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.

For these California kids, the fight against climate change is personal

News Feed
Monday, September 9, 2024

Madigan Traversi’s world changed in the fall of 2017, but the forces responsible for her transformation had been brewing for a long time. Late at night on Oct. 8, her family received a robocall about an evacuation warning — not an order — as more than a dozen wildfires tore through eight Northern California counties at once. They decided to flee their Sonoma County home to be safe. Just 20 minutes later, the house and all their possessions burned to the ground. Traversi was 12 years old. When she started high school in 2019 and joined a climate activism group, she learned that uncharacteristically hot, dry and windy conditions helped fuel the Tubbs fire, which burned parts of Somona, Napa and Lake counties and caught people off guard. Twenty-two people died and more than 5,000 homes were destroyed. Entire neighborhoods were wiped out. Madigan Traversi, 19, holds up photos of her Santa Rosa home, which burned down during the 2017 Tubbs fire. (Josh Edelson / For The Times) “That was the first time I was able to associate climate change with this wildfire I had been directly affected by,” said Traversi, now a 19-year-old activist and sophomore at UC Berkeley who promotes efforts to strengthen mental health supports for young people who have suffered climate disasters. “That sparked my passion.”From staging protests to waging courtroom and legislative campaigns, a determined subset of California youths have been vocal in the fight against climate change. They’ve experienced firsthand an escalating drumbeat of environmental disasters — smog-choked air, extreme heat, searing drought, and devastating wildfires and floods — that unfold here season after season.Experts say that exposure to these dramatic manifestations of the climate crisis has the potential to aggravate mental health impacts, including depression and anxiety, and that children and adolescents are disproportionately vulnerable. For some, turning to activism is one way to cope.“It’s definitely been a way for me to combat these feelings of anxiety,” Traversi said. “Instead of feeling like there’s nothing I can do, I feel like I’m actively working to reverse this crisis.”Research has confirmed that worry and anxiety associated with climate change are on the rise among young people, said Susan Clayton, professor of psychology at the College of Wooster, southwest of Akron, Ohio. Clayton has written multiple studies about how climate change affects the mental health of children and teens, including a landmark report released last year by the American Psychological Assn. and the nonprofit organization ecoAmerica.“I would say one of the most striking things to me is the high level of concern and pessimism that you see around the world,” she said, referring to a 2021 survey of 10,000 young people in 10 countries, in which the majority of respondents said they feared for the future and that people had failed to take care of the planet.Clayton has been talking to young people for eight years, and she’s noticed that many of them now report personally experiencing the effects — including extreme weather and fast-moving wildfires — of a warming world.“These very tangible physical manifestations of climate change are things that people notice, and absolutely that makes it seem more real to them; therefore, it’s probably going to be more stressful,” she said. “One of the things about mental health is, it’s not just what you experience but how you interpret your experience that’s going to make a difference.”Clayton is careful to note that climate anxiety alone is not a mental health problem: it’s a normal reaction to a real crisis. But it can lead to problems like clinical anxiety and depression, depending on a person’s other sources of stress and coping mechanisms, she said. Charred Joshua trees fill the landscape six months after the York fire destroyed 93,000 acres in the Mojave National Preserve in July 2023. (Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times) Young people, she added, are in some ways uniquely vulnerable. They’re dependent on adults — who, they believe, aren’t taking adequate action to address the crisis. That can aggravate feelings of powerlessness and contribute to psychological distress. Social support is a strong predictor of mental health, Clayton added.“It’s bad enough to be afraid and anxious, but if you feel other people are not afraid and anxious about the same things, it can be really alienating.”Research has further indicated that harsh and unpredictable environments, like those characterized by extreme heat, drought or storms, can impair social relationships and decision-making among adolescents, Clayton said. That can have long-term implications for both individuals and society, she said.“They might decide it’s not worth putting effort into planning their careers or saving money because they don’t know what the world will look like in 20 years,” she said.In some ways, Maryam is a typical 16-year-old. She likes reading, growing plants and spending time with her three cats — Bernie, Sanders and AOC. But it’s hard for her to picture her future.“I go to school, but what’s the point of a degree if I’m not going to be able to use it for that long?” she said. “And I love school, I love school so much. It’s like my favorite thing. But it’s kind of useless at this point.”The Orange County teenager used to look forward to an annual family trip among the tall trees at Big Basin Redwoods State Park. But four years ago, a massive lightning-sparked wildfire burned the campsite they frequented, along with the vast majority of the park. Another campsite Maryam used to visit with a youth camp in San Bernardino County also burned recently. Maryam is one of three young plaintiffs who sued the EPA. (Dania Maxwell / Los Angeles Times) In the eighth grade, she started an activism group at her middle school that put up educational posters about climate change around campus and staged a protest at Fullerton City Hall urging the City Council to pay more attention to climate disasters. She became involved with the Sunrise Movement, a nonprofit that advocates for political action around climate change, and Fridays for Future, an international movement of students who stage climate strikes. She also volunteers with the youth board of her mosque.And last year, Maryam was one of 18 California children to join a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency alleging that it violated their constitutional rights by allowing pollution from burning fossil fuels to continue despite knowing the harms. (The Times is withholding the last names of the minors involved in that lawsuit at the request of their attorneys, who fear the children could be targeted due to the litigation’s high-profile nature.)A judge recently dismissed the action, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing because they did not show how the remedies they sought would mitigate those harms, but they amended and resubmitted their allegations.