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.

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

The hidden cost of ultra-processed foods on the environment: ‘The whole industry should pay’

Industrially made foods involve several ingredients and processes to put together, making it difficult to examine their true costIf you look at a package of M&Ms, one of the most popular candies in the US, you’ll see some familiar ingredients: sugar, skimmed milk powder, cocoa butter. But you’ll see many more that aren’t so recognizable: gum arabic, dextrin, carnauba wax, soya lecithin and E100.There are 34 ingredients in M&Ms, and, according to Mars, the company that produces the candy, at least 30 countries – from Ivory Coast to New Zealand – are involved in supplying them. Each has its own supply chain that transforms the raw materials into ingredients – cocoa into cocoa liquor, cane into sugar, petroleum into blue food dye. Continue reading...

If you look at a package of M&Ms, one of the most popular candies in the US, you’ll see some familiar ingredients: sugar, skimmed milk powder, cocoa butter. But you’ll see many more that aren’t so recognizable: gum arabic, dextrin, carnauba wax, soya lecithin and E100.There are 34 ingredients in M&Ms, and, according to Mars, the company that produces the candy, at least 30 countries – from Ivory Coast to New Zealand – are involved in supplying them. Each has its own supply chain that transforms the raw materials into ingredients – cocoa into cocoa liquor, cane into sugar, petroleum into blue food dye.These ingredients then travel across the world to a central processing facility where they are combined and transformed into tiny blue, red, yellow and green chocolate gems.It’s becoming better understood that food systems are a major driver of the climate crisis. Scientists can examine deforestation for agriculture, or the methane emissions from livestock. But the environmental impact of ultra-processed foods – like M&Ms – is less clear and is only now starting to come into focus. One reason they have been so difficult to assess is the very nature of UPFs: these industrially made foods include a huge number of ingredients and processes to put them together, making it nearly impossible to track.But it doesn’t mean it’s not important. As UPFs take over US grocery store shelves and diets– they now comprise 70% of food sold in grocery stores, and more than half of calories consumed – experts say that understanding their environmental toll is critical to build a more climate-friendly food system.What we knowWhile scientists are only starting to examine the environmental impact of UPFs, what’s already known about them is worrisome.“The more processed foods are, the more deleterious they are to human health and the environment,” said Anthony Fardet, a senior researcher at the French National Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment. The main reason, he explains, is that the ingredients are so energy intensive. When combined, the toll balloons.Take M&Ms. The first step in creating the candies is farming for cocoa, sugar, dairy and palm.It has been well-documented that agriculture for ingredients like cocoa drives ever increasing rates of deforestation across the globe. Since 1850, agricultural expansion has driven almost 90% of global deforestation, which has been responsible for 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Mars corporation has been called out in the past for the cocoa farming practices in their supply chain, and have since created sustainability plans, but these fail to address that large-scale agricultural practices like cocoa farming are, at their core, unsustainable.Then there’s sugar, milk solids and palm fat – also major greenhouse gas emitters.On top of that are the industrially made ingredients like food dyes – perhaps the signature of ultra-processing – which M&Ms contain 13 different types of. Blue M&Ms are colored with dyes E132 and E133; these dyes are mostly made in food dye manufacturing hotspots India and China, via a chemical reaction of aromatic hydrocarbons (which are petroleum products) with diazonium salt, catalyzed by the metals copper and chromium.M&Ms for sale in Orlando, Florida, in 2019. Photograph: Jeff Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty ImagesCreating soya lecithin, an additive made from soybean oil that’s used to change the consistency of chocolate, requires steps like degumming in a hot reactor, chemically isolating phospholipids, decolorization using hydrogen peroxide and drying under vacuum pressure. And dextrose, a sweetener, starts off as corn that gets steeped in acid before being milled, separated and dried. From there, it’s broken down into smaller molecules using enzymes and acids, and then recrystallized.Mars declined to comment for this story.While ultra-processed chocolate products are some of the worst offenders, other kinds of UPFs are taxing on the environment as well. Take for instance Doritos, which have 39 ingredients. Corn is the main ingredient, and for every acre grown, 1,000kg of carbon dioxide is emitted to the atmosphere. Like Mars, Pepsico, which makes Doritos, has developed its own sustainability promises, but many of these promises are underpinned by practices that are considered greenwashing, like “regenerative agriculture”. In reality, these sustainability promises undercut the dire need to better understand how UPFs affect our global climate.As a result, some experts have started to calculate the environmental toll of UPFs.CarbonCloud, a Sweden-based software company that calculates the emissions of food products, analyzed carbon disclosures from Mars, and estimated that M&Ms generate at least 13.2kg of carbon equivalents per kilogram of M&Ms produced. Mars produces more than 664m kg of M&Ms in the US each year, which would mean that if CarbonCloud’s calculations are accurate, the candies emit at least 3.8m tons of carbon dioxide – making up 0.1% of annual emissions in the US. (Mars does not report emissions by product, but according to their 2024 emissions report, they emitted 29m tons of carbon dioxide across the company.)But this is only an estimate based on publicly available data; the true cost is probably much higher, experts say. There’s a “black box” when it comes to carbon accounting in the processed food industry, says Patrick Callery, a professor at the University of Vermont who researches how corporations engage with the climate crisis. “There is so much uncertainty as supply chains get complex.”What we don’t knowGetting an exact measure of the environmental toll of UPFs is nearly impossible, given that, definitionally, UPFs consist of many ingredients and a high volume of opaque processes. Ingredients aren’t just mixed together like one would do to make a stew at home. Instead, these ingredients are chemically modified, some parts stripped away, and flavors, dyes or textures added in – and it’s unclear what the cost of these processes are because so many suppliers and components are involved.Another reason is that all UPFs (again, definitionally) are the creations of food companies that have little incentive to disclose their environmental footprint and may not fully understand it to begin with.For instance, Mars itself doesn’t farm cocoa, but instead relies on hundreds of farms that don’t always have accurate carbon accounting measures in place. This means that emissions from big food corporations may be underreported. David Bryngelsson, co-founder of CarbonCloud, said that corporations “don’t have actual data, so they use emissions factors, which are guesses”.Callery says that corporations provide reports on simple things like transportation, which are easier to calculate, and often omit or convolute the agricultural emissions of their product. After all, reporting high emissions goes against the interests of large food corporations, so the complex calculations needed to determine the carbon footprint of large-scale agriculture and multi-step industrial chemical processes used to make UPF ingredients remain un-researched.“The main point of ultra-processed foods is money,” said Fardet, pointing out that they’re designed to be attractive, easy and pleasurable to eat.“Most of the people in the [food industry’s] value chain don’t care about climate change from an ideological point of view, but they do care about money,” said Bryngelsson. He explains that to shift those incentives, the value of foods and ingredients would need to incorporate their impact on our shared climate. But that would require government regulations and financial penalties based on the true environmental cost of UPFs, says Bryngelsson.Why it mattersAt just under $2, the price of M&Ms at the grocery store hardly reflects their true cost on the environment. But to address these problems with ultra-processed foods, more than just a few tweaks to the ingredient list are needed.“Reducing the salt, or sugar of just one product is just greenwashing,” said Fardet. “We need to change the whole picture.” To do that, he suggested consuming more locally sourced, whole foods, which often take much less energy and transit to produce, and therefore have a much smaller carbon footprint.Specialty goods that can’t be sourced locally, like chocolate, should make up a small fraction of our diet and come from traceable and ethical supply chains.That’s not easy for all Americans, given the rising cost of food and the prevalence of food deserts and mediocre food retailers across the US.That’s why it can’t just be up to individuals to make environmentally (and health) conscious choices, experts say. Instead, large food corporations need to be held responsible for the burden they place on society – particularly as it pertains to climate change. Sustainability practices, like the “Cocoa for Generations” plan outlined by Mars, or Pepsico’s “Pep+” initiatives are Band-Aids on broken bones. Large food corporations need to be phased out to make global food systems sustainable.But perhaps more important is to change our understanding of the hidden costs of ultra-processed foods, says Fardet, whether it’s at home, in schools or through the banning the marketing of UPFs to children. Our food systems, Fardet said, “are absolutely not normal. The whole industry should pay the hidden costs.”

What caused the massive El Segundo explosion? Refinery experts have some theories

Although refinery fires are not unheard of, industry experts say the sheer scale of the El Segundo fire last week raises concerns about what went wrong and requires a thorough investigation.

