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.

To Play or Not to Play With Your Kid?

News Feed
Thursday, September 5, 2024

The first time that Megan Roth, an urban planner in Calgary, Canada, Googled independent play, her daughter had just received a number of toys for her second birthday. None engaged her for long. The toddler preferred doing household tasks with her parents: refilling the bird feeder, replacing batteries in the smoke detector. Roth thought it was cute at first, but then she started hearing that her daughter should be able to play without much, if any, adult input. Family members commented on what they saw as her daughter’s short attention span. In parenting forums and on social-media accounts, tips for encouraging solitary play were as abundant as beads in a craft kit. “It caused me a lot of worry,” Roth told me, “and anxiety that I had ruined her somehow.”The phrase independent play, popularized by the parenting educator Janet Lansbury, was almost unheard-of 15 years ago. Today, it is Googled more often than baby-led weaning or free-range parenting. Toy brands such as Lovevery, Melissa & Doug, and Hape market their products’ ability to encourage children’s autonomy. And then there’s social media. The parenting influencer Jerrica Sannes, for instance, has written that to ensure children’s cognitive and psychological development, parents “have to set aside a minimum of 5 hours per day for independent, unstructured, adult-free, sensory-rich, risky, creative PLAY particularly throughout the early stages of brain development,” and that playing with young children “actually often undermines” connection.For some parents, the idea that it’s good for children to play on their own can offer relief: How reassuring to hear that, far from being neglectful because we don’t love playing princesses, we might be better off refraining. Yet for other parents, the advice has become just one more thing to fret about; they wonder if they’re playing with their children too much. Veronica Lopes, a mother in Toronto, told me that she recently created a “parking lot” made of tape and cardboard rolls for her 2-year-old. They used it to play cars together. But “I’ve started to doubt myself,” she said. “The more I’m hearing people talk about this, the more I’m like … Am I not doing this right?”[Read: Why don’t we teach people how to parent?]You can hear this concern echoed on a podcast hosted by Lansbury. In one episode, she problem-solves for a mom whose 14-week-old infant will lie on the floor to play alone for only “20 minutes, tops,” before crying. In another, a mother says that although her eight-month-old is happy to play independently for “long periods,” he loses it when she leaves the room. “Is he developmentally ready to be left alone for a little bit? Absolutely,” Lansbury responds. “It’s much easier for him and for us to get comfortable with this the earlier we start.”Over the past few years, while reporting on parenting issues, I’ve spoken with dozens of child psychologists and researchers who have left me with the impression that few aspects of parenting are black-and-white except, perhaps, for one: Responding to children in a way that is sensitive, prompt, and attuned to their stage of development is crucial to raising healthy, happy children. So look at the recent discourse on independent play and it’s easy to see why some parents are confused. For one, it seems full of contradictions: Independent play means without parents, but also with parents; it’s natural, but it has to be taught from an early age; we should trust children’s instincts in play, but not when their instincts lead them to seek our involvement. In an interview, Sannes told me, “When I say ‘independent play,’ what I mean is unstructured, free play … It’s really just letting go of control of children’s time.” I also spoke with Lansbury, who said that encouraging independent play is never about “forcing” a behavior. “Nothing I teach is about ‘getting’ a child to do anything,” she said. “It’s about getting ourselves out of the way.” (After our conversation, she emphasized this point in a new blog post on independent-play “myths.” No.1, she wrote: “Independent play means leaving children alone.”)Yet some parents seem to be absorbing the message—especially from social media, the great flattener of nuanced communications—that in playing with their kids, they might be doing them a disservice, and that all children, regardless of age, temperament, or ability, should be capable of initiating and sustaining play for long periods. I asked Roberta Golinkoff, a developmental psychologist and the founder of the Child’s Play, Learning, and Development Lab at the University of Delaware, if she has come across any research supporting such interpretations. “I’ve been in this business a long time,” she said—50 years. “I have not seen anything about that.” The developmental psychologist Catherine Tamis-LeMonda, who leads NYU’s Play and Language Lab, also put it to me bluntly: “It’s entirely wrong, according to science.”The scientific literature rarely refers to “independent play.” Studies instead focus on “unstructured” or “free” play, which is child-led with no predetermined goal—and has been shown to have numerous benefits. Studies have found, for example, that children who participate in more unstructured play are likely to have better emotional self-regulation, executive functioning, and academic performance later in life.Notably, free play doesn’t mean that adults have to remain uninvolved. (One study co-authored by Golinkoff listed participating in “Mommy & Me classes”—presumably with Mommy—as “free, unstructured play.”) In fact, research has shown that the younger the child, the more support they need. Sandra Russ, a clinical child psychologist at Case Western Reserve University, told me this was especially true of pretend play. “Many young kids need a little help,” she said. “Scaffolding is important.” Russ has found that if a parent “models” a bit—pretending a red Lego is a fire engine, say—the child is more likely to pursue the play and pretend on their own. Older neurodivergent children can also need scaffolding, she said. “They have trouble making up a story. They have trouble seeing that a Lego can be many different things.”