GoGreenNation news

Farmers and small business owners were promised financial help for energy upgrades. They’re still waiting for the money.

News Feed

Friday, March 21, 2025

This coverage is made possible through a partnership between Grist, BPR, a public radio station serving western North Carolina, WABE, Atlanta’s NPR station, WBEZ, a public radio station serving the Chicago metropolitan region, and Interlochen Public Radio in Northern Michigan. The Trump administration’s freeze on funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, the landmark climate law from the Biden era, has left farmers and rural businesses across the country on the hook for costly energy efficiency upgrades and renewable energy installations. The grants are part of the Rural Energy for America Program, or REAP, originally created in the 2008 farm bill and supercharged by funding from the IRA. It provides farmers and other businesses in rural areas with relatively small grants and loans to help lower their energy bills by investing, say, in more energy-efficient farming equipment or installing small solar arrays. By November 2024, the IRA had awarded more than $1 billion for nearly 7,000 REAP projects, which help rural businesses in low-income communities reduce the up-front costs of clean energy and save thousands on utility costs each year. But now, that funding is in limbo. Under the current freeze, some farmers have already spent tens of thousands of dollars on projects and are waiting for the promised reimbursement. Others have had to delay work they were counting on to support their businesses, unsure when their funding will come through — or if it will. REAP is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Secretary Brooke Rollins said the agency is “coming to the tail end of the review process” of evaluating grants awarded under the Biden administration. “If our farmers and ranchers especially have already spent money under a commitment that was made, the goal is to make sure they are made whole,” Rollins told reporters in Atlanta last week. But it’s not clear when the funds might be released, or whether all the farmers and business owners awaiting their money will receive it. For Joshua Snedden, a REAP grant was the key to making his 10-acre farm in Monee, Illinois, more affordable and environmentally sustainable. But months after installing a pricey solar array, he’s still waiting on a reimbursement from the federal government — and the delay is threatening his bottom line. “I’m holding out hope,” said Snedden, a first-generation farmer in northeast Illinois. “I’m trying to do everything within my power to make sure the funding is released.” In December, his five-year old operation, Fox at the Fork, began sourcing its power from a new 18.48 kilowatt solar array which cost Snedden $86,364. The system currently offsets all the farm’s electricity use and then some. REAP offers grants for up to half of a project like this, and loan guarantees for up to 75 percent of the cost. For Snedden, a $19,784 REAP reimbursement grant made this solar array possible. But the reimbursement, critical to Snedden’s cash flow, was frozen by Trump as part of a broader review of the USDA’s Biden-era commitments. Joshua Snedden is a first-generation farmer who said he will continue whether or not he gets the federal funding for solar. Courtesy of Joshua Snedden Snedden grows the produce he takes to market — everything from tomatoes to garlic to potatoes — on about an acre of his farm. He also plans to transform the rest of his land into a perennial crop system, which would include fruit trees like pears, plums, and apples planted alongside native flowers and grasses to support wildlife. A solar array was always part of his plans, “but seemed like a pie in the sky” kind of project, he said, adding he thought it might take him a decade to afford such an investment. The REAP program has been a lifeline for Illinois communities struggling with aging infrastructure and growing energy costs, according to Amanda Pankau with the Prairie Rivers Network, an organization advocating for environmental protection and climate change mitigation across Illinois. “By lowering their electricity costs, rural small businesses and agricultural producers can put that money back into their business,” said Pankau. That’s exactly what Snedden envisioned from his investment in the solar power system. The new solar array wouldn’t just make his farm more resilient to climate change, but also more financially viable, “because we could shift expenses from paying for energy to paying for more impactful inputs for the farm,” he said. He anticipates that by switching to solar, Fox at the Fork will save close to $3,200 dollars a year on electric bills. Now, Snedden is waiting for the USDA to hold up their end of the deal. “The financial strain hurts,” said Snedden. “But I’m still planning to move forward growing crops and fighting for these funds.” Jon and Brittany Klimstra are both scientists who are originally from western North Carolina. They returned to the area to start a farm and an orchard and are waiting for solar funds they were promised. Courtesy of Jon Klimstra At the start of the year, Jon and Brittany Klimstra were nearly ready to install a solar array on their Polk County, North Carolina farm after being awarded a REAP grant in 2024. As two former scientists who had moved back to western North Carolina 10 years ago to grow apples and be close to their families, it felt like a chance to both save money and live their values. “We’ve certainly been interested in wanting to do something like this, whether it be for our personal home or for our farm buildings for a while,” said Jon. “It just was cost prohibitive up to this point without some type of funding.” That funding came when they were awarded $12,590 from REAP for the installation. But, after the Trump administration’s funding freeze, the money never came. “We were several site visits in, several engineering conversations. We’ve had electricians, the solar company,” said Brittany . “It’s been a very involved process.” Since the grant is reimbursement-based, the Klimstras have already paid out-of-pocket for some costs related to the project. Plus, the farm had been banking on saving $1,300 in utilities expenses per year. In a given month, their electricity bill is $300-$400. Apples from the orchard run by Jon and Brittany Klimstra. They were ready to install a solar array when the federal funding was frozen. Courtesy of Jon Klimstra Across Appalachia, historically high energy costs have made the difference between survival and failure for many local businesses, said Heather Ransom, who works with Solar Holler, a solar company that serves parts of Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio. “We have seen incredible rate increases across the region in electricity over the past 10, even 20 years,” she said. Through Solar Holler, REAP grants also passed into the hands of rural library systems and schools; the company installed 10,000 solar panels throughout the Wayne County, West Virginia school system. About $6 million worth of projects supported by Solar Holler are currently on hold. In other parts of the region, community development financial institutions like the Mountain Association in eastern Kentucky combatted food deserts through helping local grocery stores apply for REAP. Solar Holler also works in coal-producing parts of the region, where climate change discussions have been fraught with the realities of declining jobs and revenue from the coal industry. The program helped make the case for communities to veer away from coal and gas-fired energy. “What REAP has helped us do is show people that it’s not just a decision that’s driven by environmental motives or whatever, it actually makes good business sense to go solar,” Ransom said. In her experience, saving money appeals to people of all political persuasions. “At the end of the day, we’ve installed just as much solar on red roofs as we do blue roofs, as we do rainbow roofs or whatever.” Jim Lively has a local food market just minutes from the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in northern Michigan. He’s waiting for the federal money he was promised so he can put solar on the roof and offset the costs of opening up a campsite for RVs in this field. Izzy Ross / Grist The Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in northern Michigan draws over 1.5 million visitors every year. Jim Lively hopes some of those people will camp RVs at a nearby site he’s planning to open next to his family’s local food market. He wants to use solar panels to help power the campsite and offset electric bills for the market, where local farmers bring produce directly to the store. Lively helped promote REAP during his time at an environmental nonprofit, where he’d worked for over two decades. So the program was on his mind when it came time to replace the market’s big, south-facing roof. “We put on a metal roof, and worked with a contractor who was also familiar with the REAP program, and we said, ‘Let’s make sure we’re setting this up for solar,’” he said. “So it was kind of a no-brainer for us.” They were told they had been approved for a REAP grant of $39,696 last summer — half of the project’s total cost — but didn’t feel the need to rush the solar installation. Then, at the end of January, Lively was notified that the funding had been paused. The interior of the Lively NeighborFood Market, where owner Jim Lively likes to feature local produce. He was hoping to install a solar roof this year, but the funding has been stalled. Izzy Ross / Grist The property runs on electricity, rather than natural gas, and Lively wants to keep it that way. But those electric bills have been expensive — about $2,000 a month last summer, he said. When they get the RV site up and running, he expects those bills to approach $3,000. Selling local food means operating within tight margins. Lively said saving on energy would help, but they won’t be able to move ahead with the rooftop solar unless the REAP funding is guaranteed. Continuing to power the property with electricity rather than fossil fuels is a kind of personal commitment for Lively. “Boy, solar is also the right thing to do,” he said. “And it’s going to be difficult to do that without that funding.” The grants aren’t only for solar arrays and other renewable energy systems. Many are for energy efficiency improvements to help farmers save on utility bills, and in some cases cut emissions. In Georgia, for instance, one farm was awarded just under $233,000 for a more efficient grain dryer, an upgrade projected to save the farm more than $16,000 per year. Several farms were awarded funding to convert diesel-powered irrigation pumps to electric. The USDA did not directly answer Grist’s emailed questions about the specific timeline for REAP funds, the amount of money under review, or the future of the program. Instead, an emailed statement criticized the Biden administration’s “misuse of hundreds of billions” of IRA and bipartisan infrastructure law (BIL) funds “all at the expense of the American taxpayer.” “USDA has a solemn responsibility to be good stewards of the American people’s hard-earned taxpayer dollars and to ensure that every dollar spent goes to serve the people, not the bureaucracy. As part of this effort, Secretary Rollins is carefully reviewing this funding and will provide updates as soon as they are made available,” the email said. Read Next Trump is freezing climate funds. Can he do that? Jake Bittle Two federal judges have already ordered the Trump administration to release the impounded IRA and BIL funds. Earthjustice, a national environmental law organization, filed a lawsuit last week challenging the freeze of USDA funds on behalf of farmers and nonprofits. “The administration is causing harm that can’t be fixed, and fairness requires that the funds continue to flow,” said Jill Tauber, vice president of litigation for climate and energy at Earthjustice. Rollins released the first tranche of funding February 20 and announced the release of additional program funds earlier this month. That did not include the REAP funding. The USDA announced Wednesday it would expedite funding for farmers under a different program in honor of National Agriculture Day, but as of March 20 had not made an announcement about REAP. Rahul Bali of WABE contributed reporting to this story. Editor’s note: Earthjustice is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Farmers and small business owners were promised financial help for energy upgrades. They’re still waiting for the money. on Mar 21, 2025.

