Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Costa Rica President Downplays Illegal Logging in Gandoca Manzanillo

News Feed
Wednesday, July 24, 2024

President Rodrigo Chaves spoke about the case of alleged illegal logging in Gandoca Manzanillo. Chaves minimized the facts, arguing that “only 23 trees were cut.” “The scandal with which they want to distract the population, talking about 23 trees that were cut down with permits on a property of 26 hectares, that is the ecological disaster that the Frente Amplio and all those shout about to distract you from the real disaster in Crucitas,” he said. Likewise, President Chaves avoided mentioning that these logging permits are under investigation by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and that five people were arrested last week. This is not the first time that Chaves has defended the permits issued to this company. “The permit is in order; we have investigated it. It complies with all our procedures to grant a forest harvesting permit,” the President stated in a press conference. The Environmental Prosecutor’s Office suspects that several irregularities were committed to change the land use in the forest and wetlands areas, with the purpose of carrying out urban constructions. Among those arrested is businessman Allan Pacheco Dent, who has been linked to Chaves’ administration and political campaign. Other governmental authorities such as Attorney General Iván Vincenti warned that deforestation could be taking place inside the protected area. According to a note sent by Vincenti to the Constitutional Chamber, the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) granted tree-cutting permits to the company Manzanillo S. A., represented by Pacheco Dent, despite the fact that, in the plans that gave rise to the titling of the land, “there is evidence of its presumed location within the refuge.” At least three documents from the Attorney General’s Office (PGR) have indicated to the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) that it must restore the original limits of the refuge. However, to date, SINAC has not done so. The Environmental Prosecutor’s Office is investigating alleged irregularities in the issuance of logging permits on a farm owned by Playa Manzanillo, S.A. in Talamanca, on land located within the hectares that were under the declaration of Gandoca Manzanillo Refuge until Law 9223 was approved in 2014. The post Costa Rica President Downplays Illegal Logging in Gandoca Manzanillo appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

President Rodrigo Chaves spoke about the case of alleged illegal logging in Gandoca Manzanillo. Chaves minimized the facts, arguing that “only 23 trees were cut.” “The scandal with which they want to distract the population, talking about 23 trees that were cut down with permits on a property of 26 hectares, that is the ecological […] The post Costa Rica President Downplays Illegal Logging in Gandoca Manzanillo appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

President Rodrigo Chaves spoke about the case of alleged illegal logging in Gandoca Manzanillo. Chaves minimized the facts, arguing that “only 23 trees were cut.” “The scandal with which they want to distract the population, talking about 23 trees that were cut down with permits on a property of 26 hectares, that is the ecological disaster that the Frente Amplio and all those shout about to distract you from the real disaster in Crucitas,” he said.

Likewise, President Chaves avoided mentioning that these logging permits are under investigation by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and that five people were arrested last week. This is not the first time that Chaves has defended the permits issued to this company.

“The permit is in order; we have investigated it. It complies with all our procedures to grant a forest harvesting permit,” the President stated in a press conference.

The Environmental Prosecutor’s Office suspects that several irregularities were committed to change the land use in the forest and wetlands areas, with the purpose of carrying out urban constructions. Among those arrested is businessman Allan Pacheco Dent, who has been linked to Chaves’ administration and political campaign.

Other governmental authorities such as Attorney General Iván Vincenti warned that deforestation could be taking place inside the protected area. According to a note sent by Vincenti to the Constitutional Chamber, the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) granted tree-cutting permits to the company Manzanillo S. A., represented by Pacheco Dent, despite the fact that, in the plans that gave rise to the titling of the land, “there is evidence of its presumed location within the refuge.”

At least three documents from the Attorney General’s Office (PGR) have indicated to the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) that it must restore the original limits of the refuge. However, to date, SINAC has not done so.

The Environmental Prosecutor’s Office is investigating alleged irregularities in the issuance of logging permits on a farm owned by Playa Manzanillo, S.A. in Talamanca, on land located within the hectares that were under the declaration of Gandoca Manzanillo Refuge until Law 9223 was approved in 2014.

