GoGreenNation news

The One Key Piece Missing From NYC’s Congestion Car Toll

News Feed

Monday, March 18, 2024

A nurse boarded the Bx18A bus, whose route circles between the Morris Heights and Highbridge neighborhoods of the Bronx. Having an anxious moment most New Yorkers will find relatable, she began hunting through her purse to look for her MetroCard to pay for her ride. When the driver pointed to a sign indicating that this was a “fare free” bus—part of an experiment in free public transit created by the state legislature last year—the nurse started dancing.I’d like to have what she’s having, please. I think we all would. “She cha-cha’d down the bus,” said Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani Thursday, telling the story in a speech on the New York Assembly floor. Mamdani was introducing his “Get Congestion Pricing Right” bill, which he said would “expand that feeling—of joy, of relief” by making 15 more bus routes free, across the city, as well as increasing bus frequency. Over the next couple weeks, the bill will be part of the always-harrowing negotiations with Governor Kathy Hochul and among the state legislators. Mamdani called his bill “Get Congestion Pricing Right” in part because, right now, New York risks getting it wrong: Few good ideas have been resisted as loudly as New York’s plan to charge a toll to drivers entering Manhattan ($15 for most) and use the money to improve public transit. The policy, set to take effect June 15, has been mocked, attacked, and misrepresented for years. Now that it’s finally happening, it’s crucial that it work well for the majority of New Yorkers. Otherwise, backlash could quickly sink the policy and discourage similar efforts in the future—in New York and elsewhere. For congestion pricing to work, as Mamdani clearly understands, public transit needs to be good enough to present a viable alternative to the $15 toll. Having fewer cars on the roads is demonstrably fantastic for the environment, public health, and quality of life. In Stockholm, congestion pricing has reduced carbon emissions by 20 percent. In London, it has reduced the nitrogen oxides and particulates in the air by 12 percent. Cleaner air will in turn improve health of New Yorkers: In Stockholm, congestion pricing cut the number of asthma-related hospital visits in half. Reducing traffic—the MTA estimates the plan will cut traffic by 17 percent—will also ease the stress of driving for anyone who has to do so, and make much of the city more pleasant for pedestrians, especially crucial since New Yorkers walk more than any other group of Americans. Reducing traffic will also save lives: Since emergency vehicles are among the few exempted from the toll, they will presumably be able to move more quickly to put out fires and get people to the hospital. Congestion pricing will also raise $1 billion a year for the public transit system, allowing the MTA to make the kinds of improvements that will save New Yorkers money, time, and irritation. These improvements will also boost ridership; this will make the subway safer, which will, in turn, boost ridership further.Yet congestion pricing has received a great deal of pseudo-populist mockery and resistance. The New York Post has run negative articles on the topic on an almost daily basis (“Congestion Pricing Will Leave NYC in a Jam” and “Time for Congestion Pricing to Hit the Road” are just two recent headlines). The policy has faced lawsuits from city workers’ unions, the governor of New Jersey, the mayor of Fort Lee, New Jersey, the Staten Island borough president, and a range of other injured parties. The gist of all the criticism is that the policy will hurt ordinary hardworking New Yorkers. Although New York’s policy does still have flaws that must be fixed—insufficient exemptions for low-income drivers, for instance—the populist argument against congestion pricing is mostly disingenuous. Only 4 percent of outer-borough New Yorkers drive to Manhattan to work; 57 percent take public transit. And only 2 percent of low-income outer-borough New Yorkers, specifically, would be asked to pay a congestion fee as part of their commute; 61 percent take public transit. As we’ve seen in France with the “gilet jaune” movement, in which motorists wore yellow vests and blocked highways to protest an unpopular gas tax in 2018, and the more recent farmer protests against the European Union’s effort to limit harmful pesticides, this kind of populist anti-environmental argument resonates when large numbers of ordinary people don’t feel their material needs have been considered by the elites in charge. Congestion pricing carries precisely this kind of baggage, even though it will improve our lives in many ways. That means the big question politically, the one that will determine congestion pricing’s longevity as a policy, is whether the vast majority of New Yorkers will experience its benefits and how quickly. We must see the positive results of congestion pricing in our own lives to balance out the rage induced by what behavioral economists call “the pain of paying” (research shows that we are far more bothered about small expenses that we pay frequently and can see, like milk or gas, than about bigger expenses we don’t pay often or that are simply deducted from our paychecks, like our health insurance premiums). Unfortunately, we can’t see or feel reductions in carbon emissions. Clean air is more ambiguous. We do notice pollution. We freak out about bad air quality warnings in the summer. And last year when the smoke from the Canadian wildfires turned New York City’s skies red and smoky, I saw children running out of school buildings to gape at it in terror. Some of us will undoubtedly feel, over time, that our asthma or headaches have improved, or that we are breathing more easily. But it’s possible that for many people, the clean air might be an invisible benefit, the kind that is politically troublesome because it doesn’t reward its architects. By contrast, New Yorkers have in recent years been complaining about the subway a lot and will notice if it gets better. Public transit is one of the least abstract political issues for New Yorkers, affecting where we can work, whether we can get there in time, and whether we can pick up our kids on time at the end of the day. Ridership has suffered since the pandemic. Sensationally reported crimes on the subway have contributed to anxiety about the system, which New York’s governor has idiotically played into by sending in the National Guard. Less dramatic but perhaps far more frustrating to most people, the service has deteriorated recently, with more delays and disruptions, and even derailments, which are quite scary. The political reception of congestion pricing, then, will be mostly determined by how tangibly it improves our transit system. Of course, there’s no evading the biggest problem with congestion pricing, which is that people hate being forced to change cherished habits. New York City is a great place to implement this policy, since it’s already a terrible city for motorists, the transit system goes almost everywhere, and many New Yorkers already avoid driving. But those who are attached to their cars will be vocal in their objections. Such gripes will resonate and spread like a contagion if people don’t see the positive effects of congestion pricing right away.That’s why immediate measures like Assemblyman Mamdani’s “Get Congestion Pricing Right” proposal—making more bus routes free and more frequent, before the revenue from congestion pricing even kicks in—are so crucial. Good environmental policy prods us to change our behavior while making our lives better at the same time. Congestion pricing will do this: It will obligate driving less by forcing cost-benefit analysis of our car trips, while also rewarding us by transforming urban life for the better—not just with cleaner air and better health, but by ensuring that we all waste less of our lives sitting in traffic. But the biggest benefit for most people will be the investments in our transit system, making a safer, more convenient, and joyful experience. If more of us start feeling anything close to the happiness that nurse felt on the Bx18A that day, congestion pricing will be a lasting political success.