“All the fear I had, I fueled it into energy,” Maryam said. “I don’t really think we have a choice anymore, because the adults aren’t doing anything. And if we wish to be able to go to the beach in 10 years or take a hike ... ” she trailed off, choking back tears.Maya, another plaintiff in the lawsuit, was diagnosed with asthma in 2019, after a severe wildfire season that covered the floor of her school gym in Santa Monica with ash. The 18-year-old now has to use an inhaler when she plays soccer. While she had learned about climate change in school, she says teachers had told her everything would be fine if people took steps to reduce their carbon footprints, like recycling. That summer of smoke convinced her the crisis was more dire than she’d thought. She began to suffer crippling anxiety and started seeing a therapist. Maya, one of the plaintiffs who sued the EPA, organizes for Youth Climate Strike Los Angeles. (Dania Maxwell / Los Angeles Times) She also turned to collective action, first by joining her school’s Human Rights Watch student task force chapter, and then by volunteering with a club that successfully advocated for the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District to switch to 100% renewable energy and for its school board to adopt a climate literacy resolution directing staff to integrate climate lessons into the curriculum. She now organizes with Youth Climate Strike Los Angeles, whose members have rallied outside City Hall and dressed up in Squid Game costumes to stage a die-in at the L.A. Auto Show. Maya wore blue overalls as a nod to Hyundai workers and in particular, child laborers, she said; the U.S. Department of Labor recently sued Hyundai over the use of child labor in Alabama.“There’s a tremendous amount of pressure on youth right now because we will be the ones that, at the end of the day, will be suffering the consequences. Our future is at stake,” she said. “I’m definitely terrified — I’m not going to lie. I think every day we inch closer to a tipping point and the point of no return. But I’m also very hopeful, and I try to be more hopeful than terrified.” Avroh, another of the plaintiffs in the EPA suit, volunteers with multiple groups, including the Palo Alto Student Climate Coalition. (Dania Maxwell / Los Angeles Times) Avroh, 15, another party to the lawsuit, developed severe nosebleeds after a string of bad fire seasons that began when he was in the fourth grade. He had a blood vessel cauterized in his nose and began checking the air quality each morning to see if it was safe to go outside.In late 2022, much of California swung wildly from drought to deluge. There were times the Palo Alto teen couldn’t leave his house because water would flood in if he opened the door. Last year, his school had to evacuate twice due to rain.“So at that, I was like ‘OK, this is getting really bad,’” he said. “It’s not climate change in the future. It’s climate change now.”Like the other teens, Avroh has found an outlet in activism. When he was 8, he started a club at his school that organized weekend cleanups on campus and at a nearby park. He now volunteers with multiple groups, including the Palo Alto Student Climate Coalition, which urges people to lower their carbon footprints, organizes climate literacy presentations and meets with elected officials. “I really don’t enjoy this,” he said. “I’d rather be playing soccer or something. But instead, here I am, suing the Environmental Protection Agency.”Climate change is a global crisis, but some communities are particularly vulnerable to its health effects. Legacies of redlining and racially restrictive covenants mean that low-income and nonwhite residents are disproportionately concentrated in these areas, which tend to have higher risk exposure to flooding, storm damage and large wildfires; more oil and gas wells; and less tree cover to mitigate extreme heat.These dynamics inspired Sam Adeyeye to become a climate activist in the seventh grade. He wanted to stop a terminal for exporting coal that was planned in West Oakland, where many of his family members and friends lived. Adeyeye knew a lot of people with asthma who already were breathing some of the most polluted air in the Bay Area, made worse by stifling heat waves that have grown longer and more intense.“Me preventing that would help them in the long run, would cause less asthma rates in West Oakland,” said Adeyeye, who is now a 17-year-old incoming freshman at UCLA and an organizer with Youth Vs Apocalypse, a climate justice organization that grew out of the campaign against the coal terminal. “And it would be inequitable for it to be there in the first place.”After years of petitions, protests and legal wrangling, a judge recently green-lit the terminal, although the project remains on pause as the city of Oakland appeals. Adeyeye is now campaigning for the California State Teachers Retirement System to divest from fossil fuels, including by drumming up support for a bill that would achieve that goal.“I come from a low-income community, so I want my conditions to improve — not only for myself but for the people that are younger, the newer generation that’s coming in, so they won’t have to go through what I’ve gone through,” he said.“What makes me want to change the world is I know what it looks like for the world, for me, to be bad,” he added.Traversi first coped with the trauma of losing her home by not really thinking about it. But when she turned 16 and got her driver’s license, she began to regularly drive back to the burned lot to journal and grieve. She started to have vivid memories of the night of the fire, recalling how her mother sang Prince songs in the car to try to keep her calm as they sped away. And she realized she’d never fully processed the event.“I think I’m processing a lot to this day,” she said, recalling how PTSD symptoms reemerged when she and her mother moved into a new house this past January. Santa Rosa’s Journey’s End Trailer Park stands in ruin in November 2017. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times) In high school, Traversi joined a grassroots organization called Schools for Climate Action that was formed in the aftermath of the Tubbs fire and advocates for local school boards to pass climate resolutions. Together with fellow activist Giselle Perez, she co-wrote a U.S. House resolution raising awareness about youth climate anxiety and calling for more funding to support related resources.Rep. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena), who introduced the measure, said it was an honor working with Traversi to craft it. “As climate-related disasters become more common, Madigan has stepped up as a young leader to help shine a spotlight on the climate anxiety gripping so many of her peers,” he said in a statement.“Activism has been a really healing outlet, because I’m able to see tangible change,” said Traversi, who is now studying rhetoric and theater and performance studies and serves on the advisory board of a group called the Climate Mental Health Network, which does outreach about the mental health impacts of climate change.She insists that her experience, while dramatic, is not particularly unique. Virtually every person in her age group she’s spoken to has confided that they’re afraid they may die from the effects of climate change, or that they’re reluctant to consider having children in the future, she said.“People really are experiencing the effects of climate change in that extreme of a way,” she said. “And I don’t know that anyone is not experiencing it at this point.”

