Why a 100-year supply? How Arizona got its famous, yet arbitrarily numbered groundwater rule
Ray Stern, Arizona Republic – December 26, 2023
Arizona’s 100-year water supply requirement came into sharp focus this year when Gov. Katie Hobbs announced news of a potential shortfall.
It came up again recently when state Senate President Warren Petersen publicly discussed why the requirement is 100 years and not some other number.
Petersen, R-Gilbert, said the number is arbitrary during a meeting about the state’s financial health in November. Petersen denied he’s planning, or has heard of plans, for new legislation next year to change the number.
The longtime politician hailing from a family of homebuilders said in the aftermath of Hobbs’ announcement he wants the public to know Arizona has “plenty of water” to continue building homes. He stood by the position in a Dec. 13 interview on azcentral.com’s Gaggle podcast.
“Why is it 100 years?” he said on the podcast. “Why isn’t it 105 years — why isn’t it 95 years? California’s (rule) is 25 years … You don’t go to the gas station and buy 100 years of gas.”
What is the 100-year requirement?
The Indigenous Hohokam, forefathers of the Pima, Maricopa and other Native American tribes, thrived for centuries in what are now called the Phoenix and Pinal Active Management Areas.
These parts of the state are flush with surface water in certain areas, augmented by the Central Arizona Project canal that moves water from Colorado River reservoirs to communities including Tucson.
They also contain untold acre-feet of groundwater, which experts say is still being pumped out at unsustainable rates. An acre-foot of water is roughly enough to serve two to three households for a year.
The amount pumped from the Active Management Areas is regulated because of the Groundwater Management Act. The law, passed in 1980 by the Arizona Legislature and former Democratic Gov. Bruce Babbitt, is still praised as one of the most forward-thinking water laws in the country.
It requires developers of housing subdivisions in the Active Management Areas to prove a 100-year water supply actually exists on the land before they fire up the bulldozers.
One of its goals was to steer the state’s fast-growing development into the Active Management Areas that have more water than other parts of Arizona. It also helped ensure the CAP canal would receive help from federal officials, who required a check on groundwater pumping.
The requirement has two major provisions. The first is that metro Phoenix developers must either obtain an agreement to build homes from a city or another “designated assured water supply,” which includes some water companies. These water-distributing entities use surface water to replenish the groundwater they use.
Developers outside of major city areas, but still in Active Management Areas, must obtain a certificate from the state Department of Water Resources showing that a property has a 100-year water supply.
The act doesn’t affect rural Arizona or parts outside of the management areas. It also doesn’t generally affect industrial, agricultural or commercial sites that weren’t built as part of subdivided lands.
Is 100 years the right number?
Fraudulent land sales in Arizona led the state to pass a law in 1973 forcing developers to disclose if there’s an “adequate” water supply on land they sell. Arizona officials determined a few years later that “adequate” meant water “continuously available” for at least 100 years.
Critics at the time argued for 30 to 50 years, saying that would be more in line with the 30-year mortgage typically used in borrowing money to buy a home. A former land commissioner called the 100-year requirement “unrealistic, arbitrary and capricious.”
State officials ignored their concerns and stuck with 100 years. The number was soon codified in the 1980 Groundwater Management Act, which banned development in the Active Management Areas where at least a century’s worth of water could not be proven.
Kathy Ferris, a lawyer and one of the architects of the 1980 law, said that she and the late Jack DeBolske, former executive director of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, pushed for the “adequate water supply” rule of “at least 100 years” to be included in their sweeping new law.
“We really didn’t discuss the number of years,” said Ferris, now a senior researcher for the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University’s Morrison Institute.
Water expert Sarah Porter, executive director for the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University’s Morrison Institute, agrees with Petersen that the number “100” isn’t validated scientifically. But she doesn’t think it should be lowered.
“In the minds of greatest water planners and industry leaders, 100 years was the right time frame,” Porter said. “New water-supply projects have very long timelines because of the vulnerability of cities and how devastating it could be for a city to have a serious water shortage.”
Considering the growth in Maricopa County over the past 40 years, “I’m very thankful it’s a 100-year timeline.”
If it were only 40 years, for example, it might be tougher to convince people that buying a home in metro Phoenix would still be a good investment decades from now, she said.
Arizona’s water supply is well-managed
Porter pointed out that in most Phoenix-area cities, the 100-year rule gets extended every 15 years.
For now, scientific modeling shows the system can go on almost indefinitely in these better-watered areas. Yet outlying parts of metro Phoenix that require a 100-year certificate for development don’t provide the same assurance.
In Petersen’s view, the 4% deficit means that some areas “only have a 96-year supply.”
If Arizona’s rule required only a 95-year supply, or 25-year supply like in California, “nobody would be talking about how Arizona is out of water,” Petersen said on the podcast.
Yet the problem is that “some areas would be hit harder than others, especially in Buckeye,” Ferris said. She added she believes Petersen is “in denial” about the water supply.
“We have a problem in some places. California has a problem in many places. There is not plenty of water for everyone to do just do as they please,” she said.
With climate change, drought and fights over dwindling levels of Colorado River water available for all of the states that use it, water researchers want to see more regulation, not less.
“In 1980, 100 years was a big lift,” Ferris said. “Now I definitely think it’s not long enough.”
A Record Number of Billion-Dollar Weather Disasters Hit the U.S. in 2023
Yale Environment 360 – December 20, 2023
Billion-dollar weather disasters in the U.S. by year. Climate Central
In 2023, the U.S. experienced a record 25 billion-dollar weather and climate disasters — three more than the previous record, set in 2020.
As greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere, extreme events — hurricanes, severe storms, heavy rainfall, flooding, wildfires, extreme heat, and drought — are becoming ever more frequent, intense, and dangerous. Between 1980 and 2022, the U.S averaged eight billion-dollar weather disasters each year, according to NOAA. Between 2018 and 2022, it recorded 18 such disasters on average. This year saw an unprecedented 25 billion-dollar disasters.
Not surprisingly, the average time between billion-dollar disasters has dramatically shrunk. In the 1980s, according to an analysis of government data by Climate Central, there was an average of 82 days between such disasters. Between 2018 and 2022, with more carbon in the atmosphere and more people and property in harm’s way, the lull between billion-dollar disasters dropped to an average of just 18 days. In the first eleven months of 2023, that lull was just 10 days.
Average number of days between billion-dollar disasters in the U.S. Climate Central
Today’s climate impacts reflect around 1.1 degrees C of global warming, said Climate Central, noting that impacts worsen with every bit of additional warming. But “if we commit to rapid and sustained cuts in carbon pollution, it could set younger generations on a path toward a far safer future with less warming and fewer risky extreme events.”
‘A Very Large Earthquake’: How Trump Could Decimate the Civil Service
Ian Ward – December 20, 2023
For the past two decades, Max Stier has distinguished himself as Washington’s foremost champion of the federal civil service, a quiet but influential voice in favor of practical reforms to make federal bureaucracy work better both for the people who serve in it and for the people that it serves. The Partnership for Public Service — the nonpartisan, nongovernmental organization that Stier helped found in 2001 and still runs today — works largely behind the scenes in Washington to grease the wheels of the bureaucracy, doing everything from crafting common sense proposals for modernizing government programs to hosting a much-beloved annual awards ceremony honoring the country’s top performing civil servants.
These days, though, Stier is increasingly preoccupied with what he sees as a fundamental threat to that work: former President Donald Trump’s sweeping proposal to convert thousands of career civil servants into political appointees if he wins a second term in the White House. That plan — which has won the support of powerful, Trump-aligned conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the America First Policy Institute — is modeled on an executive order from Trump’s first term that redesignated 20,000 civil servants in policy-related positions as “Schedule F” employees, thereby allowing them to be fired unilaterally by the president.
The Biden administration reversed the Trump administration’s order upon assuming office in 2021, but Trump has vowed to reinstitute an expanded version of the Schedule F order if he is reelected in 2024, converting as many as 50,000 civil servants into political appointees and stripping them of the career protections that they currently enjoy.