I’d like to have what she’s having, please. I think we all would. “She cha-cha’d down the bus,” said Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani Thursday, telling the story in a speech on the New York Assembly floor. Mamdani was introducing his “Get Congestion Pricing Right” bill, which he said would “expand that feeling—of joy, of relief” by making 15 more bus routes free, across the city, as well as increasing bus frequency. Over the next couple weeks, the bill will be part of the always-harrowing negotiations with Governor Kathy Hochul and among the state legislators.

Mamdani called his bill “Get Congestion Pricing Right” in part because, right now, New York risks getting it wrong: Few good ideas have been resisted as loudly as New York’s plan to charge a toll to drivers entering Manhattan ($15 for most) and use the money to improve public transit. The policy, set to take effect June 15, has been mocked, attacked, and misrepresented for years. Now that it’s finally happening, it’s crucial that it work well for the majority of New Yorkers. Otherwise, backlash could quickly sink the policy and discourage similar efforts in the future—in New York and elsewhere. For congestion pricing to work, as Mamdani clearly understands, public transit needs to be good enough to present a viable alternative to the $15 toll.

Having fewer cars on the roads is demonstrably fantastic for the environment, public health, and quality of life. In Stockholm, congestion pricing has reduced carbon emissions by 20 percent. In London, it has reduced the nitrogen oxides and particulates in the air by 12 percent. Cleaner air will in turn improve health of New Yorkers: In Stockholm, congestion pricing cut the number of asthma-related hospital visits in half. Reducing traffic—the MTA estimates the plan will cut traffic by 17 percent—will also ease the stress of driving for anyone who has to do so, and make much of the city more pleasant for pedestrians, especially crucial since New Yorkers walk more than any other group of Americans. Reducing traffic will also save lives: Since emergency vehicles are among the few exempted from the toll, they will presumably be able to move more quickly to put out fires and get people to the hospital.