From protests to court and legislative campaigns, California youths have been loud voices against climate change. They've experienced environmental disasters firsthand.

Madigan Traversi’s world changed in the fall of 2017, but the forces responsible for her transformation had been brewing for a long time.

Late at night on Oct. 8, her family received a robocall about an evacuation warning — not an order — as more than a dozen wildfires tore through eight Northern California counties at once. They decided to flee their Sonoma County home to be safe. Just 20 minutes later, the house and all their possessions burned to the ground. Traversi was 12 years old.

When she started high school in 2019 and joined a climate activism group, she learned that uncharacteristically hot, dry and windy conditions helped fuel the Tubbs fire, which burned parts of Somona, Napa and Lake counties and caught people off guard. Twenty-two people died and more than 5,000 homes were destroyed. Entire neighborhoods were wiped out.

A young woman holds photos of a  fire-gutted home in each hand.

Madigan Traversi, 19, holds up photos of her Santa Rosa home, which burned down during the 2017 Tubbs fire.

(Josh Edelson / For The Times)

“That was the first time I was able to associate climate change with this wildfire I had been directly affected by,” said Traversi, now a 19-year-old activist and sophomore at UC Berkeley who promotes efforts to strengthen mental health supports for young people who have suffered climate disasters. “That sparked my passion.”

From staging protests to waging courtroom and legislative campaigns, a determined subset of California youths have been vocal in the fight against climate change. They’ve experienced firsthand an escalating drumbeat of environmental disasters — smog-choked air, extreme heat, searing drought, and devastating wildfires and floods — that unfold here season after season.

Experts say that exposure to these dramatic manifestations of the climate crisis has the potential to aggravate mental health impacts, including depression and anxiety, and that children and adolescents are disproportionately vulnerable. For some, turning to activism is one way to cope.

“It’s definitely been a way for me to combat these feelings of anxiety,” Traversi said. “Instead of feeling like there’s nothing I can do, I feel like I’m actively working to reverse this crisis.”

Research has confirmed that worry and anxiety associated with climate change are on the rise among young people, said Susan Clayton, professor of psychology at the College of Wooster, southwest of Akron, Ohio. Clayton has written multiple studies about how climate change affects the mental health of children and teens, including a landmark report released last year by the American Psychological Assn. and the nonprofit organization ecoAmerica.

“I would say one of the most striking things to me is the high level of concern and pessimism that you see around the world,” she said, referring to a 2021 survey of 10,000 young people in 10 countries, in which the majority of respondents said they feared for the future and that people had failed to take care of the planet.

Clayton has been talking to young people for eight years, and she’s noticed that many of them now report personally experiencing the effects — including extreme weather and fast-moving wildfires — of a warming world.

“These very tangible physical manifestations of climate change are things that people notice, and absolutely that makes it seem more real to them; therefore, it’s probably going to be more stressful,” she said. “One of the things about mental health is, it’s not just what you experience but how you interpret your experience that’s going to make a difference.”

Clayton is careful to note that climate anxiety alone is not a mental health problem: it’s a normal reaction to a real crisis. But it can lead to problems like clinical anxiety and depression, depending on a person’s other sources of stress and coping mechanisms, she said.

Blackened Joshua trees in a desert landscape of rolling hills.

Charred Joshua trees fill the landscape six months after the York fire destroyed 93,000 acres in the Mojave National Preserve in July 2023.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Young people, she added, are in some ways uniquely vulnerable. They’re dependent on adults — who, they believe, aren’t taking adequate action to address the crisis. That can aggravate feelings of powerlessness and contribute to psychological distress. Social support is a strong predictor of mental health, Clayton added.

“It’s bad enough to be afraid and anxious, but if you feel other people are not afraid and anxious about the same things, it can be really alienating.”

Research has further indicated that harsh and unpredictable environments, like those characterized by extreme heat, drought or storms, can impair social relationships and decision-making among adolescents, Clayton said. That can have long-term implications for both individuals and society, she said.

“They might decide it’s not worth putting effort into planning their careers or saving money because they don’t know what the world will look like in 20 years,” she said.

In some ways, Maryam is a typical 16-year-old. She likes reading, growing plants and spending time with her three cats — Bernie, Sanders and AOC. But it’s hard for her to picture her future.

“I go to school, but what’s the point of a degree if I’m not going to be able to use it for that long?” she said. “And I love school, I love school so much. It’s like my favorite thing. But it’s kind of useless at this point.”

The Orange County teenager used to look forward to an annual family trip among the tall trees at Big Basin Redwoods State Park. But four years ago, a massive lightning-sparked wildfire burned the campsite they frequented, along with the vast majority of the park. Another campsite Maryam used to visit with a youth camp in San Bernardino County also burned recently.

A girl in her late teens.

Maryam is one of three young plaintiffs who sued the EPA.

(Dania Maxwell / Los Angeles Times)

In the eighth grade, she started an activism group at her middle school that put up educational posters about climate change around campus and staged a protest at Fullerton City Hall urging the City Council to pay more attention to climate disasters. She became involved with the Sunrise Movement, a nonprofit that advocates for political action around climate change, and Fridays for Future, an international movement of students who stage climate strikes. She also volunteers with the youth board of her mosque.

And last year, Maryam was one of 18 California children to join a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency alleging that it violated their constitutional rights by allowing pollution from burning fossil fuels to continue despite knowing the harms. (The Times is withholding the last names of the minors involved in that lawsuit at the request of their attorneys, who fear the children could be targeted due to the litigation’s high-profile nature.)

A judge recently dismissed the action, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing because they did not show how the remedies they sought would mitigate those harms, but they amended and resubmitted their allegations.

“All the fear I had, I fueled it into energy,” Maryam said. “I don’t really think we have a choice anymore, because the adults aren’t doing anything. And if we wish to be able to go to the beach in 10 years or take a hike ... ” she trailed off, choking back tears.

Maya, another plaintiff in the lawsuit, was diagnosed with asthma in 2019, after a severe wildfire season that covered the floor of her school gym in Santa Monica with ash. The 18-year-old now has to use an inhaler when she plays soccer.

While she had learned about climate change in school, she says teachers had told her everything would be fine if people took steps to reduce their carbon footprints, like recycling. That summer of smoke convinced her the crisis was more dire than she’d thought. She began to suffer crippling anxiety and started seeing a therapist.