[Read: The one big thing you can do for your kids]And an abundance of research indicates that children benefit from playing with their parents. One review of multiple studies suggested that when fathers play with their kids, the children can develop better cognitive, social, and emotional skills. Parents acting playfully has been linked with various advantages, such as improved emotion regulation, in their children. And a 2018 report from the American Academy of Pediatrics noted that parent-child play can help reduce “toxic stress” to “levels that are more compatible with coping and resilience.”Play with an adult also seems to keep children, including babies, more engaged. One study compared the attention spans of 12-month-olds when they played alone versus with a parent and found that many of the babies looked at objects longer, and were more attentive, when playing with a parent. Children also tend to be happier playing on their own if an adult plays with them first, Tamis-LeMonda told me. “Thinking that By participating, my child will be less inclined to be independent is wrong,” she said.What’s more, researchers have found risks when adults don’t actively engage with children who are trying to connect. The University of Calgary child psychologist Sheri Madigan conducted a meta-analysis this year adding to a mountain of research suggesting that responding quickly and appropriately to young children’s “signals of need and/or interest” has long-term benefits. It’s fine to put a happy baby down to play, Madigan told me. But “when that child is ever distressed, you want to be in that space with them immediately”—and respond in a way that they understand. For a preverbal child, that usually means picking them up.I asked Madigan about advice I’d heard Lansbury give on her podcast about not “saving” a crying baby right away: (“Immediately respond, but verbally,” Lansbury says. Otherwise “the baby gets the message … that they needed to be rescued.”) Madigan told me that this “may foster independent play, but it won’t foster a secure-attachment relationship”—the kind in which children believe that their caregiver will be there to keep them safe, and which has been shown to correlate with positive developmental outcomes, including better mental health. She added that even children who seem to excel at playing autonomously might be aching inwardly. In such children, she has found higher cortisol levels, indicating stress. “So while they’re engaging in independent play,” she said, “biologically, they’re struggling.”One proponent of kids having more adult-free playtime is the anthropologist David Lancy, whose book Learning Without Lessons: Pedagogy in Indigenous Communities examines how children learn and play in small, preindustrial societies. Lancy told me that in the cultures he has studied, it’s seen as strange, even laughable, for adults to play with children. But his findings come with a caveat: Although hunter-gatherer societies rarely feature adult-child play, this doesn’t mean that children are left to play alone, or that anyone wants them to. In close-knit communities, the child still plays in multiage groups; the ideal is for them to seek out play with peers and other caregivers, such as older siblings. “There is solo play,” Lancy said. “But it’s not desirable.”The challenge in societies built around the nuclear family, as in the United States, is that children might have fewer playmates close to home—turning parents into a default. But in the U.S., there’s little evidence to show that parents spend too much time playing with their kids. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, parents play with their children ages 6 and younger an average of 37 minutes a day. And the play-based approach taken by many day cares and preschools, combined with those centers’ high child-to-caregiver ratios, means that young children being cared for outside the home are probably already learning to entertain themselves some of the time.Researchers note, too, that children play when we don’t realize it. Banging a spoon during lunch? Play. Mouthing a shoe? Play. Helping to replace batteries? Also play. “They will explore and discover on their own those times you’re not there,” Tamis-LeMonda said. “And they’ll explore and discover when you are there. Participating does not mean your child will now not discover.”Few experts would argue that children shouldn’t get more time for autonomous play, especially outdoors. But as Lancy and others have noted, the diminishment of this kind of play often stems from external factors: crime, street traffic, increasing schoolwork. If we want children to play more without adult involvement, we might be better off focusing on goals such as preserving urban green space, reducing homework, and protecting recess—all of which play researchers tend to advocate for.[Read: What adults lost when kids stopped playing in the street]The anxiety among parents over how to best “teach” independent play points to another problem. It suggests a belief—despite what we know about how genetic, environmental, socioeconomic, and other factors can shape behavior—that our children’s personalities are as pliable as Play-Doh, and that any lumpy bits are indications that we have only ourselves, the sculptors, to blame. The fact that adults’ quest for perfectionism seeps into play, which every person I spoke with agreed should be the easy, joyful part of parenting, feels particularly sad. “Moms,” Golinkoff said, “have enough to worry about.”In one of her blog posts on fostering independent play, Lansbury used the example of a baby rolling a ball. “Don’t roll the ball back,” she advised. Instead, “just quietly watch, or offer a simple reflection like, ‘you pushed that ball and it rolled away.’” Reading it, I was reminded of one of my most savored memories from my daughter’s infancy: the time she first tossed a ball to me. I’ve always been semi-allergic to games of catch. But I didn’t hesitate before throwing the ball back. For 10 minutes, we continued, her peals of laughter piercing every round. I’m glad I didn’t tarnish the moment by questioning my instinct. I’m grateful I threw the ball.​​When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