Rural residents are left holding the bills for everything from solar panels to grain dryers.

This coverage is made possible through a partnership between Grist, BPR, a public radio station serving western North Carolina, WABE, Atlanta’s NPR station, WBEZ, a public radio station serving the Chicago metropolitan region, and Interlochen Public Radio in Northern Michigan.

The Trump administration’s freeze on funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, the landmark climate law from the Biden era, has left farmers and rural businesses across the country on the hook for costly energy efficiency upgrades and renewable energy installations.

The grants are part of the Rural Energy for America Program, or REAP, originally created in the 2008 farm bill and supercharged by funding from the IRA. It provides farmers and other businesses in rural areas with relatively small grants and loans to help lower their energy bills by investing, say, in more energy-efficient farming equipment or installing small solar arrays.

By November 2024, the IRA had awarded more than $1 billion for nearly 7,000 REAP projects, which help rural businesses in low-income communities reduce the up-front costs of clean energy and save thousands on utility costs each year.

But now, that funding is in limbo. Under the current freeze, some farmers have already spent tens of thousands of dollars on projects and are waiting for the promised reimbursement. Others have had to delay work they were counting on to support their businesses, unsure when their funding will come through — or if it will.

REAP is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Secretary Brooke Rollins said the agency is “coming to the tail end of the review process” of evaluating grants awarded under the Biden administration.

“If our farmers and ranchers especially have already spent money under a commitment that was made, the goal is to make sure they are made whole,” Rollins told reporters in Atlanta last week.

But it’s not clear when the funds might be released, or whether all the farmers and business owners awaiting their money will receive it.

For Joshua Snedden, a REAP grant was the key to making his 10-acre farm in Monee, Illinois, more affordable and environmentally sustainable. But months after installing a pricey solar array, he’s still waiting on a reimbursement from the federal government — and the delay is threatening his bottom line.

“I’m holding out hope,” said Snedden, a first-generation farmer in northeast Illinois. “I’m trying to do everything within my power to make sure the funding is released.”

In December, his five-year old operation, Fox at the Fork, began sourcing its power from a new 18.48 kilowatt solar array which cost Snedden $86,364. The system currently offsets all the farm’s electricity use and then some.

REAP offers grants for up to half of a project like this, and loan guarantees for up to 75 percent of the cost. For Snedden, a $19,784 REAP reimbursement grant made this solar array possible. But the reimbursement, critical to Snedden’s cash flow, was frozen by Trump as part of a broader review of the USDA’s Biden-era commitments.

A man rakes leaves in a field. — Joshua Snedden is a first-generation farmer who said he will continue whether or not he gets the federal funding for solar. Courtesy of Joshua Snedden

Snedden grows the produce he takes to market — everything from tomatoes to garlic to potatoes — on about an acre of his farm. He also plans to transform the rest of his land into a perennial crop system, which would include fruit trees like pears, plums, and apples planted alongside native flowers and grasses to support wildlife.