The focus of the investigation into what caused a massive explosion and fire last week at Chevron’s El Segundo plant has turned to a jet fuel processing unit in the southeast corner of the sprawling oil refinery. Chevron officials have said little about what caused the blast but confirmed the Isomax unit, which converts oil into higher-value products such as jet fuel, remains shuttered since the inferno even as other refinery operations continue. “Until we can figure out everything that happened here and make sure it doesn’t happen again, we won’t restart it,” said Ross Allen, a Chevron spokesperson, adding that the refinery continues to produce jet fuel, as well as gasoline and diesel, from other units. Although refinery fires are not unheard of — Chevron’s on-site firefighting team specifically prepares for them — industry experts say the sheer scale of the El Segundo fire last week raises concerns about what went wrong and requires a thorough investigation. The blast turned the night skies across the South Bay bright orange and sent out a roar that reverberated for miles. No one died in the incident, and damage was confined to the refinery’s footprint. Only a few workers have reported minor injuries. “I think Chevron has been extremely, extremely lucky ... [given] the size of the explosion here,” said Najmedin Meshkati, a professor of engineering at USC who has served as an expert for the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board as it has probed other major refinery fires.Meshkati and several other experts interviewed by The Times said it was still hard to know exactly what led to the El Segundo fire that night as few details have been shared by local or Chevron investigators, but there are some likely culprits. Andrew Lipow, president of Houston-based consulting firm Lipow Oil Associates, said that, in his experience, refinery fires can often be traced to equipment failures, especially those that lead to a situation that “allows hot oil and gas to reach the atmosphere.” “It finds an ignition source, and a fire results,” Lipow said. An error from the refinery’s oil sensors could lead to a larger system failure, which can end in major flames, according to Faisal Khan, director of the Texas-based Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center, which provides training and education related to chemical safety. Oil sensors — which monitor well conditions and measure pressure, temperature and flow rates — have been used for a long time. But in the last decade, the technology has advanced to the point where there can be an over-reliance on the data, Khan said. That can lead to issues when refineries don’t have a backup mechanism to track the information or a person who can double-check the updates, he said. And once such a fire breaks out, it is particularly hard to fight because of how readily available fuel is within a refinery, said Casey Snow, El Segundo Fire Department division chief. The Fire Department trains to isolate and extinguish these types of fires by “controlling the valves that can restrict the flow” of the fuel, Snow said. It also will use water to try to limit where the active fire could spread. Neither Chevron nor state and local investigators have provided details on how widespread the fire became Thursday and Friday in El Segundo. Even though destruction wasn’t obvious from outside the refinery, Lipow said there was probably still significant damage. With a fire that size, the heat alone can melt equipment, and there could be direct fire damage even if it’s not clear to someone looking at the refinery from the outside, he said. “You can have a fire start at one part of the refinery … and it spreads because there’s just so much intense heat that it causes failures of other pieces of equipment nearby,” Lipow said.But there is often less dramatic damage to infrastructure — even for the scale of the fire — because these refinery fires are mostly burning fuel. “Typically, what you see burning is the fuel inside of the unit and not the structure itself,” said Allen, the Chevron spokesperson. “In many cases, firefighters use water to douse and cool nearby structures to keep the fire from spreading further. This minimizes additional damage to the facilities.”But downplaying the scope of this fire is not helpful, said Meshkati, the USC engineering professor. He said he hopes officials investigating this fire look for a “confluence of three sets of contributing factors,” which he separates into human-related, organizational and technological factors. A human factor can be something like an operator error; organizational factors are problems that stem from corporate decisions, such as not providing enough training or staffing; and technological factors are equipment failures, such as corrosion, he said. In the 2015 explosion at the then-Exxon Mobil Corp.’s Torrance refinery, federal investigators found a combination of organizational and technological issues caused the major blast.“We need to look at each one of those three sets of factors and then to the interaction of those factors,” Meshkati said. Meshkati’s main concern is that the investigation into this fire may not end up being as thorough and stringent as it could be, especially if the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board isn’t fully funded or staffed, as is now the case — a situation that has worried some locals and environmental groups. “We have not heard or seen from the Chemical Safety Board, which is the premier accident investigator for refineries in the United States,” Meshkati said. “This is, I think, a travesty.”An inquiry from The Times to the federal chemical board received an automatic out-of-office reply, citing the federal government shutdown. The Trump administration has also proposed budget cuts that would defund the board. But there are already several other investigations into the fire. Chevron officials said the company is working on its own probe, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District will look into potential violations of air quality rules and permit conditions. The California Department of Industrial Relations, which includes the Cal/OSHA Process Safety Management Unit, has also opened an investigation into the refinery fire, conducting thorough investigations to determine the cause of incidents and whether any state safety standards were violated. It wasn’t immediately clear when those findings would be ready, but Chevron is required to submit a report to the air quality district within 30 days analyzing potential causes and equipment breakdowns. Allen, the Chevron spokesperson, did not respond to a questions about the federal chemical board’s role or a possible timeline for Chevron’s findings from its investigation. Local authorities reported no injuries after the explosion. But as of Tuesday, four workers have claimed they were harmed in the incident, according to a lawsuit filed in Texas. One of their attorneys, Victoria Alford, said they were injured while they fled the massive explosion, calling the plant workers’ physical injuries “orthopedic in nature,” and said they were also suffering from anxiety.

Why Concord?