Congestion pricing will also raise $1 billion a year for the public transit system, allowing the MTA to make the kinds of improvements that will save New Yorkers money, time, and irritation. These improvements will also boost ridership; this will make the subway safer, which will, in turn, boost ridership further.

Yet congestion pricing has received a great deal of pseudo-populist mockery and resistance. The New York Post has run negative articles on the topic on an almost daily basis (“Congestion Pricing Will Leave NYC in a Jam” and “Time for Congestion Pricing to Hit the Road” are just two recent headlines). The policy has faced lawsuits from city workers’ unions, the governor of New Jersey, the mayor of Fort Lee, New Jersey, the Staten Island borough president, and a range of other injured parties. The gist of all the criticism is that the policy will hurt ordinary hardworking New Yorkers.

Although New York’s policy does still have flaws that must be fixed—insufficient exemptions for low-income drivers, for instance—the populist argument against congestion pricing is mostly disingenuous. Only 4 percent of outer-borough New Yorkers drive to Manhattan to work; 57 percent take public transit. And only 2 percent of low-income outer-borough New Yorkers, specifically, would be asked to pay a congestion fee as part of their commute; 61 percent take public transit.

As we’ve seen in France with the “gilet jaune” movement, in which motorists wore yellow vests and blocked highways to protest an unpopular gas tax in 2018, and the more recent farmer protests against the European Union’s effort to limit harmful pesticides, this kind of populist anti-environmental argument resonates when large numbers of ordinary people don’t feel their material needs have been considered by the elites in charge.

Congestion pricing carries precisely this kind of baggage, even though it will improve our lives in many ways. That means the big question politically, the one that will determine congestion pricing’s longevity as a policy, is whether the vast majority of New Yorkers will experience its benefits and how quickly.

We must see the positive results of congestion pricing in our own lives to balance out the rage induced by what behavioral economists call “the pain of paying” (research shows that we are far more bothered about small expenses that we pay frequently and can see, like milk or gas, than about bigger expenses we don’t pay often or that are simply deducted from our paychecks, like our health insurance premiums). Unfortunately, we can’t see or feel reductions in carbon emissions. Clean air is more ambiguous. We do notice pollution. We freak out about bad air quality warnings in the summer. And last year when the smoke from the Canadian wildfires turned New York City’s skies red and smoky, I saw children running out of school buildings to gape at it in terror. Some of us will undoubtedly feel, over time, that our asthma or headaches have improved, or that we are breathing more easily. But it’s possible that for many people, the clean air might be an invisible benefit, the kind that is politically troublesome because it doesn’t reward its architects.

By contrast, New Yorkers have in recent years been complaining about the subway a lot and will notice if it gets better. Public transit is one of the least abstract political issues for New Yorkers, affecting where we can work, whether we can get there in time, and whether we can pick up our kids on time at the end of the day. Ridership has suffered since the pandemic. Sensationally reported crimes on the subway have contributed to anxiety about the system, which New York’s governor has idiotically played into by sending in the National Guard. Less dramatic but perhaps far more frustrating to most people, the service has deteriorated recently, with more delays and disruptions, and even derailments, which are quite scary. The political reception of congestion pricing, then, will be mostly determined by how tangibly it improves our transit system.

Of course, there’s no evading the biggest problem with congestion pricing, which is that people hate being forced to change cherished habits. New York City is a great place to implement this policy, since it’s already a terrible city for motorists, the transit system goes almost everywhere, and many New Yorkers already avoid driving. But those who are attached to their cars will be vocal in their objections. Such gripes will resonate and spread like a contagion if people don’t see the positive effects of congestion pricing right away.

That’s why immediate measures like Assemblyman Mamdani’s “Get Congestion Pricing Right” proposal—making more bus routes free and more frequent, before the revenue from congestion pricing even kicks in—are so crucial. Good environmental policy prods us to change our behavior while making our lives better at the same time. Congestion pricing will do this: It will obligate driving less by forcing cost-benefit analysis of our car trips, while also rewarding us by transforming urban life for the better—not just with cleaner air and better health, but by ensuring that we all waste less of our lives sitting in traffic. But the biggest benefit for most people will be the investments in our transit system, making a safer, more convenient, and joyful experience. If more of us start feeling anything close to the happiness that nurse felt on the Bx18A that day, congestion pricing will be a lasting political success.

