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.

To Play or Not to Play With Your Kid?

News Feed
Thursday, September 5, 2024

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.

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.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

US Regulatory Power Faces Fresh Test as New Supreme Court Term Nears

By John KruzelWASHINGTON (Reuters) - A case involving the vape industry gives the U.S. Supreme Court a chance to further erode the authority of...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A case involving the vape industry gives the U.S. Supreme Court a chance to further erode the authority of federal regulatory agencies following other major rulings as the justices gird for a new term featuring important business-related questions.The nine-month term, which begins on Oct. 7, also brings cases involving tech giants Nvidia and Meta's Facebook that could make it harder for private plaintiffs to win securities fraud lawsuits against companies in federal courts.The vape industry case is the latest front in a regulatory rollback effort in the courts cheered by conservatives and business interests to weaken the federal agency bureaucracy that interprets laws, crafts federal rules and implements executive action.The Supreme Court, in a June 28 decision powered by its 6-3 conservative majority, overturned a legal principle called "Chevron deference" established by the justices 40 years ago that had called on judges to defer to federal agencies in interpreting laws they administer. That case involved an industry challenge to a U.S. regulatory agency's fish conservation program.The new case does not carry the same high stakes but nonetheless affords the conservative justices an opportunity to scrutinize actions of a regulatory agency, in this case the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's denial of applications to sell flavored vape products.The justices in June also issued rulings faulting actions by the Securities and Exchange Commission and Environmental Protection Agency. Additional cases challenging federal agencies have the potential to reach the justices this term.The court will hear the FDA's appeal of a lower court's ruling that the agency failed to follow proper legal procedures under federal law when it denied applications by e-cigarette liquid makers Triton Distribution and Vapetasia to bring their nicotine-containing products to market.The companies had filed FDA applications in 2020 for products with flavors such as sour grape, pink lemonade and crème brulee, and names including "Jimmy The Juice Man Strawberry Astronaut" and "Suicide Bunny Bunny Season."Although the FDA maintains that it has not categorically banned flavored e-cigarette products, companies seeking its approval must clear a high legal bar because, according to an agency court filing, such products pose a "known and substantial risk to youth." The FDA has approved only 27 e-cigarette products - all tobacco or menthol flavored - while denying more than a million other applications."The FDA case is another attack on agency authority and power, so it seems a bit in keeping with the seminal cases from last term that stripped agencies of various powers or left them more open to attack," said Karen Woody, a professor at Washington & Lee University School of Law in Virginia.The court has not yet set a date for arguments in the case.The justices will hear separate bids by Facebook and Nvidia to fend off federal securities fraud lawsuits. The Supreme Court already has weakened the federal agency that polices securities fraud - the Securities and Exchange Commission. These new cases now could make it more difficult for private litigants to hold companies to account for alleged securities fraud."These cases represent new opportunities for the Supreme Court to narrow the pinhole - so even fewer federal fraud claims can proceed past the early stages - or widen it," said Ann Lipton, a professor at Tulane Law School in Louisiana.Facebook and Nvidia filed separate appeals after a lower court allowed class action securities fraud lawsuits to proceed against them.The justices on Nov. 6 are due to hear arguments in Facebook's bid to dismiss a lawsuit accusing the social media platform of misleading investors in 2017 and 2018 about the misuse of its user data by the company and third parties.The court is due on Nov. 13 to hear arguments in a similar effort by Nvidia to scuttle litigation accusing the artificial intelligence chipmaker of misleading investors about how much of its sales went to the volatile cryptocurrency industry.Woody said the business community should take heed given the weighty stakes. Woody added that she expects the court to rule in favor of the companies in both cases. She joined a court brief favoring Facebook."The Nvidia and Facebook cases read together could end up with companies needing to disclose more information and plaintiffs with a slightly lower bar for pleading requirements in a class action," Woody said. "That combination could have companies worried about a potential increase in liability exposure."University of Nevada, Las Vegas law professor Benjamin Edwards said the court's momentous term that ended in July continues to reverberate."I suspect the story in the business community for the next few years will be how to adjust" to the new legal landscape, Edwards added.Anat Alon-Beck, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Ohio, said the business community is likely to try to build on its considerable success in recent terms of "gutting regulatory agencies' ability to create and enforce rules on industry."(Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham)Copyright 2024 Thomson Reuters.

Microsoft Is Luring Fossil-Fuel Companies With AI

Karen Hao reports on the hypocrisy of the tech giant.

