#public health and environmental concern

[townpostin]

Jamshedpur's Air Quality Crisis: Funds Underutilized Despite Health Risks

Study Reveals Toxic Metals in Air as Pollution Control Efforts Lag Jamshedpur faces severe air pollution, with high levels of toxic metals detected, while only 35.78% of allocated funds for control measures have been utilized. JAMSHEDPUR – The Steel City grapples with a mounting air pollution crisis, as recent studies unveil alarming levels of toxic metals in the air amid significant…

[cognitivejustice]

Citizen science is a powerful tool for involving more people in research. By influencing policy, it is transforming conservation at global, national and local levels.

Citizen science actively encourages non-scientists to be a part of the scientific research process. Sometimes the terminology gets confusing. We say “non-scientists” but through taking part in citizen science projects, people become scientists – they’re just not professionally involved in the research.

It’s also worth noting that the “citizen” in citizen science is completely unrelated to ideas of national citizenship.

Put simply, it’s science by the people for the people.

Citizen scientists can take part in every stage of the research process. Depending on the project, participants can write the research questions, choose the methods, collect the data, analyse and interpret the results, and share the research as widely as possible. By broadening people’s understanding of scientific problems and solutions, citizen science can act as a powerful catalyst for change.

It is already making an impact across lots of disciplines, including conservation, by addressing barriers to policy change such as lack of evidence and low levels of public engagement and input. While it’s not yet common for citizen science to directly influence policy, in our research we’ve seen how citizen science can shape policy at every scale: through promoting policy, monitoring progress towards policy or advocating for policy enforcement.

At a local level, citizen science can influence policy and transform conservation science. The clean air coalition of western New York is a group of citizens concerned about smells and smoke, and their connection to chronic health problems in the community. The group collected samples in 2004 to determine what was in the air and presented this data to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the US Environmental Protection Agency.

[dandelionsresilience]

Dandelion News - April 22-28

Based on the results of this poll, for the next few weeks I’m gonna test out doing 5 articles a week instead of 10, as part of an effort to maintain my own mental health. If these half-sized posts get markedly fewer notes, I’ll try to figure out a different compromise.

Like these weekly compilations? Tip me at $kaybarr1735 or check out my Dandelion Doodles!

1. Turning Surfboard Waste Into Sustainable Housing

“A Hawaiian architecture firm has found a creative way to repurpose discarded surfboard foam by transforming it into building blocks for constructing homes. […] The firm also partners with local businesses to collect foam from packaging materials[….] While the materials used are lightweight, they still offer excellent insulation and durability, addressing both environmental and practical needs.”

2. HHS Walks Back “Autism Registry” Plans

“Thursday April 24th, HHS said in written statements to multiple journalists that they will not be creating an autism registry, contrary to Dr. Bhattacharya’s statements. HHS’ reversal on creating an autism registry shows that even when it seems that no one is listening, your voice matters. Public outcry seems to have caused HHS to change course and walk away from some of the most concerning aspects of the project. Right now, HHS does not appear to be creating a centralized list of autistic people that could be used against our community.”

3. Teaming up to track the Pacific walrus

“In Alaska, western scientists often collaborate with Alaska Native hunters when counting, tagging, and/or sampling wildlife. The Indigenous knowledge and expertise that these hunters bring encompasses everything from animal behavior and capture techniques, to reading the weather and sea ice.”

4. Workers in 600+ US Cities to Protest 'Billionaire Takeover' on May Day

“The protests will take place in over 600 cities in all 50 states, said organizers[….] “Across the nation, we're reclaiming May Day in the spirit it was born, in solidarity with immigrants, in defense of all working people who make our schools run, our hospitals heal, our trains move, and our cities thrive."”

5. Loos to loaves: How the ‘nervous wees’ of London Marathon runners are being turned into fertiliser

“The campaign is powered by Peequal, a company designing women’s urinals that it claims are 2.7 times faster to use than traditional port-a-loos[.…] Instead of being sent into sewage systems, the collected urine will be treated using bacteria to extract nutrients like nitrogen, a chemical that wheat craves. The fertiliser will then be trialled on test fields to evaluate its performance. According to NPK Recovery’s estimates, 1,000 litres of urine could eventually grow enough wheat for about 195 loaves of bread.”

