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.

A highway in Indiana could one day charge your EV while you’re driving it

News Feed
Saturday, April 27, 2024

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Blake Dollier spoke excitedly as he watched the construction crews pulverize concrete along a quarter-mile stretch of U.S. Highway 52 where it passes through West Lafayette, Indiana. Soon, the Indiana Department of Transportation, or INDOT, where Dollier works as the public relations director, will install a series of copper coils under the highway’s surface to test a new technology Purdue University researchers developed that can provide power to electric vehicles wirelessly as they drive past. “Wouldn’t it really be something if we could just drive over the road and catch your charge for your vehicle as you drive across it?” Dollier said during a phone interview, watching the progress from the parking lot of one of the department’s satellite offices in West Lafayette. The state began construction of its new pilot project this month, and officials say they believe it could spur greater adoption of EVs and redefine the way people think about them. The project, they said, which is being done in partnership with Purdue and the engine manufacturer Cummins Inc., will be capable of providing power to vehicles even as they cruise by at speeds of up to 65 miles per hour. Ultimately, Purdue researchers and state officials hope the project will open up EVs to a wider customer base, largely by reducing battery costs and quelling concerns over range anxiety — the fear that an electric vehicle will run out of juice before reaching its destination. One in four U.S adults say that they would seriously consider buying an EV for their next purchase, but more than half of those who don’t want to buy an electric vehicle blame range anxiety, according to a survey conducted by AAA last year. Purdue professor John Haddock and graduate student Oscar Moncada examine a slab of concrete pavement they tested to handle heavy truckloads with wireless power-transfer technology installed below the surface. Courtesy of Consensus Digital Media While Indiana’s project wouldn’t be the first “dynamic EV charger” in the nation — Detroit installed a similar pilot project on a residential road last fall — it would be the first time the technology was installed on a highway. If successful, the technology could also help to electrify long-haul trucks, which are among the most difficult vehicles to decarbonize, said Nadia Gkritza, a civil engineering professor at Purdue University and the project’s lead researcher.  That’s because heavy-duty trucks would require significantly larger batteries due to their size, weight and the long distances they tend to travel, Gkritza said. However, she said, if they could receive power as they drive, it would allow those vehicles to carry smaller batteries, lowering overall costs and reducing the number of stops to recharge. “Really the possibilities are endless,” INDOT’s Dollier said. “And we’re just hopeful that this is something that can really benefit a lot of people here in the state of Indiana and maybe even across the country going forward.” INDOT says the pilot project should be complete by next summer, though private vehicles won’t be able to use it — at least not yet. Cars and trucks must be equipped with special receivers for the wireless charging to work, meaning current models are incompatible. The coils are installed underground and use magnetic fields to deliver the electricity wirelessly. Each coil only activates when a receiver is above it, Purdue researchers say, so the infrastructure won’t pose a threat to pedestrians, animals or other vehicles. Kaylee Dann, executive director of Greater Indiana Clean Cities, a clean energy advocacy nonprofit that isn’t involved with the project, agrees that the new technology could spur greater EV adoption in Indiana and nationwide. In fact, she said, the project is coming at a time when more and more Hoosiers are choosing to go electric. While Indiana’s overall EV adoption rates still pale in comparison to California and other leaders in the EV market, the state saw an astounding 1,200 percent increase in registered electric vehicles between 2016 and 2022, according to a state report published last year. Some 24,000 electric vehicles were registered in Indiana last year alone, according to the state’s Office of Energy Development. Dann believes that leaning into EVs has been a smart financial move by the state as the nation pivots to cleaner transportation options. Two recent federal policies — the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and the Environmental Protection Agency’s new tailpipe pollution standards, finalized last month — are expected to dramatically increase domestic production of EVs nationwide in the coming years. Inside Climate News Indiana is already experiencing some of that economic gain. According to a state report published last September, Indiana has received about $8.2 billion in investments related to EV production since 2021. Those include a $3 billion investment by General Motors and Samsung to manufacture EV batteries in the city of New Carlisle and an $803 million investment by Toyota to expand its EV production in the city of Princeton. “We’ve seen a lot of investment from manufacturers,” Dann said. “So we’re gonna see a big influx of EVs being produced in the state.” But the biggest benefits to the state could be environmental. In its annual State of the Air Report, the American Lung Association ranked the Indianapolis metro area the 10th worst city in the nation for year-round particulate matter pollution known as PM2.5. Regular exposure to PM2.5, which is produced any time something combusts, has been linked to increased health risks, including greater risk of asthma attacks, cardiovascular and lung diseases and even premature death.  Because EVs draw power from batteries, not from burning fuel, a higher adoption of them would lead to better air quality for any state. Gkritza said that reducing air pollution is one of the broader goals of Indiana’s pilot project. “Greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, these are really bad across those freight corridors, transit corridors — we have communities that are negatively impacted by freight movement,” she said. More EVs also means fewer greenhouse gas emissions, Dann said, which helps to slow climate change. Transportation is America’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, according to the EPA, making up nearly a third of the country’s carbon footprint. In Indiana alone, EVs contribute 60 percent less carbon pollution than their fossil fuel counterparts, Dann said, despite the fact that the state’s electricity — the fuel for EVs — is predominantly produced by coal-fired power plants. More than half of the state’s electricity in 2021 was generated by coal, according to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management.  Having strong EV charging infrastructure in Indiana could be a boon nationwide, given the state’s centralized location in the U.S.  Indiana has more interstate highways passing through it than any other state, Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb touted in a 2021 report. It’s also home to the nation’s second largest FedEx hub and 41 freight railroads, he added, noting Indiana’s motto of being the “Crossroads of America.” “Simply put,” Holcomb wrote, “the world moves through Indiana.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A highway in Indiana could one day charge your EV while you’re driving it on Apr 27, 2024.

Construction of the pilot project on U.S. Highway 52 began this month. State officials hope it can help quell range anxiety and electrify long-haul trucks.

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Blake Dollier spoke excitedly as he watched the construction crews pulverize concrete along a quarter-mile stretch of U.S. Highway 52 where it passes through West Lafayette, Indiana.

Soon, the Indiana Department of Transportation, or INDOT, where Dollier works as the public relations director, will install a series of copper coils under the highway’s surface to test a new technology Purdue University researchers developed that can provide power to electric vehicles wirelessly as they drive past.