Read the full story here.

Photos courtesy of

Related News

Why Home Maintenance Deserves a Spot in the Annual Health and Budget Plans

Experts say home care can affect your health and finances

Many people start the new year thinking about ways to improve their health, be more organized and manage their finances. Experts say there is one area that touches on each of those resolutions — home care.Early and routine home maintenance goes beyond fixing visible damage. It helps ensure a healthy living environment, extends the life of a home and can protect its long-term value, according to real estate professionals. Planning ahead for regular upkeep and for unexpected emergencies can reduce the risk of costly repairs later and help spread expenses more evenly throughout the year.According to research by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, about three-quarters of existing homes are expected to still be in use in 2050.“Maintaining the homes that we have is really essential to protecting our health and our well-being,” said Amanda Reddy, executive director of the National Center for Healthy Housing, an organization that researches and advocates for reducing housing-related health disparities.Despite who owns the property, Reddy says, keeping residences dry, clean, pest-free, well-ventilated and safe is the goal, which can mean different types of maintenance depending on the type of home, where someone lives and the time of year. Here's what experts say about home care and what tasks to put on the checklist this year: Home care includes the big projects and the everyday decisions On average, Americans spend about 90% of their time indoors, 70% of that time inside of a residence, according to the National Human Activity Pattern Survey.“It's not just that we spend time indoors, but at home. If you are older, very young, have health concerns, or work from home, it is likely more than that,” Reddy said, emphasizing the reason why home care is a valuable investment.What many people think of maintenance includes addressing water and gas leaks, pest infestations, cracks and other major repairs, but home builders say not everything needs a professional and can include actions as simple as wiping counters and sweeping floors of food debris, opening windows for better ventilation or clearing out clogged filters and drains.Residents should also consider the needs of those living in the home, commonly used spaces such as kitchens, bathrooms and bedrooms, and typically neglected areas like attics and basements. Reddy says “anywhere we’re spending time” or often ignoring and possibly missing necessary repairs should be prioritized.“At the end of the day, doing any preventative maintenance at all matters more than doing it perfectly or at exactly the right time,” Reddy said. “But timing can make a big difference. A lot of these tasks are seasonal or annual, and you’re not just going to do it one time. Homes are stressed differently by different times of the year, so seasonal maintenance helps us catch problems before they’re made worse by environmental stressors.” Seasonal maintenance to plan for throughout the year When it comes to maintenance, planning and preparing for anticipated and routine changes in the environment can help mitigate natural wear and tear on the exterior of homes and also create healthy conditions inside — where most people shelter from extreme weather events.“What happens outside the house rarely stays outside the house. What’s outside gets inside, what’s inside builds up," Reddy said, adding that fluctuating outdoor conditions put stress on appliances and systems at different times of the year. “For most people, the seasonal rhythm not only makes sense because of those stressors, it also just is more realistic and effective than trying to tackle a long, overwhelming checklist all at once."For example, experts say the best time to prepare for cold and wet climate, storms and other natural disasters is to address concerns before temperatures drop. Similarly, it is recommended that residents address systems in homes that work to reduce the effects of extreme high temperatures, dry and drought conditions and associated risks like wildfires and air quality in the offseason.Professional guidance from home inspectors, builders and real estate agents says spring and summer tasks should focus on preparing for warmer weather. Experts recommend checking air conditioning systems, cleaning dryer vents to prevent fire hazards, testing sprinkler systems, tending to gardens and plants around homes' exterior and inspecting appliances, electrical equipment and plumbing fixtures. Experts also say spring is a good time to clean and do any house projects that involve painting or remodeling since rain is unlikely to cause delays during that time.In the fall and winter months, experts suggest focusing on temperature control and air quality measures as people tend to shelter indoors during incoming colder weather. American Home Inspectors Training guidance says check heating systems, clean air filters, make sure carbon monoxide detectors are working, seal air leaks, prioritize pest control, clean and repair roofs and chimneys, and inspecting drainage options in and around homes.Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Health

Climate

Food

Understanding Childhood Obesity: Causes, Treatments and How to Reduce Stigma

By Shagun Bindlish, MD, FACP, FOMA, DABOM, DACLM HealthDay ReporterTUESDAY, Dec. 30, 2025 (HealthDay News) — While childhood obesity has become...