Bonus: Wildlife livestreams!

April 15-21 news here | (all credit for images and written material can be found at the source linked; I don’t claim credit for anything but curating.)

[probablyasocialecologist]

A comprehensive new review by experts in the sustainability science field, published in The Lancet Planetary Health, is challenging the long-held assumption that economic growth is necessary for societal progress.

The review, led by the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB) and titled "Post-growth: the science of wellbeing within planetary boundaries," explores the rapidly advancing field of post-growth research and presents a compelling case for prioritizing human well-being and ecological sustainability over endless economic expansion.

[...]

Key findings from the review include: The Limits to Growth: The review revisits the findings of the 1972 report "Limits to Growth," noting that the world is currently tracking the "Double Resources" scenario, where collapse is driven by pollution rather than resource scarcity. This aligns with current concerns about climate change and biodiversity loss. Decoupling is Insufficient: While relative decoupling of GDP from resource use is common, the review finds no evidence of sustained absolute and sufficient decoupling, and models suggest that it is unlikely even with optimistic assumptions about technology. Social Limits to Growth: The review finds that above a certain level of income, economic growth does not improve human well-being, and the costs of growth (e.g., pollution and social upheaval) may offset its benefits. There are diminishing returns for social outcomes such as health, education, and poverty reduction as GDP increases. Post-Growth Policies: The review highlights the development of ecological macroeconomic models that test policies for managing without growth. It discusses a range of policies to reduce growth dependencies and promote well-being, including universal basic services, working-time reductions, job guarantees, and carbon and wealth taxes. Well-being within Limits: The review emphasizes that high levels of well-being can be achieved at lower levels of resource use. It argues that focusing on public services, income equality, and democratic quality can meet human needs with much lower energy use. North-South Dynamics: The review acknowledges the unequal exchange between the Global North and the Global South, where richer countries appropriate resources and labor from poorer nations. It suggests that post-growth in high-income countries might benefit low-income countries by reducing this exploitation. However, the review notes that post-growth could also negatively affect low-income countries that are dependent on exports to high-income countries, unless low-income countries implement policy interventions towards monetary sovereignty, industrial policy and effective delinking from high-income economies.

17 January 2025

[kedreeva]

Has anyone on tumblr ever got upset at you for inbreeding birds?

if they have, they either haven't told me, or if someone tried and I blocked them and immediately forgot they existed, which is basically the same thing as not telling me. I have no desire to tolerate nonsense from strangers on the internet.

Because to be honest, morality just flat out isn't the same for inbreeding in animals as it is in humans. Inbreeding itself in animals isn't necessarily harmful- it becomes harmful if the animals being paired have deleterious genes that cause health issues, or if it goes on for too long. EVENTUALLY inbreeding with zero fresh blood may lead to genetic deterioration/stagnation (which is a MUCH bigger danger for wild animals than captive ones, as they will lack the diversity needed to overcome environmental changes), but how much inbreeding that takes ie how many generations, varies between animal species. For example in mice, it takes upwards of 100 generations to even start to see that kind of genetic deterioration (and we know this, because scientific research is done with mice and breeding facilities HAVE lines that extend back that far for some strains). My longest, linebred mouse line was 10 generations before an outcross, and the outcross was not because anything bad was happening, but rather because they'd been bred for use in the siamese line and it was time. Inbreeding in mice (line breeding in mice) is actually the STANDARD for cleaning a line of any bad mutations/health concerns, and it's considered a big risk to outcross once you've established a healthy line. A necessary one eventually, but a risk none the less.

For peafowl, it would probably take less than 100, but once or twice? not even remotely a problem, and is the only way to first-step produce a homozygous animal for a new mutation. If this were a cross of birds that had been line bred 20 times already, maybe it would be a problem but Earl literally is F1 from a father that shares no genes with ANY bird in the USA, and a hen completely unrelated to any of my own birds, and I am using hens unrelated to him or his parents, and unrelated to each other, in order to give the group the widest possible genome to start with.