“Wouldn’t it really be something if we could just drive over the road and catch your charge for your vehicle as you drive across it?” Dollier said during a phone interview, watching the progress from the parking lot of one of the department’s satellite offices in West Lafayette.

The state began construction of its new pilot project this month, and officials say they believe it could spur greater adoption of EVs and redefine the way people think about them. The project, they said, which is being done in partnership with Purdue and the engine manufacturer Cummins Inc., will be capable of providing power to vehicles even as they cruise by at speeds of up to 65 miles per hour.

Ultimately, Purdue researchers and state officials hope the project will open up EVs to a wider customer base, largely by reducing battery costs and quelling concerns over range anxiety — the fear that an electric vehicle will run out of juice before reaching its destination. One in four U.S adults say that they would seriously consider buying an EV for their next purchase, but more than half of those who don’t want to buy an electric vehicle blame range anxiety, according to a survey conducted by AAA last year.

A man in jeans, a long sleeved shirt, and boots kneels on the floor and points as another man listens and kneels next to him.
Purdue professor John Haddock and graduate student Oscar Moncada examine a slab of concrete pavement they tested to handle heavy truckloads with wireless power-transfer technology installed below the surface. Courtesy of Consensus Digital Media

While Indiana’s project wouldn’t be the first “dynamic EV charger” in the nation — Detroit installed a similar pilot project on a residential road last fall — it would be the first time the technology was installed on a highway.

If successful, the technology could also help to electrify long-haul trucks, which are among the most difficult vehicles to decarbonize, said Nadia Gkritza, a civil engineering professor at Purdue University and the project’s lead researcher. 

That’s because heavy-duty trucks would require significantly larger batteries due to their size, weight and the long distances they tend to travel, Gkritza said. However, she said, if they could receive power as they drive, it would allow those vehicles to carry smaller batteries, lowering overall costs and reducing the number of stops to recharge.

“Really the possibilities are endless,” INDOT’s Dollier said. “And we’re just hopeful that this is something that can really benefit a lot of people here in the state of Indiana and maybe even across the country going forward.”

INDOT says the pilot project should be complete by next summer, though private vehicles won’t be able to use it — at least not yet. Cars and trucks must be equipped with special receivers for the wireless charging to work, meaning current models are incompatible. The coils are installed underground and use magnetic fields to deliver the electricity wirelessly. Each coil only activates when a receiver is above it, Purdue researchers say, so the infrastructure won’t pose a threat to pedestrians, animals or other vehicles.

Kaylee Dann, executive director of Greater Indiana Clean Cities, a clean energy advocacy nonprofit that isn’t involved with the project, agrees that the new technology could spur greater EV adoption in Indiana and nationwide. In fact, she said, the project is coming at a time when more and more Hoosiers are choosing to go electric.

While Indiana’s overall EV adoption rates still pale in comparison to California and other leaders in the EV market, the state saw an astounding 1,200 percent increase in registered electric vehicles between 2016 and 2022, according to a state report published last year. Some 24,000 electric vehicles were registered in Indiana last year alone, according to the state’s Office of Energy Development.

Dann believes that leaning into EVs has been a smart financial move by the state as the nation pivots to cleaner transportation options. Two recent federal policies — the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and the Environmental Protection Agency’s new tailpipe pollution standards, finalized last month — are expected to dramatically increase domestic production of EVs nationwide in the coming years.

A diagram shows two electric cars on a road and shows how they will be charged by driving over the road.
Inside Climate News

Indiana is already experiencing some of that economic gain. According to a state report published last September, Indiana has received about $8.2 billion in investments related to EV production since 2021. Those include a $3 billion investment by General Motors and Samsung to manufacture EV batteries in the city of New Carlisle and an $803 million investment by Toyota to expand its EV production in the city of Princeton.

“We’ve seen a lot of investment from manufacturers,” Dann said. “So we’re gonna see a big influx of EVs being produced in the state.”

But the biggest benefits to the state could be environmental.

In its annual State of the Air Report, the American Lung Association ranked the Indianapolis metro area the 10th worst city in the nation for year-round particulate matter pollution known as PM2.5. Regular exposure to PM2.5, which is produced any time something combusts, has been linked to increased health risks, including greater risk of asthma attacks, cardiovascular and lung diseases and even premature death. 

Because EVs draw power from batteries, not from burning fuel, a higher adoption of them would lead to better air quality for any state. Gkritza said that reducing air pollution is one of the broader goals of Indiana’s pilot project. “Greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, these are really bad across those freight corridors, transit corridors — we have communities that are negatively impacted by freight movement,” she said.

More EVs also means fewer greenhouse gas emissions, Dann said, which helps to slow climate change. Transportation is America’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, according to the EPA, making up nearly a third of the country’s carbon footprint.

In Indiana alone, EVs contribute 60 percent less carbon pollution than their fossil fuel counterparts, Dann said, despite the fact that the state’s electricity — the fuel for EVs — is predominantly produced by coal-fired power plants. More than half of the state’s electricity in 2021 was generated by coal, according to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management

Having strong EV charging infrastructure in Indiana could be a boon nationwide, given the state’s centralized location in the U.S. 

Indiana has more interstate highways passing through it than any other state, Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb touted in a 2021 report. It’s also home to the nation’s second largest FedEx hub and 41 freight railroads, he added, noting Indiana’s motto of being the “Crossroads of America.”

“Simply put,” Holcomb wrote, “the world moves through Indiana.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A highway in Indiana could one day charge your EV while you’re driving it on Apr 27, 2024.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Evolution’s 180-Million-Year-Old Secret: Scientists Discover Potential Origin of the First “Warm-Blooded” Dinosaurs

A new study led by researchers from UCL and the University of Vigo suggests that the ability to regulate body temperature, a characteristic shared by...

