions between all the species, it showed that if elephants were removed from the landscape, it would trigger between 2 and 8 times more extinctions than if any other animal vanished from the area.
But would this digital scenario hold up in the messy real world? To find out, the scientists turned to a series of test plots, each roughly the size of one city block. Some plots were left open to all animals, others were fenced to exclude the very largest animals (i.e. elephants and giraffes), and others were fenced to exclude all herbivores.
When the scientists checked the test sites in 2023, 15 years after their creation, the areas open to elephants were a veritable dung beetle paradise. They had the highest total number of dung beetles, the largest variety of beetle species and the largest total biomass of the beetles. Sites that excluded elephants and giraffes had two-thirds fewer beetles, a 50% drop in beetle biomass and 23% fewer species. The areas without any herbivores had similar losses.
Giraffes were ruled out as a significant factor, because their dung ranked the lowest in popularity in the earlier taste test, where they had a “trifling effect,” the scientists wrote.
The results in the test plots were mirrored when scientists investigated dung beetle populations in nearby ranches where elephants had been displaced by sheep and goats.
Dung beetles’ dependence on elephants likely rippled through the entire ecosystem. Piles of dung placed on the different test plots broke down 35% more slowly in places where elephants were absent. Decomposition is a key activity in an ecosystem, helping to make nutrients available for plants and other organisms. Small fake seeds placed in the dung were also removed at double the rate in plots with elephants compared to those without.
The study not only illustrates the critical role of elephants in an ecosystem, but “also highlights the vulnerability of dung beetles and adds to growing concerns about the decline of insect populations,” Oxford University entomologist Owen Slade and Nanyang Technological University ecologist Eleanor Slade wrote in a commentary published in the same issue of Science.
Indeed, as much as people revere elephants—an feeling probably reinforced by this study – dung beetles are underappreciated ecological heroes. Their work breaking down dung not only helps disperse seeds and spread nutrients, it also reduces parasites and pests and enhances carbon storage. Their presence in the U.K. alone was estimated to have produced some $800 million in benefits to the cattle industry there in today’s dollars.
Talk about spinning feces into gold.
Gijsman, et. al. “Importance of elephants for dung beetle biodiversity and ecosystem functions.” Science. May 28, 2026.
Image: By Bernard Dupont via Flickr
14 Charming Photos That Showcase the Beautiful Bonds Between Birds and Native Plants
California bill tackling toxic ‘forever chemical’ pesticides clears Assembly floor
SACRAMENTO – The California Assembly voted May 27 to advance a bill targeting the use of toxic PFAS “forever chemical” pesticides found in nearly 40% of state-sampled California-grown non-organic fruits and vegetables.
The vote on Assembly Bill 1603 moves the nation’s largest agricultural state closer to phasing out a pervasive source of PFAS contamination. The bill now heads to the Senate.
PFAS pesticides were also found in up to 50% of California surface water samples, and in about 45% to 55% of sediment samples, according to a recent Environmental Working Group analysis.
EWG is cosponsoring AB 1603, introduced by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank). If enacted, it would require these pesticides to be clearly identified as being PFAS and it would halt approvals of the use of new PFAS pesticides in California.
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation currently allows 53 pesticides to be used in the state. Meanwhile, 17 PFAS pesticides approved by the federal Environmental Protection Agency could be added to the state’s crop fields in the near future if not for this legislation.
As approved by the Assembly, AB 1603 would also properly identify and notify the public when PFAS pesticides are used on agricultural fields and require growers to obtain county permits before using the chemicals on crops.
Under pressure from the pesticides industry and some agricultural interests, Schultz committed to removing sections of the bill that would outright ban all uses of PFAS pesticides, a vow necessary for the Assembly to support advancing the legislation.
Other bill cosponsors include Californians for Pesticide Reform, the Center for Environmental Health and the Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network.
“The country depends on California for its fruits and vegetables, but right now they’re being seasoned with chemicals that never break down,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California.
“We cannot claim to lead the world in public health while allowing millions of pounds of toxic PFAS to be deliberately sprayed on our most iconic crops,” she said.
A growing crisis in California fieldsAn EWG analysis of state data found PFAS pesticide residues on 37% of 930 samples of non-organic California-grown produce, including nine out of 10 samples of peaches, nectarines and plums.
Farmers applied 15 million pounds of PFAS pesticides across all 58 California counties between 2018 and 2023. These chemicals don't break down in the environment and can build up in the body, creating the potential for long-term harm.
“As a father, I don't want my kids eating strawberries contaminated with chemicals that will stay in their bodies for decades,” said Schultz.
