Trump’s lies win him the top Republican fundraiser spot

Trump’s lies win him the top Republican fundraiser spot

Trump continues to excel at his career-long tradition of making money off lying to people.
Zeeshan Aleem, MSNBC Opinion Columnist      August 3, 2021
Photo illustration: Donald Trump surrounded by piles of money.

Trump’s next chapter: the art of making a ton of money by lying to your supporters. Anjali Nair / MSNBC; Getty Images

According to filings made public over the weekend, former President Donald Trump is the most successful fundraiser in his party this year, having closed out the first six months of 2021 with over $100 million in his war chest.

Unfortunately, the former president’s latest bid to use deception for profit is a uniquely dangerous one.

For a politician out of office and banned from mainstream social media, that’s an astonishing amount. But perhaps even more remarkable than the sheer amount is the reminder that Trump is once again excelling at his career-long tradition of making money off of lying to people.

Unfortunately, the former president’s latest bid to use deception for profit is a uniquely dangerous one. The more money he makes from convincing people that the election was rigged, the more power he has to pressure the Republican Party to embrace and replicate that lie. With more cash, he can intervene more aggressively in next year’s campaigns and lobby more effectively for the political priorities he cares about most. Ultimately, he has the capacity to reshape the party to conform with his latest heist.

Unsurprisingly, Trump’s aides exaggerated how much he raised from January to June — some of the money came from transfers from other accounts that raised money last year — but still, he dwarfed the amount raised by any other politician in his party, the closest of whom was Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina (he raised $7.8 million online). Trump even pulled in more cash than “each of the three main fund-raising arms of the Republican Party itself,” according to The New York Times.

In his handful of campaign-style public appearances since he left the White House, Trump has showered adulating supporters with conspiracy theories about irregularities in the voting process.

There are plenty of reasons Trump’s massive haul is striking. It shows how enthusiastically he’s flouting the modern post-presidential tradition of stepping away from politics after leaving the White House. It also illustrates how he remains exceptionally popular within the party despite having left the White House mired in scandal and after having incited a ragtag insurrection at the U.S. Capitol and botched the American response to the coronavirus pandemic. But his unique and brazen use of outright deception to pull it off remains perhaps the most impressive one of all.

Trump’s premier fundraising tool is to hammer home the lie that the election was rigged against him. As The New York Times notes, Trump’s fundraising numbers correspond with his direct engagement with the public, such as through speeches and his ill-fated blog. And those interactions have been centered, to the point of obsession, on the idea that the election was stolen from him.

In his handful of campaign-style public appearances since he left the White House, Trump has showered adulating supporters with conspiracy theories  about irregularities in the voting process and impressed upon them the notion that he would have beaten President Joe Biden if some shadowy network of outsiders hadn’t intervened on Biden’s behalf.

A plurality of Trump’s messages on his blog and elsewhere were focused on lies about the election. He also regularly sends out fundraising emails based on false claims of “new evidence” of voter fraud, giving his supporters the illusion that their donations are helping fund some kind of long-term investigative operation.

Trump himself is open about the centrality of the “big lie” to his political focus for all of 2021: “On behalf of the millions of men and women who share my outrage and want me to continue to fight for the truth, I am grateful for your support,” he said in his statement about his fundraising this year.

Trump himself is open about the centrality of the “big lie” to his political focus for all of 2021.

And embedded within this fraud is another potential fraud. In 2020, the Trump campaign deployed a scheme of using donation forms that used distracting visuals and fine print to opt donors in to recurring donations unwittingly. Consumer advocates condemned the fundraising scheme, and the campaign eventually refunded tens of millions of dollars in response to fraud complaints, but monthly donations and fraud complaints continued into 2021 and may account for some of the money he’s raised this year.

Trump is a seasoned veteran of making money off of deception, fraud and corruption. His career in real estate was marked by illicit business practices, including the refusal to make mandatory disclosures of purchases to the Federal Trade Commission, the failure to pay people and small businesses the money they were owed and discrimination against Black tenants by lying about vacancies. Trump illegally siphoned off money from his charity to help his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump University was a brazen scam. And Trump used the White House to enrich himself and his family.

The trouble with Trump’s latest scam is that it’s not just about accumulating money at other people’s expense. He’s using lies to convince a huge proportion of the American public that they’ve been scammed and giving them more reason to become hostile to the possibility of functioning democracy.

‘A one-man scam Pac’: Trump’s money hustling tricks prompt fresh scrutiny

‘A one-man scam Pac’: Trump’s money hustling tricks prompt fresh scrutiny

<span>Photograph: Brandon Bell/Getty Images</span>
Photograph: Brandon Bell/Getty Images

 

Donald Trump’s penchant for turning his political and legal troubles into fundraising schemes has long been recognized, but the former US president’s money hustling tricks seem to have expanded since his defeat by Joe Biden, prompting new scrutiny and criticism from campaign finance watchdogs and legal analysts.

Related: Revealed: the people who signed up to the Magacoin Trump cryptocurrency

Critics note Trump has built an arsenal of political committees and nonprofit groups, staffed with dozens of ex-administration officials and loyalists, which seem aimed at sustaining his political hopes for a comeback, and exacting revenge on Republican congressional critics. These groups have been aggressive in raising money through at times misleading appeals to the party base, which polls show share Trump’s false views he lost the White House due to fraud.

Just days after his defeat last November, Trump launched a new political action committee, dubbed Save America, that together with his campaign and the Republican National Committee quickly raked in tens of millions of dollars through text and email appeals for an “election defense fund”, ostensibly to fight the results with baseless lawsuits alleging fraud.

The fledgling Pac had raised a whopping $31.5m by year’s end, but Save America spent nothing on legal expenses in this same period, according to public records. Run by Trump’s 2016 campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, Save America spent only $340,000 on fundraising expenses last year.

In another move, Trump last month announced he was filing class-action lawsuits against Facebook, Google and Twitter, alleging “censorship” due to bans by the platforms after the 6 January Capitol attack that Trump helped stoke. But several legal experts panned the lawsuits as frivolous and a fundraising ploy.

Trump’s new legal stratagem raised red flags, in part because he teamed up with America First Policy Institute (AFPI), a nonprofit group led by ex-White House official Brooke Rollins. At a press briefing with Trump, Rollins told supporters they could “join the lawsuit” by signing up on a website, takeonbigtech.org, a claim belied by details on the website which featured a red button with the words “DONATE to AFPI”.

“Donald Trump is a one-man scam Pac,” said Paul S Ryan, vice president of policy and litigation with Common Cause. “Bait-and-switch is among his favorite fundraising tactics,” Ryan stressed, noting that Trump’s Save America Pac told “supporters he needed money to challenge the result of an election he clearly lost, and then wound up not spending nothing any on litigation last year.