For Stier, Trump’s proposal is as ironic as it is dangerous. Although Trump and his allies have argued that their plan is necessary to vanquish the “deep state” that allegedly undermined Republican policy initiatives during Trump’s first term, Stier argues that a revamped order on Schedule F would in fact go a long way toward creating the sort of “deep state” that conservatives now rail against.
“If you were to convert a significant segment of that professional workforce into one that is being chosen by political fiat, then you end up in a system that is responsive to the political desires of the individual rather than the larger responsibilities to the Constitution and to law,” Stier said when I spoke to him recently. “You wind up with a workforce that is not only going to deliver poor service, but also that is going to be a tool for retribution and actions that are contrary to our democratic system.”
Even so, Stier cautioned, Americans should not underestimate the damage that the reforms would do to the federal government’s ability to deliver basic services in a timely and efficient manner. “At the end of the day, it’s intuitive,” he said. “If you are selecting people on the basis of their political persuasion or their loyalty as opposed to their expertise and their commitment to the public good, you’re going to wind up with less good service and more risk for the American people.”
The following has been edited for concision and clarity.
How seismic would the changes wrought by Trump’s proposal be? Is there any precedent for it?
It would be a very large earthquake. There is precedent, but it’s precedent from the 19th century. In effect, when you talk about implementing Schedule F, you’re talking about turning the clock back to the late 19th century, when our government operated under the spoils system. That all changed, importantly, when President [James] Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled job seeker [in 1881], resulting in the passage of the first piece of legislation that professionalized our government, the Pendleton Act.
Frankly, Schedule F is now used as a handle for a larger set of dramatic changes to our government, but they are entirely designed to — and will have the consequence of — making our government responsive to the will of the individual holder of the office of the president rather than the broader allegiance to our Constitution and the rule of law.
Is there evidence that a merit-based civil service — as opposed to a bureaucracy run according to the spoils system — actually makes the government more effective?
No question. One way to know that is to look at our peer countries across the world, and the reality is that every effective democracy on the planet today has a professionalized, merit-based civil service that is the core of their governmental function. If anything, we are an outlier in the numbers and the extent to which political appointees are [spread] throughout government institutions. We have 4,000 political appointments that are made by a president — and that is dramatically more than anybody else out there. So one direct piece of evidence is to look at our peers to see how capability and government performance are directly related to the professional capability of the other civil service. In our own country, the same is true. We have many instances in which organizations have foundered when they’ve had too many political appointees.
At the end of the day, it’s intuitive: If you are selecting people on the basis of their political persuasion or their loyalty as opposed to their expertise and their commitment to the public good, you’re going to wind up with less good service and more risk for the American people.
Do we know which career positions would likely be converted to appointed positions under a second Trump administration?
The best evidence we have so far is what was attempted at the back end of the last Trump administration. At that point, they were looking at converting effectively the entire Office of Management and Budget. For most people, that’s just another government acronym, but in fact, it’s the nerve center of the entire government and the office that really is responsible for coordinating and allocating all the resources of our government — and it’s one of the most capable and professionalized elements of our government.
If you converted just those positions alone, then all kinds of choices in government would be made not on the basis of what delivers the best service to the public, and not on the basis of choosing according to transparent criteria that match Congress’ objective desires. They would be entirely based on the political implications — and that is a worse world.
What about beyond OMB?
We don’t know what the full sweep would be, but it’s also true that you don’t have to convert all the positions to have a much larger impact. The chill that would exist for the larger workforce would be profound. For instance, we currently have a system that respects whistleblowers in order to make sure that if something illegal is occurring inside an agency, the individuals who raise them are actually protected. In a world with Schedule F, that would be incredibly hard to see that happening.
Which areas of the government stand to suffer the most under a return to the “spoils system,” as you called it? What would that look like in terms of the delivery of government services?
It depends a lot on how broad of a brush is ultimately wielded in making the changes. You can start from the most obvious, life-saving components of our government.
If you ask the public today if they want a professional government service, they say “yes” in very, very large majorities. So I think that the intuitive point is very strong. The challenge is that there’s a narrative that has been sold around this notion of a deep state, which is just wrong. Indeed, the proposals that are on the table would create a deep state, rather than the effective state that we all should be pursuing.
What do you mean?
I don’t think we have a deep state today. The vast bulk of career civil servants understand that their role is to execute the policy choices that our elected leaders make and that they have a responsibility to follow the law and to make sure their actions are consistent with the Constitution. But if you were to convert a significant segment of that professional workforce into one that is being chosen by political fiat, then you end up in a system that is responsive to the political desires of the individual rather than the larger responsibilities to the Constitution and to law.
You wind up with a workforce that is not only going to deliver poor service, but also that is going to be a tool for retribution and actions that are contrary to our democratic system.
The Biden administration has issued a rule that’s designed to limit the scope and efficacy of any subsequent Schedule F reforms by future administrations. How effective do you think that rule will be?
It’s an important effort and recognition that it would be wrong and damaging. At the end of the day, though, Congress speaking to this would be much more efficacious. I actually think that, even absent the rule or legislation, there would be real legal reasons to challenge the creation of something like Schedule F.
What would a legal challenge look like?
There are statutes that Congress passed that enshrined the merit principles, and one of the main principles is that employees should actually be hired on the basis of merit and not on the basis of politics. So I believe there would be credible and important legal questions that could be raised about those kinds of changes.
But again, I’m not suggesting that they necessarily win — and in the meantime, an awful lot of damage could happen. The very effort and attempt [to reimplement schedule F] would be incredibly damaging in and of itself, so people should not feel sanguine about the possibility that this couldn’t happen or could be delayed, because the harm is profound even in just attempting to do so.
Past administrations from both parties have struggled to fill the 4,000 appointed jobs that currently exist. Is it feasible for a future administration to fill somewhere in the ballpark of 50,000 appointed roles?
The biggest challenge in placing political appointees comes from the Senate confirmation process and all the delays and difficulties that are involved in actually nominating and getting the Senate to confirm them. That’s a deeply broken process. But none of these positions would require that. So I don’t believe that people should be heartened by the notion that they can convert them and it won’t matter because they won’t be able to fill those jobs. I don’t think that is either a true or adequate answer to the problem.
I imagine many people reading this will think, “Well, our government doesn’t work all that efficiently as it is, so what’s the problem with making it a little bit less efficient?” How do you answer that?
This is a difference in kind and not in degree. It’s not like, Yeah, we might just have a slightly less efficient government. No — we would actually have a government that fundamentally fails in its responsibilities to the American people. It would become an instrument of political achievement rather than an instrument of problem-solving and addressing critical issues for the public.
But I think the point is a very important one, because the American public should demand even better than they’re getting right now from our government. I believe that there actually are really good ways of improving the capability of the civil service that do not involve burning down our government. That’s fundamentally the choice that is here to be made. I don’t think it’s efficient to simply say that Schedule F is bad. You also have to offer a plan of attack on improving our government — and frankly, we have that. We have a whole roadmap of the changes that should take place. But the reality is that none of it should be viewed as an indictment of career public servants. It’s an indictment of the leadership over the years that has failed to modernize and invest in the systems of our government.
What does that roadmap look like?
To give one example, the pay system is based on a law from 1949 and it fundamentally hasn’t been modernized since then. That ought to be modernized, because it was built at an age in which our federal workforce was largely clerical, whereas today it’s largely professional. The system isn’t designed for market connectivity to get the technologists, the AI specialists and so on that are necessary to deliver the best services to the public.
There are changes that ought to take place in the way accountability is done in our government. You can actually fire federal employees — and many do leave because they’re threatened with being fired for performance issues — but the systems should be modernized and updated and simplified. There are lots of things that can be done that would actually improve the public service and that would result in better outcomes for the public, rather than blowing it up.
What happens to those reforms in a world with Schedule F? Is there a kind of dual-track future where you can do sensible civil service reform even with Schedule F in place, or are they completely crosswise with each other?
I think they’re crosswise because they come from different visions. One vision is a spoils system, and the other is a professional, capable and effective state. Those are very, very different visions, so I don’t think you can marry the two.