This is Atlantic Intelligence, a newsletter in which our writers help you wrap your mind around artificial intelligence and a new machine age. Sign up here.Today, The Atlantic published a new investigation by contributing writer Karen Hao detailing Microsoft’s recent engagements with the oil and gas industries. Although the tech giant has spoken of the potential for AI to remake our world for the better and stave off climate change, behind the scenes, it has sought to market the technology to fossil-fuel companies to aid in drilling, among other applications. Karen spoke with 15 current and former Microsoft employees and read through hundreds of internal documents for her report.Fundamentally, this is a story about tension—between two points of view within Microsoft, and between the supposed promise of a technology and its actual uses in the here and now. Sustainability advocates within Microsoft have clashed with leadership over its pursuit of this business. And although Microsoft has maintained that AI could be used to make fossil-fuel companies more efficient, thereby making their work more sustainable, critics aren’t so sure. “The idea that AI’s climate benefits will outpace its environmental costs is largely speculative,” Karen writes, “especially given that generative-AI tools are themselves tremendously resource-hungry. Within the next six years, the data centers required to develop and run the kinds of next-generation AI models that Microsoft is investing in may use more power than all of India. They will be cooled by millions upon millions of gallons of water. All the while, scientists agree, the world will get warmer, its climate more extreme.” Illustration by Paul Spella / The Atlantic: Sources: Getty. Microsoft’s Hypocrisy on AIBy Karen Hao Microsoft executives have been thinking lately about the end of the world. In a white paper published late last year, Brad Smith, the company’s vice chair and president, and Melanie Nakagawa, its chief sustainability officer, described a “planetary crisis” that AI could help solve. Imagine an AI-assisted tool that helps reduce food waste, to name one example from the document, or some future technology that could “expedite decarbonization” by using AI to invent new designs for green tech. But as Microsoft attempts to buoy its reputation as an AI leader in climate innovation, the company is also selling its AI to fossil-fuel companies. Hundreds of pages of internal documents I’ve obtained, plus interviews I’ve conducted over the past year with 15 current and former employees and executives, show that the tech giant has sought to market the technology to companies such as ExxonMobil and Chevron as a powerful tool for finding and developing new oil and gas reserves and maximizing their production—all while publicly committing to dramatically reduce emissions. Read the full article.What to Read Next OpenAI’s big reset: “With its new model, the company wants you to think ChatGPT is human,” Matteo Wong writes. Also by Matteo: The real AI threat starts when the polls close. “Whichever candidate loses in November will have an easy scapegoat,” he writes. P.S.Last week, I went viral on X and Threads after using generative AI to replace every icon on my phone’s home screen with a bespoke image of Kermit the Frog. I wrote about the experience—and what it reveals about AI—for The Atlantic.— Damon

Chris Olson: Portland City Council District 2

Read the candidate’s responses to questions about homelessness, police accountability, Portland’s budget and taxes.