“Now he’s at it again, with frivolous lawsuits filed [in July] against Facebook, Twitter and Google, accompanied by fundraising appeals,” Ryan added. “This time he’s got the unlimited dark money group America First Policy Institute in on the racket.”

Other experts voice strong concerns about Trump’s tactics.

He asked them to give money so he could contest the election results, but then he spent their contributions to pay off unrelated debts

Adav Noti

“The president deceived his donors. He asked them to give money so he could contest the election results, but then he spent their contributions to pay off unrelated debts,” said Adav Noti, a former associate general counsel at the Federal Election Commission and now chief of staff at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center.

Noti added: “That’s dangerously close to fraud. If a regular charity – or an individual who didn’t happen to be president of the United States – had raised tens of millions of dollars through that sort of deception, they would face a serious risk of prosecution.”

Such concerns have not deterred Trump’s fundraising machine from expanding further with the launch of a super Pac, Make America Great Again Action, which can accept unlimited donations. Both the Super Pac and Save America are run by Trump’s former campaign manager, Lewandowski, who did not return calls seeking comment.

The Super Pac has reportedly hosted at least two events for mega donors at Trump’s golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, and in Dallas, but it’s not known how much has been hauled in so far.

Both Pacs are seen as vehicles for Trump to raise more funds to influence 2022 congressional races, where he has vowed to defeat several politicians such as the anti-Trump Republican Liz Cheney, who voted to impeach him this year after the Capitol attack.

Campaign filings for the first six months of 2021 reveal that Trump’s political groups led by Save America raised $82m, an unprecedented total for a former president. Save America banked most of the funds while spending some to pay for Trump’s travel and other expenses, instead of challenging election results in states like Arizona, despite Trump’s false claims of fraud there.

Veteran campaign finance analysts say that the bevy of Trump-linked groups launched since his defeat raise new questions about his motives and political intentions.

Trump may be more interested in fundraising than actually running

Sheila Krumholz

“Trump’s aggressive fundraising, using a variety of committees and surrogates, raises questions about whether his continual hints at running in 2024 is primarily a ploy for donations,” said Sheila Krumholz, who leads the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. “Trump may be more interested in fundraising than actually running, especially given how unprecedented his post-loss fundraising is.”

Besides Trump’s fundraising pitches for his new Pacs and nonprofits, some major Republicans groups have collaborated in fundraising appeals since his defeat, and keep piggybacking on his allure to the party base, despite Trump’s repeated falsehoods that the election was stolen.

In the eight weeks post-election, for instance, the RNC, the Trump campaign and Save America reportedly raised about $255m, but spent only a small fraction on lawsuits.

Further, Trump’s cachet with small donors is still exploited by party allies, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee, (NRSC) the fundraising arm for Republican senators.

For instance, the NRSC in July email fundraising pitches touted a free Trump T-shirt for a limited number of donors writing checks from $35 to $5,000 to “protect the America First Majority”.

Similarly, the RNC in a 19 July email alert rolled out a money pitch to become an “official 2021 Trump Life Member” for donors who chipped in $45 or more by midnight.

Charlie Black, a longtime Republican operative, said that Republican committees realize that Trump’s “name has the most popular appeal to the grassroots, so naturally they’re going to try to figure out ways to use his brand where they can to raise more funds”.

But legal analysts caution that Trump’s new fundraising modus operandi are different, and carry clear risks for unwitting donors and US campaign finance laws.

“Our nation’s campaign finance and anti-fraud laws have proven no match for Trump’s schemes,” said Ryan of Common Cause. “So my one piece of advice for Trump supporters, is donor beware!”

Home prices rose by more than 50% in these 10 markets since 2017

Home prices rose by more than 50% in these 10 markets since 2017

Home prices rose by more than 50% in these 10 markets since 2017

If you own a home in the top 10 metropolitan U.S. housing markets, it may be worth a lot more than what you paid for, even if you bought it just a few years ago.

The median sales price of a home in these areas has jumped an average of 57% in the past four years, according to new data from Realtor.com.

That’s a feat that normally would have taken 10 years to achieve, Danielle Hale, the chief economist for Realtor.com, tells USA TODAY.

“If you are a somewhat recent owner, it might surprise you to learn that you could actually sell your home and make some money much sooner than you might have expected to,” Hale says.

Realtor.com looked at the 300 largest metropolitan areas and ranked them by how much their sale prices have climbed since 2017. The median time these listings stay on the market has dropped by 30 days, and these houses are now selling in 25 days.

Bidding wars: How to win a real estate bidding war

Leading the pack is Boise, Idaho, where the median price surged by 72% to $385,000 from $224,000.

The market with the highest median price was the Stockton-Lodi, California, area at $460,000, a 51% increase from January-February 2017 to the same period in 2021.

Affordability was a key factor in the markets that experienced price increases.

The largest price increases occurred near major Western cities that are tech hubs. Besides Boise, other hot metro areas with those characteristics include Spokane, Washington, and Ogden, Utah.

“Boise is attracting a lot of people from major California markets like San Francisco and San Jose,” Hale says. “The climate is similar, the prices are much more affordable, and it has lots of outdoor activities.”

The list includes cites in Western, Midwestern and Southern states, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin.

A recent survey by Realtor.com found that 10% of homeowners plan to list their homes this year, and more than a quarter (26%) plan to do so within the next three years. One of the biggest drivers was turning a profit in the current market.

In the current seller’s market, where multiple bids on houses are now the norm, 29% of would-be home sellers expect to set the list price above what they think the house is worth, the survey found.

Hale says it typically takes three to five years for a homeowner to get to a breakeven point when the costs of buying make sense over renting.

The median sales price for an existing single-family home soared 18.4%, to $334,500, in March, marking a historic high, according to the National Association of Realtors. Housing inventory stood at 1.07 million units at the end of that month, down 28% from a year earlier.

Markets with the largest price gains:

Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy is the housing and economy reporter for USA TODAY. Follow her on Twitter @SwapnaVenugopal

Column One: In drought-plagued northern Mexico, tens of thousands of cows are starving to death

Column One: In drought-plagued northern Mexico, tens of thousands of cows are starving to death

BUENAVISTA, SONORA - JULY 22: Marco Antonio Gutierrez, 55, of Buenavista, a cattle rancher, poses for a photo next to dead livestock that died of starvation lie on the dry and barren ground on Thursday, July 22, 2021 in Buenavista, Sonora. Gutierrez, who has lost cattle during the drought, has had to take up fishing to help earn income to buy bales of alfalfa to feed his cattle. Many poor ranchers rely on the rain to grow grass to feed their cattle. With no rain because of the drought many ranchers&#39; cattle have died of starvation because there is no money to buy bales of alfalfa to feed livestock. Northern Mexico, Sonora ...drought has affected cattle ranching throughout Mexico and the U.S. but is also going to look at a larger question: In a warming world is there a future for cattle and most connected to the cattle industry. Trickle down effect. (Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)
Marco Antonio Gutierrez, a cattle rancher in Buenavista, in Mexico’s Sonora state, stands among the carcasses of livestock who died of starvation. (Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

 

In the parched hills of southern Sonora, Marco Antonio Gutierrez paced around a clearing, counting the dead.