Ultimately, the Schedule F approach swamps the entire system. It cuts the legs out from the idea that we want people who are not only selected on the basis of their capabilities but also based on the fact that their loyalty is to the rule of law and our Constitution rather than to the individual [in power]. Again, we have way too many political appointees as it is, and it really is important for people to see that we are such an outlier in the world — in a bad way.
I suspect that some people on the right simply do not care if government efficiency suffers as a result of these reforms. In fact, that might be part of the goal. How do you think about appealing to people who might be thinking about it that way?
There’s an entirely legitimate and appropriate debate to be had about the role of our government. But there should be no debate about ensuring that, whatever the public actually desires the government to do, it’s done well and effectively. The vast majority of civil servants are focused on national security issues — on actually keeping us safe. I don’t think there are very many Americans who would dispute the value of that outcome or the need for an effective government to do it.
How aware are people in Washington of the potential consequences of these reforms? And how prepared do you think they are to deal with them?
I do not believe that the public has good insight into the nasty consequences that would come out of the proposals that are part of Project 2025. At the end of the day, if you look at the polling [about the public’s view of the civil service] it’s clear as can be: Americans actually want the people who are serving them to be chosen because they’re the most expert and capable — not because they’ve sworn loyalty to the person in the Oval Office.
Revealed: House speaker did little to fight toxic ‘burn pit’ his father campaigned against
Oliver Laughland in Shreveport, Louisiana and Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington – December 13, 2023
Composite: Rory Doyle, Getty Images, Rachel Woolf
Mike Johnson was a few months away from assuming elected office in late 2014 when he was confronted with an impassioned appeal by the man he would later pay tribute to in his first speech as House speaker: his father Patrick.
The elder Johnson, a former firefighter in the Louisiana city of Shreveport, had survived a near fatal industrial explosion when Mike was 12 years old, a defining event in both men’s lives. He had just joined a local community environmental group, working to fight against US government plans to burn – in the open air – over 15m pounds of toxic munitions. It had thrust Patrick and his future wife Janis Gabriel onto the frontlines of Louisiana environmental advocacy.
As authorities were on the brink of approving the “open burn”, which would have sent vast quantities of known carcinogens into the air, Patrick and Janis turned to the most influential person they knew.
Then an ambitious, rightwing constitutional lawyer, Mike Johnson would in a matter of weeks fill the vacancy for Louisiana’s eighth state legislative district – whose borders are just 20 miles from Camp Minden, a military base where the illegal munitions dump – the largest in US history – was located. A small amount of the munitions had spontaneously exploded two years before, causing a 4-mile blast radius.
The pair drove to Mike Johnson’s legal offices in the late morning, Gabriel recalled, and Patrick Johnson explained to his son the immediate environmental and health dangers the toxic dump posed, not only to residents in the immediate vicinity but to members of the Johnson family living in the region.
“His father and I went to him and said: ‘Mike you need to get involved in this, this is really important. Your family really lives at ground zero,’” Gabriel said in an interview with the Guardian. “We basically begged him to say something, to someone, somewhere.”
A terse back and forth followed, she said.
“He just wasn’t interested,” Gabriel said. “He had other things to do. He was never interested in environmental things.”
The couple left deeply disappointed.
“It just blew my mind that he wouldn’t give five minutes of his time to the effort,” she said. “He basically shut us down.”
A spokesperson for Johnson said he “disputes this characterization as described” but did not respond to an invitation to elaborate further.
Gabriel, 72, has thought about this failed appeal to Johnson repeatedly in recent months, ever since he was thrust from relative obscurity to the US house speakership in October.
A denier of climate science, Mike Johnson has spoken about how his evangelical faith has shaped his political worldview. According to a broad examination of his past statements, Johnson’s anti-climate advocacy often bears the hallmarks of a Christian fundamentalism linked to creationism.
Louisiana’s fourth congressional district, which includes Camp Minden, has long voted staunchly Republican, but many residents still hold deep concerns about pollution and the climate crisis. In a year the district experienced record heat and a number of climate related disasters, some say their representative in Washington, who is now second in line to the presidency, is fundamentally failing them.
Mike Johnson’s views on climate change became publicly apparent in 2017, just five months into his first term in the US Congress. Asked how he felt about the climate crisis by a constituent at a rowdy town hall meeting in Shreveport, Johnson launched into a critique of climate change data, saying he had also seen “the data on the other side”.
“The climate is changing, but the question is: is the climate changing because of the natural cycles of the atmosphere over the span of history, or is it changing because we drive SUVs?
“I don’t believe in the latter. I don’t think that’s the primary driver.”
Some attendees booed.
Two years later, Johnson – who has received almost $350,000 in political donations from the oil and gas industry since his election in 2016 – led the Republican Study Committee as it lobbied against progressive Democratic efforts to implement a Green New Deal. Johnson denounced the sweeping federal blueprint for climate action as a “guise to usher in the principles of socialism” and create a system of “full government control”.
In Louisiana, which is economically dependent on the oil and gas industry, the remarks were consistent with the Republican party’s support for fossil fuels.
But to experts who study the Christian fundamentalist movement of creationism, the comments revealed a worldview that falls far outside traditional Republican pro-industry norms. They see the remarks, and Johnson’s rejection of climate science, as evidence of Johnson’s adherence to young-Earth creationist beliefs, including the presumption that the Earth is just 6,000 years old.
Johnson has been closely associated with the creationist movement since 2014 – before his entry into politics – when he became a vocal supporter and lawyer for Answers in Genesis (AiG), a global fundamentalist Christian organization that built a gigantic Noah’s Ark replica and amusement park in Kentucky. Following a headline-grabbing legal battle, Johnson ultimately helped the group secure taxpayer incentives for the project.
“Creationists can just wave away all of the geologic evidence of climate change because they are convinced that all rock layers were laid down in a global flood about 4,400 years ago,” said David MacMillan, a former Christian fundamentalist who has left the movement.
MacMillan grew up attending creationist conferences, had posts published on AiG’s website, and helped raise money for the establishment of AiG’s first creationist museum near Cincinnati, earning him a spot on a donor wall and a lifetime pass to attend. Now – having left his fundamentalist views behind – he is speaking out about the dangers of science denial.
“They will tell you that hundreds of thousands of annual ice core layers are just a bunch of snow that formed while the Earth was cooling off after Noah’s flood. They believe climate scientists are sifting through meaningless noise to try and find patterns that will get them noticed and promote narratives that please the global elite who want to control us.”
What’s more, MacMillan added, most fundamentalists argue that even if the climate is changing, it should make no difference because they also expect the imminent, apocalyptic, final judgment of the world.
MacMillan, who knows Ham, said the AiG founder pioneered a technique of trying to sow doubts about science by presenting scientific consensus as merely a belief system, much like religion.
In a video interview with the Canadian psychologist and alt-right provocateur Jordan Peterson in November last year, Johnson drew directly from this creationist strategy when asked why Democrats pursue policies to address the climate crisis.
“They regard the climate agenda as part of their religion,” Johnson said. “I don’t know any other way to explain it. They pursue it with religious zeal. And they care not what type of pain these policies inflict upon the people that they are supposed to be serving because they’re not serving the people, they’re serving the planet.”
While many media reports have highlighted Johnson’s controversial relationship with Ham, MacMillan said Johnson’s close association with the group – his bio appears on its website, he has written blog posts for the group, and spoken at an AiG event in Kentucky – means Johnson would likely have had to agree to the group’s statement of faith, which includes the assertion that the Bible is “factually true” and that its authority is not limited to spiritual or redemptive themes, but also history and science.
According to the group’s website: “All persons employed by the AiG ministry in any capacity, or who serve as volunteers, should abide by and agree to our Statement of Faith and conduct themselves accordingly.”
An AiG editorial review board regularly reviews all articles, books and other materials produced or distributed by the group to make sure they are in line with AiG values and that there “is not mission drift”.
In a speech delivered at Ham’s Ark Encounter conference center last year, Johnson raised the apocalypse and Christ’s second coming.