TUESDAY, Dec. 30, 2025 (HealthDay News) — While childhood obesity has become more common in recent years, this is a condition that is about more than just weight.Childhood obesity reflects our modern environment of ultra-processed foods, digital devices and psychological stressors.To address childhood obesity, clinicians and families must work together to create a more nuanced, compassionate and evidence-based approach to prevention and care.What is childhood obesity?Today’s pediatric obesity epidemic involves both a child’s genetics and their environment. While genetics does play a significant role in the development of obesity in children, environments full of ultra-processed foods, screen-focused forms of recreation, poor sleep and mental stress are powerful contributors.Recent research shows that a mother’s health, how a baby is fed, and even exposure to certain chemicals during pregnancy can affect a child’s future metabolism.Combined with aggressive food marketing and environmental and social barriers to regular physical activity across diverse communities, these factors create a “perfect storm” for early metabolic risk.The power of early screeningThe American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and Obesity Medicine Association (OMA) recommend that screening for obesity begin as early as age 2. In diagnosing obesity in children, clinicians look for the following:Assessing all of these factors can help clinicians intervene before weight-related issues develop. The goal is not to put labels on children. It’s to help them build habits early, fostering healthy eating patterns, physical activity and self-esteem during their early years. Tailoring treatment based on age For children who have not entered puberty, the main goal is to normalize growth: maintain a healthy weight so height can catch up. Success depends on parents modeling healthy habits, setting routines and encouraging activity through play. Teenagers need more independence and support for emotional and social issues. Effective care should assess their sleep, stress and emotional eating, and should also check for bullying, depression, disordered eating and the effects of social media.The importance of guidance from caregiversThe most important factor in treating pediatric obesity is family and/or caregivers.Families and caregivers need guidance on nutrition, physical activity, understanding behavior and providing emotional support. Sustainable change is possible when a family works together. Parent-led steps like cooking meals together, being active as a family and limiting certain foods can make a big difference.Behavioral therapy reframes obesity as a chronic, relapsing condition, not a personal failure. It empowers both children and caregivers to replace shame with skills.Both the Obesity Medicine Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend intensive health behavior and lifestyle treatment (IHBLT), defined as at least 26 hours of structured, family-based counseling delivered over 6-12 months.Higher total contact time is associated with greater and more sustained improvements in BMI and cardiometabolic risk.Possibly one of the most important things clinicians can do is speak to children with obesity (and their parents) without putting the focus on weight. Using terms like “health habits” and “growth pattern” and emphasizing body positivity instead of focusing on “weight talk” can help patients feel more comfortable and committed to their treatment.It is also crucial to train staff to use person-first language (“child with obesity,” not “obese child”) to create a welcoming and weight-inclusive environment. This includes having appropriate seating, using a nonjudgmental tone and building trust with patients.For severe obesity, new options approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have emerged, like liraglutide and semaglutide (GLP-1 receptor agonists).These medications must accompany the changes in lifestyle (nutrition, physical activity and behavioral therapy). They should be prescribed by clinicians trained in pediatric obesity medicine.For teenagers with severe obesity and other related health issues, metabolic bariatric surgery offers a durable solution but requires long-term nutritional and emotional support.Building a healthier future for childrenChildren cannot overcome obesity on their own. Effective prevention requires collaboration from their family, health care providers, schools, policymakers and communities.Policies like healthy school meals, walkable neighborhoods, early nutrition education and restrictions on junk food marketing can reduce pediatric obesity better than clinical care alone.Shagun Bindlish, MD, FACP, FOMA, DABOM, DACLM, is an internist and diabetologist with advanced expertise in obesity and lifestyle medicine. She serves as medical and scientific chair for the American Diabetes Association in Northern California and is the founder of the Golden State Obesity Society. An educator at Touro University California and University at Sea CME, she has trained providers worldwide in metabolic health. She is also a recipient of the prestigious Compassionate Physician of the Year Award by the California Medical Association. Her work focuses on advancing diabetes and obesity care through innovation, education and advocacy.Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Health

Chemicals

Food

Tree Rings May Reveal Hidden Clues About Water History

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterTUESDAY, Dec. 23, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Trees don’t just clean the air, they also keep a quiet record of the...