Recent research indicates that some dinosaurs might have developed the ability to internally regulate their body temperature during the early Jurassic period, enabling them to adapt to colder climates and survive environmental challenges. The artist’s impression shows a dromaeosaur, a type of feathered theropod, in the snow. This dinosaur group is popularly known as a raptor. A well-known dromaeosaur is Velociraptor, portrayed in the film Jurassic Park. Credit: Davide Bonadonna/Universidade de Vigo/UCLA new study led by researchers from UCL and the University of Vigo suggests that the ability to regulate body temperature, a characteristic shared by all modern mammals and birds, may have first developed among certain dinosaurs in the early Jurassic period, approximately 180 million years ago.A new study led by researchers from UCL and the University of Vigo suggests that the ability to regulate body temperature, a characteristic shared by all mammals and birds, may have first evolved in some dinosaurs during the early Jurassic period, around 180 million years ago.In the early 20th century, dinosaurs were considered slow-moving, “cold-blooded” animals like modern-day reptiles, relying on heat from the sun to regulate their temperature. Newer discoveries indicate some dinosaur types were likely capable of generating their own body heat but when this adaptation occurred is unknown. Research Methods and FindingsThe new study, published in the journal Current Biology, looked at the spread of dinosaurs across different climates on Earth throughout the Mesozoic Era (the dinosaur era lasting from 230 to 66 million years ago), drawing on 1,000 fossils, climate models and the geography of the period, and dinosaurs’ evolutionary trees.The research team found that two of the three main groupings of dinosaurs, theropods (such as T. rex and Velociraptor) and ornithischians (including relatives of the plant eaters Stegosaurus and Triceratops), moved to colder climates during the Early Jurassic, suggesting they may have developed endothermy (the ability to internally generate heat) at this time. In contrast, sauropods, the other main grouping which includes the Brontosaurus and the Diplodocus, kept to warmer areas of the planet.Previous research has found traits linked to warm-bloodedness among ornithischians and theropods, with some known to have had feathers or proto-feathers, insulating internal heat.Evolutionary ImplicationsFirst author Dr. Alfio Alessandro Chiarenza, of UCL Earth Sciences, said: “Our analyses show that different climate preferences emerged among the main dinosaur groups around the time of the Jenkyns event 183 million years ago, when intense volcanic activity led to global warming and extinction of plant groups.“At this time, many new dinosaur groups emerged. The adoption of endothermy, perhaps a result of this environmental crisis, may have enabled theropods and ornithischians to thrive in colder environments, allowing them to be highly active and sustain activity over longer periods, to develop and grow faster and produce more offspring.”Co-author Dr. Sara Varela, of the Universidade de Vigo, Spain, said: “Theropods also include birds and our study suggests that birds’ unique temperature regulation may have had its origin in this Early Jurassic epoch. Sauropods, on the other hand, which stayed in warmer climates, grew to a gigantic size at around this time – another possible adaptation due to environmental pressure. Their smaller surface area to volume ratio would have meant these larger creatures would lose heat at a reduced rate, allowing them to stay active for longer.”Broader Implications of the ResearchIn the paper, the researchers also investigated if sauropods might have stayed at lower latitudes to eat richer foliage unavailable in colder polar regions. Instead, they found sauropods seemed to thrive in arid, savannah-like environments, supporting the idea that their restriction to warmer climates was more related to higher temperature and then to a more cold-blooded physiology. During that time, polar regions were warmer, with abundant vegetation.The Jenkyns event occurred after lava and volcanic gasses erupted from long fissures in the Earth’s surface, covering large areas of the planet.Co-author Dr Juan L. Cantalapiedra, of the Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain, said: “This research suggests a close connection between climate and how dinosaurs evolved. It sheds new light on how birds might have inherited a unique biological trait from dinosaur ancestors and the different ways dinosaurs adapted to complex and long-term environmental changes.”Reference: “Early Jurassic origin of avian endothermy and thermophysiological diversity in dinosaurs” by Alfio Alessandro Chiarenza, Juan L. Cantalapiedra, Lewis A. Jones, Sara Gamboa, Sofía Galván, Alexander J. Farnsworth, Paul J. Valdes, Graciela Sotelo and Sara Varela, 15 May 2024, Current Biology.DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2024.04.051The study was funded by the European Research Council, the Royal Society, the Natural Environment Research Council, and the Spanish Ministry of Research.The study involved researchers from UCL, University of Vigo, the University of Bristol, and the Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales in Madrid, and received funding from the European Research Council, the Spanish Ministry of Research, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Royal Society.

Pregnant? Researchers want you to know something about fluoride

Elevated prenatal exposure to fluoride was associated with increased risk of neurobehavioral problems in 3-year-olds, according to a study of children in Los Angeles.