A solar array was always part of his plans, “but seemed like a pie in the sky” kind of project, he said, adding he thought it might take him a decade to afford such an investment.

The REAP program has been a lifeline for Illinois communities struggling with aging infrastructure and growing energy costs, according to Amanda Pankau with the Prairie Rivers Network, an organization advocating for environmental protection and climate change mitigation across Illinois.

“By lowering their electricity costs, rural small businesses and agricultural producers can put that money back into their business,” said Pankau.

That’s exactly what Snedden envisioned from his investment in the solar power system. The new solar array wouldn’t just make his farm more resilient to climate change, but also more financially viable, “because we could shift expenses from paying for energy to paying for more impactful inputs for the farm,” he said.

He anticipates that by switching to solar, Fox at the Fork will save close to $3,200 dollars a year on electric bills.

Now, Snedden is waiting for the USDA to hold up their end of the deal.

“The financial strain hurts,” said Snedden. “But I’m still planning to move forward growing crops and fighting for these funds.”

Man and woman stand closely to each other. — Jon and Brittany Klimstra are both scientists who are originally from western North Carolina. They returned to the area to start a farm and an orchard and are waiting for solar funds they were promised. Courtesy of Jon Klimstra

At the start of the year, Jon and Brittany Klimstra were nearly ready to install a solar array on their Polk County, North Carolina farm after being awarded a REAP grant in 2024.

As two former scientists who had moved back to western North Carolina 10 years ago to grow apples and be close to their families, it felt like a chance to both save money and live their values.

“We’ve certainly been interested in wanting to do something like this, whether it be for our personal home or for our farm buildings for a while,” said Jon. “It just was cost prohibitive up to this point without some type of funding.”

That funding came when they were awarded $12,590 from REAP for the installation. But, after the Trump administration’s funding freeze, the money never came.

“We were several site visits in, several engineering conversations. We’ve had electricians, the solar company,” said Brittany . “It’s been a very involved process.”

Since the grant is reimbursement-based, the Klimstras have already paid out-of-pocket for some costs related to the project. Plus, the farm had been banking on saving $1,300 in utilities expenses per year. In a given month, their electricity bill is $300-$400.

red apples in a gray wooden box — Apples from the orchard run by Jon and Brittany Klimstra. They were ready to install a solar array when the federal funding was frozen. Courtesy of Jon Klimstra

Across Appalachia, historically high energy costs have made the difference between survival and failure for many local businesses, said Heather Ransom, who works with Solar Holler, a solar company that serves parts of Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio.

“We have seen incredible rate increases across the region in electricity over the past 10, even 20 years,” she said.

Through Solar Holler, REAP grants also passed into the hands of rural library systems and schools; the company installed 10,000 solar panels throughout the Wayne County, West Virginia school system. About $6 million worth of projects supported by Solar Holler are currently on hold.

In other parts of the region, community development financial institutions like the Mountain Association in eastern Kentucky combatted food deserts through helping local grocery stores apply for REAP.

Solar Holler also works in coal-producing parts of the region, where climate change discussions have been fraught with the realities of declining jobs and revenue from the coal industry. The program helped make the case for communities to veer away from coal and gas-fired energy.

“What REAP has helped us do is show people that it’s not just a decision that’s driven by environmental motives or whatever, it actually makes good business sense to go solar,” Ransom said. In her experience, saving money appeals to people of all political persuasions. “At the end of the day, we’ve installed just as much solar on red roofs as we do blue roofs, as we do rainbow roofs or whatever.”

A man with gray hair and a blue ball cap walks along a field wearing a brown vest and holding a cup of coffee. — Jim Lively has a local food market just minutes from the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in northern Michigan. He’s waiting for the federal money he was promised so he can put solar on the roof and offset the costs of opening up a campsite for RVs in this field. Izzy Ross / Grist

The Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in northern Michigan draws over 1.5 million visitors every year. Jim Lively hopes some of those people will camp RVs at a nearby site he’s planning to open next to his family’s local food market. He wants to use solar panels to help power the campsite and offset electric bills for the market, where local farmers bring produce directly to the store.

Lively helped promote REAP during his time at an environmental nonprofit, where he’d worked for over two decades. So the program was on his mind when it came time to replace the market’s big, south-facing roof.

“We put on a metal roof, and worked with a contractor who was also familiar with the REAP program, and we said, ‘Let’s make sure we’re setting this up for solar,’” he said. “So it was kind of a no-brainer for us.”

They were told they had been approved for a REAP grant of $39,696 last summer — half of the project’s total cost — but didn’t feel the need to rush the solar installation. Then, at the end of January, Lively was notified that the funding had been paused.

The interior of a grocerys tore with shelves of food and the back of a woman stocking the shelves. — The interior of the Lively NeighborFood Market, where owner Jim Lively likes to feature local produce. He was hoping to install a solar roof this year, but the funding has been stalled. Izzy Ross / Grist

The property runs on electricity, rather than natural gas, and Lively wants to keep it that way. But those electric bills have been expensive — about $2,000 a month last summer, he said. When they get the RV site up and running, he expects those bills to approach $3,000.

Selling local food means operating within tight margins. Lively said saving on energy would help, but they won’t be able to move ahead with the rooftop solar unless the REAP funding is guaranteed.

Continuing to power the property with electricity rather than fossil fuels is a kind of personal commitment for Lively. “Boy, solar is also the right thing to do,” he said. “And it’s going to be difficult to do that without that funding.”

The grants aren’t only for solar arrays and other renewable energy systems. Many are for energy efficiency improvements to help farmers save on utility bills, and in some cases cut emissions. In Georgia, for instance, one farm was awarded just under $233,000 for a more efficient grain dryer, an upgrade projected to save the farm more than $16,000 per year. Several farms were awarded funding to convert diesel-powered irrigation pumps to electric.

The USDA did not directly answer Grist’s emailed questions about the specific timeline for REAP funds, the amount of money under review, or the future of the program. Instead, an emailed statement criticized the Biden administration’s “misuse of hundreds of billions” of IRA and bipartisan infrastructure law (BIL) funds “all at the expense of the American taxpayer.”