There were seven rotting carcasses — jutting ribs and shriveled hides — and two sun-bleached skulls. Nine cows, felled by heat and hunger.

“There’s nothing for them to eat,” said Gutierrez, a wide-brimmed hat shading his downcast eyes. “There used to be big ranches here. Now it’s pure sorrow.”

Two years of extreme drought have turned large stretches of northern Mexico into a boneyard. Between starvation and ranchers forced to prematurely sell or slaughter their livestock, officials say the number of cattle in Sonora has dropped from 1.1 million to about 635,000.

It’s an unimaginable loss for a state that is world-famous for its high-quality cows, and where beef is not just a central part of the diet and economy but also a tradition that binds families together.

This is a place, after all, with a bull on its state flag, and where families gather every Sunday around their charcoal grills. Red meat is considered a birthright: It’s not uncommon for folks here to eat beef three times a day — machaca scrambled with eggs for breakfast, arrachera for lunch and carne asada for dinner.

A man looks on as a bull trots through a fence opening
Rancher Manuel Bustamante Parra with one of his heifers. (Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

 

Gutierrez, 55, and pretty much everyone he knows was born ranching. By the age of 10, he and his friends had all learned from their fathers how to lasso, brand and even pull a calf from the womb.

Now, as they desperately watch the skies for rain, they wonder if there’s any future in it.

Gutierrez doesn’t use the phrase “climate change” to describe what’s happening, but he laments that every year seems drier and hotter than the last. In recent months, he has watched helplessly as 70 of his 100 cows have starved to death.

Over coffee and machaca at a restaurant owned by fellow rancher Julio Aldama Solis, the two friends mulled whether it was finally time to auction off their remaining cattle — or whether they should keep struggling.

Selling would be heartbreaking, Aldama said, a surrender not only of their cowboy identity but also their family legacy.

“Imagine the sadness — all the sacrifices of your grandparents and your parents for nothing,” said Aldama, the 56-year-old scion of a prosperous ranching family in the largely rural county of Cajeme.

Gutierrez sipped his coffee. There was a reason he had held on to his herd during the worst of the drought, even as the animals wasted away in front of him.

It was his father, long dead, who had taught him the arduous but rewarding ways of ranch life.

Healthy livestock drink water from a trough at Rancho La Ventana.
Healthy livestock drink water from a trough at Rancho La Ventana on La Noria de Cuco, Sonora. (Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

 

And Gutierrez had come to love his cattle, even giving names to some: Coyota, La Venada, Vellota.

They had lived alongside his own family, and had helped sustain it financially. Every year the cows birthed calves that he could sell for about $600 each at auction.

At least now they were free from the misery of drought.

“They passed on to a better life,” he said.

‘THEY’RE DRY. COMPLETELY’

The cicadas were humming. That was a good sign.

Some people in these parts believe the buzz of cicadas — like the tambourine shake of a rattlesnake — means a thunderstorm is rolling in.

Gutierrez and Aldama scanned the sky. The sun was beating down, hot as ever, but a few cotton-like clouds loomed on the horizon.

“We’re all praying to the Virgin of Guadalupe that it rains,” Aldama said.

A malnourished cow forages for food
A malnourished cow forages for food along the roadside in Buenavista. (Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

 

They were touring the region’s ranches with another friend, Ricardo Alcala, who is the president of the Local Livestock Assn. of the Yaqui Valley. All three wore jeans with silver buckles and white cowboy hats.

There had been a couple of big storms in other parts of the state — enough to cause flooding in the border city of Nogales. Yet 97% of municipalities in Sonora remained officially in drought, and while sporadic rain here in the south had greened up the mesquite trees that dotted the landscape, it had not been enough to make grass grow.

A worker loads bales of alfalfa onto a truck
A worker loads alfalfa in Cocorit, Sonora. (Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

 

It wasn’t even noon yet, and the thermometer on Alcala’s truck read 104 degrees. As the friends drove, they passed people shielding themselves from the sun with umbrellas, and dogs and horses hugging the sides of buildings, desperate for shade.

And then there were the cattle, thousands of them, some so skinny they looked like skeletons wandering the hills.

For months, ranchers had depended on alfalfa grown in fields irrigated with water from private wells or a nearby dam. But when the dam levels fell dangerously low, authorities had cut off the supply to ranches and farms to conserve water for drinking, cooking and bathing. The price of alfalfa had doubled — putting it out of reach for many.

Alcala’s organization had pleaded with authorities to drill wells in the region so ranchers could grow their own food for their cattle. But water table levels have fallen too, making it clearer each day that wells are at best a temporary solution.

A fisherman on Agua Caliente reservoir
A fisherman tosses a net at Agua Caliente reservoir in Cajeme, Sonora. The drought has lowered the water level to below normal. (Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

 

Alcala pumped the brakes of his Ram truck when he saw a member of his association, Jesús Arvizu Valenzuela, cutting hay in a field that stood out for its lushness. But Arvizu, 68, told him the pasture would soon lie fallow — brown like the unirrigated land that surrounded it.

“They won’t give us water anymore,” he said.

“The wells aren’t working either?” Alcala asked.

Arvizu shook his head. “They’re dry. Completely.”

‘A MATTER OF IDENTITY’

Five hundred years ago, there were no cattle here.

The first cows were brought to Mexico by Spanish conquistadors in the 1500s. In Sonora, Jesuit missionaries encouraged Indigenous tribes, who had subsisted mostly on beans, corn and squash, to raise them.

By the second half of the 20th century, livestock had become big business here, with cattle roaming over 85% of the state. Tens of thousands of ranchers raised steers to sell at auction, many for export to the United States. Ranchers here say Sonora’s mix of native grasses give their beef a distinctive texture.

“Very juicy and soft,” Alcala proudly explained.

A ranch hand stands at a fence among cattle
Ranch hand Ernesto Flores Morales tends to healthy livestock at Rancho La Ventana in La Noria de Cuco, Sonora. (Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

 

There were always periods of drought that ranchers had to endure — but in recent decades, climate change has made things worse.

Average rainfall has been decreasing for years. By the second half of this century, climate experts predict that Sonora will receive 20% to 30% less rain than today and regularly see temperatures as high as 122 degrees.

América Lutz Ley, a social scientist at El Colegio de Sonora who studies land use, is one of a growing number of people in the state who believe cattle ranching in its current form is not sustainable, largely because of the huge amount of water required to grow food for the herds.