It shouldn’t be this hard to decide.

The first time that Megan Roth, an urban planner in Calgary, Canada, Googled independent play, her daughter had just received a number of toys for her second birthday. None engaged her for long. The toddler preferred doing household tasks with her parents: refilling the bird feeder, replacing batteries in the smoke detector. Roth thought it was cute at first, but then she started hearing that her daughter should be able to play without much, if any, adult input. Family members commented on what they saw as her daughter’s short attention span. In parenting forums and on social-media accounts, tips for encouraging solitary play were as abundant as beads in a craft kit. “It caused me a lot of worry,” Roth told me, “and anxiety that I had ruined her somehow.”

The phrase independent play, popularized by the parenting educator Janet Lansbury, was almost unheard-of 15 years ago. Today, it is Googled more often than baby-led weaning or free-range parenting. Toy brands such as Lovevery, Melissa & Doug, and Hape market their products’ ability to encourage children’s autonomy. And then there’s social media. The parenting influencer Jerrica Sannes, for instance, has written that to ensure children’s cognitive and psychological development, parents “have to set aside a minimum of 5 hours per day for independent, unstructured, adult-free, sensory-rich, risky, creative PLAY particularly throughout the early stages of brain development,” and that playing with young children “actually often undermines” connection.

For some parents, the idea that it’s good for children to play on their own can offer relief: How reassuring to hear that, far from being neglectful because we don’t love playing princesses, we might be better off refraining. Yet for other parents, the advice has become just one more thing to fret about; they wonder if they’re playing with their children too much. Veronica Lopes, a mother in Toronto, told me that she recently created a “parking lot” made of tape and cardboard rolls for her 2-year-old. They used it to play cars together. But “I’ve started to doubt myself,” she said. “The more I’m hearing people talk about this, the more I’m like … Am I not doing this right?

[Read: Why don’t we teach people how to parent?]

You can hear this concern echoed on a podcast hosted by Lansbury. In one episode, she problem-solves for a mom whose 14-week-old infant will lie on the floor to play alone for only “20 minutes, tops,” before crying. In another, a mother says that although her eight-month-old is happy to play independently for “long periods,” he loses it when she leaves the room. “Is he developmentally ready to be left alone for a little bit? Absolutely,” Lansbury responds. “It’s much easier for him and for us to get comfortable with this the earlier we start.”

Over the past few years, while reporting on parenting issues, I’ve spoken with dozens of child psychologists and researchers who have left me with the impression that few aspects of parenting are black-and-white except, perhaps, for one: Responding to children in a way that is sensitive, prompt, and attuned to their stage of development is crucial to raising healthy, happy children. So look at the recent discourse on independent play and it’s easy to see why some parents are confused. For one, it seems full of contradictions: Independent play means without parents, but also with parents; it’s natural, but it has to be taught from an early age; we should trust children’s instincts in play, but not when their instincts lead them to seek our involvement. In an interview, Sannes told me, “When I say ‘independent play,’ what I mean is unstructured, free play … It’s really just letting go of control of children’s time.” I also spoke with Lansbury, who said that encouraging independent play is never about “forcing” a behavior. “Nothing I teach is about ‘getting’ a child to do anything,” she said. “It’s about getting ourselves out of the way.” (After our conversation, she emphasized this point in a new blog post on independent-play “myths.” No.1, she wrote: “Independent play means leaving children alone.”)

Yet some parents seem to be absorbing the message—especially from social media, the great flattener of nuanced communications—that in playing with their kids, they might be doing them a disservice, and that all children, regardless of age, temperament, or ability, should be capable of initiating and sustaining play for long periods. I asked Roberta Golinkoff, a developmental psychologist and the founder of the Child’s Play, Learning, and Development Lab at the University of Delaware, if she has come across any research supporting such interpretations. “I’ve been in this business a long time,” she said—50 years. “I have not seen anything about that.” The developmental psychologist Catherine Tamis-LeMonda, who leads NYU’s Play and Language Lab, also put it to me bluntly: “It’s entirely wrong, according to science.”

The scientific literature rarely refers to “independent play.” Studies instead focus on “unstructured” or “free” play, which is child-led with no predetermined goal—and has been shown to have numerous benefits. Studies have found, for example, that children who participate in more unstructured play are likely to have better emotional self-regulation, executive functioning, and academic performance later in life.

Notably, free play doesn’t mean that adults have to remain uninvolved. (One study co-authored by Golinkoff listed participating in “Mommy & Me classes”—presumably with Mommy—as “free, unstructured play.”) In fact, research has shown that the younger the child, the more support they need. Sandra Russ, a clinical child psychologist at Case Western Reserve University, told me this was especially true of pretend play. “Many young kids need a little help,” she said. “Scaffolding is important.” Russ has found that if a parent “models” a bit—pretending a red Lego is a fire engine, say—the child is more likely to pursue the play and pretend on their own. Older neurodivergent children can also need scaffolding, she said. “They have trouble making up a story. They have trouble seeing that a Lego can be many different things.”

[Read: The one big thing you can do for your kids]

And an abundance of research indicates that children benefit from playing with their parents. One review of multiple studies suggested that when fathers play with their kids, the children can develop better cognitive, social, and emotional skills. Parents acting playfully has been linked with various advantages, such as improved emotion regulation, in their children. And a 2018 report from the American Academy of Pediatrics noted that parent-child play can help reduce “toxic stress” to “levels that are more compatible with coping and resilience.”