“USDA has a solemn responsibility to be good stewards of the American people’s hard-earned taxpayer dollars and to ensure that every dollar spent goes to serve the people, not the bureaucracy. As part of this effort, Secretary Rollins is carefully reviewing this funding and will provide updates as soon as they are made available,” the email said.

Related News

Contributor: Truck makers breaking emissions deal are hurting themselves — and all Californians

This is no longer just about truck emissions. It's about who gets to write the rules that govern our economy and who gets to decide how polluted our state will be.

California’s air is under attack — by the very companies that promised to clean it up.In 2023, truck manufacturers struck a deal with the California Air Resources Board to drastically reduce emissions and invest in electric trucks. This summer, however, several of the companies — Daimler Truck, Volvo Group, Paccar and Traton — backed out of the partnership and sued California, with support from the Trump administration. Now fossil-fuel-aligned corporations are leveraging political connections to weaken oversight, erode environmental protections and entrench their dominance.This is no longer just about truck emissions. It’s about who gets to write the rules that govern our economy and who gets to decide how polluted our state will be. It’s about defending democracy from corporate overreach.Likely seeing an opportunity to profit from diesel under new federal leadership, the major truck manufacturers doing business in California are injecting instability into the very market they once sought to stabilize. This is political opportunism, plain and simple.The 2023 deal, known as the Clean Truck Partnership, was rooted in trust and a shared interest in predictable, stable rules during the transition away from fossil fuels. It wasn’t a regulation or a law; it was a collaboration — an experiment in handshake agreements that now looks like a cautionary tale for regulators and communities everywhere: Corporations can walk away from deals like this the moment political winds shift or the quarterly earnings dip.The manufacturers’ gratuitous lawsuit comes alongside a proposed rollback of the Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas standards and a surprise Federal Trade Commission move to condemn the partnership. The commission issued a statement closing an investigation it never publicly announced, after the companies sent letters playing victim. Is it any surprise that Trump’s federal lawyers jumped in days later to sue California along with the truck makers?The consequences of breaking the agreement are real and devastating. Diesel freight pollution has long hit hardest in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color near ports, warehouses and freight corridors, causing higher rates of asthma, heart disease and cancer. Rolling back the Clean Truck Partnership means more diesel trucks on California roads, more hospital visits and more lives cut short. It’s an assault on environmental justice that tells Californians their health is expendable.And everyone pays. Delaying clean truck adoption locks fleets into high and volatile diesel prices and undermines U.S. competitiveness. The manufacturers themselves are maintaining that crisis by discouraging the shift to electric trucks: California has documented a $94,000 markup on some electric trucks in the U.S. compared with Europe.When a handful of corporations can derail public policy this way, states must push back. California tried a compromise; now it must defend its right to set stronger standards, invest in clean infrastructure and refuse to subsidize companies that break their commitments.California’s leadership on clean transportation has helped it become the world’s fourth-largest economy. Its authority to set its own standards has driven innovation, created jobs and put more zero-emission vehicles on the road than in any other state. The public wants clean air and modern infrastructure. The choice is clear: double down on clean truck commitments or cede leadership to China and watch our industries and economy fall behind.A predictable market is essential for corporate investment in the energy transition. California brokered this partnership to give manufacturers the certainty they said they needed and say they still need. Now some of those same manufacturers are adding uncertainty by trying to revert to older standards and delay the transition. But it must come, and the sooner the better — for manufacturers, Californians and the nation.There’s still time to do the right thing. The truck makers who broke their word can still step up to electrify trucks. And the manufacturers who have not joined the lawsuit against California — Cummins, Ford, General Motors and Stellantis — should publicly reaffirm the goals of the Clean Truck Partnership, follow through on their commitments and reap the rewards. If these companies choose to stand with California now, they won’t just be honoring a promise; they’ll be helping build an economy that creates good jobs, drives innovation and secures a competitive future for American freight.Guillermo Ortiz is a senior clean vehicles advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Craig Segall is a former deputy executive officer and assistant chief counsel of the California Air Resources Board. The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content. Ideas expressed in the pieceTruck manufacturers who signed the 2023 Clean Truck Partnership are engaging in political opportunism by backing out of their commitments, taking advantage of the Trump administration’s support to weaken environmental protections and maintain their dominance in the diesel market.The lawsuit represents corporate overreach that undermines democracy, as these companies are leveraging political connections to write the rules governing California’s economy and determine pollution levels in the state.Breaking the partnership agreement will have devastating consequences for environmental justice, particularly harming low-income neighborhoods and communities of color near ports and freight corridors who face higher rates of asthma, heart disease, and cancer from diesel pollution.The manufacturers’ decision to abandon the deal creates market instability and undermines U.S. competitiveness in clean transportation technology, while maintaining artificially high prices for electric trucks compared to European markets.California must defend its authority to set stronger emissions standards and refuse to subsidize companies that break their commitments, as the state’s leadership on clean transportation has helped it become the world’s fourth-largest economy.Companies that have not joined the lawsuit should publicly reaffirm their commitments to the Clean Truck Partnership goals and help build an economy that creates jobs, drives innovation, and secures America’s competitive future in freight transportation.Different views on the topicTruck manufacturers argue they are “caught in the crossfire” between conflicting directives, with California requiring adherence to emissions rules while the U.S. Department of Justice instructs them to stop following the same standards that Congress recently preempted under the federal Clean Air Act[1].The manufacturers contend that the Clean Truck Partnership is being applied to enforce regulations that no longer have federal waivers, following Congress’s passage of resolutions under the Congressional Review Act in June 2025 that nullified EPA’s earlier waivers allowing California to implement key programs including the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation[1].Industry representatives maintain that the agreement includes provisions that limit manufacturers’ ability to contest CARB regulations, creating legal constraints that may no longer be valid given the changed federal regulatory landscape[1].Some manufacturers are adopting a “wait and see” approach, with companies like Isuzu anticipating “a good faith discussion with CARB and other regulated signatories to determine the agreement’s current scope and relevance” rather than immediately abandoning all commitments[2].Legal experts and former CARB officials argue that the partnership remains binding regardless of federal changes, pointing to language in the agreement that commits manufacturers to meet CARB regulations “irrespective of the outcome of any litigation challenging the waivers or authorizations for those regulations”[2].Manufacturers express concerns about the lack of clarity in how to proceed with truck sales in California, with some companies like Volvo Group choosing to keep their current sales policies “as they are for now” while the regulatory situation remains uncertain[2].