“We live in a desert yet we are in the business of exporting water in the form of livestock,” she said.

Then there’s the fact that cattle emit significant levels of methane, a major driver of global warming. Mexico’s 34 million cattle are responsible for about 10% of the nation’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

Lutz wishes there was more political will to promote alternatives to ranching. But she acknowledges that major changes are unlikely as long as prices for steers remain high and beef continues to be “a matter of identity” in Sonora.

She grew up spending weekends at carne asadas eating flour tortillas stuffed with salsa, guacamole and thin cuts of charred beef. It’s a family ritual so beloved here that even Lutz still indulges in it.

Rosendo Godinez, left, and his brother Cesar Godinez, remove the meat from cooked cows heads.
Rosendo Godinez, left, and his brother Cesar Godinez, remove the meat from cooked cows heads to later sell tacos de cabeza, or tacos made with the meat. (Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)
Chefs prepare meat at an outdoor area
Manuel Medina, foreground, cuts carne asada for a customer at Carniceria Chihuahua in Ciudad Obregon, Sonora. (Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

 

It’s not easy changing culture.

Gutierrez knows that. For him and his friends, ranching is more than a livelihood — it’s a way of life.

As they drove on, the sky began to darken. A few fat raindrops hit the truck’s windshield. It seemed the cicadas had been right.

Alcala optimistically turned on his wipers. But a minute later, the rain stopped and he turned them off.

A PAINFUL DECISION

Early the next morning, Gutierrez and his two friends crowded into a different pickup, this time to check on Aldama’s ranch.

The sky was pink with sunrise. The radio was playing an accordion-heavy corrido about three brothers on horseback setting off at dawn to a party on a ranch.

As they turned off the highway onto Aldama’s property, Gutierrez exclaimed with delight.

“It rained, Julio!”

The storm they had driven through the day before had been more generous in this region. Butterflies flitted about orange and pink wildflowers that appeared to have bloomed overnight.

“It’s green and fresh and I’m happy because it rained,” said Aldama as his Chevy splashed through scattered puddles.

But he knew that one decent rain wouldn’t be enough.

Manuel Bustamante Parra, walks through a field of bones from dead livestock.
Manuel Bustamante Parra walks through a field of bones from dead livestock that died of starvation on the dry and barren ground. (Gary Coronado/Los Angeles Times)

 

“The ranch is still in crisis,” Aldama said. “There’s no grass.”

He signaled to a field where a month ago his son and some friends had planted sorghum for his animals.

Weeks later, the field was barren except for the empty cans of Bud Light the young men had downed after finishing their work.

“It should have been a foot high by now,” Aldama said. “We planted sorghum but only beer has grown.”

They came to a pen where a ranch hand was milking cows. During the hottest months of the drought, Aldama had kept most of his cattle alive by feeding them carrots he had grown on another plot he owned.

He proudly appraised the half dozen calves, some just a few weeks old, that were competing with the ranch hand to get milk from their mother.

But selling all of the calves in a few months wouldn’t make up for the costs of keeping his herd alive, he said.

His grandparents founded this ranch, growing it from just a few cattle to a lucrative business. Lately their descendants had been talking, and had recently come to a painful decision.

Unless there are recurring, penetrative rains in August, the family will sell half of its herd. Where the cow pastures once grew, they are thinking about planting agaves — which require little water and are used to make a stiff local liquor called bacanora.

“I don’t see a future in ranching,” Aldama said, his voice cracking. “It’s a really good business when it rains, but lately it’s all losses.”

But the power of tradition is strong. Stronger, sometimes, than reason.

Fishermen on Agua Caliente reservoir
Fishermen clean their catch of tilapia on Agua Caliente reservoir. (Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

 

Gutierrez did everything he could to keep feeding his cows. To raise money, he started buying and selling tilapia and carp caught from the local dam. But that business tanked as the dam nearly went dry.

He and his wife, who works at a hospital, have decided that their two children should not have to endure such hardships. They are studying in Ciudad Obregon, the nearest city.

“I suffered a lot and I don’t want them to suffer,” Gutierrez said.

He still doesn’t know what he’ll do — try to rebuild his herd or give up.

On a recent hot afternoon, he was commiserating with Manuel Bustamante Parra, a 58-year-old friend in similar straits.

Bustamante used to have 28 cattle, but now has 19. He did his best to save the hungry animals in their final days — using a rope-and-pully system to haul them upright to eat when they were too weak to stand — but it wasn’t enough.

Every few days, Bustamante rides his horse to a different small chapel in the region. He asks for rain as he lights candles to the Virgin of Guadalupe. He and Gutierrez have been traversing these hills on horseback for as long as they can remember.

“I’m too old to learn something new,” Gutierrez said.

“We’ll keep ranching until all the cows die,” Bustamante told him. “Or we do.”

A man wipes his brow with his shirt
Manuel Bustamante Parra has seen his livestock die of starvation because of the drought. (Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

Cecilia Sánchez in The Times’ Mexico City bureau contributed to this report.

Opinion: Miami’s $6 billion sea wall won’t save the city from flooding — green hybrid designs make more sense

The Conversation

Opinion: Miami’s $6 billion sea wall won’t save the city from flooding — green hybrid designs make more sense

By Landolf Rhode – Barbarigos                          July 31, 2021

Pair the strength of less obtrusive hardened infrastructure with nature-based solutions

One possible hybrid design to protect Miami is the SEAHIVE, which combines hollow channels of concrete with mangroves above and corals below for natural protection. GALLO HERBERT ARCHITECTS

Miami is all about the water and living life outdoors. Walking paths and parks line large stretches of downtown waterfront with a stunning bay view.

This downtown core is where the Army Corps of Engineers plans to build a $6 billion sea wall, 20 feet high in places, through downtown neighborhoods and right between the Brickell district’s high-rises and the bay.

There’s no question that the city is at increasing risk of flooding as sea level rises and storms intensify with climate change. A hurricane as powerful as 1992’s Andrew or 2017’s Irma making a direct hit on Miami would devastate the city.

But the sea wall the Army Corps is proposing – protecting only 6 miles of downtown and the financial district from a storm surge – can’t save Miami and Dade County. Most of the city will be outside the wall, unprotected; the wall will still trap water inside; and the Corps hasn’t closely studied what the construction of a high sea wall would do to water quality. At the same time, it would block the water views that the city’s economy thrives on.

To protect more of the region without losing Miami’s vibrant character, there are ways to pair the strength of less obtrusive hardened infrastructure with nature-based “green” solutions. With our colleagues at the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science and the College of Engineeringwe have been designing and testing innovative hybrid solutions.

Natural storm management

Living with water today doesn’t look the same as it did 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago. Parts of Miami now regularly see “sunny day” flooding during high tides. Salt water infiltrates basements and high-rise parking garages, and tidal flooding is forecast to occur more frequently as sea level rises. When storms come through, the storm surge adds to that already high water.