“We are hopeful people because we know how the book ends … God wins,” he said in an address that was met with a standing ovation. “The charge is for us, it’s not yet determined. We’re going to be here until the Lord tarries, when the Lord comes back. And maybe that’s soon, because we’re seeing a lot of signs.”
Mike Johnson and his wife are due to speak at an AiG conference event in April next year, entitled: “Reclaim: overcoming the war on women for the glory of God.”
“There is no doubt that Mike Johnson demonstrated to AiG’s satisfaction that he agrees with every aspect of that statement of faith,” MacMillan said.
A short biography of Johnson is included on AiG’s contributor’s page. A review of the 267 biographies on the AiG site indicates he is one of only two elected officials to post on the fundamentalist group’s website. The other is Tony Perkins, a former Louisiana state representative and the current president of the Family Research Council, a far-right evangelical lobby group. Perkins, one of Johnson’s political mentors, once said he believed floods were sent by God to punish homosexuality and regularly cites the Bible to deny solutions to the climate crisis.
When asked by the Guardian if Johnson had ever endorsed the AiG statement of faith, or if he shared Ham’s views on climate or if he believed the earth was 6,000 years old, a spokesperson said: “The Speaker is not responsible for the views of others” and did not respond to an invitation to elaborate.
AiG did not respond to specific questions about Johnson and the group’s statement of faith and instead commented on his legal work for the organization. “Mr Johnson served the ministry very effectively and professionally in the matter and Answers in Genesis was very pleased and grateful for his services,” said spokesman A Larry Ross.
Janis Gabriel pointed to Mike Johnson’s hardline faith and political pragmatism when explaining her interpretation of why he had brushed aside his father’s appeals to help with the air pollution crisis at Camp Minden.
“It speaks to those religious beliefs,” said Gabriel. “‘Don’t take care of the environment because we have a finite amount of time here and God will take care of you.’ It’s crazy.”
Gabriel, who was discussing her relationship with the House speaker for the first time publicly, said she was disclosing details of private conversations because Johnson now holds a position of immense power. She wanted to further public understanding of “what and who he is and how that will affect the job he’s doing for us.”
“That is the important conversation,” she said.
In his 2022 interview with Peterson, Mike Johnson couched his critique of those seeking climate solutions around conversations he was having with residents in his district.
“When I’m in Louisiana I try to explain to our folks, listen: ‘They have effectively replaced father God with mother Earth. . . . They believe we owe fealty to Mother Earth.”
Even as the speaker rejects concerns about the climate crisis, Louisiana’s fourth congressional district is already experiencing new extremes tied to global heating.
Louisiana, too, endured months of devastating drought, which contributed to a water crisis in the south-east, and hundreds of wildfires in America’s wettest state. The largest wildfire in Louisiana’s history occurred this year in Johnson’s district, scorching a staggering 33,000 acres and decimating the local economy. The heat and drought combined cost Louisiana’s agriculture industry $1.69bn alone this year.
The state also logged a record number of heat-related deaths over the summer, according to a spokesman for the Louisiana health department [LDH], with 69 people dying between June and September this year. This was almost double the death toll of any in the past six years, according to data released to the Guardian by LDH.
A report published this year, which examined all occupational heat related illnesses between 2010-2020 found that the highest rates of illness occurred in Louisiana’s north-west, which has some of the largest rates of poverty in the state and is entirely covered by Johnson’s district.
“Heat exposure is intensifying as the frequency, severity, and duration of extreme heat events increases due to climate change,” the government report acknowledges.
In Shreveport, six people died from extreme heat this year alone – a record year, according to Todd Thoma, who has served as coroner in the Shreveport area for 16 years. “This was an exceptional year to me,” Dr Thoma said, as he combed through each case file in his office, pointing to a combination of prolonged extreme heat, high poverty rates and power outages that contributed to the increased risks for the city’s most vulnerable residents.
A 62-year-old woman who died in June after a tornado knocked out power to her home, leaving her with no air conditioning. A 49-year-old man, found collapsed on the sidewalk just four days later. And, on 13 July, 34-year-old Ted Boykin, a father of one who was found dead inside a trailer home, with no air conditioning, that was used by Shreveport’s unhoused community.
The ambient air temperature inside was 98F, according to the coroner’s report. Boykin’s internal temperature was 107.9F.
In an interview Boykin’s sister, Sandy Boykin-Hays, said she considered her brother a victim of the climate crisis and chastised her congressman and others for a failure to accept science.
“He was let down by the system,” said Boykin-Hays. “And to them [in Washington], I’m sure they wouldn’t believe, even if it [climate change] was staring them in the face, because they’re rich. They have money. They don’t have to worry about air conditioning or where your next meal is coming from.”
Boykin-Hays, who works as a food delivery driver and volunteers with homeless outreach, was forced to take out a $3,000 loan to pay for her brother’s funeral.
“They’re ignoring the true issue because it doesn’t affect them,” she said.
In Washington, where Johnson now holds the power to bring legislation to the House floor, the speaker has not yet expressed a position on a bill introduced by California Democrat Judy Chu, to protect workers from excessive heat, despite it receiving some bipartisan support in committee.
“The denial of the climate crisis by Maga extremists like the Speaker isn’t just a danger to the health of his constituents during summer months,” said Chu. “It’s a danger to the long-term well being of future generations in America and around the world.”
Both Janis Gabriel and Patrick Johnson became board members of the Citizens Advisory Group set up to engage with the EPA over community concerns at Camp Minden, according to meeting minutes reviewed by the Guardian and interviews with two other board members.
Johnson even co-wrote, recorded and performed an original song to help the “stop the burn” efforts, which eventually helped force the EPA into a course change by approving use of a cleaner alternative to dispose of the waste throughout 2016 and 2017.
“Take a stand against the poison, protect our future children’s lives,” Patrick Johnson sings.
The former firefighter had become a national advocate for hazardous material safety after surviving a fiery explosion caused by leaking ammonia at a cold storage facility. Another firefighter died in the 1984 accident. The near-death experience, said Gabriel, changed his spiritual outlook. The couple met in 2013 when Johnson attended Gabriel’s Daoist center as a student in Shreveport to practice tai chi and qigong martial arts. The pair married in October 2016, shortly before Johnson’s death from cancer in December that year.
The elder Johnson, said Gabriel, clearly accepted climate science and was “acutely aware of the environment”. While he “certainly didn’t agree” with Mike Johnson’s “extremist stance” on Christianity, he accepted it. The pair disagreed over support for Donald Trump, Gabriel said.
Mike Johnson has described his father’s survival in the 1984 explosion as an “actual miracle” that “made me a person of very deep faith”. His campaign literature still references the accident and, in his first speech as speaker, Johnson described how his father’s near death “changed all of our life trajectories”.
But from January 2015, when he formally entered politics, Johnson appeared to display little interest in the Camp Minden issue that his father was campaigning on. It was a period described by three organizers as the start of heightened advocacy.
He was given invitations to attend citizens meetings as local campaigning ramped up, according to the board’s chairman Ron Hagar, but did not attend.
“He stayed as far away from it as possible,” said Hagar, a close friend of Patrick Johnson’s. “He had no sense of responsibility to stand up for the people he’s representing.”
A search of public records did not indicate Mike Johnson had spoken on the issue at the time although he was listed as a co-sponsor of a minor 2015 state house resolution to stop the facility from accepting further waste explosives. Photographs show Johnson was also present at a December 2015 press conference at the site, but according to a senior organizer in attendance, Johnson did not speak and the state representative is not quoted in local media.
The issue was championed by a Democratic state representative for the 10th district, which includes Minden, named Gene Reynolds. Reynolds, who is now retired, did not return multiple calls for comment.
A spokesperson for Johnson pointed to public activity cited by the Guardian and “other activities” to dispute claims he had not been involved in the matter.
Johnson’s short tenure in the state legislature was spent focused on far-right policy initiatives tied to his Biblical worldview, including introducing legislation to push back against same sex marriage, and a continued focus on his non-profit law practice, including work with Ham’s Ark Encounter.
