B5. Resilience, Third Nature, and Transition

In this conversation, edited and updated, Bioneers Producer Stephanie Welch speaks with Chloe Maxmin. Hailing from rural Maine, Chloe is the Co-Founder of Dirtroad Organizing alongside her best friend, Canyon Woodward. She also runs Begin Again Farm with her partner, Bill Pluecker, growing organic vegetables for her community. Chloe received an honors degree from Harvard College, where she co-founded Divest Harvard. Chloe served in the Maine House of Representatives in 2018 and the Maine State Senate in 2020. She was the youngest woman ever to serve in the Maine Senate and is the co-author (with Canyon) of Dirt Road Revival. (Note: Dirtroad Organizing is a non-partisan organization that focuses on values, not Party. Chloe’s political work does not affect Dirtroad’s non-partisan commitment.)

STEPHANIE: In this political climate, where we’re being told how polarized we are as a country, but there are many issues that a majority of people in the U.S. agree on, such as the need for universal healthcare, a living wage, having clean air, water, and food. Considering your work finding common ground, is it frustrating to hear all the time the refrain, especially in the media, that we can’t come together? How are you feeling about that aspect of our current political climate?

CHLOE: I mean, we are polarized. It’s something I experience in my community, and people who come through our organization, Dirtroad Organizing, are experiencing it, too. The ability to simply have a conversation across party lines is very, very difficult right now, and it takes a lot of intention and thought to make that happen. 

But at the same time, I think that the power of finding common ground still exists. We have to carve out the space to make that happen. We’re told a lot of stories that make it hard for people to hear the other side. This has made it both much more difficult to have space for another point of view, and it has also stoked horrible racism, xenophobia, and violence in our country that has made these bridge-building conversations unsafe for many people. At Dirtroad Organizing, our work is about trying to find the space where you can find that moment to reach beyond. 

There’s definitely a lot of prejudice and judgment on the left about rural voters that voted for Trump, and that’s a theme that rural voters feel. I feel it as a progressive living in a rural area–a kind of remote disdain from the left about folks in my community. People in my community are good people, and they’re disenfranchised and don’t feel represented, and can’t make ends meet. But in so many spaces that I’m in on the left, it feels like I have to make the case that they should talk to people who voted for Trump. 

Of course, some people who voted for Trump are far right extremists that I don’t have space for. But most folks are just trying to find the best way towards a good life for themselves and their families. I hear many folks saying, you know, just trust Trump, it’s all going to work out, he’s going to keep his word. And then I hear other people saying, “I regret voting for him.” I think time will tell, and we’ll see how it shakes out in our elections.

Photo by Henney Sullivan, courtesy of Dirtroad Organizing

STEPHANIE: I was in Iowa and interviewed small farmers and others who were sick of agribusiness and were organizing locally to advocate for busting up monopolies that are killing their communities. I sat with one farmer who showed me his childhood photo album saying: This used to be a vibrant community, we had dances every Saturday night, farmers could earn a living and pass on the farm to their children. And now everything here is boarded up and the town is dead. These are farmers who got arrested in 2008 protesting the Obama Administration for turning its back on homeowners. The rally I went to included immigrant workers dealing with unfair treatment by the meat packing industry, and local labor unions. One farmer, who happened to be a woman, told me we have got to reinvest in rural America, or this country is doomed. But I don’t see a focus on rural communities as a strong part of the current progressive agenda, do you? 

CHLOE: Yeah, I agree. I don’t think it’s represented well at all on the left. It’s a huge challenge. I think it’s one that rural folks feel quite acutely that the left doesn’t quite have the policy solutions that many rural communities need. The issues may be the same, but the approaches that you need in a rural community just look different. It’s complicated.

There’s an amazing book, The Politics of Resentment, focused on rural Wisconsin and how rural folks perceive a lack of support, especially on the policy level, from urban Democratic policymakers. There are many incredible books on this topic that can speak to it better than I can. But it’s a very pervasive feeling among rural folks that they don’t feel represented. The left doesn’t show up in rural communities, especially when they’re campaigning, and so we’ve seen just a systemic disenfranchisement of rural communities’ voices on the left as we’re making this policy. So it’s a circular problem. 

You can’t make policy for impacted communities unless you have those impacted communities at the table, and if we’re not actively organizing and investing in what are now conservative rural spaces, then we’re never going to understand that experience and what we need to be integrating into our laws. This is true for all communities that have not historically been central to Democratic law-making.

STEPHANIE: I find that there are still many people who don’t realize that millions who voted for Obama twice voted for Trump the first time, and they’re still wedded to this idea that there are these stagnant voting blocs. Over and over again, when voters are asked what they care about most, they say the same thing: the economy and the cost of living. And when the Democrats don’t deliver to voters and make material differences in people’s lives, they lose. Is that what you’re finding with voters that you talk to in rural areas? Is that an issue for them?

CHLOE: Yeah, based on my own experience and what I hear from the folks that we work with, I don’t think rural folks see their issues reflected in policymaking. And the challenges they face in their lives have gotten worse and worse. There are now many incredible organizations working to address this, and I do think that the tides are turning for the better thanks to this amazing work. 

Rural voters are privileged in our American democracy just the way that our Electoral College is set up, the way that our Congress is set up. So rural voices have an outsized influence on our policy at the national and at the state level. So if we’re talking about building durable progressive power that truly does advocate for the rights of everyone, we can’t get there unless we’re actively organizing in rural places. 

On the left, I think there’s frustration amongst policymakers that they’re losing ground, and there’s certainly frustration amongst the folks in rural communities. They don’t see themselves reflected in what’s happening with the people that they elect. It definitely feels like a huge mess. So from that perspective, it’s like people needed something different. The politics as usual was not working for rural folks, and, mostly for worse, people saw that reflected in Trump and his campaign. So that’s how I see the reality that we’re living with, people are just desperate to be heard and represented and have their needs met.

I think back to 2018 when I first ran, and talking to so many folks who had voted for Bernie in the 2016 primary and then voted for Trump, and trying to understand what that thread was. I think part of it is that folks felt an authenticity in Bernie, and they felt some form of authenticity in Trump, and that translated. But I think the sense of populism was also a common theme, that they felt like Bernie was trying to advocate for everyone in working class folks, and then they also saw that represented in Trump, and they didn’t see that represented in the Democratic establishment. 

Photo courtesy of Dirtroad Organizing

STEPHANIE: Let’s talk about your work in rural communities in your neck of the woods. How did you get involved in politics?

CHLOE: I’ve always loved my hometown. And growing up, I knew I didn’t share the same politics with everyone that was part of the village that was raising me, but they were all good people, and we shared our core values. 

When I was in high school in 2009, there was no partisan lean amongst rural voters. But then I went off to college, and I met Canyon Woodward, who managed both of my campaigns. Canyon also grew up in a rural red town. And while we were in college, something really interesting was happening in rural America. By 2016, by the time we had graduated, just seven years later, rural voters were swinging to the right by over 16 points. So when we went home after graduation, it really felt like a different world, and that is obviously manifested in 2016 when Trump was elected. My hometown State House district and my hometown State Senate district voted for Trump, and what that policy represented to me felt really at odds with the good-hearted community around me.

So in 2018, I decided to run for State House in my hometown, which had a plus 16 Republican advantage, and Canyon came up to manage the campaign. The work was really just about trying to understand what was happening in rural America and why things went so far one direction so quickly. We ran a campaign that was really based in grassroots organizing and relationship building, and we won. Then in 2020, we ran for the state Senate against the highest ranking Republican in the state, and we won again using the same philosophy of just reaching across differences and building really strong, broad, intentional movements. I served four years in the legislature, and this experience taught us so much about what it means to organize in rural America. 

A core part of our campaign was trying to get away from how things had been done, because that obviously wasn’t working well in our districts or in other districts like ours across the country. I don’t think anything we did was that radical, just minor changes to make our campaigns more representative of the communities we were organizing in. I was very lucky that Canyon had the skillset to create our canvassing universe. It’s basically the list of folks that you go and talk to when you, unfortunately, just don’t have the time to knock on every door.  We really focused on talking to Republicans and independents because it’s a conservative district. 