The geological origins of the American Revolution

Photographs by Amani WillettEditor’s Note: This article is part of “The Unfinished Revolution,” a project exploring 250 years of the American experiment. Concord, Massachusetts, 18 miles northwest of Boston, was the starting point for the War of Independence. On April 19, 1775, militia and minutemen from Concord and neighboring towns clashed with British regulars at the Old North Bridge and forced a bloody retreat by the King’s men back to safety in Boston. Some 4,000 provincials from 30 towns answered the call to arms. Concord claimed precedence as the site of THE FIRST FORCIBLE RESISTANCE TO BRITISH AGGRESSION, the words inscribed on the town’s 1836 monument to the battle (to the enduring resentment of nearby Lexington, which actually suffered the first American deaths that day). Concord’s boast took hold thanks to Ralph Waldo Emerson, who in 1837 portrayed the brief skirmish at the bridge as “the shot heard round the world.” That moment has been a key to local identity ever since.Concord is widely known for another aspect of its history: It is intimately associated with the Transcendentalist movement in the quarter century before the Civil War. That distinction, too, it owes to Emerson. Born and raised in Boston, the most prominent public intellectual of Civil War America was the scion of six generations of New England divines, going back to Concord’s founding minister. In 1835, at age 32, Emerson returned to “the quiet fields of my fathers,” and from that ancestral base forged his career as a lecturer in Boston and beyond. He quickly became known as an eloquent voice for a new philosophy—calling on Americans to shed outmoded ways of thinking rooted in the colonial and British past and to put their trust in nature and in themselves. Partaking, as he saw it, of a divinity running through all Creation, Americans had an unprecedented opportunity to build an original culture on the principles of democracy, equality, and individual freedom. Emerson’s project was to unleash this infinite force.In Concord, Emerson attracted a coterie of sympathetic souls who shared his vision, including Henry David Thoreau, who, as the author of Walden and “Civil Disobedience,” would ultimately surpass Emerson in renown. As the town gained literary stature, Concord became a byword for the philosophical movement it hosted. Henry Adams called Transcendentalism “the Concord Church.” Emerson projected his influence by means of books and lectures. He was among the founders of The Atlantic, calling in its pages for the abolition of slavery (and, a few months later, mourning the death of Thoreau). Concord itself emerged, in the words of Henry James, as “the biggest little place in America.”Why Concord? How did a small town of some 2,200 inhabitants in 1860 become a cradle of not one but two revolutions? The best-known explanations distort the town’s history while inflating its self-regard. One view, popularized by Van Wyck Brooks’s Pulitzer Prize–winning The Flowering of New England (1936), emphasizes Concord’s bucolic beauty, agricultural economy, and limited industrial development. It was a place fit for poets and philosophers, where nature and man came together in rare harmony. A second view, advanced by the Yale historian Ralph Henry Gabriel in 1940, holds that the Transcendentalists were the intellectual heirs of the minutemen. By challenging the materialism of business and politics and by insisting on the ideals of a democratic faith, Gabriel argued, Emerson and Thoreau were “carrying on the fight which had been started by farmers at the bridge.”It’s no wonder that locals and tourists alike continue to indulge such explanations. An attractive civic identity can brand a town and bring in business; ironically, Concord’s reputation as a place of principle, carrying the torch of democratic ideals, serves just this purpose. Still, as history, the public image of the Transcendentalists as heirs of the minutemen has little foundation. The minutemen had fought for collective liberty, the communal right to govern themselves and uphold a way of life going back to the Puritan founders. Transcendentalists, by contrast, stressed individual rights in a break with tradition. Forsake inherited institutions and involuntary associations, Emerson urged. “Trust thyself” was his strategy for changing times. A reconstruction of Concord’s Old North Bridge, where militia and minutemen forced British soldiers to retreat on April 19, 1775. (Amani Willett for The Atlantic) The town of Concord was not some sheltered enclave, slumbering through the revolutions of the age. In the Transcendentalist era, the community was economically dynamic, religiously diverse, racially heterogeneous, class-stratified, politically divided, and receptive to social and political reform. It stood in the mainstream of antebellum America. It offered no asylum from change.It’s easy to overstate the uniqueness of Concord in politics as well as culture. Why was the town at the forefront of the Revolution? Not because it was more militant than most. In the opposition to British taxes and “tyranny,” it took its time, reluctant to unsettle authority and break with the Crown. Then again, so did most towns in Massachusetts, until Britain revoked the colony’s provincial charter and assailed local self-government. Moderation made Concord a safe place to store military supplies; its leaders were unlikely to act rashly and precipitate a war. So did its distance from Boston and its pivotal place on the Massachusetts road network. The town was a market center, a seat of courts, and a staging ground for military expeditions—such as the march to Boston in 1689 to overthrow the authoritarian royal governor, Edmund Andros. But other towns, such as Weston and Worcester, could have performed a similar service in 1775.As for Concord’s status as the center of Transcendentalism, the claim is inflated. The movement drew support across the Boston area. Transcendentalists preached from Unitarian pulpits not only in Boston but also in nearby towns such as Watertown, Arlington, and Lexington. So Concord was not alone: Its citizens experienced the same forces unsettling life all over Massachusetts. Its writers just happened to address that social transformation with a vision of nature and the self so compelling that Concord became the symbolic rather than literal center of Transcendentalism.[From the December 2021 issue: Emerson didn’t practice the self-reliance he preached]In one key respect, though, Concord truly was unique. In 1635, when the Massachusetts General Court authorized the founding of the town, it possessed a natural setting with distinct advantages replicated nowhere else in New England. Over millennia, the forces of geology had fashioned a physical landscape that the Native inhabitants had improved to sustain their way of life, and had unwittingly made ready for appropriation by the newcomers from across the sea. These resources drew pioneers into the interior, well beyond the seaboard, for the first time, and enabled the creation of new social and intellectual landscapes. Nature blessed Concord from the start. Emerson rightly invoked the universal currents of being, whose natural laws, as he saw it, were the same in his era as at the beginning of time.The Concord River runs north, rather than southeasterly down the regional slope toward the sea. When the edge of the great ice sheet began to retreat from the area about 17,000 years ago, the Concord River was dammed up by the ice to create a ribbon-shaped glacial lake with a muddy bottom. Eventually the lake drained away, allowing the Concord River to cut an inner valley beneath a moist and fertile lowland.This process set the stage for the creation of what the Indigenous Massachusett, Nipmuc, and Pawtucket peoples called Musketaquid, meaning “grass-ground river,” a marsh about 20 miles long and so flat and so uninterrupted that Thoreau skated the entire round-trip distance one freezing day—January 31, 1855. The languid stream passed through broad meadows to create a northern version of the Everglades (without the alligators). Nathaniel Hawthorne lived along the bank for three weeks before he discerned which way the river flowed.This riparian ecology attracted colonists: Concord became the first English town in North America above tidewater, beyond the sight and scent of the sea. Here the lush growth of freshwater hay would undergird a system of English husbandry dependent on livestock. Here migrating shad, herring, and salmon thrived in the aquatic richness, furnishing plentiful protein sources, vitamins, and minerals. Here the firm, muddy banks made an ideal habitat for the freshwater mussels on which other animals depended: muskrat, otters, turtles, human beings. On July 3, 1852, Thoreau estimated that more than 16,335 freshwater clams lay along 330 feet of the riverbank. Migrating waterfowl followed the meadows. Songbirds nested along their edges.Transplanting Old World methods, the founders of Concord harvested natural hay in its Great Meadow, which was annually enriched with nutrients by flooding. Thoreau gazed at the scene and imagined a river as fertile and ancient as the Nile. “It will be Grass-ground River as long as grass grows and water runs here,” he predicted in the opening lines of his first book, A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers (1849). Above the meadow stood the Great Field, an unusually flat, loamy, well-drained terrace that the Native people had long cleared for cultivation, using fish for fertilizer. For the colonists, this was a place to grow cereal grains, including the novel crop of Indian corn, fertilized by manure from cattle fed on hay from the Great Meadow. Above the Great Field was a broad expanse of fairly level habitable land covered by old-growth forest. This extensive lowland gave inhabitants room to spread out on mostly stone-free soils, unlike so much of New England, and create productive farms.Concord lies at the midpoint of Musketaquid, a place where the Assabet River, a typical midsize New England stream, enters from the west to bisect the ribbon of meadowland, creating the Sudbury River to the south and the Concord River to the north. It’s no accident that Concord village was settled in this strategic spot, where three rivers touch—the axis mundi of a most unusual valley.Eighteen miles. That’s the distance from Boston Harbor to Concord village. A regiment of British soldiers walked it on their ill-fated expedition. In October 1833, Thoreau hiked the route to Concord from his Harvard dormitory in Cambridge, blistering his feet in the process. Eighteen miles was far enough from the capital to serve as the primary depot of provincial military stores; it made for a long march in the dead of night through hostile countryside, as the British regulars learned to their sorrow. In times of peace, Concord could take advantage of its favorable location—far enough from more urban coastal settlements to cultivate a rural identity centered on agriculture, but close enough to enjoy proximity to educational institutions, literary culture, markets and wharves, and the statehouse. Concord became a right-size county seat, its central village of shops, taverns, courthouse, and meetinghouse surrounded by farms no more than a few minutes’ walk in any direction.The physical separation between Boston and Concord involves more than the linear distance between two points. The population centers occupy different watersheds—the Charles River watershed to the east and the Concord River watershed to the west. In fact, they lie on different bedrock terranes that originated in different places in different eras. The terrane boundary coincides with the Bloody Bluff fault, named for a rocky notch where British troops were trapped by ferocious provincial fire. Here the land leans toward the security of the sea. To the west, it leans toward a hinterland where pioneering residents looked to one another for community support. Without the Lexington Road and its regular stagecoach traffic, 18th-century Concord would have remained an agricultural village. Instead, it became a prominent node in an expanding trade network. The significance of the watershed divide between country and city diminished only after the Fitchburg Railroad reached Concord in 1844. Top: The woods surrounding Walden Pond. Bottom: Concord’s Great Meadow. The construction of a railroad in 1844 made the town a day-trip destination for middle-class urbanites. (Amani Willett for The Atlantic) Before steam power and the internal combustion engine, the main source of mechanical power in Concord derived from flowing water. Harnessing hydropower required the construction of a dam, behind which a reservoir filled up with streamflow. For much of its history, Concord village was defined by a man-made pond, the filling of which was the counterpart to our putting fuel in a tank or recharging a battery.At Concord’s beginning, in the 1630s, its settlers clustered in a central village to take advantage of the waterpower of Mill Brook. A dam was built on the stream in a constricted space—the site of an abandoned fishing weir put in place by Indigenous occupants to capture the seasonal runs of shad and salmon coming upstream to spawn. The mill dam was sufficient for two centuries to power a diversity of small-scale manufacturing enterprises, including grist- and sawmills and blacksmith shops, but it was not enough to expand and compete even with the small factory cities west of Musketaquid, such as nearby Maynard and Stow, not to mention the industrial behemoths Lowell and Lawrence to the north. The enduring legacy of Mill Brook was to foster the growth of a central village in a colony where dispersed residences became the norm. Together with the Great Field and Great Meadow, the nucleated village of Concord, where people settled thickly under the watchful eyes of neighbors, manifested the Puritan ideal of community on the ground.Above the marshy meadows of Musketaquid, but below the fairly level wooded land over which Concord center sprawled, is a discrete alluvial floodplain dominated by river-transported silt and sand. And where this alluvium is absent, the meadows have low, natural-edging levees, high and dry enough to provide a habitat for a beautiful “gallery” forest fringing all three rivers on both sides. This extensive strip of trees constituted a buffer zone between the deforested open landscape of farms, fields, and pastures and the never-forested wetland of meadows and streams. As Thoreau floated down the rivers and walked along their banks, he delighted in this woodland composed not of tall pine and hickory, but of willow, alder, birch, red maple, and other species. Ralph Waldo Emerson’s home in Concord, and the nature reflected in its window (Amani Willett for The Atlantic) While drafting Nature from his second-floor study in the Old Manse—the house near Old North Bridge later occupied by Nathaniel and Sophia Hawthorne—Emerson would look out over a field and stone walls toward a gallery forest on both sides of the Concord River. Thoreau’s views, when he traveled the river by boat, skates, or snowshoes, were flanked by woods on both sides. Owing to its hydrology, Concord’s gallery forest persisted, even during the peak deforestation of the mid-19th century, when forest cover was reduced to about 10 percent of the town’s land area.Along the southern edge of Concord lies an elevated tract of droughty, infertile, and often bumpy land that remained unfit for development well into the 20th century. The uphill climb to that tract, known as Brister’s Hill for a once-enslaved Black man who made his residence there as a free man, is the north-facing escarpment of a forested plateau known as Walden Woods. Composed mainly of river gravel and sand, this upland is an ancient glacial delta that built outward over buried blocks of stagnant glacial ice. When those blocks later melted underground, the result was a chain of sinkhole lakes and ponds called kettles. The largest and purest of these is Walden Pond, the deepest lake in Massachusetts.For the Transcendentalists of the 1830s and ’40s, Walden Pond served as a source of inspiration within an easy walk of Emerson’s parlor. When Thoreau lived there in the mid-1840s, the lake became the imagined interlocutor for his philosophical musings—“Walden, is it you?”—and a powerful symbol of the unity of nature. Though the still-beautiful Concord River had been greatly changed by this time, Walden Pond, “earth’s eye,” became Thoreau’s exemplar of purity and eternity in a landscape denuded of trees and drained of its wetlands.But the commercialism and superficial mass culture that dismayed Emerson and outraged Thoreau intruded even here. An entrepreneurial agent for the Fitchburg Railroad built an amusement park at “Lake Walden.” In the Gilded Age, it became a day trip by train for middle-class urbanites and poor children from the Boston tenements. Eventually, the Emerson family acquired the bulk of the woodland surrounding the pond and donated it for public use.Concord is not unique in having one or more beautiful lakes within its borders. What makes it singular is that Thoreau’s book of the place made the place of the book world-famous. Walden became the foundational text for the aesthetic strand of the American environmental movement. Its emphasis on nature’s beauty and the spiritual inspiration that could be enjoyed at a humble kettle pond presented a pointed contrast to the utilitarian strand of the movement pioneered by George Perkins Marsh, the author of Man and Nature (1864), who sought to conserve nature for economic purposes. Of course, unwittingly, Thoreau’s classic also enhanced the tourist trade.In the 20th century, Concord, a town whose motto at times could be “Resisting change since 1775,” became a progressive leader on environmental and sustainability issues. Its otherwise inauspicious lake is now a global symbol and a destination for admirers of Thoreau. The more than 160,000 international pilgrims who come to visit every year, together with the attentions of nearby residents, threaten to love the pond and woods to death. It has been an ongoing political struggle to preserve Walden as it was in Thoreau’s day—an admittedly impossible task. Attempting to live up to that responsibility earned Concord acclaim across the world, notwithstanding the town’s decision in 1958 to site the town landfill within 800 feet of the lake—a choice considered temporary at the time and that local activists are now seeking to mitigate.Not everyone has appreciated the distinct landscape created by Concord’s geological history. In 1844, Margaret Fuller accused Emerson of settling for a placid suburban existence. A noble soul like his, she believed, required a sublime setting—dazzling waterfalls and mountain peaks—rather than the “poor cold low life” of Concord. Defensively, the country gentleman counted his blessings. If the town lacked “the thickets of the forest and the fatigues of mountains,” it was easy to reach and traverse. It was close enough to the city to attract big-name lecturers and performers, and yet distant enough to possess “the grand features of nature.” More than 160,000 pilgrims from around the globe visit Walden Pond each year. (Amani Willett for The Atlantic) Thoreau put the matter succinctly: Wildness lies all around us, and in it is “the preservation of the world.” Could not every town, he proposed, create a park “or rather a primitive forest of five hundred or a thousand acres, where a stick should never be cut for fuel,” but be “a common possession forever, for instruction and recreation”? His neighbors took the suggestion to heart. In the 160-plus years since his death, they preserved a sizable portion of the town’s farms, forests, and wetlands from economic development. Of Concord’s nearly 16,200 acres of land, roughly 6,120 acres, or 38 percent, are now “permanently protected open space,” according to a 2015 town plan. Thoreau’s own close studies of natural phenomena, including his phenological notes on seasonal events—when plants leaf, for example, and when birds migrate, and when the river ice breaks up—are now indispensable records with which scientists assess the advance and toll of climate change today.Yet the challenge to care for that environmental heritage is ongoing. Concord is not frozen in time. It is an active, changing community facing unrelenting pressures for economic development—for instance, controversial proposals for a cell tower in Walden Woods and for expanded private-jet flights from nearby Hanscom Field. Thoreau witnessed the same root conflict. With geology emerging as a science in his time, he intuited that nature was as subject to change as human society; it was no fixed backdrop.For all our extraordinary human achievements, we remain earthlings. Rocks and minerals give rise to ecosystems, upon which human cultures are dependent. That’s the direction of human history in deep time: up from the ground. In our unprecedented modern geological epoch, the aptly named Anthropocene, human beings have become the dominant geological agents, thanks to the power of fossil fuels—also up from the ground, but exhaustible and not enduring. That change has its origins in the Industrial Revolution, against whose excesses the Transcendentalists warned.On April 19, 2025, some 70,000 people converged on Concord to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the battle that started it all. Marching in the parade were representatives from some of the 97 communities in the United States that take their name from the birthplace of the Revolution. The celebrations proved to be patriotic as well as inclusive, paying tribute to the heritage of liberty and self-government that is the legacy of the New England town. They were also surprisingly cheerful for our polarized time, though a good many participants did carry signs inspired by the minutemen: NO KING THEN, NO KING NOW.Every place is unique because every place is the contingent outcome of its own inescapable cascade of events—from rock to ecosystem to culture. Concord was lucky in its location, inheriting advantages from natural landscape and history on which its inhabitants could build a sense of place and community. It was a fierce determination to defend that community, with its tradition of town-meeting government, that inspired the resistance to the British regulars. The location of the Old North Bridge at a bedrock-anchored narrows between two large meadows made a logical place for the shot heard round the world. The Battle Road that led to it was flanked by stone walls and trees lining the edges of fields, at times narrowing to pass over streams or curving sharply to follow landforms. The character of the Concord fight owed much to geology. It helps explain the rout of the redcoats—and the ensuing popular confidence in the possibility of a military victory that lay eight years ahead.This article appears in the November 2025 print edition with the headline “Why Concord?”