“AB 1603 is a vital step toward ensuring California’s agricultural legacy is defined by health and innovation, not by the accumulation of toxic PFAS in our soil and water. We need to help our farmers transition away from these persistent chemicals so that California can be a global leader in food safety,” he said.
Why are some PFAS pesticidesPFAS are a group of thousands of human-made chemicals used in a wide range of consumer, industrial and electronic products, in addition to pesticides.
PFAS’ carbon-fluorine bond is among the strongest in chemistry. It is the reason they don’t break down – and the reason they’re called “forever chemicals.”
“The scale of this contamination is staggering,” said Susan Little, EWG’s legislative director in California. “Millions of pounds of PFAS are used on everyday California crops.
“AB 1603 takes a big step forward by immediately banning new state approvals and requiring full transparency regarding their use,” she added.
As these chemicals partially break down over time, they can form other harmful compounds, including trifluoroacetic acid, or TFA, which is increasingly being detected in the environment, wildlife and people. One study estimates that PFAS pesticide use in California could generate between 185,000 and 616,000 pounds of TFA each year.
Emerging research links TFA to reproductive harm and immune suppression, raising growing concerns about its spread and potential health risks.
An EPA analysis noted that 36 PFAS pesticides – 25 of which are registered in California – lack updated developmental and reproductive toxicity tests. Immunotoxicity studies are routinely waived in pesticide applications, despite growing evidence that PFAS chemicals are particularly harmful to the immune system.
“By the time these PFAS residues reach our plates, they have become part of a toxic cocktail that can suppress the immune system and harm reproductive health,” said Varun Subramaniam, EWG science analyst. “That raises serious concerns about the long-term health risks of using these chemicals on food crops.”
“The most troubling part is how little we know about their safety. We’re spraying millions of pounds of chemicals on food without understanding their full health impacts or considering what little we do know. It’s unconscionable,” he added.
California’s agricultural PFAS use means residents of the Golden State get hit twice – through contaminated food and through contaminated water. PFAS pesticides leave residues on fruits and vegetables, and the chemicals get into the surface water that become drinking water.
States leading on regulationThe federal EPA regulates and approves pesticides for national use, but states aren’t required to follow suit. California operates its own approval system: The state’s Department of Pesticide Regulation must independently evaluate and authorize each chemical before farmers can use it.
That gives California the much needed authority to protect residents – power the state has largely chosen not to use when it comes to PFAS pesticides.
While California remains one of the world’s largest users of PFAS pesticides, other jurisdictions have moved to restrict or ban them. In 2023, Maine enacted the nation’s first ban on PFAS pesticides, starting in 2030. In 2023, Minnesota passed a broad ban on nonessential PFAS uses, including pesticides, phasing them out by 2032.
Denmark banned six PFAS pesticide ingredients in 2025. And the European Union has prohibited 23 of the PFAS pesticides heavily used in California, including bifenthrin, trifluralin and flufenacet.
AB 1603 would start to move California in line with these other states and jurisdictions, laying the groundwork for the nation’s “salad bowl” to once again be a public health leader and help ensure what we are putting on America’s kitchen table is free from PFAS pesticides.
“California has been a public health bellwether for decades, from car emissions to chemical safety,” said Del Chiaro. “But we've been silent on PFAS pesticides, even though we are one of the biggest users.
“AB 1603 begins to change that. This is the least we can do for families and communities struggling to contain widespread PFAS contamination in our soil, air, water and food,” she added.
###
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.
Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Pesticides PFAS Chemicals Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 28, 2026What Really Happened to USAID? A Former Civil Servant Tells All
A new book by former civil servant Nicholas Enrich offers an insider’s account of the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)—and the steps he took to speak out against the destruction.
During the early months of the Trump-Vance Administration, USAID was the target of funding freezes, program cancellations, staff layoffs, and more. Federal officials said they were “clearing significant waste, before the agency officially shuttered in July 2025. But Into the Wood Chipper: A Whistleblower’s Account of How the Trump Administration Shredded USAID paints a different picture.
“The agency was dismantled, not because it was wasteful, not because it wasn’t working or inefficient or to better align foreign aid with the President’s agenda,” Enrich tells Food Tank. “It was demolished by a group of uninformed and unqualified sycophants who were working to satisfy the ego of the world’s richest man.” He says he needed to write this book to set the record straight and explain what really happened.
Enrich worked at USAID under four administrations, most recently serving as Acting Assistant Administrator for Global Health. Like any institution, there were ways that USAID could operate more productively, he believed. And before officials from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) arrived, he optimistically prepared a list of ways he thought he could be helpful.