Business

Crisis

Energy

Why fast-tracking oil drilling in California won’t lower prices at the pump

Lawmakers just enabled fast-tracking of new oil drilling permits in Kern County. Gas prices are mainly moved by other economic forces.

California lawmakers just passed legislation to support the oil and gas industry in an attempt to lower costs for consumers. Below, an environmental scholar argues that making it easier to drill oil won’t lower gas prices. The opposing view: A business professor says the deal is an overdue but also piecemeal approach for such a critical problem. Guest Commentary written by Deborah Sivas Deborah Sivas is a professor who teaches environmental law and environmental social science at Stanford University. California’s demand for gasoline has fallen steadily over the last two decades as state consumers shift to cleaner electric and hybrid vehicles. What’s giving some state policymakers heartburn is the fact that falling demand for gasoline means declining demand for in-state petroleum refining. In response, some California refineries have begun consolidating, converting or closing. Though this is good news for nearby communities burdened by refinery pollution, state officials worry refining capacity could fall faster than gasoline consumption, driving up pump prices as short-term demand exceeds supply. The oil industry has stoked this fear and proposed a dangerous solution: Exempt all new oil and gas drilling from the California Environmental Quality Act, colloquially known as CEQA (pronounced see-kwah). The industry aggressively pushed state legislation for that. What legislators passed last week, Senate Bill 237, didn’t go that far but aims to make it easier to expand drilling in oil-rich Kern County. Still, the same issues arise from this exemption. Fast-tracking new oil drilling permits will do nothing to affect pump prices. California has been extracting crude oil for 150 years. By the start of the 20th century, it was the leading oil-producing state in the nation. Helping that boom were natural gas deposits, which create pressure in oil reservoirs that allows crude to flow to the surface. California’s early oil derricks sometimes caused explosive gushers that sprayed oil high into the air, prompting a wave of local regulation. The days of gushers are gone. With natural gas stores largely depleted, California oil fields now contain mostly heavy crude oil, often tucked into folded geology and difficult to extract. Today’s drillers typically inject steam or hot water to lower the oil’s viscosity and increase its flow. That is energy-intensive and expensive, so drilling in California isn’t as cost competitive as Texas or North Dakota. These fundamental economics — not environmental laws — largely dictate the level of in-state crude oil production. California already imports most of the crude oil feeding its refineries. Refinery operators understand this and are making decisions based on long-term business projections. As the state produces less oil, there is less need for in-state refining. That transition presents an opportunity. Many refineries sit on valuable land that could be repurposed for more sustainable uses. Legislation that exempts new oil drilling from environmental quality standards won’t magically change this reality. In fact, current projections by the U.S. Energy Information Administration suggest global oil prices will fall over the next year or two, perhaps to levels that will make most California production uncompetitive. Global market prices are the likely reason many new wells the state approved in recent years haven’t been drilled. Gutting environmental regulations would disenfranchise communities trying to protect themselves from potential risks associated with oil production, such as toxic air pollution, water and soil contamination and drilling rig explosions. If state officials want to smooth California’s transition from transportation fuel, they should look for solutions such as facilitating port improvements to accommodate increases in oil imports. And state lawmakers must remain vigilant about price gouging as the market consolidates to fewer players. CEQA requires California’s oil regulators to study, disclose and mitigate potential effects of drilling. Contrary to the industry’s narrative, CEQA is neither the cause of falling gasoline demand nor the solution to price spikes. We should celebrate the clean energy path California is blazing, not hastily eviscerate one of its bedrock environmental laws.

Business

Energy

Pollution

Robert Redford, Oscar-winning actor and director, dies aged 89

Redford achieved huge critical and commercial success in the 60s and 70s with a string of hits including Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Way We Were and The Sting, before becoming an Oscar-winning directorRobert Redford, star of Hollywood classics including Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Sting and All the President’s Men, has died aged 89.In a statement to the New York Times, his publicist said the actor died in his sleep at his home in Utah. Continue reading...