Trump’s coal bailout won’t solve the data center power crunch

The Trump administration is spending more than half a billion dollars to help prop up the dying coal industry. It’s also weakening pollution regulations and opening up more federal land to coal mining. All of this isn’t likely to save the industry—and also isn’t likely to do much to meet the surging demand for power from data centers for AI. Coal power is expensive, and that isn’t going to change Aging coal power plants are now so expensive to run that hundreds have retired over the last decade, including around 100 that retired or made plans to retire during Trump’s first term. Offering relatively small subsidies isn’t likely to change the long-term trend. “I don’t think it’s going to change the underlying economics,” says Michelle Solomon, a manager in the electricity program at the think tank Energy Innovation. “The reasons why coal has increased in cost will continue to be fundamentally true.” The cost of coal power grew 28% between 2021 and 2024, or more than double the rate of inflation. One reason is age: the average coal power plant in the U.S. is around 50 years old, and they aren’t designed to last much longer. Because renewable energy is cheaper, and regulation is likely to ramp up in the future, investors don’t see building new coal power plants as viable. But trying to keep outdated plants running also doesn’t make economic sense. The new funding can’t go very far. The Department of Energy plans to spend $625 million on coal projects, including $350 million to recommission and retrofit old plants. Another $25 million is set aside for retrofitting coal plants with natural gas co-firing systems. But that type of project can cost hundreds of millions or even a billion dollars for a single plant. (The $25 million, presumably, might only cover planning or a small pilot.) Other retrofits might only extend the life of a power plant by a few years. Because the plants will continue to be expensive to run, some power plant owners may not think the subsidies are worth it. Utilities want to move on If coal power plants keep running past their retirement age, even with some retrofits, costs keep going up for consumers. “That’s something that you really see in states that continue to rely on coal for a big part of their electricity mix,” says Solomon. “Like Kentucky and West Virginia, who have had their cost for power increase at some of the fastest rates in the country.” In Michigan, earlier this year, the DOE forced a coal power plant to stay open after it was scheduled to retire. The DOE cited an “emergency,” though neither the grid operator nor the utility said that there were power supply issues; the planned retirement of the plant included building new sources of energy to replace it. The utility reported to the SEC that within the first 38 days, alone, it spent $29 million to keep the plant running. (The emergency order is still in place, and being challenged by multiple lawsuits.) The extra expense shows up on consumers’ bills. One report estimates that by 2028, efforts to keep large power plants from retiring could cost consumers more than $3 billion a year. Utilities have long acknowledged the reality that there are less expensive energy sources. In the first Trump administration, in 2018, utilities resisted Trump’s attempts to use emergency powers to keep uneconomic coal plants open. When utilities plan to retire a power plant, there’s a long planning process. Plants begin making decision to defer maintenance that would otherwise be necessary. And many won’t want to reverse their decisions. It’s true that demand for power from data centers has led some utilities to keep coal plants online longer—and electric bills are already soaring in areas near large data centers. But Trump’s incentives may not make much difference for others. The last coal plant in New England just shut down years early, despite the current outlook for data centers. “Utilities do have to take a long-term view,” says Lori Bird, director of the U.S. energy program at the nonprofit World Resources Institute. “They’re doing multi-year planning. So they consider the durability and economic viability of these assets over the longer term. They have not been economic, and they’re also the highest-emitting greenhouse gas facilities.” Even if the Trump administration has rolled back environmental regulations, she says, future administrations could reverse that; continuing to use coal is a risky proposition. In most states, utilities also have to comply with renewable power goals. There are better solutions It’s true that the U.S. needs more power generation, quickly. It’s not clear exactly how much new electricity will be needed—some of that will depend on how much AI is a bubble and how much tech companies can shrink their power usage at data centers. But the nonprofit Rewiring America calculated that data centers that are under construction or in planning could add 93 gigawatts of electricity demand to the U.S. grid by the end of the decade. The nonprofit argues that some or even all of that new capacity could be covered by rooftop solar and batteries at homes. Cheap utility-scale renewable power plants could obviously also help, though the Trump administration is actively fighting them. Battery storage can help provide 24/7 energy. One analysis of a retiring coal plant in Maryland found that it would be less expensive to replace it with batteries and transmission upgrades than to keep it running. Temporarily saving a handful of coal power plants won’t cover the new power needs. It would add to air pollution, water pollution, and climate pollution. And it would significantly push up power bills when consumers are already struggling. Real support for an “energy emergency” would include faster permitting and other work to accelerate building affordable renewable energy, experts say. “Making sure that resources can compete openly is really important,” says Solomon. “It’s important to not only meet the demand from AI, but make sure that it doesn’t raise costs for electricity consumers.”