A girl in her late teens.

Maya, one of the plaintiffs who sued the EPA, organizes for Youth Climate Strike Los Angeles.

(Dania Maxwell / Los Angeles Times)

She also turned to collective action, first by joining her school’s Human Rights Watch student task force chapter, and then by volunteering with a club that successfully advocated for the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District to switch to 100% renewable energy and for its school board to adopt a climate literacy resolution directing staff to integrate climate lessons into the curriculum.

She now organizes with Youth Climate Strike Los Angeles, whose members have rallied outside City Hall and dressed up in Squid Game costumes to stage a die-in at the L.A. Auto Show. Maya wore blue overalls as a nod to Hyundai workers and in particular, child laborers, she said; the U.S. Department of Labor recently sued Hyundai over the use of child labor in Alabama.

“There’s a tremendous amount of pressure on youth right now because we will be the ones that, at the end of the day, will be suffering the consequences. Our future is at stake,” she said. “I’m definitely terrified — I’m not going to lie. I think every day we inch closer to a tipping point and the point of no return. But I’m also very hopeful, and I try to be more hopeful than terrified.”

A young man in his teens.

Avroh, another of the plaintiffs in the EPA suit, volunteers with multiple groups, including the Palo Alto Student Climate Coalition.

(Dania Maxwell / Los Angeles Times)

Avroh, 15, another party to the lawsuit, developed severe nosebleeds after a string of bad fire seasons that began when he was in the fourth grade. He had a blood vessel cauterized in his nose and began checking the air quality each morning to see if it was safe to go outside.

In late 2022, much of California swung wildly from drought to deluge. There were times the Palo Alto teen couldn’t leave his house because water would flood in if he opened the door. Last year, his school had to evacuate twice due to rain.

“So at that, I was like ‘OK, this is getting really bad,’” he said. “It’s not climate change in the future. It’s climate change now.”

Like the other teens, Avroh has found an outlet in activism. When he was 8, he started a club at his school that organized weekend cleanups on campus and at a nearby park. He now volunteers with multiple groups, including the Palo Alto Student Climate Coalition, which urges people to lower their carbon footprints, organizes climate literacy presentations and meets with elected officials.

“I really don’t enjoy this,” he said. “I’d rather be playing soccer or something. But instead, here I am, suing the Environmental Protection Agency.”

Climate change is a global crisis, but some communities are particularly vulnerable to its health effects. Legacies of redlining and racially restrictive covenants mean that low-income and nonwhite residents are disproportionately concentrated in these areas, which tend to have higher risk exposure to flooding, storm damage and large wildfires; more oil and gas wells; and less tree cover to mitigate extreme heat.

These dynamics inspired Sam Adeyeye to become a climate activist in the seventh grade. He wanted to stop a terminal for exporting coal that was planned in West Oakland, where many of his family members and friends lived. Adeyeye knew a lot of people with asthma who already were breathing some of the most polluted air in the Bay Area, made worse by stifling heat waves that have grown longer and more intense.

“Me preventing that would help them in the long run, would cause less asthma rates in West Oakland,” said Adeyeye, who is now a 17-year-old incoming freshman at UCLA and an organizer with Youth Vs Apocalypse, a climate justice organization that grew out of the campaign against the coal terminal. “And it would be inequitable for it to be there in the first place.”

After years of petitions, protests and legal wrangling, a judge recently green-lit the terminal, although the project remains on pause as the city of Oakland appeals. Adeyeye is now campaigning for the California State Teachers Retirement System to divest from fossil fuels, including by drumming up support for a bill that would achieve that goal.

“I come from a low-income community, so I want my conditions to improve — not only for myself but for the people that are younger, the newer generation that’s coming in, so they won’t have to go through what I’ve gone through,” he said.

“What makes me want to change the world is I know what it looks like for the world, for me, to be bad,” he added.

Traversi first coped with the trauma of losing her home by not really thinking about it. But when she turned 16 and got her driver’s license, she began to regularly drive back to the burned lot to journal and grieve. She started to have vivid memories of the night of the fire, recalling how her mother sang Prince songs in the car to try to keep her calm as they sped away. And she realized she’d never fully processed the event.

“I think I’m processing a lot to this day,” she said, recalling how PTSD symptoms reemerged when she and her mother moved into a new house this past January.

Burned debris covers most of a trailer park hit by fire.

Santa Rosa’s Journey’s End Trailer Park stands in ruin in November 2017.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

In high school, Traversi joined a grassroots organization called Schools for Climate Action that was formed in the aftermath of the Tubbs fire and advocates for local school boards to pass climate resolutions. Together with fellow activist Giselle Perez, she co-wrote a U.S. House resolution raising awareness about youth climate anxiety and calling for more funding to support related resources.

Rep. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena), who introduced the measure, said it was an honor working with Traversi to craft it. “As climate-related disasters become more common, Madigan has stepped up as a young leader to help shine a spotlight on the climate anxiety gripping so many of her peers,” he said in a statement.

“Activism has been a really healing outlet, because I’m able to see tangible change,” said Traversi, who is now studying rhetoric and theater and performance studies and serves on the advisory board of a group called the Climate Mental Health Network, which does outreach about the mental health impacts of climate change.

She insists that her experience, while dramatic, is not particularly unique. Virtually every person in her age group she’s spoken to has confided that they’re afraid they may die from the effects of climate change, or that they’re reluctant to consider having children in the future, she said.

“People really are experiencing the effects of climate change in that extreme of a way,” she said. “And I don’t know that anyone is not experiencing it at this point.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Park Service orders changes to staff ratings, a move experts call illegal

Lower performance ratings could be used as a factor in layoff decisions and will demoralize staff, advocates say.