Robert Redford, star of Hollywood classics including Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Sting and All the President’s Men, has died aged 89.In a statement to the New York Times, his publicist said the actor died in his sleep at his home in Utah.Redford was one of the defining movie stars of the 1970s, crossing with ease between the Hollywood new wave and the mainstream film industry, before also becoming an Oscar-winning director and producer in the ensuing decades. He played a key role in the establishment of American independent cinema by co-founding the Sundance film festival, which acted as a platform for films such as Reservoir Dogs, The Blair Witch Project, Donnie Darko, Fruitvale Station and Coda.Redford with Paul Newman in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, 1969. Photograph: 20th Century Fox/Sportsphoto/AllstarRedford also acquired a reputation as one of Hollywood’s leading liberals and campaigned on environmental issues including acting as a trustee of the Natural Resources Defense Council advocacy group and vocally opposing the now-cancelled Keystone XL pipeline.Born Charles Robert Redford in 1936, he grew up in Los Angeles and, after he was expelled from the University of Colorado, studied acting at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts. After playing a series of small parts on TV, stage and film, he began to make headway in the early 60s, being nominated for a best supporting actor Emmy in 1962 for The Voice of Charlie Pont and winning a lead role in the original 1963 Broadway production of Neil Simon’s hit play Barefoot in the Park. Redford’s film breakthrough arrived in 1965: an eye-catching role as a bisexual film star in Inside Daisy Clover opposite Natalie Wood, for which he was nominated for a Golden Globe.After a series of solid Hollywood films, including The Chase and a screen adaptation of Barefoot in the Park, Redford had a huge hit with the 1969 outlaw western Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, in which he starred opposite Paul Newman and Katharine Ross. It was nominated for seven Oscars, though none were for the actors.Redford starred in Tell Them Willie Boy Is Here, the first directing credit in over 20 years by former blacklistee Abraham Polonsky, and then a string of key 1970s hits: frontier western Jeremiah Johnson (1972), period romance The Way We Were (1973) opposite Barbra Streisand, crime comedy The Sting (1973), again opposite Newman, and literary adaptation The Great Gatsby (1974). Redford followed these up with conspiracy thriller Three Days of the Condor (1975) and Watergate drama All the President’s Men (1976), co-starring with Dustin Hoffman.Redford with Jane Fonda in the 1967 film version of Barefoot in the Park. Photograph: Silver Screen Collection/Getty ImagesAfter a prolonged break from acting in the late 70s, Redford turned to directing with the ensemble drama Ordinary People, adapted from the novel by Judith Guest; a substantial hit, it won four Oscars in 1981, including best picture and best director for Redford – an achievement he never managed for his acting.His success as an actor continued in the 1980s and 1990s, though perhaps with less of the cutting-edge impact of his 1970s work. Baseball drama The Natural (adapted from a Bernard Malamud novel) in 1984 was followed by Out of Africa in 1985, in which he played big game hunter Denys Finch Hatton opposite Meryl Streep’s Danish aristocrat. He returned to directing with The Milagro Beanfield War in 1988 and A River Runs Through It in 1992, both grappling in different ways with rural America. A year later he made what in retrospect was something of a turning point: an unalloyed Hollywood project, the erotic thriller Indecent Proposal, in which his businessman character offers a million dollars to sleep with Demi Moore’s character. It re-established Redford as a commercial force. Later in the 90s he directed Quiz Show and The Horse Whisperer (the latter of which he also starred in).With fellow winners Robert De Niro, Sissy Spacek and Ordinary People producer Ronald L Schwary at the Oscars in 1981. Photograph: APIt was in this period that the Sundance film festival – which Redford’s production company had co-founded in 1978 as the Utah/US film festival and renamed in 1984 after Redford’s Sundance Institute – began to exert its influence as a showcase for US independent cinema, promoting the likes of Steven Soderbergh, Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez and Kevin Smith. Its impact only increased in subsequent decades as a forum for boosting films’ commercial chances and achieving awards recognition, showcasing films such as 500 Days of Summer, Napoleon Dynamite, Whiplash, Fruitvale Station and Coda.skip past newsletter promotionTake a front seat at the cinema with our weekly email filled with all the latest news and all the movie action that mattersPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionRedford’s 2007 Afghan war film Lions for Lambs was a disappointment, but an impressive solo performance in the 2013 survival-at-sea drama All Is Lost went some way to compensating for it. In 2014 Redford joined the Marvel Cinematic Universe as Hydra leader Alexander Pierce in Captain America: The Winter Soldier. He said at the time: “I wanted to experience this new form of film-making that’s taken over, where you have kind of cartoon characters brought to life through high technology.” He made a cameo in the same role in Avengers: Endgame in 2019.Redford in his final major film role in The Old Man & the Gun in 2018. Photograph: Eric Zachanowich/APIn the mid-2010s Redford scaled back his film-making activities, handing over stewardship of the Sundance film festival and announcing his retirement from acting. His final substantial role was in the 2018 crime drama The Old Man & the Gun, directed by David Lowery.Redford was awarded an honorary Oscar in 2002, a lifetime achievement Golden Lion from the Venice film festival in 2017, and an honorary César in 2019. In 2010 he was also made a Chevalier of the Légion d’honneur and in 2016 he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Barack Obama.Redford was married twice: to historian Lola Van Wagenen between 1958 and 1985, with whom he had four children, and artist Sibylle Szaggars in 2009.

Business

Resources

Technology

Can Diet and Exercise Prevent Alzheimer’s Disease? What the Research Says

Early studies suggest that lifestyle changes such as diet, exercise and social engagement may help slow or prevent Alzheimer’s symptoms—but the evidence is inconsistent, and many doctors remain cautious