The post Costa Rica President Downplays Illegal Logging in Gandoca Manzanillo appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

To Play or Not to Play With Your Kid?

It shouldn’t be this hard to decide.

The first time that Megan Roth, an urban planner in Calgary, Canada, Googled independent play, her daughter had just received a number of toys for her second birthday. None engaged her for long. The toddler preferred doing household tasks with her parents: refilling the bird feeder, replacing batteries in the smoke detector. Roth thought it was cute at first, but then she started hearing that her daughter should be able to play without much, if any, adult input. Family members commented on what they saw as her daughter’s short attention span. In parenting forums and on social-media accounts, tips for encouraging solitary play were as abundant as beads in a craft kit. “It caused me a lot of worry,” Roth told me, “and anxiety that I had ruined her somehow.”The phrase independent play, popularized by the parenting educator Janet Lansbury, was almost unheard-of 15 years ago. Today, it is Googled more often than baby-led weaning or free-range parenting. Toy brands such as Lovevery, Melissa & Doug, and Hape market their products’ ability to encourage children’s autonomy. And then there’s social media. The parenting influencer Jerrica Sannes, for instance, has written that to ensure children’s cognitive and psychological development, parents “have to set aside a minimum of 5 hours per day for independent, unstructured, adult-free, sensory-rich, risky, creative PLAY particularly throughout the early stages of brain development,” and that playing with young children “actually often undermines” connection.For some parents, the idea that it’s good for children to play on their own can offer relief: How reassuring to hear that, far from being neglectful because we don’t love playing princesses, we might be better off refraining. Yet for other parents, the advice has become just one more thing to fret about; they wonder if they’re playing with their children too much. Veronica Lopes, a mother in Toronto, told me that she recently created a “parking lot” made of tape and cardboard rolls for her 2-year-old. They used it to play cars together. But “I’ve started to doubt myself,” she said. “The more I’m hearing people talk about this, the more I’m like … Am I not doing this right?”[Read: Why don’t we teach people how to parent?]You can hear this concern echoed on a podcast hosted by Lansbury. In one episode, she problem-solves for a mom whose 14-week-old infant will lie on the floor to play alone for only “20 minutes, tops,” before crying. In another, a mother says that although her eight-month-old is happy to play independently for “long periods,” he loses it when she leaves the room. “Is he developmentally ready to be left alone for a little bit? Absolutely,” Lansbury responds. “It’s much easier for him and for us to get comfortable with this the earlier we start.”Over the past few years, while reporting on parenting issues, I’ve spoken with dozens of child psychologists and researchers who have left me with the impression that few aspects of parenting are black-and-white except, perhaps, for one: Responding to children in a way that is sensitive, prompt, and attuned to their stage of development is crucial to raising healthy, happy children. So look at the recent discourse on independent play and it’s easy to see why some parents are confused. For one, it seems full of contradictions: Independent play means without parents, but also with parents; it’s natural, but it has to be taught from an early age; we should trust children’s instincts in play, but not when their instincts lead them to seek our involvement. In an interview, Sannes told me, “When I say ‘independent play,’ what I mean is unstructured, free play … It’s really just letting go of control of children’s time.” I also spoke with Lansbury, who said that encouraging independent play is never about “forcing” a behavior. “Nothing I teach is about ‘getting’ a child to do anything,” she said. “It’s about getting ourselves out of the way.” (After our conversation, she emphasized this point in