Name: Chris OlsonNeighborhood: Sullivan’s GulchRenter/homeowner: RenterEducation: B.A. in pastoral ministry, Moody Bible Institute (Chicago, IL)Occupation: Nonprofit communications consultantHow long you’ve lived in the city of Portland: I’ve lived here for almost four years. I moved here in November of 2020.Age: 33Pronouns: He/HimPortland is facing an historic election involving a new voting system and an unusually high number of candidates. Journalists at The Oregonian/OregonLive and Oregon Public Broadcasting share a goal of ensuring that Portland voters have the information they need to make informed choices, and we also know candidates’ time is valuable and limited.That’s why the two news organizations teamed up this cycle to solicit Portland City Council candidates’ perspectives on the big issues in this election. Here’s what they had to say:For each of the following questions, we asked candidates to limit their answers to 150 words.Name two existing city policies or budget items you’d make it a priority to change. Why did you select those and how do you plan to line up at least 7 votes on the council to make them happen? Please avoid broad, sweeping statements and instead provide details.I would prioritize fully funding the Portland Street Response (PSR). PSR is an innovative program that dispatches unarmed first responders to non-violent crisis calls, reducing the burden on police and connecting people with the services they need. Fully funding PSR will expand its capacity and coverage, ensuring our response to crises is compassionate and effective. Second, I would stop the harmful and ineffective practice of homeless sweeps. Sweeps do nothing to address the root causes of homelessness and often push vulnerable individuals into more dangerous situations. Instead, I would reallocate those funds to open emergency temporary shelters across the city. To secure at least seven votes, I would build coalitions with council members committed to public safety reform and humane homelessness solutions. I would engage with community advocates, highlight the cost savings and benefits, and work with impacted neighborhoods to ensure these changes have broad-based support.What previous accomplishments show that you are the best pick in your district? Please be specific.One of my proudest accomplishments was working for the California Vote Project in 2012. The voter registration campaign was set up to flip a Senate and Assembly district in Riverside County from Republican to Democrat. We canvassed door-to-door to make sure we reached every voter in the county. At the end of Election Day, we successfully flipped those two seats. This project showed me the power of grassroots movements and meeting voters on the ground where they are. My experience makes me the best pick for District 2 because I’m willing to do the work to ensure the people are represented by someone who understands the challenges that Portlanders face.Portland is on track to permit the fewest number of multifamily units in 15 years and remains thousands of units below what’s needed to meet demand. What steps would you take to dramatically and quickly increase the availability of housing?To quickly increase housing availability, I would push to streamline the permitting process for multifamily developments, reducing unnecessary delays and cutting red tape that slows down construction. I’d advocate for re-zoning areas to allow for more affordable, mixed-use developments, especially near transit corridors, to maximize land use. Additionally, I’d increase city investments in nonprofit and community-led housing projects and leverage public land for affordable housing. I’d work to expand incentives for developers to build affordable units, such as tax abatements or fee reductions while ensuring strong tenant protections. By focusing on these practical steps, we can rapidly increase the supply of housing and meet the needs of our growing city.The next City Council is going to have to make some very difficult decisions regarding what to fund and how. What essential services must the city provide and how should the city sustainably fund them?The city must prioritize funding essential services like affordable housing, public safety, mental health services, and transportation. Fully funding programs like Portland Street Response, which addresses non-violent emergencies with mental health professionals, is critical for a compassionate public safety approach. We also need sustained investment in affordable housing, especially for low-income and vulnerable populations, and in maintaining and improving public transportation for equitable access to jobs and services. To sustainably fund these services, I propose reforming the city’s tax structure to ensure large corporations and high-income earners contribute fairly, reducing the burden on working-class Portlanders. We should explore a progressive business tax and implement a vacancy tax on unoccupied units to discourage speculation and generate revenue. Additionally, we must reevaluate and reallocate funds from less effective programs to those that directly address urgent needs, ensuring we deliver essential services equitably and effectively.Portlanders have approved many tax measures in the past decade – supporting affordable housing, free preschool programs and green energy initiatives. Are there specific taxes or levies you want eliminated or would choose to not renew? Are there specific taxes or levies you would support creating? Why?I support increasing the Portland Clean Energy Fund (PCEF) tax to 2% on companies generating over $1 billion annually. This tax targets the wealthiest corporations, ensuring they contribute more equitably to our community. The additional 1% increase would be specifically used by bureaus to fund renewable energy projects, and efficiency upgrades at the city. This approach not only fights climate change but also creates a source of income for the city, protecting the interest from the original PCEF tax. While I don’t support eliminating any existing taxes that fund essential services, I believe we should focus on making sure our tax structure is fair. For instance, I advocate for creating or expanding progressive taxes on large corporations and high-income earners. This ensures that those who profit most from Portland contribute fairly to our shared goals of environmental sustainability and economic justice.Do you have any concerns with the changes coming to city elections and city governance? If so, what would you like to see change?I support the move to a more representative and accountable city government, but I have some concerns about voter education efforts by the city. The new ranked-choice voting and expanded City Council are positive steps, but we must ensure the transition doesn’t create confusion or dilute accountability. I’d like to see clearer communication with voters about how ranked-choice voting works and more community engagement to ensure all residents understand the new system.For the five remaining questions, we asked candidates to answer in 50 words or fewer:Do you favor arresting and jailing people who camp on public property in Portland who refuse repeated offers of shelter, such as the option to sleep in a city-designated tiny home cluster?I don’t favor jailing people for camping on public property. Criminalizing homelessness is ineffective. People who refuse shelter do so because we lack the resources to meet their needs. We should focus on expanding accessible, low-barrier shelter options and providing supportive services that address the root causes of homelessness.Would you vote yes on a proposal to fund hundreds more police officers than the City Council has already authorized? Why or why not? How would the city pay for it?No, I wouldn’t vote to fund hundreds more police officers. We should focus on investing in proven community safety solutions like Portland Street Response and mental health services. We can pay for this by reallocating funds from the police budget toward these more effective programs.Do you support putting the Clean Energy Fund measure back on the ballot? What, if any changes, would you support?Yes, I support putting the Clean Energy Fund measure back on the ballot with an increase in the PCEF tax to 2% for large corporations. This change ensures greater investment in renewable energy, green jobs, and economic justice, funded by those most able to contribute.Which would you prioritize: Creation of more protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes or improved surfacing of existing degraded driving lanes?This is a false dichotomy — we can do both by appropriately taxing corporations. I support creating more protected bike and bus lanes while improving degraded driving lanes, ensuring safe, efficient transportation options for all Portlanders.Have the problems impacting downtown Portland received too much or too little attention from current city leaders? Why?Downtown has not received enough attention in some areas, and too much in others. The fixation on homelessness and drugs has created a bogeyman for problems Portland faces, many of which could be solved by providing adequate housing and mental health services.Read answers from other Portland City Council and mayoral candidates.