TUESDAY, Dec. 23, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Trees don’t just clean the air, they also keep a quiet record of the past.New research suggests that tree rings may help scientists uncover missing pieces of environmental history, especially when it comes to water in the midwest. By studying how different tree species respond to wet and dry conditions, researchers say they can better understand how watersheds have changed over time, and how they may change in the future.Watersheds are areas of land that drain water into nearby streams, rivers and lakes. Healthy watersheds help protect drinking water, support wildlife and keep ecosystems balanced, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. But climate change can put a big strain on these systems, especially when historical data is limited.“One human lifespan is not going to show us the big picture,” study leader Alessandra Bertucci, a graduate student at Ohio State University in Columbus, said in a news release."So using trees to address these gaps of understanding is really important for managing water resources, even in intensively managed watersheds," Bertucci added.Trees typically grow a new ring each year and the size and density of those rings can reflect weather conditions such as droughts, floods and long periods of rain. But not all trees record these events the same way. That’s why the research team found that using multiple tree species gives a clearer picture than relying on just one.The study focused on riparian trees, which grow near rivers and streams in the Midwest. Researchers found that many of these trees are especially good at recording past wet and dry periods, making them useful for understanding regional water patterns.The work was recently presented at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in New Orleans.To gather their data, researchers collected tree core samples from areas where long-term watershed records are scarce, including Ohio’s Old Woman Creek State Nature Preserve near Lake Erie. They studied three common tree species and compared ring width and density with recorded climate data.Because much of the Midwest is heavily farmed, accurate water data is critical. Bertucci said limited historical records can lead to poor estimates of past floods or droughts, which may affect decisions about water use and conservation.With the updated tree ring data, the team hopes to build models that can help predict how weather patterns and water flow may change in the coming decades.“If we can round out that historical data and understand what to expect, we can better plan for how to manage our water resources in the future,” Bertucci said.Researchers plan to expand their work by sampling more tree species and studying additional watersheds. The findings could help farmers, water managers and communities make smarter decisions about water conservation.“Water is life,” Bertucci said. “We literally cannot live without it, so it’s important to protect and make sure that we are taking care of it, because that is our lifeline.”Research presented at meetings should be considered preliminary, until published in a peer-reviewed journal.SOURCE: Ohio State University, news release, Dec. 19, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Health

Water

Conservation

How Bay Area cops changed their approach to mental health calls

A mental health clinician with a bullet-proof vest is helping change the way a Bay Area city responds to some of its emergency calls. That’s what CalMatters’ Cayla Mihalovich found when she visited the San Mateo Police Department earlier this month to check out a new approach for mental health calls. The city was one […]