Following her husband’s death, Gabriel moved out of state. She began to lose touch with Johnson, although the pair exchanged occasional cordial text messages.
In one May 2019 exchange, seen by the Guardian, Johnson contacted Gabriel to wish her a happy Mother’s Day. Gabriel told him she had left Shreveport permanently and moved to a different state.
“Don’t blame you one bit for staying there! Shreveport is really going downhill now and it’s sad to watch,” Johnson replied.
Gabriel then explained that her decision to leave had come on Patrick’s advice, partly due to his prediction of “worsening environmental problems”. She also told Johnson that his father would be proud of his “love and devotion and support” of his own children.
“Dad was right about the environmental problems in Shreveport. Those and other issues are mounting,” Johnson replied. But in the same message, he moved quickly to update her on his rapid rise in Congress: “I’ve been advanced in leadership in record time (currently the 10th ranked Republican!), and God continues to affirm that we are doing what He has called us to do, so that keeps us encouraged.”
Veterinary doctors disturbed by discoveries during autopsies of several cows
Leo Collis – December 13, 2023
The death of three cows in Kota, India, provides an alarming reminder about the impact of plastic pollution on the natural world.
What happened?
Veterinarians conducted a postmortem on cows that unexpectedly died at a cattle shelter in Bandha Dharampura and found polyethylene and plastic weighing around 40 kilograms, nearly 90 pounds, in the rumen — the largest of a cow’s stomach compartments — of each of the three bovines, according to the Times of India.
According to the outlet, the cow shelter, called a gaushala, had seen several unexplained deaths within a short period, so an investigation was made to understand the potential cause.
Why is this so concerning?
The find suggested that the cows had been eating the polyethylene and plastic material, which got stuck in their digestive systems and led to the animals’ deaths.
The plastic products were likely littered or disposed of inappropriately and ended up at the gaushala, where the cows ingested the plastic.
Plastic is a particular problem when entering the environment because it doesn’t break down naturally, meaning it can remain in ecosystems for years.
The presence of this material in the bodies of animals and humans is an increasing concern, not just because of choking hazards or digestive blockages but because of the harmful toxins plastic contains.
This is not the first time something like this has happened, either. In the United Arab Emirates, for example, plastic has been deemed responsible for the deaths of 1% of camels in the country.
Meanwhile, out at sea, a dugong in Thailand was found to have several pieces of plastic in its stomach after being rescued, which was eventually the cause of its death.
What can be done to stop plastic pollution?
While recycling and disposing of plastic items responsibly will help keep them out of ecosystems on both land and at sea, the most effective way to prevent further pollution is alternative solutions to replace this harmful material.
Opting for reusable bags and water bottles is one solution to avoid some of the most common single-use plastic items. Regarding the latter, the Container Recycling Institute says that 60 million plastic water bottles are thrown away daily in the United States alone.
Otherwise, metal-handled toothbrushes and razors can prevent the volume of plastic pollution from the disposal of these products. Meanwhile, non-plastic sandwich bags can help reduce the use of these plastic single-use alternatives that are often not accepted at recycling facilities because they get caught up in machinery.
Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the coolest innovations improving our lives and saving our planet.
Biden makes decision that will impact more than 10 million acres of land: ‘It is nearly impossible to overstate the importance of today’s announcements’
Tina Deines – December 12, 2023
In a win for wild lands and wildlife, President Joe Biden recently moved to protect more than 10 million acres of Alaska’s North Slope from oil development. The action permanently bans drilling across large swaths of this region.
In a separate move, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland also canceled drilling leases, which were issued under the Trump administration, inside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
On the other end of the spectrum, some environmentalists said the new protections were not enough to erase the administration’s March approval of the controversial ConocoPhillips Willow project, which is predicted to produce 576 million barrels of oil over the next 30 years.
The Arctic Refuge is also a traditional territory for the Gwich’in, Athabaskan, and Iñupiat people. The Gwich’in call the refuge’s coastal plain “The Sacred Place Where Life Begins” and rely on its caribou herd for clothing and food, as well as to maintain a spiritual connection to the land, according to the environmental group Protect the Arctic.
“Drilling and climate change threaten the future of these vibrant communities and the environment they rely on,” notes the group’s website.
By and large, environmentalists praised the administration’s recent actions.
“Conservation is a very long game and takes decades,” Chris Wood, president of the conservation group Trout Unlimited, told The Washington Post. “It’s rare to have these big-stroke opportunities. So it’s terrific and heartening to see the administration demonstrate they have a bit of a bold streak when it comes to protecting our lands and waters.”
Jamie Williams, president of the Wilderness Society, told AP News, “It is nearly impossible to overstate the importance of today’s announcements for Arctic conservation. Once again, the Arctic Refuge is free of oil leases. Our climate is a bit safer and there is renewed hope for permanently protecting one of the last great wild landscapes in America.”
My Garden Was My Refuge. Then Climate Change Came for It.
Melody Schreiber – December 11, 2023
When I first set out to report on climate change, I was convinced I knew what to do: I needed to show how climate change was going to be personal and deeply connected to our lives. People are selfish—or, put another way, strongly motivated by what affects us personally. The more intimately I could tie climate change to our well-being, I reasoned, the more driven we would be to change course.
So, eight years ago, I trundled off to the UN climate change conference known as COP21 in search of ways global warming was poised to affect our everyday lives, especially the threats to our mentalhealth and the emergence of infectious diseases. I discovered, of course, that these close connections weren’t theoretical or futuristic; our lives were already being disrupted. And I realized that people already care plenty about climate change; a majority of Americans believe climate change is a threat, and one in 10 Americans are showing signs of climate anxiety. It’s just hard to know what to do about it, and sometimes our actions seem too insignificant to make a difference. Without action, we feel helpless. The problem looms ever more immense, and we start tuning out.
In 2023, for instance, we reached temperatures of 1.5 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels for a record number of days—about one-third of the year. Scientists are warning that the planet is close to crossing five tipping points, with three more on the horizon.
The news comes amid the malicious obstructionism of this year’s conference, COP28. The state oil company of the United Arab Emirates has been privy to emails to and from the COP28 office. The conference president and head of that company, Sultan Al Jaber, who has used the event to push more oil trades, said there is “no science” behind phasing out fossil fuels to stop warming. It’s not just the leaders of COP pushing a pro-hydrocarbon agenda; four times more fossil-fuel lobbyists than ever before have descended on this year’s summit.
I don’t always know anymore how to get anxious people to tune into these kinds of stories, because I struggle myself. Evidence of our rapidly changing world and the failures of our leaders to do anything about it are everywhere, all the time, and nothing I do seems to stop it. A few years ago, I started to go the other direction—to dissociate from it. It was too big to process. The problems felt too immense and thus too far removed from my life.
The summer of 2020 was a particularly low point for me. The pandemic kept us home even as racial violence brought us out to the streets; wildfires and storms battered our neighborhoods even as the Trump administration exited the landmark Paris agreement; a heated presidential election grew increasingly chaotic and nerve-wracking. But most earth-shattering for me, my youngest brother died.
I felt surrounded by death, and I wanted more life. So I started collecting plants. I knew I was probably setting myself up for failure. I’d never been able to keep a plant alive for very long. I was probably going to get attached to yet another thing only to watch it die. (Like I said: a low place.)
Even so, I signed up for a plant subscription box, like a Wine of the Month club, that would start me off with something hard to kill and teach me how to care for it. Plants arrived every month. Some of them died, but most of them lived. A friend gave me a prayer plant; another gave me an amaryllis. Plants became a way to connect with friends in a tenuous time; they gave us something happy to talk about.
I started reading about native species, and how easy they are to maintain because they are perfectly adapted to my environment. (This summer, in the midst of drought, I didn’t need water my garden once.) I planted rows of phlox, goldenrod, asters; one of the most serene and accomplished moments of my year was spent watching a hummingbird bury its head amid the flowers of a turtlehead plant.
I knew my garden wouldn’t solve the biodiversity crisis, stop overdevelopment, or save pollinators single-handedly. But I could build those pollinators a little corner, offer a little respite for them and for me. I could do this small thing imperfectly, and I could keep striving to do it better.