After Storms Like Francine, New Orleans Rushes to Dry Out

Hurricane Francine suddenly dropped an incredible amount of rain on New Orleans

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Hurricane Francine rapidly strengthened before making landfall in Louisiana on Wednesday, knocking out power for hundreds of thousands of people, flooding a cemetery and dumping rain on New Orleans, a city that relies on a uniquely complicated network of canals and pumps to get the water out.“Effectively, the swamp of centuries ago comes back to life, and communities built on those drained lowlands get water in their houses and cars” during bad storms, said Richard Campanella, a professor at Tulane University’s School of Architecture and author of the book “Draining New Orleans.”New Orleans was shaped by flooding and has long struggled to keep homes dry and the water out. Residents were cautioned to conserve water to reduce stress on the sewer system, although drinking water was never affected. By Thursday, officials said they had emptied out the rain, but that job requires an immense amount of infrastructure vital to keeping New Orleans habitable.Here is why the city struggles with downpours and how officials fight floodwaters:Hurricane Katrina showed how bad it can get. A breach in the levy flooded most of the city, stranding residents on rooftops and killing almost 1,400 people. For weeks, pumps worked to drain the flood.Afterwards, the federal government invested more than $14 billion on a 133-mile massive protection system of levees, pumps and other infrastructure designed to keep the water out. Hurricanes create storm surges that those walls are meant to stop, and Francine didn’t come close to challenging the design. Initial estimates of storm surge at the lakefront of Lake Pontchartrain were about 3 to 5 feet.“The walls at that location were about 16 feet. We had a lot more room to go,” said Ricky Boyett, a spokesperson with the Army Corps of Engineers.But when there is a tight ring of built-up earth, concrete and steel acting as a seal around the city and nearby areas, it keeps rain in, too, and that is a problem.Simply put, a lot of the city is below sea level. Gravity, which helps most city sewer systems' drain water in nearby wastewater treatment systems, lakes and rivers, is working against it.That requires moving water uphill, mainly into Lake Pontchartrain to the city's north.New Orleans rests just up the Mississippi River from Louisiana’s marshy southeastern coast. It is a region shaped by the Mississippi River, which deposited sediment that formed strips of higher ground that are surrounded by dense, swampy lowlands. But building New Orleans meant engineering the river and keeping water out. That stopped the river from depositing new sediment, said Boyce Upholt, author of “The Great River: : The Making and Unmaking of the Mississippi.”Now, the city “sinks under its own weight,” he said.Francine dumped rain inside the city's walls. That is when a complex system of pumps and canals are needed. Generally speaking, the system can drain an inch of water in the first hour and a half-inch each hour after that.“When a raindrop falls on the city, it goes into catch basins, the catch basin — a minor drainage system — conveys that water into larger pipes or canals and the canals drain that water to those individual pumping stations," said Ghassan Korban, the executive director of the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans that manages the drainage system.When the system backs up, the streets fill first. But homes and businesses can take on water, too, when the system is overwhelmed — as happened in the Lakeview neighborhood when Francine passed over.Some of the infrastructure the city relies on is old. Some pumps date back as much as a century, although those items have been refurbished over the years.The infrastructure is enormous — some of the canals can fit a bus. There are 24 drainage pumping stations and 99 major pumps. But the aging pumps run on an outmoded electric frequency, requiring extra equipment to adapt them to modern power generation. Campanella said reliable power at the correct frequency is one of the system's vulnerabilities.“Because they are pumps, they need power, and that's where it gets a little dicey,” Korban said.When Francine arrived, a few pumps had electrical issues, slowing drainage in some places. The drainage system has undergone various improvements over the years. After severe flooding in 1995, federal projects added new pumping stations and upgraded others while adding miles of canals. A major rainstorm in 2017 sparked significant changes in management at the agency that operates the drainage system. Officials have also constructed ponds to hold stormwater and worked to improve power reliability.A worst-case scenario is when a storm surprises forecasters and stalls over the city, dumping huge amounts of rain. Some of the worst floods the city has seen in recent memory weren't hurricanes, but major rainstorms. “You just manage the best you can,” Korban said.And climate change means the atmosphere can hold more moisture, which means the potential for big, wet storms.“You’ve seen a number of events in Louisiana since Hurricane Katrina that have really challenged the existing storm water infrastructure," said Dominic Boyer, a professor at Rice University in Houston who co-directs Center for Coastal Futures and Adaptive Resilience.That's “only going to be more challenging as time goes on,” he said. Phillis reported from St. Louis.The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environmentCopyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - July 2024

NW Natural said it was going green. It sells as much fossil fuel as before

NW Natural told Oregonians it had a new source of clean energy: renewable natural gas. Industry documents obtained by ProPublica reveal how the company has, for years, perpetuated its core fossil fuel business while painting a picture of going green.