Play with an adult also seems to keep children, including babies, more engaged. One study compared the attention spans of 12-month-olds when they played alone versus with a parent and found that many of the babies looked at objects longer, and were more attentive, when playing with a parent. Children also tend to be happier playing on their own if an adult plays with them first, Tamis-LeMonda told me. “Thinking that By participating, my child will be less inclined to be independent is wrong,” she said.

What’s more, researchers have found risks when adults don’t actively engage with children who are trying to connect. The University of Calgary child psychologist Sheri Madigan conducted a meta-analysis this year adding to a mountain of research suggesting that responding quickly and appropriately to young children’s “signals of need and/or interest” has long-term benefits. It’s fine to put a happy baby down to play, Madigan told me. But “when that child is ever distressed, you want to be in that space with them immediately”—and respond in a way that they understand. For a preverbal child, that usually means picking them up.

I asked Madigan about advice I’d heard Lansbury give on her podcast about not “saving” a crying baby right away: (“Immediately respond, but verbally,” Lansbury says. Otherwise “the baby gets the message … that they needed to be rescued.”) Madigan told me that this “may foster independent play, but it won’t foster a secure-attachment relationship”—the kind in which children believe that their caregiver will be there to keep them safe, and which has been shown to correlate with positive developmental outcomes, including better mental health. She added that even children who seem to excel at playing autonomously might be aching inwardly. In such children, she has found higher cortisol levels, indicating stress. “So while they’re engaging in independent play,” she said, “biologically, they’re struggling.”

One proponent of kids having more adult-free playtime is the anthropologist David Lancy, whose book Learning Without Lessons: Pedagogy in Indigenous Communities examines how children learn and play in small, preindustrial societies. Lancy told me that in the cultures he has studied, it’s seen as strange, even laughable, for adults to play with children. But his findings come with a caveat: Although hunter-gatherer societies rarely feature adult-child play, this doesn’t mean that children are left to play alone, or that anyone wants them to. In close-knit communities, the child still plays in multiage groups; the ideal is for them to seek out play with peers and other caregivers, such as older siblings. “There is solo play,” Lancy said. “But it’s not desirable.”

The challenge in societies built around the nuclear family, as in the United States, is that children might have fewer playmates close to home—turning parents into a default. But in the U.S., there’s little evidence to show that parents spend too much time playing with their kids. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, parents play with their children ages 6 and younger an average of 37 minutes a day. And the play-based approach taken by many day cares and preschools, combined with those centers’ high child-to-caregiver ratios, means that young children being cared for outside the home are probably already learning to entertain themselves some of the time.

Researchers note, too, that children play when we don’t realize it. Banging a spoon during lunch? Play. Mouthing a shoe? Play. Helping to replace batteries? Also play. “They will explore and discover on their own those times you’re not there,” Tamis-LeMonda said. “And they’ll explore and discover when you are there. Participating does not mean your child will now not discover.”

Few experts would argue that children shouldn’t get more time for autonomous play, especially outdoors. But as Lancy and others have noted, the diminishment of this kind of play often stems from external factors: crime, street traffic, increasing schoolwork. If we want children to play more without adult involvement, we might be better off focusing on goals such as preserving urban green space, reducing homework, and protecting recess—all of which play researchers tend to advocate for.

[Read: What adults lost when kids stopped playing in the street]

The anxiety among parents over how to best “teach” independent play points to another problem. It suggests a belief—despite what we know about how genetic, environmental, socioeconomic, and other factors can shape behavior—that our children’s personalities are as pliable as Play-Doh, and that any lumpy bits are indications that we have only ourselves, the sculptors, to blame. The fact that adults’ quest for perfectionism seeps into play, which every person I spoke with agreed should be the easy, joyful part of parenting, feels particularly sad. “Moms,” Golinkoff said, “have enough to worry about.”

In one of her blog posts on fostering independent play, Lansbury used the example of a baby rolling a ball. “Don’t roll the ball back,” she advised. Instead, “just quietly watch, or offer a simple reflection like, ‘you pushed that ball and it rolled away.’” Reading it, I was reminded of one of my most savored memories from my daughter’s infancy: the time she first tossed a ball to me. I’ve always been semi-allergic to games of catch. But I didn’t hesitate before throwing the ball back. For 10 minutes, we continued, her peals of laughter piercing every round. I’m glad I didn’t tarnish the moment by questioning my instinct. I’m grateful I threw the ball.


​​When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

1803 Fund unveils renderings of $70 million investment for Portland’s Black community

Initial site work, including permitting, is expected to take roughly two years, with construction scheduled to take another two years after that.