Adding fluoride to drinking water is widely considered a triumph of public health. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the cavity-prevention strategy ranks alongside the development of vaccines and the recognition of tobacco’s dangers as signal achievements of the 20th century.But new evidence from Los Angeles mothers and their preschool-age children suggests community water fluoridation may have a downside.A study published Monday in JAMA Network Open links prenatal exposure to the mineral with an increased risk of neurobehavioral problems at age 3, including symptoms that characterize autism spectrum disorder. The association was seen among women who consumed fluoride in amounts that are considered typical in Los Angeles and across the country.The findings do not show that drinking fluoridated water causes autism or any other behavioral conditions. Nor is it clear whether the relationship between fluoride exposure and the problems seen in the L.A.-area children — a cohort that is predominantly low-income and 80% Latino — would extend to other demographic groups.However, the results are concerning enough that USC epidemiologist Tracy Bastain said she would advise pregnant people to avoid fluoridated water straight from the tap and drink filtered water instead.“This exposure can impact the developing fetus,” said Bastain, the study’s senior author. “Eliminating that from drinking water is probably a good practice.”About 63% of Americans receive fluoridated water through their taps, including 73% of those served by community water systems, according to the CDC. In Los Angeles County, 62% of residents get fluoridated water, the Department of Public Health says.The data analyzed by Bastain and her colleagues came from participants in an ongoing USC research project called Maternal and Developmental Risks from Environmental and Social Stressors, or MADRES. Women receiving prenatal care from clinics in Central and South Los Angeles that cater to low-income patients with Medi-Cal insurance were invited to join.Between 2017 and 2020, 229 mothers took a test to measure the concentration of fluoride in their urine during their third trimester of pregnancy. Then, between 2020 and 2023, they completed a 99-question survey to assess their child’s behavior when their sons and daughters were 3 years old. Among other things, the survey asked mothers whether their children were restless, hyperactive, impatient, clingy or accident-prone. It also asked about specific behaviors, such as resisting bedtime or sleeping alone, chewing on things that aren’t edible, holding their breath, and being overly concerned with neatness or cleanliness. Some of the questions the mothers answered addressed heath problems with no obvious medical cause, including headaches, cramps, nausea and skin rashes.Among the 229 children — 116 girls and 113 boys — 35 were found to have a collection of symptoms that put them in the clinical or borderline clinical range for inward-focused problems such as sadness, depression and anxiety. In addition, 23 were in the clinical or borderline clinical range for behaviors directed at others, such as shouting in a classroom or attacking other kids, and 32 were deemed at least borderline clinical for a combination of inward and outward problems.What interested the researchers was whether there was any correlation between a child’s risk of having clinical or borderline clinical behavioral problems and the amount of fluoride in his or her mother’s urine during pregnancy.They found that compared to women whose fluoride levels placed them at the 25th percentile — meaning 24% of women in the study had levels lower than theirs — women at the 75th percentile were 83% more likely to have their child score in the “clinical” or “borderline clinical” range for inward and outward problems combined. When the researchers narrowed their focus to children in the clinical range only, that risk increased to 84%, according to the study. The researchers also found that the same increase in fluoride levels was associated with an 18.5% increase in a child’s symptoms related to autism spectrum disorder, as well as an 11.3% increase in symptoms of anxiety. The amount of fluoride needed for mothers to go from the 25th to the 75th percentile was 0.68 milligrams per liter. As it happens, that’s nearly identical to the 0.7 mg per liter standard that federal regulators say is optimal for preventing tooth decay.Bastain said that allowed the researchers to compare what might happen to children in two parallel universes: a typical one where their mothers consumed fluoridated water during pregnancy, and an alternate one where they didn’t.“You can use it as a proxy for if they lived in a fluoridated community or not,” she said. What that thought experiment shows is that children in the fluoridated community face a higher level of risk. That said, it’s not clear when that risk becomes high enough to be worrisome. “We don’t know what the safe threshold is,” Bastain said. “It’s not like you can say that as long as you’re under the 75th percentile, there are no effects.”The study authors’ concerns about the effects of fluoride on developing brains didn’t come out of nowhere.The National Toxicology Program — a joint effort of the CDC, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration — has been investigating the issue since 2016. In a report last year that reviewed an array of evidence from humans and laboratory animals, a working group concluded “with moderate confidence” that overall fluoride exposure at levels at or above 1.5 mg per liter “is consistently associated with lower IQ in children.” The working group added that “more studies are needed to fully understand the potential for lower fluoride exposure to affect children’s IQ.” A 2019 study of hundreds of mothers in Canada — where 39% of residents have fluoridated water — found that a 1-mg increase in daily fluoride intake during pregnancy was associated with a 3.7-point reduction in IQ scores in their 3- and 4-year-old children. And among hundreds of pregnant women in Mexico, a 0.5-mg-per-liter increase in urinary fluoride went along with a 2.5-point drop in IQ scores for their 6- to 12-year-old children, researchers reported in 2017.Bastain and her colleagues write their study is the first they are aware of that examines the link between prenatal fluoride exposure and neurobehavioral outcomes in children in the United States. The results are sure to be controversial, Bastain said, but there’s a straightforward way for pregnant people to reduce the possible risk.“It’s a pretty easy intervention to get one of those tabletop plastic pitchers” that filter out metals, she said. “Most of them do a pretty good job of filtering out fluoride.”

New hope for long-polluted communities, but skepticism of Superfund success remains