A top National Park Service official has instructed park superintendents to limit the number of staff who get top marks in performance reviews, according to three people familiar with the matter, a move that experts say violates federal code and could make it easier to lay off staff.Parks leadership generally evaluate individual employees annually on a five-point scale, with a three rating given to those who are successful in achieving their goals, with those exceeding expectations receiving a four and outstanding employees earning a five.Frank Lands, the deputy director of operations for the National Park System, told dozens of park superintendents on a conference call Thursday that “the preponderance of ratings should be 3s,” according to the people familiar, who were not authorized to comment publicly about the internal call.Lands said that roughly one to five percent of people should receive an outstanding rating and confirmed several times that about 80 percent should receive 3s, the people familiar said.Follow Climate & environmentThe Interior Department, which oversees the National Park Service, said in a statement Friday that “there is no percentage cap” on certain performance ratings.“We are working to normalize ratings across the agency,” the statement said. “The goal of this effort is to ensure fair, consistent performance evaluations across all of our parks and programs.”Though many employers in corporate American often instruct managers to classify a majority of employee reviews in the middle tier, the Parks Service has commonly given higher ratings to a greater proportion of employees.Performance ratings are also taken into account when determining which employees are laid off first if the agency were to go ahead with “reduction in force” layoffs, as many other departments have done this year.The order appears to violate the Code of Federal Regulations, said Tim Whitehouse, a lawyer and executive director of the nonprofit advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. The code states that the government cannot require a “forced distribution” of ratings for federal employees.“Employees are supposed to be evaluated based upon their performance, not upon a predetermined rating that doesn’t reflect how they actually performed,” he said.The Trump administration has reduced the number of parks staff this year by about 4,000 people, or roughly a quarter, according to an analysis by the National Parks Conservation Association, an advocacy group. Parks advocates say the administration is deliberately seeking to demoralize staff and failing to recognize the additional work they now have to do, given the exodus of employees through voluntary resignations and early retirements.Rep. Jared Huffman (D-California) said the move would artificially depress employee ratings:“You can’t square that with the legal requirements of the current regulations about how performance reviews are supposed to work.”Some details of the directive were first reported by E&E News.Park superintendents on the conference call objected to the order. Some questioned the fairness to employees whose work merited a better rating at a time when many staff are working harder to make up for the thousands of vacancies.“I need leaders who lead in adversity. And if you can’t do that, just let me know. I’ll do my best to find somebody that can,” Lands said in response, the people familiar with the call said.One superintendent who was on the call, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid retaliation, said in an interview that Lands’ statement “was meant to be a threat.”The superintendent said they were faced with disobeying the order and potentially being fired or illegally changing employees’ evaluations.“If we change these ratings to meet the quota and violated federal law, are we subject to removal because we violated federal law and the oath we took to protect the Constitution?” the superintendent said.Myron Ebell, a board member of the American Lands Council, an advocacy group supporting the transfer of federal lands to states and counties, defended the administration’s move.“It’s exactly the same thing as grade inflation at universities. Think about it. Not everybody can be smarter than average. If everyone is doing great, that’s average,” he said.Theresa Pierno, president and CEO of the National Parks Conservation Association, said in a statement that the policy could make it easier to lay off staff, after the administration already decimated the ranks of the parks service.“After the National Park Service was decimated by mass firings and pressured staff buyouts, park rangers have been working the equivalent of second, third, or even fourth jobs protecting parks,” Pierno said.“Guidance like this could very well be setting up their staff to be cannon fodder during the next round of mass firings. This would be an unconscionable move,” she added.

Coalmine expansions would breach climate targets, NSW government warned in ‘game-changer’ report

Environmental advocates welcome Net Zero Commission’s report which found the fossil fuel was ‘not consistent’ with emissions reductions commitments Sign up for climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s free Clear Air newsletter hereGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastThe New South Wales government has been warned it can no longer approve coalmine developments after the state’s climate agency found new expansions would be inconsistent with its legislated emissions targets.In what climate advocates described as a significant turning point in campaigns against new fossil fuel programs, the NSW Net Zero Commission said coalmine expansions were “not consistent” with the state’s legal emissions reductions commitments of a 50% cut (compared with 2005 levels) by 2030, a 70% cut by 2035, and reaching net zero by 2050.Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletter Continue reading...

