Podcasts about environmental protection agency

On Aug. 1, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a court injunction halting President Trump's executive order eliminating collective bargaining rights for federal unions. The decision has cleared the way for the Trump administration to execute its total assault on federal unions and workers' rights. “Union contracts at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture have since been terminated,” The Guardian reports. “An estimated 400,000 have been affected, about 2.6% of unionized workers in the US.” After already falling to historically low levels of union density, public and private-sector unions are facing an extinction-level event under the new Trump administration. In this interview, recorded at the Netroots conference in New Orleans, LA, TRNN editor-in-chief Maximillian Alvarez speaks with Everett Kelley, President of the American Federation of Government Employees, about what the labor movement is doing to fight back.Guest:Everett Kelley is the national President of the American Federation of Government Employees, which is the largest union representing federal and DC government employees. He began his first term of service as national President in February 2020, was elected to another term during the 42nd National Convention in June 2022, and was reelected during the 43rd National Convention in August 2024. Kelley has been a member of AFGE since 1981. He worked at Anniston Army Depot and retired from there after 30 years of service.Additional links/info:American Federation of Government Employees website, Facebook page, and InstagramHamilton Nolan, How Things Work, “Fragile movements crumble”Michael Sainato, The Guardian, “White House cancels union contracts for hundreds of thousands of federal workers”Credits:Filming: Kayla Rivara, Rosette SewaliPost-Production: David HebdenHelp us continue producing radically independent news and in-depth analysis by following us and becoming a monthly sustainer.Follow us on:Bluesky: @therealnews.comFacebook: The Real News NetworkTwitter: @TheRealNewsYouTube: @therealnewsInstagram: @therealnewsnetworkBecome a member and join the Supporters Club for The Real News Podcast today!

On June 25, 2025, B&C, along with the Environmental Law Institute and the George Washington University Milken Institute of Public Health, sponsored the all-day virtual conference, TSCA Reform -- Nine Years Later. The conference was hugely successful and almost 1,000 people registered for it. The quality of the discussion, the caliber of the participants, and the timeliness of the content motivated us to repurpose the substantive sessions to enable our podcast audience to listen to the sessions in this venue. Our topic in this podcast is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) new chemicals review process under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg). As many listeners know, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) New Chemicals Program was significantly revised by the 2016 TSCA amendments, and what the law requires has been vigorously debated and remains unclear. This spirited panel discussion addresses the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics' (OPPT) new approaches to assess chemical risks to accelerate the process, Section 5(e) orders, recent trends with EPA's review of new chemical substances, and much, much more. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2025 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