This story was originally published in The New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group, and is republished here with permission.Jackie Medcalf was a teenager when she moved with her family to a small farm near the San Jacinto River in Harris County, Texas. It felt like a good life, playing in the river and “eating off the land,” as Medcalf describes it.But the animals quickly grew ill, as did Medcalf, suffering a range of health problems. Her father developed multiple myeloma at the age of 51. Tests of the family’s well water would later reveal contamination with several toxic metals. Testing of the eggs collected from the family’s chickens also found an array of heavy metals. The family was not alone, as others in the area reported similar problems.There was little doubt about the source of the contamination: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the San Jacinto River Waste Pits as a Superfund site due to dumping in the 1960s of waste from a paper mill containing carcinogens and other types of toxins. The site has been on the EPA’s “National Priorities List” for cleanup since 2008. But 14 years later, those efforts have yet to be completed.“For decades my fellow community members have unknowingly recreated around dioxin laden pits,” said Medcalf, now a 37-year-old mother and the founder of a nonprofit that advocates for the cleanup of area contamination. “How many more decades must pass before this disaster is remedied?”The suffering of the Medcalf family is but one story among far too many that are emblematic of the struggles behind America’s Superfund program, which aims to clean up sites around the country contaminated with a range of dangerous industrial toxins.In February, the Biden administration said it was earmarking more than $1 billion to help clean up those long-standing hazardous waste sites that are jeopardizing the health of communities around the country. The money is to go to new and continuing projects, and is part of roughly $3.5 billion allocated in President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for work at Superfund sites.The new funding was applauded by community advocates around the country, but also met with some skepticism by those who have been waiting for relief for years, or in many cases, for decades. There are currently more than 1,300 sites around the US on the EPA’s priority list, designated for cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). But progress has been slow, hindered by a range of bureaucratic hurdles that critics say prioritize politics over public health.The law allows the EPA to make the companies responsible for the contamination do the cleanup work themselves or reimburse the government for the costs of cleaning up the sites. This “polluters pay” model is a core component of CERCLA. But the complex and costly work required for the cleanups often is slowed by conflicts with the companies deemed responsible for paying for and managing the work and the challenges in trying to eradicate enormous amounts of hazardous waste that have become deeply embedded in soils and sediment.The lengthy process involved in planning and implementing cleanups in coordination with the companies responsible for the pollution leaves vulnerable people exposed to known health-damaging toxins for far too long, forcing communities to advocate for faster timetables and more stringent cleanup requirements, critics say.The law gives the EPA latitude to punish companies that don’t comply with EPA orders, including allowances for the recovery of up to three times its costs.“They (the EPA) have the legal authority, they need the political will,” said Stephen Lester, science director at the Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ). “They want to be the friend of these companies, not their regulators.”Millions at riskResearchers say that living within 1.8 miles of a Superfund site puts people at risk for life-long, adverse health effects. Roughly 21 million people live even closer – within a mile – of a Superfund site, where toxins such as lead, arsenic, and mercury pollute the water, air and soil.Health risks of close proximity to such hazardous substances include cancers, birth defects, reproductive problems, and genetic mutations, according to the EPA.The San Jacinto River Waste Pits site is a prime example of the difficulties that come with the Superfund cleanup project. In the mid-1960s, the Champion Paper Mill hired McGinnis Industrial Maintenance Corporation to dispose solid and liquid pulp and paper mill wastes contaminated with dioxins and furans into waste pits on the banks of the San Jacinto River. Two contaminated pits sprawl about 15 acres each, spilling dioxins into the river. Dioxins are highly toxic chemical compounds that can cause cancer, reproductive and developmental problems, damage the immune system, and interfere with hormones.People living in the area have suffered elevated rates of cancer, including abnormally high incidences of childhood cancers, according to a 2015 assessment by the Texas Department of State Health Services.For several years, the EPA has been trying to coordinate a cleanup strategy with the two companies deemed responsible for the contamination, working to excavate the contaminated soils, cap or otherwise contain the waste pits, and take other mitigation measures. Some work has been done, but the EPA and the companies involved still have not agreed on a final comprehensive action plan. The latest plan proposed by the companies contained a “serious deficiency”, according to the EPA.Last month, the EPA sent a letter to the project coordinator for the cleanup work regarding the lack of progress. The agency has given the companies another 90 days to produce a workable plan.Amid the delays, the community fears contamination continues. A petition to the EPA drawn up by community advocates states that “Time is of the essence.”“We need the EPA to use every authority granted under CERCLA to move this site to remediation,” the petition states. “The health and wellbeing of our community and Galveston Bay hinges on the successful cleanup of this Site…”Under fireThe issues seen in Texas are not unique.The EPA is also under fire for its handling of a Superfund site in Montana where waste from an aluminum company has contaminated groundwater and surface waters with what the EPA calls “contaminants of concern,” including cyanide, fluoride and various metals. The company, Columbia Falls Aluminum Company (CFAC), operated from 1955 and 2009, leaving a legacy of hazardous waste that spreads over more than 900 acres north of the Flathead River.Testing found multiple contaminants in groundwater in the area, including cyanide, fluoride and metals such as aluminum, arsenic, chromium, copper, iron, lead, nickel, selenium and vanadium, among others, according to the EPA.The federal government has known for decades that the area was dangerously polluted. In the 1960s, government researchers reported that emissions from the plant were impacting wildlife and in 1988, an EPA-commissioned report confirmed that cyanide, a known serious health risk, and other contaminants were going into the water from the plant. But it was not until 2016 that the site was added to the National Priorities List. It took until 2021for CFAC to finalize a cleanup feasibility study under EPA oversight. The agency then released a proposed cleanup plan in June 2023.Though long-awaited, the plan is not meeting with community approval. A grassroots organization called the Coalition for a Clean CFAC is petitioning the EPA and Montana Department of Environmental Quality over the plans to handle the toxic waste. The group says the EPA is poised to allow most of the contamination to stay in place behind a concrete wall that would be constructed. The group says the plan would “leave the toxic waste-in-place and restrict future economic redevelopment and human use. Forever.”“The community has been calling for a complete cleanup including off-site removal for a long time,” said Peter Metcalf, a spokesman for the Coalition for a Clean CFAC.In California, public health advocates have accused the US Navy and the EPA of failing to deal with the toxic dumping at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Superfund site in a way that protects the public.The shipyard in San Francisco has been on the Superfund list since 1989, contaminated with radioactive waste, pesticides, heavy metals, petroleum fuels, PCBs and other toxins from the naval activities there. While some remediation work has been completed to the EPA’s satisfaction, critics say the work has not eradicated the hazardous waste but has merely capped and covered it up.Last year, the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) complained to the Navy’s Office of Inspector General, alleging the Navy has failed to properly inform the public about the dangers of the contamination at the site.As well, a group called Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice accuses the Navy and the EPA of violating CERCLA and other laws and says the Navy and EPA have failed to take action at the site that “assures protection of human health and the environment.”The group wants the EPA to force the Navy to do a “proper cleanup,” said Bradley Angel, Greenaction executive director.“Success” storiesThe EPA points to several of what it calls “success stories” and says that the Superfund cleanups are working to protect human health and the environment, “while also supporting community revitalization efforts and economic opportunities through redevelopment.”The agency points to a 200-acre former steel company site next to the Delaware River in New Jersey. The industrial work left the soil and water contaminated with heavy metals and buildings on the site were filled with asbestos. The EPA oversaw demolition of 70 buildings and removed underground contamination and dredged both the river and a creek. It counts the site as a success story in part because the site was turned into a light-rail commuter station and parking lot, and a museum was established on the site. The EPA said it also restored the riverfront and opened 34 acres of public greenspace along the river.One of the largest Superfund sites in the country, the Hudson River PCBs Superfund site is also hailed by the agency as a success story. The agency spent many years working on a plan and has removed 2.75 million cubic yards of river mud dredged from the Hudson River that was contaminated with 310,000 pounds of cancer-causing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which were banned in 1977. The EPA said marked it the “largest and most technically complex environmental dredging work ever undertaken in the United States.” The agency is now monitoring the area for “natural recovery.”Concerns remain about the work, however. An independent study found that dredging the upper Hudson failed to reduce PCB concentrations to the target range set by the EPA. A group called Friends of a Clean Hudson (FOCH) is calling for a pause in the dredging and an adjustment to future remediation goals.“We’re calling on the agency to step back and see, this is your data, and we feel you’re even more off track than before,” said former EPA Region 2 administrator Peter Lopez, who is now executive director of policy, advocacy and science with a group called Scenic Hudson.A third EPA five-year review on how the river has been recovering will be released soon, according to EPA Public Affairs Specialist Larisa Romanowski.Money woesThe Superfund program has long faced money woes, including funding cutbacks, struggles to pry money from “potentially responsible parties” (PRPs), and a failure to properly manage costs. After the expiration of a special polluters tax on the chemical and petroleum industries in 1995, program funding declined to the point that by 2010 the EPA estimated that cleanup costs were outstripping funding, even as the list of sites being added to the program was increasing.From 1999 to 2020, annual appropriations for Superfund work dropped from $2.3 billion to just under $1.2 billion, resulting in cleanup delays, according to a report by the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) and Environment America.During the period from 1999 to 2013, the EPA did not have enough money to pay for about a third of the cleanup work ready to begin, and from 2014 to 2021, the same was true for about one fourth of the projects ready to go, according to the groups.The outlook is much brighter going forward, however, due not only to the new money earmarked by the Biden administration, but also because of the reestablishment of the polluter pays taxes, which should provide a “steady stream of funding” to the program for at least the next several years, according to an updated report from the groups.“Already, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law has eliminated the backlog of toxic Superfund sites waiting around for clean-up in communities across the country,” said Lisa Frank, executive director of the Washington legislative office of Environment America. “Going forward, polluters, not taxpayers, will pay to clean up their messes. That’s great news for Americans. But full relief will only come once we stop using toxic substances like PFAS and mercury. Until then, we’ll continue to suffer from contaminated water, dirty air and Superfund sites.”