The 1803 Fund, an organization working to advance Portland’s Black community, unveiled new renderings Tuesday for a combined ten acres it purchased on the banks of the Willamette River near the Moda Center and in the lower Albina neighborhood.The organization, formed in 2023 with a $400 million pledge from Nike co-founder Phil Knight and wife Penny Knight, said last month it was spending $70 million on several Eastside properties. It said the redevelopment of those sites would have a tenfold economic impact via the hundreds of local jobs it expects to generate. The total projected outlay for the redevelopment remains unclear.Project leaders say they expect initial site work for what they’re calling Rebuild Albina, including permitting, to take roughly two years, with construction scheduled to take another two years after that.At a Tuesday press conference, organization leaders detailed plans for two sites: a set of grain silos on three acres formerly owned by the Louis Dreyfus Co. and now called Albina Riverside; and a seven-acre property in the lower Albina neighborhood south of the Fremont Bridge and west of Interstate 5, in a district once known as The Low End.“We intend to give that name back to the community,” Rukaiyah Adams, chief executive of the 1803 Fund, said Tuesday of The Low End district, as a carousel of renderings flashed on a wide screen behind her.The group has said it wants to see those seven acres become a neighborhood gateway that connects the Black community to downtown. The Low End is slated to become a mixed-use neighborhood with housing and public spaces with art, businesses, culture and community initiatives, according to a factsheet provided by the 1803 Fund, while plans for Albina Riverside are still in the works. Still, the Albina Riverside renderings show a reuse of the grain silos, a basketball court and what appear to be community-access steps down to the waterfront.Properties in The Low End require environmental cleanup, which project officials say they are coordinating with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. It’s not clear at this point what environmental remediation the Albina Riverside site may need, officials said.On Tuesday, project leaders said $30 million went toward properties in The Low End, while they spent $5 million on Albina Riverside. Another $35 million in Albina-area property investments are forthcoming, according to the factsheet.Mayor Keith Wilson and City Council member Loretta Smith took turns at the lectern heaping praise on Adams for her leadership of the fund.Wilson said he was committed to supporting the 1803 Fund’s “transformational projects” as the redevelopment of Albina bolsters Portland’s broader renaissance. “I keep wanting to cry every time I look at you, Rukaiyah,” the mayor said. “It’s personal for me, and I know it is for you, as well.”Smith told attendees that whenever she travels to another city, there’s a district called The Low End where members of the Black community live and gather.“It had a stigma to it, and it does have a stigma to it,” Smith said. “Now you’re taking that stigma away and saying, come on down to Albina to The Low End. It’s a cool thing to do. So thank you very much for giving us back that history and that culture.”Retaking the stage, Adams said part of what prompted the purchase of the grain silo was stories she heard years ago from former state Sen. Avel Gordly – the first Black woman sworn into the Oregon Senate – of Black men who used to work and died in the silos.Gordly implored Adams to take more of a leadership role in helping to clean up the Willamette, Adams said. “The connection of Black folks who migrated here from watersheds in the Jim Crow South to that Willamette River watershed is deep and spiritual,” Adams said. “My family left the Red River watershed in Louisiana to come to the Willamette River watershed here. “Our stories are often told as the movement between cities, but we are a people deeply connected to the water,” she said. “We wade in the water.”--Matthew Kish contributed to this article.

Colorado mandates ambitious emissions cuts for its gas utilities

Colorado just set a major new climate goal for the companies that supply homes and businesses with fossil gas. By 2035, investor-owned gas utilities must cut carbon pollution by 41% from 2015 levels, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission decided in a 2–1 vote in mid-November. The target — which builds on goals…

Colorado just set a major new climate goal for the companies that supply homes and businesses with fossil gas. By 2035, investor-owned gas utilities must cut carbon pollution by 41% from 2015 levels, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission decided in a 2–1 vote in mid-November. The target — which builds on goals already set for 2025 and 2030 — is far more consistent with the state’s aim to decarbonize by 2050 than the other proposals considered. Commissioners rejected the tepid 22% to 30% cut that utilities asked for and the 31% target that state agencies recommended. Climate advocates hailed the decision as a victory for managing a transition away from burning fossil gas in Colorado buildings. “It’s a really huge deal,” said Jim Dennison, staff attorney at the Sierra Club, one of more than 20 environmental groups that advocated for an ambitious target. ​“It’s one of the strongest commitments to tangible progress that’s been made anywhere in the country.” In 2021, Colorado passed a first-in-the-nation law requiring gas utilities to find ways to deliver heat sans the emissions. That could entail swapping gas for alternative fuels, like methane from manure or hydrogen made with renewable power. But last year the utilities commission found that the most cost-effective approaches are weatherizing buildings and outfitting them with all-electric, ultraefficient appliances such as heat pumps. These double-duty devices keep homes toasty in winter and cool in summer. The clean-heat law pushes utilities to cut emissions by 4% from 2015 levels by 2025 and then 22% by 2030. But Colorado leaves exact targets for future years up to the Public Utilities Commission. Last month’s decision on the 2035 standard marks the first time that regulators have taken up that task. Gas is still a fixture in the Centennial State. About seven out of 10 Colorado households burn the fossil fuel as their primary source for heating, which accounts for about 31% of the state’s gas use. If gas utilities hit the new 2035 mandate, they’ll avoid an estimated 45.5 million metric tons of greenhouse gases over the next decade, according to an analysis by the Colorado Energy Office and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. They’d also prevent the release of hundreds more tons of nitrogen oxides and ultrafine particulates that cause respiratory and cardiovascular problems, from asthma to heart attacks. State officials predicted this would mean 58 averted premature deaths between now and 2035, nearly $1 billion in economic benefits, and $5.1 billion in avoided costs of climate change. “I think in the next five to 10 years, people will be thinking about burning fossil fuels in their home the way they now think about lead paint,” said former state Rep. Tracey Bernett, a Democrat who was the prime sponsor of the clean-heat law. Competing clean-heat targets Back in August, during proceedings to decide the 2035 target, gas utilities encouraged regulators to aim low. Citing concerns about market uptake of heat pumps and potential costs to customers, they asked for a goal as modest as 22% by 2035 — a target that wouldn’t require any progress at all in the five years after 2030. Climate advocates argued that such a weak goal would cause the state to fall short on its climate commitments. Nonprofits the Sierra Club, the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, and the Western Resource Advocates submitted a technical analysis that determined the emissions reductions the gas utilities would need to hit to align with the state’s 2050 net-zero goal: 55% by 2035, 74% by 2040, 93% by 2045, and, finally, 100% by 2050. History suggests these reductions are feasible, advocates asserted.