Anyone of the opinion that this is a cause for upset doesn't know enough about genetics for me to take their opinion seriously, to for me to tolerate them showing me their whole ass in public.

Some people avoid it, some people don't. People that know more about genetics tend to be more okay with it, as they understand that it's not the inbreeding itself that usually causes problems, but pairing bad genes into homozygous form, and that actually pairing related animals can help get rid of those genes through repeated selection against them and hard culling animals that are known to have it. It doesn't surprise me that larger animals like horses have more stigma against inbreeding. Only being able to produce 1 offspring per female per year is a LOT heftier price to pay if it goes wrong than a smaller animal like rabbits or mice that produces far more per year and is more acceptable to hard cull (since mice and rabbits can both be used for feeders, and rabbits for human food).

[todaysdocument]

Memo for President Jimmy Carter from Jack Watson Regarding the Love Canal

Collection JC-SSO: Records of the Office of the Staff SecretarySeries: Presidential FilesFile Unit: 5/21/80 [1]

[blue ink] THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON

[henceforth black ink]

May 20, 1980

[penciled in what appears to be a capital letter C which is underlined]

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT

FROM: JACK WATSON [name Jack is handwritten upwards from left to right in blue ink]

SUBJECT: [underlined] Love Canal

As I reported to you on Saturday, we are faced with a volatile situation in Niagara Falls, New York, as a result of the public disclosure of a chromosomal study conducted in the course of the federal lawsuit against Hooker Chemical Company.

As a result of several meetings in the last three days with all the relevant federal agencies, I am now prepared to recommend to you that, if the Governor requests it, we declare Love Canal eligible for emergency assistance (under the authority of FEMA) to permit the temporary relocation of approximately 750 families in the immediate Love Canal area. The principal reasons for this recommendation, in which Justice, EPA, HHS, FEMA, SBA, HUD, OMB, and DPS concur, are as follows:

o The chromosomal study, whatever its ultimate significance, is one in a long list of pilot studies that have been done on the health and environmental effects of the Love Canal waste site during the last two years. For example, New York State has preliminary studies substantiating adverse reproductive effects; one doctor's studies showing high incidence of miscarriage and birth defects; and other health professional's research indicating peripheral nerve damage. Although all of these studies require further empirical and scientific verification, the adverse psychological effects on the people who live around Love Canal of this endless barrage of "expert" speculations about how they have been, and are being, damaged, are hard to overstate.

o In addition to the health studies, environmental studies conducted by EPA indicate that the quantity of hazardous chemicals present at the site represents the largest volume of hazardous wastes to which any population is known to be exposed. In addition, the range of hazardous chemicals a Love Canal is the widest that has been encountered in any one site anywhere in the country.

-2-

o The FEMA statute gives us the flexible authority we need to respond to the situation and makes New York state take the lead responsibility for the temporary relocation.

o The State will share the costs of the temporary relocation and will work closely with FEMA in actually relocating the families.

o As you know, you declared Love Canal eligible for emergency assistance in 1978. As a result of that first declaration, 239 families were relocated; we are now recommending relocation of the additional 750 families who reside within a well defined area and who have been the subjects of the recent studies. Although the Governor may include in his request for emergency assistance a request for federal assistance in both the temporary [underline] and [end underline] permanent relocation of the affected families, we have made absolutely clear to the Governor in telephone conversations this afternoon that the Federal government has no authority to buy the peoples' homes or otherwise to [underline] permanently[end underline] relocate them. We have told the Governor that [underline] if [end underline]you were to approve any further federal emergency assistance, it would cover underline] only [end underline] temporary relocation along the lines outlined above.