So many of those conversations were purely about bridging divides and trying to find common ground. It was so shocking how, on a daily basis, we would talk to people who had never been contacted by a Democratic candidate or campaign in their entire voting history. And many people said no candidate had ever come to their door, regardless of political affiliation. It was every day. I mean, it was so wild. I still hear this pattern echoed today with the leaders that come through Dirtroad Organizing, all these years later. They hear the same thing in their rural communities as they are out organizing. 

Photo by Forest Woodward, courtesy of Dirtroad Organizing

In my mind, it’s like, okay, if this person hasn’t been contacted before, maybe there’s a reason why. You know, maybe they’re too conservative to consider voting for someone like me, but that was not the case at all. These were incredible people with incredible stories who truly just wanted to be heard and represented, and we, as the left, had never shown up to hear their stories. Their stories shaped me; stories that I didn’t see reflected in the left and how we think about policy. So it was just very important to me to talk to folks.

I remember one door in particular. It was a trailer in the middle of the woods, down a very long dirt road. I canvassed by myself, which is not safe or accessible for everyone, but it’s what worked for me, and I could see that a guy lived there, and all the curtains on this trailer were drawn. And, you know, my heart was going a little bit. But I went up and knocked on his door, and we ended up having this really lovely discussion. And he said, “You are the first person to ever come and knock on my door, and people judge what my house looks like, and I can just see them drive away.” And that was so touching to me. 

I felt that judgment too when I drove up to the door. But that’s a lesson, you know, not everything is as it seems. And he ended up voting for me. And he kept my palm card on his fridge. It was one of those life-changing moments that challenges how you perceive the world. 

STEPHANIE: Were you finding common concerns among the people you talked to?

CHLOE: This was now many years ago, but I was surprised that the biggest thing that I heard was that people just didn’t feel represented. It was like everything had failed folks so much that it wasn’t one particular issue anymore, but just the system in general was failing people. And everyone has very specific examples in their lives of how politics has failed them. It was a sacred priority for me to actually represent my community once I was elected. I didn’t want to go hear stories and then go sponsor bills that weren’t reflective of the issues that I heard, or take votes that weren’t reflective of my community. So that felt very important to me.

I think everything has gotten more and more polarized since then. But my own experience to this day is that this sense of not feeling represented has gotten stronger and stronger and stronger, and everything that we’re experiencing right now is a consequence of people just feeling deeply unrepresented and not seeing the very personal challenges that they have in their lives addressed by the people that they elect.

STEPHANIE: When you were being presented with bills to vote on, or introducing your own legislation, what was your experience working with people who voted for you and those who didn’t vote for you who were still in your district?

CHLOE: It was fascinating, and taught me so much about myself and my community, and the Democratic Party in general. There were times when I didn’t vote with my party because I was representing my community, and there were times when I voted with my party, and maybe it didn’t match up with my community. It’s so hard. I always thought when I was elected it’d be very easy to tell where my community landed on an issue, but, people reach out when they’re fired up about one issue, and it’s very hard to tell what the other side thinks if they’re not as fired up. I knocked on so many doors, so I felt like I had a really good sense of where my community was, but that kind of real-time feedback was tough. 

Policymaking is very nuanced. An issue can be black and white, but the bill that the issue is held in can be very complicated. And so there can be one line in a bill that could have huge consequences, but it takes time and energy to communicate that to your constituents. I always viewed it as my job as an elected official – I’m getting paid to do this work, I’m getting paid to go to Augusta and read all of the bills – so I always tried to take the time to explain to people why I voted one way or another. But it’s almost never black and white.

As a constituent before I was elected, I always looked at policymaking and it seemed really black and white to me. And as an elected official, you realize there’s just always more to consider than what it seems. Of course, there are some issues where I do think it’s black and white, but I think in most cases that it’s more complicated.

STEPHANIE: It seems if you’ve built trust, to a certain extent, a lot of people would say, okay, I trust you; I know you’re going to compromise. Were you getting any pushback, including from the Democratic Party in general when you weren’t voting for the bills they were putting forward? Did you feel a lot of pressure?

CHLOE: Most elected officials have felt pressure at one point or another in their service. But, yeah, there’s pressure. There’s pressure, for sure. I think some of that is understandable, and some of it I don’t love. But, you know, that’s part of the experience of being elected, is being able to navigate that and kind of understanding why you’re there. 

I was there to represent my community, and that’s what I focused on. As a Democrat representing a conservative community, the way that I navigate the situation is going to be very different from how a Democrat representing a more liberal community is going to navigate it. And since we have more Democrats representing liberal communities than conservative communities, I think it’s just a different dynamic. And that’s okay.

STEPHANIE: Have you thought about being part of another party outside of the Democrats and Republicans? 

CHLOE: I’m a bit of a cynic. I think we’re kind of stuck with the two-party system, and I believe in reforming the Democratic Party from the inside out, that’s just my own personal theory of change. But we need all of the theories of change to move forward in this work. There’s so much work going on right now to support pro-democracy Republicans and conservatives that are running for office. I think that’s so important. A lot of Republicans don’t represent some of the social extremism that we’re seeing reflected right now in the larger Republican Party. 

I think it’s also important for Independents to run for office. One of my bills was to support independents voting in primaries in Maine to kind of even out the partisanship that we see in party primaries. I really like rank choice voting, which we also are lucky to have in Maine, because that allows Independents to have a fair shot when they’re running for office. 

Photo courtesy of Dirtroad Organizing

Dirtroad Organizing supports candidates, organizers, and staffers in rural areas across the country. To date, we have over 200 alumni from 39 states. These rural leaders are bringing so much love and empathy and care to the people they live with, and they’re paving a better way forward for all of us. We’re a non-partisan organization, and for me, it’s more about the values that you’re running to represent rather than the party that you’re from. As I chose to run, I wanted to run as a Democrat because I feel like the values of the Democratic Party are supposed to serve rural places well, they’re supposed to serve my community well. But they’re just not. So trying to kind of do some of that translation work, that was the task that I wanted to take on. But it’s not for everybody, and not every community wants that as well.

STEPHANIE: Right, and they abandoned the working class by design. Senator Chuck Schumer said their strategy was to appeal to suburbia and that for every working class Democrat voter they lost, they would get two Centrist Republicans. I don’t think that worked out for them, but it’s no surprise that low-wage workers feel they have no one representing them. The Democratic Party is very low in opinion polls, so maybe it’s a great time to be reforming it.

CHLOE: Yeah, I mean, I think it’s going to be a multi-decade task, probably. We’ve lost folks pretty quickly and have not been super successful at making the case that the Democrats do advocate for working class folks, as you just said. Again, I think this narrative is starting to shift now, which is really exciting to see.

The work of rural organizing is very complicated, and there is so much to unpack in what it means. Rural organizing as a white woman in my Maine hometown is very different from what it looks like in the South. But at the core, I really believe in the power of showing up and having really intentional and authentic face-to-face conversations. I feel like that’s the only way to break down some of the silos and judgments that each party has about each other. In my experience, and what we hear from our folks through Dirtroad Organizing, is when you knock on a door, the first question is: Are you a Democrat or a Republican? And you know, I would always blurt out very quickly, “I’m a Democrat but I’m a good Democrat.” But oftentimes the door gets shut in your face before you can even have a conversation. 

So I think that the best way for Democrats to make the case that they do care about working class folks and rural working class folks is that you have to show up at people’s doors, and you have to prove it. You have to show it. And then you have to get elected and you have to actually work on the policies that benefit those rural working class folks in a way that resonates with them, with the messaging and the stories that rural folks will listen to, because it’s a different language in rural America. 

Rural America deserves that nuance and attention. We’ve got to show up, and we have to kind of be able to hold that door open long enough to have that conversation, and plant that seed that maybe it’s not such a bad idea to vote for this person. I think that’s very important to do that consistently, not just in every October of an election year, but really showing up and organizing in communities. That’s so important. There are so many rural heroes who are doing this work, day in and day out, year after year–and those folks to me are the ones who are holding our democracy together.

I think it’s also important to have different voices and different representation in office that reflect the reality of rural communities. We also know you don’t get paid to run for office, and in many state legislatures, you don’t get paid a living wage at all to serve. In New Hampshire, you make $100 a year. In New Mexico, you make nothing. When I was in the Maine statehouse, I think it was like $14,000 in our first year, and $10,000 the second year. Most folks who do get elected at the state or local level don’t make enough to survive. So there’s a reason why our politics are skewed to older, retired folks or independently wealthy people, because that’s who it’s accessible to. 