The Trump administration is spending more than half a billion dollars to help prop up the dying coal industry. It’s also weakening pollution regulations and opening up more federal land to coal mining. All of this isn’t likely to save the industry—and also isn’t likely to do much to meet the surging demand for power from data centers for AI. Coal power is expensive, and that isn’t going to change Aging coal power plants are now so expensive to run that hundreds have retired over the last decade, including around 100 that retired or made plans to retire during Trump’s first term. Offering relatively small subsidies isn’t likely to change the long-term trend. “I don’t think it’s going to change the underlying economics,” says Michelle Solomon, a manager in the electricity program at the think tank Energy Innovation. “The reasons why coal has increased in cost will continue to be fundamentally true.” The cost of coal power grew 28% between 2021 and 2024, or more than double the rate of inflation. One reason is age: the average coal power plant in the U.S. is around 50 years old, and they aren’t designed to last much longer. Because renewable energy is cheaper, and regulation is likely to ramp up in the future, investors don’t see building new coal power plants as viable. But trying to keep outdated plants running also doesn’t make economic sense. The new funding can’t go very far. The Department of Energy plans to spend $625 million on coal projects, including $350 million to recommission and retrofit old plants. Another $25 million is set aside for retrofitting coal plants with natural gas co-firing systems. But that type of project can cost hundreds of millions or even a billion dollars for a single plant. (The $25 million, presumably, might only cover planning or a small pilot.) Other retrofits might only extend the life of a power plant by a few years. Because the plants will continue to be expensive to run, some power plant owners may not think the subsidies are worth it. Utilities want to move on If coal power plants keep running past their retirement age, even with some retrofits, costs keep going up for consumers. “That’s something that you really see in states that continue to rely on coal for a big part of their electricity mix,” says Solomon. “Like Kentucky and West Virginia, who have had their cost for power increase at some of the fastest rates in the country.” In Michigan, earlier this year, the DOE forced a coal power plant to stay open after it was scheduled to retire. The DOE cited an “emergency,” though neither the grid operator nor the utility said that there were power supply issues; the planned retirement of the plant included building new sources of energy to replace it. The utility reported to the SEC that within the first 38 days, alone, it spent $29 million to keep the plant running. (The emergency order is still in place, and being challenged by multiple lawsuits.) The extra expense shows up on consumers’ bills. One report estimates that by 2028, efforts to keep large power plants from retiring could cost consumers more than $3 billion a year. Utilities have long acknowledged the reality that there are less expensive energy sources. In the first Trump administration, in 2018, utilities resisted Trump’s attempts to use emergency powers to keep uneconomic coal plants open. When utilities plan to retire a power plant, there’s a long planning process. Plants begin making decision to defer maintenance that would otherwise be necessary. And many won’t want to reverse their decisions. It’s true that demand for power from data centers has led some utilities to keep coal plants online longer—and electric bills are already soaring in areas near large data centers. But Trump’s incentives may not make much difference for others. The last coal plant in New England just shut down years early, despite the current outlook for data centers. “Utilities do have to take a long-term view,” says Lori Bird, director of the U.S. energy program at the nonprofit World Resources Institute. “They’re doing multi-year planning. So they consider the durability and economic viability of these assets over the longer term. They have not been economic, and they’re also the highest-emitting greenhouse gas facilities.” Even if the Trump administration has rolled back environmental regulations, she says, future administrations could reverse that; continuing to use coal is a risky proposition. In most states, utilities also have to comply with renewable power goals. There are better solutions It’s true that the U.S. needs more power generation, quickly. It’s not clear exactly how much new electricity will be needed—some of that will depend on how much AI is a bubble and how much tech companies can shrink their power usage at data centers. But the nonprofit Rewiring America calculated that data centers that are under construction or in planning could add 93 gigawatts of electricity demand to the U.S. grid by the end of the decade. The nonprofit argues that some or even all of that new capacity could be covered by rooftop solar and batteries at homes. Cheap utility-scale renewable power plants could obviously also help, though the Trump administration is actively fighting them. Battery storage can help provide 24/7 energy. One analysis of a retiring coal plant in Maryland found that it would be less expensive to replace it with batteries and transmission upgrades than to keep it running. Temporarily saving a handful of coal power plants won’t cover the new power needs. It would add to air pollution, water pollution, and climate pollution. And it would significantly push up power bills when consumers are already struggling. Real support for an “energy emergency” would include faster permitting and other work to accelerate building affordable renewable energy, experts say. “Making sure that resources can compete openly is really important,” says Solomon. “It’s important to not only meet the demand from AI, but make sure that it doesn’t raise costs for electricity consumers.”

Democratic Food and Ag Candidates Enter the Political Fray

Some of the candidates are leveraging their direct experiences of Trump administration policies and are hoping to shake up the traditional Democratic platform. “The party hasn’t needed to twist arms that hard to get people with non-traditional backgrounds to run,” David Wasserman, senior editor and elections analyst for The Cook Political Report, told Civil Eats. […] The post Democratic Food and Ag Candidates Enter the Political Fray appeared first on Civil Eats.

Even though general elections are over a year away, non-traditional, first-time candidates are throwing their hat in the ring for U.S. House and Senate races. Several of them come from food, farming, or federal government backgrounds and were moved to run for public office because of federal funding freezes at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), tariffs, or cuts to food assistance in the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB). As Democrats look to reassert control in Congress, analysts say these voices could be vital in reaching the rural voters that have previously steered clear of the party. Some of the candidates are leveraging their direct experiences of Trump administration policies and are hoping to shake up the traditional Democratic platform. “The party hasn’t needed to twist arms that hard to get people with non-traditional backgrounds to run,” David Wasserman, senior editor and elections analyst for The Cook Political Report, told Civil Eats. “Democrats know they need to reconnect with rural voters.” Former Vice President Kamala Harris attempted to do this in her 2024 bid by pulling in Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and by making a bigger push in rural communities. But in the end she failed to pull in those voters. In the 2024 election, 69 percent of rural voters backed Trump while 29 percent voted for Harris, according to the Pew Research Center. This widened the rural voter divide from 2020, when Trump won 65 percent of the rural vote while former President Joe Biden earned 34 percent. Despite their standing as Republican strongholds, rural areas may now represent new opportunity for Democratic candidates as Trump administration policies continue to hit the heartland. Here are some of the new rural Democrats whose campaigns highlight how food and agriculture could play a part in the November 2026 midterms. Although Midwest farmers were expecting strong yields from this year’s soybean crops after a favorable growing season, tariffs have shifted global markets, toward cheaper crops in Brazil. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images) Jamie Ager, House (North Carolina) Jamie Ager is a fourth-generation farmer in Western North Carolina, where over the last 25 years he’s raised grass-fed beef and pasture-raised pork. Now that his children are grown, he’s stepping into the political arena. “I think that food and agriculture and rural America has been left behind in a lot of ways,” Ager said during a recent New York City Climate Week event. Ager’s campaign for the 11th Congressional District focuses on breaking traditional partisan lines. While he’s running as a Democrat, he argues the party needs to get back to its roots and represent working people. His campaign also highlights the cost of health care, housing affordability, and the recovery from Hurricane Helene, which last year devastated farm country in the state. Western North Carolina suffered major losses from the storm, and many small towns there are still waiting for hundreds of thousands of dollars of relief promised by the federal government. “We’ve got enough stacked against us right now with all the economic challenges of the region, to then not get any support from the federal government that was promised,” Ager said. “That money has been spent knowing that promise was coming.” While agriculture in his region is less steeped in commodity row crops, Ager said he’s empathetic toward corn and soybean farmers dealing with the impact of tariffs. Tariffs make it hard for them to make a living, he said, and are pushing rural voters to seek better leadership. “We’ve got enough stacked against us right now with all the economic challenges of the region.” In addition to tackling these issues in Congress, Ager said he sees space for bipartisan work on regenerative agriculture and conservation. “Our quest over the last 80 years towards cheap food has resulted in the efficient system we have now,” Ager said. “But the efficient system we have now doesn’t mean it actually nourishes the people.” Republicans like Sen. Roger Marshall (Kansas) and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have also started to embrace this idea, highlighting soil health and regenerative agriculture. This is an encouraging sign, Ager said, and a space where he could contribute in Congress as a regenerative farmer himself. “Having worked with my hands and having to solve problems with my hands is almost the best experience you can bring to Congress,” Ager said. “Because you know what it’s like to do that and to make a living doing that, and there’s some familiarity with what everyday people go through.” Megan O’Rourke, House (New Jersey) Megan O’Rourke began working at the USDA in 2010 and became the first climate-change advisor for the Foreign Agricultural Service. Over the course of her tenure in the federal government, she also worked with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) as a climate-change advisor. She eventually returned to the USDA in 2020 to work with the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. In July, she left her agency role as the national science liaison for climate change because of executive orders and funding freezes by the Trump administration. As someone who worked under the first Trump administration and the Biden administration, she said this term felt different. O’Rourke said she saw red flags in Trump’s first wave of executive orders, making it clear from the beginning that climate change and science would not be taken seriously. But the final straw was the day that all of her work, along with several other references to climate change, was scrubbed from federal government websites, she said. This included the congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment, which she contributed to. Under then-President Joe Biden, climate researchers worked on the Fifth National Climate Assessment, which was scrubbed from government websites under the second Trump administration. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images) O’Rourke is running in a crowded Democratic field in one of the state’s most competitive midterm districts, the 7th Congressional. Overall affordability (and especially high housing and electricity costs), political division, and the government’s unpredictability are key themes in O’Rourke’s campaign. O’Rourke grew up in a food-insecure home, and she said the recent cuts to food assistance and health programs in the OBBB feel personal. “I want to be somebody in Congress who actually knows and understands these programs, instead of silver-spoon politicians,” O’Rourke told Civil Eats. In conversations with farmers and others in her community, O’Rourke said she’s also heard a lot of concern about the uncertainty surrounding the farm bill and USDA support systems. In the agricultural research space, she said nearly every person she’s connected with during her campaign has had grants rescinded. This means labs or research offices are having to lay off staff or can’t afford to hire students, she said. “The farm community, just like a lot of people, are sick of the uncertainty and divisiveness and want people in Congress to get to work.” With the USDA’s upcoming reorganization, farmers are unsure whether they’ll have adequate access to experts to help them navigate programs and grant applications. “The farm community, just like a lot of people, are sick of the uncertainty and divisiveness and want people in Congress to get to work and especially pass a farm bill,” O’Rourke said. Her campaign also focuses on environmental safety issues, including water contamination and Superfund sites in her district. O’Rourke said the administration has cut back on science that is fundamental to addressing these problems, which has a direct impact on her community. “That touches on . . . . what people care about in their day-to-day life: your house, your food, your family, and your health.” Graham Platner, Senate (Maine) Graham Platner, an oyster farmer and military veteran, is one of several candidates vying for the Democratic nomination to face off against Republican Sen. Susan Collins. Platner has raised $3.2 million in the first quarter since announcing his campaign, according to Axios. He also has the backing of progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and is appealing to working-class Mainers, since he is one himself. “I’m a working person in Maine who [was] living, until recently, a very very normal life that is impacted by the outcomes of policy,” Platner said recently on MSNBC. “I can see that in my community, I can see it in my own life.” While Platner is running as a Democrat, he’s pushed back against the “liberal” label. Even while advocating for progressive policies like universal health care, instead of focusing on party affiliation, he’s emphasized representing everyday people. “I’m a working person in Maine who [was] living, until recently, a very very normal life that is impacted by the outcomes of policy.” “I find it highly amusing that having a problem with hospitals closing in Maine and trying to figure out how to use the vast wealth of this nation to keep that from happening, the fact that somebody thinks that’s some kind of lefty, progressive ideal seems absurd to me,” Platner said. “That mostly seems like I’m just trying to give a damn about my community.” Platner faces a sea of other Democratic primary challengers, including Dan Kleban, founder of the Maine Beer Company. Both face an uphill battle if Maine Gov. Janet Mills also announces her bid. Salaam Bhatti, House (Virginia) Salaam Bhatti’s background in food policy dates to his childhood, when his family benefitted from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). The experience pushed him to become a public-interest lawyer, which he later did at the Virginia Poverty Law Center. He also worked as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) director for the Food Research and Action Center. The passage of the OBBB, combined with rising healthcare, housing, and grocery costs were key drivers behind Bhatti’s decision to run. He’s one of several Democrats attempting to unseat GOP Rep. Rob Wittman. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has listed his 1st Congressional District as one of the more viable to flip in 2026. “People will die as a result of these cuts to their health care.” Bhatti said Wittman caused harm in his community by backing the OBBB, which is expected to cut millions of eligible individuals from SNAP and Medicaid. Wittman has argued the bill will have a positive impact on Virginians by extending Trump administration tax cuts and through no tax on tips and no tax on overtime. Virginians could lose healthcare access or could see increases to their care costs, Bhatti said. Additionally, the bill could raise already high energy, housing, and grocery costs. “People will die as a result of these cuts to their health care,” he said. “We really need to be mindful of how we can act quickly to make sure we can save as many folks as possible because of what these Republicans have done.” Throughout his campaign, Bhatti said he’s been educating voters about the long-term effects of the OBBB. This includes explaining how SNAP cuts impact the entire local economy, rather than just SNAP recipients. Without revenue from SNAP, grocery stores could increase costs or consider shutting down, which Bhatti said will increase food insecurity overall. Nikki Gronli, House (South Dakota) Nikki Gronli served as the state director for USDA’s Rural Development under the Biden administration from March 2022 to the end of the term. There she oversaw the renovation of a rural behavioral health facility, grants for tribes to develop a regional food hub, and more. Over that time, she also grew closer with the farming community in the state. In recent conversations with farmers, Gronli said, she’s heard concerns about a lack of staff at local rural development and USDA Farm Service Agency offices. Nearly 150,000 federal employees have left the government since Trump was inaugurated. At the USDA alone, 15,000 have departed due to deferred resignation offers. Those cuts have slowed down application reviews and approvals for farmers in her state, Gronli said. This is one of the main reasons she decided to launch her campaign to fill North Dakota’s lone House seat, currently occupied by Republican Rep. Dusty Johnson. Johnson, who chairs the House Agriculture subcommittee on Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development, announced his bid for governor earlier this year. Nikki Gronli announced her candidacy for South Dakota’s lone U.S. House seat in September, after touring the state earlier this year. (Getty Images) Before announcing, Gronli held town halls across the state, where she listened to farmers about their experiences and concerns. She also heard about the impacts of funding freezes across different USDA initiatives, like the Regional Food Business Center Program, she said. One local egg producer, for example, had planned to use a grant from that program to expand her operation with additional staff and packaging equipment, but the grant was eliminated. Farmers also raised alarm about the impact of tariffs, which Gronli said could have more wide-reaching impacts on the state. “Every time we lose a farmer, that impacts the local small towns, that hurts other businesses,” she said. “That may mean school consolidations, that may mean a clinic or a senior care center shuts down. It’s not good. It’s not sustainable.” South Dakota’s House seat has been held by a Republican since 2011, with the current secretary for Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, holding the role before Johnson. “Every time we lose a farmer, that impacts the local small towns, that hurts other businesses.” But Gronli said she’s received positive responses from traditionally Independent and Republican voters who want a representative to break the status quo and vote in favor of the state’s best interests. “I think that’s the big frustration,” she said. “We see our members of Congress out there voting because they were told by the administration to vote a certain way, and those policies are hurting South Dakota right now.” Christy Davis, Senate (Kansas) Christy Davis is a former Biden administration USDA state rural development director. If she advances from the primary, she likely faces Republican incumbent Sen. Roger Marshall. Davis said in an interview with the Kansas Reflector that Marshall has focused more on highlighting actions by the White House instead of issues all Kansans are facing, like trouble affording basic needs. She added that Marshall stood behind Trump during the OBBB signing and has supported what she calls the administration’s “broken ag policies,” like reorganizing the USDA and immigration actions that have hurt the agriculture workforce. The post Democratic Food and Ag Candidates Enter the Political Fray appeared first on Civil Eats.