The New South Wales government has been warned it can no longer approve coalmine developments after the state’s climate agency found new expansions would be inconsistent with its legislated emissions targets.In what climate advocates described as a significant turning point in campaigns against new fossil fuel programs, the NSW Net Zero Commission said coalmine expansions were “not consistent” with the state’s legal emissions reductions commitments of a 50% cut (compared with 2005 levels) by 2030, a 70% cut by 2035, and reaching net zero by 2050.The commission’s Coal Mining Emissions Spotlight Report said the government should consider the climate impact – including from the “scope 3” emissions released into the atmosphere when most of the state’s coal is exported and burned overseas – in all coalmine planning decisions.Environmental lawyer Elaine Johnson said the report was a “game-changer” as it argued coalmining was the state’s biggest contribution to the climate crisis and that new coal proposals were inconsistent with the legislated targets.She said it also found demand for coal was declining – consistent with recent analyses by federal Treasury and the advisory firm Climate Resource – and the state government must support affected communities to transition to new industries.“What all this means is that it is no longer lawful to keep approving more coalmine expansions in NSW,” Johnson wrote on social media site LinkedIn. “Let’s hope the Department of Planning takes careful note when it’s looking at the next coalmine expansion proposal.”The Lock the Gate Alliance, a community organisation that campaigns against fossil fuel developments, said the report showed changes were required to the state’s planning framework to make authorities assess emissions and climate damage when considering mine applications.It said this should apply to 18 mine expansions that have been proposed but not yet approved, including two “mega-coalmine expansions” at the Hunter Valley Operations and Maules Creek mines. Eight coalmine expansions have been approved since the Minns Labor government was elected in 2023.Lock the Gate’s Nic Clyde said NSW already had 37 coalmines and “we can’t keep expanding them indefinitely”. He called for an immediate moratorium on approving coal expansions until the commission’s findings had been implemented.“This week, multiple NSW communities have been battling dangerous bushfires, which are becoming increasingly severe due to climate change fuelled by coalmining and burning. Our safety and our survival depends on how the NSW government responds to this report,” he said.Net zero emissions is a target that has been adopted by governments, companies and other organisations to eliminate their contribution to the climate crisis. It is sometimes called “carbon neutrality”.The climate crisis is caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere, where they trap heat. They have already caused a significant increase in average global temperatures above pre-industrial levels recorded since the mid-20th century. Countries and others that set net zero emissions targets are pledging to stop their role in worsening this by cutting their climate pollution and balancing out whatever emissions remain by sucking an equivalent amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere.This could happen through nature projects – tree planting, for example – or using carbon dioxide removal technology.CO2 removal from the atmosphere is the “net” part in net zero. Scientists say some emissions will be hard to stop and will need to be offset. But they also say net zero targets will be effective only if carbon removal is limited to offset “hard to abate” emissions. Fossil use will still need to be dramatically reduced.After signing the 2015 Paris agreement, the global community asked the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to assess what would be necessary to give the world a chance of limiting global heating to 1.5C.The IPCC found it would require deep cuts in global CO2 emissions: to about 45% below 2010 levels by 2030, and to net zero by about 2050.The Climate Action Tracker has found more than 145 countries have set or are considering setting net zero emissions targets. Photograph: Ashley Cooper pics/www.alamy.comThe alliance’s national coordinator, Carmel Flint, added: “It’s not just history that will judge the government harshly if they continue approving such projects following this report. Our courts are likely to as well.”The NSW Minerals Council criticised the commission’s report. Its chief executive, Stephen Galilee, said it was a “flawed and superficial analysis” that put thousands of coalmining jobs at risk. He said some coalmines would close in the years ahead but was “no reason” not to approve outstanding applications to extend the operating life of about 10 mines.Galilee said emissions from coal in NSW were falling faster than the average rate of emission reduction across the state and were “almost fully covered” by the federal government’s safeguard mechanism policy, which required mine owners to either make annual direct emissions cuts or buy offsets.He said the NSW government should “reflect on why it provides nearly $7m annually” for the commission to “campaign against thousands of NSW mining jobs”.But the state’s main environment organisation, the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, said the commission report showed coalmining was “incompatible with a safe climate future”.“The Net Zero Commission has shone a spotlight. Now the free ride for coalmine pollution has to end,” the council’s chief executive, Jacqui Mumford, said.The state climate change and energy minister, Penny Sharpe, said the commission was established to monitor, report and provide independent advice on how the state was meeting its legislated emissions targets, and the government would consider its advice “along with advice from other groups and agencies”.

Nope, Billionaire Tom Steyer Is Not a Bellwether of Climate Politics

What should we make of billionaire Tom Steyer’s reinvention as a populist candidate for California governor, four years after garnering only 0.72 percent of the popular vote in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, despite obscene spending from his personal fortune? Is it evidence that he’s a hard man to discourage? (In that race, he dropped almost $24 million on South Carolina alone.) Is it evidence that billionaires get to do a lot of things the rest of us don’t? Or is it evidence that talking about climate change is for losers and Democrats need to abandon it?Politico seems to think it’s the third one: Steyer running a populist gubernatorial campaign means voters don’t care about global warming.“The billionaire environmental activist who built his political profile on climate change—and who wrote in his book last year that ‘climate is what matters most right now, and nothing else comes close’—didn’t mention the issue once in the video launching his campaign for California governor,” reporter Noah Baustin wrote recently. “That was no oversight.” Instead, “it reflects a political reality confronting Democrats ahead of the midterms, where onetime climate evangelists are running into an electorate more worried about the climbing cost of electricity bills and home insurance than a warming atmosphere.”It’s hard to know how to parse a sentence like this. The “climbing cost of electricity bills and home insurance” is, indisputably, a climate issue. Renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels, and home insurance is spiking because increasingly frequent and increasingly severe weather events—driven by climate change—are making large swaths of the country expensive or impossible to insure. The fact that voters are struggling to pay for utilities and insurance, therefore, is not evidence that they don’t care about climate change. Instead, it’s evidence that climate change is a kitchen table issue, and politicians are, disadvantageously, failing to embrace the obviously populist message that accompanies robust climate policy. This is a problem with Democratic messaging, not a problem with climate as a topic.The piece goes on: “Climate concern has fallen in the state over time. In 2018, when Gov. Gavin Newsom was running for office, polling found that 57 percent of likely California voters considered climate change a very serious threat to the economy and quality of life for the state’s future. Now, that figure is 50 percent.”This may sound persuasive to you. But in fact, it’s a highly selective reading of the PPIC survey data linked above. What the poll actually found is that the proportion of Californians calling climate change a “very serious” threat peaked at 57 percent in 2019, fell slightly in subsequent years, then fell precipitously by 11 points between July 2022 and July 2023, before rising similarly precipitously from July 2024 to July 2025. Why did it fall so quickly from 2022 to 2023? Sure, maybe people stopped caring about climate change. Or maybe instead, the month after the 2022 poll, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act, the most significant climate policy in U.S. history, and people stopped being quite so worried. Why did concern then rise rapidly between July 2024 and July 2025? Well, between those two dates, Trump won the presidential election and proceeded, along with Republicans in Congress, to dismantle anything remotely resembling climate policy. The Inflation Reduction Act fell apart. I’m not saying this is the only way to read this data. But consider this: The percentage of respondents saying they were somewhat or very worried about members of their household being affected by natural disasters actually went up over the same period. The percentage saying air pollution was “a more serious health threat in lower-income areas” nearby went up. Those saying flooding, heat waves, and wildfires should be considered “a great deal” when siting new affordable housing rose a striking 12 percentage points from 2024 to 2025, and those “very concerned” about rising insurance costs “due to climate risks” rose 14 percentage points.This is not a portrait of an electorate that doesn’t care about climate change. It’s a portrait of an electorate that may actually be very ready to hear a politician convincingly embrace climate populism—championing affordability and better material conditions for working people, in part by protecting them from the predatory industries driving a cost-of-living crisis while poisoning people.This is part of a broader problem. Currently, there’s a big push from centrist Democratic institutions to argue that the party should abandon climate issues in order to win elections. The evidence for this is mixed, at best. As TNR’s Liza Featherstone recently pointed out, Democrats’ striking victories last month showed that candidates fusing climate policy with an energy affordability message did very well. Aaron Regunberg went into further detail on why talking about climate change is a smart strategy: “Right now,” he wrote, “neither party has a significant trust advantage on ‘electric utility bills’ (D+1) or ‘the cost of living’ (R+1). But Democrats do have major trust advantages on ‘climate change’ (D+14) and ‘renewable energy development’ (D+6). By articulating how their climate and clean energy agenda can address these bread-and-butter concerns, Democrats can leverage their advantage on climate to win voters’ trust on what will likely be the most significant issues in 2026 and 2028.”One of the troubles with climate change in political discourse is that some people’s understanding of environmental politics begins and ends with the spotted owl logging battles in the 1990s. This is the sort of attitude that drives the assumption that affordability policy and climate policy are not only distinct but actually opposed. But that’s wildly disconnected from present reality. Maybe Tom Steyer isn’t the guy to illustrate that! But his political fortunes, either way, don’t say much at all about climate messaging more broadly.Stat of the Week3x as many infant deathsA new study finds that babies of mothers “whose drinking water wells were downstream of PFAS releases” died at almost three times the rate in their first year of life as babies of mothers who did not live downstream of PFAS contamination. Read The Washington Post’s report on the study here.What I’m ReadingMore than 200 environmental groups demand halt to new US datacentersAn open letter calls on Congress to pause all approvals of new data centers until regulation catches up, due to problems such as data centers’ voracious energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and water use. From The Guardian’s report:The push comes amid a growing revolt against moves by companies such as Meta, Google and Open AI to plow hundreds of billions of dollars into new datacenters, primarily to meet the huge computing demands of AI. At least 16 datacenter projects, worth a combined $64bn, have been blocked or delayed due to local opposition to rising electricity costs. The facilities’ need for huge amounts of water to cool down equipment has also proved controversial, particularly in drier areas where supplies are scarce.These seemingly parochial concerns have now multiplied to become a potent political force, helping propel Democrats to a series of emphatic recent electoral successes in governor elections in Virginia and New Jersey as well as a stunning upset win in a special public service commission poll in Georgia, with candidates campaigning on lowering power bill costs and curbing datacenters.Read Oliver Milman’s full report at The Guardian.This article first appeared in Life in a Warming World, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Heather Souvaine Horn. Sign up here.