Today I'm talking to economic historian Judge Glock, Director of Research at the Manhattan Institute. Judge works on a lot of topics: if you enjoy this episode, I'd encourage you to read some of his work on housing markets and the Environmental Protection Agency. But I cornered him today to talk about civil service reform.Since the 1990s, over 20 red and blue states have made radical changes to how they hire and fire government employees — changes that would be completely outside the Overton window at the federal level. A paper by Judge and Renu Mukherjee lists four reforms made by states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia: * At-will employment for state workers* The elimination of collective bargaining agreements* Giving managers much more discretion to hire* Giving managers much more discretion in how they pay employeesJudge finds decent evidence that the reforms have improved the effectiveness of state governments, and little evidence of the politicization that federal reformers fear. Meanwhile, in Washington, managers can't see applicants' resumes, keyword searches determine who gets hired, and firing a bad performer can take years. But almost none of these ideas are on the table in Washington.Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious transcript edits and fact-checking, and to Katerina Barton for audio edits.Judge, you have a paper out about lessons for civil service reform from the states. Since the ‘90s, red and blue states have made big changes to how they hire and fire people. Walk through those changes for me.I was born and grew up in Washington DC, heard a lot about civil service throughout my childhood, and began to research it as an adult. But I knew almost nothing about the state civil service systems. When I began working in the states — mainly across the Sunbelt, including in Texas, Kansas, Arizona — I was surprised to learn that their civil service systems were reformed to an absolutely radical extent relative to anything proposed at the federal level, let alone implemented.Starting in the 1990s, several states went to complete at-will employment. That means there were no official civil service protections for any state employees. Some managers were authorized to hire people off the street, just like you could in the private sector. A manager meets someone in a coffee shop, they say, "I'm looking for exactly your role. Why don't you come on board?" At the federal level, with its stultified hiring process, it seemed absurd to even suggest something like that.You had states that got rid of any collective bargaining agreements with their public employee unions. You also had states that did a lot more broadbanding [creating wider pay bands] for employee pay: a lot more discretion for managers to reward or penalize their employees depending on their performance.These major reforms in these states were, from the perspective of DC, incredibly radical. Literally nobody at the federal level proposes anything approximating what has been in place for decades in the states. That should be more commonly known, and should infiltrate the debate on civil service reform in DC.Even though the evidence is not absolutely airtight, on the whole these reforms have been positive. A lot of the evidence is surveys asking managers and operators in these states how they think it works. They've generally been positive. We know these states operate pretty well: Places like Texas, Florida, and Arizona rank well on state capacity metrics in terms of cost of government, time for permitting, and other issues.Finally, to me the most surprising thing is the dog that didn't bark. The argument in the federal government against civil service reform is, “If you do this, we will open up the gates of hell and return to the 19th-century patronage system, where spoilsmen come and go depending on elected officials, and the government is overrun with political appointees who don't care about the civil service.” That has simply not happened. We have very few reports of any concrete examples of politicization at the state level. In surveys, state employees and managers can almost never remember any example of political preferences influencing hiring or firing.One of the surveys you cited asked, “Can you think of a time someone said that they thought that the political preferences were a factor in civil service hiring?” and it was something like 5%.It was in that 5-10% range. I don't think you'd find a dissimilar number of people who would say that even in an official civil service system. Politics is not completely excluded even from a formal civil service system.A few weeks ago, you and I talked to our mutual friend, Don Moynihan, who's a scholar of public administration. He's more skeptical about the evidence that civil service reform would be positive at the federal level.One of your points is, “We don't have strong negative evidence from the states. Productivity didn't crater in states that moved to an at-will employment system.” We do have strong evidence that collective bargaining in the public sector is bad for productivity.What I think you and Don would agree on is that we could use more evidence on the hiring and firing side than the surveys that we have. Is that a fair assessment?Yes, I think that's correct. As you mentioned, the evidence on collective bargaining is pretty close to universal: it raises costs, reduces the efficiency of government, and has few to no positive upsides.On hiring and firing, I mentioned a few studies. There's a 2013 study that looks at HR managers in six states and finds very little evidence of politicization, and managers generally prefer the new system. There was a dissertation that surveyed several employees and managers in civil service reform and non-reform states. Across the board, the at-will employment states said they had better hiring retention, productivity, and so forth. And there's a 2002 study that looked specifically at Texas, Florida, and Georgia after their reforms, and found almost universal approbation inside the civil service itself for these reforms.These are not randomized control trials. But I think that generally positive evidence should point us directionally where we should go on civil service reform. If we loosen restrictions on discipline and firing, decentralize hiring and so forth — we probably get some productivity benefits from it. We can also know, with some amount of confidence, that the sky is not going to fall, which I think is a very important baseline assumption. The civil service system will continue on and probably be fairly close to what it is today, in terms of its political influence, if you have decentralized hiring and at-will employment.As you point out, a lot of these reforms that have happened in 20-odd states since the ‘90s would be totally outside the Overton window at the federal level. Why is it so easy for Georgia to make a bipartisan move in the ‘90s to at-will employment, when you couldn't raise the topic at the federal level?It's a good question. I think in the 1990s, a lot of people thought a combination of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act — which was the Carter-era act that somewhat attempted to do what these states hoped to do in the 1990s — and the Clinton-era Reinventing Government Initiative, would accomplish the same ends. That didn't happen.That was an era when civil service reform was much more bipartisan. In Georgia, it was a Democratic governor, Zell Miller, who pushed it. In a lot of these other states, they got buy-in from both sides. The recent era of state reform took place after the 2010 Republican wave in the states. Since that wave, the reform impetus for civil service has been much more Republican. That has meant it's been a lot harder to get buy-in from both sides at the federal level, which will be necessary to overcome a filibuster.I think people know it has to be very bipartisan. We're just past the point, at least at the moment, where it can be bipartisan at the federal level. But there are areas where there's a fair amount of overlap between the two sides on what needs to happen, at least in the upper reaches of the civil service.It was interesting to me just how bipartisan civil service reform has been at various times. You talked about the Civil Service Reform Act, which passed Congress in 1978. President Carter tells Congress that the civil service system:“Has become a bureaucratic maze which neglects merit, tolerates poor performance, permits abuse of legitimate employee rights, and mires every personnel action in red tape, delay, and confusion.”That's a Democratic president saying that. It's striking to me that the civil service was not the polarized topic that it is today.Absolutely. Carter was a big civil service reformer in Georgia before those even larger 1990s reforms. He campaigned on civil service reform and thought it was essential to the success of his presidency. But I think you are seeing little sprouts of potential bipartisanship today, like the Chance to Compete Act at the end of 2024, and some of the reforms Obama did to the hiring process. There's options for bipartisanship at the federal level, even if it can't approach what the states have done.I want to walk through the federal hiring process. Let's say you're looking to hire in some federal agency — you pick the agency — and I graduated college recently, and I want to go into the civil service. Tell me about trying to hire somebody like me. What's your first step?It's interesting you bring up the college graduate, because that is one recent reform: President Trump put out an executive order trying to counsel agencies to remove the college degree requirement for job postings. This happened in a lot of states first, like Maryland, and that's also been bipartisan. This requirement for a college degree — which was used as a very unfortunate proxy for ability at a lot of these jobs — is now being removed. It's not across the whole federal government. There's still job postings that require higher education degrees, but that's something that's changed.To your question, let's say the Department of Transportation. That's one of the more bipartisan ones, when you look at surveys of federal civil servants. Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, they tend to be a little more Republican. Health and Human Services and some other agencies tend to be pretty Democrat. Transportation is somewhere in the middle.As a manager, you try to craft a job description and posting to go up on the USA Jobs website, which is where all federal job postings go. When they created it back in 1996, that was supposedly a massive reform to federal hiring: this website where people could submit their resumes. Then, people submit their resumes and answer questions about their qualifications for the job.One of the slightly different aspects from the private sector is that those applications usually go to an HR specialist first. The specialist reviews everything and starts to rank people into different categories, based on a lot of weird things. It's supposed to be “knowledge, skills, and abilities” — your KSAs, or competencies. To some extent, this is a big step up from historical practice. You had, frankly, an absurd civil service exam, where people had to fill out questions about, say, General Grant or about US Code Title 42, or whatever it was, and then submit it. Someone rated the civil service exam, and then the top three test-takers were eligible for the job.We have this newer, better system, where we rank on knowledge, skills, and abilities, and HR puts put people into different categories. One of the awkward ways they do this is by merely scanning the resumes and applications for keywords. If it's a computer job, make sure you say the word “computer” somewhere in your resume. Make sure you say “manager” if it's a managerial job.Just to be clear, this is entirely literal. There's a keyword search, and folks who don't pass that search are dinged.Yes. I've always wondered, how common is this? It's sometimes hard to know what happens in the black box in these federal HR departments. I saw an HR official recently say, "If I'm not allowed to do keyword searches, I'm going to take 15 years to overlook all the applications, so I've got to do keyword searches." If they don't have the keywords, into the circular file it goes, as they used to say: into the garbage can.Then they start ranking people on their abilities into, often, three different categories. That is also very literal. If you put in the little word bubble, "I am an exceptional manager," you get pushed on into the next level of the competition. If you say, "I'm pretty good, but I'm not the best," into the circular file you go.I've gotten jaded about this, but it really is shocking. We ask candidates for a self-assessment, and if they just rank themselves 10/10 on everything, no matter how ludicrous, that improves their odds of being hired.That's going to immensely improve your odds. Similar to the keyword search, there's been pushback on this in recent years, and I'm definitely not going to say it's universal anymore. It's rarer than it used to be. But it's still a very common process.The historical civil service system used to operate on a rule of three. In places like New York, it still operates like that. The top three candidates on the evaluation system get presented to the manager, and the manager has to approve one of them for the position.Thanks partially to reforms by the Obama administration in 2010, they have this category rating system where the best qualified or the very qualified get put into a big bucket together [instead of only including the top three]. Those are the people that the person doing the hiring gets to see, evaluate, and decide who he wants to hire.There are some restrictions on that. If a veteran outranks everybody else, you've got to pick the veteran [typically known as Veterans' Preference]. That was an issue in some of the state civil service reforms, too. The states said, “We're just going to encourage a veterans' preference. We don't need a formalized system to say they get X number of points and have to be in Y category. We're just going to say, ‘Try to hire veterans.'” That's possible without the formal system, despite what some opponents of reform may claim.One of the particular problems here is just the nature of the people doing the hiring. Sometimes you just need good managers to encourage HR departments to look at a broader set of qualifications. But one of the bigger problems is that they keep the HR evaluation system divorced from the manager who is doing the hiring. David Shulkin, who was the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), wrote a great book, It Shouldn't Be This Hard to Serve Your Country. He was a healthcare exec, and the VA is mainly a healthcare agency. He would tell people, "You should work for me," they would send their applications into the HR void, and he'd never see them again. They would get blocked at some point in this HR evaluation process, and he'd be sent people with no healthcare experience, because for whatever reason they did well in the ranking.One of the very base-level reforms should be, “How can we more clearly integrate the hiring manager with the evaluation process?” To some extent, the bipartisan Chance to Compete Act tries to do this. They said, “You should have subject matter experts who are part of crafting the description of the job, are part of evaluating, and so forth.” But there's still a long road to go.Does that firewall — where the person who wants to hire doesn't get to look at the process until the end — exist originally because of concerns about cronyism?One of the interesting things about the civil service is its raison d'être — its reason for being — was supposedly a single, clear purpose: to prevent politicized hiring and patronage. That goes back to the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883. But it's always been a little strange that you have all of these very complex rules about every step of the process — from hiring to firing to promotion, and everything in between — to prevent political influence. We could just focus on preventing political influence, and not regulate every step of the process on the off-chance that without a clear regulation, political influence could creep in. This division [between hiring manager and applicants] is part of that general concern. There are areas where I've heard HR specialists say, "We declare that a manager is a subject matter expert, and we bring them into the process early on, we can do that." But still the division is pretty stark, and it's based on this excessive concern about patronage.One point you flag is that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is the body that thinks about personnel in the federal government, has a 300-page regulatory document for agencies on how you have to hire. There's a remarkable amount of process.Yes, but even that is a big change from the Federal Personnel Manual, which was the 10,000-page document that we shredded in the 1990s. In the ‘90s, OPM gave the agencies what's called “delegated examining authorities.” This says, “You, agency, have power to decide who to hire, we're not going to do the central supervision anymore. But, but, but: here's the 300-page document that dictates exactly how you have to carry out that hiring.”So we have some decentralization, allowing managers more authority to control their own departments. But this two-level oversight — a local HR department that's ultimately being overseen by the OPM — also leads to a lot of slip ‘twixt cup and lip, in terms of how something gets implemented. If you're in the agency and you're concerned about the OPM overseeing your process, you're likely to be much more careful than you would like to be. “Yes, it's delegated to me, but ultimately, I know I have to answer to OPM about this process. I'm just going to color within the lines.”I often cite Texas, which has no central HR office. Each agency decides how it wants to hire. In a lot of these reform states, if there is a central personnel office, it's an information clearinghouse or reservoir of models. “You can use us, the central HR office, as a resource if you want us to help you post the job, evaluate it, or help manage your processes, but you don't have to.” That's the goal we should be striving for in a lot of the federal reforms. Just make OPM a resource for the managers in the individual departments to do their thing or go independent.Let's say I somehow get through the hiring process. You offer me a job at the Department of Transportation. What are you paying me?This is one of the more stultified aspects of the federal civil service system. OPM has another multi-hundred-page handbook called the Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families. Inside that, you've got 49 different “groups and families,” like “Clerical occupations.” Inside those 49 groups are a series of jobs, sometimes dozens, like “Computer Operator.” Inside those, they have independent documents — often themselves dozens of pages long — detailing classes of positions. Then you as a manager have to evaluate these nine factors, which can each give points to each position, which decides how you get slotted into this weird Government Schedule (GS) system [the federal payscale].Again, this is actually an improvement. Before, you used to have the Civil Service Commission, which went around staring very closely at someone over their typewriter and saying, "No, I think you should be a GS-12, not a GS-11, because someone over in the Department of Defense who does your same job is a GS-12." Now this is delegated to agencies, but again, the agencies have to listen to the OPM on how to classify and set their jobs into this 15-stage GS-classification system, each stage of which has 10 steps which determine your pay, and those steps are determined mainly by your seniority. It's a formalized step-by-step system, overwhelmingly based on just how long you've sat at your desk.Let's be optimistic about my performance as a civil servant. Say that over my first three years, I'm just hitting it out of the park. Can you give me a raise? What can you do to keep me in my role?Not too much. For most people, the within-step increases — those 10 steps inside each GS-level — is just set by seniority. Now there are all these quality step increases you can get, but they're very rare and they have to be documented. So you could hypothetically pay someone more, but it's going to be tough. In general, the managers just prefer to stick to seniority, because not sticking to it garners a lot of complaints. Like so much else, the goal is, "We don't want someone rewarding an official because they happen to share their political preferences." The result of that concern is basically nobody can get rewarded at all, which is very unfortunate.We do have examples in state and federal government of what's known as broadbanding, where you have very broad pay scales, and the manager can decide where to slot someone. Say you're a computer operator, which can mean someone who knows what an Excel spreadsheet is, or someone who's programming the most advanced AI systems. As a manager in South Carolina or Florida, you have a lot of discretion to say, "I can set you 50% above the market rate of what this job technically would go for, if I think you're doing a great job."That's very rare at the federal level. They've done broadbanding at the Government Accountability Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The China Lake Experiment out in California gave managers a lot more discretion to reward scientists. But that's definitely the exception. In general, it's a step-wise, seniority-based system.What if you want to bring me into the Senior Executive Service (SES)? Theoretically, that sits at the top of the General Service scale. Can't you bump me up in there and pay me what you owe me?I could hypothetically bring you in as a senior executive servant. The SES was created in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. The idea was, “We're going to have this elite cadre of about 8,000 individuals at the top of the federal government, whose employment will be higher-risk and higher-reward. They might be fired, and we're going to give them higher pay to compensate for that.”Almost immediately, that did not work out. Congress was outraged at the higher pay given to the top officials and capped it. Ever since, how much the SES can get paid has been tightly controlled. As in most of the rest of the federal government, where they establish these performance pay incentives or bonuses — which do exist — they spread them like peanut butter over the whole service. To forestall complaints, everyone gets a little bit every two or three years.That's basically what happened to the SES. Their annual pay is capped at the vice president's salary, which is a cap for a lot of people in the federal government. For most of your GS and other executive scales, the cap is Congress's salary. [NB: This is no longer exactly true, since Congress froze its own salaries in 2009. The cap for GS (currently about $195k) is now above congressional salaries ($174k).]One of the big problems with pay in the federal government is pay compression. Across civil service systems, the highest-skilled people tend to be paid much less than the private sector, and the lowest-skilled people tend to get paid much more. The political science reason for that is pretty simple: the median voter in America still decides what seems reasonable. To the median voter, the average salary of a janitor looks low, and the average salary of a scientist looks way too high. Hence this tendency to pay compression. Your average federal employee is probably overpaid relative to the private sector, because the lowest-skilled employees are paid up to 40% higher than the private sector equivalent. The highest-paid employees, the post-graduate skilled professionals, are paid less. That makes it hard to recruit the top performers, but it also swells the wage budget in a way that makes it difficult to talk about reform.There's a lot of interest in this administration in making it easier to recruit talent and get rid of under-performers. There have been aggressive pushes to limit collective bargaining in the public sector. That should theoretically make it easier to recruit, but it also increases the precariousness of civil service roles. We've seen huge firings in the civil service over the last six months.Classically, the explicit trade-off of working in the federal government was, “Your pay is going to be capped, but you have this job for life. It's impossible to get rid of you.” You trade some lifetime earnings for stability. In a world where the stability is gone, but pay is still capped, isn't the net effect to drive talent away from the civil service?I think it's a concern now. On one level it should be ameliorated, because those who are most concerned with stability of employment do tend to be lower performers. If you have people who are leaving the federal service because all they want is stability, and they're not getting that anymore, that may not be a net loss. As someone who came out of academia and knows the wonder of effective lifetime annuities, there can be very high performers who like that stability who therefore take a lower salary. Without the ability to bump that pay up more, it's going to be an issue.I do know that, internally, the Trump administration has made some signs they're open to reforms in the top tiers of the SES and other parts of the federal government. They would be willing to have people get paid more at that level to compensate for the increased risks since the Trump administration came in. But when you look at the reductions in force (RIFs) that have happened under Trump, they are overwhelmingly among probationary employees, the lower-level employees.With some exceptions. If you've been promoted recently, you can get reclassified as probationary, so some high-performers got lumped in.Absolutely. The issue has been exacerbated precisely because the RIF regulations that are in place have made the firings particularly damaging. If you had a more streamlined RIF system — which they do have in many states, where seniority is not the main determinant of who gets laid off — these RIFs could be removing the lower-performing civil servants and keeping the higher-performing ones, and giving them some amount of confidence in their tenure.Unfortunately, the combination of large-scale removals with the existing RIF regs, which are very stringent, has demoralized some of the upper levels of the federal government. I share that concern. But I might add, it is interesting, if you look at the federal government's own figures on the total civil service workforce, they have gone down significantly since Trump came in office, but I think less than 100,000 still, in the most recent numbers that I've seen. I'm not sure how much to trust those, versus some of these other numbers where people have said 150,000, 200,000.Whether the Trump administration or a future administration can remove large numbers of people from the civil service should be somewhat divorced from the general conversation on civil service reform. The main debate about whether or not Trump can do this centers around how much power the appropriators in Congress have to determine the total amount of spending in particular agencies on their workforce. It does not depend necessarily on, "If we're going to remove people — whether for general layoffs, or reductions in force, or because of particular performance issues — how can we go about doing that?" My last-ditch hope to maintain a bipartisan possibility of civil service reform is to bracket, “How much power does the president have to remove or limit the workforce in general?” from “How can he go about hiring and firing, et cetera?”I think making it easier for the president to identify and remove poor performers is a tool that any future administration would like to have.We had this conversation sparked again with the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner. But that was a position Congress set up to be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and removable by the President. It's a separate issue from civil service at large. Everyone said, “We want the president to be able to hire and fire the commissioner.” Maybe firing the commissioner was a bad decision, but that's the situation today.Attentive listeners to Statecraft know I'm pretty critical, like you are, of the regulations that say you have to go in order of seniority. In mass layoffs, you're required to fire a lot of the young, talented people.But let's talk about individual firings. I've been a terrible civil servant, a nightmarish employee from day one. You want to discipline, remove, suspend, or fire me. What are your options?Anybody who has worked in the civil service knows it's hard to fire bad performers. Whatever their political valence, whatever they feel about the civil service system, they have horror stories about a person who just couldn't be removed.In the early 2010s, a spate of stories came out about air traffic controllers sleeping on the job. Then-transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, made a big public announcement: "I'm going to fire these three guys." After these big announcements, it turned out he was only able to remove one of them. One retired, and another had their firing reduced to a suspension.You had another horrific story where a man was joking on the phone with friends when a plane crashed into a helicopter and killed nine people over the Hudson River. National outcry. They said, "We're going to fire this guy." In the end, after going through the process, he only got a suspension. Everyone agrees it's too hard.The basic story is, you have two ways to fire someone. Chapter 75, the old way, is often considered the realm of misconduct: You've stolen something from the office, punched your colleague in the face during a dispute about the coffee, something illegal or just straight-out wrong. We get you under Chapter 75.The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act added Chapter 43, which is supposed to be the performance-based system to remove someone. As with so much of that Civil Service Reform Act, the people who passed it thought this might be the beginning of an entirely different system.In the end, lots of federal managers say there's not a huge difference between the two. Some use 75, some use 43. If you use 43, you have to document very clearly what the person did wrong. You have to put them on a performance improvement plan. If they failed a performance improvement plan after a certain amount of time, they can respond to any claims about what they did wrong. Then, they can take that process up to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and claim that they were incorrectly fired, or that the processes weren't carried out appropriately. Then, if they want to, they can say, “Nah, I don't like the order I got,” and take it up to federal courts and complain there. Right now, the MSPB doesn't have a full quorum, which is complicating some of the recent removal disputes.You have this incredibly difficult process, unlike the private sector, where your boss looks at you and says, "I don't like how you're giving me the stink-eye today. Out you go." One could say that's good or bad, but, on the whole, I think the model should be closer to the private sector. We should trust managers to do their job without excessive oversight and process. That's clearly about as far from the realm of possibility as the current system, under which the estimate is 6-12 months to fire a very bad performer. The number of people who win at the Merit Systems Protection Board is still 20-30%.This goes into another issue, which is unionization. If you're part of a collective bargaining agreement — most of the regular federal civil service is — first, you have to go with this independent, union-based arbitration and grievance procedure. You're about 50/50 to win on those if your boss tries to remove you.So if I'm in the union, we go through that arbitration grievance system. If you win and I'm fired, I can take it to the Merit Systems Protection Board. If you win again, I can still take it to the federal courts.You can file different sorts of claims at each part. On Chapter 43, the MSPB is supposed to be about the process, not the evidence, and you just have to show it was followed. On 75, the manager has to show by preponderance of the evidence that the employee is harming the agency. Then there are different standards for what you take to the courts, and different standards according to each collective bargaining agreement for the grievance procedure when someone is disciplined. It's a very complicated, abstruse, and procedure-heavy process that makes it very difficult to remove people, which is why the involuntary separation rate at the federal government and most state governments is many multiples lower than the private sector.So, you would love to get me off your team because I'm abysmal. But you have no stomach for going through this whole process and I'm going to fight it. I'm ornery and contrarian and will drag this fight out. In practice, what do managers in the federal government do with their poor performers?I always heard about this growing up. There's the windowless office in the basement without a phone, or now an internet connection. You place someone down there, hope they get the message, and sooner or later they leave. But for plenty of people in America, that's the dream job. You just get to sit and nobody bothers you for eight hours. You punch in at 9 and punch out at 5, and that's your day. "Great. I'll collect that salary for another 10 years." But generally you just try to make life unpleasant for that person.Public sector collective bargaining in the US is new. I tend to think of it as just how the civil service works. But until about 50 years ago, there was no collective bargaining in the public sector.At the state level, it started with Wisconsin at the end of the 1950s. There were famous local government reforms beginning with the Little Wagner Act [signed in 1958] in New York City. Senator Robert Wagner had created the National Labor Relations Board. His son Robert F. Wagner Jr., mayor of New York, created the first US collective bargaining system at the local level in the ‘60s. In ‘62, John F. Kennedy issued an executive order which said, "We're going to deal officially with public sector unions,” but it was all informal and non-statutory.It wasn't until Title VII of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act that unions had a formal, statutory role in our federal service system. This is shockingly new. To some extent, that was the great loss to many civil service reformers in ‘78. They wanted to get through a lot of these other big reforms about hiring and firing, but they gave up on the unions to try to get those. Some people think that exception swallowed the rest of the rules. The union power that was garnered in ‘78 overcame the other reforms people hoped to accomplish. Soon, you had the majority of the federal workforce subject to collective bargaining.But that's changing now too. Part of that Civil Service Reform Act said, “If your position is in a national security-related position, the president can determine it's not subject to collective bargaining.” Trump and the OPM have basically said, “Most positions in the federal government are national security-related, and therefore we're going to declare them off-limits to collective bargaining.” Some people say that sounds absurd. But 60% of the civilian civil service workforce is the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Homeland Security. I am not someone who tries to go too easy on this crowd. I think there's a heck of a lot that needs to be reformed. But it's also worth remembering that the majority of the civil service workforce are in these three agencies that Republicans tend to like a lot.Now, whether people like Veterans Affairs is more of an open question. We have some particular laws there about opening up processes after the scandals in the 2010s about waiting lists and hospitals. You had veterans hospitals saying, "We're meeting these standards for getting veterans in the door for these waiting lists." But they were straight-up lying about those standards. Many people who were on these lists waiting for months to see a doctor died in the interim, some from causes that could have been treated had they seen a VA doctor. That led to Congress doing big reforms in the VA in 2014 and 2017, precisely because everyone realized this is a problem.So, Trump has put out these executive orders stopping collective bargaining in all of these agencies that touch national security. Some of those, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seem like a tough sell. I guess that, if you want to dig a mine and the Chinese are trying to dig their own mine and we want the mine to go quickly without the EPA pettifogging it, maybe. But the core ones are pretty solid. So far the courts have upheld the executive order to go in place. So collective bargaining there could be reformed.But in the rest of the government, there are these very extreme, long collective bargaining agreements between agencies and their unions. I've hit on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as one that's had pretty extensive bargaining with its union. When we created the TSA to supervise airport security, a lot of people said, "We need a crème de la crème to supervise airports after 9/11. We want to keep this out of union hands, because we know unions are going to make it difficult to move people around." The Obama administration said, "Nope, we're going to negotiate with the union." Now you have these huge negotiations with the unions about parking spots, hours of employment, uniforms, and everything under the sun. That makes it hard for managers in the TSA to decide when people should go where or what they should do.One thing we've talked about on Statecraft in past episodes — for instance, with John Kamensky, who was a pivotal figure in the Clinton-Gore reforms — was this relationship between government employees and “Beltway Bandits”: the contractors who do jobs you might think of as civil service jobs. One critique of that ‘90s Clinton-Gore push, “Reinventing Government,” was that although they shrank the size of the civil service on paper, the number of contractors employed by the federal government ballooned to fill that void. They did not meaningfully reduce the total number of people being paid by the federal government. Talk to me about the relationship between the civil service reform that you'd like to see and this army of folks who are not formally employees.Every government service is a combination of public employees and inputs, and private employees and inputs. There's never a single thing the government does — federal, state, or local — that doesn't involve inputs from the private sector. That could be as simple as the uniforms for the janitors. Even if you have a publicly employed janitor, who buys the mop? You're not manufacturing the mops.I understand the critique that the excessive focus on full-time employees in the 1990s led to contracting out some positions that could be done directly by the government. But I think that misses how much of the government can and should be contracted out. The basic Office of Management and Budget (OMB) statute [OMB Circular No. A-76] defining what is an essential government duty should still be the dividing line. What does the government have to do, because that is the public overseeing a process? Versus, what can the private sector just do itself?I always cite Stephen Goldsmith, the old mayor of Indianapolis. He proposed what he called the Yellow Pages test. If you open the Yellow Pages [phone directory] and three businesses do that business, the government should not be in that business. There's three garbage haulers out there. Instead of having a formal government garbage-hauling department, just contract out the garbage.With the internet, you should have a lot more opportunities to contract stuff out. I think that is generally good, and we should not have the federal government going about a lot of the day-to-day procedural things that don't require public input. What a lot of people didn't recognize is how much pressure that's going to put on government contracting officers at the federal level. Last time I checked there were 40,000 contracting officers. They have a lot of power. In the most recent year for which we have data, there were $750 billion in federal contracts. This is a substantial part of our economy. If you total state and local, we're talking almost 10% of our whole economy goes through government contracts. This is mind-boggling. In the public policy world, we should all be spending about 10% of our time thinking about contracting.One of the things I think everyone recognized is that contractors should have more authority. Some of the reform that happened with people like [Steven] Kelman — who was the Office of Federal Procurement Policy head in the ‘90s under Clinton — was, "We need to give these people more authority to just take a credit card and go buy a sheaf of paper if that's what they need. And we need more authority to get contract bids out appropriately.”The same message that animates civil service reform should animate these contracting discussions. The goal should be setting clear goals that you want — for either a civil servant or a contractor — and then giving that person the discretion to meet them. If you make the civil service more stultified, or make pay compression more extreme, you're going to have to contract more stuff out.People talk about the General Schedule [pay scale], but we haven't talked about the Federal Wage Schedule system at all, which is the blue-collar system that encompasses about 200,000 federal employees. Pay compression means those guys get paid really well. That means some managers rightfully think, "I'd like to have full-time supervision over some role, but I would rather contract it out, because I can get it a heck of a lot cheaper."There's a continuous relationship: If we make the civil service more stultified, we're going to push contracting out into more areas where maybe it wouldn't be appropriate. But a lot of things are always going to be appropriate to contract out. That means we need to give contracting officers and the people overseeing contracts a lot of discretion to carry out their missions, and not a lot of oversight from the Government Accountability Office or the courts about their bids, just like we shouldn't give OPM excess input into the civil service hiring process.This is a theme I keep harping on, on Statecraft. It's counterintuitive from a reformer's perspective, but it's true: if you want these processes to function better, you're going to have to stop nitpicking. You're going to have to ease up on the throttle and let people make their own decisions, even when sometimes you're not going to agree with them.This is a tension that's obviously happening in this administration. You've seen some clear interest in decentralization, and you've seen some centralization. In both the contract and the civil service sphere, the goal for the central agencies should be giving as many options as possible to the local managers, making sure they don't go extremely off the rails, but then giving those local managers and contracting officials the ability to make their own choices. The General Services Administration (GSA) under this administration is doing a lot of government-wide acquisition contracts. “We establish a contract for the whole government in the GSA. Usually you, the local manager, are not required to use that contract if you want computer services or whatever, but it's an option for you.”OPM should take a similar role. "Here's the system we have set up. You can take that and use it as you want. It's here for you, but it doesn't have to be used, because you might have some very particular hiring decisions to make.” Just like there shouldn't be one contracting decision that decides how we buy both a sheaf of computer paper and an aircraft carrier, there shouldn't be one hiring and firing process for a janitor and a nuclear physicist. That can't be a centralized process, because the very nature of human life is that there's an infinitude of possibilities that you need to allow for, and that means some amount of decentralization.I had an argument online recently about New York City's “buy local” requirement for certain procurement contracts. When they want to build these big public toilets in New York City, they have to source all the toilet parts from within the state, even if they're $200,000 cheaper in Portland, Oregon.I think it's crazy to ask procurement and contracting to solve all your policy problems. Procurement can't be about keeping a healthy local toilet parts industry. You just need to procure the toilet.This is another area where you see similar overlap in some of the civil service and contracting issues. A lot of cities have residency requirements for many of their positions. If you work for the city, you have to live inside the city. In New York, that means you've got a lot of police officers living on Staten Island, or right on the line of the north side of the Bronx, where they're inches away from Westchester. That drives up costs, and limits your population of potential employees.One of the most amazing things to me about the Biden Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was that it encouraged contracting officers to use residency requirements: “You should try to localize your hiring and contracting into certain areas.” On a national level, that cancels out. If both Wyoming and Wisconsin use residency requirements, the net effect is not more people hired from one of those states! So often, people expect the civil service and contracting to solve all of our ills and to point the way forward for the rest of the economy on discrimination, hiring, pay, et cetera. That just leads to, by definition, government being a lot more expensive than the private sector.Over the next three and a half years, what would you like to see the administration do on civil service reform that they haven't already taken up?I think some of the broad-scale layoffs, which seem to be slowing down, were counterproductive. I do think that their ability to achieve their ends was limited by the nature of the reduction-in-force regulations, which made them more counterproductive than they had to be. That's the situation they inherited. But that didn't mean you had to lay off a lot of people without considering the particular jobs they were doing now.And hiring quite a few of them back.Yeah. There are also debates obviously, within the administration, between DOGE and Russ Vought [director of the OMB] and some others on this. Some things, like the Schedule Policy/Career — which is the revival of Schedule F in the first Trump administration — are largely a step in the right direction. Counter to some of the critics, it says, “You can remove someone if they're in a policymaking position, just like if they were completely at-will. But you still have to hire from the typical civil service system.” So, for those concerned about politicization, that doesn't undermine that, because they can't just pick someone from the party system to put in there. I think that's good.They recently had a suitability requirement rule that I think moved in the right direction. That says, “If someone's not suitable for the workforce, there are other ways to remove them besides the typical procedures.” The ideal system is going to require some congressional input: it's to have a decentralization of hiring authority to individual managers. Which means the OPM — now under Scott Kupor, who has finally been confirmed — saying, "The OPM is here to assist you, federal managers. Make sure you stay within the broad lanes of what the administration's trying to accomplish. But once we give you your general goals, we're going to trust you to do that, including hiring.”I've mentioned it a few times, but part of the Chance to Compete Act — which was mentioned in one of Trump's Day One executive orders, people forget about this — was saying, “Implement the Chance to Compete Act to the maximum extent of the law.” Bring more subject-matter expertise into the hiring process, allow more discretion for managers and input into the hiring process. I think carrying that bipartisan reform out is going to be a big step, but it's going to take a lot more work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