a new blog post on independent-play “myths.” No.1, she wrote: “Independent play means leaving children alone.”)Yet some parents seem to be absorbing the message—especially from social media, the great flattener of nuanced communications—that in playing with their kids, they might be doing them a disservice, and that all children, regardless of age, temperament, or ability, should be capable of initiating and sustaining play for long periods. I asked Roberta Golinkoff, a developmental psychologist and the founder of the Child’s Play, Learning, and Development Lab at the University of Delaware, if she has come across any research supporting such interpretations. “I’ve been in this business a long time,” she said—50 years. “I have not seen anything about that.” The developmental psychologist Catherine Tamis-LeMonda, who leads NYU’s Play and Language Lab, also put it to me bluntly: “It’s entirely wrong, according to science.”The scientific literature rarely refers to “independent play.” Studies instead focus on “unstructured” or “free” play, which is child-led with no predetermined goal—and has been shown to have numerous benefits. Studies have found, for example, that children who participate in more unstructured play are likely to have better emotional self-regulation, executive functioning, and academic performance later in life.Notably, free play doesn’t mean that adults have to remain uninvolved. (One study co-authored by Golinkoff listed participating in “Mommy & Me classes”—presumably with Mommy—as “free, unstructured play.”) In fact, research has shown that the younger the child, the more support they need. Sandra Russ, a clinical child psychologist at Case Western Reserve University, told me this was especially true of pretend play. “Many young kids need a little help,” she said. “Scaffolding is important.” Russ has found that if a parent “models” a bit—pretending a red Lego is a fire engine, say—the child is more likely to pursue the play and pretend on their own. Older neurodivergent children can also need scaffolding, she said. “They have trouble making up a story. They have trouble seeing that a Lego can be many different things.”[Read: The one big thing you can do for your kids]And an abundance of research indicates that children benefit from playing with their parents. One review of multiple studies suggested that when fathers play with their kids, the children can develop better cognitive, social, and emotional skills. Parents acting playfully has been linked with various advantages, such as improved emotion regulation, in their children. And a 2018 report from the American Academy of Pediatrics noted that parent-child play can help reduce “toxic stress” to “levels that are more compatible with coping and resilience.”Play with an adult also seems to keep children, including babies, more engaged. One study compared the attention spans of 12-month-olds when they played alone versus with a parent and found that many of the babies looked at objects longer, and were more attentive, when playing with a parent. Children also tend to be happier playing on their own if an adult plays with them first, Tamis-LeMonda told me. “Thinking that By participating, my child will be less inclined to be independent is wrong,” she said.What’s more, researchers have found risks when adults don’t actively engage with children who are trying to connect. The University of Calgary child psychologist Sheri Madigan conducted a meta-analysis this year adding to a mountain of research suggesting that responding quickly and appropriately to young children’s “signals of need and/or interest” has long-term benefits. It’s fine to put a happy baby down to play, Madigan told me. But “when that child is ever distressed, you want to be in that space with them immediately”—and respond in a way that they understand. For a preverbal child, that usually means picking them up.I asked Madigan about advice I’d heard Lansbury give on her podcast about not “saving” a crying baby right away: (“Immediately respond, but verbally,” Lansbury says. Otherwise “the baby gets the message … that they needed to be rescued.”) Madigan told me that this “may foster independent play, but it