This article is part of “Innovations In: Alzheimer's Disease” an editorially independent special report that was produced with financial support from Eisai.When Juli comes home after work, her husband doesn’t regale her with stories about his photography business the way he once did. Instead he proudly shows her a pill container emptied of the 20 supplements and medications he takes every day. Rather than griping about traffic, he tells her about his walk. When they go out to a favorite Mexican restaurant, he might opt for a side salad instead of tortilla chips with his quesadilla. “He’s actually consuming green food, which is new,” says Juli, who asked to be identified by only her first name to protect her husband’s privacy.Over the past year Juli’s husband has agreed to change his daily habits in hopes of halting the steady progression of Alzheimer’s disease, which he was diagnosed with in December 2023 at age 62. Juli and her husband are both self-employed, and their insurance plans didn’t cover the positron-emission tomography scans for disease tracking that a neurologist prescribed, which would have cost thousands of dollars. So they decided to spend that money on a doctor who promises that diet and lifestyle changes can treat Alzheimer’s. He recommended a keto diet, along with light cardio exercise and strength training. He also prescribed a bevy of supplements, such as creatine, which Juli’s husband takes alongside the memantine and donepezil prescribed by his neurologist. Juli doesn’t expect the diet and daily walks to cure her husband, but she hopes the healthy lifestyle will help manage and even improve his condition. It feels like common sense. “You stop eating fried food, you move your butt, and you feel better,” she says.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Increasingly, evidence suggests that addressing health problems such as vision and hearing loss, stress, poor diet, diabetes, obesity, high cholesterol and high blood pressure can help slow or even prevent Alzheimer’s symptoms. It’s a tantalizingly simple solution to a complicated condition that has proved difficult to treat. For families like Juli’s that have been left with a grim diagnosis and few options, lifestyle changes bring a much needed sense of hope and agency. But researchers worry about overpromising on the efficacy of these changes, especially for people already experiencing dementia symptoms. Evidence around the importance of different diets, exercises and activities—when to start them and which to prioritize—is mixed, and only in a few high-quality studies have researchers examined large, diverse groups of people. It’s a promising but nascent field of research, one that scientists worry gives patients dangerous and heartbreaking hope for a cure that doesn’t exist.“There are a lot of claims,” says Miia Kivipelto, a dementia researcher at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. She worries about expensive but unproven regimens that promise to reverse cognitive decline, restore and protect the brain, or significantly improve cognition for people with early-stage Alzheimer’s or other dementias. “Of course, people want to have hope,” she says. But she cautions against making promises that can’t be upheld. “It’s risk reduction,” she says. “That’s maybe what we can promise.”Kivipelto led the Finnish Geriatric Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability (FINGER), a trial that enrolled more than 1,200 residents of Finland between the ages of 60 and 77. Results were published in 2017. They showed that after two years, participants who were given nutritional advice, exercise regimens and brain-training games had improved their executive function, processing speeds and complex memory by about 83, 150 and 40 percent, respectively, compared with those who didn’t take those measures. Kivipelto has continued to follow that initial FINGER cohort and found that several years after the initial trial, their health in general continues to be better than that of their counterparts. The participants had a lower risk of stroke, had fewer medical emergency room visits and needed less inpatient care. Now Kivipelto is running World Wide FINGERS, a global network of studies investigating the same interventions in different countries and populations.It’s not clear whether these interventions prevent disease onset or simply delay it.Similarly encouraging data have come from the Systematic Multi-Domain Alzheimer Risk Reduction Trial (SMARRT), a two-year randomized, controlled study. Researchers tested the effect of treating modifiable risk factors such as uncontrolled hypertension, social isolation and physical inactivity with more than 170 septuagenarians and octogenarians at high risk for dementia. Participants chose a few interventions to prioritize out of eight options, such as improved physical fitness or social connection. After two years, no matter which intervention people opted for, those who received individualized treatments had reduced risk factors for dementia and a 74 percent greater increase in cognition compared with their counterparts in the control group.It’s not clear whether these interventions prevent disease onset or simply delay it. At a certain point, prevention and treatment become almost the same thing: if people can postpone the onset of symptoms until they’re 85 or 90 years old, Kivipelto says, “they might die of something else.” A report from a commission on dementia from the Lancet Group—which comprises experts who make recommendations on health policy and practice—suggests that addressing a range of these lifestyle-based risk factors could help reduce the global incidence of Alzheimer’s and dementia by 45 percent population-wide. For people with a genetic predisposition to dementia, introducing diet, exercise, and other modifications before symptoms appear might be particularly important for fending off illness.The idea that diet and exercise could curb a disease that currently affects more than 55 million people globally is an exciting prospect. But scientists say the field is simply too young for anyone to make bold assertions that lifestyle interventions could act as treatments or cures. “We don’t have mature information,” says Howard Feldman, a neurologist at the University of California, San Diego.One big caveat is that studies such as SMARRT and FINGER were conducted with people who had mild cognitive decline, not full-blown dementia. “There are people who are really exaggerating some of these claims,” says Kristine Yaffe, a neurologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and the lead author on the SMARRT study. “There’s very little evidence that these [interventions] work when people have the disease.”Also, the list of possible risk factors gets longer as more data emerge. When Kivipelto started FINGER, she didn’t look at elements such as poor sleep and stress. But more evidence suggests that these factors could increase risk for Alzheimer’s. Meanwhile interventions that had shown initial promise, such as the MIND diet—a diet geared toward brain health that combines elements of Mediterranean and hypertension-focused diets—weren’t backed by further research.Answering questions about lifestyle changes—what works, what doesn’t and why—is particularly challenging because these interventions are not as easy to quantify as medications are. When researchers test pharmaceuticals, they’re often investigating how a molecule interacts with a specific receptor. “We’re gonna look at making sure that we’ve got target engagement, that we’ve got the right amount of medicine for the target and that we’re getting the right effects,” Feldman says. Nonmedical interventions don’t work in that way. Take exercise: There’s no particular receptor to examine. Instead exercise might lead to better blood flow in the brain. It might affect cerebral metabolism. It could affect insulin levels or increase oxygen flow. All these factors have been linked to the development of Alzheimer’s in some way.Then there’s the matter of dosage: What is the right amount of exercise? How much should people exert themselves and for how long? And how can researchers assess compliance? When researchers test pills, they can easily dispense medication and count how many pills are left at the end of a trial. It’s much harder to know whether someone in a lifestyle study has done the assigned exercises or whether all participants worked out at the same intensity.Another big unknown is when these interventions should begin. Some research suggests that to reduce risk factors, middle age might be the most impactful time. Kivipelto says that it’s never too late to start but that the most effective interventions may vary with age. Stress and sleep might be bigger risk factors in middle age, whereas social isolation might become more important as people grow older. “You should have a kind of check wherever you are in your life,” she says.Perhaps the biggest limitation, however, is that scientists can’t measure all the biological and environmental systems at play, nor can they follow enough people for a long enough period to understand which systems are most important. One theory suggests that health interventions—such as diet, exercise and social stimulation—work because they boost cognitive reserve, or the ability of a person’s brain to resist dementia. People with more cognitive reserve might not show symptoms even if they have the same pathology as someone else who is symptomatic. Researchers think being active, eating right and socializing might help build up that cognitive-reserve buffer. But they can’t measure it. There is no known biomarker for cognitive reserve and no way to measure its effects over time. “It’s an evolving concept,” Kivipelto says.Even while scientists work on more high-quality studies of lifestyle changes for Alzheimer’s—with large, diverse patient populations, control groups, and careful measurements for the intensity of the intervention—numerous commercial companies claim to offer scientifically backed cures. These products, including the approach Juli and her husband are trying, are often based on research in predatory journals, which charge authors high fees to publish papers that look scientific but have none of the oversight of peer-reviewed publications. Others lack rigorous trials and rely only on case reports that don’t describe study methods and can’t be replicated. Still others haven’t been tested in large groups or in humans at all. For example, small studies have suggested ketosis could help improve cognition, but no large-scale clinical trials have tested the hypothesis. Similarly, creatine supplements have shown promise in mice but have not been tested extensively in humans. No large, high-quality clinical trials have shown that supplements can improve human cognition or brain health, but companies selling these products now represent an industry valued at more than $6 billion globally.Some people spend their life savings to follow a protocol that requires them to remediate mold in their homes, even though the evidence linking mold and dementia is debated. Other families report that sticking to a restrictive diet ultimately feels cruel when a parent or spouse has few pleasures left. Neurologist Joanna Hellmuth, then at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote an article in 2020 in the Lancet Neurology about pseudoscience and dementia, warning that fraudulent solutions can be financially and emotionally harmful for families. “Hope is important in the face of incurable diseases and intuitive interventions can be compelling,” she wrote. “However, unsupported interventions are not medically, ethically, or financially benign, particularly when other parties might stand to gain.”Even under the best of circumstances, changes to diet and exercise cannot ward off Alzheimer’s for everyone. Yaffe has seen patients who play bridge, go running and practice über-healthy lifestyles only to be astonished to learn they also have Alzheimer’s. “There’s something called bad luck, and there’s something called genetics,” she says. Scientists measure the impact of lifestyle modifications in population-wide estimates that don’t translate to individual risk. Diet, exercise, hearing aids, and other interventions might reduce the global incidence of dementia by 45 percent, but that doesn’t mean they will reduce your specific risk by the same amount. Yaffe estimates that roughly half of a person’s Alzheimer’s risk is based on genetics, and half probably depends on their activity level, diet and luck. But the biggest risk factor is age.Even as Juli is gently prodding her husband to eat more broccoli, she’s also preparing for his inevitable decline. The couple is in the process of moving from their two-story home in a Dallas suburb to a single-story house they are having built in a nearby gated community. Her husband will trade in his car for a golf cart, and Juli will work almost entirely from home to make sure he stays safe. She knows they are incredibly lucky to be able to afford to build their new home from the ground up. She’s already designed it with a shower and doors wide enough to accommodate a wheelchair.Juli acknowledges that it’s impossible to know whether the changes to their health routines are working. There’s no control group, no way to assess how her husband’s disease might have progressed if they’d stuck to only medications. Right now they can afford the supplements ($150 per month), extra visits to doctors ($900 per hour twice a year), blood draws ($500 every six months), and memberships to their doctor’s practice and to a platform that promotes the protocol they are following ($3,000 per year).For Juli, the costs are justified by the change she sees in her husband. Their daily regimen gives him a sense of agency, which has alleviated some of the anxiety and depression that plagued him after his diagnosis. “It’s given him work to do—and hope,” she says. “If that’s all we take away from it, it’s worth it.”