On June 25, 2025, B&C, along with the Environmental Law Institute and the George Washington University Milken Institute of Public Health, sponsored the all-day virtual conference, TSCA Reform -- Nine Years Later. The conference was hugely successful and almost 1,000 people registered for it. The quality of the discussion, the caliber of the participants, and the timeliness of the content motivated us to repurpose the substantive sessions to enable our podcast audience to listen to the sessions in this venue. The topic of this podcast is the panel discussion on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) risk evaluation process under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg). The panel discussed various aspects of EPA's risk evaluation of chemical substances under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 6. The panel experts touch upon crucially important issues, including EPA's reconsideration of the risk framework rule and the legal challenge to it, EPA's pivot away from the whole chemical approach, the incorporation of cumulative risk assessment (CRA) approaches, and much, much more. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2025 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

The Environmental Protection Agency is quickly getting out of the protection business. And no where is that more clear than its new plan to get rid of the Endangerment Finding, the landmark legal and science determination that climate change hurts people and that the EPA has the responsibility to do something about it. On this episode a look at why the EPA is now insisting climate pollution won't hurt you, and what walking back the endangerment finding could mean for Wisconsin. Host: Amy Barrilleaux Guest: Clean Wisconsin General Counsel Katie Nekola Resources for You: Take Action: Tell the EPA not to rescind the Endangerment Finding  

The Power Hour is a weekly podcast that discusses the day's most interesting energy and environmental policy issues with top national experts. Jack is joined this week by Power Hour Alum, Daren Bakst, Director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Energy and Environment to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency's recent proposal to rescind the 2009 […]

Welcome to episode 217 of Growers Daily! We cover: calcium, blossom end rot, how the EPA has determined that its job is the opposite of its job, and it's feedback friday!  We are a Non-Profit! 

Sign up for our newsletter! An explosion at a U.S. Steel coke plant outside of Pittsburgh killed two workers and sent 10 to the hospital. We'll hear a worker's first-hand account of the incident and what nearby residents in the Mon River valley are saying. The plant has a history of maintenance problems, explosions, and environmental violations. Climate change is making it harder to keep invasive plants away from recreational trails in Pennsylvania. Volunteers are working to make trail systems more climate resilient. The Environmental Protection Agency has canceled a $7 billion Biden-era program to build rooftop solar. Freshwater managers are warning that the millions of gallons of water that data centers use every day could stress public water supplies. Pennsylvania lawmakers want to ban certain firefighting foam that contains toxic PFAS. West Nile virus cases are climbing in Pennsylvania. We're independent and non-profit, and we don't get money from WESA, WPSU or any other radio station. So we must turn to you, our listeners, for support. Take action today so we can continue to keep you informed.  Donate today.  Or send us a check to: The Allegheny Front, 67 Bedford Square, Pittsburgh, 15203.  And thanks! 

On June 25, 2025, B&C, along with the Environmental Law Institute and the George Washington University Milken Institute of Public Health, sponsored an all-day virtual conference, TSCA Reform -- Nine Years Later. The conference was hugely successful and almost 1,000 people registered for it. The quality of the discussion, the caliber of the participants, and the timeliness of the content inspired us to re-broadcast the discussion to our podcast audience. This panel discusses the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) authority under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 6 to manage chemical risks that EPA has determined to be unreasonable and the risk management options EPA considers to manage those risks. Panelists address how EPA manages workplace risks, enforcement mechanisms for risk management restrictions, whether EPA's risk management rulemakings are over or under addressing risks deemed unreasonable, and the legal challenges underway for all five risk management rules. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2025 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

CThis is a historic week—historically catastrophic for climate alarmists who have bullied their way through every institution in the United States and around the world. Trump's Environmental Protection Agency formally announced, at long last, that it will repeal the so-called “Endangerment Finding” for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The EPA has determined that GHGs are not pollution and that their emissions from human activity do not pose a threat to human health. On the same day, Trump's Department of Energy released a “critical review of impacts of GHG emissions on the U.S. climate.” This marks the first time ever that a climate report from the federal government can withstand scientific scrutiny, as it is based on actual science and data rather than politics or any particular agenda.The Heartland Institute's Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely will be joined by Dr. Judith Curry, president of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN). Dr. Curry is one of America's most prominent climate scientists and a co-author of the Department of Energy's critical review.We will also cover some of the Crazy Climate News of the Week from around the world. Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET on YouTube, Rumble, and X, and we will answer your questions in the live chat.IMPORTANT LINKS:Here is a link to the report by Judith Curry, et. al:https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE_Critical_Review_of_Impacts_of_GHG_Emissions_on_the_US_Climate_July_2025.pdfAnd here is where you can leave comments on the report in the DOE Portal:https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/DOE-HQ-2025-0207-0001VISIT OUR SPONSOR, ADVISOR METALS:https://climaterealismshow.com/metalsCHAPTERS0:00 Intro4:26 Climate Planet Returns10:29 Trump Blows Wind Away19:59 Ticks Make You Not Eat Meat27:22 Judith Curry & the New 'Official' Climate Report1:01:50 Death Blow to Climate Alarmism1:10:13 Audience Q&A In The Tank broadcasts LIVE every Thursday at 12pm CT on on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Tune in to have your comments addressed live by the In The Tank Crew. Be sure to subscribe and never miss an episode. See you there!Climate Change Roundtable is LIVE every Friday at 12pm CT on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Have a topic you want addressed? Join the live show and leave a comment for our panelists and we'll cover it during the live show!

The Power Hour is a weekly podcast that discusses the day's most interesting energy and environmental policy issues with top national experts. Jack is joined this week by Power Hour Alum, Daren Bakst, Director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Energy and Environment to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency's recent proposal to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding.  What is the endangerment finding?  Put simply: it provides the legal justification for nearly all global warming regulation.  To find out why you should really care, you will want to check out this episode.     You can follow Daren's work at CEI here and give him a follow on X @darenbakst and As always, you can join the conversation at  thepowerhour@heritage.org!  Check out Jack's book, Nuclear Revolution, and our nuclear energy documentary, Powering America .  Thank you for listening and please don't forget to subscribe and help us to spread the word. 

This is a historic week—historically catastrophic for climate alarmists who have bullied their way through every institution in the United States and around the world. Trump's Environmental Protection Agency formally announced, at long last, that it will repeal the so-called “Endangerment Finding” for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The EPA has determined that GHGs are not pollution and that their emissions from human activity do not pose a threat to human health. On the same day, Trump's Department of Energy released a “critical review of impacts of GHG emissions on the U.S. climate.” This marks the first time ever that a climate report from the federal government can withstand scientific scrutiny, as it is based on actual science and data rather than politics or any particular agenda.The Heartland Institute's Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely will be joined by Dr. Judith Curry, president of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN). Dr. Curry is one of America's most prominent climate scientists and a co-author of the Department of Energy's critical review.We will also cover some of the Crazy Climate News of the Week from around the world. Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET on YouTube, Rumble, and X, and we will answer your questions in the live chat.IMPORTANT LINKS:Here is a link to the report by Judith Curry, et. al:https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE_Critical_Review_of_Impacts_of_GHG_Emissions_on_the_US_Climate_July_2025.pdfAnd here is where you can leave comments on the report in the DOE Portal:https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/DOE-HQ-2025-0207-0001VISIT OUR SPONSOR, ADVISOR METALS:https://climaterealismshow.com/metalsCHAPTERS0:00 Intro4:26 Climate Planet Returns10:29 Trump Blows Wind Away19:59 Ticks Make You Not Eat Meat27:22 Judith Curry & the New 'Official' Climate Report1:01:50 Death Blow to Climate Alarmism1:10:13 Audience Q&A In The Tank broadcasts LIVE every Thursday at 12pm CT on on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Tune in to have your comments addressed live by the In The Tank Crew. Be sure to subscribe and never miss an episode. See you there!Climate Change Roundtable is LIVE every Friday at 12pm CT on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Have a topic you want addressed? Join the live show and leave a comment for our panelists and we'll cover it during the live show!