won’t foster a secure-attachment relationship”—the kind in which children believe that their caregiver will be there to keep them safe, and which has been shown to correlate with positive developmental outcomes, including better mental health. She added that even children who seem to excel at playing autonomously might be aching inwardly. In such children, she has found higher cortisol levels, indicating stress. “So while they’re engaging in independent play,” she said, “biologically, they’re struggling.”One proponent of kids having more adult-free playtime is the anthropologist David Lancy, whose book Learning Without Lessons: Pedagogy in Indigenous Communities examines how children learn and play in small, preindustrial societies. Lancy told me that in the cultures he has studied, it’s seen as strange, even laughable, for adults to play with children. But his findings come with a caveat: Although hunter-gatherer societies rarely feature adult-child play, this doesn’t mean that children are left to play alone, or that anyone wants them to. In close-knit communities, the child still plays in multiage groups; the ideal is for them to seek out play with peers and other caregivers, such as older siblings. “There is solo play,” Lancy said. “But it’s not desirable.”The challenge in societies built around the nuclear family, as in the United States, is that children might have fewer playmates close to home—turning parents into a default. But in the U.S., there’s little evidence to show that parents spend too much time playing with their kids. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, parents play with their children ages 6 and younger an average of 37 minutes a day. And the play-based approach taken by many day cares and preschools, combined with those centers’ high child-to-caregiver ratios, means that young children being cared for outside the home are probably already learning to entertain themselves some of the time.Researchers note, too, that children play when we don’t realize it. Banging a spoon during lunch? Play. Mouthing a shoe? Play. Helping to replace batteries? Also play. “They will explore and discover on their own those times you’re not there,” Tamis-LeMonda said. “And they’ll explore and discover when you are there. Participating does not mean your child will now not discover.”Few experts would argue that children shouldn’t get more time for autonomous play, especially outdoors. But as Lancy and others have noted, the diminishment of this kind of play often stems from external factors: crime, street traffic, increasing schoolwork. If we want children to play more without adult involvement, we might be better off focusing on goals such as preserving urban green space, reducing homework, and protecting recess—all of which play researchers tend to advocate for.[Read: What adults lost when kids stopped playing in the street]The anxiety among parents over how to best “teach” independent play points to another problem. It suggests a belief—despite what we know about how genetic, environmental, socioeconomic, and other factors can shape behavior—that our children’s personalities are as pliable as Play-Doh, and that any lumpy bits are indications that we have only ourselves, the sculptors, to blame. The fact that adults’ quest for perfectionism seeps into play, which every person I spoke with agreed should be the easy, joyful part of parenting, feels particularly sad. “Moms,” Golinkoff said, “have enough to worry about.”In one of her blog posts on fostering independent play, Lansbury used the example of a baby rolling a ball. “Don’t roll the ball back,” she advised. Instead, “just quietly watch, or offer a simple reflection like, ‘you pushed that ball and it rolled away.’” Reading it, I was reminded of one of my most savored memories from my daughter’s infancy: the time she first tossed a ball to me. I’ve always been semi-allergic to games of catch. But I didn’t hesitate before throwing the ball back. For 10 minutes, we continued, her peals of laughter piercing every round. I’m glad I didn’t tarnish the moment by questioning my instinct. I’m grateful I threw the ball.​​When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