This story was originally published by ProPublicaSeven years ago, Oregon’s biggest natural gas company set out to convince lawmakers and residents that an abundant new source of green energy was out there, just waiting to be tapped.Renewable natural gas is derived from decomposing organic waste at sites like landfills or dairy farms. It could, in theory, replace fossil natural gas in our pipelines with something far better for the environment.The company, NW Natural, sent a bow-tied lobbyist to the state capital to talk up renewable natural gas, and it helped write a new law promoting development of the new fuel. The company worked with the Oregon Department of Energy to prepare a statewide inventory of potential resources. And, with more than $1 million in customer money, the company targeted those customers with ads, introducing a slogan that highlighted its commitment to lowering carbon emissions: “Less We Can.”These and subsequent efforts became a template for NW Natural’s industry peers — and effectively tamped down a growing push by climate activists to phase out gas use in Oregon homes and electrify everything instead.Seven years on, the utility has not delivered on its clean-energy sales pitch. NW Natural has more retail gas customers than ever. It supplies them little, if any, renewable natural gas. It sells them as much fossil natural gas in an average year as it did before. And it wages steady battles in the courts and in local city halls to keep the gas flowing.Internal industry documents obtained by ProPublica, coupled with an analysis of regulatory filings and testimony before the state Legislature, reveal how NW Natural pursued an approach that perpetuated its core fossil fuel business while the company painted a picture of going green.“The story they’re telling us is simply not possible,” said former state Rep. Phil Barnhart, a Democrat who voted for some of the company’s legislation when in office.“What they’re trying to do,” Barnhart said, “is to prevent being put out of business.”NW Natural, for its part, says that its renewables goals remain attainable and that it firmly believes in them. But “uncertain support from policy makers and regulators along with ongoing barriers demanded by certain climate advocates” have made the company’s path needlessly difficult, spokesperson David Roy wrote in an email. “It’s baffling how a relatively small but loud group of stakeholders have been in opposition to our many efforts to lower system emissions,” he continued. Roy defended the Less We Can campaign as “providing customers with valuable information.”NW Natural operates in a state where residents and their Democratic leaders demand real action on climate change. Unlike many other public utilities, it does not sell electricity in addition to gas; if a home switches from gas ranges and furnaces to electric, the company likely loses that customer.As it navigates the new climate economy, the utility has followed a course that other companies, especially energy companies, have taken in the face of public pressure: a loud embrace of environmental goals; then a complicated, often unproven solution; then a continuation of the status quo if and when that solution falls short. The company’s actions ensured that even as it has failed to hit its targets on renewables, and as the planet has kept heating up, it has faced few consequences.An early ad from the Less We Can campaign suggested that Oregonians — and maybe NW Natural itself — could save the world with little in the way of personal sacrifice. It shows the sun emerging from a cloud. “Renewable Natural Gas is on the way home,” it reads. “Change for the better. Without changing a thing.”Ads from NW Natural’s “Less We Can” campaign, from a 2022 filing with the Oregon Public Utility Commission, obtained by ProPublica.Obtained by ProPublica*The story of NW Natural’s long fight against the movement to phase out gas emerges from a trove of more than 100 insider documents from the Northwest Gas Association, a trade group that includes the company and five of its regional peers. The utility watchdog Energy and Policy Institute obtained the documents — four years’ worth of meeting minutes, strategy papers and PowerPoint presentations from 2017 through 2020 — and recently shared them with ProPublica.The documents capture a moment when the natural gas industry realized it was becoming a target. Barely a decade before, fossil natural gas had been hailed as a bridge to a low-carbon future. The Obama administration promoted it as a cleaner alternative to coal and diesel, an energy source to rely on until more wind and solar could come online. Until 2010, even the Sierra Club supported it.But pipelines carrying natural gas leaked more than was first understood, releasing uncombusted methane, a greenhouse gas more than 28 times as harmful as carbon dioxide. And North America’s fracking boom was making fossil natural gas so plentiful and cheap that environmentalists increasingly worried the world would get stuck on this energy bridge forever. Going all-electric, they argued, was the way forward.The Northwest Gas Association decided it had to confront what internal documents alternately called the “anti-fossil fuel chorus,” “zero fossil fuel paradigm,” “zero carbon threat” or, simply, an “existential challenge.”Board members met to plan their response one June morning in 2017 at Washington state’s Skamania Lodge, where floor-to-ceiling windows frame the Cascade Mountains and Columbia River Gorge, then again for two days in September at another luxury lodge, Cedarbrook, set on 18 acres of gardens and wetlands outside Seattle.The gas executives agreed that climate