A weekly magazine-style radio show featuring the voices and stories of Asians and Pacific Islanders from all corners of our community. The show is produced by a collective of media makers, deejays, and activists.   In this two-part series of Oakland Asian Cultural Center's “Let's Talk” podcast Eastside Arts Alliance is featured. Elena Serrano and Susanne Takehara, two of the founders of Eastside Arts Alliance, and staff member Aubrey Pandori will discuss the history that led to the formation of Eastside and their deep work around multi-racial solidarity.   Transcript: Let's Talk podcast episode 9  [00:00:00] Emma: My name is Emma Grover, and I am the program and communications coordinator at the Oakland Asian Cultural Center, known also as OACC. Today we are sharing the ninth episode of our Let's Talk Audio Series. Let's Talk is part of OACC'S Open Ears for Change Initiative, which was established in 2020. With this series, our goals are to address anti-Blackness in the APIA communities, discuss the effects of colorism and racism in a safe space, and highlight Black and Asian solidarity and community efforts specifically in the Oakland Chinatown area. Today's episode is a round table discussion with Elena Serrano, Susanne Takahara, and Aubrey Pandori of Eastside Arts Alliance.  [00:00:53] Aubrey: Hello everybody. This is Aubrey from Eastside Arts Alliance, and I am back here for the second part of our Let's Talk with Suzanne and Elena. We're gonna be talking about what else Eastside is doing right now in the community. The importance of art in activism, and the importance of Black and Asian solidarity in Oakland and beyond.  So I am the community archivist here at Eastside Arts Alliances. I run CARP, which stands for Community Archival Resource Project. It is a project brought on by one of our co-founders, Greg Morozumi. And it is primarily a large chunk of his own collection from over the years, but it is a Third World archive with many artifacts, journals, pens, newspapers from social movements in the Bay Area and beyond, international social movements from the 1960s forward. We do a few different programs through CARP. I sometimes have archival exhibitions. We do public engagement through panels, community archiving days. We collaborate with other community archives like the Bay Area Lesbian Archives and Freedom Archives here in Oakland and the Bay Area. And we are also working on opening up our Greg Morozumi Reading Room in May. So that is an opportunity for people to come in and relax, read books, host reading groups, or discussions with their community. We're also gonna be opening a lending system so people are able to check out books to take home and read. There'll be library cards coming soon for that and other fun things to come.  [00:02:44] So Suzanne, what are you working on at Eastside right now? [00:02:48] Susanne: Well, for the past like eight or nine years I've been working with Jose Ome Navarrete and Debbie Kajiyama of NAKA Dance Theater to produce Live Arts and Resistance (LAIR), which is a Dance Theater Performance series. We've included many artists who, some of them started out here at Eastside and then grew to international fame, such as Dohee Lee, and then Amara Tabor-Smith has graced our stages for several years with House Full of Black Women. This year we're working with Joti Singh on Ghadar Geet: Blood and Ink, a piece she choreographed, and shot in film and it's a multimedia kind of experience. We've worked with Cat Brooks and many emerging other artists who are emerging or from all over, mostly Oakland, but beyond. It's a place where people can just experiment and not worry about a lot of the regulations that bigger theaters have. Using the outside, the inside, the walls, the ceiling sometimes. It's been an exciting experience to work with so many different artists in our space.  [00:04:03] Elena: And I have been trying to just get the word out to as many different folks who can help sustain the organization as possible about the importance of the work we do here. So my main job with Eastside has been raising money. But what we're doing now is looking at cultural centers like Eastside, like Oakland Asian Cultural Center, like the Malonga Casquelord Center, like Black Cultural Zone, like the Fruitvale Plaza and CURJ's work. These really integral cultural hubs. In neighborhoods and how important those spaces are.  [00:04:42] So looking at, you know, what we bring to the table with the archives, which serve the artistic community, the organizing community. There's a big emphasis, and we had mentioned some of this in the first episode around knowing the history and context of how we got here so we can kind of maneuver our way out. And that's where books and movies and posters and artists who have been doing this work for so long before us come into play in the archives and then having it all manifest on the stage through programs like LAIR, where theater artists and dancers and musicians, and it's totally multimedia, and there's so much information like how to keep those types of places going is really critical.  [00:05:28] And especially now when public dollars have mostly been cut, like the City of Oakland hardly gave money to the arts anyway, and they tried to eliminate the entire thing. Then they're coming back with tiny bits of money. But we're trying to take the approach like, please, let's look at where our tax dollars go. What's important in a neighborhood? What has to stay and how can we all work together to make that happen?  [00:05:52] Susanne: And I want to say that our Cultural Center theater is a space that is rented out very affordably to not just artists, but also many organizations that are doing Movement work, such as Palestinian Youth Movement, Bala, Mujeres Unidas Y Activas, QT at Cafe Duo Refugees, United Haiti Action Committee, Freedom Archives, Oakland Sin Fronteras, Center for CPE, and many artists connected groups.  [00:06:22] Aubrey: Yeah, I mean, we do so much more than what's in the theater and Archive too, we do a lot of different youth programs such as Girl Project, Neighborhood Arts, where we do public murals. One of our collective members, Angie and Leslie, worked on Paint the Town this past year. We also have our gallery in between the Cultural Center and Bandung Books, our bookstore, which houses our archive. We are celebrating our 25th anniversary exhibition.  [00:06:54] Susanne: And one of the other exhibits we just wrapped up was Style Messengers, an exhibit of graffiti work from Dime, Spy and Surge, Bay Area artists and Surge is from New York City, kind of illustrating the history of graffiti and social commentary.  [00:07:30] Elena: We are in this studio here recording and this is the studio of our youth music program Beats Flows, and I love we're sitting here with this portrait of Amiri Baraka, who had a lot to say to us all the time. So it's so appropriate that when the young people are in the studio, they have this elder, magician, poet activist looking at him, and then when you look out the window, you see Sister Souljah, Public Enemy, and then a poster we did during, when Black Lives Matter came out, we produced these posters that said Black Power Matters, and we sent them all over the country to different sister cultural centers and I see them pop up somewhere sometimes and people's zooms when they're home all over the country. It's really amazing and it just really shows when you have a bunch of artists and poets and radical imagination, people sitting around, you know, what kind of things come out of it. [00:08:31] Aubrey: I had one of those Black Power Matters posters in my kitchen window when I lived in Chinatown before I worked here, or visited here actually. I don't even know how I acquired it, but it just ended up in my house somehow.  [00:08:45] Elena: That's perfect. I remember when we did, I mean we still do, Malcolm X Jazz Festival and it was a young Chicana student who put the Jazz Festival poster up and she was like, her parents were like, why is Malcolm X? What has that got to do with anything? And she was able to just tell the whole story about Malcolm believing that people, communities of color coming together  is a good thing. It's a powerful thing. And it was amazing how the festival and the youth and the posters can start those kind of conversations.  [00:09:15] Aubrey: Malcolm X has his famous quote that says “Culture is an indispensable weapon in the freedom struggle.” And Elena, we think a lot about Malcolm X and his message here at Eastside about culture, but also about the importance of art. Can we speak more about the importance of art in our activism?  [00:09:35] Elena: Well, that was some of the things we were touching on around radical imagination and the power of the arts. But where I am going again, is around this power of the art spaces, like the power of spaces like this, and to be sure that it's not just a community center, it's a cultural center, which means we invested in sound good, sound good lighting, sprung floors. You know, just like the dignity and respect that the artists and our audiences have, and that those things are expensive but critical. So I feel like that's, it's like to advocate for this type of space where, again, all those groups that we listed off that have come in here and there's countless more. They needed a space to reach constituencies, you know, and how important that is. It's like back in the civil rights organizing the Black church was that kind of space, very important space where those kind of things came together. People still go to church and there's still churches, but there's a space for cultural centers and to have that type of space where artists and activists can come together and be more powerful together.  [00:10:50] Aubrey: I think art is a really powerful way of reaching people. [00:10:54] Elena: You know, we're looking at this just because I, being in the development end, we put together a proposal for the Environmental Protection Agency before Donald (Trump) took it over. We were writing about how important popular education is, so working with an environmental justice organization who has tons of data about how impacted communities like East Oakland and West Oakland are suffering from all of this, lots of science. But what can we, as an arts group, how can we produce a popular education around those things? And you know, how can we say some of those same messages in murals and zines, in short films, in theater productions, you know, but kind of embracing that concept of popular education. So we're, you know, trying to counter some of the disinformation that's being put out there too with some real facts, but in a way that, you know, folks can grasp onto and, and get.  [00:11:53] Aubrey: We recently had a LAIR production called Sky Watchers, and it was a beautiful musical opera from people living in the Tenderloin, and it was very personal. You were able to hear about people's experiences with poverty, homelessness, and addiction in a way that was very powerful. How they were able to express what they were going through and what they've lost, what they've won, everything that has happened in their lives in a very moving way. So I think art, it's, it's also a way for people to tell their stories and we need to be hearing those stories. We don't need to be hearing, I think what a lot of Hollywood is kind of throwing out, which is very white, Eurocentric beauty standards and a lot of other things that doesn't reflect our neighborhood and doesn't reflect our community. So yeah, art is a good way for us to not only tell our stories, but to get the word out there, what we want to see changed.  So our last point that we wanna talk about today is the importance of Black and Asian solidarity in Oakland. How has that been a history in Eastside, Suzanne?  [00:13:09] Susanne: I feel like Eastside is all about Third World solidarity from the very beginning. And Yuri Kochiyama is one of our mentors through Greg Morozumi and she was all about that. So I feel like everything we do brings together Black, Asian and brown folks. [00:13:27] Aubrey: Black and Asian solidarity is especially important here at Eastside Arts Alliance. It is a part of our history. We have our bookstore called Bandung Books for a very specific reason, to give some history there. So the Bandung Conference happened in 1955 in Indonesia, and it was the first large-scale meeting of Asian and African countries. Most of which were newly independent from colonialism. They aimed to promote Afro-Asian cooperation and rejection of colonialism and imperialism in all nations. And it really set the stage for revolutionary solidarity between colonized and oppressed people, letting way for many Third Worlds movements internationally and within the United States.  [00:14:14] Eastside had an exhibition called Bandung to the Bay: Black and Asian Solidarity at Oakland Asian Cultural Center the past two years in 2022 and 2023 for their Lunar New Year and Black History Month celebrations. It highlighted the significance of that conference and also brought to light what was happening in the United States from the 1960s to present time that were creating and building solidarity between Black and Asian communities. The exhibition highlighted a number of pins, posters, and newspapers from the Black Liberation Movement and Asian American movement, as well as the broader Third World movement. The Black Panthers were important points of inspiration in Oakland, in the Bay Area in getting Asian and Pacific Islanders in the diaspora, and in their homelands organized.  [00:15:07] We had the adoption of the Black Panthers 10-point program to help shape revolutionary demands and principles for people's own communities like the Red Guard in San Francisco's Chinatown, IWK in New York's Chinatown and even the Polynesian Panthers in New Zealand. There were so many different organizations that came out of the Black Panther party right here in Oakland. And we honor that by having so many different 10-point programs up in our theater too. We have the Brown Berets, Red Guard Party, Black Panthers, of course, the American Indian Movement as well. So we're always thinking about that kind of organizing and movement building that has been tied here for many decades now.  [00:15:53] Elena: I heard that the term Third World came from the Bandung conference. [00:15:58] Aubrey: Yes, I believe that's true.  [00:16:01] Elena: I wanted to say particularly right now, the need for specifically Black Asian solidarity is just, there's so much misinformation around China coming up now, especially as China takes on a role of a superpower in the world. And it's really up to us to provide some background, some other information, some truth telling, so folks don't become susceptible to that kind of misinformation. And whatever happens when it comes from up high and we hate China, it reflects in Chinatown. And that's the kind of stereotyping that because we have been committed to Third World solidarity and truth telling for so long, that that's where we can step in and really, you know, make a difference, we hope. I think the main point is that we need to really listen to each other, know what folks are going through, know that we have more in common than we have separating us, especially in impacted Black, brown, Asian communities in Oakland. We have a lot to do.  [00:17:07] Aubrey: To keep in contact with Eastside Arts Alliance, you can find us at our website: eastside arts alliance.org, and our Instagrams at Eastside Cultural and at Bandung Books to stay connected with our bookstore and CArP, our archive, please come down to Eastside Arts Alliance and check out our many events coming up in the new year. We are always looking for donations and volunteers and just to meet new friends and family.  [00:17:36] Susanne: And with that, we're gonna go out with Jon Jang's “The Pledge of Black Asian Alliance,” produced in 2018.  [00:18:29] Emma: This was a round table discussion at the Eastside Arts Alliance Cultural Center with staff and guests: Elena, Suzanne and Aubrey.  Let's Talk Audio series is one of OACC'S Open Ears for Change projects and as part of the Stop the Hate Initiative with funds provided by the California Department of Social Services in consultation with the commission of Asian and Pacific Islander American Affairs to administer $110 million allocated over three years to community organizations. These organizations provide direct services to victims of hate and their families and offer prevention and intervention services to tackle hate in our communities. This episode is a production of the Oakland Asian Cultural Center with engineering, editing, and sound design by Thick Skin Media.  [00:19:18] A special thanks to Jon Jang for permission to use his original music. And thank you for listening.  [00:19:32] Music: Life is not what you alone make it. Life is the input of everyone who touched your life and every experience that entered it. We are all part of one another. Don't become too narrow, live fully, meet all kinds of people. You'll learn something from everyone. Follow what you feel in your heart. OACC Podcast [00:00:00] Emma: My name is Emma Grover, and I am the program and communications coordinator at the Oakland Asian Cultural Center, known also as OACC. Today we are sharing the eighth episode of our Let's Talk audio series. Let's talk as part of OACC's Open Ears for Change Initiative, which was established in 2020. With this series, our goals are to address anti-blackness in the APIA communities, discuss the effects of colorism and racism in a safe space, and highlight black and Asian solidarity and community efforts specifically in the Oakland Chinatown area.   [00:00:43] Today's guests are Elena Serrano and Suzanne Takahara, co-founders of Eastside Arts Alliance. Welcome Elena and Suzanne, thank you so much for joining today's episode. And so just to kick things off, wanna hear about how was Eastside Arts Alliance started?   [00:01:01] Susanne: Well, it was really Greg Morozumi who had a longstanding vision of creating a cultural center in East Oakland, raised in Oakland, an organizer in the Bay Area, LA, and then in New York City where he met Yuri Kochiyama, who became a lifelong mentor.   [00:01:17] Greg was planning with one of Yuri's daughters, Ichi Kochiyama to move her family to Oakland and help him open a cultural center here. I met Greg in the early nineties and got to know him during the January, 1993 “No Justice, No Peace” show at Pro Arts in Oakland. The first Bay Graffiti exhibition in the gallery. Greg organized what became a massive anti-police brutality graffiti installation created by the TDDK crew. Graffiti images and messages covered the walls and ceiling complete with police barricades. It was a response to the Rodney King protests. The power of street art busted indoors and blew apart the gallery with political messaging. After that, Greg recruited Mike Dream, Spy, and other TDK writers to help teach the free art classes for youth that Taller Sin Fronteras was running at the time.   [00:02:11] There were four artist groups that came together to start Eastside. Taller Sin Fronteras was an ad hoc group of printmakers and visual artists activists based in the East Bay. Their roots came out of the free community printmaking, actually poster making workshops that artists like Malaquias Montoya and David Bradford organized in Oakland in the early 70s and 80s.   [00:02:34] The Black Dot Collective of poets, writers, musicians, and visual artists started a popup version of the Black Dot Cafe. Marcel Diallo and Leticia Utafalo were instrumental and leaders of this project. 10 12 were young digital artists and activists led by Favianna Rodriguez and Jesus Barraza in Oakland. TDK is an Oakland based graffiti crew that includes Dream, Spie, Krash, Mute, Done Amend, Pak and many others evolving over time and still holding it down.   [00:03:07] Elena: That is a good history there. And I just wanted to say that me coming in and meeting Greg and knowing all those groups and coming into this particular neighborhood, the San Antonio district of Oakland, the third world aspect of who we all were and what communities we were all representing and being in this geographic location where those communities were all residing. So this neighborhood, San Antonio and East Oakland is very third world, Black, Asian, Latinx, indigenous, and it's one of those neighborhoods, like many neighborhoods of color that has been disinvested in for years. But rich, super rich in culture.   [00:03:50] So the idea of a cultural center was…let's draw on where our strengths are and all of those groups, TDKT, Taller Sin Fronters, Black artists, 10 – 12, these were all artists who were also very engaged in what was going on in the neighborhoods. So artists, organizers, activists, and how to use the arts as a way to lift up those stories tell them in different ways. Find some inspiration, ways to get out, ways to build solidarity between the groups, looking at our common struggles, our common victories, and building that strength in numbers.   [00:04:27] Emma: Thank you so much for sharing. Elena and Suzanne, what a rich and beautiful history for Eastside Arts Alliance.   [00:04:34] Were there any specific political and or artistic movements happening at that time that were integral to Eastside's start?   [00:04:41] Elena: You know, one of the movements that we took inspiration from, and this was not happening when Eastside got started, but for real was the Black Panther Party. So much so that the Panthers 10-point program was something that Greg xeroxed and made posters and put 'em up on the wall, showing how the 10-point program for the Panthers influenced that of the Young Lords and the Brown Berets and I Wor Kuen (IWK).   [00:05:07] So once again, it was that Third world solidarity. Looking at these different groups that were working towards similar things, it still hangs these four posters still hang in our cultural, in our theater space to show that we were all working on those same things. So even though we came in at the tail end of those movements, when we started Eastside, it was very much our inspiration and what we strove to still address; all of those points are still relevant right now.   [00:05:36] Susanne: So that was a time of Fight The Power, Kaos One and Public Enemy setting. The tone for public art murals, graphics, posters. So that was kind of the context for which art was being made and protests happened.   [00:05:54] Elena: There was a lot that needed to be done and still needs to be done. You know what? What the other thing we were coming on the tail end of and still having massive repercussions was crack. And crack came into East Oakland really hard, devastated generations, communities, everything, you know, so the arts were a way for some folks to still feel power and feel strong and feel like they have agency in the world, especially hip hop and, spray can, and being out there and having a voice and having a say, it was really important, especially in neighborhoods where things had just been so messed up for so long.   [00:06:31] Emma: I would love to know also what were the community needs Eastside was created to address, you know, in this environment where there's so many community needs, what was Eastside really honing in on at this time?   [00:06:41] Elena: It's interesting telling our story because we end up having to tell so many other stories before us, so things like the, Black Arts movement and the Chicano Arts Movement. Examples of artists like Amiri Baraka, Malaguias Montoya, Sonya Sanchez. Artists who had committed themselves to the struggles of their people and linking those two works. So we always wanted to have that. So the young people that we would have come into the studio and wanna be rappers, you know, it's like, what is your responsibility?   [00:07:15] You have a microphone, you amplify. What are some of the things you're saying? So it was on us. To provide that education and that backstory and where they came from and the footsteps we felt like they were in and that they needed to keep moving it forward. So a big part of the cultural center in the space are the archives and all of that information and history and context.   [00:07:37] Susanne: And we started the Malcolm X Jazz Arts Festival for that same reason coming out of the Bandung Conference. And then the Tri Continental, all of this is solidarity between people's movements.   [00:07:51] Emma: You've already talked about this a little bit, the role of the arts in Eastside's foundation and the work that you're doing, and I'd love to hear also maybe how the role of the arts continues to be important in the work that you're doing today as a cultural center.   [00:08:04] And so my next question to pose to you both is what is the role of the arts at Eastside?   [00:08:10] Elena: So a couple different things. One, I feel like, and I said a little bit of this before, but the arts can transmit messages so much more powerfully than other mediums. So if you see something acted out in a theater production or a song or a painting, you get that information transmitted in a different way.   [00:08:30] Then also this idea of the artists being able to tap into imagination and produce images and visions and dreams of the future. This kind of imagination I just recently read or heard because folks aren't reading anymore or hardly reading that they're losing their imagination. What happens when you cannot even imagine a way out of things?   [00:08:54] And then lastly, I just wanted to quote something that Favianna Rodriguez, one of our founders always says “cultural shift precedes political shift.” So if you're trying to shift things politically on any kind of policy, you know how much money goes to support the police or any of these issues. It's the cultural shift that needs to happen first. And that's where the cultural workers, the artists come in.   [00:09:22] Susanne: And another role of Eastside in supporting the arts to do just that is honoring the artists, providing a space where they can have affordable rehearsal space or space to create, or a place to come safely and just discuss things that's what we hope and have created for the Eastside Cultural Center and now the bookstore and the gallery. A place for them to see themselves and it's all um, LGBTA, BIPOC artists that we serve and honor in our cultural center. To that end, we, in the last, I don't know, 8, 9 years, we've worked with Jose Navarrete and Debbie Kajiyama of Naka Dance Theater to produce live arts and resistance, which gives a stage to emerging and experienced performance artists, mostly dancers, but also poets, writers, theater and actors and musicians.   [00:10:17] Emma: The last question I have for you both today is what is happening in the world that continues to call us to action as artists?   [00:10:27] Elena: Everything, everything is happening, you know, and I know things have always been happening, but it seems really particularly crazy right now on global issues to domestic issues. For a long time, Eastside was um, really focusing in on police stuff and immigration stuff because it was a way to bring Black and brown communities together because they were the same kind of police state force, different ways.   [00:10:54] Now we have it so many different ways, you know, and strategies need to be developed. Radical imagination needs to be deployed. Everyone needs to be on hand. A big part of our success and our strength is organizations that are not artistic organizations but are organizing around particular issues globally, locally come into our space and the artists get that information. The community gets that information. It's shared information, and it gives us all a way, hopefully, to navigate our way out of it.   [00:11:29] Susanne: The Cultural Center provides a venue for political education for our communities and our artists on Palestine, Haiti, Sudan, immigrant rights, prison abolition, police abolition, sex trafficking, and houselessness among other things.   [00:11:46] Elena: I wanted to say too, a big part of what's going on is this idea of public disinvestment. So housing, no such thing as public housing, hardly anymore. Healthcare, education, we're trying to say access to cultural centers. We're calling that the cultural infrastructure of neighborhoods. All of that must be continued to be supported and we can't have everything be privatized and run by corporations. So that idea of these are essential things in a neighborhood, schools, libraries, cultural spaces, and you know, and to make sure cultural spaces gets on those lists.   [00:12:26] Emma: I hear you. And you know, I think every category you brought up, actually just now I can think of one headline or one piece of news recently that is really showing how critically these are being challenged, these basic rights and needs of the community. And so thank you again for the work that you're doing and keeping people informed as well. I think sometimes with all the news, both globally and, and in our more local communities in the Bay Area or in Oakland. It can be so hard to know what actions to take, what tools are available. But again, that's the importance of having space for this type of education, for this type of activism. And so I am so grateful that Eastside exists and is continuing to serve our community in this way.   What is Eastside Arts Alliance up to today? Are there any ways we can support your collective, your organization, what's coming up?   [00:13:18] Elena: Well, this is our 25th anniversary. So the thing that got us really started by demonstrating to the community what a cultural center was, was the Malcolm X Jazz Arts Festival, and that this year will be our 25th anniversary festival happening on May 17th.   [00:13:34] It's always free. It's in San Antonio Park. It's an amazing day of organizing and art and music, multi-generational. It's beautiful. It's a beautiful day. Folks can find out. We have stuff going on every week. Every week at the cultural center on our website through our socials. Our website is Eastside Arts alliance.org, and all the socials are there and there's a lot of information from our archives that you can look up there. There's just just great information on our website, and we also send out a newsletter.   [00:14:07] Emma: Thank you both so much for sharing, and I love you bringing this idea, but I hear a lot of arts and activism organizations using this term radical imagination and how it's so needed for bringing forth the future that we want for ourselves and our future generations.   [00:14:24] And so I just think that's so beautiful that Eastside creates that space, cultivates a space where that radical imagination can take place through the arts, but also through community connections. Thank you so much Elena and Suzanne for joining us today.   [00:14:40] Susanne: Thank you for having us.   [00:15:32] Emma: Let's Talk Audio series is one of OACC'S Open Ears for Change projects and is part of the Stop the Hate Initiative with funds provided by the California Department of Social Services. In consultation with the commission of Asian and Pacific Islander American Affairs to administer $110 million allocated over three years to community organizations. These organizations provide direct services to victims of hate and their families, and offer prevention and intervention services to tackle hate in our communities.   This episode is a production of the Oakland Asian Cultural Center with engineering, editing, and sound design by Thick Skin Media. A special thanks to Jon Jang for permission to use his original music, and thank you for listening.   [00:16:34] Music: Life is not what you alone make it. Life is the input of everyone who touched your life and every experience that entered it. We are all part of one another. Don't become too narrow. Live fully, meet all kinds of people. You'll learn something from everyone. Follow what you feel in your heart. The post APEX Express – August 14, 2025 appeared first on KPFA.