This story was originally published in The New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group, and is republished here with permission.Jackie Medcalf was a teenager when she moved with her family to a small farm near the San Jacinto River in Harris County, Texas. It felt like a good life, playing in the river and “eating off the land,” as Medcalf describes it.But the animals quickly grew ill, as did Medcalf, suffering a range of health problems. Her father developed multiple myeloma at the age of 51. Tests of the family’s well water would later reveal contamination with several toxic metals. Testing of the eggs collected from the family’s chickens also found an array of heavy metals. The family was not alone, as others in the area reported similar problems.There was little doubt about the source of the contamination: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the San Jacinto River Waste Pits as a Superfund site due to dumping in the 1960s of waste from a paper mill containing carcinogens and other types of toxins. The site has been on the EPA’s “National Priorities List” for cleanup since 2008. But 14 years later, those efforts have yet to be completed.“For decades my fellow community members have unknowingly recreated around dioxin laden pits,” said Medcalf, now a 37-year-old mother and the founder of a nonprofit that advocates for the cleanup of area contamination. “How many more decades must pass before this disaster is remedied?”The suffering of the Medcalf family is but one story among far too many that are emblematic of the struggles behind America’s Superfund program, which aims to clean up sites around the country contaminated with a range of dangerous industrial toxins.In February, the Biden administration said it was earmarking more than $1 billion to help clean up those long-standing hazardous waste sites that are jeopardizing the health of communities around the country. The money is to go to new and continuing projects, and is part of roughly $3.5 billion allocated in President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for work at Superfund sites.The new funding was applauded by community advocates around the country, but also met with some skepticism by those who have been waiting for relief for years, or in many cases, for decades. There are currently more than 1,300 sites around the US on the EPA’s priority list, designated for cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). But progress has been slow, hindered by a range of bureaucratic hurdles that critics say prioritize politics over public health.The law allows the EPA to make the companies responsible for the contamination do the cleanup work themselves or reimburse the government for the costs of cleaning up the sites. This “polluters pay” model is a core component of CERCLA. But the complex and costly work required for the cleanups often is slowed by conflicts with the companies deemed responsible for paying for and managing the work and the challenges in trying to eradicate enormous amounts of hazardous waste that have become deeply embedded in soils and sediment.The lengthy process involved in planning and implementing cleanups in coordination with the companies responsible for the pollution leaves vulnerable people exposed to known health-damaging toxins for far too long, forcing communities to advocate for faster timetables and more stringent cleanup requirements, critics say.The law gives the EPA latitude to punish companies that don’t comply with EPA orders, including allowances for the recovery of up to three times its costs.“They (the EPA) have the legal authority, they need the political will,” said Stephen Lester, science director at the Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ). “They want to be the friend of these companies, not their regulators.”Millions at riskResearchers say that living within 1.8 miles of a Superfund site puts people at risk for life-long, adverse health effects. Roughly 21 million people live even closer – within a mile – of a Superfund site, where toxins such as lead, arsenic, and mercury pollute the water, air and soil.Health risks of close proximity to such hazardous substances include cancers, birth defects, reproductive problems, and genetic mutations, according to the EPA.The San Jacinto River Waste Pits site is a prime example of the difficulties that come with the Superfund cleanup project. In the mid-1960s, the Champion Paper Mill hired McGinnis Industrial Maintenance Corporation to dispose solid and liquid pulp and paper mill wastes contaminated with dioxins and furans into waste pits on the banks of the San Jacinto River. Two contaminated pits sprawl about 15 acres each, spilling dioxins into the river. Dioxins are highly toxic chemical compounds that can cause cancer, reproductive and developmental problems, damage the immune system, and interfere with hormones.People living in the area have suffered elevated rates of cancer, including abnormally high incidences of childhood cancers, according to a 2015 assessment by the Texas Department of State Health Services.For several years, the EPA has been trying to coordinate a cleanup strategy with the two companies deemed responsible for the contamination, working to excavate the contaminated soils, cap or otherwise contain the waste pits, and take other mitigation measures. Some work has been done, but the EPA and the companies involved still have not agreed on a final comprehensive action plan. The latest plan proposed by the companies contained a “serious deficiency”, according to the EPA.Last month, the EPA sent a letter to the project coordinator for the cleanup work regarding the lack of progress. The agency has given the companies another 90 days to produce a workable plan.Amid the delays, the community fears contamination continues. A petition to the EPA drawn up by community advocates states that “Time is of the essence.”