The understandable concern and anxiety which have been precipitated by this most recent study require, in our judgment, an immediate response. If you approve this recommendation to give the families emergency relocation assistance, we will work with the State [underline] tonight [end underline] to draft a request from the Governor to you. We would announce jointly with the State tomorrow that:

-- We are both amending our lawsuits against Hooker Chemical Company to add these additional costs of temporary relocation to the amounts already being claimed against Hooker in the pending litigation;

-- We are immediately undertaking further scientific studies to assess the nature and extent of the health damage and risks as precisely as possible; and,

-- In the meantime, we are responding prudently and immediately to the human need which is so evident at Love Canal.

Approve______ [checked in pencil and what appears to be the letter J] Disapprove________

See Me__________

[beauty-funny-trippy]

Nearly 170 employees at the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights (OEJECR) were placed on immediate administrative leave, according to agency officials speaking on the condition of anonymity because they fear retribution from Donald Trump. The president signed an executive order to eliminate all government programs on environmental justice, which are aimed at helping poor and minority communities that face disproportionate amounts of pollution. These communities are often located near industrial areas or other heavily contaminated places. Trump has expressed interest in getting rid of the office altogether, along with other programs and offices across the federal government that deal with environmental justice. He signed executive orders on his first day in office to set that process in motion. His goal is to remove environmental regulations, and the agencies designed to protect polluted communities, so that huge corporations (from whom he has received $millions) can disregard the health and safety of their employees and also pollute the surrounding cities without any legal consequences. Lead and cancer causing chemicals, often used by industrial plants, have had devastating impacts on families living in those areas, especially the children. Sacoby Wilson, an environmental justice expert said, " What's at stake here is public health. What's at stake here is the future of our children to live in healthy environments. What's at stake here is our democracy, the rule of law, the American dream." It should come as no surprise that Trump would support his corporate friends' interests — even at the cost of polluting American cities — without any concern for the safety and well-being of the poor, or the Black and Hispanic families that live there. This is Project 2025 in action.

[mindblowingscience]

Some 460 million metric tons of plastic are produced globally each year, out of which a staggering 91% of plastic waste is never recycled—with 12% incinerated and 79% left to end up in landfills and oceans and linger in our environment. Exposure to various elements causes the plastics to break down into microplastics (<5 mm) and nanoplastics (<1,000 nm). There is a growing public health concern as these nanoplastics (NPs) make their way into the human body through air, water, food and contact with skin. A recent study published in ACS ES&T Water has revealed that the already detrimental effects of NPs are further amplified by their ability to interact with various toxic environmental contaminants, such as heavy metal ions.

Continue Reading.

[tieflingkisser]

Wind-blown avian feces may be route of transmission for bird flu, Minnesota's infectious disease expert warns

Dr. Michael Osterholm is a medical detective and Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, or CIDRAP, at the University of Minnesota. Osterholm has nearly 50 years of investigating infectious disease outbreaks and public health threats.  Osterholm hosts a podcast at the University of Minnesota called "Osterholm Update," where he discusses latest disease and outbreak news headlines.  On episode 175 titled, "Drinking From a Fire Hose: Are We Drowning?," Osterholm and his co-host, Chris Dall, discuss growing concerns regarding bird flu — or H5N1 — making the jump from animals to humans.  According to Osterholm, there has been an additional 89 confirmed flocks with high path avian influenza within the last 30 days alone. Areas affected include Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, California, New York, Minnesota and Maryland. Osterholm says that the primary kind of birds impacted by the flu is migratory waterfowl, like geese and ducks, and these birds often hang out in farm fields where they defecate. Then, the wind picks up particles of the infected feces, spreading the virus far and wide. 

[...]

"Today, I am certain that we are seeing clouds of dust with bird feces in that, and we are beginning to see what I would consider to be almost an environmental type disease, similar to the transmission that we see with Coccidioidomycosis, what we call Valley fever, where in fact that's a fungus that grows in the environment. And then on windy days it blows with the dust and you inhale it. I think we're going to see the same thing with H5N1. That's why so many of these barns are now positive," said Osterholm on his podcast.  Now that the virus has gone airborne, Osterholm believes we're going to start seeing more and more cases in humans with no explanation for why they occurred. Meaning, people are going to get sick without even coming in contact with the infected animal. 