xcess noise has been linked to a number of health concerns, including cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure and sleep disorders. But noise pollution hasn’t been well studied in the U.S., due in part to a lack of federal oversight. The Environmental Protection Agency established its Office of Noise Control and Abatement in the 1970s, but the office has remained unfunded since the early 1980s.    A new study from Oregon State University aims to better understand noise pollution in Portland. Researchers found that many of the city’s neighborhoods have noise levels that are likely unhealthy.   Matt Bozigar is an environmental epidemiologist and an assistant professor in OSU’s college of health. He joins us with more details.   

At least one person is dead, after an explosion at a U.S. Steel plant near Pittsburgh. The state House passes a bill to fund Pennsylvania's mass transit, while the state Senate is expected to meet Tuesday. The state budget is now six weeks delayed. The State Attorney General's office is taking part in Operation Robocall Roundup, a multistate effort to crack down on robocalls nationwide. The Environmental Protection Agency has canceled a $7 billion Biden-era program to build rooftop solar. One of the Pennsylvania state troopers shot last Thursday in Susquehanna County, is released from the hospital and recovering at home. The U.S. Justice Department is asking Pennsylvania to turn over its voter rolls, including voters’ personal information, Social Security and driver’s license numbers. Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt received the request in a letter last week. Hundreds of people attended the third annual Central PA Bigfoot and Cryptid Festival last weekend. And a deep dive: A hospital in northeastern Pennsylvania is preparing for the possibility of closure. Public media's federal funding has been revoked, which means your support is now more vital than ever. Help power the independent journalism and trusted programming you find on WITF by making a gift of support now at witf.org/givenow. And thank you. Support WITF: https://www.witf.org/support/give-now/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Late last month, President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency proposed rescinding the “endangerment finding" — an Obama-era addition to the Federal Clean Air Act of 1963 that recognized the dangers of climate change. Host Nash Jones sits down Camilla Feibelman, director of the local chapter of the Sierra Club, and Ben Shelton, deputy secretary of the state's Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department, to discuss what the EPA's proposal could mean for greenhouse gas regulations in our state. Later, the two discuss the EPA's decision to extend deadlines for states and the oil and gas industry to comply with methane standards set last year by the Biden administration, and how millions of tons of pollutants that would have been capped now won't be.Podcast Host: Lou DiVizioShow Host: Nash JonesGuests:Ben Shelton, Deputy Secretary, NM Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources DepartmentCamilla Feibelman, Director, Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter    

This Day in Legal History: First SCOTUS DecisionOn August 11, 1792, the United States Supreme Court issued its first reported decision in Georgia v. Brailsford. The case arose from the complex aftermath of the Revolutionary War, when questions about debts owed to British creditors came before the new federal judiciary. The State of Georgia had enacted laws seizing debts owed to British subjects, while the 1783 Treaty of Paris required those debts to be honored. The dispute involved a British creditor, Samuel Brailsford, seeking repayment from a Georgia resident. Georgia argued that its confiscation laws extinguished the debt, but the Court was faced with balancing state statutes against treaty obligations. In its decision, the Court reaffirmed that treaties made under the authority of the United States were binding on the states, even when they conflicted with local laws. This early opinion helped cement the principle of federal supremacy in foreign affairs and treaty enforcement. It also demonstrated the Court's willingness to decide politically sensitive disputes involving state sovereignty. The ruling, authored before the modern opinion-writing style developed, was short and straightforward, focusing narrowly on the facts and legal issue. It set an early precedent for judicial interpretation of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. Georgia v. Brailsford thus marked the Court's entry into shaping the balance between state power and federal authority. The case also foreshadowed the judiciary's role in resolving conflicts between domestic law and international agreements. While not as well-known as later landmark cases, its legacy lies in establishing the Court as a neutral arbiter in disputes implicating both constitutional structure and international commitments.President Donald Trump is expected to nominate David Rosner, a Democrat currently serving on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), as its next chair. The agency oversees decisions on natural gas export facilities and major power infrastructure, making it central to Trump's energy agenda. Rosner, appointed to FERC by President Joe Biden, previously worked for former Senator Joe Manchin, who was known for supporting coal and gas interests. White House officials say Rosner aligns with Trump's priorities, despite his party affiliation. FERC was a flashpoint during Trump's first term, when his appointees attempted—but failed—to push policies favoring fossil fuel power generation. Today, surging energy demand from data centers has renewed attention on expanding cheap power sources. In July, the country's largest electric grid saw record power auction revenues of $16.1 billion, highlighting the strain on supply. Rosner's promotion would follow the departure of Republican Mark Christie as chair, signaling a bipartisan leadership shift at the influential regulator.Trump to Tap Democrat to Lead US Agency Overseeing Gas, PowerA closely watched trial began today in San Francisco over President Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to assist immigration raids and manage protests in Los Angeles. California argues the move violates the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which limits the use of the military in civilian law enforcement. The dispute centers on Trump's June order sending 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard members to the city after mass immigration raids sparked unrest. State officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom, claim about 2,000 Guard members are still aiding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in raids and restricting civilian movement. The administration denies the troops engaged in law enforcement, saying they were protecting federal property and ICE personnel. The three-day, non-jury trial before U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer could set limits on Trump's authority to deploy the military in U.S. cities. California is also seeking to regain control of its National Guard from federal command. A ruling against the administration could have lasting implications for the president's power to use military forces domestically.Landmark trial kicks off over Trump's use of US military in policing role | ReutersU.S. law firms saw stronger-than-expected business in the second quarter of 2025, with overall demand rising 1.6% from the same period last year and billing rates climbing 7.4%, according to the Thomson Reuters Institute. Clients sought legal guidance on shifting tariffs, regulatory changes, and an unsteady economy, partly fueled by President Trump's trade policies. The growth was uneven—top 100 firms experienced a 0.6% drop in demand, while the next-largest 100 grew 2.6% and midsized firms rose 3.5%, suggesting clients may be opting for lower-cost or more specialized services. Practice area results also varied: litigation demand rose 2%, corporate work 1.3%, mergers and acquisitions 0.3%, while intellectual property fell 1.4%. The industry's Financial Index score hit 55, up four points from Q1, but the report warned of risks ahead as overhead costs climb, collections dip, and productivity lags 1.3% year-over-year. Unpaid bills and write-downs could create further financial pressure if trends persist. Law firms stayed busy in second quarter but uncertainty looms - report | ReutersThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has moved to terminate its labor contract with the union representing 8,000 of its employees, according to the union's president. The action is part of President Trump's broader push to limit collective bargaining rights across federal agencies. Trump's March executive order seeks to remove such rights at more than 30 agencies, including the EPA, and is being challenged in court by unions that argue it violates free speech and bargaining obligations. The EPA says it is acting in compliance with the order, which would make it easier for agencies to discipline or dismiss workers. The move comes as the EPA plans to reduce its workforce by at least 23% and close its scientific research office as part of broader federal downsizing. Unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees, are suing to stop the effort, but a recent federal appeals court decision allowed the administration to proceed with exempting some agencies from negotiating with unions. The union representing EPA employees has pledged a legal response.Trump's environment agency terminates contract with unionized employees | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