“We need the EPA to use every authority granted under CERCLA to move this site to remediation,” the petition states. “The health and wellbeing of our community and Galveston Bay hinges on the successful cleanup of this Site…”Under fireThe issues seen in Texas are not unique.The EPA is also under fire for its handling of a Superfund site in Montana where waste from an aluminum company has contaminated groundwater and surface waters with what the EPA calls “contaminants of concern,” including cyanide, fluoride and various metals. The company, Columbia Falls Aluminum Company (CFAC), operated from 1955 and 2009, leaving a legacy of hazardous waste that spreads over more than 900 acres north of the Flathead River.Testing found multiple contaminants in groundwater in the area, including cyanide, fluoride and metals such as aluminum, arsenic, chromium, copper, iron, lead, nickel, selenium and vanadium, among others, according to the EPA.The federal government has known for decades that the area was dangerously polluted. In the 1960s, government researchers reported that emissions from the plant were impacting wildlife and in 1988, an EPA-commissioned report confirmed that cyanide, a known serious health risk, and other contaminants were going into the water from the plant. But it was not until 2016 that the site was added to the National Priorities List. It took until 2021for CFAC to finalize a cleanup feasibility study under EPA oversight. The agency then released a proposed cleanup plan in June 2023.Though long-awaited, the plan is not meeting with community approval. A grassroots organization called the Coalition for a Clean CFAC is petitioning the EPA and Montana Department of Environmental Quality over the plans to handle the toxic waste. The group says the EPA is poised to allow most of the contamination to stay in place behind a concrete wall that would be constructed. The group says the plan would “leave the toxic waste-in-place and restrict future economic redevelopment and human use. Forever.”“The community has been calling for a complete cleanup including off-site removal for a long time,” said Peter Metcalf, a spokesman for the Coalition for a Clean CFAC.In California, public health advocates have accused the US Navy and the EPA of failing to deal with the toxic dumping at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Superfund site in a way that protects the public.The shipyard in San Francisco has been on the Superfund list since 1989, contaminated with radioactive waste, pesticides, heavy metals, petroleum fuels, PCBs and other toxins from the naval activities there. While some remediation work has been completed to the EPA’s satisfaction, critics say the work has not eradicated the hazardous waste but has merely capped and covered it up.Last year, the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) complained to the Navy’s Office of Inspector General, alleging the Navy has failed to properly inform the public about the dangers of the contamination at the site.As well, a group called Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice accuses the Navy and the EPA of violating CERCLA and other laws and says the Navy and EPA have failed to take action at the site that “assures protection of human health and the environment.”The group wants the EPA to force the Navy to do a “proper cleanup,” said Bradley Angel, Greenaction executive director.“Success” storiesThe EPA points to several of what it calls “success stories” and says that the Superfund cleanups are working to protect human health and the environment, “while also supporting community revitalization efforts and economic opportunities through redevelopment.”The agency points to a 200-acre former steel company site next to the Delaware River in New Jersey. The industrial work left the soil and water contaminated with heavy metals and buildings on the site were filled with asbestos. The EPA oversaw demolition of 70 buildings and removed underground contamination and dredged both the river and a creek. It counts the site as a success story in part because the site was turned into a light-rail commuter station and parking lot, and a museum was established on the site. The EPA said it also restored the riverfront and opened 34 acres of public greenspace along the river.One of the largest Superfund sites in the country, the Hudson River PCBs Superfund site is also hailed by the agency as a success story. The agency spent many years working on a plan and has removed 2.75 million cubic yards of river mud dredged from the Hudson River that was contaminated with 310,000 pounds of cancer-causing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which were banned in 1977. The EPA said marked it the “largest and most technically complex environmental dredging work ever undertaken in the United States.” The agency is now monitoring the area for “natural recovery.”Concerns remain about the work, however. An independent study found that dredging the upper Hudson failed to reduce PCB concentrations to the target range set by the EPA. A group called Friends of a Clean Hudson (FOCH) is calling for a pause in the dredging and an adjustment to future remediation goals.“We’re calling on the agency to step back and see, this is your data, and we feel you’re even more off track than before,” said former EPA Region 2 administrator Peter Lopez, who is now executive director of policy, advocacy and science with a group called Scenic Hudson.A third EPA five-year review on how the river has been recovering will be released soon, according to EPA Public Affairs Specialist Larisa Romanowski.Money woesThe Superfund program has long faced money woes, including funding cutbacks, struggles to pry money from “potentially responsible parties” (PRPs), and a failure to properly manage costs. After the expiration of a special polluters tax on the chemical and petroleum industries in 1995, program funding declined to the point that by 2010 the EPA estimated that cleanup costs were outstripping funding, even as the list of sites being added to the program was increasing.From 1999 to 2020, annual appropriations for Superfund work dropped from $2.3 billion to just under $1.2 billion, resulting in cleanup delays, according to a report by the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) and Environment America.During the period from 1999 to 2013, the EPA did not have enough money to pay for about a third of the cleanup work ready to begin, and from 2014 to 2021, the same was true for about one fourth of the projects ready to go, according to the groups.The outlook is much brighter going forward, however, due not only to the new money earmarked by the Biden administration, but also because of the reestablishment of the polluter pays taxes, which should provide a “steady stream of funding” to the program for at least the next several years, according to an updated report from the groups.“Already, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law has eliminated the backlog of toxic Superfund sites waiting around for clean-up in communities across the country,” said Lisa Frank, executive director of the Washington legislative office of Environment America. “Going forward, polluters, not taxpayers, will pay to clean up their messes. That’s great news for Americans. But full relief will only come once we stop using toxic substances like PFAS and mercury. Until then, we’ll continue to suffer from contaminated water, dirty air and Superfund sites.”