I was, perhaps, too successful with my new gardening hobby. Now I have dozens of native species in my front yard, and (if you’re my husband, you can stop reading now) about 150 houseplants.
I learned to frequent native plant sales and local seed swaps, instead of buying plants at commercial nurseries that frequently use powerful insecticides and contribute to the spread of invasive species and plant diseases, which can further destabilize ecosystems. I started paying attention to what was happening outside my window, focusing on first and last frosts, on temperature highs and lows, on precipitation reports. I thought hard about when to bring plants outside for summer and inside for winter; I hustled to move them when strong storms swept the Doppler.
That’s why I noticed when the new U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Hardiness Map, which I’d never heard of before I started this hobby, was updated for the first time in more than a decade. USDA hardiness zones are based on average annual minimum winter temperature and can help people figure out which plants will or won’t survive and thrive in their location.
Because I’ve been paying closer attention to the vagaries of my local weather, I wasn’t surprised to learn from the recent update that my zone has changed from 7a to 7b, meaning the winter average minimum has risen from 0 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit, to 5 to 10 degrees. These changes may seem small, but they make a huge difference with plants—and pollinators—needing exact temperatures and conditions to grow. Before I got into plants, I might have assumed warmer temperatures would simply expand the number of plants I could grow in my area, but it’s not that simple, particularly if the trend continues: these changes are being accompanied, for instance, by hotter and wetter summers in the region. What will that mean for pollination, seed dispersal, growing times, or the spread of plant pathogens? What about the species needing a certain number of winter “chill hours” in order to germinate and grow?
My area isn’t alone. About half the country moved into a warmer zone with this change. It’s part of a decades-long trend of warming temperatures across the nation that could disrupt both ecosystems and agriculture.
The news brought the specter of climate change into a passion project that was supposed to serve as a refuge. I braced myself for it to feel hopeless now, too. But surprisingly, given my original fears of failure when getting into plants, this news didn’t break my spirit. I do wonder what my garden will look like in 10 or 20 or 50 years, and which species will make it through the gauntlet ahead. But at some point in the past few years, I’ve stopped worrying about killing every plant I cultivate.
Instead, this change makes me think about climate in a new way. It’s something I can feel every day. I can push my hands into the earth; I can smell the flowers blooming in the yard, even now, in December. I now understand the way a small change in temperature or frost patterns can disrupt an entire crop. Plants have connected me in practical, daily, intimate ways to the earth and its changes—giving those changes a new significance, a deeper understanding, and simultaneously grounding my experience of nature in something calming, soul-nourishing, and refreshingly distant from the hard work of processing news, analyzing policy, and taking action. Plants also open up space for any backyard gardener to have conversations about the hyper-local effects of this crisis—conversations that can drive further change.
It’s a lesson I’m clinging to as the overwhelming reality of the climate crisis splashes across headlines this week, courtesy of COP28. Now, I’m searching out the sometimes-smaller but no less important wins at the conference: a new deal for a loss and damage fund; Colombia joining a the Fossil Fuel Nonproliferation Treaty; a bigger push to fund sustainable agriculture; and the possibility, though faint, of the newest agreement spelling out the end to fossil fuels. Despite the glacial pace of policy change, the steps we take in our own lives, though small and incremental, can transform our experience of the world around us. And before you know it, you have a life filled with new growth.
I came to gardening because I was mourning. Mourning, in a largely abstract way, the millions dead from pandemics, wildfires, storms. Mourning, in a painfully specific way, my baby brother, who was supposed to be an inextricable part of my future until the day he left it.
When we mourn, we sit with our loss. We let it weigh on us with its full heft. We examine the dearly held beliefs of how we thought these lives of ours would go, what we’d hoped to do, and we undergo a swift and shattering reorientation of those hopes and dreams. When we mourn, philosopher and author Thomas Attig writes, we “relearn” the world. Mourning is a painful and absolutely crucial process of reacting to a new reality and continuing, despite and because of that pain, to inhabit that reality.
There is a plant that reminds me of my brother: a Hoya kerrii, a vining plant with thick, heart-shaped leaves. I was nervous to acquire it—I’ve grown less precious about killing plants, but if this one were to die on my watch, it would be a pointed blow. But I screwed up my courage and posted a query in a gardening group, expecting to buy a small propagation or seedling. Instead, I ended up with a monster with thick vines as tall as I am, one of the largest plants in my collection, a plant that I instantly fell in love with because of its very wildness and abundance. Taking care of it feels like taking care of my brother; and, in the meditative time spent nurturing, it has begun to feel like he is taking care of me.
It’s a small thing, watering these plants and watching them grow leaf by leaf. But that’s how actions are. If you’d told me when I received my first plant in the mail that my collection would grow to 150, I would’ve laughed at you—and perhaps I would have failed in my new hobby, because of the pressure to do too much too fast. In the face of seemingly impossible goals, it’s hard to know where to start. So I went plant by plant, caring for whatever I had the capacity to care for.
Somehow, my desperate instinct in 2020, my Hail-Mary pass with plants, was right. Surrounding myself with life keeps death—and dread, and despair, and immobility—at bay. Plants make you stop, slow down, and care for each one. It’s an antidote to the crushing immensity of the big picture. It’s a radical act of joy.
Study reveals major factor that could put many Americans at risk for homelessness — here’s what’s happening
Susan Elizabeth Turek – December 11, 2023
In recent years, rising prices have been a pain point for many consumers.
When it comes to the housing market, one major concern is reportedly contributing to not only expensive home prices but also sky-high insurance rates that could increase the risk of homelessness for many Americans.
What’s happening?
According to open Democracy‘s Chrissy Stroop, the nonprofit First Street Foundation found that dangerous weather events make it difficult for many to buy affordable insurance for their residences and may contribute to climate-related migration.
Notably, California — the state with the largest population in the United States — saw a 335% increase in buildings destroyed by wildfires since 2009, with a nearly 800% uptick in denials to renew insurance in high-risk areas between 2015 and 2021.
The search for safety and affordability — including an exodus from California — also seems to be driving up home prices.
“In high-risk areas, decreased demand for properties might result in declining real estate values, and, conversely, urban centers experiencing an influx of residents may experience increased demand for housing, leading to rising property values,” the report said, per openDemocracy.
Why is this trend concerning?
Extreme weather events are expected to grow in intensity and frequency because of the warming temperature of our planet caused by human activities, which could exacerbate the cycle of rising insurance rates, housing costs, and homelessness.
This year’s State of the Nation’s Housing report found a record 21.6 million renter households were “cost-burdened.”
For residents living in risky areas, the inability to obtain insurance could hinder recovery efforts after natural disasters, with some insurers pulling out of certain states or not adding new customers.
What’s being done about the housing crisis?
State and local governments are taking action by passing incentives that support the construction of more affordable housing, while the federal government has also stepped in.
In September, the U.S. Department of Energy allocated $400 million for states to invest in climate-resilient buildings and energy efficiency.
In the meantime, individuals can do their part by investing in the health of our environment.
Air-drying clothes, for example, could help households save money on electricity while reducing the amount of harmful carbon pollution they each contribute to the atmosphere on average by 2,400 pounds annually.
‘His curiosity is unbounded’: What it’s like to work with David Attenborough at 97
Ellie Harrison – December 11, 2023
Friends in the Arctic: David Attenborough and Mike Gunton ((Provided))
Thirty-six years ago, when Mike Gunton joined the BBC’s Natural History Unit as a keen young producer at the start of his career, he was told that he’d be working on David Attenborough’s last-ever programme. It was The Trials of Life, a study in animal behaviour, and Attenborough, in his sixties then, thought it was time to stop. “Well, that seems hilarious now,” says Gunton. “I don’t know how many series he’s done since, but it must be 20 at least. Long may it last.”