On this episode, we have Small Business Specialist Reggie Mitchell from the Environmental Protection Agency with us! Reggie walks us through what a small business specialist does, what actions small businesses can take to connect with him, and why you need to be his best friend (if you're a small business). Do not miss out on hearing about Reggie's passion to support, educate and propel this industry.  To connect with Reggie, find him on LinkedIn

Ralph welcomes labor organizer Chris Townsend to discuss the current state of the labor movement under the second Trump administration. Then, Ralph talks to journalist Mariah Blake about PFAS and her new book “They Poisoned the World: Life and Death in the Age of Forever Chemicals.”Chris Townsend has been a union member and leader for more than 45 years. He was most recently the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) International Union Organizing Director. Previously he was an International Representative and Political Action Director for the United Electrical Workers Union (UE), and he has held local positions in both the SEIU and UFCW.We've moved up an administrative layer of labor leaders, time markers, folks who see their role as at best guiding the sinking ship, managing the decline, taking best care as they can think of the members as their lives are destroyed, as the employers move to liquidate us.Chris TownsendIn many ways, exceeding the gravity of the political action crisis (our subordination to the Democratic Party, our membership estrangement from the political process, the lack of any significant trade union education of the rank and file other than a few cheap slogans)…is that the crisis that we face is the crisis of our very existence.Chris TownsendIt's far easier to shrink the labor movement than it is to build it and grow it. And that's our job. No other force in the country is going to do the work of adding the many millions of unorganized toilers—I use the word “toilers” very carefully…Toil is really what we've been reduced to, and increasingly so. So there's absolutely, I would indict the labor movement loudly, daily, that there is as yet no understanding that unless we go back out to the unorganized and take the spirit of trade unionism—unity, one for all, take on the employer, organize, defend each other, move forward, recapture some of this gargantuan wealth that we create each day on the job—unless that spirit is returned into an organizing wave or at least an attempt to do this, our fate has been sealed.Chris TownsendMariah Blake is an investigative journalist whose writing has appeared in the New York Times, the Atlantic, Mother Jones, the New Republic, and other publications. She was a Murrey Marder Nieman Fellow in Watchdog Journalism at Harvard University. And she is the author of They Poisoned the World: Life and Death in the Age of Forever Chemicals.PFAS are a large family of chemicals with some pretty amazing properties—they're extremely resistant to heat, stains, water, grease, electrical currents. They stand up to corrosive chemicals that burn through virtually every other material (including, in some cases, steel). And this makes them extremely useful. And as a result, they found their way into thousands of everyday products. On the other hand, they are probably the most insidious pollutants in all of human history. So they stay in the environment for hundreds or even thousands of years. Those that have been studied are highly toxic, even in the most minuscule of doses. And they are literally polluting the entire planet.Mariah BlakeThe way we regulate chemicals in this country at the moment makes zero sense. You do see changes happening in response to the unique threat posed by these chemicals on a state level. And this is really in response to citizen activism. So a number of states are passing laws that have banned the entire class of chemicals. That is not how we regulate chemicals in this country normally. We normally regulate them one by one, but at this moment 30 US states have passed at least 170 laws restricting PFAS, including 16 full or partial bans on the entire class of chemicals in consumer goods.Mariah BlakeThe amazing thing is the families of all these lobbyists have got these chemicals in their own bodies, their own kids, their own infants. I mean, don't they crank that into their daily mission as to how they're going to confront efforts by citizens around the country to ban and regulate these chemicals? How oblivious can you be? These oil and gas executives and lobbyists in Washington, their own families are being contaminated.Ralph NaderThese were people very much like Michael, people who had never taken much of an interest in politics, who'd spent their lives trusting that there were systems in place to protect them. And now that trust had been shattered. But rather than becoming cynical or resigned, they fought like hell to protect their families. And along the way, they discovered these hidden strengths that turned them into really remarkable advocates.Mariah BlakeNews 8/8/25* In Gaza, even the Israeli media is starting to acknowledge the scale of the starvation crisis. The New Yorker reporters, “Channel 12 [Israel's most-watched mainstream news broadcast], aired a series of startling…photographs of emaciated babies, and of children being trampled as they stood in food lines, holding out empty pots…[as well as] pictures of mothers weeping because they had no way to feed their families…Ohad Hemo, the network's correspondent for Palestinian affairs, concluded, ‘There is hunger in Gaza, and we have to say it loud and clear…The responsibility lies not only with Hamas but also with Israel.'” According to the U.N.'s World Food Programme, more than one in three people are not eating for days in a row. Yet, polls show that a “vast majority of Israeli Jews – 79 percent – say they are ‘not so troubled' or ‘not troubled at all' by the reports of famine and suffering among the Palestinian population in Gaza,” according Haaretz. This callous disregard for the lives of Palestinians among Israel's majority population ensures that this humanitarian crisis will worsen even more unless the government faces real external pressure to end the devastation and provide humanitarian aid.* Meanwhile, Axios reports the government of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu “unanimously voted Monday to fire Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, who is currently prosecuting [Netanyahu] for corruption.” As this piece explains, “This is the first time an Israeli government has ever voted to fire an attorney general,” sparking “immediate accusations Netanyahu was seeking to protect himself and his aides.” The Israeli Supreme Court issued an injunction blocking the move. However, this act, and the ensuing backlash, all but guarantees the bombardment of Gaza will continue as Netanyahu uses the campaign as a political liferaft.* Speaking of political crises, a major one is unfolding here at home. In Texas, the Republican-dominated state legislature is seeking to redraw the state's congressional maps to give Republicans five additional seats, which President Trump claims they are “entitled” to, per ABC. This naked power grab has set off a firestorm, with Democratic-controlled states like California and New York vowing to retaliate by redrawing their own maps to maximize their party's advantage. Texas state Democratic legislators, in an attempt to deny Republicans the quorum they need to enact the new maps, have fled to Illinois. Attorney General Ken Paxton has ordered their arrest, but they are seeking safe harbor in Illinois. Gerrymandering has plagued the American body politic since the foundation of the republic; perhaps this new crisis will force a resolution to the issue at the federal level. Then again, probably not.* In more positive legal news, former Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan reports that in an “Important win…A court rejected Google's effort to overturn a unanimous jury verdict finding that Google illegally monopolized key markets.” Crucially, the court also found that “digital monopolies can enjoy the fruits of their illegal conduct even after it stops.” In practice, this ruling means a remedy “may need to go beyond just stopping the illegal behavior so that the market can truly be opened up to competition.” However, Google is still appealing the ruling to the corporate-friendly Supreme Court, so the ultimate fate of this decision remains in the balance.* On Tuesday, the New York Times published an article giving an inside look at financier and pedophile sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein's “Manhattan Lair.” Among other notable features of the seven-story townhouse: a surveillance camera inside Epstein's bedroom. One can only imagine the images it captured. Another notable feature: the preponderance of photographs of powerful and influential figures with Epstein, including Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman. Epstein's Saudi connections, including a passport with a fake name and an address in Saudi Arabia which he used to enter several countries, including the Kingdom in the 1980s, have not been deeply probed.* Our remaining stories for this week all revolve around the Trump administration. First, after complaining that the Bureau of Labor Statistics “rigged” economic data to make his administration and Republicans look bad, Trump has fired BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer. As POLITICO notes, budget constraints and workforce cuts have already enfeebled BLS, and the bureau's attempts to insulate itself from political pressure will now be strained to the limit as whomever Trump does install will – implicitly or explicitly – understand that their fate will be tied to reporting out positive economic data. In the long run, this blow against accuracy in official economic reporting could do immense damage to the confidence of those considering investing in the United States.* Another Trump power grab is aimed at the District of Columbia. At 3 a.m. on Sunday, an altercation occurred between two fifteen-year-olds and Edward Coristine, the infamous DOGE staffer nicknamed “Big Balls,” in Washington's Logan Circle neighborhood. According to AP, “the group approached…[Coristine's] car and made a comment about taking it…[he then]...turned to confront the group…the teens then attacked him…officers patrolling nearby intervened…[and] the teens fled on foot.” This objectively strange, though ultimately mundane, attempted carjacking by teenagers has spurred the president to threaten a federal takeover of D.C., even as “violent crime overall is down more than 25% from the same period last year.” This is not the first time Republicans have threatened a federal takeover of the District, and in recent years there have been increasing tensions between the local and federal government – but D.C. is largely powerless to resist as it lacks the constitutional protections of statehood.* The Trump administration is also taking actions that will endanger the health and safety of all Americans. NBC reports Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is terminating 22 contracts, amounting to around $500 million, for research and development of mRNA vaccines. These contracts were awarded through the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA. One of these contracts was intended to help develop an mRNA-based vaccine for H5N1, the strain of bird flu that has infected dozens of people in the United States, according to this report. Rick Bright, who directed BARDA through the first Trump administration is quoted saying, “This isn't just about vaccines…It's about whether we'll be ready when the next crisis hits. Cutting mRNA development now puts every American at greater risk.”* Over at the Environmental Protection Agency, the picture is far more muddled. The Washington Post reports that the EPA held a tense meeting this week on its plan to rescind the agency's drinking water standard with regard to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS. In this meeting, state officials complained that mixed messages from federal regulators were frustrating their efforts. According to the Post “Despite the lack of clarity on what the EPA will do with the standard, states are still on the hook for implementing it.” Steven Elmore, chair of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council, is quoted saying “Certain states have state laws that say their drinking water standard can't be more stringent than the federal law.” At the same time, 250 bills have been introduced in 36 states this year to address PFAS by “banning the chemicals in products, setting maximum levels in drinking water and allocating funding to clean up contamination,” and “Dozens of states have passed regulatory standards for at least one forever chemical in drinking water.” Put simply, chaos and confusion reign, and the American people will pay the price as toxic forever chemicals continue to pollute our drinking water.* Finally, the BBC reports Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has announced plans for the United States to put a nuclear reactor on the moon. According to this piece, this initiative – part of “US ambitions to build a permanent base for humans to live on the lunar surface” – will be fast-tracked through NASA with a goal of being completed by 2030. The BBC astutely observes “questions remain about how realistic the goal and timeframe are, given recent and steep [NASA] budget cuts.” The announcement of this literally outlandish potential boondoggle is driven by an announcement in May by Russia and China that they plan to build an automated nuclear power station on the Moon by 2035. That's right, a second space race is underway, and to paraphrase the 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, the second time is always a farce.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

On this week's program, we bring you a community conversation about the environmental impacts of Kentucky's aluminum industry brought to you by the Kentucky Chapter of the Sierra Club (https://sierraclub.org/kentucky). Because aluminum is lightweight, durable, and highly recyclable, it's a key ingredient in solar panels and wind turbines, more efficient cars and planes, and construction and packaging materials. Demand for the metal is set to skyrocket, bolstering the hopes of companies and policymakers for a U.S. industrial turnaround. As aluminum gains the spotlight, the negative impacts of its production are also becoming more apparent. Sierra Club Kentucky has been collaborating with the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), a national organization that ensures the enforcement of laws protecting clean air and water (https://www.environmentalintegrity.org). As the demand for aluminum grows — in particular for use in clean energy and transportation — EIP and other environmental groups are taking action so that aluminum producing companies will reduce the harm they cause to communities and the environment. Two of the seven U.S. aluminum smelters are in Kentucky: Century Sebree in Henderson County and Century Hawesville in Hancock County. Both facilities have violated air and water standards many times. In 2021, the Environmental Protection Agency determined that Sebree smelter was largely to blame for excessive levels of the area's releases of sulfur dioxide, a very harmful pollutant. Unfortunately, the KY Department of Environmental Protection has missed a required deadline to submit a plan to solve this problem, and EPA has missed a deadline to address the state's failure. EIP is interested in sharing information with Western Kentucky residents and learning about any concerns you may have with air and water quality in the area and the impacts of aluminum production. EIP and Sierra Club held this online information meeting on January 17, 2024 featuring speakers Nadia Steinzor and Sunny Lee of the Environmental Integrity Project. On Truth to Power each week, we bring you community conversations like you won't hear anywhere else! Truth to Power airs every Friday at 9pm, Saturday at 11am, and Sunday at 4pm on Louisville's grassroots, community radio station, Forward Radio 106.5fm WFMP and live streams at https://www.forwardradio.org. If you like what you hear, share it with someone, donate to keep us on-air, and get involved as a volunteer!

The Trump Administration has claimed that greenhouse gases don't endanger people. And last month, the Environmental Protection Agency said it intends to rescind a landmark 2009 legal opinion — effectively ending all its climate regulations.This all comes on the cusp of a rapidly-warming planet fueling extreme weather events. A hotter planet poses an existential crisis on multiple fronts, said Alan Weisman, journalist and author of “Hope Dies Last: Visionary People Across the World, Fighting to Find Us a Future.” “We're all feeling the heat right now, but we're not the only creatures on earth that are suffering from climate change,” he said. “Many of [the] species that we're dependent on pollinate our food [and] become our food. Species enrich our soil, filter the air and produce oxygen. They are all also threatened by climate change.” While mankind needs to address this problem, Weisman said his research allowed him to uncover hope in the many ways people are taking climate action in their own hands — from fusion energy technology at The Massachusetts Institute of Technology to winning climate lawsuits in the Netherlands.“It's a combination of different things, in a lot of different places, that are each contributing to helping to slow down climate change before it gets out of control.” To hear the full conversation, click play on the audio player above or subscribe to the Climate Cast podcast.

With the Trump administration’s dismantling of environmental regulations and total reversal on policies to combat climate change, activists have filed lawsuits and requests for injunctions all over the country. The latest development is the Trump-led Environmental Protection Agency reversing the long-standing “endangerment finding” that greenhouse gases threatened human health and welfare. One environmental law professor at Harvard called it “an assault on the foundation of all federal climate policy.” Lewis & Clark environmental law professor Melissa Powers says Oregon — and other states — do have options to fight climate change, besides filing individual lawsuits. She says one viable strategy would be for Oregon to create a Climate Superfund. We talk with her about what unraveling of environmental regulations is likely to mean in Oregon and more about the potential for an Oregon Climate Superfund.