There are so many movements right now to rethink how to make politics more accessible, to have campaign finance laws, or to allow folks to pay for childcare if they’re a parent while they’re campaigning to have a living wage while you’re serving. There’s so many pieces to it. Also, if you get elected and you don’t look like the majority of the body that you’re going into, then that’s a very difficult and isolating experience, as well, and you are more likely to get targeted. And that’s very scary. There’s a lot of risk involved as well if you don’t reflect kind of the majority of what our politics look like. So I think that’s a huge part of it. 

We also believe, at Dirtroad, that running for local office can still make such a huge difference. So much of our political conversation is at the statewide or national level, and that feels very hard to influence. You know, you’re one vote out of millions if you’re at the state level. At the national level you’re one vote out of hundreds of millions. So it just feels like no matter what you do or who you call, that it doesn’t really have an impact. And I certainly feel that, even though I’m very involved in politics. 

But at the state legislative level, at the local level, those bodies have a huge influence over what our communities look like, over the policies that we’re living in every single day. But they’ve been very overlooked, especially by the left. The right has done an incredible job of organizing at the local level, and we’ve seen that, especially at the school board level with all the effort to ban books and really use school boards to influence what our education system looks like. 

When you run at the local level, you can win by like five or ten votes. In Maine, we have state legislative races where people win by one vote. So you can see that every vote does make a difference, and it is important that you’re engaged and that you show up. And as the candidate, or as someone in the campaign, every vote truly does matter. It matters how many people we talk to. It matters that we’re reaching beyond the choir, because that’s how we make sure that we’re electing folks that are more representative of the communities.

STEPHANIE: Is it pretty consistent that candidates who have a solid ground game, who are actually talking to people and have support to knock on doors and have the conversations, win? 

CHLOE: Not always. We try and encourage folks to look at their campaigning as social movement building, that it’s not about a vehicle that gets one person from being a citizen to an elected official, it’s hopefully part of the journey, and an opportunity to organize in your community and talk to people. You have an excuse to go knock on doors, to make phone calls, to write postcards, to reach out in ways that you just don’t have the social license to at other times of the year. So I think that’s such a big part of it, is that ground game. 

Of course, that doesn’t always work, and I think especially in some conservative districts where it’s a steep hill to climb, you know? So we work with people who build incredible ground games, and it doesn’t quite get them to the finish line, but at the same time, winning isn’t always winning. They’ve been building movements, building volunteer infrastructures, creating a dialogue in their community where that dialogue wasn’t there before, and it looked very different than it was before they ran. So thinking about it that way is important. 

STEPHANIE: A movement definitely emerged with the Bernie campaigns. There was momentum and excitement, and a lot of organizing. They relied on small donations, which inspired a lot of people. And then he just handed everything over to the Democrats, including my email, which really makes me mad because I cannot get off their lists. But, you know, the air was really let out of that tire, so to speak. 

CHLOE: Yeah, I think that’s a theme for the Democrats, just universally, that we build movements and then we can’t quite sustain them. And I think there are examples of movements that have done  amazing jobs at sustaining very large movements over many cycles, and I think that’s pretty cool. But oftentimes, we do that organizing and then we’re burned out, we’re tired, we’re exhausted, we’re bummed, and it’s very hard to keep that organizing going. It’s like this boom or bust cycle of electioneering that has also impacted communities because they see people coming to their doors and all of this energy being invested for this year, and then it’s gone. It doesn’t make anyone feel good if you just kind of flit in when someone needs you. You want to be shown that it’s important that you’re there all the time. 

There are so many organizations that are doing year-round organizing across the country in every single state and at the national level, focused on doing this ground work in a way that bridges cycles, and that isn’t just tied to one candidate and one election. I feel like that’s such an important model as well. I mean it’s hard work. And we work with so many folks who put themselves on the line. They put their lives on hold. They don’t get to see their families and their friends and their loved ones because they’re campaigning. And they build these really beautiful movements, and then, you know, organizing in conservative districts, you don’t win, and that’s so hard. 

So part of our work – and we’re in these coalitions – is to support those people who did that incredible movement-building work, to support them if they want to run again, to support the movements that they built if they don’t want to run again. But just trying to think of it all more holistically and what it takes to organize in rural spaces. But as we started this conversation with the level of polarization and othering right now is at a very scary and dangerous level. And so to us, it makes it even more important to be able to do this work of bridging differences in rural America.

STEPHANIE: Yeah, I do feel there’s a kind of hopelessness. But I also feel that these experiences of making connections is key to despair. My cousin, who sadly passed away recently, was a trucker who worked all the time and dealt with a lot of stress and frustration. We grew up in Kentucky. And we went back and forth online politically, disagreeing on this and that, and after a while he said, “You know, Cous, I think you might have a point. I think a lot of what I’m putting out there is just a bunch of BS, and I don’t really mean it.” He was just caught up in the drama and didn’t have time to do a lot of research. We found a lot of things we agreed on. So I hope people become more open to having conversations with others who they might even perceive to be extreme. And just dig a little bit. You know? 

CHLOE: Yeah, definitely, definitely. I feel so inspired by the stories that we hear from the folks we work with, how they’re still finding common ground. You know, I hear over and over again, and it’s something that we talk about in our trainings as well – How do we want to show up in communities? How can we show up in ways that are authentic, that resonate, no matter what political party people are from? How can we really run on values that show that we’re all connected and are all facing so many of the same struggles? We might be facing them in different ways, and some of us are experiencing some struggles more acutely than others, but we are all in the same boat. 

In 2024, Dirtroad Organizing had 37 folks on the ballot all across rural America, and over 50 percent either won their seats or outperformed past cycles, and even in districts where Trump made huge gains, these folks were outperforming when they were running at the local level. We had one guy, David Arends, who ran in a very conservative district in northern Montana. He made his ballot competitive for the first time in over a decade, and he outperformed that district by nine points because he just literally went and talked to everybody. This year, we have over 70 Dirtroad alumni on the ballot. These folks are incredible leaders who deeply care about their communities and are out there, right now, organizing for a better future for all of us. Again, we’re a non-partisan organization. Many of our candidates gain ground because they run authentic grassroots values-based campaigns that are really focused on representing their community. So that, to me, that’s a sign that that’s where it’s at. That’s where our hope is. 

But running for office, working on campaigns, rural organizing in general is tough work. It’s tough work. And it can be really lonely and isolating, even though I think it’s the most important thing that we can be doing right now. So everything that we do is about trying to bring more resources and attention to the stories of what this organizing actually looks like. Dirtroad Organizing actually just launched a story telling program to uplift the incredible work of our alumni. It’s called HomeGrown, and you can find us on Substack. 

• Dirtroad Organizing website
• Homegrown Substack by Dirtroad Organizing
• 2020 Bioneers Online Keynote from Chloe as State Senator

The post Showing Up for Rural America: A Conversation with Chloe Maxmin appeared first on Bioneers.

Manuel Pastor, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Sociology and American Studies & Ethnicity at the University of Southern California, currently directs the Equity Research Institute at USC. The inaugural holder of the Turpanjian Chair in Civil Society and Social Change at USC, Pastor’s research has generally focused on issues of the economic, environmental and social conditions facing low-income urban communities – and the social movements seeking to change those realities. He has won countless awards for his scholarship and advocacy and is the author or co-author of many books, including: Just Growth; Solidarity Economics; and, most recently (with Chris Benner), Charging Forward: Lithium Valley, Electric Vehicles, and a Just Future. (usc.edu)

Bioneers’ senior producer J.P. Harpignies spoke to Manuel Pastor this past September 14th. This is an edited version of the transcript of that conversation.

JP HARPIGNIES: Manuel, thank you so much for doing this. We really appreciate it. We were trying to think about what we could possibly add to the conversation before the midterm elections in this incredibly challenging political period, and as we were perusing our extensive networks of brilliant allies and friends, you were the first name that popped up since no one has done as much research and deep thinking as you have over the decades about social movement strategies, and you combine the passion of an activist with the rigor of a scholar, so we were eager to hear your thoughts about current realities.