Hurricanes are less common than tidal flooding, but their destructive potential is greater, and that is what the Army Corps is focused on with its sea wall plan.

If Miami Beach were an undeveloped barrier island, and if thick mangrove forests were still common along the South Florida shoreline, the Miami area would have more natural protection against storm surge and wave action. But most of those living buffers are long gone.

There are still ways nature can help preserve the beauty of Miami’s marine playground, though.

For example, healthy coral reefs break waves, dissipating their energy before the waves reach shore. Dense mangrove forests also dissipate wave energy with their complex root systems that rise above the water line, dramatically reducing the waves’ impact. In areas where coastal flooding is an increasing problem, low-lying communities can be relocated to higher ground and the vacant land turned into wetlands, canals or parks that are designed to manage storm surge flooding.

Each area of coastline is unique and requires different protective measures based on the dynamics of how the water flows in and out. Given Miami’s limited space, living shorelines alone won’t be enough against a major hurricane, but there are powerful ways to pair them with solid “gray” infrastructure that are more successful than either alone.

Hybrid solutions mix green and gray

Nobody wants to look at a cement breakwater offshore. But if you’re looking at a breakwater covered with corals and hospitable to marine life, and you can go out and swim on it, that’s different.

Corals help the structure dissipate wave energy better, and at the same time they improve water quality, habitat, recreation, tourism and quality of life. For a lot of people, those are some of Miami’s main selling points.

By pairing corals and mangroves with a more sustainable and eco-friendly hard infrastructure, hybrid solutions can be far less obtrusive than a tall sea wall.

For example, a cement-based breakwater structure submerged offshore with coral transplants could provide habitat for entire ecosystems while providing protection. We’re working with the city of Miami Beach through the University of Miami Laboratory for Integrative Knowledge to implement three hybrid coral reefs just offshore that we will monitor for their engineering and ecological performance.

Closer to shore, we’re experimenting with a novel modular marine and estuarine system we call “SEAHIVE.” Below the water line, water flows through hollow hexagonal channels of concrete, losing energy. The top can be filled with soil to grow coastal vegetation such as mangroves, providing even more protection as well as an ecosystem that benefits the bay.

We’re currently working on testing SEAHIVE as a green engineering alternative for North Bay Village, an inhabited island in the bay, and as the infrastructure of a newly developed marine park where these “green-gray” reef and mangrove designs will be showcased.

What about the rest of Miami?

The Army Corps of Engineers’ draft plan – a final version is expected in the fall – would give nature-based solutions little role beyond a fairly small mangrove and sea grass restoration project to the south. The Corps determined that natural solutions alone would require too much space and wouldn’t be as effective as hard infrastructure in a worst-case scenario.

Instead, the Army Corps’ plan focuses on the 6-mile sea wall, flood gates and elevating or strengthening buildings. It basically protects the downtown infrastructure but leaves everyone else on their own.

Sea walls and flood gates can also affect water flow and harm water quality. The Corps’ own documents warn that the sea walls and gates will affect wildlife and ecosystems, including permanent loss of protective corals, mangroves and sea grass beds.

We would like to see a plan for all of Miami-Dade County that considers the value that green and hybrid solutions bring for marine life, tourism, fishing and general quality of life, in addition to their protective services for the shoreline.

Both types – green and gray – would take time to build out, particularly if the sea wall plan were challenged in court. And both run a risk of failure. Corals can die in a heat wave, and a storm can damage mangroves; but storms can also undermine engineered solutions, like the New Orleans levee system during Hurricane Katrina.

To help build resilience, our colleagues at the University of Miami have been breeding corals to be more resistant to climate change, investigating novel cementitious materials and noncorrosive reinforcements and developing new designs for coastal structures.

Miami in the future

The Miami skyline. GETTY IMAGES

Miami will be different in the coming decades, and the changes are already starting.

High ground is at a premium, and that’s showing up in real-estate decisions that are pushing lower-income residents out and into less safe areas. Anybody looking back at Miami will probably think the region should have done a better job of managing growth and maybe even managing some form of retreat from threatened areas.

We don’t want to see Miami become Venice or a city walled off from the water. We think Miami can thrive by making use of the local ecosystem with novel green engineering solutions and an architecture that adapts.

Landolf Rhode-Barbarigos is an assistant professor of civil, architectural and environmental engineering at the University of Miami. Brian Haus is a professor of ocean sciences at the University of Miami. 

Trash, fires and soaring home prices: Idaho copes with city dwellers fleeing COVID

Trash, fires and soaring home prices: Idaho copes with city dwellers fleeing COVID

Jess Chase – Lubitz, Contributor                     July 31, 2021
Idaho&#39;s state Capitol, with the Boise skyline in the background. (iStockphoto/Getty Images)
Idaho’s state Capitol, with the Boise skyline in the background. (iStockphoto/Getty Images)

 

Bill Rauer, executive director of the Idaho Building Contractors Association, was shocked when in the midst of the pandemic he started hearing about people from out of state showing up on the doorsteps of local homeowners and offering $50,000 to $150,000 over market price for their homes.

“When the pandemic hit, it just seemed like everyone who was contemplating going to Idaho thought, ‘That’s it, we’re going,’” he said. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”

Last year, Idaho’s population took the top spot for year-to-year growth, with an increase of 2.1 percent, and second place for the fastest-growing state in the country over the past decade, with an increase of 17.3 percent, according to U.S. census data. But Idaho’s popularity soared even more during the COVID-19 pandemic. The meteoric rise in its appeal, and the growing pains locals are now facing, are an example of the aftermath of the urban-to-rural exodus in evidence throughout the country.

Since the pandemic hit the United States, New Yorkers have flocked to upstate New York, Vermont and Florida. Populations in California, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois and a few other states with big cities dropped so much that they each lost a House seat in Congress. Meanwhile, Utah saw a 1.5 percent increase in just one year, and North Dakota’s population hit an all-time high. These numbers, which already reveal a strong trend in urban-to-rural migration, barely scratch the surface, because the census data, which was released in July 2020, covers only the first few months of a pandemic that finished 2020 strong and went into 2021 roaring.

Homes in suburban Salt Lake City, which is also bucking the trend of sluggish U.S. population growth.
Homes in suburban Salt Lake City, which is also bucking the trend of sluggish U.S. population growth. (Rick Bowmer/AP)

 

Now, 17 months later, Idahoans and people in other rural states throughout the country are realizing that the increased population wasn’t just a phase, and locals are trying to figure out how they can maintain the serenity that rural life allows with the influx of people who have arrived seeking just that.

“This Idaho is nothing like the Idaho I grew up in,” said Rauer. “But I fall short of calling that a bad thing.”