[northgazaupdates]

19 April 2024

Journalist Momin Abu Owda documents the accumulation of waste due to the IOF’s sabotage of waste treatment facilities in Gaza. He reports that unless fuel is allowed into north Gaza that will enable the partial resumption of waste management practices, the area faces even more dire environmental and public health concerns. This has also been spoken about at length by environmental engineer Dr. Tamer Al-Najjar, who warned of the impacts the IOF’s infrastructural sabotage campaign, and has now fallen seriously ill to the diseases he tried to warn the world about.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Momin abu owda (@m_abuowda11)

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved in our archive

By Sam Olley

There are "major gaps" in surveillance of new pathogens from animals and countries should prepare for a pandemic worse than Covid-19 in our lifetimes, the World Health Organization (WHO) says.

Covid-19 technical lead Dr Maria Van Kerkhove also said that New Zealand, being an island nation, was not protected from this risk.

It has been five years this month since scientists believe Covid-19 began to spread from animals to humans, triggering a global pandemic that the WHO estimates to have caused at least 20 million deaths and $16 trillion in lost revenue.

Van Kerkhove told 1News she did not think this pandemic needed to be as bad as it was.

"And in fact, this was not really the big one, we have to prepare for an even worse one."

WHO was not trying to scare people, she said, but instead called on them to be prepared.

"Hopefully we won't have one in our lifetime, but I am sure that we will have another outbreak and another pandemic during our lifetime."

Surveillance of new human infections has improved but the WHO is highly concerned about "patchy" surveillance of pathogens spreading between animals that could be transmitted to humans.

"Right now, we have some major gaps," Van Kerkhove said.

When asked if the loss of some specimens was a problem for pandemic preparedness, Van Kerkhove said: "I don't have direct evidence, because this is not something that's shared quite widely, that some samples that have been collected over time that are stored in freezers, some of those samples are starting to be destroyed."

"If we look at coronaviruses, we want to go back in time."

She said she was also grappling with the impact of geopolitical conflicts taking money from health.

"I do find it striking that there always seems to be money for an aircraft carrier. There always seems to be money for war, but we are yet to provide consistent funding for global health threats."

There was no place for complacency, she said, and island nations were not exempt from the risk.

"These pathogens do not respect borders."

Van Kerkhove addressed New Zealand public health experts this week at the Te Niwha conference to relay the latest updates and research from the work of the WHO.

Those attending included Sir Ashley Bloomfield who is currently the interim chief executive for the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR). Earlier this year, he co-chaired a working group for 196 countries to agree to amendments to the International Health Regulations to better protect health and safety in response to future outbreaks and pandemics.

These included the introduction of a universal definition for a pandemic emergency, a commitment to solidarity and equity on access to medical products and financing, as well of the establishment of a States Parties Committee and the creation of National IHR Authorities.

Sir Ashley said a theme of these negotiations was that developing countries felt there was "an overreaction" from other countries around travel and trade if there was a new variant reported.

"The other issue that developing countries had is that they would often provide samples that were then used to develop vaccines that they could not access. So these are issues that collectively countries need to address."

The WHO is working alongside New Zealand health leaders to upskill new frontline workers and leaders to reduce burnout.

Sir Ashley said some people in key roles are "quite burnt out".

"They probably don't feel they would be able to make the same effort if they were called upon in the near future."

Te Niwha director Te Pora Thompson (Ngati Hauā) said: "We cannot go through subsequent pandemics — which we will, we absolutely will — with very tired, very broken people, at all."

She also reinforced the importance of a diverse workforce to reduce inequities in pandemics.

"There are a few more seats that we need to be pulling up to this table."

Asked about her own experience with burnout, Van Kerkhove said she was not necessarily the best example of this.

"I'm working through it with my family. I was not present for my kids — I have two little boys — for years."

Around the world in health systems, "we need a deep bench to be able to work with," she said.

Noting the praise New Zealand's Covid response received, she was optimistic Aotearoa could continue at a high standard in future pandemics.

"I think New Zealand can absolutely be a leader."