My first question for you is this: We are obviously in an intensively regressive, reactionary period, both here and in many parts of the world, and much of the progress that we have accomplished over decades, if not centuries, on human rights issues and on the environment are being rolled back in a way that’s frankly shocking, even to the most cynical among us. And this is an oversimplification, but there are two over-arching tendencies that I perceive in our milieus at the moment politically. One tendency says that the historical imperative in this moment is to build as broad an anti-authoritarian movement as possible, similar to what Péter Magyar did in Hungary recently to get rid of Orbán. They say we’re in a sort of early 1930s moment, and so nothing’s more important than to build a coalition that goes from the sane center-right all the way to the far left.

Other people say that progressives should actually push for far more radical perspectives because there’s an opening now due to the sort of intense populist reactivity that seems so widespread in populations around the world. So where do you stand on those? Do you think that’s a false dichotomy – the large coalition vs pushing for more radical policies? Or do you have some miraculous third way that you could offer us?

MANUEL PASTOR: I often say that Americans seem to have difficulty holding two ideas in their heads at the same time. I think the way that we reconcile this is that we do want to build a broad front, but we want to make sure that it doesn’t become a mushy middle, so it needs to have progressive anchors that give it principles, that give it fighting spirit, that give it strategy to be able to move ahead. 

I have been thinking about these things. I have a book coming out next year called How We Rise: Building a Durable Super Majority for the Future We Deserve that argues that what we need is a multi-racial, multi-class, multi-sector, durable super majority for economic and political democracy. Let me spell that out and then come back to your question.

Multi-racial is obvious, that’s who we’re becoming in America, but that’s also been the Achilles’ heel of progressive movements, because the deployment of race and racism has been used to divide us. Multi-class, because while we often romanticize the working class – and I come from that milieu, not just as a person but in terms of my own politics – middle-class and professional people need to be part of this movement. And also, with artificial intelligence, there’s a new precarious proletariat made up of professionals who are about to find that they’re about as replaceable as others have been in the past. Multi-sector, because we need to get the scientists who are upset about climate science being ignored, the faith leaders who are shocked by the disposability of humanity built into the anti-immigrant movement, and many others. Durable, because we’re at a moment in which we need to form a coalition that is as strong as the New Deal coalition, which persisted for decades, was; and the Civil Rights coalition, which was eventually weakened but was broad and strong for a long time. 

Too often we on the left have thought that if I we could get 50% plus one of the voters, that would be enough to take us over the top, but if you want durable change, you need 60 percent or two-thirds. You need a social majority, in part because some people are going to bail on such issues as trans rights because they don’t understand that’s an issue about fundamental dignity.

Economic and political democracy, because there’s a great political scientist, Joan C. Williams, who co-authored a book called Outclassed, and she just did a poll. She asked people to take 30 issues and rank them in terms of order of importance. College-educated, left-leaning folks ranked saving democracy as number two, but it was number 19 for working class people, because democracy has not been delivering on the economy, on material goods, so saving a system that doesn’t deliver is not really all that appealing for them, so we need to have both economic and political democracy, in tandem. In order to get there, we need as broad a front as possible, but it needs to have progressive anchors that are continually pushing so that it’s not a meaningless broad front, but one that builds on what we have in common and continually pushes us to action. 

So, I do think it’s a false dichotomy, and I think that what we need to seek is not the lowest common denominator but the highest common ground. What is it that we don’t quite agree on that we need to push ourselves to agree on rather than just the easy things?

JP: Just as a follow-up to that, isn’t it a little bit tricky? Because precisely, some of these issues that have proven divisive or that the right has used to peel away support for progressive economic policies are third-rails that are really difficult to get working class people or especially white working-class people to come on board with. How do you finesse that? If you’re going to push for the highest octave on all of these fronts, how do you avoid many people peeling away because they don’t support this or that particular position? 

We’ve had those kinds of cleavages for a long time. For example, there are many people in the African-American community who are more conservative and religious on social issues while being very progressive on economic issues. 

MANUEL: That’s also true in the Latino community, as we saw during the last Trump election. I think that first, finessing shouldn’t mean trying to fool people, and it shouldn’t mean thinking that they are deluded and voting against their interests, so what is wrong with them? I think it’s a little bit more trying to understand how to talk about things. 

Right after this election of Trump, I got persuaded to present some research we’ve worked on in Orange County, a place that has long been purple but that is not known for Bay Area-like progressive leanings. It was an equity profile on racial justice issues, and the people who were sponsoring it, the grant-makers’ group there, were very concerned about alienating people, about how local people were going to react, etc. I started the event by saying that equity is fundamentally about opportunity, dignity, and community. 

People want to have the ability to work hard and get ahead. They want to be deeply respected for who they are and what they do, and they want to be able to exist in community. That describes the aspirations of racial minorities. It describes the aspirations of rural people who sometimes feel that they are not awarded dignity or respect. It describes trans people who want the opportunity to live their lives, who want to have their choices accepted with dignity and want to be part of a bigger community. I think when you appeal to those broad values instead of trying to say it’s really just all about the economy, I think you build coalitions that are more lasting.

Similarly, after the raids here in Los Angeles (which are still ongoing, just a bit quieter) in that intense period last summer, I was asked to provide data to immigrant rights activists, and to speak to philanthropy and social justice groups, but I also took the opportunity to forge an alliance with some business groups that realized that the raids were deeply unsettling for economic stability. Most dramatically, I accepted an invitation to speak to the L.A. Rotary Club. Now, interestingly, one person resigned as a result of my appearance, but a lot of others realized, oh my gosh, this is interesting that about a fifth of L.A. County residents are either undocumented themselves or part of a mixed status family; and, wow, I hadn’t realized that about nearly three-quarters of undocumented Angelinos have been in the country for more than a decade; I didn’t realize that more than a third of our frontline construction workers are unauthorized, and I know that we’re not coming back from the fires without them. I think it’s important to take that opportunity to try to find what we do have in common and treat people with respect.

We’re not going to pull over everyone to our point of view, but we should not be applying litmus tests around language and perspectives. We should be trying to figure out if you can be in with us on opportunity, dignity, and community. 

JP: Let’s talk a little bit more about immigration, because obviously that’s one of your domains of expertise, a subject you’ve worked on for a lifetime. It’s really a fundamental issue of our times because it’s been driving so much of the rise of hard right parties throughout the world. We’ve had the rise of the AfD in Germany, the Front National in France, Nigel Farage’s party in the UK, the xenophobic “March and March” campaign in South Africa, the anti-Rohingya forces in Myanmar, and of course the Republicans here, so it’s not just a U.S. problem. It’s been this sort of giant third rail. Even the Spanish government has been under heavy pressure because of what happened recently in Ceuta. 

My question is this: Is the left making, to some degree, a similar error to what occurred when there was enormous right-wing backlash over the law-and-order issue going back into the ‘70s, and the more recent iteration of that with the whole Defund the Police brouhaha. It seems that the issue of immigration has been very successfully used to tap into the rage of the white working class in the U.S. and Europe, and beyond those regions not just white people since, as I mentioned, we find it all over the world in such places as South Africa, India, and Myanmar, to mention only a few.

A lot of this is a very old playbook of demonizing “the other” by authoritarian forces and by capital, and it’s also obviously blowback from centuries of imperialism and capitalism, but clearly this issue is giving the extreme right a lot of fuel. Has the left failed to find a viable, effective strategy to counter that? Is there a politically realistic effective way to push for humane immigration policies that could be supported by majorities, that don’t create openings for the far right? I realize that if you had an easy answer, you’d be extremely rich and famous; this is a problem from hell, but still, if there’s anyone who can help us see the light on this, I think it’s you, Manuel.

MANUEL: I’ve definitely thought a lot about this. I think you’re right that what the right and capital and these tech titans who are trying to steer us to a new authoritarian order have effectively done is persuade people to blame their situation on those by their side rather than on those above them, who are the ones actually helping cause the situation, so the question is: How do you inoculate against that? I don’t think you can do it by ignoring it, by ignoring the need to talk about xenophobia and racism and challenge people’s conceptions and attitudes, nor by ignoring the fact that sometimes lots of immigration can cause real strains on a society. 