The Trump administration has formally declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are not dangerous pollutants. If the president gets his way, then the Environmental Protection Agency may soon surrender any ability to regulate heat-trapping pollution from cars and trucks, power plants, and factories — in ways that a future Democratic president potentially could not reverse.On this week's episode of Shift Key, we discuss whether Trump's EPA gambit will work, the arguments that the administration is using, and what it could mean for the future of U.S. climate and energy policy. We're joined by Jody Freeman, the Archibald Cox Professor of Law at Harvard and the director of Harvard's environmental and energy law program. She was an architect of the Obama administration's landmark deal with automakers to accept carbon dioxide regulations.Shift Key is hosted by Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University, and Robinson Meyer, Heatmap's executive editor.Mentioned:The EPA Says Carbon Pollution Isn't Dangerous. What Comes Next?The EPA on its reconsideration of the endangerment findingJody's story on the change: Trump's EPA proposes to end the U.S. fight against climate changeJesse's upshift (and accompanying video); Rob's sort of upshift.--This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …Accelerate your clean energy career with Yale's online certificate programs. Gain real-world skills, build strong networks, and keep working while you learn. Explore the year-long Financing and Deploying Clean Energy program or the 5-month Clean and Equitable Energy Development program. Learn more here.Join clean energy leaders at RE+ 25, September 8–11 in Las Vegas. Explore opportunities to meet rising energy demand with the latest in solar, storage, EVs, and more at North America's largest energy event. Save 20% with code HEATMAP20 at re-plus.com.Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this West Virginia Morning, the Environmental Protection Agency plans to cancel billions of dollars in grants for a solar program intended to improve home energy efficiency. The funds – including more than $100 million in West Virginia – were meant to help low-income residents combat rising electricity costs.  And, an annual competition celebrates the... View Article The post Solar Program Going Dark And Old-Time Music Bridges Generations, This West Virginia Morning appeared first on West Virginia Public Broadcasting.

In 2008, the Obama administration compiled a massive report with the goal of answering one big question: Is climate change a danger to human health in America? Comprised of some of the most comprehensive scientific findings of all time, the Endangerment Finding concluded that it was, which allowed the  government to regulate climate change—including putting restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. Now, the Trump administration and the Environmental Protection Agency have ruled to rescind the Endangerment Finding, in turn stripping climate regulations. It's just the latest in Trump's attack on climate science and regulations including the firing of hundreds of scientists, and the erasure of critical climate reports and data. We talk with climate reporters and scientists about what's at stake. And what's coming next.  Guests: Molly Taft, journalist and climate reporter, WIRED Kristen Sissner, executive director, Berkeley Earth Shaye Wolf, climate science director at the Center for Biological Diversity Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Big news as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency looks to eliminate greenhouse gas regulations. How will school bus manufacturers and school districts respond? Also read the new August issue of STN magazine. Nashawn Craig, assistant director of transportation and fleet at Taylor Schools in Michigan, discusses aspects of leadership including being promoted as a younger person, retaining staff, collaborating with administration and implementing new technology. Read more about operations. Episode sponsors: Transfinder, IC Bus.

Mandy M. Gunasekara, former Chief of Staff at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under President Trump and author of Y'all Fired: A Southern Belle's Guide to Restoring Federalism and Draining the Swamp, joins the show to discuss her recent appearance on Fox Business where President Trump praised her for calling out the “environmental scam.” Backed by a new Department of Energy report that challenges prevailing climate alarmism, Gunasekara unpacks what's really driving federal climate policy, and how to push back.

Saskia Van Gendt talks about her career journey; sustainability challenges & opportunities; the importance of knowledge-sharing; & her experience as a woman. IN THIS EPISODE WE DISCUSS:   [04.52] How Saskia discovered a passion for sustainability, and how that passion grew into a career. “From a young age, I'd always felt a connection to nature… But, it wasn't until I was in high school and I did competitive debate. One of the debate topics was all about renewable energy, the environment and the impact of technology and innovation in reducing emissions from fossil fuels. And that's when a light switch turned on. It was a translation from a passion for the environment to some of the practical things we can do.” [07.03] How the sustainability landscape has changed since Saskia's first role at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2006. “It's important to take a long view. There's a lot of change that's needed, but we've also made a lot of progress… Now there are carbon accounting standards that are on the same level of credibility as financial accounting standards. So we've really matured in how we're approaching some of these issues.” [11.26] The biggest sustainability lessons Saskia learned from the consumer market during her time at retail businesses Rothy's and Method. “They both had a really engaged consumer fanbase… And that makes sustainability a little bit easier. You can engage the consumer directly because they're active, and they often come to the brand because sustainability is woven into the value proposition.” [15.01] Why Saskia embraced supply chain and joined Blue Yonder. “The supply chain aspects were always there… But there's been a general awareness that supply chain is almost the last frontier when it comes to addressing the embedded carbon emissions and waste that eventually make it to the consumer. So companies that really want to be responsible for all of their practices have to be looking to supply chain.” [18.26] Saskia's role at Blue Yonder, and the big sustainability initiatives she's currently working on. “If we're not addressing the elephant in the room, we're really not making a difference.” [20.41] Saskia's take on the biggest sustainability challenges in supply chain right now. [25.42] Key sustainability opportunities, and Saskia's advice for how organizations can prioritize sustainability and take strategic action for the future. “We know how interconnected all of the different parts of the supply chain are. But the reality is that companies have still been dealing with supply chain activity in an isolated way... I'm excited about the power of technology to bridge those gaps in a truly connected supply chain.” [29.50] Saskia's experience as a woman moving through government, consumer and B2B environments. [32.40] The importance of knowledge-sharing and engaging with a range of mentors to career success. “I have friends working in aerospace or manufacturing, and they have a completely different lens for how we approach sustainability. That crowdsourcing of knowledge across different industries, since sustainability is such a holistic practice, is really beneficial.” [35.47] Saskia's biggest inspiration, and her advice for people exploring a career in sustainability. “Sustainability isn't just one thing. If you have a speciality, whether it's packaging engineering, transportation management or inventory planning, you can fold sustainability as a passion and a knowledge framework into those specialties.” [39.08] What being an industry trailblazer means to Saskia, and the importance of representation for women. [41.17] The future for Saskia and her sustainability initiatives at Blue Yonder.   RESOURCES AND LINKS MENTIONED:   You can connect with Saskia Van Gendt over on LinkedIn. If you enjoyed this episode and want to hear more inspirational women talking about sustainability, check out 364: Women in Supply Chain, Lisa Morales-Hellebo, 372: Women in Supply Chain, T.J. Kragenbrink or 239: Women in supply chain™, Joanna MacDonald.

Fewer than 3 in 10 Marion County public school students passed Indiana's latest ILEARN exam. An ambitious overhaul of the entire City Market block has hit a number of delays. The Environmental Protection Agency wants to undo its finding that climate change harms people, and eliminate greenhouse gas standards for cars and trucks. First Lady Maureen Braun last week announced a "significant investment" in Dolly Parton's Imagination Library of Indiana. Want to go deeper on the stories you hear on WFYI News Now? Visit wfyi.org/news and follow us on social media to get comprehensive analysis and local news daily. Subscribe to WFYI News Now wherever you get your podcasts. WFYI News Now is produced by Drew Daudelin, Zach Bundy and Abriana Herron, with support from News Director Sarah Neal-Estes.

The Environmental Protection Agency moves to repeal the 2009 "endangerment" finding that underpins federal regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions as pollutants. Plus, the Energy Department releases a report that reviews the science of climate change, but with an emphasis on uncertainty, and without the catastrophic outlook that is now in common circulation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In western Lane County, the unincorporated community of Mapleton has struggled with its water infrastructure. Community leaders had stitched together funding to improve Mapleton’s system. That patchwork included federal funding from the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and FEMA, according to reporting by KLCC.  While it’s been able to claw back some money with the help of lawmakers, the community has still lost funds and resources after federal changes. Art Donnelly is the vice chair of the board of commissioners of the Mapleton Water District. He joins us with more details about Mapleton's situation and what’s at stake for those living in rural areas with failing infrastructure.

50% Tariffs Slapped on Brazil To Force Lula To Drop Charges Against Trump's Fellow Fascist Bolsonaro | Time To Rename the Environmental Protection Agency the Environmental Destruction Agency | In Spite of Trump's Bullying, the Fed Chair Holds Steady on Interest Rates backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia bsky.app/profile/ianmastersmedia.bsky.social facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

As record heat scorches the US, Trump's government is making things dramatically worse. We break down the devastating implications of the One Big Beautiful Bill, the reversal of the Environmental Protection Agency's endangerment finding, and a potential US withdrawal from all UN agencies. It's a full-blown climate backslide with global consequences.Then, we bring you a conversation with the brilliant Maggie Baird - actor, producer, climate activist, and mother of Billie Eilish and Finneas. Maggie joins us backstage at the Co-op Live Arena in Manchester, where Billie's shows are going plant-based, thanks to Maggie's food justice initiative Support + Feed. We talk food, parenting, the power of culture to shift climate narratives, and how to stay hopeful - even when it feels like the world is falling apart.Learn more ⛽ ‘How the ‘Big Beautiful Bill' positions US energy to be more costly for consumers and the climate' in The Conversation

It's Thursday, July 31st, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark Iran has arrested 54 Christians since ceasefire Article 18 reports that Iran has arrested 54 Christians since it agreed to a ceasefire with Israel on June 24. That's more arrests than the previous six months.  Christians in the Middle Eastern country are also facing increased hate speech since Iran's recent conflict with Israel. Many are seeking to paint Christians as co-conspirators with Israel.  Article18's executive director, Mansour Borji, commented, “We are very concerned for the well-being of all Iranian Christians … considering the past misuse of pseudo-legal provisions … to justify violence and punitive measures against this vulnerable community.” Hebrews 13:3 says, “Remember the prisoners as if chained with them—those who are mistreated—since you yourselves are in the body also.” Russia rocked by 8.8-magnitude earthquake One of the largest earthquakes ever recorded struck  Russia's far east coast yesterday morning. The 8.8-magnitude quake sent tsunami waves at Russia and Japan. The waves also reached parts of Hawaii and the U.S. West Coast.  Millions of people were told to seek high ground. However, authorities downgraded their warnings after the threat of major tsunami waves subsided. Russia experienced some damage but reported no casualties.  China launches nationwide childcare subsidy China launched its first nationwide subsidy for childcare on Monday. The government will offer families 3,600 yuan per year for each child under the age of three. That's the equivalent to about $500 per child.  The central government is also urging local authorities to introduce free preschool education.  China is introducing these measures at it continues to suffer population decline as the result of its previous one-child policy.  America's fertility rate drops to new low Meanwhile, in the United States, the fertility rate dropped to a new low in 2024. New data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found the fertility rate fell to 1.6 children per woman last year. The fertility rate declined for females in age groups 15-34, remained unchanged for women ages 35-39, and increased for women ages 40-44. U.S. economy grew by 3% The U.S. economy grew better than expected during the second quarter of this year. The Commerce Department reported gross domestic product increased at an annual rate of three percent during April, May, and June. That's up from a 0.5% decrease during the first quarter. President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social, calling for lower interest rates. He wrote, “2Q GDP JUST OUT: 3%, WAY BETTER THAN EXPECTED! . . . MUST NOW LOWER THE RATE. No Inflation! Let people buy, and refinance, their homes!” Obama-era climate regulation justified $1 trillion in regulations The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The Obama-era finding has been used for climate regulations like those on motor vehicle emissions. It justified over $1 trillion in regulations, including the Biden administration's electric vehicle mandate.  Republican U.S. Congressman Mark Messmer of Indiana said, “The Endangerment Finding has long been a Democrat tool to issue burdensome regulations that ignore commonsense science in pursuit of radical Green New Deal aligned agendas. I applaud … the entire Trump Administration for making sure we cut the red tape that is unnecessarily impeding American business.”  Adultery, cloning humans, suicide, and polygamy still considered morally wrong Gallup released their latest poll on Americans' opinions of the moral acceptability of 20 behaviors. The vast majority of U.S. adults still believe adultery, cloning humans, suicide, and polygamy are morally wrong. Respondents were more divided on abortion. Most Americans believe birth control, divorce, and premarital sex are morally acceptable.  These findings are generally similar to last year. However, views of the moral acceptability of abortion and “changing one's gender” are down compared to last year. Proverbs 29:18 says, “Where there is no prophetic vision the people cast off restraint, but blessed is he who keeps the law.” 250 years of U.S. Army Chaplains And finally, U.S. Army Chaplains celebrated 250 years of ministry this month. On July 29, 1775, the Continental Congress granted the request of General George Washington to establish an official position for military chaplains.  Since then, there have been 25,000 Army chaplains. Three thousand currently serve in the U.S. Army. Listen to comments from Senior Army Chaplain (Lt. Col.) Ludovic Foyou made at Arlington National Cemetery.  FOYOU: “Today marks 250 years of the US Army Chaplain Corps. That is 250 years of ministry alongside the brave, praying with the dying, walking with the wounded, and standing watch with those who bear the burden of defense. “Two and a half centuries of ministry in boots, of comfort offered besides cots, of prayers whispered beneath helmets, in tents and trenches deserts and jungles and now across the world. “It is ministry like no other one, forged in the very crucible of conflict, yet rooted in the deepest well of hope, mercy and calling.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Thursday, July 31st, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

The global climate has undoubtedly changed. Earlier this year, Copernicus, one of the most trusted weather models in the world, calculated that global average temperatures have increased by 1.4°C (2.5°F) since the start of the Industrial Revolution. This seemingly slight increase has had an outsized effect on weather patterns, challenging our ability to predict and prevent disasters resulting from more extreme weather.  Most Americans are at least somewhat concerned about global warming, the documented solution to which is greenhouse gas reduction. Yet just this week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to rescind its central scientific basis for climate-related regulation.  And with so much competing for our attention, it is easy to imagine that relatively few people will take note of such a policy decision—let alone clearly understand the larger implications and how to respond.  In this episode, NPR's Sadie Babits discusses her new book Hot Takes: Every Journalist's Guide to Covering Climate Change, written to equip all of us (journalists or not) to take part in critical public discourse about climate science and policy.  Listen in as Sadie and Ten Across founder Duke Reiter talk about the development of this book, and how journalists can and must rise to the challenges present in the political and media landscape today.  The video format of this discussion will be released 8.7.25. Subscribe to the Ten Across newsletter at 10across.org/subscribe/ to receive it as soon as it is available. Related links:  “Funding cuts will hit rural areas hard. One station manager explains how” (All Things Considered, July 2025)  “Congress rolls back $9 billion in public media funding and foreign aid” (NPR, July 2025)   “Trump EPA moves to repeal landmark ‘endangerment finding' that allows climate regulation” (Associated Press, July 2025)  “There's a Race to Power the Future. China is Pulling Away” (The New York Times, June 2025)  Relevant Ten Across Conversations podcast episodes:  Getting Personal About Climate Change with Sammy Roth  Reporting on Climate Change When it's at Your Doorstep with Allison Agsten 10X Heat Series: Covering Climate Change as It Unfolds with Jeff Goodell  Journalists and Writers on Breaking the Existential Story of Our Lives—Climate Change    Credits: Host: Duke Reiter Producer and editor: Taylor GriffithStudio support and video crew: Louie Duran and Utkarsh ByahutMusic by: Research and support provided by: Kate Carefoot, Rae Ulrich, and Sabine Butler    About our guest Sadie Babits is the senior supervising climate editor for National Public Radio and author of “Hot Takes: Every Journalist's Guide to Covering Climate Change.” She was previously professor of practice and the sustainability director for the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communications at Arizona State University. Sadie was a freelance journalist, editor, and consultant for many years and is a former board president of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

On this West Virginia Morning, the Environmental Protection Agency is moving to repeal the scientific findings about greenhouse gas emissions and their impact on the environment. It's a move that would affect countless regulations that govern everything from vehicles to power plants. The post Rescinding The Rules Of Climate Change And The Benefits Of Time Outside, This West Virginia Morning appeared first on West Virginia Public Broadcasting.