The rewriting of Australia’s nature laws come as a relief, yet I can’t help feel a sense of foreboding | Georgina Woods

The minister says quick approvals can happen while protecting the environment, but my experience tells me that haste brings unintended consequencesGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastI got a text from a biodiversity advocate around midday on Thursday asking me: are you glad, or sad?I wasn’t sure how to reply. Continue reading...

I got a text from a biodiversity advocate around midday on Thursday asking me: are you glad, or sad?I wasn’t sure how to reply.The Australian parliament is amending the country’s environment laws. Thanks to negotiating by the Greens, the amended laws will not enable the fast-tracking of coal and gas mining, which the government had proposed. Decisions about coal and gas mines that harm water resources will be retained by the commonwealth and not given over wholly to state governments as the government had proposed. That is an enormous relief.And yet, I am filled with foreboding.The bill introduced into parliament only a few weeks ago proposed to take the country backwards in environmental protection. It sought to strip communities of participation in environmental decisions, hand decision-making about environmental harm to the states and territories and give the environment minister sweeping power to tailor environmental regulations for certain developments, companies or industries.The government made it clear from the outset that the convenience of business, the desire for “quick yesses” that could harm the natural environment, was its chief priority. It has been made clear that the government intends to grant fast-tracked approval to renewable energy developments and minerals mines. There is excited talk about “abundance” – which is code for sweeping forests, wetlands, woodlands and local communities out of the path of business, mining and development.The minister is adamant this can be done while protecting the environment, but my 25 years of experience with environmental regulation tell me that haste brings unintended consequences. It makes communities angry. It leads to losses of our beautiful natural heritage that are mourned for generations. It impoverishes us by eroding the natural ecosystems that actually create the “abundance” that makes our society.Sign up: AU Breaking News emailThere is no abundance without reciprocity and we will learn this, to our sorrow, in the years to come if we continue treating the natural world as a magic pudding that can be cut and cut and cut and will come again.Coal and gas mining will not be fast-tracked and for that I am very glad. But the government ruled out embedding any formal consideration of the impacts of greenhouse gas pollution, the effect of climate change on Australia’s natural heritage, into decision-making. Only a few months ago, Australia’s first national climate risk assessment itemised a devastating prognosis for Australia’s marine, freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems across the continent if global warming exceeds the limits set down in the Paris climate agreement. It spoke of ecosystems collapsing and whole species dying out. The only way to prevent that warming is to stop the pollution that comes from burning coal, gas and oil for energy, and quickly. Indeed, an International Court of Justice advisory opinion has affirmed that all countries have a legal obligation to prevent climate harm and protect the climate system. For Australia, that means preventing the pollution from our energy exports.The greenhouse gas emissions from Australia’s energy exports, and the impact that this pollution is having on Australians, is not going to go away because the minister refuses to think about it, or because the prime minister is too squeamish to talk about it. The consequences will plague our descendents for generations to come, long after this generation of politicians are gone, but there will be more immediate demands from communities suffering the effects of climate change that will become increasingly impossible to ignore.

Mind, hand, and harvest

A volunteer-driven pilot program brings low-cost organic produce to the MIT community.