I think one of the things that happened during ‘22 and ‘23, when in the post COVID era there was a very big backlog of people coming across the border, it really looked disorderly. The Biden administration tried to make it a little bit more orderly, but roughly two-and-a-half to three million unauthorized immigrants often received fairly quick asylum and crossed the border into the United States. Even undocumented immigrants who’d been here for a long time were asking: “Who are these new people and why are they immediately getting help when I’ve been here for 20 years and nobody helped me?” I think sometimes the left has a sort of honesty problem. We’re sort of willing to call out the other side for the ways in which they run away from the facts—the fact that immigrants contribute a lot to our society, the fact that people do make progress over time, the fact that immigrants actually unionize at a higher rate than the native born and are great allies for the labor movement, etc. We’re willing to call out the right for stuff they say that’s untrue, but we’re sometimes reluctant to admit that, for example, a lot of people crossed the border in a very short period. How can we make that process more orderly? How can we make it so that there are resources for communities to be able to more successfully integrate newcomers? I think that could help. 

We just finished a report called “The Wealth of Welcome.” It’s kind of a play on both the idea of the warmth of welcome and the wealth of nations that argues for comprehensive immigration reform that would create paths to citizenship for the vast bulk of those who are currently here who are unauthorized and would regularize labor flows to bring people in, and then would take the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been devoted to ICE and instead repurpose them to communities so that they could speed up the integration of immigrants and make sure that we have investments in community building. That sort of three-part program – regularize who’s here, create orderly flows for the future, and divert money away from enforcement into integration – that’s the kind of thing we ought to be arguing for.

JP: Another issue that people affiliated with Bioneers really care about is obviously the environment and ecosystem health, and another really difficult political situation at the moment is that as we’re seeing climate change bear down in a way that even the most pessimistic prognostications didn’t predict 20 years ago or so. We in the environmental movement had always thought that when people would be directly affected by fires and floods and hurricanes, then they would come around, so it’s been disconcerting to see a world in which the evidence is off the charts with wildfires everywhere and hundred-year floods happening every three or four years in many places. What would it take to awaken people? Do you have any thoughts on that? Even with the L.A. fires, fires in boreal forests that had been extremely rare happening yearly on immense scales, and what just happened in Nepal, it doesn’t seem to register for voters here, even in this election. When people ask voters how they rank the environment, it comes up something like 20th. Do you have any insight on what could possibly turn this around?

MANUEL: You’re asking me all the easy questions today, JP. 

JP: Yeah, can you please solve all the problems of the world in 20 minutes, Manuel?

MANUEL: How do we turn around authoritarianism? Can we make immigration work? And how do we solve climate change? After I answer these, I think I will run for president….

It is disconcerting. I do think that one of the things that’s going on is that the environmental disparities portion of this still plays a role, so that people who are more privileged and have more power and should be doing something about this are often feeling that it isn’t happening to them…unless they were unlucky enough to live in the Palisades…. 

It has been striking that from something that actually was discussed three or four years ago, it’s gotten much worse, but it’s hardly being discussed in the body politic. Instead, it’s all about affordability, which by the way plays a role, because one of the ways to become affordable is to move away from fossil fuels, to move away from the high insurance costs that come from these disasters, to move away from the expensive fiscal spending that’s going to need to take place as we try to repair from all of this climate damage. I mean, I do think we can think about addressing climate change as a long-term affordability issue in ways that definitely make sense.

I’m optimistic by nature. I think people who are into Bioneers are often also optimistic by nature. They come to the conferences and/or listen to the podcasts hoping to find tools they can take away to help change the world. I think we can fight this moment of authoritarianism. I’m convinced that we can build a broad front that has a progressive anchor. I’m convinced that we can weaken the power of fossil fuel and the tech titans; that we can shift to speaking about our economy vs the economy. I am optimistic that we can challenge the disease of personal racism, which is inflicted upon us by structures that want to allocate privilege and obscure the truth of who really holds power. 

But I also think it behooves us to be realistic about the world we are likely to inherit after this Trump era is over (and I hope it will be). It’s a world that will be in ashes. There will be immigrant lives and families that have been shattered. There will be a planet a little bit warmer and a lot riskier. There will be artificial intelligence that has not been held back. There will be a shift of income away from workers to those on top. We will have an even bigger government debt and fiscal deficit, constraining what it is that government can deliver even in a moment when it absolutely needs to deliver. 

We need to be sober as we think about the next world we’re trying to build, but hopeful as we  remember earlier examples, such as what got built after the Civil War, that too brief attempt at Reconstruction that emerged in the ashes of a South that had burned down, or, in many ways, had burned itself down by its attachment to white supremacy; or of the New Deal that started in the Great Depression and provided some degree of stability, not for everyone – many people of color were written out of the details of the New Deal – but in which government was willing to intervene and created an era in which wages rose at the bottom, middle and top, in which Social Security got expanded, and in which we finally got to Medicare and Medicaid, not for all, but somewhere in that direction. That all emerged out of a Great Depression in which a quarter of the people lost their jobs, in which fascism was a real possibility here and a real reality in Europe, in which a world war got waged about our future.

So, I ask those who are watching or listening or reading to have hope, to dig deep for the strength that we need in this moment to come together, to build that big tent and continually push it further and further left, but also understand that the world we’ll be inheriting will be one that will be in ashes, and we will need to be thinking about not just the world we want but how it is we actually rebuild.

JP: Thank you so much, Manuel. Words of wisdom. We really appreciate it. Just what we needed to hear. 

MANUEL: Thank you, JP. Thank you, Bioneers.

The post Building a Durable Super Majority for Economic and Political Democracy appeared first on Bioneers.

Vegetable farms and solar farms both need lots of sunlight and open space. But how do we divide our limited lands between these two priorities? One elegant solution is to put crops and solar panels on the same land—and share the broad spectrum of incoming sunlight between them.

A new study in Cell Reports Physical Science does this with photovoltaic cells that are semi-transparent: They capture some wavelengths of sunlight to make electricity, while letting the wavelengths most critical to photosynthesis pass through and reach the plants below. The new study suggests that broccoli can be grown in the magenta shade of these solar panels—without sacrificing the harvest.

Agrivoltaic schemes—putting plants and solar on the same land – could help us avoid clearing more land for human use. Climate studies suggest that this might work especially well across a wide sunbathed swath of the United States, from Texas up to Nebraska and west to California. Devoting just one percent of U.S. farmland to agrivoltaics could cover up to 20 percent of the nation’s electricity needs.

But traditional photovoltaic panels are opaque—and by shading plants, they can reduce crop yields. So engineers are trying to create new photovoltaic cells that divide the spectrum of sunlight between plants and electricity generation—similar to how governments segment different frequency bands for television, radio, cell phones, and other uses.

A 2020 study looked at panels that allow red wavelengths, critical for photosynthesis, to pass through—while harvesting green and blue wavelengths to make electricity. Basil grown under these panels produced similar yields, while spinach yields decreased. But the researchers estimated that by selling both electricity and crops, farmers growing spinach could generate 35 percent more income from the same land.

 

.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:New study compares growing corn for energy to solar production. It’s no contest.

 

In the newest study, scientists evaluated a different kind of semi-transparent panel that lets most red and some blue wavelengths pass through—casting a magenta light on the plants—while converting much of the rest to electricity.

Broccoli cultivated under them grew more slowly, requiring an additional 25 days for harvest, but produced roughly the same yield. Meanwhile, these magenta sunscreens improved the microclimate below, reducing the “vapor pressure deficit”—a measure of when plants need to halt photosynthesis to avoid excessive water loss. This may have improved the plants’ efficiency in converting sunlight into plant biomass, which increased by 2.8- to 4.5-fold compared to unshaded plants.

The shaded plants’ levels of macronutrients such as calcium, magnesium, and phosphorus were either higher than or similar to unshaded plants, while levels of some micronutrients such as iron, copper, and zinc were slightly lower.

This was only a preliminary study. Future studies should look at larger plots, farmed across multiple seasons, and in different locations with varying climate and sunlight. It suggests that for now, the future of agrivoltaics might be best seen through rose-colored glasses.

Lu et al. “Evaluating land productivity with semi-transparent colored CdTe thin-film PV and broccoli cultivation in agrivoltaic systems.” Cell Reports Physical Science, 2026.

Image: Broccoli growing beneath semi-transparent, colored solar panels at the experimental site at Kärrbo Prästgård farm in Sweden. ©Silvia Ma Lu

How a small Vermont town built a thriving local food system that keeps $50,000 annually in the community while creating social connection.

A movement to reshape the structure of taxation in the U.S. is gaining steam.

Trump clearly represents an unmitigated disaster for the steady state, with consequences that include rolling back decades of progress in gender equality, contraceptive access, and the lower birth rates that result.

• Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy may have nine kids, but the self-described “fertility president” tying transit funding to birth rates is not going to help families that fled cities for car-centric suburbs — nor will it help struggling parents who can barely afford a metro card, let alone a car. (Vox)
• Another of the Trump administration’s priorities is to spend billions of dollars completing an interstate highway system that was actually finished in 1992. (Transportation for America)
• FedEx is spending $300 million on 2,000 electric delivery trucks, but could save almost three times that much on diesel fuel. (Electrek)
• In the face of fiscal uncertainty, too often cities make short-sighted cuts, like deferring maintenance on transportation infrastructure, that lead to long-term problems. (Governing)
• New Trump administration press secretary Katie Zacharia was cited multiple times in Los Angeles for distracted driving. (L.A. Material; registration required)
• Climate change is causing a Southern California coastal Amtrak line to collapse into the Pacific Ocean, and it could cost $5 billion to fix. (Los Angeles Times)
• Austin’s main street, Congress Avenue, is getting a major bike- and pedestrian-friendly makeover. (My San Antonio)
• The Detroit city council is urging the Michigan DOT to prioritize safety on Gratiot Avenue, a major six-lane thoroughfare. (Bridge Detroit)
• MARTA was expected to roll out new train cars before the World Cup came to Atlanta, but they still haven’t arrived. (Fox 5)
• A Salt Lake City business owner who almost ran over a cyclist is now on a crusade to get rid of a new bike lane. (KSL)
• Mass Transit explains how a small New Mexico transit system is shooting for zero emissions.
• Uber is testing robotaxis in Manchester, England. (The Guardian)
• A new European initiative will help up to five cities tackle transportation inequality. (Cities Today)
• Police are arresting Toronto demonstrators trying to stop the Ontario government from ripping up bike lanes. (CTV News)

What good is a “walkable” city if average people can’t afford to live in it?

That’s just one of the questions asked by this provocative new video from Safe By Design, which argues that even the urbanist darlings of Europe can fall short of their potential when “design, governance, and affordability failures” get involved.

And while livable streets policy itself isn’t responsible for, say, the wave of tourists overwhelming Barcelona or collapsing pedestrian walkways in Naples, it is an interesting reminder that the conversation about building great places can’t stop at the edge of the sidewalk.

Watch this video YouTube.

Caltrans will have to measure its highway projects against regional climate goals, and the state’s metropolitan planning agencies will update those plans every eight years instead of four, under a bill Gov. Gavin Newsom signed last month.

Senate Bill 1087, authored by Sen. Christopher Cabaldon (D-West Sacramento), updates the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, better known as SB 375. The new law requires each region to plan housing, transportation and land use together to cut greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. It also extends the law’s emissions targets through 2045 and changes the conditions some regions must meet to receive state transportation funds. The bill passed the Senate 31 to 9. Supporters, including regional planning agencies and environmental groups, say it will shift the focus from planning to building projects.

Senate Bill 1087, authored by Sen. Christopher Cabaldon (D-West Sacramento), updates the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, better known as SB 375. The new law streamlines regional planning requirements, extends greenhouse gas reduction targets through 2045, and strengthens the connection between state transportation funding and regional climate plans.

The legislation was sponsored by a coalition of regional planning agencies and environmental groups, with support from more than 80 organizations, according to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the regional planning agency for the nine-county Bay Area.

“We’re proud to have supported SB 1087. SB 375 established the idea that California needs to plan for housing, transportation, and land conservation together to meet its climate goals. Nearly 20 years later, SB 1087 starts to move that framework beyond planning by pushing the state to align its transportation investments with regional plans and putting more focus on getting the right projects built,” said Lesley Beatty of Climate Plan, a sponsor of the bill.

That shift from planning to implementation is central to the new law.

…more of this. Lead image: Caltrans. This image: City of Los Angeles From regional plans to projects

SB 375 requires California’s metropolitan planning organizations to develop Sustainable Communities Strategies as part of their regional transportation plans. These strategies coordinate land use, housing and transportation investments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks.

Under SB 1087, metropolitan planning organizations will prepare their strategies every eight years instead of every four, with a progress report after four years. The change is intended to reduce duplicative work and administrative costs while maintaining accountability for progress toward emissions-reduction goals.

The legislation also extends the framework’s greenhouse gas reduction targets through 2045, bringing regional planning into closer alignment with the state’s long-term climate goals. It increases transparency around the California Air Resources Board’s process for setting emissions-reduction targets and reviewing regional strategies.

The Southern California Association of Governments, which develops regional transportation and land-use plans for six counties, said the changes will give regional agencies and local governments more flexibility and certainty while helping them focus on implementation.

“SB 1087 refocuses the sustainable communities strategy on its core purpose to align housing, transportation, and climate,” said SCAG Executive Director Kome Ajise. “We believe these reforms will give regional agencies and local governments more certainty, flexibility, and tools to turn planning into real action.”

For Southern California, the changes could free up resources to advance projects included in its regional plan, Connect SoCal. The law does not guarantee funding for any particular project, but it changes how regional plans are developed and connected to implementation.

Opposition from Business Groups

The Orange County Business Council (OCBC) was one of the leading groups opposed to the legislation. In a statement released while the legislation was moving through committee, the group said it supported modernizing SB 375 but objected to CARB’s expanded role in reviewing regional strategies, warning that the changes could limit regional flexibility and raise concerns about regulatory transparency and stakeholder participation.

While debates over regional autonomy and state oversight are legitimate, SB 1087 does not give CARB control over local zoning or housing approvals. Instead, it strengthens coordination between regional climate plans and state transportation investments while reducing the administrative burden of planning. That balance is central to the law’s effort to turn California’s climate goals into real-world results.

Caltrans must better align with regional goals

One of SB 1087’s biggest changes is that it makes it easier for California to ensure state transportation spending supports regional climate goals.

The law requires Caltrans to consider measures of success that help advance the goals of the California Transportation Plan. It also changes the rules for some state transportation funding programs to better connect which projects get money with the goals in regional plans.

The changes are especially important in regions whose plans fall short of state greenhouse gas reduction targets. In those areas, projects seeking money through programs such as the Solutions for Congested Corridors Program and the Trade Corridor Enhancement Program must meet additional requirements tied to reducing emissions or addressing barriers to meeting regional targets.

The goal is to reduce the chances that state money goes to transportation projects that undermine regional climate plans, while still allowing projects that meet the law’s requirements to move forward.

The law does not prohibit highway projects outright. Its impact will depend on how state agencies apply the new requirements and select future transportation investments. But it creates a stronger statutory link between regional climate goals and decisions about which projects receive state support.

“For the first time, SB 1087 also requires Caltrans to better align state planning with regional goals—which should yield fewer highway boondoggles and more safe streets on which people of all ages and abilities can travel,” said Zak Accuardi of the Natural Resources Defense Council, another sponsor of the legislation.

This week on Talking Headways is Part 2 of our discussion with Reece Martin in Toronto at the Mpact Transit + Community Conference. We discuss the media picking projects apart, the gap between talent and passion in transit agencies, high speed rail and the threat of AVs to bad transit.

Listeners can hit play on the audio player embedded below, study an AI-generated transcript, or read the edited excerpt further down.

Jeff Wood: I was reading through a lot of your posts, and I came upon this idea that after we build something, the people that built it don’t wanna talk about it, or they don’t want to talk if it went over-budget, they don’t want to talk about the things that they did wrong. They want to find better ways to do it, but they don’t want to have this public inquiry about what happened. I was curious what your thoughts were on that.

Reece Martin: It’s a problem I’ve definitely identified in Toronto and it exists in the US as well, obviously. There will be a project that just gets slammed in the media for years and years, and then it’s done. It’s surprising to me, in Toronto, because we actually are pretty well-governed by North American standards, though maybe not by international standards.

But I’m a little surprised that with the Eglinton Crosstown, this tunneled light rail line that famously delayed for a very long time, there wasn’t a public inquiry. But there was an inquiry in Ottawa. Ottawa also built a light rail system and it had a bunch of problems and there was an inquiry, but you just don’t see that as much.

Look at Seattle. It’s building a lot of stuff, it’s very expensive, and a lot of projects have a lot of problems. It would be healthy to have some sort of legislated process where there is a review. I think there are a lot of reasons this stuff doesn’t happen. 