The increased population has its advantages, including greater economic opportunity, more tax dollars and more people active in local politics. But as more people leave apartment buildings for big yards and outdoor recreation, those who have lived in rural areas for generations are watching their home state change before their eyes.

“The real issue that we’re seeing is the lack of available housing,” said Chris St. Germain, director of economic development in Clearwater County, in northern Idaho.

In one part of northern Idaho, Coeur d’Alene, the median sales were up 47 percent from March 2020 to March 2021, according to the Wall Street Journal/Realtor.comHousing Market Index.

“It’s really changing the economy,” said Christine Bradbury, a fourth-generation Idahoan. “On the one hand, we have people coming to shop, which is good for small businesses. But where I see really, really hurting is our younger generation, who need affordable housing. I have two teenagers, and I’m not sure where they are going to live.”

Employers are also finding it impossible to hire new employees, both seasonal and full time, because of the housing shortage.

Residential homes in Boise, Idaho.
Residential homes in Boise. (Jeremy Erickson/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

 

“We offered three people paramedic jobs over the past six months, and none of them could take it because we couldn’t find them housing,” said Don Gardner, emergency manager and ambulance director for Clearwater County.

Bradbury, who checks the housing market often, is also finding nothing, she said. “What there is is very substandard housing for $1,000 a month. Normally, substandard housing would be a couple hundred a month.”

Rauer said the percentage of empty homes has dropped by 70 percent and there’s extreme pressure to build new homes quickly. “We’re not keeping up,” he said. “It’s just not happening.”

Prices of empty lots are also skyrocketing. Two parcels of land owned by the University of Idaho were auctioned on July 7, and a press release from the Idaho Department of Lands said they were expected to generate at least $6 million. On July 11, a new press release reported that they were sold for $35.2 million.

In the meantime, people are staying in campers or RV parks. Bradbury said she had heard people were even paying monthly rents in hotels in order to jump on the next open property.

Orofino, Idaho, a small town in northern-central Idaho, has seen a sharp increase in population over the past year. At the Best Western Lodge, the manager, Tanna Zywina, said that no monthly rates are offered, but that occupancy rates were up 25 to 30 percent in December 2020 and January 2021. Other hotels in the area declined to comment.

“COVID really changed our world,” said Bobbi Kaufman, Orofino’s planning and zoning administrator. “I do think it has changed the quality of life. Having to share your space with people, more garbage on the roads, more complaints about the services we don’t provide.”

Local residents say that they are seeing a buildup of trash on the highways and hiking trails and that they worry about the effects of the newcomers on the environment. “Tribal members and local Idahoans live a subsistence lifestyle,” Bradbury said. “We hunt and fish and feed our families that way. Urban people get very concerned with hunting and are moving in and trying to change the regulations.”

A man fly-fishing on Tin Cup Creek near Wayan, Idaho, in 2020. (Jon G. Fuller/VW Pics via ZUMA Wire)
A man fly-fishing on Tin Cup Creek near Wayan, Idaho, in 2020. (Jon G. Fuller/VW Pics via Zuma Wire)

 

Bradbury said she is also concerned about the impact from recreation. “The incoming people have a lot of toys,” she said. “Motorized toys. UTVs that are basically like little cars that are wide and fast and noisy. You have to constantly forecast what’s going to be the next toy du jour.”

Venetia Gempler, a public affairs officer for Boise National Forest Service, said it’s been difficult to keep up with the influx. “We saw a huge increase in use on the national forest, because that was the place that was open for people to go,” she said. “But on top of that, there was an additional layer of people moving into Idaho, and we’re surmising that the impact we’re seeing is from these new visitors.”

“A lot of our campgrounds were designed many decades ago,” she said, and “can’t sustain” large motorized vehicles like RVs and motorized homes.

The forest service has partnered with other organizations to create a campaign called Recreate Responsibly Idaho. The partnership started as a way to get out information about COVID, but it has since evolved into a general information campaign about how to be responsible when you venture outdoors.

“There’s a big effort to make sure people are putting out their campfires when they leave,” Gempler said. “You might douse a campfire, but is it really out? Do you feel heat when you put your hand over it? These problems stem from people not knowing.”

The Orofino area, along with many other areas in the West, was overwhelmed by wildfires during the first few weeks of July, which were exacerbated by a long heat wave. As of July 12, the forest fires were estimated to cover 2,187 acres.

Gardner, in Clearwater County, is finding that urbanites expect more public services than rural areas provide. He recently had a call from someone asking if the county would remove all the vegetation in their yard to avoid wildfires. “It’s not that easy,” he said. “We don’t do that.”

An open road in Idaho. (Eye/Em/Getty Images)
The wide open spaces. (Eye/Em/Getty Images)

 

Such expectations have become a constant in Gardner’s job. “I’m trying to tell people as much as I can that just because you pay for trash pickup doesn’t mean you’ll get it. Just because you live on a county road doesn’t mean the road will get plowed,” he said.

Ambulance calls have at least doubled in the last year, and possibly tripled, according to Gardner.

“It’s a combination of an increase in people and the expectations they have for services,” he said. “We’re seeing more senior calls, but we don’t provide pickups for doctors’ appointments.”

St. Germain at the Clearwater economic office says it is making an effort to respond to what newcomers want. She said it’s busy creating loops for people driving ATVs that connect to the towns, trying to improve internet connectivity, put in coffee shops and provide more diverse food and tennis courts. “We are trying to be responsive to what people are asking for, but the limitation is always: Can you get land access?”

Bradbury worries about the demands of the new population. As more people come who believe that the city and state should provide those services, more people will vote for higher taxes.

“It’s a clash of cultures, I guess I would say,” she said. “You don’t even need to think of it in a political sense. It’s more of an urban-and-rural disconnect. What some of these people are fleeing, they are actually then re-creating when they get here.”

Global Warming Will Kill 83 Million People in the Next 80 Years

Global Warming Will Kill 83 Million People in the Next 80 Years

(Bloomberg) — A population equivalent to that of Germany — 83 million people — could be killed by 2100 because of rising temperatures caused by greenhouse-gas emissions, according to a new study that might influence how markets price carbon pollution.

The research from Columbia University’s Earth Institute introduces a new metric to help companies and governments assess damages wrought by climate change this century. Accounting for the “mortality cost of carbon” could give polluters new reasons to clean up by dramatically raising the cost of emissions.

“Based on the decisions made by individuals, businesses or governments, this tells you how many lives will be lost or saved,” said Columbia’s Daniel Bressler, whose research was published Thursday in the journal Nature Communications. “It quantifies the mortality impact of those decisions” by reducing questions down “to a more personal, understandable level.”