[flockofteeth]

The Regulatory Standards Bill is the worst & most dangerous proposed by this corrupt government and submissions on it close Monday 12th Jan at 11.59pm

That is TOMORROW so please please please submit because they are sneaking it through using the other bills as distractions!

This bill if it passed would rewrite how laws are made in Aotearoa, forcing our laws to comply with Act's extreme libertarian values: prioritising business profit over human wellbeing, environmental protection & the treaty of waitangi. It has been described as one of the most regressive & dangerous bills ever considered, and as a " legal straight jacket" for government. I've also seen it described as trying to make Aotearoa into America and honestly they're not wrong.

From the above guide:

Here is an overview of some of the key principles and some of their potential consequences:

* Selected aspects of the rule of law, including equality before the law - which may sound good but in practice can mean protecting existing unequal interests e.g. the property rights of the “haves” get protected, while actions to increase fairness and equality for the “have nots” are restricted e.g. affirmative action for marginalised groups or vulnerable natural places or resources we all value

* Limitations on administrative discretion i.e. government decision making - this would kneecap future governments from making decisions for the good of all.

* Focus on extreme individualistic rights and property rights. These rights could only be limited by legislation if necessary to protect another person’s (or corporation’s) individual or property rights. Usually the government balances a range of rights and interests, including individual rights, property rights, human rights, societal wellbeing, the environment, and te Tiriti. Governments would no longer be freely able to balance a wide range of rights and interests.

*Restrictions on taxes, fees and levies which would significantly reduce the ability of government to fund the public services and infrastructure we rely on.

*Limitations on executive decision making (i.e. ministers and departments) and the right of review or appeal on executive decisions that affect certain rights, liberties and obligations.

*Massive deregulation across the board through application of the narrow definition of regulatory stewardship.

*A strong clause on the taking or impairing of property, including the requirement for fair compensation. This is similar to Free Trade Agreements which New Zealand has decided are too extreme to sign up to as they would create huge liabilities. Under this principle any limitations on the unhindered rights to use property (including, for example, land for development, intellectual property, mining licenses etc.) would mean that the government could be sued for compensation for lost future income and profits.  

For example, if new rules restricted mining in sensitive areas due to environmental concerns or prohibited tobacco advertising to protect public health, affected companies could claim their property rights or commercial interests were "taken"or “impaired” and demand compensation. Such payouts could amount to billions of dollars, taking away money from essential services like healthcare and education to pay for corporate losses.  

Here are some additional articles:

Act Now On The Proposed Regulatory Standards Bill from the folks who wrote the above submission guide

The Bill For Individualism, Corporations And Neoliberalism from Climate Justice Taranaki

ACT's proposed legislation threatens all the protections in place for a healthy population and environment from Jack Santa Barbara

( @queer-disability-aotearoa your help to boost would be wonderful!)

[vague-humanoid]

When a massive pipeline ruptured in the steep slopes of Appalachia earlier this year, regulators in charge of environmental and community safety looked the other way. They shared no details with the residents living near the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) who watched sediment pollute delicate ecosystems and municipalities’ water sources. Designed to push up to 2 billion cubic feet of methane gas through the mountains of West Virginia and southwest Virginia every day, the pipe ruptured during a standard water pressure test. 

The incident is emblematic of regulators’ unwillingness to hold the company accountable for safety concerns, leaving residents to live in fear of a deadly tragedy. 

A crisis of faith has emerged surrounding the regulatory agencies that are tasked with protecting public health and safety. For a decade, community members living along the Mountain Valley Pipeline route tried to convince officials and institutions—whose stated purpose is to protect us and the environment—to do their job. It doesn’t matter how many listening sessions an agency offers if they don’t meaningfully incorporate scientific and community feedback into their decisions. But these agencies have turned their backs on science and the common good, and they’ve made decisions that lock us into fossil fuels for decades.

At a critical point for our democracy and climate, regulatory agencies must immediately address the crisis by refusing to back polluters. Instead, they must listen to science and the public. Their unwillingness to do so directly impacts communities’ mental and physical health, and these conditions will only worsen as the climate crisis intensifies.

[thedystopianexperiance]

Why is Project 2025 Extremely Problematic?