But within a couple of weeks, it was obvious to Enrich that DOGE wasn’t interested in making the agency operate better. The tipping point, he says, is when Elon Musk posted on X in early February that the government had “spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper.”
Just a day before, Musk also called the agency “a criminal organization”—a statement that Enrich says was painful to hear. “I thought there was a certain valor in dedicating your career to public service,” he tells Food Tank. “You felt like this is a country that you want to make better, that you’re willing to make that sacrifice….It was a calling.”
After this, Enrich watched with alarm as life-saving aid was eliminated. Programs to tackle infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria and support maternal and child health were canceled overnight.
“I think people have been focusing a lot on the impacts that have already happened, and they have been enormous,” Enrich says. But it’s the impact on future generations that “really keeps me up at night.”
Enrich and colleagues began to document what was happening, which he compiled into three memos. The first tracked every effort he and others made to re-start the agency’s work and the roadblocks they encountered at every step of the way. The second focused on the destruction of the workforce “that made it impossible to do our work even if we had been allowed to,” Enrich says. The third highlighted the extent of the damage, based on modeling and projections from technical experts.
Enrich knew that distributing these memos publicly would cost him his job, but by that time DOGE was terminating contracts needed to continue USAID’s work. “Once it became clear that’s where we stood, I realized that I was not going to be able to fix this from within,” Enrich tells Food Tank. “And my silence, if I continued, would really be complicity.”
Listen to the full conversation with Nicholas Enrich on Food Talk with Dani Nierenberg to hear more about what made USAID so vulnerable, the impact of the agency’s closure on local communities, and the advice he gives to anyone in a situation like his.
Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.
Photo courtesy of U.S. Embassy Apia, Samoa
The post What Really Happened to USAID? A Former Civil Servant Tells All appeared first on Food Tank.
Statement by the NYC chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace on the illegal sale of Palestinian land
“Tonight, the municipality of Jerusalem and the Israeli Building Center are hosting a discriminatory event in which they plan to sell stolen Palestinian land, open to Jews only. This event is illegal under international law and has no place in New York City.
“Right now, Palestinians across the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem are being expelled from their homes through a coordinated campaign of state policy and settler violence. In East Jerusalem, families are being harassed and attacked while the developers hosting this event build luxury developments available to Jews only.
“The municipality of Jerusalem is directly involved in imposing and administering discriminatory apartheid policies, and should not be hosted anywhere in the city.
“As Jewish New Yorkers, we condemn the sale of stolen Palestinian land and we condemn racist housing practices that discriminate based on race, religion, and national origin. New Yorkers know the importance of fair housing practices and reject these racist events. We, along with Palestinian New Yorkers, know that apartheid practices have no place in New York City.”
Background
Jerusalem Mayor Moshe Lion
The Mayor of Jerusalem will be in attendance at today’s event. He has publicly stated his intention to oversee the construction of at least 100,000 new housing units in Jerusalem, as part of a “Judaisation plan” for Jerusalem.
Illegal annexation in the West Bank
Israel is illegally annexing the West Bank at an unprecedented rate, resulting in over 50 attacks of settler violence and displacing nearly 1,700 Palestinians in the first three months of 2026 alone. The number of Palestinians displaced in early 2026 surpasses the total displaced in all of 2025. Land sales in New York City further contribute to this annexation.
Talking Headways Podcast: Community Severance by Road
This week on Talking Headways, Jaime Benevides and Marianthi-Anna Kioumourtzoglou of Brown University discuss their new paper showing how community severance by road infrastructure and traffic has led to more mental health-related hospital visits in New York City.
We talk about the role of roads cutting people off from social connections and how impacts of roads on mental health were separated out from air quality.
There are three ways of following the conversation: The audio player embedded below; a full transcript generated by artificial intelligence; and further down this page, a partial, human-edited transcript.
Jeff Wood: I think it’s so interesting that you all kind of lasered in on that specific idea of, like, traffic severance or transportation severance because you mentioned, the research and the findings are independent of the traffic-related air pollution, which has been shown to have impacts on things like Alzheimer’s and dementia and other brain health things.
I wonder what made you look past the air quality impacts and laser in on this specific thing that was the traffic and the connections that people are severed from.
Jamie Benavides: On one side, we have scientific evidence on space used in a way that benefits social cohesion and also exercise, and also that this green space benefits mental health as well. You know, like things like parks or green space. But we don’t have awareness or understanding of what happens on the other side of the range of how we use the space in the city, right?
Like, there is a lack of understanding of if we occupy all that open space with, again, huge volumes moving very fast of these machines, is that good or bad for our mental health? So yeah, it was, as Marianthi said, from my perspective at least, looking beyond air pollution and imagining if the city will have still the same levels of noise and air pollution but had another use of space, would it be more healthy or not?