Part of it, and this is sadly pretty cynical, is that in the public transit industry in North America, you’re looked upon with great skepticism if you’re very interested in it. It’s like, “Why do you care so much about this stuff? Wqhat are you doing? Why are you asking these questions? What are you, why are you…? You go to a place like Japan and they really embrace the sort of enthusiasm for public transit.

And I get it — it’s overbearing, it’s tiring. But if you’re really passionate and you’re a great engineer and you live in Austin, are you going to work on a transit project or are you going to work for Tesla? And unfortunately, I think the reality is you’re probably gonna go work for Tesla or you’re gonna go to San Francisco and work for Apple or work for Google, and help extract more dollars out of every citizen.

Whereas in China, you would probably go work at the high-speed rail authority or you’d go work at one of 50 cities building a huge subway system. Because it’s competitive — there’s so many cities doing it at once.

This is a real problem. I don’t know how to solve it. The passionate people, for example: I have basically never worked for a transit authority in my life, and I think that’s bad. You’d think, in the ideal world, someone who’s really passionate about this stuff would be brought into the tent.

And if you’re the Prime Minister of Canada, or you’re a leader of a country, and you’re looking and you think, “How do we get the people who are really invested in this going right working on this stuff?” And it doesn’t happen.

The same is true for the Marron Institute in New York City. It’s great that they’re doing that work, but shouldn’t they be working for the MTA and just solving these problems instead? It’s actually really valuable for the whole world that they’re doing the research, and I love it and I promote it a lot. But if you’re Mamdani or you’re Hochul, it’s clear that the actual best thing is for those people to be working on subway expansion so that New York isn’t ossified and stuck with the subway network they built 100 years ago.

But they’re not doing that. The institutions are not very well-equipped. They’re arrogant and they turn up their noses at people who are really passionate. Alon Levy sometimes releases articles at very odd hours of the night. It’s like people who work at Apple. A lot of those people have crazy working hours.

A lot of that is because they’re paid very highly. But a lot of it is because those people really care about their work. And transit would benefit by getting more people like that to work on transit projects. I just don’t think it exists. There isn’t a bridge.

There are a lot of passionate people in transit. I meet a lot of them. But I meet a lot more passionate people who aren’t working in it. Or I meet people who are in other industries that say, “I would love to get involved in the transit industry,” and they don’t really see a way. And I think if they got involved, they might be like, “Oh.”

A lot of people I know are really smart. They work at a transit agency, they get frustrated, and they leave and go work in private consultancy or they work in a totally different industry because they’re frustrated. And so that’s clearly part of the problem. It’s a human resources problem.

Data centers have become a major flashpoint as midterm elections near in the United States. Besides their intensive energy use, they are drawing public ire for use of freshwater for to cool data centers.

But researchers at the University of Texas at Austin have an idea that could alleviate the stress on local freshwater resources. They propose using waste water from the oil and gas industry. Today’s desalination technologies could clean up dirty and salty water to produce clean-enough water for data center cooling needs, the team shows in a paper published in the journal Water Research.

“We’re not waiting for a futuristic technology to come along and solve this problem for us,” said mechanical engineering professor Vaibhav Bahadur in a press release. “We can solve parts of this problem with the technology we already have; there’s just a cost to it.”

Data centers underpin our modern digital economy. But they are highly energy-intensive. Their power needs are “equivalent to the electrical power draw of 1000 US households going into a computing unit the size of a bookshelf,” the team writes in the paper.

The heat this generates requires immense amounts of water for cooling. Data centers can consume millions of gallons of water a day. Meanwhile, the Permian Basin in West Texas produces about 8 billion gallons of waste water per day during oil and gas extraction. And “right now this water is transported over long distances and injected underground,” Bahadur said.

 

.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:Scientists made an ultra-black wool. And it turns saltwater into drinking water

 

So why not put this water to cooling use at data centers? Besides the quantity, the quality of the water is also important. Freshwater needs to have less than 500 parts per million of dissolved solids.

The UT Austin team looked at how data centers could produce such relatively clean water using desalination. And they analyzed how desalination treatment choice influences cost and environmental impact.

They modeled the cost and energy trade-offs of treating various saline water sources, from mildly brackish groundwater to the much saltier water produced during oil and gas drilling. And they focused on two leading desalination technologies. One, called reverse osmosis, pushes water through membranes that block salt and impurities. The other is a heat-driven process, where water is evaporated, leaving impurities behind, and then the clean vapor is condensed and collected.

The team evaluated three data center deployment case studies. The model captured the “combined effect of cooling technique, local saline water conditions, geographic water stress, and brine disposal strategy on water availability,” they write.

Their results show that a project in Longview, Texas, which uses brackish groundwater treated via reverse osmosis came out with the lowest local water-stress score of the three. But the finding is much more general. Even the most energy-intensive desalination option consumed a fraction of a data center’s total energy demand.

Source: Vishnu Sree Shanthanu Katakam et al. System-scale design and analysis of desalination systems for meeting water needs of data centers. Water Research, 2026.

Image: ©Anthropocene Magazine

Walkable cities are places that do best what cities are meant to do: contain and display human life with all of its variety, tension, diversity, struggle and beauty.

Americans used the products for twenty years without trusting the companies. A data center is the first thing they could vote on.

In recent years, Agadir, Morocco, has become a focal point for discussions on climate resilience and adaptation. In a recent episode of The Stories on the Edge podcast, hosts Veronica and Nigel spoke with Zach Oulad, an urban data expert and local official, who discussed the urgent need for community adaptation and innovative policies.

• Tesla has stopped referring to its “Full Self-Driving” feature as “self-driving” in response to European regulators who pointed out that a human is still required to be behind the wheel and alert (Bloomberg).
• Back in the States, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is looking into reports of Tesla robotaxis speeding through school zones (The Verge). That’s in addition to the NHTSA’s own investigation into Tesla’s self-driving mode, as well as the Cybercab’s lack of features like pedals, mirrors and a steering wheel, and Waymo traffic infractions.
• A lack of safe infrastructure is the main reason people cite for not biking more. (American Society of Civil Engineers)
• New York City’s congestion pricing policy reduced fine particulate air pollution in Lower Manhattan by 13 percent, according to a Columbia University study.
• A Twin Cities carshare is the latest victim of the Trump administration’s belief that everyone should own and drive their own personal vehicle. (MinnPost)
• The Seattle suburb of Everett is considering folding its bus system into Sound Transit. (KUOW)
• Phoenix is on track with its 2050 transit expansion and transportation safety plan. (KJZZ)
• The Texas DOT is adding lanes to I-10 between Houston and San Antonio. (Express-News; paywall)
• Los Angeles is exploring ways to create more shade to keep people comfortable in extreme heat. (Governing)
• Bay Area Rapid Transit ridership is up by double digits this year with a referendum looming on regional transit funding. (ABC 7)
• The St. Louis MetroLink completed its first rail expansion in 20 years. (Metro)
• Grand Rapids won a $6 million state grant to expand bus service during major downtown events. (MLive)
• Jacksonville is ending an expensive and ultimately unsuccessful autonomous shuttle program, and advocates want them to getback to basics to create a more useful transit system. (Streetsblog USA)
• St. Augustine partnered with a local bike rental company on a new bikeshare program. (Record)
• One of the few bike commuters in Honolulu has a plan to get more people pedaling. (Civil Beat)
• The Washington Post highlights six Amtrak routes where you can watch the leaves change color.

Fueling up America’s most popular car now costs an extra $85 every month compared to last year — and it costs even more in car-dependent states that require more driving, a new analysis finds.

Motorists who choose the ever-popular Ford F-150 in transit-poor states like Alabama, Kansas, and Kentucky can expect to pay $110 more at the pump per month than they did in 2025, according to a new report published by the Urban Institute.

Big pick-up drivers aren’t the only ones who are struggling — because motorists who picked smaller cars are, too.

The average American driver spends $65 more each month fueling up now than she did just one year ago, following the start of the Trump administration’s war with Iran which resulted in a dramatic increase in fuel prices. And because America is so car-dependent, the vast majority of people have no choice but to pony up.

“A bigger car is just going to end up consuming a lot more gas over time, and that means people are going to end up spending more money as a result,” said Yonah Freemark, who conducted the analysis.