UK plastic waste exports to developing countries rose 84% in a year, data shows

Campaigners say increase in exports mostly to Malaysia and Indonesia is ‘unethical and irresponsible waste imperialism’Britain’s exports of plastic waste to developing countries have soared by 84% in the first half of this year compared with last year, according to an analysis of trade data carried out for the Guardian.Campaigners described the rise in exports, mostly to Malaysia and Indonesia, as “unethical and irresponsible waste imperialism”. Continue reading...

Britain’s exports of plastic waste to developing countries have soared by 84% in the first half of this year compared with last year, according to an analysis of trade data carried out for the Guardian.Campaigners described the rise in exports, mostly to Malaysia and Indonesia, as “unethical and irresponsible waste imperialism”.In 2023, the EU agreed to ban exports of waste to poorer nations outside a group of mainly rich countries within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The ban comes into force in November 2026 for two and a half years and can be extended. The UK does not have a similar ban in place.Data analysed by the The Last Beach Cleanup, a US group campaigning to halt plastic pollution, showed that the increase in UK exports in the first half of 2025 was mainly to Indonesia (24,006 tonnes in 2025, up from 525 tonnes in 2024) and Malaysia (28,667 tonnes, up from 18,872 tonnes in 2024).Total plastic waste exports remained relatively high in the first half of 2024 and 2025, at 319,407 and 317,647 tonnes respectively. The percentage of UK plastic waste going directly to non-OECD countries was 20% of total plastic waste exports in 2025, up from 11% in 2024.The Last Beach Cleanup analysed data from the UN Comtrade database to reach its findings. Jan Dell, who works for the group, accused UK ministers of “hypocrisy” by failing to ban exports to poorer nations.“The UK is hypocritically saying, ‘we’re part of the high ambition coalition’, at the plastics talks. But behind the scenes, it is refusing to set a date to stop exporting to poorer countries,” she said. “We see it is increasing exports of its own plastic waste to places like Malaysia and Indonesia.”She added: “It is unethical and irresponsible waste imperialism.”After the collapse of the UN plastic treaty talks in August, Emma Hardy, under-secretary of state at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), said she was “hugely disappointed” an agreement had not been reached but was proud of the UK’s work towards an ambitious treaty.Britain was part of a “high ambition” coalition of nations calling for the treaty to include binding obligations on reducing plastic production and consumption, she said.Campaigners are calling for the UK, one of the top three countries exporting plastic waste, at about 600,000 tonnes a year, to follow the EU and ban exports to non-OECD countries. They also want to close a loophole that makes it cheaper to export plastic waste rather than recycle it in the UK.Plastic products, such as these found in Klang, Selangor in June, are often fly-tipped from factories processing imported plastic waste in Malaysia. Photograph: Basel Action NetworkThe Conservative government said in 2023 that it intended to ban plastic waste exports to non-OECD countries – but it never happened.Wong Pui Yi, a Malaysia-based consultant for Basel Action Network, a group championing global environmental health and justice, said there were “good guys and bad guys” in the waste trade.“A lot of waste traders are looking to reduce costs,” she said. “If waste falls into the hands of the bad actors, one of the easiest ways to reduce costs is to avoid environmental controls. In developing countries, it is easier to avoid environmental controls due to weaker laws and lower enforcement capacity.”In July, the UK’s exports of plastic waste to Malaysia dropped to 2.8% (1,500 tonnes), most likely due to the country’s new import restrictions. But as one country bans or tightens imports, as happened with China in 2018, the trade shifts elsewhere.The rise in UK plastic exports to Asia is likely to be an underestimate, experts say, because a lot goes to the Netherlands and other European countries where it can be shipped on. The UK also exports plastic to Turkey.James McLeary, the managing director of Biffa Polymers, a UK recycling firm, said the UK should take responsibility for its plastic waste.“It is just common sense as a human being” he said. “I don’t want my rubbish to end up in Malaysia. I don’t want to wonder if there is a boy whose life is wasted somewhere because of me throwing something in a bin outside my house.”Earlier this month, an investigation called Boy Wasted revealed that, for the last decade, two people were crushed, ripped, or burned to death in the recycling sector in Turkey every month.Adnan Khan, a Canadian journalist whose work on refugee labour in Turkey sparked the investigation, said that while Turkey had a licence system for recycling plastic waste, “my research shows that it is pretty easy to get a licence and the oversight is low. It’s a broken system.”All EU plastic waste exports should be banned to anywhere outside the EU, he said. “I would go further and say every country should take care of its own trash.”Defra did not respond to a request for comment.

Thousands join biggest-ever UK environmental lawsuit over river pollution

Livestock and water companies are accused of “extensive” pollution in the Wye, Lugg and Usk rivers.