Job killer or neighborhood protector? Proposed warehouse rules divide Inland Empire

Last-minute legislation would limit where distribution centers can go. Supporters say it would shield neighborhoods from traffic and deliver cleaner air. But business groups warn the bill could threaten jobs in a booming industry.

In summary Last-minute legislation would limit where distribution centers can go. Supporters say it would shield neighborhoods from traffic and deliver cleaner air. But business groups warn the bill could threaten jobs in a booming industry. California is poised to set new rules for warehouse locations and truck routes with a last-minute bill to curtail air pollution and traffic from distribution centers.  But local government groups oppose the legislation, and business groups warn that it would place onerous requirements on warehouse developments and cities, threatening trade and jobs. Gov. Gavin Newsom has until the end of the month to sign or veto the bill. Assembly Bill 98 passed in the final hours before the Legislature adjourned Saturday, after lawmakers swapped out language from an agricultural bill for the new warehouse restrictions.  The bill would tighten building standards for new warehouses; ban heavy-duty diesel truck traffic next to sensitive sites including homes, schools, parks and nursing homes; and require local governments to update truck routes to avoid residential streets, said Assemblymember Eloise Gómez Reyes, a San Bernardino Democrat who co-authored the bill. The measure would also add minimum distance requirements between homes and warehouses, along with buffers featuring walls and landscaping. The bill would also require replacement of two new homes for every one that’s demolished to make room for new logistics centers, along with 12 months rental payment to displaced renters. Reyes said the bill would counter the environmental and health effects of explosive warehouse growth in the Inland Empire, where 4,000 warehouses occupy a billion square feet combined and generate more than 600,000 truck trips per day. “We have tried to do as best we can, remembering that it’s the health of the residents of California that has to be the state’s top priority,” she told CalMatters Monday. “Everything else is secondary.” Although the bill was pushed through the Legislature in the last week of session, Reyes said it’s the product of years of effort and “not something that happened overnight.” Reyes introduced a separate bill earlier this year that would have created bigger buffers between warehouses and sensitive sites, but it failed in committee. She said this bill is a starting point for better health protections in warehouse planning.  “I think what we have put together is a common sense approach and it’s a very important first step,” she said.  However business leaders objected to its rushed passage, arguing that it could put a chokehold on trade, endanger jobs and spike consumer costs. The very fact that an earlier bill didn’t make it out of committee shows that the issue deserved more time and attention, said Paul Granillo, president and CEO of the Inland Empire Economic Partnership. “Anything that is put together in that short a time, in smoke-filled rooms is not good policy; and AB 98 is not good policy,” he said.  Granillo said the restrictions could increase the cost of everyday goods and push business out of state.  “This type of legislation just signals to people that would invest in creating jobs in California that California is not a job-friendly state,” he said. A large warehouse at the end of a cul-de-sac in a residential neighborhood in San Bernardino on Feb. 16, 2023. Pablo Unzueta for CalMatters Melissa Sparks-Kranz, a lobbyist for the League of California Cities, said the bill’s cost to local governments would be prohibitive, forcing cities to spend between $100,000 and several million dollars each to develop the new traffic plans, with penalties of $50,000 for delays in those updates. The league is urging Newsom to veto the bill; the California State Association of Counties is also against it. Granillo added that the bill’s standards for setbacks and truck routes strip local governments of their land use authority. “The idea that the state thinks it can come up with a solution that will work in all cities of California is ludicrous,” he said. The California Chamber of Commerce, however, called the bill a “valuable compromise” that could provide a backstop against more extensive legislation and litigation affecting warehouse projects. Warehouse developments have long been a mixed blessing to communities in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, offering steady employment and economic growth, but worsening the region’s haze of pollution and imposing heavy traffic on neighborhood streets.  Riverside and San Bernardino rank first and second among the counties with highest ozone levels and among the top dozen for particulate pollution. Activists link the proliferation of warehouses to unusually high rates of asthma and cancer. Local and state officials have tried to thread the needle between environmental protections and economic growth, but sometimes they leave community members, particularly those in low-income communities of color, with the sense that they are cut out of the conversation.  Those concerns made for an unlikely alignment between industry groups and environmental justice advocates. The Jurupa Valley-based Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice also opposed the bill, arguing that it didn’t go far enough to control persistent air pollution from the warehouse boom. Although the legislation set minimum setbacks of 300 to 500 feet from warehouse docks to the property line of sensitive sites, it fell short of the 1,000 feet recommended to avoid the worst diesel exposure, said Ana Gonzalez, the center’s executive director. And it calls for warehouses to use zero-emission engines when “operationally feasible,” which she said leaves loopholes for developers. Gonzalez admitted that she was surprised to join industry groups in opposition: “It put us in a muddy place, because we never thought we would be on the same side opposing a warehouse or environmental justice bill.” Other groups said the bill strikes a balance between environmental and economic interests, even if it didn’t please either side. James Thuerwachter, a lobbyist for the California State Council of Laborers, which represents workers in the construction industry, said the bill accommodates job creation and environmental regulation.  “AB 98 brings innovative solutions to tackle immediate air quality, safety, and supply chain issues, while also bringing our distribution process into the 21st century,” he said in a state Senate Appropriations Committee hearing last week. While the bill didn’t meet all her expectations, Gonzalez said it sets baseline environmental health standards that community groups can use to push for greater protections. “Our organization feels that if the governor signs this bill, there is an opportunity to build from here and do better,” she said.

Study: EV charging stations boost spending at nearby businesses

The spending increases were particularly pronounced for businesses within 100 yards of charging stations, and for businesses in low-income areas.