Project 2025 is problematic for several reasons, as it represents a significant shift in federal governance that could undermine democratic principles, civil rights, and environmental protections. Here are the main concerns:

1. Centralization of Power

- Undermines Democracy: By advocating for the unitary executive theory, Project 2025 seeks to give the president sweeping control over federal agencies, reducing checks and balances in government. This could lead to the politicization of traditionally nonpartisan institutions, like the Department of Justice and the FBI.

- Civil Service Overhaul: The plan includes replacing career civil servants with loyal appointees. Which could create a patronage system that prioritizes loyalty over expertise, reducing government efficiency and fairness.

2. Civil Rights Concerns

- LGBTQ+ Rights: The project targets policies that support LGBTQ+ rights, including restrictions on transgender participation in sports, preferred pronoun use in schools, and protections against workplace discrimination. This is discriminatory and harmful to marginalized groups.

- Women's Rights: It opposes reproductive rights, including access to abortion and certain forms of medical research, which undermines women's health and autonomy.

3. Environmental Rollbacks

- Climate Change Denial: The initiative proposes dismantling federal climate research and regulations, such as those overseen by NOAA and the EPA. Critics argue this prioritizes short-term economic gains over long-term environmental sustainability and public health.

4. Educational Restrictions

- Curriculum Censorship: The project advocates eliminating federal influence over education, particularly targeting teachings on critical race theory and gender identity. Opponents say this could limit academic freedom and ignore systemic issues like racism.

5. Threat to Social Programs

- Healthcare and Welfare Cuts: Project 2025's push for privatization and reduction of programs like Medicare and Medicaid could disproportionately harm low-income and vulnerable populations.

6. Bias Against Federal Media

- Defunding Public Broadcasters: The project proposes eliminating funding for public broadcasters like PBS and NPR, claiming they are ideologically biased. This undermines independent journalism and access to diverse perspectives.

7. Polarization and Partisanship

- The project’s sweeping goals align strictly with conservative ideologies, risking greater political polarization and alienating moderate or opposing viewpoints.

Overall, Project 2025 as a blueprint for consolidating partisan power at the expense of diversity, equity, and democratic processes. Supporters of the project, however, argue it restores limited government and upholds traditional American values, making its impact highly contentious.

[notwiselybuttoowell]

The Trump administration is stripping away support for scientific research in the US and overseas that contains a word it finds particularly inconvenient: “climate.”

The US government is withdrawing grants and other support for research that even references the climate crisis, academics have said, amid Donald Trump’s blitzkrieg upon environmental regulations and clean-energy development.

Trump, who has said that the climate crisis is a “giant hoax”, has already stripped mentions of climate change and global heating from government websites and ordered a halt to programs that reference diversity, equity and inclusion. A widespread funding freeze for federally backed scientific work also has been imposed, throwing the US scientific community into chaos.

Researchers said work mentioning climate is being particularly targeted. One environmental scientist working in the western US who did not want to be named said their previously awarded grant from the Department of Transportation for climate-adaption research had been withdrawn, until they retitled it to remove the word “climate”.

References to climate are being scrubbed elsewhere, too. Course materials at the National Disaster Preparedness Training Center at the University of Hawaii will delete mentions of “climate change”, leaked emails seen by the Guardian show. The alterations, at the behest of the Trump administration, affect about a dozen different course materials.

“Specifically, references to ‘climate change’ and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) have been removed or revised to align with the new priorities,” an administrator at the center wrote. “Please exercise caution when referencing these topics during instruction.”

The administration’s animus towards climate research has even extended overseas via the US’s Fulbright exchange program, which offers about 8,000 grants a year to American and foreign teachers and scholars.

Kaarle Hämeri, chancellor of the University of Helsinki in Finland, said the descriptions for Fulbright grants had been changed to remove or alter the words “climate change”, as well as “equitable society”, “inclusive societies” and “women in society”.