The pair have worked together for almost four decades – Gunton is now 66 and Attenborough 97 – and their latest project is Planet Earth III, which airs its final episode tonight. Just like its two predecessors, which were broadcast in 2006 and 2016, the series has shown us spectacular stories from across the animal kingdom – from a minutes-old ostrich hatchling searching for its mother in the Namib desert to a group of courageous seals driving away great white sharks off the coast of South Africa. But a new element to the show, and one that is increasingly present in Attenborough’s other programmes, is its message: this series is all about how animals are being forced to adapt, to survive the challenges they face in a world changed by humans.
“I’ve done a lot of shows in my life,” says Gunton, “but this is definitely a really important one. It still feels like we’re getting the Planet Earth tingle, in that it’s giving us wonderful stuff about nature, but we’re also saying something about being sensitive to how heavily we tread on our planet.” Planet Earth III certainly demonstrates our negative impact on animal life (turtles on Australia’s Raine Island, for example, are dying en masse as temperatures rise). Yet it also shows how we are innovating to make things better (while the right whale was hunted to near extinction 40 years ago, a ban on commercial whaling has restored numbers to around 12,000). “It’s a very intriguing time to be observing the natural world at the moment, and it’s slightly worrying as well. But there are parts of it that make you hopeful, and that has to be reflected in the programmes.”
In some ways, a lot has changed since Gunton and Attenborough started working together. Attenborough was not a fan of drones when they first arrived on the scene. They would constantly malfunction, and he would have to do countless takes walking through a meadow or a jungle as the camera on the drone zoomed off to reveal him on location. “He’s now a convert, and he absolutely thinks the drone is the key, the breakthrough, in the perspective it can give you on what happens in nature,” says Gunton. The advances in technology have been huge over the decades. “He is astounded by the leap we have taken in the way we use robotic cameras,” Gunton adds. “We can take audiences beyond where the human eye can.”
If somebody ever asked me, ‘What are your memories of him?’, one of the top things I would say is us rolling around laughing, sometimes about the absurdity of the world and the absurdity of what we do
In other ways, nothing has changed at all. Attenborough has always had “a penchant for bird courtship” stories on his shows, and he always will. “There’s a sequence in Planet Earth III with the tragopan, which is a very strange bird that lives in China and has a very complex and bizarre courtship display,” says Gunton. “I think it’s never been filmed in the wild. And of all the things that we showed David, it was that which made his eyes light up.” And Attenborough has always been “hilarious”, says Gunton. “If somebody ever asked me, ‘What are your memories of him?’, one of the top things I would say is us rolling around laughing, sometimes about the absurdity of the world and the absurdity of what we do. He’s a brilliant raconteur.”
So is Gunton. We far-exceed our time slot on Zoom and I can tell he would happily tell stories about his and Attenborough’s adventures for hours (I hear about him sending Attenborough into battle with warrior-like termites Nigeria, and the pair of them sitting, surrounded by butterflies in Kent’s Downe Bank nature reserve). Gunton didn’t always think he would go into natural history – he initially wanted to be a social documentary filmmaker – but during his time as a zoology student at the University of Bristol, a palaeontology professor took him under his wing and he became an “obsessive” student. After going to Cambridge to do a PhD in zoology, he returned to Bristol to work at the BBC’s Natural History Unit, where he is now creative director.
Attenborough and Gunton inspecting wildlife decades ago (Provided)
He says that, over the years, Attenborough’s “curiosity has absolutely continued to be unbounded”. When Gunton visits Attenborough’s house in Richmond, “there’ll be a stack of books on the piano that he’s reading, working his way through. He’ll say, ‘Have you read this? Have you seen this?’ It’s that kind of constant scholarship. He’s so busy. It’s bonkers. He’s away at this event and that event and at some library here, and the energy is astonishing.”
He tells me a story to prove the point. During the filming of The Green Planet, which came out last year, there was a sequence where Attenborough was presenting from a rowing boat on a lake in Croatia. Gunton, three decades Attenborough’s junior, was meant to be doing most of the rowing when the cameras weren’t rolling, but Attenborough wasn’t having any of it. He jumped into the rowing seat at the first opportunity. “I’ll row. No, no, I’ll do it. I’ll do it,” Gunton remembers him insisting. “We started getting competitive because he was a rower at university [in Cambridge] and so was I. I was saying, ‘Look, come on, I’m a rower.’ He said, ‘No, we could row just as well as you row.’ So, as a 94-year-old, he basically rowed that boat about a mile, and it was a big heavy boat. Working with him in his nineties is not that hard, because he can do almost anything.”
Gunton and Attenborough become competitive in a boat in Croatia (Provided)
While Attenborough tends to go out in the field less and less these days, Gunton says his influence on the series goes far beyond his narration. “This has been his format, ever since he made Life on Earth [in 1979]. So these shows are effectively modifying or twiddling around the edges of that format, with his DNA there all the time.” Gunton says that with every shot, every storyline in the series, he’s thinking, “How is this going to be told by David?” He will bounce ideas off Attenborough, too, and seek his advice on trickier scenes.
Attenborough is the right man to ask. He has been the single biggest influence on nature programming in, well, forever. His playful storytelling has had us gripped by the antics of everything from spindly weeds in the ground to tiny sea angels in the ocean. Seeing nature in this awe-inspiring way has taught us all about the wonders of the world and the need to protect them. And many others – most recently Morgan Freeman, who presented the inferior Life on Our Planet on Netflix – have failed to replicate his magic.
Attenborough during the filming of ‘Planet Earth III’ (BBC, Mark Harrison)
The last time Attenborough properly went out on location on a series, doing hardcore expeditions, was for The Green Planet. “We went to Costa Rica and across America and to [its] deserts,” says Gunton. “And we went to just outside the Arctic Circle in Finland, and to Croatia. He loved it. Beforehand, we were talking about how many days we’d have, and we said, you know, maybe three weeks or something in total. And his daughter was there, who he works with a lot, and she said, ‘Look, you’ve got to be careful, don’t do too many days.’ And when she nipped out to go and make us a cup of tea, he turned to me and whispered, ‘Actually, let’s do another couple of days!’ That sums him up, actually. He was 94.”
Gunton struggles to envisage a future without Attenborough guiding us through the natural world. “Forty years ago, I was a new boy at the Natural History Unit,” he says. “And they said, ‘Of course, this is David’s last series, so we ought to be thinking about who’s going to take over.’ And that is something that people have been talking about ever since. I think it’s one of those things where we cross that bridge when we come to it, but at the moment, he seems to be going on six cylinders.”
He laughs as he admits he “cheekily” asked Attenborough if he’ll ever retire. Attenborough’s response? “I don’t know what that word means.”
The final episode of ‘Planet Earth III’ will air at 6.20pm on BBC One on Sunday 10 December
‘We do not have insurance. We have an insurance bill’: Condos hit with 563% rate increase
Mark Harper, USA TODAY – December 2, 2023
Marbella Condominiums Association board members (from left) Tom Baker, Jim Smith and Rob Lasch stand outside their beachside home, where property insurance has increased more than 500% since two hurricanes caused damage to the structure’s back patio and pool in 2022.
DAYTONA BEACH SHORES, Florida – Tom Baker lives in a retirement dream building: A spacious three-bedroom beachside condo with unobstructed morning sunrises, waves marking the time and the soft sand of comfort.
The retired Marine and Army veteran and his wife Joan moved here from the Tampa Bay area. She had a Daytona Beach timeshare they regularly visited. Ten years ago they moved to their retirement home: a fourth-story condo on the Atlantic Ocean.
“I absolutely love Daytona Beach,” he said. “I absolutely love where I live, and I love this building.”
Daytona Beach Shores condo owner Tom Baker sent a six-page memo to all of Florida’s senators and representatives, seeking help to rein in property insurance costs. He said one of the 160 legislators, Sen. Jason Pizzo, D-Sunny Isles Beach, responded to him.
So why does he seem so angry? Two words: Property insurance.
For Baker and many other Florida condo owners, the very concept of insurance – to ease worries during times of distress – seems lost, especially after the 2021 collapse of the Champlain Towers South in Surfside and the two-punch combo of the 2022 hurricane season: Ian and Nicole.