change needed to be addressed but that climate policies in the Northwest should not penalize natural gas utilities or their customers.They adopted a new strategic plan to push a unified message: Natural gas can be compatible with a low-carbon Northwest economy, thanks in part to emerging concepts like renewable natural gas. (Today, the association and NW Natural say more specifically that policies favoring electric stoves and heat pumps won’t necessarily cut emissions because the region’s strained electrical system relies increasingly on gas-fired power plants.)To sell the idea of continued gas use, the strategic plan said the industry should adopt a more “assertive advocacy style” that borrows insights from psychological research. People first make value judgments “via intuition and emotion,” the strategic plan noted, not facts. So the association would place “greater emphasis on the heart, in the public battle for the ‘hearts and minds.’”NW Natural’s representative at the trade association, an executive named Kim Rush (Kim Heiting, at the time), gave her industry colleagues a look inside Less We Can. It was just the kind of play for the heart the strategic plan envisioned.“It’s a theme line,” Rush’s slideshow, dated July 2017, explained. “A rallying cry. A movement. A coalition with customers. A celebration. A call to action. A clean energy stake-in-the-ground… in 3 words or less.”NW Natural had already road-tested the new slogan across four focus groups, via a consumer survey with 864 respondents and through television-ad concepts shown to 100 customers and 100 noncustomers. It had readied a new website, www.lesswecan.com, which featured cows and green fields and a FAQ about renewable natural gas.One of Rush’s slides contained the campaign’s takeaways. Among them: “NW Natural and natural gas have an important, long-term role to play in our energy future”; “NW Natural has a plan, a goal and a running start”; and “Renewable natural gas is an exciting part of that plan.”The campaign went live in fall 2017. Residents of Portland and other Oregon cities saw Less We Can TV spots, Less We Can YouTube videos, Less We Can newsletters, Less We Can billboards and Less We Can water bottles.“Can a natural gas company be serious when it says it wants us to use less gas?” one video asked before showing a scene of a couple chopping vegetables together in the kitchen. “Can we really raise our families and lower emissions? Can we heat our homes and fight climate change? Can we expand our economy and use less?”“Yes,” a narrator answered, as the video cut to an image of free-range cows and hand-drawn arrows pointing to the words “renewable natural gas.”Stills from a NW Natural Less We Can video ad. Screenshots by ProPublica.ProPublica*At the time the Less We Can campaign was getting off the ground, not a single public utility in the United States regularly piped renewable natural gas to customers’ homes. The market for such organics-based gas was mainly clean fuels programs for vehicle fleets. Residential use would be pioneering, even experimental.But if NW Natural’s ads had gotten ahead of reality, the company was already backing legislation that seemed to portend widespread use of the alternative fuel.It started earlier in 2017 with a bill in the Oregon Legislature that put forward a seemingly straightforward proposition. Oregon would take stock of its every landfill, every dairy farm, every sewage plant and every conceivable pile of woody debris: sites that could emit methane as organic matter broke down. Why not study how much was out there? The bill, a precursor to similar bills in other states, including Washington, sailed through with little opposition.The ensuing inventory was a rigorous, yearlong process led by the Oregon Department of Energy that produced a 110-page report to the Legislature in September 2018 — which NW Natural quickly turned into a valuable talking point.The report’s authors found that Oregon’s “technical potential” for renewable natural gas was significant: nearly 50 billion cubic feet. “That’s equivalent to the total amount of natural gas used by all Oregon residential customers today,” read a NW Natural press release. The company would go on to use variations of this phrase on its website, in annual sustainability reports and in statements to lawmakers.But “technical potential” represents the amount Oregon could produce if money was no obstacle. NW Natural said little about another, more problematic finding: Using currently available technologies and waste streams, the state could produce just 10 billion cubic feet of gas from organic sources.Barnhart, the former state lawmaker, says the utility’s selective interpretation of the study not only overstated the size of the resource, it left out “the real denominator” by ignoring industrial and commercial gas use. Including those and transportation customers in the equation would put total gas demand in Oregon at three times the figure NW Natural cited; the state’s potential renewable natural gas resources, using current technology, could meet less than 7% of that demand.