Friday is President Donald Trump's alleged tariff deadline, the day when dozens of countries either have to reach a new trade deal with the U.S. or face the possibility of sky-high duties on their imported goods. Even an island mostly inhabited by penguins won't be spared from the president's economic demands. And while Trump has announced deals with major trading partners like the European Union and Japan, there are still a ton of unanswered questions about what comes next — hell, even what's happening now! To help us understand what's going on, and what we can expect come August 1st, we spoke with Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at the progressive think tank Groundwork Collaborative. He also served as an economic policy advisor for former President Joe Biden and Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.And in headlines, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the United Kingdom would recognize a Palestinian state in September if Israel doesn't reach a ceasefire agreement with Hamas, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to gut the agency's own ability to regulate greenhouse gases, and a group of states sued the Trump administration over it's demands for state data on food stamp recipients.Show Notes:Call Congress – 202-224-3121Listen to our episode about the 'endangerment finding' - https://crooked.com/podcast/new-epa-argues-greenhouse-gases-are-totally-fine/Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday

Join Jim and Greg for the Wednesday 3 Martini Lunch as they applaud Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, Lee Zeldin for wanting to rein the power of his agency, They're also happy to see decent economic growth in the second quarter, and they berate Pete Buttigieg for his pathetic response about the future of the Democratic Party. First, they praise Zeldin for urging the courts to restrict the Environmental Protection Agency's powers to what Congress has explicitly authorized. Jim notes that if Democrats want the EPA to expand its reach, they need to pass legislation, not rely on regulatory overreach. Greg applauds Zeldin for respecting the limits of government power and willingly ceding authority not grounded in law.Next, Jim and Greg are thrilled to see the resilience of the economy as the second quarter GDP rose by three percent. Although not a fan of tariffs, Jim is pleasantly surprised to see the economy doing well. Meanwhile, the positive growth means we are nowhere near a recession, forcing Democrats to find different talking points. Last, they slam Buttigieg for his substance-free response to The Breakfast Club's Charlamagne tha God, who asked whether the future of the Democratic party is someone more like New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani or someone like Buttigieg. Buttigieg's response included such rhetorical gems as "we're each going to be putting forward the version of the message that's truest to who we are" and what young Democrat politicians have in common is that "they are who they are." Jim and Greg have fun with Buttigieg's meaningless answers and consider what answers would have actually been interesting.Please visit our great sponsors:No missed calls, no missed customers with OpenPhone. Get 20% off your first 6 months at https://Openphone.com/3ml Keep your skin looking and acting younger for longer. Get 15% off OneSkin with the code 3 ML at https://www.oneskin.co/

Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said on Tuesday the Trump regime would revoke the scientific determination that underpins the government's legal authority to combat climate change. The proposal is Trump's most consequential step yet to derail federal climate efforts and appears to represent a shift toward outright denial of the scientific consensus. Join this channel for exclusive access and bonus content: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkbwLFZhawBqK2b9gW08z3g/join Five Minute News is an Evergreen Podcast, covering politics, inequality, health and climate - delivering independent, unbiased and essential news for the US and across the world. Visit us online at http://www.fiveminute.news Follow us on Bluesky https://bsky.app/profile/fiveminutenews.bsky.social Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/fiveminnews Support us on Patreon http://www.patreon.com/fiveminutenews You can subscribe to Five Minute News with your preferred podcast app, ask your smart speaker, or enable Five Minute News as your Amazon Alexa Flash Briefing skill. Please subscribe HERE https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkbwLFZhawBqK2b9gW08z3g?sub_confirmation=1 CONTENT DISCLAIMER The views and opinions expressed on this channel are those of the guests and authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Anthony Davis or Five Minute News LLC. Any content provided by our hosts, guests or authors are of their opinion and are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything, in line with the First Amendment right to free and protected speech. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Leaders in Wisconsin are speaking out about changes at the Environmental Protection Agency. The Dane County Sheriff says an accused drunk driver should face charges in Wisconsin -- not her native Honduras. Then, a Wisconsin Life story about finding a date in real life instead of an app.

EPISODE 142 | Project 2025: The First 180 Days (World Is Weird 15) Donald Trump said he didn't really know much about Project 2025 except that they sure liked him. And yet, of 313 specific Project 2025 initiatives, he's already enacted 108 of them, and another 63 are actively in the works as of this recording. Quite a coincidence, wouldn't you say? Project 2025 put a lot of importance of a sort of blitzkrieg if their boy won the 2024 election, a flurry of activity to define the first 180 days of his presidency and hopefully create so much change that, no matter what happens in future elections (if there are any) many of the changes they want to see happen will end up sticking around. That benchmark date was July 19.  So, let's look at Project 2025. What they say, and some of their own justifications for why they say it. And we'll also see just how much Trump has actively assisted them in realizing their vision for a very different America than the world has ever seen.  Like what we do? Then buy us a beer or three via our page on Buy Me a Coffee.  Review us here or on IMDb. And seriously, subscribe, will ya?  SECTIONS 02:40 - The Mandate for Leadership, Version IX - The first of the Four Pillars, "cultural Marxism"; yes, it really is Gilead; white nationalists and Christian nationalists, family is the key, four main goals 08:52 - Three More Pillars - Info gathering, the Presidential Administration Academy, "climate change" is code for Christian depopulation, a secret playbook, Carter was evil, the DoD and Space Force 13:16 - Economy - General ideas, "fair trade" vs. "free trade", the Consumer Protection Bureau, the Department of Labor, the Department of Commerce 21:05 - Environment - General ideas, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior 25:09 - Transportation - General ideas, get married and make babies or no funding, the Department of Transportation, the FAA 27:11 - Education - General ideas, education is a private good, not a public one; the Department of Education, Parental Bill of Rights 33:12 - Identity - General ideas, LGBTQ+ and trans people ("radical gender ideology"), DEI, pornography 36:15 - Journalism - General ideas, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the FCC, the US Agency for Global Media (now a One America News organ), the Open Technology Fund 38:39 - Healthcare - General ideas, Medicaid, Medicare, the Department of Veteran Affairs, the CDC, the Department of Health is really the Department of Life, marriage, abortions, Planned Parenthood, in vitro fertilization, teen pregnancy, the Department of Health and Human Services 47:43 - Legal - General ideas, affirmative action, the FBI, the death penalty, the Secret Service as military cops, the Department of Justice, FACE Act no longer enforced, don't say trans 53:16 - National Security - Foreign policy shifts, USAID, NATO, nukes, the Department of Defense, Cybercom, the State Department, strengthen ties with Saudi Arabia 57:26 - Immigration - CBP, ICE, TSA, USCIS, refugees, asylum pay-to-stay scheme, birthright citizenship, mass deportations, more police, FEMA funds, the Department of Homeland Security 01:04:42 - Elections - General ideas, the FEC gets limits, photo ID to vote, armed police at polling stations 01:06:58 - Expansion of the Executive - The President is boss, loyalists only, the Insurrection Act of 1807, more surveillance 01:09:24 - Federal Staffing - Bring back the spoils-and-patronage system, the White House, the National Security Council 01:12:01 - Final Thoughts - Trump totally knows about Project 2025, the vision for an America-that-never-was, why the hell didn't you vote? Music by Fanette Ronjat More Info Project 2025 Tracker website (updated daily) r/Keep_Track Full text of "Project 2025 Mandate For Leadership" The “Mandate for Leadership” Series Inside Project 2025's Secret Training Videos - video on ProPublica YouTube channel 5 Reasons Leftists HATE Project 2025 from the Heritage Foundation Project 2025 Quick Read

8.8 Earthquake Hits Russia's Far East, Tsunami Alerts Issued; NYC Holds Prayer Vigil for Victims | NTD Good Morning (July 30)A powerful 8.8 earthquake struck off Russia's far eastern Kamchatka Peninsula overnight. It triggered tsunami waves of over 15 feet on the Russian coast, damaging buildings. Japan issued evacuation orders along much of its eastern coast, and Hawaii urged coastal residents to move to higher ground. A tsunami wave over 5 feet high was reported on the north-central shore of Maui in Hawaii.New York City held a vigil in Manhattan on Tuesday evening for the victims of Monday's shooting at 345 Park Avenue, including NYPD officer Didarul Islam. The others killed include a Cornell graduate, a Blackstone executive, and a security guard. The gunman took his own life. A note left by the shooter has led officials to believe he may have wanted to target the NFL office in the building, blaming his time playing high school football for a brain injury.The Environmental Protection Agency has announced a proposal to rescind a 2009 finding that linked human-caused climate change to public health risks. The EPA said in a statement that if the proposal is finalized, it will reinstate choice and reduce costs for consumers. The proposal cites new data that, according to the EPA, challenges certain assumptions on climate change. The announcement was condemned by environmental groups.

Jake Spring, Climate and Environment Enterprise Reporter at The Washington Post, discusses his reporting on why the EPA is proposing to rescind a 2009 legal opinion, referred to as the "endangerment finding", which determined that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare, and justified their regulation. 

A deep dive into the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services' 13th National Stop Arm Violation Count as well as updates on the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean School Bus Funding program and electric bus manufacturer LION. Hear from Katrina Morris, who is the transportation director for West Shore Educational Service District in Michigan, executive director of the Michigan Association for Pupil Transportation, and this year's Peter J. Grandolfo Memorial Award of Excellence winner. Her Proactive Response Training for School Bus Drivers is being taught in 33 states, she's leveraging sports partnerships for student transportation visibility, and she's dedicated to safety training for students. Read more about safety. This episode is brought to you by Transfinder.

A policy change from the Trump Administration could fundamentally change the federal government’s relationship with climate change. The proposal, announced on Tuesday, would overturn the Environmental Protection Agency’s "endangerment finding” – which, in 2009, determined that greenhouse gases are harmful to people and the environment. It's the basis for emissions regulations on vehicles, power plants, and the oil and gas industries under the Clean Air Act. Washington has been at the vanguard of climate regulations – last year, voters chose to keep our carbon auction system in place, and our attorney general is fighting to preserve plans to ban sales of most non-electric vehicles in Washington by 2030. So, what could this EPA proposal mean for Washington’s climate policies? And where does Washington stand amid the flurry of deregulatory moves and cuts to green energy subsidies by the Trump Administration?Guest: Jay Inslee, former Governor of Washington state Related stories: In Game-Changing Climate Rollback, E.P.A. Aims to Kill a Bedrock Scientific Finding - NYT Democrats can win over young Trump voters. Here’s how. - Washington Post Thank you to the supporters of KUOW, you help make this show possible! If you want to help out, go to kuow.org/donate/soundsidenotes. Soundside is a production of KUOW in Seattle, a proud member of the NPR Network.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

AP correspondent Mike Hempen reports the EPA is trying to repeal a finding that allows for climate regulation.

Isha Marla is a 14-year-old with a love for science who recently finished her last year at Tumwater Middle School in the Beaverton School District. She is also just one of 10 students in the nation, and the only one from Oregon, who made it to the finalist round of a national science competition sponsored by Discovery Education and 3M, which manufactures a vast array of products, from Post-It Notes to stethoscopes.    The 3M Young Scientist Challenge is open to middle school students who for this year’s competition submitted a short video to describe their scientific solution to a real-world problem. Marla’s entry focuses on using a material she made from seaweed and other ingredients to produce an environmentally sustainable fabric for making clothes. Her proposal aims to counter the phenomenon of fast fashion associated with brands like Shein, H&M and Uniqlo that are popular with consumers eager to buy the latest fashion trends at low prices. But chasing those trends at bargain prices can take a heavy environmental toll, with nearly two-thirds of discarded clothes ending up in a landfill, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.    Marla joins us for more details about her entry and chance to win a cash prize and the title of “America’s Top Young Scientist” this fall.  

The EPA recently announced that it's going to shut down its scientific research arm, called the Office of Research and Development. Since the agency was founded nearly 55 years ago, it's had in-house scientists researching things like pollutants in our air and water, and the risks posed by toxic chemicals. That research informs the EPA's guidelines and standards.Host Flora Lichtman talks with Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, who spent 40 years working at the EPA, about the importance of the Office's research and what losing it means for public health and the environment.Guest: Dr. Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta spent 40 years working at the Environmental Protection Agency. She was the principal deputy assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Research and Development.Transcripts for each episode are available within 1-3 days at sciencefriday.com. Subscribe to this podcast. Plus, to stay updated on all things science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates there are more than 10 million wood-burning stoves in homes across the U.S., or roughly one for every 35 people. The smoke from those stoves can emit harmful particle pollution, which has been linked to respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular disease and a host of other health issues. Researchers at Oregon State University recently tested residential wood stove emissions in rural Oregon in an effort to understand how the stoves perform in homes.Nordica MacCarty is an associate professor of mechanical engineering at OSU. She joins us to talk about her work to make wood stoves burn more cleanly and efficiently.

Since January, Americans have had serious concerns about Elon Musk's DOGE (the “Department of Government Efficiency”) and the privacy of our personal data. The government used to have careful guardrails in place to protect our information. Only certain people, after careful background checks, were given access. But DOGE was given unprecedented access to all of our data, across departments and agencies. And because Trump fast-tracked DOGE with an executive order, employees didn't have to go through the same background checks and screenings. Many were teenagers, including the now infamous 19-year-old hacker whose online name is (sigh) “Big Balls.”Okay, but Elon is gone now. So does that mean DOGE is over? Unfortunately, no. DOGE was never an official government agency (it just hijacked the existing US Digital Service), and Elon Musk was never officially in charge of it, so even without Elon, the work continues. A former DOGE employee is now the chief of staff at the Department of Energy, for example, and two former DOGE members are now senior officials at the Environmental Protection Agency. “Big Balls” himself is now working at the Social Security Administration.Meanwhile, Peter Thiel—another billionaire and the founder of the tech company Palantir—has been working to build a massive, government-run database of Americans. The goal is a one-stop shop with all of our information, from tax returns to medical records, all in the same place. You know, exactly the thing the government has always known not to do.Privacy used to be nonpartisan. Back in the 1970s, Republican Senator Charles Percy said, “I hope that we never see the day when a bureaucrat in Washington can use his organization's computer facilities to assemble a complete dossier of all known information about an individual.” Even in the past few years, data privacy has been an issue that transcends political parties.So reach out to your representatives, no matter where you live, to let them know that you don't want billionaires to have your data. And if all of this feels too overwhelming, try getting involved in your local community. We might not be able to do much about what's happening with our information, but we can make things better for our neighbors.For a transcript of this episode, please email comms@redwine.blue. You can learn more about us at www.redwine.blue or follow us on social media! Twitter: @TheSWPpod and @RedWineBlueUSA Instagram: @RedWineBlueUSA Facebook: @RedWineBlueUSA YouTube: @RedWineBlueUSA