The latter storms just over a year ago pounded a seawall outside the Marbella Condominiums, then destroyed a pool and deck area. And the Surfside disaster, which killed 98 people, shined a light on structural safety, delayed maintenance and the need for the state to enact more strict regulations to prevent future collapses.
As bad as all of that was, for Baker, the real disaster arrived in December 2022: the property insurance bill for Marbella, where he serves on the condo association’s board.
For the 24-unit building, property insurance jumped from $40,534 for 2022 to nearly $269,000 – a 563% increase. And Rob Lasch, another Marbella board member, said he’s expecting another increase when the policy offer arrives, which could be any day now.
And the increase came in spite of a history of Marbella, which was built in 2007, never having filed a claim, Lasch and Baker said. There was no claim filed for the $2 million damage on the condo’s ocean-facing deck.
“Nothing got paid out for the damage outside because it was the seawall, and nobody was insuring the seawalls,” Lasch said.
So Marbella residents are getting hit hard on both sides of the hurricane. They’re having to come up with the full amount to fix the damage, while also bearing the burden of increased rates.
Baker said his wife wants to move, leaving him to contemplate simply not buying property insurance for the building – something his fellow board members don’t support because it violates Florida law and would leave the board members personally exposed to lawsuits.
“In a minute, I wouldn’t pay another dime in property insurance, because it is illegal, it is immoral, and it’s wrong. You can’t justify this payment. This is out-and-out stealing. Theft,” he said. “And excuse me for being passionate. I am pissed.”
Other condo owners also see exponential rate hikes
Marbella isn’t alone. Many condo associations across the state have said they, too, have faced astronomical property insurance rate hikes.
Right next door, the 109-unit Grand Coquina Condo went from paying $207,000 for property insurance in 2022 to $680,000 for 2023, a 228% increase, said Jeff Sussman, the association’s treasurer.
That amounted to a $2,331 additional assessment per unit this year, while Sussman projects another assessment of between $3,000 and $6,000 per unit will be required in 2024.
The Grand Coquina Condominiums, 3333 S. Atlantic Ave., in Daytona Beach Shores, saw a 228% increase in property insurance rates in 2023, despite the fact that its insurer denied a water damage claim. The condo association is fighting that determination.
Grand Coquina filed a claim seeking reimbursement for water damage its board members contend was caused by wind during the storms. The claim was denied, said Marro Porcelli, president of the Grand Coquina Condo Association Inc.
Grand Coquina hired an attorney and a structural engineer to challenge the denial. Board members expect they will receive a settlement offer.
“There’s a lot of fight left in us,” Porcelli said. “We’re not giving in to the criminals.”
Marbella is relatively new, built 15 years ago under strict building codes. As a result, it stands on 42 pylons that are 40 feet long and reach down to the hard core beneath the sand, Smith said.
In other words, residents there are confident if the building itself could withstand Ian and Nicole, it’s unlikely to crumble anytime soon.
And Smith said the deductible for any disaster is $1 million.
That leads Baker to question what the insurance is actually covering.
‘We don’t have insurance. We have an insurance bill’
“If a tornado came across this building and ripped the roof completely off, our deductible is more than the repair. If an atomic bomb goes off downtown, and blows this building down, we don’t collect because of the war clause,” Baker said.
The Marbella Condominium Association, 3343 S. Atlantic Ave., in Daytona Beach Shores, was hit with a huge insurance increase last year and faces another increase, even while property insurance did not cover some $2 million in damage caused by Tropical Storms Ian and Nicole.
“There is no way this building can collect,” he said. “This is a concrete building with sprinklers. You couldn’t burn the damn thing down if you built a bonfire inside. We do not have insurance. We have an insurance bill.”
Baker has written to all 160 state lawmakers as well as 15 news organizations about the plight of condo owners. He went to Tallahassee during this year’s session.
“I learned something a long time ago in the military,” he said. “If you make a complaint, have a suggestion on how to fix it, OK?”
He’s proposed dropping the requirement that condos purchase insurance. And he’s also talked about condos finding a way to self-insure.
Mostly, Baker said his pleas have been ignored.
Baker met with Rep. Tom Leek, R-Ormond Beach, who was receptive to at least one of his ideas. The office of Sen. Jason Pizzo, D-Sunny Isle Beach, responded to a packet of information Baker mailed to all lawmakers. But otherwise, he’s heard nothing.
Baker said he’s most disappointed in Sen. Tom Wright, R-New Smyrna Beach, who represents Daytona Beach Shores.
“For one year, I’ve been trying to get an appointment with Sen. Wright,” Baker said. “I even went to his office. He walked right past me. He didn’t extend me the courtesy of shaking my hand.”
Wright did not respond to a request for comment.
Leek, whose district includes Daytona Beach Shores, likes at least one of Baker’s ideas.
Is self-insuring a good idea?
“We are actively finding ways to help the Florida consumer, and allowing condominium associations to self-insure is a good idea. In fact, measures that increase competition in the insurance market and drive more carriers into Florida will benefit consumers,” he wrote.
Mark Friedlander, Florida spokesman for the Insurance Information Institute, said Florida has long had a complicated relationship with property insurance, and it got more challenging with the Surfside collapse and the hurricanes of 2022.
Many of the insurers that offer condo coverage started to pull back from the Florida market due to increased risk at the older coastal properties, Friedlander said in an email.
“The insurers that remained enhanced their underwriting criteria. This began the trend of significant premium increases for master association coverage,” he said. “Insured losses incurred from substantial property damage generated by hurricanes Ian and Nicole last year further impacted the availability and cost of master condo insurance,” Friedlander wrote.
In addition to “master policy costs” shared among all condo unit owners, individual condo owners living in high-risk properties are seeing their condo unit policy premiums increase substantially – 50% to 100% on average, he added.
Over the past two years, the Florida Legislature has passed a flurry of changes with the goal of resolving the property insurance crisis, so far to no avail.
Some of those measures include tweaking regulations related to Citizens Property Insurance Corp, the state-run insurer of last resort, authorizing actions to be taken by the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, and cracking down on bad-faith claims.
In an early November special session, lawmakers allocated $181.5 million to the My Safe Florida Home Program, which provides homeowners a wind-mitigation survey and grant funds to make homes more sturdy.
Leek said he’s confident that what lawmakers have been doing has been done is working.
Rep. Tom Leek, R-Ormond Beach, speaks during a Volusia County Legislative Delegation meeting in DeLand in October. Leek, the House budget chair, says lawmakers are working to resolve Florida’s property insurance crisis.
“The Legislature’s insurance reforms are taking hold,” Leek wrote in response to questions. “New carriers are entering the Florida insurance market for the first time in years. Just this month, a new carrier entered the Florida condo association insurance market.
“It’s happening and it does take time, and we will continue to work to provide a climate of competition and choice,” he wrote.
Friedlander also referenced the new carrier as a positive sign: “Last week, Florida’s insurance regulator announced that a new insurer, the Condo Owners Reciprocal Exchange, will be entering the state’s market in 2024 and provide master condo policy coverage to associations. We hope this will be a first step toward stabilizing the market for this coverage.”
Condo owners socked with $64,000 in assessments
As a result of both sides of the property insurance problem – high rates and being awarded no claims for the damage, Marbella condo owners have each paid approximately $64,000 in HOA fees and assessments in 2023, said board President Jim Smith.
Tom Baker, a member of the Marbella Condominium Association Board, has been writing lawmakers, trying to get them to help stop property insurance rates from skyrocketing.
Baker acknowledges beachside condo owners – particularly those who have thus far been able to absorb the high insurance bills and the assessments to pay for damages – probably don’t attract much sympathy in Florida.
“Now us rich son-of-a-bitches, pardon me, we can manage somehow and get away with it,” he said.
But other condo owners have had their retirement dreams dashed, moving because of the high costs, while an exodus awaits if the problem isn’t contained, association board members say.
They appreciate what Baker has done to raise awareness of the problem.
“He’s taken this on, and he’s very passionate about it,” said Jim Smith, the Marbella Condo Association Board president.
Baker said: “People who moved down here on fixed incomes and bought themselves their final place now find themselves with an impossible bill.”