Business

Food

Health

Replacement Interstate 5 bridge inches towards construction

Oregon and Washington lawmakers were told Monday that final federal approval could be received early next year. Skeptics worry the $7.5 billion price tag will balloon.

A replacement for the Interstate 5 bridge across the Columbia River could get its final environmental and federal approvals early next year and move into construction shortly thereafter, planners told a joint committee of Oregon and Washington lawmakers on Monday.But questions remain about the overall cost of the project, toll rates, whether it will be a single span or a lift bridge, and whether the project will receive a final $1 billion in federal funding.The new bridge connecting Portland and Vancouver is officially expected to cost as much as $7.5 billion. But lawmakers from the two states pressed Greg Johnson, administrator of the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program, Monday whether that’s still a reliable estimate, given inflation that’s driving up the cost of major construction projects.Oregon lawmakers also said planners should have provided them an updated cost estimate before the special session on transportation that began Aug. 29 and is expected to conclude Wednesday.“It would be helpful if we could get that updated cost estimate as soon as possible,” said Sen. Khanh Pham, a Portland Democrat.Construction prices continue to rise.The replacement Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, for instance, was originally expected to cost $1.9 billion. It’s now expected to cost more than $5 billion.“We are seeing this type of inflationary spiral on major projects here in the Portland area as well as nationally,” Johnson said. “We are tracking what we are seeing all over. It is not a pretty picture.”As much as $1.6 billion of the replacement bridge’s cost will be paid for by tolling. As previously announced, tolls could range from $1.55 to $4.70, depending on several factors. They’re expected to start in the spring of 2027, a year later than first announced.Also unresolved is whether the center of the bridge will be able to lift to accommodate marine traffic. Coast Guard officials previously said a fixed bridge would be too low. If the Coast Guard ultimately requires a movable span, Johnson said, it will add an estimated $400 million to the project. He expects a decision from the Coast Guard early next year.The final $1 billion in federal funding for the new bridge also isn’t expected to be secured until 2028. During the public comment portion of the meeting, civic, business and construction groups mostly spoke in favor of the project, but critics continued to question the bridge’s cost.“A safe and modern bridge is an investment in Oregon and Washington’s future,” said Khanh Tran of the Oregon Chapter of the National Association of Minority Contractors, calling the project a “generational” opportunity for disadvantaged businesses.“I can’t tell you how frustrating it is to watch infrastructure this critical in nature being put off and put off and put off,” said Dee Burch, a director of the Oregon Columbia Chapter of the Association of General Contractors, who noted a replacement interstate bridge in Minneapolis got built in just over a year, although it was a significantly smaller project that cost $234 million. But critics, including economist Joe Cortright, with the Portland policy think tank City Observatory, said lawmakers need to contend with escalating costs that he expects will be “squarely in the $10 billion range,” telling lawmakers that would mean Oregon and Washington will each need to come up with another $1 billion in funding.Cortright also questioned whether the traffic assumptions on which tolling estimates are based are inflated and whether it’s prudent to count on the final $1 billion in federal funding, given ongoing cuts to the federal budget.“Federal funding is very, very much in doubt,” Cortright said, later calling it “reckless to embark on this project” when all the funding isn’t secured.The group of lawmakers, formally known as the Joint Interim Committee on Interstate 5 Bridge, will meet again in December.If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

Business

Nature

Transportation

Suggested Viewing

Modern Nature

By 2050, 10 billion people may inhabit Earth. Do we need GMOs to Feed the World? Is organic production the answer? Modern Nature takes the viewer on a worldwide odyssey to find answers. Includes perspectives from philosopher Noam Chomsky, physicist Vandana Shiva and street farmer Ron Finley.

Food

Agriculture

Business

1948 and Counting

Reports on Costa Rica's ability to manage without a military since 1948, despite invasions based in Nicaragua. Addresses the role of private armies serving multinational corporations, and whether the country's civil guard is a military by another name. Places Costa Rica in the context of Central and Latin American populist struggles against US backed regimes in El Salvador, Chile, Panama, Nicaragua and Honduras. Touches on the colonial history and explores whether Costa Rica depends on US military backing, and whether it is able to maintain independence from the US.

Government

Business

Una Perla de la Revolucion (A Pearl of the Revolution)

A documentary short that focuses on a sustainability project in Cojímar, Cuba

Sustainable

Business

Documentary

Market Gardening In The Last Frontier

The path to successful bio-intensive market gardening in the Last Frontier involves an enthusiasm to work in partnership with nature; to steward the soil and the multitude of organisms it contains and supports. As Alaskans contemplate the reality that a staggering 95% of food found in the grocery stores is imported, Emily Garrity and her Twitter Creek Garden operation are chipping away at this food insecurity and providing a roadmap for others to emulate. Aspiring to provide alternatives to the destructive standards of commercial agriculture, life-long Alaskan, Emily Garrity, shares her hard-won secrets in this biopic short film.

Sustainable

Business

Agriculture