Charging stations for electric vehicles are essential for cleaning up the transportation sector. A new study by MIT researchers suggests they’re good for business, too.The study found that, in California, opening a charging station boosted annual spending at each nearby business by an average of about $1,500 in 2019 and about $400 between January 2021 and June 2023. The spending bump amounts to thousands of extra dollars annually for nearby businesses, with the increase particularly pronounced for businesses in underresourced areas.The study’s authors hope the research paints a more holistic picture of the benefits of EV charging stations, beyond environmental factors.“These increases are equal to a significant chunk of the cost of installing an EV charger, and I hope this study sheds light on these economic benefits,” says lead author Yunhan Zheng MCP ’21, SM ’21, PhD ’24, a postdoc at the Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology (SMART). “The findings could also diversify the income stream for charger providers and site hosts, and lead to more informed business models for EV charging stations.”Zheng’s co-authors on the paper, which was published today in Nature Communications, are David Keith, a senior lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management; Jinhua Zhao, an MIT professor of cities and transportation; and alumni Shenhao Wang MCP ’17, SM ’17, PhD ’20 and Mi Diao MCP ’06, PhD ’10.Understanding the EV effectIncreasing the number of electric vehicle charging stations is seen as a key prerequisite for the transition to a cleaner, electrified transportation sector. As such, the 2021 U.S. Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act committed $7.5 billion to build a national network of public electric vehicle chargers across the U.S.But a large amount of private investment will also be needed to make charging stations ubiquitous.“The U.S. is investing a lot in EV chargers and really encouraging EV adoption, but many EV charging providers can’t make enough money at this stage, and getting to profitability is a major challenge,” Zheng says.EV advocates have long argued that the presence of charging stations brings economic benefits to surrounding communities, but Zheng says previous studies on their impact relied on surveys or were small-scale. Her team of collaborators wanted to make advocates’ claims more empirical.For their study, the researchers collected data from over 4,000 charging stations in California and 140,000 businesses, relying on anonymized credit and debit card transactions to measure changes in consumer spending. The researchers used data from 2019 through June of 2023, skipping the year 2020 to minimize the impact of the pandemic.To judge whether charging stations caused customer spending increases, the researchers compared data from businesses within 500 meters of new charging stations before and after their installation. They also analyzed transactions from similar businesses in the same time frame that weren’t near charging stations.Supercharging nearby businessesThe researchers found that installing a charging station boosted annual spending at nearby establishments by an average of 1.4 percent in 2019 and 0.8 percent from January 2021 to June 2023.While that might sound like a small amount per business, it amounts to thousands of dollars in overall consumer spending increases. Specifically, those percentages translate to almost $23,000 in cumulative spending increases in 2019 and about $3,400 per year from 2021 through June 2023.Zheng says the decline in spending increases over the two time periods might be due to a saturation of EV chargers, leading to lower utilization, as well as an overall decrease in spending per business after the Covid-19 pandemic and a reduced number of businesses served by each EV charging station in the second period. Despite this decline, the annual impact of a charging station on all its surrounding businesses would still cover approximately 11.2 percent of the average infrastructure and installation cost of a standard charging station.Through both time frames, the spending increases were highest for businesses within about a football field’s distance from the new stations. They were also significant for businesses in disadvantaged and low-income areas, as designated by California and the Justice40 Initiative.“The positive impacts of EV charging stations on businesses are not constrained solely to some high-income neighborhoods,” Wang says. “It highlights the importance for policymakers to develop EV charging stations in marginalized areas, because they not only foster a cleaner environment, but also serve as a catalyst for enhancing economic vitality.”Zheng believes the findings hold a lesson for charging station developers seeking to improve the profitability of their projects.“The joint gas station and convenience store business model could also be adopted to EV charging stations,” Zheng says. “Traditionally, many gas stations are affiliated with retail store chains, which enables owners to both sell fuel and attract customers to diversify their revenue stream. EV charging providers could consider a similar approach to internalize the positive impact of EV charging stations.”Zheng also says the findings could support the creation of new funding models for charging stations, such as multiple businesses sharing the costs of construction so they can all benefit from the added spending.Those changes could accelerate the creation of charging networks, but Zheng cautions that further research is needed to understand how much the study’s findings can be extrapolated to other areas. She encourages other researchers to study the economic effects of charging stations and hopes future research includes states beyond California and even other countries.“A huge number of studies have focused on retail sales effects from traditional transportation infrastructure, such as rail and subway stations, bus stops, and street configurations,” Zhao says. “This research provides evidence for an important, emerging piece of transportation infrastructure and shows a consistently positive effect on local businesses, paving the way for future research in this area.”The research was supported, in part, by the Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology (SMART) and the Singapore National Research Foundation. Diao was partially supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China.