On a sunny, warm Sunday MIT students, staff, and faculty spread out across the fields of Hannan Healthy Foods in Lincoln, Massachusetts. Some of these volunteers pluck tomatoes from their vines in a patch a few hundred feet from the cars whizzing by on Route 117. Others squat in the shade cast by the greenhouse to snip chives. Still others slice heads of Napa cabbage from their roots in a bed nearer the woods. Everything being harvested today will wind up in Harvest Boxes, which will be sold at a pop-up farm stand the next day in the lobby of the Stata Center back on the MIT campus.This initiative — a pilot collaboration between MIT’s Office of Sustainability (MITOS), the MIT Anthropology Section, Hannan Healthy Foods, and the nascent MIT Farm student organization — sold six-pound boxes of fresh, organic produce to the MIT community for $10 per box — half off the typical wholesale price. The weekly farm stands ran from Sept. 15 through Oct. 27.“There is a documented need for accessible, affordable, fresh food on college campuses,” says Heather Paxson, William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of Anthropology and one of the organizers of the program. “The problems for a small farmer in finding a sufficient market … are connected to the challenges of food insecurity in even wealthy areas. And so, it really is about connecting those dots.”Through the six weeks of the project, farm stand shoppers purchased more than 2,000 pounds of fresh produce that they wouldn’t otherwise have had access to. Hannan, Paxson, and the team hope that this year’s pilot was successful enough to continue into future growing seasons, either in this farm stand form or as something else that can equally serve the campus community.“This year we decided to pour our heart, soul, and resources into this vision and prove what’s possible,” says Susy Jones, senior sustainability project manager at MITOS. “How can we do it in a way that is robust and goes through the official MIT channels, and yet pushes the boundaries of what’s possible at MIT?”A growing ideaMohammed Hannan, founder of Hannan Healthy Foods, first met Paxson and Jones in 2022. Jones was looking for someone local who grew vegetables common in Asian cuisine in response to a student request. Paxson wanted a small farm to host a field trip for her subject 21A.155 (Food, Culture and Politics). In July, Paxson and Jones learned about an article in the Boston Globe featuring Hannan as an example of a small farmer hit hard by federal budget cuts.They knew right away they wanted to help. They pulled in Zachary Rapaport and Aleks Banas, architecture master’s students and the co-founders of MIT Farm, an organization dedicated to getting the MIT community off campus and onto local farms. This MIT contingent connected with Hannan to come up with a plan.“These projects — when they flow, they flow,” says Jones. “There was so much common ground and excitement that we were all willing to jump on calls at 7 p.m. many nights to figure it out.”After a series of rapid-fire brainstorming sessions, the group decided to host weekly volunteer sessions at Hannan’s farm during the autumn growing season and sell the harvest at a farm stand on campus.“It fits in seamlessly with the MIT motto, ‘mind and hand,’ ‘mens et manus,’ learning by doing, as well as the heart, which has been added unofficially — mind, hand, heart,” says Paxson.Jones tapped into the MITOS network for financial, operational, student, and city partners. Rapaport and Banas put out calls for volunteers. Paxson incorporated a volunteer trip into her syllabus and allocated discretionary project funding to subsidize the cost of the produce, allowing the food to be sold at 50 percent of the wholesale price that Hannan was paid for it.“The fact that MIT students, faculty, and staff could come out to the farm, and that our harvest would circulate back to campus and into the broader community — there’s an energy around it that’s very different from academics. It feels essential to be part of something so tangible,” says Rapaport.The volunteer sessions proved to be popular. Throughout the pilot, about 75 students and half a dozen faculty and staff trekked out to Lincoln from MIT’s Cambridge, Massachusetts, campus at least once to clear fields and harvest vegetables. Hannan hopes the experience will change the way they think about their food.“Harvesting the produce, knowing the operation, knowing how hard it is, it’ll stick in their brain,” he says.On that September Sunday, second-year electrical engineering and computer science major Abrianna Zhang had come out with a friend after seeing a notification on the dormspam email lists. Zhang grew up in a California suburb big on supporting local farmers, but volunteering showed her a different side of the job.“There’s a lot of work that goes into raising all these crops and then getting all this manual labor,” says Zhang. “It makes me think about the economy of things. How is this even possible … for us to gain access to organic fruits or produce at a reasonable price?”Setting up shopSince mid-September, Monday has been Farm Stand day at MIT. Tables covered in green gingham tablecloths strike through the Stata Center lobby, holding stacks of cardboard boxes filled with produce. Customers wait in line to claim their piece of the fresh harvest — carrots, potatoes, onions, tomatoes, herbs, and various greens.Many of these students typically head to off-campus grocery stores to get their fresh produce. Katie Stabb, a sophomore civil and environmental engineering major and self-proclaimed “crazy plant lady,” grows her own food in the summer, but travels far from campus to shop for her vegetables during the school year. Having this stand right at MIT gives her time back, and she’s been spreading the news to her East Campus dorm mates — even picking boxes up for them when they can’t make it themselves and helping them figure out what to do with their excess ingredients.“I have encountered having way too many chives before, but that’s new for some folks,” she says. “Last week we pooled all of our chives and I made chive pancakes, kind of like scallion pancakes.”Stabb is not alone. In a multi-question customer survey conducted at the close of the Farm Stand season, 62 percent of respondents said the Harvest Box gave them the chance to try new foods and 49 percent experimented with new recipes. Seventy percent said this project helped them increase their vegetable intake.Nearly 60 percent of the survey respondents were graduate students living off campus. Banas, one of the MIT Farm co-leads, is one of those grad students enjoying the benefits.“I was cooking and making food that I bought from the farm stand and thought, ‘Oh, this is very literally influencing my life in a positive way.’ And I’m hoping that this has a similar impact for other people,” she says.The impact goes beyond the ability of students to nourish themselves with fresh vegetables. New communities have grown from this collaboration. Jones, for example, expanded her network at MITOS by tapping into expertise and resources from MIT Dining, the Vice President for Finance Merchant Services, and the MIT Federal Credit Union.“There were just these pockets of people in every corner of MIT who know how to do these very specific things that might seem not very glamorous, but make something like this possible,” says Jones. “It’s such a positive, affirming moment when you’re starting from scratch and someone’s like, ‘This is such a cool idea, how can I help?’”Strengthening communityInviting people from MIT to connect across campus and explore beyond Cambridge has helped students and employees alike feel like they’re part of something bigger.“The community that’s grown around this work is what keeps me so engaged,” says Rapaport. “MIT can have a bit of a siloing effect. It’s easy to become so focused on your classes and academics that your world revolves around them. Farm club grew out of wanting to build connections across the student body and to see ourselves and MIT as part of a larger network of people, communities, and relationships.”This particular connection will continue to grow, as Rapaport and Banas will use their architectural expertise to lead a design-build team in developing a climate-adaptive and bio-based root cellar at Hannan Healthy Foods, to improve the farm’s winter vegetable storage conditions. Community engagement is an ethos Hannan has embraced since the start of his farming journey in 2018, motivated by a desire to provision first his family and then others with healthy food.“One thing I have done over the years, I was not trying to do farming by myself,” he says. “I always reached out to as many people as I could. The idea is, if community is not involved, they just see it as an individual business.”It’s why he gifts his volunteers huge bags of tomatoes at the end of a shift, or donates some of his harvest to food banks, or engages an advisory committee of local residents to ensure he’s filling the right needs.“There’s a reciprocal dimension to gifting that needs to continue,” says Paxson. “That is what builds and maintains community — it’s classic anthropology."And much of what’s exchanged in this type of reciprocity can’t be charted or graded or marked on a spreadsheet. It’s cooking pancakes with dorm mates. It’s meeting and appreciating new colleagues. It’s grabbing a friend to harvest cabbage on a beautiful autumn Sunday.“Seeing a student who volunteered over the weekend harvesting chives come to the market on Monday and then want to take a selfie with those chives,” says Jones. “To me, that’s a cool moment.”