What should we make of billionaire Tom Steyer’s reinvention as a populist candidate for California governor, four years after garnering only 0.72 percent of the popular vote in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, despite obscene spending from his personal fortune? Is it evidence that he’s a hard man to discourage? (In that race, he dropped almost $24 million on South Carolina alone.) Is it evidence that billionaires get to do a lot of things the rest of us don’t? Or is it evidence that talking about climate change is for losers and Democrats need to abandon it?Politico seems to think it’s the third one: Steyer running a populist gubernatorial campaign means voters don’t care about global warming.“The billionaire environmental activist who built his political profile on climate change—and who wrote in his book last year that ‘climate is what matters most right now, and nothing else comes close’—didn’t mention the issue once in the video launching his campaign for California governor,” reporter Noah Baustin wrote recently. “That was no oversight.” Instead, “it reflects a political reality confronting Democrats ahead of the midterms, where onetime climate evangelists are running into an electorate more worried about the climbing cost of electricity bills and home insurance than a warming atmosphere.”It’s hard to know how to parse a sentence like this. The “climbing cost of electricity bills and home insurance” is, indisputably, a climate issue. Renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels, and home insurance is spiking because increasingly frequent and increasingly severe weather events—driven by climate change—are making large swaths of the country expensive or impossible to insure. The fact that voters are struggling to pay for utilities and insurance, therefore, is not evidence that they don’t care about climate change. Instead, it’s evidence that climate change is a kitchen table issue, and politicians are, disadvantageously, failing to embrace the obviously populist message that accompanies robust climate policy. This is a problem with Democratic messaging, not a problem with climate as a topic.The piece goes on: “Climate concern has fallen in the state over time. In 2018, when Gov. Gavin Newsom was running for office, polling found that 57 percent of likely California voters considered climate change a very serious threat to the economy and quality of life for the state’s future. Now, that figure is 50 percent.”This may sound persuasive to you. But in fact, it’s a highly selective reading of the PPIC survey data linked above. What the poll actually found is that the proportion of Californians calling climate change a “very serious” threat peaked at 57 percent in 2019, fell slightly in subsequent years, then fell precipitously by 11 points between July 2022 and July 2023, before rising similarly precipitously from July 2024 to July 2025. Why did it fall so quickly from 2022 to 2023? Sure, maybe people stopped caring about climate change. Or maybe instead, the month after the 2022 poll, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act, the most significant climate policy in U.S. history, and people stopped being quite so worried. Why did concern then rise rapidly between July 2024 and July 2025? Well, between those two dates, Trump won the presidential election and proceeded, along with Republicans in Congress, to dismantle anything remotely resembling climate policy. The Inflation Reduction Act fell apart. I’m not saying this is the only way to read this data. But consider this: The percentage of respondents saying they were somewhat or very worried about members of their household being affected by natural disasters actually went up over the same period. The percentage saying air pollution was “a more serious health threat in lower-income areas” nearby went up. Those saying flooding, heat waves, and wildfires should be considered “a great deal” when siting new affordable housing rose a striking 12 percentage points from 2024 to 2025, and those “very concerned” about rising insurance costs “due to climate risks” rose 14 percentage points.This is not a portrait of an electorate that doesn’t care about climate change. It’s a portrait of an electorate that may actually be very ready to hear a politician convincingly embrace climate populism—championing affordability and better material conditions for working people, in part by protecting them from the predatory industries driving a cost-of-living crisis while poisoning people.This is part of a broader problem. Currently, there’s a big push from centrist Democratic institutions to argue that the party should abandon climate issues in order to win elections. The evidence for this is mixed, at best. As TNR’s Liza Featherstone recently pointed out, Democrats’ striking victories last month showed that candidates fusing climate policy with an energy affordability message did very well. Aaron Regunberg went into further detail on why talking about climate change is a smart strategy: “Right now,” he wrote, “neither party has a significant trust advantage on ‘electric utility bills’ (D+1) or ‘the cost of living’ (R+1). But Democrats do have major trust advantages on ‘climate change’ (D+14) and ‘renewable energy development’ (D+6). By articulating how their climate and clean energy agenda can address these bread-and-butter concerns, Democrats can leverage their advantage on climate to win voters’ trust on what will likely be the most significant issues in 2026 and 2028.”One of the troubles with climate change in political discourse is that some people’s understanding of environmental politics begins and ends with the spotted owl logging battles in the 1990s. This is the sort of attitude that drives the assumption that affordability policy and climate policy are not only distinct but actually opposed. But that’s wildly disconnected from present reality. Maybe Tom Steyer isn’t the guy to illustrate that! But his political fortunes, either way, don’t say much at all about climate messaging more broadly.Stat of the Week3x as many infant deathsA new study finds that babies of mothers “whose drinking water wells were downstream of PFAS releases” died at almost three times the rate in their first year of life as babies of mothers who did not live downstream of PFAS contamination. Read The Washington Post’s report on the study here.What I’m ReadingMore than 200 environmental groups demand halt to new US datacentersAn open letter calls on Congress to pause all approvals of new data centers until regulation catches up, due to problems such as data centers’ voracious energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and water use. From The Guardian’s report:The push comes amid a growing revolt against moves by companies such as Meta, Google and Open AI to plow hundreds of billions of dollars into new datacenters, primarily to meet the huge computing demands of AI. At least 16 datacenter projects, worth a combined $64bn, have been blocked or delayed due to local opposition to rising electricity costs. The facilities’ need for huge amounts of water to cool down equipment has also proved controversial, particularly in drier areas where supplies are scarce.These seemingly parochial concerns have now multiplied to become a potent political force, helping propel Democrats to a series of emphatic recent electoral successes in governor elections in Virginia and New Jersey as well as a stunning upset win in a special public service commission poll in Georgia, with candidates campaigning on lowering power bill costs and curbing datacenters.Read Oliver Milman’s full report at The Guardian.This article first appeared in Life in a Warming World, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Heather Souvaine Horn. Sign up here.