Briana Fair, San Mateo Police Department’s mental health clinician, in San Mateo on Dec. 15, 2025. Photo by Manuel Orbegozo for CalMatters A mental health clinician with a bullet-proof vest is helping change the way a Bay Area city responds to some of its emergency calls. That’s what CalMatters’ Cayla Mihalovich found when she visited the San Mateo Police Department earlier this month to check out a new approach for mental health calls. The city was one of many that searched for a better way to help people in the throes of a mental health crisis. It participated in a 2021 pilot program from San Mateo County that paired law enforcement officers with mental health clinicians in four cities with the aim of freeing up police officers and avoiding unnecessary confrontations. Rather than police officers having to decide whether to arrest a person, send them to a hospital for a hold or leave them to their own devices, a paired clinician was deployed to provide additional measures such as safety planning, follow-up calls and community mental health resources. “I fill in the gaps,” said San Mateo Police Department mental health clinician Briana Fair, who builds relationships with people she calls clients and joins officers on some emergency calls. Known as a “co-responder model,” the pilot appeared to work: Involuntary holds decreased about 17% and it reduced the chances of future mental health calls to 911, according to a new study by Stanford University. By reducing the number of involuntary detentions, researchers also estimated that the cities saved as much as $800,000 a year on health costs. Mariela Ruiz-Angel, director of Alternative Response Initiatives at Georgetown Law’s Center for Innovations in Community Safety: “The idea was never about taking cops out of the equation altogether. The idea was that we don’t have to center them as the main response of 911. We don’t have to make public safety about cops. Public safety is about the appropriate response.” Since the end of the two-year pilot, nearly all of San Mateo County cities have rolled out the co-responder model. Cities that participated in the pilot also found a way to sustain the program, including the police department in the city of San Mateo, which currently employs Fair and another part-time clinician. Read more here. Go behind the scenes of our Prop. 50 voter guide: Our team brought the guide to more readers across the state thanks to newsroom partners. Learn more. Dec. 31 deadline: Your gift will have triple the impact thanks to two matching funds, but the deadline is Dec. 31. Please give now. Other Stories You Should Know Gun suicides in rural California A collection of Jeffrey Butler photographs on a table at his daughter’s home in Douglas City on Dec. 4, 2025. Photo by Salvador Ochoa for CalMatters In rural California — where medical and mental health care can be hard to come by — firearm suicides particularly among older men are rattling communities and families who have been left behind, reports CalMatters’ Ana B. Ibarra. Rural counties in Northern California have some of the country’s highest rates of gun suicides among older adults. In Trinity County, for example, at least eight men 70 and older died from an apparent firearm suicide between 2020 and 2024. Over the course of 15 years, the gun suicide rate of adults in this age group in seven northern counties, including Trinity, was more than triple the statewide rate. In addition to owning more guns, residents in these areas have more limited access to medical and mental health services. When these services are farther away, people often remain in pain for longer because of missed or delayed appointments. In California, more than half of people 70 and over who died by gun suicide had a contributing physical health problem, and over a quarter had a diagnosed mental health condition. Jake Ritter, on the death of his 81-year-old grandfather, Jeffrey Butler, who had health and pain issues and died in Trinity County in 2024 from a self-inflicted gunshot: “I’m sad that he didn’t get the help that he needed, and I’m sad that he felt so strongly that this is the road that he chose.” Read more here. New law to prevent sex abuse at schools Students in a classroom in Sacramento on May 11, 2022. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters By July 2026 all California K-12 schools — including private schools — must have protocols in place to help protect schoolchildren from being sexually abused by educators, as directed by a new state law, writes CalMatters’ Carolyn Jones. The law, which goes into effect Jan. 1, requires schools to enact a number of measures to rein in abuse and hold themselves accountable, including training students, teachers and other school staff to recognize signs of sexual grooming and report misconduct. The law’s most notable provision is the creation of a database that keeps track of teachers credibly accused of abuse. The database will be available to schools so that administrators can use it to vet prospective teachers. The database is intended to curb the practice of schools re-hiring teachers who have resigned from another school after being accused of sexual misconduct. Read more here. And lastly: Power-guzzling data centers An employee works in a Broadcom data center in San Jose on Sept. 5, 2025. Photo by Brittany Hosea-Small, Reuters A recent report finds electricity use and carbon emissions from California data centers nearly doubled in recent years, with water use climbing even more. CalMatters’ Alejandro Lazo and video strategy director Robert Meeks have a video segment on the environmental report as part of our partnership with PBS SoCal. Watch it here. SoCalMatters airs at 5:58 p.m. weekdays on PBS SoCal. California Voices CalMatters contributor Jim Newton: Despite making gains on her promise to reduce Los Angeles’ homelessness population, Mayor Karen Bass battles a difficult perception problem. California’s elected leaders must oppose the Trump administration’s plans to expand oil and gas drilling on the state’s public lands, writes Ashley McClure, East Bay physician and co-founder of Climate Health Now. Reader reaction: CARE Court can produce positive results in some cases, but it should not be treated as an automatic path to LPS conservatorship, writes Tom Scott, executive director of the California State Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians and Public Conservators. Other things worth your time: Some stories may require a subscription to read. State attorneys general sue Trump administration over efforts to shutter CFPB // Politico Why cities spend your tax dollars on lobbyists // The Sacramento Bee CA’s homeless ‘purgatory’ leaves thousands on a waitlist to nowhere // The San Francisco Standard How Trump broke CA’s grip on the auto market // Politico Central Valley surpassed all of CA in job losses this year // The Fresno Bee How private investors stand to profit from billions in LA County sex abuse settlements // Los Angeles Times San Diego just fast-tracked new fire-safety rules for homes // The San Diego Union-Tribune Chronic illness and longing define life in the Tijuana River valley // inewsource