Recommended Trump’s ‘Freedom Means Affordable Cars’ Rings Hollow As Gas Prices Surge Kea Wilson March 30, 2026

Of course, some transportation reform advocates might be tempted to shrug off the news that Ford F-150 drivers are struggling to pay their fuel bills — especially considering how few of them use pick-ups to actually haul anything bigger than a bag of groceries, and how deadly their vehicles are to pedestrians.

But advocates point out that “light trucks” — a category which includes pick-ups and SUVS — have surged in popularity on US roads not just because of consumer demand, but because of structural forces like the “SUV arms race” and regulatory loopholes that exaggerated their profit margins compared to smaller vehicles.

Production of light-duty trucks surpassed car production for the first time in 2018, and today, only four US automakers even produce a sedan. And as light truck purchases grow, more Americans are shouldering the financial burden.

Since fuel costs and the availability of mobility alternatives vary by state, that financial burden does, too. Wyoming residents pay $4.51 per gallon, nearly identical to the national average. Yet because they have so little transit, they spend more overall than any other state, averaging $347 per month on gas alone.

Recommended The ‘Affordability Crisis’ Conversation Can’t Leave Out the Cost of Cars Kea Wilson January 7, 2026

In transit-rich states, by contrast, sticker-shock at the pump doesn’t always mean high household transportation budgets. Even California’s $6.37 per gallon only adds up to $266 each month, because more residents can substitute drives with walking, biking, and public transit.

That’s why Freemark argues that expanding alternatives to driving is necessary to lowering costs. And while electric vehicle owners are able to dodge gas prices, the other costs of car ownership still create significant expense for households, like financing, maintenance, and insurance.

“Driving is inevitably going to be super expensive,” Freemark said. “It’s not like there’s a great way out of it.”

Recommended Sustainable Transportation Can Ease the Affordability Crisis — And Help Climate Champions Win Streetsblog May 19, 2026

Making it easier to walk, bike, and take transit, on the other hand, could unlock major cost savings for families. Congress’s recent purge of federal transit funding could jeopardize progress, but Freemark says that all levels of government can step up by shifting transportation funds away from highway expansions and towards transit operations, sidewalks, and bike lanes.

However they do it, providing alternatives to cars — big or small — can provide families with relief from rising fuel costs.

“Transportation is such a high share of many people’s daily expenses,” Freemark said. “People have to have alternatives in order to save money.”

This post is sponsored by Ride Illinois.

Last Friday, the Chicago City Council’s Traffic Safety Committee unanimously voted to expand the Smart Streets Pilot Program’s, camera enforcement of bus/bike lanes and bus stops in the central city, so that it eventually becomes a permanent, citywide program. Today it went to the full council for the final decision.

The Smart Street expansion plan.

Currently, the initiative involves cams mounted on CTA buses and City vehicles, which issue tickets to cars and trucks parked or standing in bus and bike facilities. (State legislation would have to be passed to legalize cam enforcement of driving in these lanes and stops.)

An enforcement camera attached to a City vehicle. Photo: City of Chicago

While some other news outlets have reported that the bill involves the camera enforcement of “double parking,” that’s only true if the double parking in question involves a paint-only, non-protected bike lane located on the left side of parked cars. “The program is not currently enforcing double parking [when no bike or bus lanes are present],” Chicago Department of Transportation spokesperson Erica Schoeder told Streetsblog this afternoon. “You’re right they may be confusing it with parking/stopping in bus and bike lanes, and bus stops, which are all being enforced.”

A misleading, basically erroneous Fox Chicago headline.

Committee Chair Ald. Daniel La Spata (1st) who co-sponsored the ordinance with Ald. Andre Vasquez (40th), heralded the win in an email to constituents. “This program has issued over 140,000 citations and generated roughly $2 million in revenue,” he write. “And 82 percent of drivers who get a warning never get a ticket and 64 percent of those that get a first ticket never get a second.”

This morning, Vasquez held a press conference about the legislation at City Hall. Several other alders and civilian Safe Streets advocates gave speeches in support of the bill.

Vasquez, at podium. Active Transportation Alliance Campaign Organizer W. Robert Schultz III is fourth from left. Photo: ATA spokesperson Nathan Cordero

“We support the proposed expansion of the Smart Streets ordinance,” said ATA’s W. Robert Schultz III during the presser. “Many times, when I’m a rider on the Chicago CTA bus number 66, it’s especially frustrating to be delayed when [drivers] park illegally in clearly marked red bus lanes. The Smart Streets program can help buses move faster in designated lanes and protect people biking from [having to make] potentially deadly maneuvers around vehicles parked in bike lanes.” 

Streetsblog live-posted parts of today’s City Council hearing. During Traffic Safety Chair La Spata’s (somewhat hard for a lay person to understand), presentation to the Council, the Smart Streets expansion ordinance was passed without the need for a full vote. Vasquez’s office and CDOT’s Schroeder confirmed this great news.

La Spata makes his (sort of esoteric) presentation to the Council. Screenshot of the livestream.

Here’s what I was able to record from La Spata’s uncharacteristically low-key presentation on the subject: “…passage of this item by the first, most favorable roll call vote from the Committee on Finance, and the associate unsuccessful motion to reconsider the vote.”

“Hearing none, so ordered,” responded Mayor Brandon Johnson.”

Sorry, but I haven’t done enough reporting at 121 N. LaSalle St. to be 100 percent fluent in Chicago City Council lingo.

But anyway, this is a great step forward for making bus and bike travel in our city safer and more efficient, which will likely save lives and prevent heartbreak. It will also make riding buses and bikes in our city a lot more pleasant. Congratulations to Ald. Vasquez, Ald. La Spata, and the Chicago sustainable transportation advocacy community for getting this done!

“Expanding the Smart Streets program citywide is a no-brainer,” Vasquez said in a statement. “We know that enforcing bus and bike lane violations changes driver behavior. The Smart Streets pilot showed that over 80 percent of drivers who received a warning did not commit a repeat violation. Now, with the citywide expansion, we have the ability to go after the companies who have proven to be repeat offenders. I truly believe this legislation will save lives, and I’m enormously proud that we were able to get it passed.”

Here are some more reactions to the win from other folks and organizations that helped make it happen.

this is fantastic news, enactment without enforcement is pointless. don’t park in the bike lanemissing you today Bean, nice to hear you remembered and honored by City Hall with this.

— TGS (@lilybeansdad.bsky.social) 2026-10-14T19:09:43.632Z

“Bean” is the nickname for Lily Shambrook, 3, who lost her life on June 9, 2022. She was riding on the back of her mother’s bicycle when a truck driver obstructed the bike lane they were riding in on Leland Avenue in Uptown, which caused the fatal crash.

Lily Shambrook by a fountain at McCormick Place during a bike ride on the Lakefront Trail. Photo: Provided

Today in the Committee on Pedestrian & Traffic Safety: The Divvy contract extension was NOT voted on. Committee members voted to hold the item in committee to further discuss concerns. The ordinance to make the Smart Streets Pilot permanent and expand it citywide PASSED!

— Alderman La Spata (@aldermanlaspata.bsky.social) 2026-10-09T21:31:47.324Z

Screenshot of posts by Bike Lane Uprising.

If you appreciate Streetsblog Chicago’s livable streets reporting and advocacy, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to support our work. Thank you!

Café del Decrecimiento n.º 15 "Tejiendo alternativas radicales: construyendo solidaridad global entre movimientos" Fecha y lugar * Fecha: viernes 16 de octubre de 2026 * Hora: 4:30 p. m. (hora local de Copenhague) * Lugar: Folkets Hus, primer piso, Stengade 50, 2200 Copenhague, Dinamarca

[ Tejedores] TGA es una “red de redes”. Cada una de esas redes actúa en diferentes partes del planeta identificando y conectando Alternativas. Son los Tejedores. [ Apoyos] Diversas organizaciones progresitas, post-desarrollo y/o anti-capitalistas apoyan esta iniciativa. Tambien lo hacen académicos, activistas y referentes.

Eventos Próximos eventos Café del Decrecimiento n.º 15 "Tejiendo alternativas radicales: construyendo solidaridad global entre movimientos" - 16 de octubre Global of () es un proceso que conecta alternativas radicales al actual sistema destructivo de todo el mundo, en particular del Sur Global. En este taller presencial y co-creativo, primero ofreceremos una introducción al trabajo de GTAGTAGTAGTAGTATapestryAlternativesTapestryAlternativesTapestryAlternativesGTAGTAGTAGTATapestryAlternativ…