“NW Natural has done a very, very good job of saying true things in a way that is grossly misleading,” Barnhart said.Roy, the company spokesperson, said it was reasonable to call out Oregon’s full theoretical capacity to make the biogas, noting that all renewable energy sources have required innovation to bring them to market. As for focusing on residential use alone, NW Natural said highlighting a single sector was a useful way to “help people understand the magnitude of the resource.”The company leaned on the state’s most optimistic numbers in early 2019 when it returned to lawmakers with a second, far more expansive bill that was the first of its kind in the country.The new bill aimed to address another key barrier to NW Natural’s plans for renewable natural gas. Under existing state rules, utilities had to purchase gas for their customers at the lowest available price, and gas made from biomass could be 10 times more expensive than fossil natural gas. But the bill would allow NW Natural to pursue renewable natural gas and recoup the added cost from its customers. It would be able to spend up to 5% of its annual revenues, some $40 million or more, to secure a dedicated supply.The legislation also set out ambitious but voluntary goals for NW Natural and other large gas utilities: to produce or acquire renewable natural gas equivalent to 5% of deliveries to retail customers by 2024, 10% by 2029 and 30% by 2050.Sources: NW Natural 2023 Annual Renewable Natural Gas Compliance Report; Oregon Senate Bill 98 (2019); 2022 NW Natural Integrated Resource PlanLucas Waldron/ProPublicaThe company sent an executive named Anna Chittum to testify before an Oregon Senate committee, and she cited the inventory almost immediately. “They found about 50 billion cubic feet of potential in the state of Oregon,” she said.Chittum emphasized that this would be a boon not only for the planet but for Oregon businesses.“Renewable natural gas is a local resource, first and foremost,” she continued. “We believe that Oregon entities like wastewater treatment plants and landfills, some of the dairies in our region and other companies, as well as our natural gas customers, will directly benefit.”The bill passed easily and with support from both parties just a day before a partisan meltdown tanked a more controversial piece of climate legislation, an effort to create a California-style carbon cap-and-trade system. The changes called for by cap-and-trade would have been mandatory, unlike those created by the renewable gas legislation. (The company now says it wanted binding targets for renewable gas but “other stakeholders,” whom it declined to name, opposed them.)On social media, the company’s Kim Rush soon cheered the bill’s success, sharing a photo of Oregon Gov. Kate Brown at a September 2019 signing ceremony, flanked by fellow lawmakers, NW Natural CEO David Anderson and at least three other employees of the company.“Proud of our state for leading the nation on renewable natural gas development!” Rush wrote. “A vital step in the path toward decarbonizing our pipeline network. #LessWeCan.”In a post on LinkedIn, Kim Rush of NW Natural shared this photo of a signing ceremony for a landmark 2019 bill allowing her utility to be one of the first in the nation to acquire renewable natural gas for customers. Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, center, posed with legislators and numerous NW Natural representatives. Anna Chittum, in pink, led the company’s renewables effort. (Screenshot by ProPublica)ProPublica*Despite the victory lap with Oregon’s chief executive, behind the scenes NW Natural and its allies were preparing to quash measures that activist groups and government officials said were needed to reduce the gas industry’s footprint.For this mission the Northwest Gas Association initially hired Kelly Evans, a public affairs consultant who once ran the successful reelection campaign of Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire. Evans recommended creating a formal coalition with partners outside the gas industry to lobby for continued natural gas use. It would draw in restaurant associations, labor unions, appliance manufacturers, homebuilders and more.The winner of a million-dollar contract to build just such a coalition and launch a pro-gas campaign across the Northwest was the communications firm Quinn Thomas. It had helped Washington business interests win fights against cap-and-trade and a carbon tax in that state in 2015 and 2016. Now the firm pledged to “defeat policies detrimental to the natural gas industry” once again.“When the time comes to ‘turn on’ the coalition to combat a specific proposal,” Quinn Thomas wrote in its bid, “we have extensive experience training and deploying spokespeople for public hearings.”Evans and Quinn Thomas did not respond to ProPublica’s requests for comment.Northwest cities including Bellingham, Washington, and Eugene, Oregon, were beginning to consider natural gas restrictions. Evans had outlined a messaging plan for such fights, one focused on affordability, reliability and resiliency, on solutions like renewable natural gas, and, most of all, on consumer choice: “There are policies being advanced to limit YOUR choice…” and “people want to take it away,” she wrote when describing the plan.After activists in Eugene accused NW Natural of overstating Oregon’s potential for renewable natural gas, Rush prepared a letter in 2021 to the city manager repeating the consultant’s talking points — “affordability, reliability and choice” — almost verbatim.Eugene’s City Council nevertheless passed a partial natural gas ban in early 2023. Three days later, a group formed to collect signatures to revoke the ban, its name another apparent echo of the talking points: “Eugene Residents for Energy Choice.” Belying its grassroots name, the group’s work was bankrolled by $1,014,300 in donations — all but $220 of them from NW Natural. (The council eventually revoked the ban on its own.)Another fight loomed at the state level. With cap-and-trade dead in the Oregon Legislature, Brown had issued an executive order mandating statewide controls on greenhouse gas emissions. For much of 2020 and 2021, the state prepared new rules to put Brown’s order