Health

Climate

Water

Faulty Genes Don't Always Lead To Vision Loss, Blindness

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTUESDAY, Dec. 23, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Genetics aren’t necessarily destiny for those with mutations thought...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTUESDAY, Dec. 23, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Genetics aren’t necessarily destiny for those with mutations thought to always cause inherited blindness, a new study says.Fewer than 30% of people with these genetic variants wind up blind, even though the faulty genes had been thought to cause blindness in 100% of those with them, according to findings published Dec. 22 in the American Journal of Human Genetics.The results could shake up a central belief in genetics, that faulty genes always lead to rare inherited disorders. These disorders are called Mendelian diseases, named after the famed genetics researcher Gregor Mendel.“These findings are striking and suggest that the traditional paradigm of Mendelian diseases needs to be updated,” senior researcher Dr. Eric Pierce, director of the Ocular Genomics Institute at Mass Eye and Ear in Boston, said in a news release.The study focused on inherited retinal degenerations (IRDs), a group of genetic diseases that lead to progressive vision loss and eventual blindness. They cause the light-sensing cells along the back wall of the eye to break down and die off.For the study, researchers created a list of 167 variants in 33 genes that have been previously linked to IRDs.The team then screened nearly 318,000 people participating in a National Institutes of Health research program for the presence of those variants, and found 481 with IRD-causing genetics.However, only 28% of those people had suffered any form of retinal disease or vision loss, and just 9% had a formal IRD diagnosis, results showed.The team double-checked their work by using data on about 100,000 participants in another large-scale study, the UK Biobank.Again, only 16% to 28% of people with IRD-linked genetics had suffered definite or possible signs of vision loss or retinal damage, researchers said.The results suggest that something else is happening alongside a person’s genetic risk to make them wind up with IRD, including environmental factors or other faulty genes, researchers said.“We think these findings are important for understanding IRDs and other inherited diseases,” researcher Dr. Elizabeth Rossin, an investigator at Mass Eye and Ear, said in a news release.“We look forward to finding modifiers of disease and using that new knowledge to improve care for patients with IRDs and potentially other inherited eye disorders,” Rossin said.Future studies will examine other Mendelian disorders, and look for other genetic and environmental factors that could cause these diseases.“The large number of individuals that do not develop an IRD despite having a compatible genotype provide an opportunity to design well-powered research studies to discover disease modifiers, which could spur development of novel therapies,” lead researcher Dr. Kirill Zaslavsky said in a news release. Zaslavsky performed this research during an Inherited Retinal Disorders fellowship at Mass Eye and Ear.SOURCE: Mass General Brigham, news release, Dec. 22, 2025What This Means For YouPeople with genetics linked to vision loss and blindness might be able to ward off these problems, if researchers figure out what’s behind the diseases.Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Health

Suggested Viewing

The Connection Between Bats and Coronavirus: Wildlife is not to blame

What exactly is the connection between bats and coronavirus? And how has sheltering-in-place disrupted field research in California and beyond? State and local governments have set restrictions on bat research and rescue in an effort to curtail the spread of the coronavirus. Dr. Winifred Frick, chief scientist of Bat Conservation International, describes how the new restrictions have affected conservation efforts.

Animals

Science

Health

Riding Bikes with the Dutch

Michael Bauch, a Long Beach resident and independent filmmaker, noticed that many of his local errands involved short rides which were less than three miles. In the summer of 2007 he and his family went to Amsterdam, to document the biking and walking culture that is so natural to the Dutch people. The film suggests that we in the U.S. re-examine our view of bicycles.

Transportation

Culture

Health

Unacceptable Risk: Dr. Margaret Kripke on Cancer and the Environment

Unacceptable Risk tells the story of a prominent cancer researcher who rethinks her assumptions about the causes of cancer and the true burden of environmentally-induced cancers.

Chemicals

Science

Health

The Rulindo Challenge

In May 2010, Rulindo, Rwanda launched an ambitious plan to bring access to water and sanitation services to the entire district population. This film explores the story, challenges and ultimate success for reaching over 330,000 people with safe water in the rural and mountainous Rulindo District, and how this project is inspiring sustainable water (infrastructure and sanitation) models around the world.

Sustainable

Business

Health