Read More: Life and Death in Our Hot Future Will be Shaped by Today’s Income Inequality

Adapting models developed by Yale climate economist and Nobel Prize winner William Nordhaus, Bressler calculated the number of direct heat deaths that will be caused by current global-warming trajectories. His calculations don’t include the number of people who might die from rising seas, superstorms, crop failures or changing disease patterns affected by atmospheric warming. That means that the projected deaths — which approximate the number of people killed in World War II — could still be a “vast underestimate,” Bressler said.

Every 4,434 tons of carbon spewed into the Earth’s atmosphere in 2020 will kill one person this century, according to the peer-reviewed calculations that see the planet warming 4.1º Celsius by 2100. So far the planet has warmed about 1.1º C, compared to pre-industrial times.

The volume of pollution emitted over the lifetime of three average U.S. residents is estimated to contribute to the death of another person. Bressler said the highest mortality rates can be expected in Earth’s hottest and poorest regions in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.

Read More: How Biden Is Putting a Number on Carbon’s True Cost: QuickTake

The new metric could significantly affect how economies calculate the so-called social cost of carbon, which U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration set at $51 a ton in February. That price on pollution, which complements carbon markets like the European Union’s Emissions Trading System, helps governments set policy by accounting for future damages. But the scale revealed by Bressler’s research suggests the social cost of carbon should be significantly higher, at about $258 a ton, if the world’s economies want to reduce deaths caused by global warming.

A higher cost on carbon pollution could immediately induce larger emission cuts, which in turn could save lives. Capping global average temperature increase to 2.4ºC by the end of the century, compared with modest emissions reductions that would warm the planet 3.4ºC, could save 74 million people from dying of heat.

“People shouldn’t take their per-person mortality emissions too personally,” said Bressler. Governments need to mobilize “large-scale policies such as carbon pricing, cap and trade and investments in low carbon technologies and energy storage.”

What is climate change? A really simple guide

What is climate change? A really simple guide

 

While Covid-19 has shaken much of human society, the threat posed by global warming has not gone away.

Human activities have increased carbon dioxide emissions, driving up temperatures. Extreme weather and melting polar ice are among the possible effects.

What is climate change?

The Earth’s average temperature is about 15C but has been much higher and lower in the past.

There are natural fluctuations in the climate but scientists say temperatures are now rising faster than at many other times.

World is getting warmer
World is getting warmer

This is linked to the greenhouse effect, which describes how the Earth’s atmosphere traps some of the Sun’s energy.

Solar energy radiating back to space from the Earth’s surface is absorbed by greenhouse gases and re-emitted in all directions.

This heats both the lower atmosphere and the surface of the planet. Without this effect, the Earth would be about 30C colder and hostile to life.

Greenhouse effect
Greenhouse effect

Scientists believe we are adding to the natural greenhouse effect, with gases released from industry and agriculture trapping more energy and increasing the temperature.

This is known as climate change or global warming.

What are greenhouse gases?

The greenhouse gas with the greatest impact on warming is water vapour. But it remains in the atmosphere for only a few days.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), however, persists for much longer. It would take hundreds of years for a return to pre-industrial levels and only so much can be soaked up by natural reservoirs such as the oceans.

Most man-made emissions of CO2 come from burning fossil fuels. When carbon-absorbing forests are cut down and left to rot, or burned, that stored carbon is released, contributing to global warming.

Since the Industrial Revolution began in about 1750, CO2 levels have risen by around 50%. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than at any time in at least 800,000 years.

Other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide are also released through human activities but they are less abundant than carbon dioxide.

What is the evidence for warming?

The world is about one degree Celsius warmer than before widespread industrialization, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

It says the past five years, 2015–2019, were the warmest on record.

Across the globe, the average sea level increased by 3.6mm per year between 2005 and 2015.

Most of this change was because water increases in volume as it heats up.

Sea level rise infographic
Sea level rise infographic

However, melting ice is now thought to be the main reason for rising sea levels. Most glaciers in temperate regions of the world are retreating.

And satellite records show a dramatic decline in Arctic sea-ice since 1979. The Greenland Ice Sheet has experienced record melting in recent years.

Satellite data also shows the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is losing mass. A recent study indicated East Antarctica may also have started to lose mass.

The effects of a changing climate can also be seen in vegetation and land animals. These include earlier flowering and fruiting times for plants and changes in the territories of animals.

How much will temperatures rise in future?

The change in the global surface temperature between 1850 and the end of the 21st Century is likely to exceed 1.5C, most simulations suggest.

The WMO says that if the current warming trend continues, temperatures could rise 3-5C by the end of this century.

Temperature rises of 2C had long been regarded as the gateway to dangerous warming. More recently, scientists and policymakers have argued that limiting temperature rises to 1.5C is safer.

An Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report in 2018 suggested that keeping to the 1.5C target would require “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society”.

The UN is leading a political effort to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions. China emits more CO2 than any other country. It is followed by the US and the European Union member states, although emissions per person are much greater there.

But even if we now cut greenhouse-gas emissions dramatically, scientists say the effects will continue. Large bodies of water and ice can take hundreds of years to respond to changes in temperature. And it takes CO2 decades to be removed from the atmosphere.

How will climate change affect us?

There is uncertainty about how great the impact of a changing climate will be.

It could cause fresh water shortages, dramatically alter our ability to produce food, and increase the number of deaths from floods, storms and heatwaves. This is because climate change is expected to increase the frequency of extreme weather events – though linking any single event to global warming is complicated.

As the world warms, more water evaporates, leading to more moisture in the air. This means many areas will experience more intense rainfall – and in some places snowfall. But the risk of drought in inland areas during hot summers will increase. More flooding is expected from storms and rising sea levels. But there are likely to be very strong regional variations in these patterns.

Poorer countries, which are least equipped to deal with rapid change, could suffer the most.

Plant and animal extinctions are predicted as habitats change faster than species can adapt. And the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned that the health of millions could be threatened by increases in malaria, water-borne disease and malnutrition.

As more CO2 is released into the atmosphere, uptake of the gas by the oceans increases, causing the water to become more acidic. This could pose major problems for coral reefs.

Global warming will cause further changes that are likely to create further heating. This includes the release of large quantities of methane as permafrost – frozen soil found mainly at high latitudes – melts.

Responding to climate change will be one of the biggest challenges we face this century.

Why it’s so hard and expensive to plug an abandoned well

Why it’s so hard and expensive to plug an abandoned well

An estimated 2 million abandoned oil and gas wells across the country, forgotten or ignored by the energy companies that drilled them, are believed to be leaking toxic chemicals. Many of the wells are releasing methane, a greenhouse gas containing about 86 times the climate-warming power of carbon dioxide over two decades. Some are leaking chemicals such as benzene, a known carcinogen, into fields and groundwater.

Here are some questions and answers.

WHAT IS AN ABANDONED WELL?