Thousands join biggest-ever UK environmental lawsuit over river pollutionSteffan MessengerEnvironment correspondent, BBC WalesBBCThe Wye Valley is a designated Area of Outstanding Natural BeautyThe biggest legal claim ever brought in the UK over environmental pollution in the country has been filed at the High Court.Almost 4,000 people have signed up to the lawsuit against major poultry producers and a water company over allegations of "extensive and widespread pollution" in three rivers - the Wye, Lugg and Usk.They argue the state of the rivers in recent years has severely affected local businesses, property values and people's enjoyment of the area, and are seeking "substantial damages".The firms being sued - Avara Foods Limited, Freemans of Newent Limited and Welsh Water - all deny the claims.Celine O'Donovan, from the law firm Leigh Day, said the case was the largest brought in the UK over environmental pollution in the country on three counts – the number of claimants, the geographical scale of the damage and the total damages claimed.Those who have joined the group legal claim all either live or work alongside the rivers or use them regularly for leisure activities like swimming and canoeing.They want the court to order a clean-up of the rivers as well as compensation.A combination of chicken manure and sewage spills are blamed for harming water quality and suffocating fish and other wildlife.The Wye in particular has become symbolic of widespread concerns over the worsening state of the UK's waterways in recent years.As many as 23 million chickens, a quarter of the UK's poultry production, are raised in the river's catchment area.Justine EvansJustine Evans used to love swimming and canoeing on the River Wye but is now worried polluted water might make her illIt flows for 155 miles from its source in the Cambrian Mountains of mid Wales along the border with England to the Severn Estuary.The River Lugg is a major tributary of the Wye, flowing predominately through Herefordshire.The River Usk runs through the Bannau Brycheiniog National Park, also known as the Brecon Beacons, as well as the Blaenavon Industrial Landscape World Heritage Site before reaching the Bristol Channel at Newport.All three rivers are protected for their importance to rare wildlife, including otters, freshwater pearl mussels and the Atlantic salmon.Wildlife filmmaker Justine Evans is acting as the lead claimant and said she had noticed a "stark decline" in the Wye's condition in recent years.The once clear river had turned murky and slimy, completely changing how she felt about living alongside it, she said."It's horrible to think what has happened to the wildlife it is home to," she added.Friends of the lower WyeCampaigners have been raising concerns over the state of the river Wye for several yearsFormer Olympic swimmer Roland Lee moved to live near the Wye in order to have access to open water for swimming."But now I'd actually go as far as to warn people against going in," he said.Another claimant, Gino Parisi from Raglan, Monmouthshire, was worried about the state of the River Usk."Having grown up around the River Usk in the 1980s, I know just how beautiful the river and surrounding area can be," he said.Now the water had become "mucky and cloudy" and "you can see build-ups of foam in a number of spots"."Not only would I feel uncomfortable going in, but I'd also have concerns for my health."Why is the River Wye polluted?The claimants allege pollution has been caused by run-off from farmland containing high concentrations of phosphorus, nitrogen and bacteria from the spreading of poultry manure and sewage bio solids used as fertiliser.They also blame discharge of sewage directly into rivers.The companies being sued are accused of negligence, causing private and public nuisance and even trespass where the riverbed has been affected on a claimant's property.One part of the claim is brought on behalf of people affected by what is known as the Lugg Moratorium - restrictions on building brought in by Herefordshire County Council to protect the River Lugg from further pollution.Oliver Holland from Leigh Day said the claim was "the culmination of an extraordinary effort by local community members and campaign groups to research, monitor and advocate for their rivers"."This is the largest legal action concerning environmental pollution ever brought in the UK. In a context where government and regulators have failed to prevent the degradation of our rivers the court has become the last avenue for justice," he added.Gino ParisiGino Parisi has "many happy memories" of swimming and paddling in the River UskAvara Foods Limited is one of the largest poultry processors in the UK. Its subsidiary, Freemans of Newent, based in Hereford is also named as a defendant in the case. A spokesperson for Avara Foods told the BBC it shared concerns over the condition of the River Wye."But we believe that this legal claim is based on a misunderstanding, as no manure is stored or spread on poultry-only farms that supply Avara Foods."Where poultry manure is used as fertiliser, it is for other produce in other agricultural sectors," the company said, adding individual farmers were responsible for how nutrients were used in their arable operations. The company said it employed about 1,500 people in the Wye catchment area and all its poultry was produced "to standards that are amongst the highest in the world"."The focus instead needs to be on solutions that will improve the health of the river, addressing all forms of pollution and the effects of climate change, and for action to be taken accordingly," it said.Welsh Water said the company had made "significant investments over recent years", achieving "real improvements in water quality".These included spending £70m over the last five years to improve sites along the River Wye, work that was delivered "ahead of the target set by our regulators", and £33m for the River Usk."Unfortunately, the water pollution caused by other sectors during this period has increased significantly, reducing the overall impact of the water quality improvements we have achieved," a spokesperson said.The company intended to "defend this case robustly", they added."The fact that we are a not-for-profit company means that any payments to these claimants would necessarily reduce the amount that we can re-invest in delivering further improvements for the benefit of all of our customers and the environment."Environmental campaigners lost a high-profile legal challenge against the UK government over pollution in the river Wye in 2024.Ministers in Westminster and Cardiff Bay have since set up a joint £1m fund to investigate the sources of pollution in the river.

Protected areas in the Hauraki Gulf nearly triple under a new law – but it comes with a catch

An exception for commercial ring-net fishing in some protected areas of the Hauraki Gulf means they don’t count towards the global goal of protecting 30% by 2030.

Getty ImagesA new law that almost triples the protected area in the Hauraki Gulf Tīkapa Moana – New Zealand’s largest marine park at more than 1.2 million hectares, surrounding Auckland and the Coromandel peninsula – is something to be celebrated. But it comes with compromises, and it is especially disappointing that some forms of commercial fishing will continue in some areas. This week, parliament passed the Hauraki Gulf/Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill into law. It increases areas under some form of protection from 6% to 18% by extending two existing marine reserves and adding 12 high protection areas and five seafloor protection areas. These new areas add to the diversity of habitats under protection, including under-represented soft sediment ecosystems, and provide new opportunities for customary management. While fishing will be restricted in 18% of the gulf, there is a carve-out for commercial ring-net fishing in high protection areas. This diminishes their status as protected areas and makes it more difficult for New Zealand to fulfil its promise under the Global Biodiversity Framework to protect 30% of the marine environment by 2030. We should also recognise this is only a starting point in restoring the mauri (life force) of the gulf. Animals that live in the gulf’s water column remain vulnerable, and given the rate of environmental change in New Zealand’s waters, we need to fast-track the conservation process. Levels of protection The new legislation has three forms of protection. Marine reserves are complete no-take zones. High protection areas (HPAs) allow for restoration activities and provide for customary practices of tangata whenua. Seafloor protection areas (SPAs) protect habitats on the seabed, but they allow for activities that don’t damage them, such as non-bottom fishing. All three forms of protection share a common theme in restricting large-scale seafloor disturbances from bottom trawling and dredging, large-scale removal of non-living material such as sand, and dumping or discharge of waste. The protection of the seafloor is critical to preserving the many benefits we gain from its ecosystems, including carbon storage, the processing of excess nutrients, provision of food for fish, and nursery habitats. HPAs value Māori management and support the restoration of nature and culture. This opens up opportunities to undertake active restoration to accelerate passive recovery. Such activities may include large-scale kina (sea urchin) removal and re-seeding of shellfish populations. Many of the HPAs are alongside areas where significant restorative efforts are happening on land. This acknowledges land-sea connections and these areas will hopefully become successful examples of what integrated management can achieve. Lessons from NZ’s oldest marine reserve The Cape Rodney-Okakari Point (Goat Island) Marine Reserve at Leigh became New Zealand’s first legislated marine reserve 50 years ago. This reserve, on the north-east coast of the Hauraki Gulf, will quadruple in size under the new law. It has taught us many lessons about how coastal reef ecosystems are affected by human activity and how marine reserves benefit people, including fishers. For example, we know that marine reserves maintain populations of predators, such as large lobsters and snapper, which stop sea urchins from becoming too abundant and over-grazing coastal kelp forests. In the protected waters of the Goat Island marine reserve, snapper can grow big and populate other areas across the Hauraki Gulf. Getty Images The ability to protect large snapper has also demonstrated that size matters in fish reproduction. The marine reserve contributes disproportionately to the snapper population across a large part of the gulf. If this is scaled with the new protection area, it should lead to a more productive fishery that will benefit all. The expansion of the Cape Rodney-Okarkai Point Marine Reserve and the Te Whanganui-A-Hei Marine Reserve at Hahei will open up new opportunities for learning about connections between reef and soft-sediment habitats and how they influence biodiversity. Fast-tracking marine conservation Overfishing, pollution, climate change and invasive species mean marine ecosystems are changing rapidly. Management responses must do so as well. Successive State of the Gulf Reports have documented the continued decline of its ecosystems. This new legislation builds on decades of efforts to protect the gulf. It follows the 2016 Sea Change/Tai Timu Tai Pari marine spatial plan and the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 which provided special recognition for the gulf but no additional protection. During times of rapid environmental change, we need strong connections between science, policy and management. Otherwise, we’re at risk of missing the connections and processes responsible for ecological tipping points. This new law must not be the end to marine protection and restoration of the Hauraki Gulf. Early European settlers reported an abundance of fish, invertebrates, whales and dolphins and we are a long way from these historical baselines. The new measures protect from some important forms of stress, namely overfishing and seafloor disturbance, but there are many others that continue to affect the gulf, including those that begin on land. Unless we work to substantially reduce the flow of sediment, nutrients and microplastics into the gulf, recovery will be slow. We also need to remember what these new measures do not protect: the fish, marine mammals and seabirds that live or move through the water column or depend on it. Our research and experience so far highlights the need to apply systems thinking to the management of marine environments. This means recognising and accounting for the dependencies between the ecological health and economic and social wealth of the Hauraki Gulf. Conrad Pilditch receives funding from the Department of Conservation, MBIE, regional councils and PROs. He is affiliated with the Mussel Reef Restoration Trust, the Whangateau Catchment Collective and New Zealand Marine Sciences Society.Simon Francis Thrush receives funding from MBIE and philanthropy. He is affiliated with the Royal Society New Zealand, NZ Marine Sciences Society and Whangateau Harbour Care.