“The people most vulnerable in our society in terms of health and public safety are now even further at risk,” said Jennifer Jones, director of the center for science and democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“This administration doesn’t have a plan to advance science, they have a plan to remove obstacles for the oil and gas industry. They want to return to an era where kids have polio, rivers are on fire and cities are blanketed by pollution.”

Jones said that the US government may be moving in the direction of Florida, where Republicans banned mention of climate change in state laws. “I live in a state where we are under threat more than ever from climate change but state employees can’t mention it,” she said. “This administration wants scientists to feel threatened. We’ve seen this before but Trump is doing it at an unprecedented scale now.”

“We’re concerned about the signal this is sending out to any young student interest in Stem [science, technology, engineering and mathematics] who might not think they can see a future in the US,” she said. “We need greater investment in science and technology to be a global leader at this moment. Our adversaries will be very happy with this.”

[autisticadvocacy]

The Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) condemns the United States Supreme Court ruling on two combined cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce. The decision overturns a decades-old legal principle known as the Chevron Doctrine, which gives federal agencies the authority to reasonably interpret ambiguous laws when they create federal regulations. These regulations are made legally binding through a rulemaking process that is shaped by the public servants within federal agencies, the input of subject area experts across fields, and anyone who chooses to share their opinion. Instead, federal courts will now have the final say in circumstances where knowledge of highly specialized, complex, and technical issues is required. This ruling will weaken the regulatory authority of all federal agencies, including the Departments of Labor (DOL), Education (ED), Health and Human Services (HHS), the Social Security Administration (SSA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Federal agencies create regulations or rules that fill in the gaps of laws intended to protect disability rights, civil rights laws, housing, healthcare, and more. The overturning of Chevron and the deference it gives to the courts will have devastating impacts on all marginalized people, including disabled people and particularly disabled people of color. Often, these rules concern subjects well outside of the scope of legal training, including, as Marissa Ditkowsky noted, drug safety evidentiary standards, eligibility criteria for public benefits, the threshold for disability discrimination, or guidance around worker protections. This change will lead to inconsistent and conflicting adjudication across the country, driving avoidable litigation, confusion, and decisions that do not work well for the people they affect. These harms will fall disproportionately on marginalized people, including the disability community. As the American Cancer Society explained in its amicus brief, “The resulting uncertainty would be extraordinarily destabilizing, not just to the Medicare and Medicaid programs but also – given the size of these programs – to the operational and financial stability of the country’s health care system as a whole.” The same can be said for programs within DOL, ED, SSA, and many other federal agencies. This decision is also undemocratic, moving crucial decisions out of a process where the public has an opportunity to weigh in and into the purview of the courts.

This decision invites challenges to the forty years of legal precedents relying on Chevron. While these cases and the existing Code of Federal Regulations are not automatically overturned by Loper and Relentless, many will be challenged in the months and years to come. Future regulations are also under threat. Agencies may be less ambitious in fulfilling their mandates, protecting the public, and using taxpayers’ resources well in the face of increased risk that courts will undo their work. The endangered regulations include the Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) Settings Rule, the final rule implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the final rule implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments, and the final rule regarding section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

ASAN echoes the demands of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT): “Congress should urgently enact Chevron deference into law by passing the Stop Corporate Capture Act (H.R. 1507), a comprehensive blueprint for modernizing, improving and strengthening the regulatory system. That would ensure public input into regulatory decisions, promote scientific integrity and restore our government’s ability to help the workers and consumers it is meant to serve.”

ASAN will fight to safeguard federal agencies’ ability to protect the people we serve. We will continue to do what we always have: defend the rights, health, services, safety, and well-being of all people with disabilities.

Here are statements on this issue from our allies:

Democracy Forward

National Health Law Program (NHeLP)

National Education Association (NEA)

American Federation of Teachers (AFT)

The Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) is a national grassroots disability rights organization run by and for autistic people. We believe that the goal of autism advocacy should be a world in which autistic people enjoy equal access, rights, and opportunities. ASAN works to make sure autistic people are included in policy-making, so that laws and policies meet our community’s needs. Our members and supporters include autistic adults and youth, cross-disability advocates, and non-autistic family members, professionals, educators, and friends.