An oil or gas well is considered abandoned when it’s reached the end of its useful life and is no longer producing enough fuel to make money. If the company that owned the well went bankrupt, or there’s no owner to be found to plug or maintain it, then the abandoned well is considered “orphaned.”

WHAT DANGER DOES AN ABANDONED WELL POSE?

Over time, the amount of oil and gas a company can extract from a well declines. At that point, many operators will cap a well to seal it temporarily. Sometimes, wells sit in that “idle” or “inactive” state for months or even years. But to prevent chemicals from leaking into the air or soil, a well must be properly plugged with cement. Left unplugged, oil and gas wells are at risk of leaking methane into the atmosphere and toxic chemicals into groundwater.

HOW DO YOU PLUG AN OIL AND GAS WELL?

The idea is to fill certain parts of the well with cement, to stop toxic chemicals from leaking into aquifers or the air, and to eventually bury the well underground.

First, crews must remove any pumpjacks or other equipment that might have been left at surface. They then examine the well for problems: leaks, deteriorated casings, cracked cement. They fish out random sticks or debris that might have wedged over time into the wellbore — the vertical shaft that is drilled to extract oil and gas.

“If you leave a well ignored for a long enough time, the casing begins to deteriorate inside,” said Luke Plants, chief operating officer at Plants and Goodwin, a company that plugs oil and gas wells throughout Appalachia. “Every kid that walks by and sees this open pipe throws a rock down in there.”

Next, the pluggers must measure the wellbore and determine to what depths they must pour cement to keep the well from leaking into water tables or other underground geologic formations.

The older the well is, the trickier the operation. When a well is orphaned, detailed records of how the well was drilled might be missing. The crews must try to determine, based on records of nearby wells, what is occurring underground. If a well had been abandoned decades ago, crews might have to build roads to move heavy equipment needed for the job. If a well is found under a driveway or a parking lot, crews must operate carefully around homes, schools or electric wires.

WHAT DOES IT COST?

The cost to plug an orphaned well varies depending on its age, depth and location. In North Dakota, where some wells are drilled to depths of more than 20,000 feet, it can cost $150,000 to plug a single well and restore the land around it. In Pennsylvania, the state budgets about $33,000 to plug each well.

Many states require companies to post bonds to pay for well plugging. But the bond amount is generally far lower than the cost of plugging. On federal lands, the average amount the government held in bonds was just $2,122 per well in 2018, according to the Government Accountability Office. Some groups are pushing states to tighten rules on how long a well can remain idle or to raise the bond amounts required of operators.

An effort in 2005 to obtain funding from Congress for a federal well-plugging program failed to secure much money. Many states, including Texas, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and North Dakota, fund their plugging operations through fees or taxes paid by the oil and gas industry. But that money isn’t enough to plug all the wells that need it. And state lawmakers often face pushback from groups that would rather have that money go to education or other community needs.

In Pennsylvania, plugging all the known orphaned wells could cost $250 million to $300 million, said Seth Pelepko, the environmental program manager at the Bureau of Oil and Gas Planning and Program Management in the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. But his office has secured only enough money to spend about $1 million annually. Pelepko estimates that plugging all the wells there — including those of unknown location — could range into the billions of dollars.

In Colorado, state regulators spent $14.4 million over three years to plug and reclaim wells after operators had set aside only $1.3 million, according to the Western Organization of Resource Councils, a network of grassroots groups involved with land stewardship. Colorado would need about $5.3 million a year for five years to address the current inventory of orphaned wells, the group said.

‘You’re all f—ed up’: Trump exploded after his officials warned against using military troops to end George Floyd protests, book says

‘You’re all f—ed up’: Trump exploded after his officials warned against using military troops to end George Floyd protests, book says

 

  • Milley and Esper spoke against Trump using troops to blunt the Floyd protests, per a new book.
  • Trump was intrigued with the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act, according to the book.
  • During the early days of the protests, Trump was concerned that the US appeared out of control.

After George Floyd was killed while in the custody of Minneapolis police in May 2020, millions of Americans poured into the streets to protest his death and call attention to racial injustice.

In the immediate aftermath of Floyd’s death, Trump summoned Gen. Mark Milley, Defense secretary Mark Esper, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, and other advisors to find a way to end the protests.

The president was incensed by a New York Times report that he had been taken to a bunker as protests near the White House turned violent, thinking the news “made him appear scared and weak,” according to a newly-released book by the Washington Post reporters Carol D. Leonnig and Philip Rucker.

To blunt the continued protests, Trump insisted that active-duty troops be used, which Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Esper sought to eliminate as an option.

When Trump mentioned the 1960’s race riots to justify the use of troops to restore order, Milley threw cold water on the suggestion, part of a longer discussion that resulted in the president cursing out his top military advisors, which Leonnig and Rucker detailed in “I Alone Can Fix It: Donald J. Trump’s Catastrophic Final Year.”

“Mr. President, it doesn’t compare anywhere to the summer of sixty-eight,” Milley said, according to the book. “It’s not even close.”

After senior advisor Stephen Miller chimed in to declare the protests as “an insurrection,” Milley pointed to a portrait of former President Abraham Lincoln, who led the country through the American Civil War.

“Mr. President, that guy had an insurrection,” Milley said, according to the book. “You don’t have an insurrection. When guys show up in gray and start bombing Fort Sumter, you’ll have an insurrection.”

Trump entertained the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act, which would let him deploy troops across the country to quell any civil disorder or insurrection, but Milley and Esper continued to fight against the idea.

On June 1, Trump had grown angrier over the press coverage of the protests, urging governors and law enforcement to “dominate” the nationwide unrest.

“How do you think this looks to hostile countries?” Trump said, according to the book. “They see we can’t even control our own capital city and the space around the White House!”

After once again calling for troops, Esper said that the National Guard remained the best option to stop any unrest, but the president proceeded to slam on the Resolute Desk and told the Defense secretary that he wasn’t done enough to solve the problem, according to the book.

Trump sought to make Milley the leader of an operation to restore order, but after the general reiterated that he wasn’t in an operational role, the president lost it.

Read more: Where is Trump’s White House staff now? We created a searchable database of more than 327 top staffers to show where they all landed

“You’re all f—ed up,” Trump said, according to the book. “Every one of you is f—ed up.”

Trump then looked at Vice President Mike Pence, who had been a quiet observer, and directed his ire toward his No. 2.

“Including you!” the president said, according to the book.

Later that day, Trump, along with Milley, Esper, and several other advisors, walked from the White House complex to nearby St. John’s Episcopal Church.

The now-infamous photo op, which showed the president holding a bible in front of the church after protestors were violently cleared from Lafayette Park, immediately attracted criticism. However, the inspector general for the Interior Department determined in June 2021 that the US Park Police and Secret Service did not clear the park for Trump’s photoshoot, but to install anti-scale fencing.