in action.The Oregon Public Utility Commission, which determines which costs NW Natural can pass along to consumers, soon began to question whether renewable natural gas was the most economical way for the company to meet the new climate rules. What if money spent on renewable natural gas went instead to home weatherization or more efficient appliances? What if it wasn’t spent on natural gas at all?NW Natural filed suit against regulations stemming from the governor’s executive order in early 2022, serving as the lead plaintiff. The company noted in a letter to its customers that it was committed to addressing climate change, citing its support for past “landmark” renewable natural gas legislation among other actions. It said its legal challenge to the state’s climate program came only “after exhausting all other options.”NW Natural’s public messaging around renewable natural gas, meanwhile, remained upbeat. Starting in the summer of 2021, its events team visited at least two dozen street fairs and town festivals across Oregon with what it called the Cowthouse (“think cow + outhouse,” the utility explained): a fake toilet with cow legs sticking out below the door.Those who approached the Cowthouse were challenged to a riddle: “What do a cow, a toilet and a banana peel have in common?” The answer, “RNG,” for renewable natural gas, was stamped on sugar cookies the company handed out.*As it pitched Oregonians on renewable natural gas, NW Natural had gone all out in emphasizing the vast amounts of rotting matter their state could use to produce it. In the end, the company opted not to use a bit of homegrown waste. It turned instead to other states, especially Nebraska.Meat and poultry giant Tyson Foods kept two of its biggest beef slaughterhouses there, each week churning through tens of thousands of cows that, in turn, churned out hundreds of thousands of pounds of manure as they awaited their end at the facility.Cattle pens at Tyson Fresh Meats in Dakota City, Nebraska.Google MapsRotting manure lets off methane. Rotting carcasses let off methane. Rotting garbage lets off methane. The gas is so much worse for the climate than carbon dioxide, ounce for ounce, that capturing a farm or landfill’s uncontrolled methane and purifying it to pipeline quality could, under the right circumstances, offset the harm from emissions it creates when burned.NW Natural has described renewable natural gas as “carbon neutral” in corporate reports and a “zero-carbon resource” in news releases. But in more recent filings with Oregon regulators, the company estimates that gas from its project in Dakota City, Nebraska, while cleaner than ordinary natural gas, still packs 25% of the climate impact. At the Tyson slaughterhouse in Lexington, Nebraska, it’s 40%.In an interview, Chittum noted that there is no universal standard to measure how much a renewable natural gas project actually helps the climate. By the standards followed by some state programs, including in California, she said the Tyson projects could possibly be certified as carbon-zero, or even carbon-negative. But it’s expensive to hire someone to do a full accounting, and Oregon doesn’t require NW Natural to prove any benefit — so “we just haven’t spent … the third-party dollars to go calculate all of that,” she said.Methane from the Tyson operations is captured and piped not to Oregon, but to customers mainly near the two plants. NW Natural counts it as a credit against the fossil natural gas its own customers burn.For 2023, NW Natural reported renewable natural gas from the Tyson projects, some dairy digesters in Wisconsin, a sewage treatment plant in New York and a food-waste project in Utah.“It doesn’t matter where the renewable molecule of RNG comes from if reducing emissions is the goal,” NW Natural’s Roy told ProPublica.*NW Natural has notched a series of wins in recent months.For the fourth year in a row, it was named one of the best gas utilities in the West by the survey company J.D. Power. For the third year in a row, it was named one of the world’s most ethical companies by Ethisphere, a for-profit company that rates other companies’ ethics for a fee.In late December, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled in favor of NW Natural in overturning the state climate program that resulted from Brown’s executive order.In May, NW Natural touted the results of a poll it had commissioned: It said 72% of Oregon voters opposed bans on natural gas in new homes and buildings, a 9-point increase since 2019. “Voters’ attention is more focused on what they believe are pressing concerns, such as homelessness,” a press release said. More than 75% of respondents supported efforts promoting renewable natural gas.But the renewable gas business has not gone as billed.The company’s data for 2023 showed that even as it harnesses the waste streams of one of the world’s biggest meatpackers — at an anticipated cost of $38 million, if two more planned Tyson projects come online — NW Natural is falling far short of the share of its supply it said would come from the alternative fuel.In a document filed in August with the Public Utility Commission, the company said it had slowed its procurement and did not expect to hit the goal of 5% it had set for 2024. It blamed “policy and regulatory uncertainty,” particularly the commission’s skepticism of its renewable natural gas plans.Less We Can is taking on a new meaning.After years of fanfare about renewable natural gas, what’s its share of NW Natural’s gas supply today?Less than 1%.-- McKenzie Funk, ProPublicaProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

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.