Have we found a greener way to do deep-sea mining?

There are widespread concerns that deep-sea mining for metals will damage fragile ecosystems. But if mining ever goes ahead, hydrogen plasma could shrink the carbon footprint of smelting the metal ores

Seafloor covered with manganese nodulesScience History Images/Alamy A process to extract metals from their ore with hydrogen could make deep-sea mining for valuable materials more sustainable than mining on land, a new study claims. Swathes of the ocean floor are littered with nodules the size of tennis balls. These polymetallic nodules are comprised largely of manganese, with smaller amounts of nickel, copper and cobalt, as well as other elements. As the construction of solar power and electric vehicles booms, demand for these metals is increasing because they are vital components of batteries and wiring. But plans to mine for the polymetallic nodules are highly controversial because operations to collect them would potentially harm the deep-sea floor – one of the last pristine ecosystems on Earth. Even so, some researchers suspect that deep-sea extraction will eventually take place. “I think there is a good chance that someday people… will mine the nodules,” says Ubaid Manzoor at the Max Planck Institute for Sustainable Materials in Germany. “So better to have a good process [for extracting metals] after mining than to have one more dirty process.” The Metals Company, a Canadian deep-sea mining company that has applied for a deep-sea mining permit from the Trump administration, plans to extract metals using a fossil fuel-based approach involving coke and methane. Its process involves placing the nodules first in a kiln and then an electric arc furnace – a greener alternative to a traditional blast furnace. Even so, the company says its approach will produce 4.9 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions for every 1 kilogram of valuable metals. Manzoor and his colleagues have found a way to lower these extraction-related emissions. Their system doesn’t involve a kiln. Instead, the nodules would be ground into smaller pellets and placed straight into an arc furnace that also contains hydrogen and argon gas. High-energy electrons flowing from an electrode in the furnace to the pellets would knock electrons off the molecules of hydrogen gas, forming a plasma that can be heated up to temperatures exceeding 1700°C. The hydrogen ions in the plasma then react with the oxygen in the pellets, stripping the oxides away from the alloy and leaving pure metal behind. Besides water, the only by-products are manganese oxide and manganese ligates, which can be used for making batteries and steel. If the hydrogen gas used in the furnace is “green” – meaning it is produced by splitting water with electricity from renewable sources – and the electricity to run the furnace is generated from renewable sources, the process should emit no CO2, according to the researchers. Today, the vast majority of hydrogen is produced using fossil fuels. Metals like manganese are found on land as well as on the seafloor, but at concentrations about 10 times lower. Mining them on land involves moving large amounts of earth, and extracting the metal from the ore often relies on sulphuric acid. The process can result in razed rainforests and polluted rivers. However, land-based mining could be better regulated to prevent environmental destruction, and the smelting of the metals could be done with green hydrogen and renewable electricity rather than fossil fuels, argues Mario Schmidt at Pforzheim University in Germany. At that point, vacuuming up nodules from the seabed wouldn’t necessarily be more sustainable. “We do not see any fundamental advantage for deep-sea mining in terms of carbon footprint,” he says. “The sustainability of deep-sea mining fails because of the threat it poses to the biodiversity of deep-sea flora and fauna.” But the process that Manzoor and his colleagues have developed could help deep-sea mining become more economically viable, according to David Dye at Imperial College London. “In addressing how you would do the extraction metallurgy downstream of actually picking it up off the seabed, you may be able to then open up the business case and the environmental case to make that attractive,” he says. Manzoor stresses that the research isn’t meant to advocate for deep-sea mining, and the environmental impacts should be fully investigated.

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.