Laurent Demanet appointed co-director of MIT Center for Computational Science and Engineering

Applied mathematics professor will join fellow co-director Nicolas Hadjiconstantinou in leading the cross-cutting center.

Laurent Demanet, MIT professor of applied mathematics, has been appointed co-director of the MIT Center for Computational Science and Engineering (CCSE), effective Sept. 1.Demanet, who holds a joint appointment in the departments of Mathematics and Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences — where he previously served as director of the Earth Resources Laboratory — succeeds Youssef Marzouk, who is now serving as the associate dean of the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing.Joining co-director Nicolas Hadjiconstantinou, the Quentin Berg (1937) Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Demanet will help lead CCSE, supporting students, faculty, and researchers while fostering a vibrant community of innovation and discovery in computational science and engineering (CSE).“Laurent’s ability to translate concepts of computational science and engineering into understandable, real-world applications is an invaluable asset to CCSE. His interdisciplinary experience is a benefit to the visibility and impact of CSE research and education. I look forward to working with him,” says Dan Huttenlocher, dean of the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing and the Henry Ellis Warren Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.“I’m pleased to welcome Laurent into his new role as co-director of CCSE. His work greatly supports the cross-cutting methodology at the heart of the computational science and engineering community. I’m excited for CCSE to have a co-director from the School of Science, and eager to see the center continue to broaden its connections across MIT,” says Asu Ozdaglar, deputy dean of the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing, department head of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and MathWorks Professor.Established in 2008, CCSE was incorporated into the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing as one of its core academic units in January 2020. An interdisciplinary research and education center dedicated to pioneering applications of computation, CCSE houses faculty, researchers, and students from a range of MIT schools, such as the schools of Engineering, Science, Architecture and Planning, and the MIT Sloan School of Management, as well as other units of the college.“I look forward to working with Nicolas and the college leadership on raising the profile of CCSE on campus and globally. We will be pursuing a set of initiatives that span from enhancing the visibility of our research and strengthening our CSE PhD program, to expanding professional education offerings and deepening engagement with our alumni and with industry,” says Demanet.Demanet’s research lies at the intersection of applied mathematics and scientific computing to visualize the structures beneath Earth’s surface. He also has a strong interest in scientific computing, machine learning, inverse problems, and wave propagation. Through his position as principal investigator of the Imaging and Computing Group, Demanet and his students aim to answer fundamental questions in computational seismic imaging to increase the quality and accuracy of mapping and the projection of changes in Earth’s geological structures. The implications of his work are rooted in environmental monitoring, water resources and geothermal energy, and the understanding of seismic hazards, among others.He joined the MIT faculty in 2009. He received an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship and the U.S. Air Force Young Investigator Award in 2011, and a CAREER award from the National Science Foundation in 2012. He also held the Class of 1954 Career Development Professorship from 2013 to 2016. Prior to coming to MIT, Demanet held the Szegö Assistant Professorship at Stanford University. He completed his undergraduate studies in mathematical engineering and theoretical physics at Universite de Louvain in Belgium, and earned a PhD in applied and computational mathematics at Caltech, where he was awarded the William P. Carey Prize for best dissertation in the mathematical sciences.

Factbox-Who Is Still Working and Who Has Been Furloughed in the US Government Shutdown?

By Andy SullivanWASHINGTON (Reuters) -Hundreds of thousands of U.S. federal workers have been ordered not to report to work, while others have been...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Hundreds of thousands of U.S. federal workers have been ordered not to report to work, while others have been told to stay on the job during the U.S. government shutdown, which started on October 1.Here is an overview of who has been furloughed at major government agencies, based on their shutdown plans.The 2 million active-duty members of the military remain on duty.Roughly 55% of the Defense Department's 740,000 civilian employees have been furloughed, including those involved in training, procurement and administrative support. Civilians working on cybersecurity, medical care, weapons systems maintenance, intelligence and logistics are still working.DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITYOnly 5% of the Department of Homeland Security's 271,000 workers have been furloughed, including those involved in research, planning, training, and auditing.Secret Service agents, immigration and border officers, airport security screeners, Coast Guard personnel, and Federal Emergency Management Agency emergency workers remain on the job.About 10% of the Justice Department's 115,000 employees are furloughed, mainly in administrative and policy roles.Prison guards, FBI agents, criminal prosecutors and other front-line law enforcement are required to work.The State Department has furloughed 62% of its 27,000 employees, including those awarding new grants and contracts.All U.S. embassies remain open, and those working on visas and passports will continue to do their jobs. All 74,000 employees of the tax-collecting Internal Revenue Service remain on the job through Tuesday, October 7. It is not clear how many would be furloughed after that.Outside of the IRS, Treasury would continue to distribute Social Security checks and tax refunds and service the nation's $37.5 trillion debt, while it would cease other duties, such as audits and government-wide accounting. Treasury does not specify how many non-IRS employees would be furloughed. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICESRoughly 41% of HHS's 78,000 employees are furloughed. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where 2 out of 3 workers have been furloughed, is continuing its core outbreak response, but is not providing guidance to states and has paused much of its research and surveillance work.The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has furloughed half of its employees and has paused much of its oversight work.The Food and Drug Administration, where 14% of employees are furloughed, continues safety-critical work like product recalls and import screening, but has paused research and is not accepting most new drug and medical device submissions.The National Institutes of Health, which has furloughed 3 out of 4 of its workers, has paused its research activity and is not issuing new grants, but continues patient care. The Commerce Department has furloughed 81% of its 43,000 employees.Employees of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration will continue weather forecasting, fisheries enforcement and other safety-critical activities, but 9 out of 10 NOAA employees will be furloughed, including those involved in research, grants and contracts and animal/laboratory maintenance.Most employees at the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis have been furloughed, which halts surveys, statistical releases and economic data publication.The 14,000 employees of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will remain on the job until funding from reserves and fees runs out.SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATIONMost Social Security workers are still on the job, with only 12% of the agency's 52,000 employees furloughed. That could change if the shutdown drags on, the agency says.Some workers at field offices and those handling benefit applications and appeals have been furloughed, while those who handle benefit payments are still working.DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONRoughly 23% of the Transportation Department's 54,000 workers are furloughed, including those involved in research, policy and regulations.Air traffic controllers, safety inspectors and those overseeing highway and transit funds continue to work.NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATIONNASA has furloughed 83% of its 18,000 employees, including those involved in research, public affairs, grants and contracts. Those involved with the International Space Station and satellites remain on the job.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURESome 49% of USDA's 86,000 employees have been furloughed, including those handling grants and loans and those producing statistical reports.Food safety inspectors, Forest Service firefighters, workers responding to disease or pest outbreaks, and workers overseeing nutrition programs are still working.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYThe EPA has been hit hard by the shutdown, with 89% of the agency's 15,000 workers on furlough, including those involved in permitting, research and civil enforcement.Security guards, criminal investigators, and those involved in emergency response are still working.Roughly 87% of the Department of Education's 2,450 employees have been furloughed, including those involved in regulations, new grants, and civil rights investigations.Workers who distribute student aid and grants to low-income schools are still working.All but 5% of the FTC's workers have been furloughed, including those working on consumer protection investigations and antitrust review. Attorneys and investigators involved in ongoing litigation will keep working.SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONLikewise, 91% of the SEC's 4,300 employees have been furloughed, including those reviewing corporate filings, oversight of investment advisers, and routine enforcement.Market monitoring teams and those handling urgent fraud matters will continue to work.SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIONRoughly 24% of SBA's 6,200 employees have been furloughed, including those who approve new loans and work on entrepreneurial development. Workers who handle existing loans and disaster loans continue to work.FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONSome 81% of the FCC's 1,300 workers would be furloughed, including those handling consumer protection and complaints, licensing services, equipment authorization and spectrum management. Those involved in spectrum auctions and critical security and technology would remain on the job. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRSThe VA is largely insulated from a shutdown as most of its budget does not come from annual appropriations. Only 3.2% of the agency's 462,000 workers have been furloughed, including those involved in research, communications, and oversight. Medical workers and benefits administrators remain on the job. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENTRoughly 67% of HUD's 6,100 employees are furloughed, including those issuing new grants and those involved in fair-housing investigations.Those handling Federal Housing Administration insurance and ongoing rental-assistance payments continue to work.Roughly 75% of the Labor Department's 13,000 workers are furloughed, including those involved in economic data reports and civil rights enforcement.Those involved in workplace safety, workers' compensation payments and unemployment insurance continue to work.Some 63% of the Energy Department's 15,500 employees are furloughed, including those involved in grant and research work. Those working on nuclear security, cybersecurity, and power safety continue to work.DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORThe Interior Department has furloughed 50% of its 58,000 employees, including maintenance and customer service workers at the National Park Service, fish biologists, and those handling new energy or land use permits.Teachers and other workers at the 55 schools run by the Bureau of Indian Education are still on the job. Law enforcement officers at national parks, wildlife refuge rangers, firefighters, and dam and power operators continue working(Reporting by Andy SullivanEditing by Bill Berkrot)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

No Results today.

Our news is updated constantly with the latest environmental stories from around the world. Reset or change your filters to find the most active current topics.

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.