Op-ed: We mobilized to defend the EPA in Trump's first term. This time the stakes are even higher.

In early 2017 when the Trump administration was just starting to reveal its true intentions, I and other U.S. Environmental Protection Agency alumni formed a resistance organization to mobilize a defense for our former EPA colleagues and the mission to which they, and we, had devoted our professional lives.We fact-checked the Trump administration’s version of environmental protection and defended the integrity of the agency and its personnel. We provided critical information to reporters, environmental organizations and Capitol Hill.I walked away when the Biden-Harris administration took power. The EPA was liberated to do its job, to continue the path that had been set decades before in the Nixon administration and pretty much continued since, with the glaring exception of the Trump years (and the first couple of years of Reagan, thank you, Anne Gorsuch).We are now facing another period of uncertainty. One potential outcome of the upcoming election is continued normalcy in which the EPA does its job (albeit under the surveillance of an unsympathetic Supreme Court; thank you, Neil Gorsuch).Another possible outcome is the chaos and brutality set out in Project 2025, which would dismantle the expertise of the career civil service and set progress back to the time before we recognized that pollution does not respect state lines and that every citizen is entitled to environmental protections, wherever they live. Project 2025, a conservative blueprint that Trump has disavowed but was, in part, crafted by several former Cabinet members of his first administration, would give “the primary role in making choices about the environment” back to state governments. It would remove climate protection from the EPA’s to-do list.As we have already lived through this sad drama, I went back and read what I wrote two years ago in the Democracy Journal about the organization we established to fight for environmental protections. Just as a reminder of what can and likely will happen with a Trump second term, I’d suggest you do as well. We are now facing another period of uncertainty. One potential outcome of the upcoming election is continued normalcy ... another possible outcome is the chaos and brutality set out in Project 2025.The article describes the various attacks on both the substance and the process of environmental protection. It describes the tremendous effort it took to document and fight. The entire enterprise was predicated on the assumption that facts are facts and that making those facts available to people through a free press would be sufficient to help mobilize resistance and engage rationality, that information would help people understand what was at stake and nudge them toward action.To some extent, we had a bit of an advantage because the folks who were assigned by the first Trump administration to carry out this carnage were mostly novices. They had never before torn down government institutions.Project 2025 shows they aren’t novices anymore. They have a better understanding of the levers of power and how things get done in the federal government. They are primed and ready to do serious damage, should they get the chance.In the last part of that article, I tried to think about whether the business model for our effort could work if the agency were again under attack. I have no doubt that EPA alumni could be mobilized. And there are still reporters willing to shine a light on injustices and violations of law.Where I have doubt is whether the circumstances are so different that the same theory of the case and the same tools would be insufficient.Project 2025 shows they aren’t novices anymore. They have a better understanding of the levers of power and how things get done in the federal government. They are primed and ready to do serious damage, should they get the chance.In 2017-2021, we could reasonably hope that Trump and Trumpism were temporary. A second round of Trump could “mean that we have misread our own country,” as I wrote, which would make it harder to organize and to keep up our spirits this time around.There are so many uncertainties, such cratering of principles we thought we could rely on in our effort.What does a second Trump election with his myriad lies say about the power of facts and truth? What happens to the EPA when its cadre of scientists, analysts, lawyers, economists and other specialists are removed from their jobs or intimidated? How can advocates for clean air and clean water rely on an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to provide the minute and specific instructions apparently required now that the Chevron doctrine has been disposed of? Does a Trump-dominated EPA even try to carry out its statutory duties, much less try to work its way around the restrictions recently placed on it by the Supreme Court?As I said in my analysis, the rules as we understand them are changing before our eyes. It would be well to refresh our memories of the realities of those challenging days. Read "Lessons for the Next Resistance."