Takeaways From AP’s Report on Potential Impacts of Alaska’s Proposed Ambler Access Road

A proposed mining road in Northwest Alaska has sparked debate amid climate change impacts

AMBLER, Alaska (AP) — In Northwest Alaska, a proposed mining road has become a flashpoint in a region already stressed by climate change. The 211-mile (340-kilometer) Ambler Access Road would cut through Gates of the Arctic National Park and cross 11 major rivers and thousands of streams relied on for salmon and caribou. The Trump administration approved the project this fall, setting off concerns over how the Inupiaq subsistence way of life can survive amid rapid environmental change. Many fear the road could push the ecosystem past a breaking point yet also recognize the need for jobs. A strategically important mineral deposit The Ambler Mining District holds one of the largest undeveloped sources of copper, zinc, lead, silver and gold in North America. Demand for minerals used in renewable energy is expected to grow, though most copper mined in the U.S. currently goes to construction — not green technologies. Critics say the road raises broader questions about who gets to decide the terms of mineral extraction on Indigenous lands. Climate change has already devastated subsistence resources Northwest Alaska is warming about four times faster than the global average — a shift that has already upended daily life. The Western Arctic Caribou Herd, once nearly half a million strong, has fallen 66% in two decades to around 164,000 animals. Warmer temperatures delay cold and snow, disrupting migration routes and keeping caribou high in the Brooks Range where hunters can’t easily reach them.Salmon runs have suffered repeated collapses as record rainfall, warmer rivers and thawing permafrost transform once-clear streams. In some areas, permafrost thaw has released metals into waterways, adding to the stress on already fragile fish populations.“Elders who’ve lived here their entire lives have never seen environmental conditions like this,” one local environmental official said. The road threatens what remains The Ambler road would cross a vast, largely undisturbed region to reach major deposits of copper, zinc and other minerals. Building it would require nearly 50 bridges, thousands of culverts and more than 100 truck trips a day during peak operations. Federal biologists warn naturally occurring asbestos could be kicked up by passing trucks and settle onto waterways and vegetation that caribou rely on. The Bureau of Land Management designated some 1.2 million acres of nearby salmon spawning and caribou calving habitat as “critical environmental concern.”Mining would draw large volumes of water from lakes and rivers, disturb permafrost and rely on a tailings facility to hold toxic slurry. With record rainfall becoming more common, downstream communities fear contamination of drinking water and traditional foods.Locals also worry the road could eventually open to the public, inviting outside hunters into an already stressed ecosystem. Many point to Alaska’s Dalton Highway, which opened to public use despite earlier promises it would remain private.Ambler Metals, the company behind the mining project, says it uses proven controls for work in permafrost and will treat all water the mine has contact with to strict standards. The company says it tracks precipitation to size facilities for heavier rainfall. A potential economic lifeline For some, the mine represents opportunity in a region where gasoline can cost nearly $18 a gallon and basic travel for hunting has become prohibitively expensive. Supporters argue mining jobs could help people stay in their villages, which face some of the highest living costs in the country.Ambler mayor Conrad Douglas summed up the tension: “I don’t really know how much the state of Alaska is willing to jeopardize our way of life, but the people do need jobs.”The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environmentCopyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

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

CONTACT US

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

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