Marianthi-Anna Kioumourtzoglou: Exactly. I think it was similar for me. I’ve been working on quantifying air pollution effects on adverse health outcomes, including depression, Alzheimer’s, all of the above. And I started getting a little bit antsy and frustrated that, okay, we’ve characterized this impact, but two things: One, and so what?
We don’t necessarily see the regulations following in the rate that I would have wanted to protect human health. And so how can we then figure out modifiable, intervenable pathways so communities can protect their residents? And the urban form is one such intervenable pathway. That’s part of it.
The other big part of it is, okay, as we are electrifying our fleet, I will keep saying that the cons of car dependency are not only noise and air pollution, it’s lack of physical activity, it’s lack of social cohesion and in-person social cohesion.
It’s very interesting. We were talking with a colleague of ours who’s from Texas, and Jaime and I both grew up in Europe in very dense, not car-oriented societies, or not so much at least, and our colleague from Texas was saying, “But it’s so easy. I get into my car, in 10 minutes I can go and see my brother. What are you talking about isolation?”
And so that’s a disconnect there because, okay, you are more connected to a family member, but you’re not necessarily connected to our neighbors. Neither of us lives in New York anymore, but we used to live [there] and I did not know any of my neighbors in the buildings I was living in. Maybe that’s on me. But, I think that’s a general trend, right? We don’t know our immediate community, and there’s so much work on the benefits of both physical activity. Even if I have to walk for five minutes to go get a bus, that’s five minutes more than, you know, garage door and driving, right, door to door.
If you have the plaza, as Jaime said, you go there, you interact with the people more. People check in on you. So that’s beyond just removing the air pollution from the equation. There are so many other benefits from reshaping our immediate environment outside of the house to help us build healthier lives that I think we haven’t looked as much, or at least in environmental epidemiology, other fields probably have, but as much into.
Jeff Wood: There was an interesting part of this as well, is like how you split out the air quality impact, which was like looking at black carbon data. And I’m curious about that data, like what that is and how that impacted the ability to split out the traffic impacts versus the air quality impacts.
Marianthi-Anna Kioumourtzoglou: So when we started talking, when Jaime came up with the idea of looking at community severance and mental health and came to me and said, “I want to do this,” and we had the hospitalization data for mental health, my main concern was exactly because of the very big literature on the air pollution impacts on mental health.
My concern was, okay, but if we publish this as is, everybody will just say, “Okay, then it’s just all through air pollution.” Obviously, what you’re capturing is air pollution, so we wanted to see, is it all air pollution, or if we could somehow block the air pollution effect, do we still see impacts? So we used black carbon predictions. Black carbon is a combustion byproduct that is usually associated with traffic in urban cores. And New York City has an amazing program, NYCAS, that has multiple rotating monitoring sites. The number of monitoring sites varies from year. I think it goes from 60-something to 100-something. But they rotate these, and they then integrate these with land use data and traffic data and all other kinds of data to build these pretty high resolution, 300 meter predicted annual surfaces for different pollutants. Black carbon is one of them. And so we then included black carbon in our model, hoping to block the path from community severance to mental health from air pollution. So we said, okay, if we compare now two communities to zip code levels that have the same air pollution, but different community severance, do we see differences in mental health outcomes?
And indeed, what we saw was, as expected, once we added air pollution into the model, our effect estimates attenuated a little bit, became somewhat smaller in magnitude. But importantly, they didn’t completely disappear, which does mean that, yes, air pollution explains some of the effects that we saw, but not everything.
So community severance doesn’t solely act through air pollution to induce the increased rates in mental health hospitalizations that we saw. And I keep saying mental health hospitalizations. We examined multiple causes, but our biggest finding was on schizophrenia hospitalizations, actually.
So it’s not all of it through air pollution, but there are some other pathways, we don’t know exactly how yet, that’s to be, you know, next studies, future studies, but that not through air pollution, that community severance results in higher rates for these mental health hospitalization rates.
Pages
The Fine Print I:
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) unless otherwise indicated and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s, nor should it be assumed that any of these authors automatically support the IWW or endorse any of its positions.
Further: the inclusion of a link on our site (other than the link to the main IWW site) does not imply endorsement by or an alliance with the IWW. These sites have been chosen by our members due to their perceived relevance to the IWW EUC and are included here for informational purposes only. If you have any suggestions or comments on any of the links included (or not included) above, please contact us.
The Fine Print II:
Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc.
It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.
This site is not the official webpage of the Industrial Workers of the World.