In early 2017 when the Trump administration was just starting to reveal its true intentions, I and other U.S. Environmental Protection Agency alumni formed a resistance organization to mobilize a defense for our former EPA colleagues and the mission to which they, and we, had devoted our professional lives.We fact-checked the Trump administration’s version of environmental protection and defended the integrity of the agency and its personnel. We provided critical information to reporters, environmental organizations and Capitol Hill.I walked away when the Biden-Harris administration took power. The EPA was liberated to do its job, to continue the path that had been set decades before in the Nixon administration and pretty much continued since, with the glaring exception of the Trump years (and the first couple of years of Reagan, thank you, Anne Gorsuch).We are now facing another period of uncertainty. One potential outcome of the upcoming election is continued normalcy in which the EPA does its job (albeit under the surveillance of an unsympathetic Supreme Court; thank you, Neil Gorsuch).Another possible outcome is the chaos and brutality set out in Project 2025, which would dismantle the expertise of the career civil service and set progress back to the time before we recognized that pollution does not respect state lines and that every citizen is entitled to environmental protections, wherever they live. Project 2025, a conservative blueprint that Trump has disavowed but was, in part, crafted by several former Cabinet members of his first administration, would give “the primary role in making choices about the environment” back to state governments. It would remove climate protection from the EPA’s to-do list.As we have already lived through this sad drama, I went back and read what I wrote two years ago in the Democracy Journal about the organization we established to fight for environmental protections. Just as a reminder of what can and likely will happen with a Trump second term, I’d suggest you do as well. We are now facing another period of uncertainty. One potential outcome of the upcoming election is continued normalcy ... another possible outcome is the chaos and brutality set out in Project 2025.The article describes the various attacks on both the substance and the process of environmental protection. It describes the tremendous effort it took to document and fight. The entire enterprise was predicated on the assumption that facts are facts and that making those facts available to people through a free press would be sufficient to help mobilize resistance and engage rationality, that information would help people understand what was at stake and nudge them toward action.To some extent, we had a bit of an advantage because the folks who were assigned by the first Trump administration to carry out this carnage were mostly novices. They had never before torn down government institutions.Project 2025 shows they aren’t novices anymore. They have a better understanding of the levers of power and how things get done in the federal government. They are primed and ready to do serious damage, should they get the chance.In the last part of that article, I tried to think about whether the business model for our effort could work if the agency were again under attack. I have no doubt that EPA alumni could be mobilized. And there are still reporters willing to shine a light on injustices and violations of law.Where I have doubt is whether the circumstances are so different that the same theory of the case and the same tools would be insufficient.Project 2025 shows they aren’t novices anymore. They have a better understanding of the levers of power and how things get done in the federal government. They are primed and ready to do serious damage, should they get the chance.In 2017-2021, we could reasonably hope that Trump and Trumpism were temporary. A second round of Trump could “mean that we have misread our own country,” as I wrote, which would make it harder to organize and to keep up our spirits this time around.There are so many uncertainties, such cratering of principles we thought we could rely on in our effort.What does a second Trump election with his myriad lies say about the power of facts and truth? What happens to the EPA when its cadre of scientists, analysts, lawyers, economists and other specialists are removed from their jobs or intimidated? How can advocates for clean air and clean water rely on an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to provide the minute and specific instructions apparently required now that the Chevron doctrine has been disposed of? Does a Trump-dominated EPA even try to carry out its statutory duties, much less try to work its way around the restrictions recently placed on it by the Supreme Court?As I said in my analysis, the rules as we understand them are changing before our eyes. It would be well to refresh our memories of the realities of those challenging days. Read "Lessons for the Next Resistance."

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.