At 68, Oldest English Costa Rica Paper – The Tico Times celebrates tradition — and reinvention

Like the country it calls home, The Tico Times has often had an impact that far outpaces its small size. The post At 68, Oldest English Costa Rica Paper – The Tico Times celebrates tradition — and reinvention appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

As the Tico Times celebrate another birthday we thought we would do a repost from 2016. The Tico Times Of all the stories The Tico Times has reported in its six decades of publication, one of the most remarkable is the story of the paper itself. Its 60th birthday provides a chance to look back on the unlikely tale of a student project that went on to become an intrepid public watchdog, a strong independent voice and defender of press freedom, and a builder of bridges between Costa Rica and the international community. The paper was first created thanks to one of the serendipitous alignments of interest and expertise that seem to happen so often in Costa Rica: a group of Lincoln School seniors asked Elisabeth (Betty) Dyer, a veteran journalist from the United States who was a full-time mother in Costa Rica, to teach them about journalism. Her response? She urged them to learn by doing, and the result was the first edition of the paper, published on May 18, 1956 with a newsstand price of ¢1. Elisabeth Dyer The paper met a need among the growing expatriate community in the country, and grew quickly into a beloved weekly. For founder Betty Dyer and her husband Richard, who would become the paper’s publisher, it was an opportunity to return to what they loved most. Betty had been a trailblazer in New York journalism as the “first woman rewrite man” and p.m. editor for the New York Post, covering traditionally male beats including crime, labor and politics. Richard’s journalism career had included stints as the news editor of the Oakland Post-Enquirer in California and the AP assistant bureau chief in Río de Janeiro. Betty left her career behind after she married Richard and joined him in Río, where he served as bureau chief for the International News Service and King Features syndicate. When Richard got a job as the United Fruit Company’s public relations director for Central America in 1951, they moved to Costa Rica with their young daughter, Dery. (Dery would grow up to become the editor and publisher of The Tico Times.) The Tico Times Over the years, the paper they created attained worldwide readership for its independence in a region marked by turmoil and weak press. Reporters broke stories on secret runways used by the Contras, rampant shark finning in Costa Rican waters and the rise of the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua. It became a training ground for generations of young journalists. The Tico Times racked up a series of firsts. It was the first newspaper in Costa Rica (along with Eco Católico) to be printed on offset, the first to run color on its front page, the first to do investigative reporting and the first to cover the environment as a regular beat. The Tico Times and La Nación were the country’s first newspapers to have an online edition, and The Tico Times was the first and only paper in the country to raise funds for animal welfare or hold a public blood drive. (“People would come in the office to place a classified ad and we’d grab ‘em and say: ‘Your money or your blood,” remembered Dery Dyer. “We had a great time, served cookies and beer, had people fainting all over the place. But we got a lot of donors.”) The Tico Times Its records included some quirkier feats as well: The Tico Times was the first newspaper in Costa Rica, and probably in the world, to run a “subliminal photo” on its front page, and it was likely the only newspaper anywhere to refrain from publishing anything about the O.J. Simpson case. “SUBLIMINAL PHOTOGRAPH: What Do YOU See In It?” It would be impossible in this brief format to do justice to the changes that Costa Rica experienced, and The Tico Times chronicled, in the past six decades (although our 50th Anniversary Special Edition, published in 2006, went a long way toward that goal – view it below). The paper, in its first year, covered the birth of the millionth Costa Rican; and in 2000, it covered the arrival of the millionth foreign tourist. President José “Pepe” Figueres and First Lady Karen Olsen welcome the millionth Costa Rican in 1956. The Tico Times The Tico Times Those two milestones alone show the dizzying growth the country experienced, and the problems that came along with it, including the controversies of balancing between tourism needs and environmental protections, and the struggle to protect traditions in the face of increasing international influence. The Tico Times covered all of these issues, year after year. The Tico Times In the 1980s, when Central America’s armed conflicts cast the region into chaos, the relative stability of Costa Rica made San José, and often The Tico Times, a home base for some of international journalism’s leading lights. The paper covered all aspects of the conflicts, peace negotiations and the eventual peace accords that earned a Nobel Peace Prize for President Oscar Arias in 1987. During the years of unrest, on May 30, 1984, The Tico Times family suffered a tragic loss when reporter Linda Frazier died from the injuries she sustained in an explosion at a press conference in La Penca, the jungle encampment of Nicaraguan rebel leader Eden Pastora. The message “In Memoriam – Linda Frazier” appeared in The Tico Times masthead each week for as long as the paper was printed and continues to appear on our About Us page today. Like the country it calls home, The Tico Times has often had an impact that far outpaces its small size. One example was its struggle for freedom of expression against a provision of the country’s journalists guild that required reporters to be licensed by that organization in order to be published in Costa Rica. This ban hit The Tico Times hard, since the paper relied on international talent and, since its early days when other English-language news was hard to come by in the country, had served its readers by reprinting news from around the globe. The Tico Times fought the prohibition for many years, eventually achieved its repeal and, in 1995, won the Inter-American Press Association (IAPA) Grand Prize for Press Freedom for its efforts. This award joined others The Tico Times has won throughout its history, including the IAPA Pedro G. Beltrán Award for distinguished service to the community (1981); a Special Citation from Columbia University’s Maria Moors Cabot Awards (1985); the National Conservation Prize (1990); the Salvation Army’s Others Award, for launching and supporting the Angel Tree program in Costa Rica (1998); the National Tourism Chamber Media Award (1998); and the Alberto Martén Chavarría Award for best journalistic work in the area of social responsibility, American-Costa Rican Chamber of Commerce Social Responsibility in Action Awards (2015). Through it all, however, the paper sought to retain its home-grown feel in keeping with its grassroots origins. The Tico Times The paper celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2006 — but some of its greatest challenges were just around the corner. In the paper’s heyday from 2005-2007, it reached a size of 60 printed pages, thanks largely to a real estate boom that generated most of The Tico Times’ advertisements. That boom, along with the housing crisis in the United States, turned out to be a bubble, and when it burst, the paper faced a double dilemma of advertising flight and the onset of the digital age in Costa Rica. Like most print media around the world, the paper struggled to make ends meet, and on September 28, 2012, its final print edition hit newsstands. The paper’s home of many years, near the Judicial System in San José, was eventually sold, and parked cars now line the lot where writers, editors, sales and circulation staff toiled for so many years. But that wasn’t the end for The Tico Times. In a show of grit, creativity and commitment to the organization’s ideals, various staff members chose to stay on board on a volunteer basis or with drastically reduced salaries to keep the paper going, and an Indiegogo campaign was launched to raise funds. Readers donated more than $8,000 in 30 days to allow the paper to cover basic operating costs as it made the transition to an online media outlet, eventually allowing the organization to find its new home and its new offices in Barrio Amón, under the leadership of publisher Jonathan Harris. So the past decade included a difficult “last” for the paper, but brought a wave of firsts and new developments for an organization used to paving the way. These included a new logo that debuted in 2014; the first book from our Publications Group, “The Green Season,” by former staff writer Robert Isenberg, published in 2015; and the first event from our Events Group, “News and Brews,” held in San José. Through the changes, of course, The Tico Times has continued covering the news shaping Costa Rica, in creative ways made possible by the new digital format. Editorial highlights from the last decade ranged from continuing coverage of politics, trade, environmental issues and international relations, a photo essay to celebrate the country’s astonishing performance at the 2014 World Cup, and the tale of a beloved crocodile that continues to be one of our most-read stories nearly four years after his death. Celebrating World Cup glory in 2014. Alberto Font/The Tico Times Writers have been able to stretch out their legs in the luxury of unlimited online space through longform stories on everything from cycling across the country, to a visiting athlete who survived against the odds, to the extraordinarily life of a previous First Lady, to the crimes of a serial killer that have been largely ignored by other media. What’s next for The Tico Times? As Dery Dyer points out in her special letter in honor of this anniversary, there’s no telling what the future holds, but this is an organization that has persevered through tough times and embraced the future. In the end, what can be said to top the message that accompanied that first edition 60 years ago today? “This is THE TICO TIMES. It’s out. We hope it will come out again next week… and we hope that you find THE TICO TIMES ‘good reading.’” Browse a PDF of our 50th anniversary print supplement All of us at the Tico Times thank you for your support! The post At 68, Oldest English Costa Rica Paper – The Tico Times celebrates tradition — and reinvention appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

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.